# data[].attributes.headline
Three Directions for Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Three Directions for Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction, General Strategy Instruction, Engagement in the Disci

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 74

No. 5

Abstract

Divergent Perspectives

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

General Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

Engagement in the Discipline

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Which approaches to literacy instruction are right for your content-area classroom?

Credit: Kevin Davis

Abstract

Divergent Perspectives

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

General Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

Engagement in the Discipline

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Over the last 10 years, federal reports, the standards of professional education organizations, and the Common Core State Standards have all called for a focus on literacy instruction in the content areas. Disciplinary literacy instruction has gained traction as an educational priority because of its potential to support adolescent literacy and increase students' access to deep content knowledge that engages them in school and prepares them for life after graduation.

At the same time, there have been multiple and at times conflicting messages about what disciplinary literacy instruction is and what it should look like in content-area classrooms. In our review of more than 200 articles describing literacy instruction in content-area classes, we identified a spectrum of approaches to disciplinary literacy instruction, each with its own set of instructional strategies. From these, we've singled out three specific perspectives that reflect the diverse purposes of disciplinary literacy.

Divergent Perspectives

Here is where most educators agree: The academic disciplines are communities that collaborate to produce knowledge about the world and human experiences. In these communities, there are agreed-upon conventions that guide the production, communication, and critique of disciplinary knowledge. The central goal of disciplinary literacy instruction is to help adolescents develop "insider status" in these communities. In that light, disciplinary literacy instruction can be viewed as an apprenticeship in which students are carefully guided as they engage in specialized ways of thinking, reading, writing, and talking (McConachie et al., 2006).

Learning the skills or habits of mind of a discipline allows adolescents to become smart consumers and critics of subject-area knowledge, rather than passive recipients (Fang &amp; Coatoam, 2013; Moje, 2007). Understanding how knowledge is created in the disciplines can help adolescents assess claims made in political discourse and act as informed citizens. They can apply these same skills to act for social justice by challenging accepted knowledge and generating new knowledge (Moje, 2007).

But perspectives on disciplinary literacy begin to diverge when it comes to what literacy instruction should look like in content-area classrooms, including whether educators should teach discipline-specific strategies, apply general reading strategies to content goals, or engage students in subject-specific experiences that involve reading and writing.

What follows are descriptions of three approaches that could support content and literacy goals for adolescents, including how and when each approach might be useful in the classroom. The approaches are not necessarily distinct, self-contained versions of disciplinary literacy instruction to be used separately. Rather, each is a valid mode of instruction that supports literacy in the disciplines in a different way; teachers can adopt practices related to each approach at different points of instruction, depending on their curricular goals and students' needs.

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

One approach is focused on the practices that disciplinary insiders use to read complex disciplinary texts (Fang &amp; Schleppegrell, 2010; Shanahan &amp; Shanahan, 2008; Shanahan, Shanahan, &amp; Misischia, 2011). This practice is guided by the understanding that disciplinary texts are unique and contain highly specialized language and text structures (Schleppegrell, 2004).

The challenge for adolescent readers is that they lack highly specialized skills and knowledge, which are a prerequisite for engaging with complex disciplinary concepts. This leaves many of them, even those who have developed general comprehension strategies, ill-equipped to read and learn from disciplinary texts independently. So, rather than drawing from a general toolbox of literacy skills to apply across disciplines, the goal of disciplinary literacy instruction from this perspective is for adolescents to develop multiple sets of highly specialized literacy tools that allow them to "read like a historian" or "write like a scientist."

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

If students are to develop discipline-specific skills, they need text types and purposes for reading and writing that provide opportunities to apply and refine specialized skills. Teachers working from this perspective are careful to choose texts that are specific to their discipline. This often means avoiding textbooks because they present knowledge as uncontroversial, obscuring the way experts use arguments to generate, critique, and refine knowledge. For students to learn about argumentation in the disciplines, they need to engage with texts that allow them to see how experts structure arguments, support their claims with evidence, and use technical language.

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

The discipline-specific skills needed to learn from these types of texts are best identified and taught by content-area teachers who know what it takes to read, write, and critique texts in their area of expertise. These teachers model the specialized practices they have developed as a result of participating in the discipline themselves, pointing out what makes the texts unique and providing strategies to address these features.

Teachers using this approach reflect on their own habits as expert readers so they can name and demonstrate these routines for students. These teachers explain why they do what they do, and then provide opportunities for students to practice those skills. A science teacher may model how to read charts and graphs to make inferences about data. A history teacher may demonstrate how to establish the provenance of a primary document. Helping students try out expert practices allows teachers to explain how the text or task shapes how they read.

General Strategy Instruction

A second approach is focused on efforts to extend or adapt general literacy skills to fit the reading and writing found in content-area classes. Because the texts found in content-area classrooms are often written at or above grade level, the primary reason adolescents struggle with them is that they need to be better readers and writers across the board. Therefore, the goal of instruction in the content areas is to support students' overall literacy proficiency by helping them develop general strategies they can use flexibly across the disciplines.

To plan instruction from this perspective, teachers try to find easier sets of texts to convey content so that students can read texts at or just above their level. Instead of reading a textbook chapter to learn about mitosis, students might read the chapter, watch a video clip, read a cartoon version, and use an interactive model of the process. This provides students who find the textbook difficult with other sources of information and allows them to consider a range of representations of the same information. Teachers often assign different texts to different groups of students or lead students through multiple representations of the same content.

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

In addition to providing text sets, teachers also try to make difficult texts more comprehensible by teaching general strategies (for instance, visualization, annotation, and summarization). For this reason, this approach often calls for collaborations between literacy specialists and content-area teachers-each drawing on their expertise to make general literacy skills relevant to disciplinary learning. To apprentice students into higher levels of reading ability, rather than into specialized types of reading practices, teachers might name and demonstrate a strategy that "good readers" use. Teachers who follow this approach are often found referring to a set of common strategies that students recognize from all of their classes.

Doing what good readers do isn't necessarily different from reading like a scientist, mathematician, or historian. In fact, some argue that the skills needed to engage in disciplinary inquiry are the same skills needed to be a critical reader in any content area and that students can learn to adapt those skills to fit many reading tasks (Nokes, 2011; Quinn &amp; Thomas, 2013; Gillis, 2014). From this perspective, well-developed general strategies should allow students to navigate a range of texts. When you believe that students lack adequate literacy abilities and need support for both content and literacy learning, strategies inspired by this perspective might be a good fit.

For example, a current events teacher might demonstrate setting a purpose for reading a newspaper on the basis of its features (headlines, photos, infographics, and so on). The teacher might also demonstrate how to make connections within an article, perhaps between paragraphs and data representations, by looking back and forth between the elements as new information is presented. Teaching generic strategies like these that can apply across content areas helps students learn important skills required for reading success.

Engagement in the Discipline

A third approach encourages full participation in the discipline, rather than only engaging students in the acquisition of content or literacy skills. Teachers working from this perspective don't ask students to do things "like a scientist"; they ask students to "do science." If scientists collect data, students don't just read about how data can be collected; they collect data themselves. "Doing" the discipline will inevitably require reading and writing of some kind, so the goal is to support students with the skills and strategies they will need to be "doers" as the needs arise.

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

With this approach, teachers frame questions and problems for students to investigate and "engineer teachable moments" (Cervetti &amp; Pearson, 2012) in which they can teach or support specific literacy skills. For instance, a 7th grade STEM teacher decides to start a community garden that will also be a site for students to conduct experiments with plants and soil. Students are engaged in all parts of the planning for this garden from design to building to evaluation. When preparing students to write e-mails to potential funders, the teachers use exemplar texts to show how expert fundraisers write to donors, and they provide a writing process for students to refer to. When students report the results of experiments conducted in the garden, teachers may provide discipline-specific models so that students can share their ideas with a scientific community.

The instructional practices might be similar to the first two perspectives (some discipline-specific, some general), but the reasons they are used are different. Students are not learning to write to become better writers or to learn how to "write like a scientist." They are doing so because such e-mails are central to the work of funding a community project and communicating scientific ideas is an essential part of doing science. In other words, it's the intentions behind text selection-not the texts-that differentiate this approach from the others.

These teachers are often found modeling literacy skills and strategies "at the point of need" during disciplinary inquiry (Cervetti &amp; Pearson, 2012). For this reason, a lesson objective might be task-oriented ("students will write compelling e-mails to funders") and the lessons, examples, and models would be literacy oriented (for example, revising and editing). The focus is not necessarily on what experts do or what good readers do, but on whatever it takes to accomplish the project. Therefore, teachers might demonstrate both general and specific strategies depending on what students need. You might see disciplinary texts and leveled texts in use, but they are selected and used in the service of some line of inquiry (not just because of their level or text features).

Allowing for authentic engagement-and acknowledging that reading, writing, and talking will be required along the way-is what defines this approach to disciplinary literacy. When you believe your students need a compelling reason to engage in academics and reach content and literacy goals, this approach might be a good fit.

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Because there are multiple possible goals for disciplinary literacy instruction, there are also multiple approaches to planning and implementing disciplinary literacy instruction (see Figure 1, " Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction "). Rather than allowing contrasting messages to overwhelm or stymie teachers' efforts, it's important to understand the breadth of possibilities, as well as when and how various approaches might apply. Each of the approaches exists on a continuum that spans different instructional goals, materials, and strategies, but they can be used in complementary ways within a single classroom, especially when teachers feel empowered to integrate them to meet the needs of their students.

Figure 1. Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

ASCD empowers educators to achieve excellence in learning, teaching, and leading so that every child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Directions for Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vol. 74 No. 5 Abstract Divergent Perspectives Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices General Strategy Instruction Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do Engagement in the Discipline Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments Teaching Disciplinary Literacies Which approaches to literacy instruction are right for your content-area classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jacqueline, a 12th grader, is purchasing her first car and feels torn as she balances conflicting desires and messages. She yearns to be seated behind the wheel of a stylish vehicle, a yearning fueled by advertisements portraying women in luxurious cars. She's also confronted by billboard messages that claim "best fuel economy for your money!"

# data[].attributes.headline
Demystifying Reading in the Science Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Demystifying Reading in the Science Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
This is very content reading based.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
demystifying reading in the science classroom

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading and Writing in Science: Tools to Develop Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading and Writing in Science: Tools to Develop Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.body
Link to ebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maria C. Grant is a professor in the Department of Secondary Education at California State University Fullerton and a classroom teacher at Health Sciences High & Middle College. She works with both preservice and veteran teachers in the credential and graduate programs. Her work includes research and publications in the area of literacy integration into content areas, with a central focus on science education. In addition to her efforts at the university, Grant's experience includes over 19 years of teaching in high school science classrooms. She has taught physics, oceanography, coordinated science, chemistry, and earth science. Additionally, she has acted as a leader in curriculum development and professional development at both the school and district levels. Her current efforts include professional development work centered on formative assessment.

Douglas Fisher, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Leadership at San Diego State University and a teacher leader at Health Sciences High & Middle College. He is the recipient of an IRA Celebrate Literacy Award, NCTE's Farmer Award for Excellence in Writing, as well as a Christa McAuliffe Award for Excellence in Teacher Education. Doug can be reached at dfisher@mail.sdsu.edu.

Diane Lapp is a Distinguished Professor of Education at San Diego State University, where her research and instruction focuses on issues related to struggling readers and writers, their families, and their teachers. An instructional coach for the Health Sciences High and Middle College in San Diego, she has recently returned to the classroom to teach sixth-grade English and Earth Science. Dr. Lapp is also a member of both the California and International Reading Halls of Fame for her dedication to reading instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Engage your students in scientific thinking across disciplines! Did you know that scientists spend more than half of their time reading and writing? Students who are science literate can analyze, present, and defend data - both orally and in writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
What does close reading look like in science, social studies, and math...

# data[].attributes.subject
What does close reading look like in science, social studies, and math...

# data[].attributes.headline
Guided retelling as a tool for reading, writing, and thinking within the disciplines 

# data[].attributes.subject
Guided retelling as a tool for reading, writing, and thinking within the disciplines 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
guided retelling as a tool for reading, writing, thinking within the disciplines

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning to teach disciplinary literacy in History.

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning to teach disciplinary literacy in History.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning to Teach Disciplinary Literacy in History

# data[].attributes.headline
Unit Examples of Literacy in History and Science

# data[].attributes.subject
Unit Examples of Literacy in History and Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest Materials Update:

Literacy Ready now has eight units: three English Language Arts units, three history units and two science units. The course materials were updated as of April 2018 and are now available to download. The Teacher Resources section has been updated as of August 2018.

Ready for High School Math and Ready for High School Literacy course materials were updated and finalized as of May 2018 and are now available to download. You may submit print orders through Tennessee Book Company on June 1, 2018.

Printing Services

Tennessee Book Company is providing printing services for schools implementing the SREB Ready courses. Schools ordering a classroom set of 25 or more student notebooks will receive a complimentary teacher manual. Prices noted below do not include shipping and handling. To receive a quote and purchase Ready course materials, please call 800-292-1093. If your call is not answered, please leave a message including your name, email, and phone number. All orders are handled by the Tennessee Book Company and any purchase orders will be made out to them, not SREB.

Math Ready or Georgia College Readiness Mathematics or Oklahoma College Career Math Ready

Student Notebook: $15 plus shipping and handling
Teacher Manual: $40 plus shipping and handling

Ready for High School Math

Student Notebook: $15 plus shipping and handling
Teacher Manual: $40 plus shipping and handling

Literacy Ready

Schools implementing Literacy Ready can order student workbooks and teacher manuals for the units they are implementing.

Student Notebook: $8 per unit plus shipping and handling
Teacher Manual: $15 per unit plus shipping and handling

Ready for High School Literacy

Student Notebook: $8 per unit plus shipping and handling
Teacher Manual: $15 per unit plus shipping and handling

SREB Ready Course Downloads

Math Ready

Georgia College Readiness Mathematics

Oklahoma College Readiness Mathematics

Ready for High School Math

Literacy Ready

Teachers' Note: The following downloads include both the teacher's guide and student's academic notebook.

Literacy Ready Required Texts

The following texts are required for the English units in this course. These books are available at online retailers such as Amazon for less than $10 each.

ELA Unit 1: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains by Nicholas Carr, W.W. Norton & Co, 2010.

ELA Unit 2: Ubik by Phillip K. Dick, Mariner Books, 2012.

Science Units 1 & 2: Click here to download the Biology Text for Science Units 1 & 2. This excerpt of the Biology Text is a free download for schools. The entire text can be downloaded from openstax college at cnx.org

Literacy Ready Interactive Student Notebooks

To save time and money, downloadable versions are available for the Literacy Ready units. By downloading the interactive notebook from our site, students can complete the notebooks on their tablets. Please check with the Information Technology person at your school to determine what software might need to be installed. The software can typically be downloaded as a free application.

Literacy Ready Teacher Resources - PowerPoints

Literacy Ready Teacher Resources - History Texts

Ready for High School Literacy

Teachers' Note: The following downloads include both the teacher's guide and student's academic notebook.

Ready for High School Literacy Required Texts

ELA Unit 1: Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science. Schools can order individual paperback copies from Amazon or other websites for under $10 per copy.

ELA Unit 2: Flowers for Algernon excerpt. Schools can click on this link to download the pdf file of the Flowers for Algernon excerpt and make copies as needed for use in their classrooms.

Ready for High School Literacy Resources

Ready for High School Academic Notebook

To save time and money, downloadable versions are available for the Literacy Ready units. By downloading the interactive notebook from our site, students can complete the notebooks on their tablets. Please check with the Information Technology person at your school to determine what software might need to be installed. The software can typically be downloaded as a free application.

Texas Versions of the SREB Readiness Courses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Download Course Materials - Southern Regional Education Board

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Latest Materials Update: Literacy Ready now has eight units: three English Language Arts units, three history units and two science units. The course materials were updated as of April 2018 and are now available to download. The Teacher Resources section has been updated as of August 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 74

No. 5

Abstract

Divergent Perspectives

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

General Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

Engagement in the Discipline

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Which approaches to literacy instruction are right for your content-area classroom?

Credit: Kevin Davis

Abstract

Divergent Perspectives

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

General Strategy Instruction

Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

Engagement in the Discipline

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Over the last 10 years, federal reports, the standards of professional education organizations, and the Common Core State Standards have all called for a focus on literacy instruction in the content areas. Disciplinary literacy instruction has gained traction as an educational priority because of its potential to support adolescent literacy and increase students' access to deep content knowledge that engages them in school and prepares them for life after graduation.

At the same time, there have been multiple and at times conflicting messages about what disciplinary literacy instruction is and what it should look like in content-area classrooms. In our review of more than 200 articles describing literacy instruction in content-area classes, we identified a spectrum of approaches to disciplinary literacy instruction, each with its own set of instructional strategies. From these, we've singled out three specific perspectives that reflect the diverse purposes of disciplinary literacy.

Divergent Perspectives

Here is where most educators agree: The academic disciplines are communities that collaborate to produce knowledge about the world and human experiences. In these communities, there are agreed-upon conventions that guide the production, communication, and critique of disciplinary knowledge. The central goal of disciplinary literacy instruction is to help adolescents develop "insider status" in these communities. In that light, disciplinary literacy instruction can be viewed as an apprenticeship in which students are carefully guided as they engage in specialized ways of thinking, reading, writing, and talking (McConachie et al., 2006).

Learning the skills or habits of mind of a discipline allows adolescents to become smart consumers and critics of subject-area knowledge, rather than passive recipients (Fang &amp; Coatoam, 2013; Moje, 2007). Understanding how knowledge is created in the disciplines can help adolescents assess claims made in political discourse and act as informed citizens. They can apply these same skills to act for social justice by challenging accepted knowledge and generating new knowledge (Moje, 2007).

But perspectives on disciplinary literacy begin to diverge when it comes to what literacy instruction should look like in content-area classrooms, including whether educators should teach discipline-specific strategies, apply general reading strategies to content goals, or engage students in subject-specific experiences that involve reading and writing.

What follows are descriptions of three approaches that could support content and literacy goals for adolescents, including how and when each approach might be useful in the classroom. The approaches are not necessarily distinct, self-contained versions of disciplinary literacy instruction to be used separately. Rather, each is a valid mode of instruction that supports literacy in the disciplines in a different way; teachers can adopt practices related to each approach at different points of instruction, depending on their curricular goals and students' needs.

Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction

One approach is focused on the practices that disciplinary insiders use to read complex disciplinary texts (Fang &amp; Schleppegrell, 2010; Shanahan &amp; Shanahan, 2008; Shanahan, Shanahan, &amp; Misischia, 2011). This practice is guided by the understanding that disciplinary texts are unique and contain highly specialized language and text structures (Schleppegrell, 2004).

The challenge for adolescent readers is that they lack highly specialized skills and knowledge, which are a prerequisite for engaging with complex disciplinary concepts. This leaves many of them, even those who have developed general comprehension strategies, ill-equipped to read and learn from disciplinary texts independently. So, rather than drawing from a general toolbox of literacy skills to apply across disciplines, the goal of disciplinary literacy instruction from this perspective is for adolescents to develop multiple sets of highly specialized literacy tools that allow them to "read like a historian" or "write like a scientist."

Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts

If students are to develop discipline-specific skills, they need text types and purposes for reading and writing that provide opportunities to apply and refine specialized skills. Teachers working from this perspective are careful to choose texts that are specific to their discipline. This often means avoiding textbooks because they present knowledge as uncontroversial, obscuring the way experts use arguments to generate, critique, and refine knowledge. For students to learn about argumentation in the disciplines, they need to engage with texts that allow them to see how experts structure arguments, support their claims with evidence, and use technical language.

Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices

The discipline-specific skills needed to learn from these types of texts are best identified and taught by content-area teachers who know what it takes to read, write, and critique texts in their area of expertise. These teachers model the specialized practices they have developed as a result of participating in the discipline themselves, pointing out what makes the texts unique and providing strategies to address these features.

Teachers using this approach reflect on their own habits as expert readers so they can name and demonstrate these routines for students. These teachers explain why they do what they do, and then provide opportunities for students to practice those skills. A science teacher may model how to read charts and graphs to make inferences about data. A history teacher may demonstrate how to establish the provenance of a primary document. Helping students try out expert practices allows teachers to explain how the text or task shapes how they read.

General Strategy Instruction

A second approach is focused on efforts to extend or adapt general literacy skills to fit the reading and writing found in content-area classes. Because the texts found in content-area classrooms are often written at or above grade level, the primary reason adolescents struggle with them is that they need to be better readers and writers across the board. Therefore, the goal of instruction in the content areas is to support students' overall literacy proficiency by helping them develop general strategies they can use flexibly across the disciplines.

To plan instruction from this perspective, teachers try to find easier sets of texts to convey content so that students can read texts at or just above their level. Instead of reading a textbook chapter to learn about mitosis, students might read the chapter, watch a video clip, read a cartoon version, and use an interactive model of the process. This provides students who find the textbook difficult with other sources of information and allows them to consider a range of representations of the same information. Teachers often assign different texts to different groups of students or lead students through multiple representations of the same content.

Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do

In addition to providing text sets, teachers also try to make difficult texts more comprehensible by teaching general strategies (for instance, visualization, annotation, and summarization). For this reason, this approach often calls for collaborations between literacy specialists and content-area teachers-each drawing on their expertise to make general literacy skills relevant to disciplinary learning. To apprentice students into higher levels of reading ability, rather than into specialized types of reading practices, teachers might name and demonstrate a strategy that "good readers" use. Teachers who follow this approach are often found referring to a set of common strategies that students recognize from all of their classes.

Doing what good readers do isn't necessarily different from reading like a scientist, mathematician, or historian. In fact, some argue that the skills needed to engage in disciplinary inquiry are the same skills needed to be a critical reader in any content area and that students can learn to adapt those skills to fit many reading tasks (Nokes, 2011; Quinn &amp; Thomas, 2013; Gillis, 2014). From this perspective, well-developed general strategies should allow students to navigate a range of texts. When you believe that students lack adequate literacy abilities and need support for both content and literacy learning, strategies inspired by this perspective might be a good fit.

For example, a current events teacher might demonstrate setting a purpose for reading a newspaper on the basis of its features (headlines, photos, infographics, and so on). The teacher might also demonstrate how to make connections within an article, perhaps between paragraphs and data representations, by looking back and forth between the elements as new information is presented. Teaching generic strategies like these that can apply across content areas helps students learn important skills required for reading success.

Engagement in the Discipline

A third approach encourages full participation in the discipline, rather than only engaging students in the acquisition of content or literacy skills. Teachers working from this perspective don't ask students to do things "like a scientist"; they ask students to "do science." If scientists collect data, students don't just read about how data can be collected; they collect data themselves. "Doing" the discipline will inevitably require reading and writing of some kind, so the goal is to support students with the skills and strategies they will need to be "doers" as the needs arise.

Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments

With this approach, teachers frame questions and problems for students to investigate and "engineer teachable moments" (Cervetti &amp; Pearson, 2012) in which they can teach or support specific literacy skills. For instance, a 7th grade STEM teacher decides to start a community garden that will also be a site for students to conduct experiments with plants and soil. Students are engaged in all parts of the planning for this garden from design to building to evaluation. When preparing students to write e-mails to potential funders, the teachers use exemplar texts to show how expert fundraisers write to donors, and they provide a writing process for students to refer to. When students report the results of experiments conducted in the garden, teachers may provide discipline-specific models so that students can share their ideas with a scientific community.

The instructional practices might be similar to the first two perspectives (some discipline-specific, some general), but the reasons they are used are different. Students are not learning to write to become better writers or to learn how to "write like a scientist." They are doing so because such e-mails are central to the work of funding a community project and communicating scientific ideas is an essential part of doing science. In other words, it's the intentions behind text selection-not the texts-that differentiate this approach from the others.

These teachers are often found modeling literacy skills and strategies "at the point of need" during disciplinary inquiry (Cervetti &amp; Pearson, 2012). For this reason, a lesson objective might be task-oriented ("students will write compelling e-mails to funders") and the lessons, examples, and models would be literacy oriented (for example, revising and editing). The focus is not necessarily on what experts do or what good readers do, but on whatever it takes to accomplish the project. Therefore, teachers might demonstrate both general and specific strategies depending on what students need. You might see disciplinary texts and leveled texts in use, but they are selected and used in the service of some line of inquiry (not just because of their level or text features).

Allowing for authentic engagement-and acknowledging that reading, writing, and talking will be required along the way-is what defines this approach to disciplinary literacy. When you believe your students need a compelling reason to engage in academics and reach content and literacy goals, this approach might be a good fit.

Teaching Disciplinary Literacies

Because there are multiple possible goals for disciplinary literacy instruction, there are also multiple approaches to planning and implementing disciplinary literacy instruction (see Figure 1, " Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction "). Rather than allowing contrasting messages to overwhelm or stymie teachers' efforts, it's important to understand the breadth of possibilities, as well as when and how various approaches might apply. Each of the approaches exists on a continuum that spans different instructional goals, materials, and strategies, but they can be used in complementary ways within a single classroom, especially when teachers feel empowered to integrate them to meet the needs of their students.

Figure 1. Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

ASCD empowers educators to achieve excellence in learning, teaching, and leading so that every child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Directions for Disciplinary Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vol. 74 No. 5 Abstract Divergent Perspectives Discipline-Specific Strategy Instruction Instructional Practice: Choose Disciplinary Texts Instructional Practice: Model Expert Practices General Strategy Instruction Instructional Practice: Use Multimodal Text Sets Instructional Practice: Do What "Good Readers" Do Engagement in the Discipline Instructional Practice: Engineer Teachable Moments Teaching Disciplinary Literacies Which approaches to literacy instruction are right for your content-area classroom?

# data[].attributes.body
Combining Both Approaches in Practice

# data[].attributes.body
Historical Look at Evolution of Literacy + Description of Disc Lit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This chapter focuses on different approaches to disciplinary literacy strategies instruction that content area teachers can use to maximize students' understanding of content in academic disciplines. Although teaching literacy strategies is often associated with English language arts, in reality, these strategies are integral to learning in all academic subjects. This chapter includes a brief description of the evolution of literacy theory and research, followed by a model grounding disciplinary literacy within different academic disciplines such as mathematics, social studies, science, and the arts. Descriptions and examples of discipline specific strategies are provided, followed by a discussion of the importance of students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds in planning and using disciplinary literacy strategies. Instruction that incorporates components of culture designed to facilitate learning is known as culturally responsive teaching, which also serves as a foundation by which to critique socially unjust power structures in society.

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, readers will be able to

1. sequence the history of reading eras in reference to what has been valued about literacy;

2. explain differences between generalizable literacy strategies instruction and disciplinary- literacy strategies instruction, along with the benefits of each;

3. explain similarities and differences in literacy demands among different types of texts;

4. discuss ways that the valuing and use of students' background knowledge and experiences can facilitate learning;

5. synthesize ways in which discipline specific literacy strategies can be used by content area teachers in culturally responsive ways.

Introduction

Think back to your experiences in content area high school classes such as algebra, history, biology, and art. How did you learn the content from these classes? You might recall writing definitions of key terms, copying notes from the board, listening to teachers lecture, working in small groups engaged in problem-solving, and viewing completed models of class projects. You also may recall being assigned to read textbooks or other documents and then complete assignments or projects related to readings. As you think about the texts you read in each subject, how were they different from one another? Were ideas presented in sentences and paragraphs, or did texts include symbols, graphs, charts, videos, and/or applications? Did you use the same or different strategies to comprehend texts in different classes?

Whether or not you noticed, the texts used in your classes differed in important ways. Chances are, texts that were used in algebra likely contained many symbols, figures, and examples but few photographs. Texts that were used in history probably contained many photographs, along with sections featuring timelines and excerpts of historical documents. Texts that were used in biology were probably structured according to biological systems such as circulatory, endocrine, and respiratory. Texts that were used in art may have consisted mostly of photographs, paintings, drawings, or sculpture, depending on the art class you took. In effect, the texts used in your classes likely did not differ arbitrarily but differed in predictable ways directly related to the systems, traditions, and content of each academic discipline. Based on differences among texts, research has shown that different discipline specific literacy strategies can be used by teachers to help students improve their understanding of course content.

Evolution of Literacy Theory and Research

To understand the recent focus of literacy research across academic disciplines, a brief journey through the evolution of reading theory and research over the past six decades is needed (see Table 1). As noted in Chapter 1 of this textbook, notions of literacy have expanded beyond reading and writing to include listening, speaking, viewing, and performing, and the eras reflect the recognition of the importance of taking this wider view of literacy.

"Era of Conditioned Learning" (p. 34)

1950-1965

Teaching and reinforcing of basic reading skills, such as word decoding

"Era of Natural Learning" (p. 37)

1966-1975

Facilitating language experiences to help children make meaning

"Era of Information Processing" (p. 41)

1976-1985

Using cognitive processes to make meaning

"Era of Sociocultural Learning" (p. 45)

1986-1995

Incorporating cultural factors to make meaning

"Era of Engaged Learning" (p. 50)

1996-?

Integrating literacy across the lifespan and within multiple contexts

According to Alexander and Fox (2004), a heightened interest in reading research and practice occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, beginning with the Era of Conditioned Learning when learning theories were largely based on the study of behavior. What resulted was an instructional model that involved teaching students how to read using discrete skills (letter sounds and phonics). Next, theories emerged that children learn to read "naturally" similarly to how spoken language is acquired by being exposed to language opportunities. During this Era of Natural Learning, reading and language rich experiences created by adults were thought to best help children make meaning of what was read. Then the focus of theory and research shifted to include cognitive processes involved in reading. During this Era of Information Processing, factors such as attention, thinking strategies, and knowledge organization were recognized as important to make meaning of what is read. Also during this time the social and cultural aspects of learning became a focus. This Era of Sociocultural Learning became particularly informative to culturally responsive teaching practices (Gay, 2010; Moje, 2007; Moje & Hinchman, 2004) discussed later in this chapter. More recently, the Era of Engaged Learning has emerged, based on the use of digital literacies (e.g., websites, audio, video, and other forms of technology-based communication).

Notice how the last era in Table 1 does not include an end date. This means that we are likely in a new era-perhaps an Era of Accountability (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008), given the focus on high stakes testing and most states' adoption of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects ( CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO], 2010). The CCSS reflect literacy standards that students must meet in English language arts and other academic disciplines, such as social studies and science. Each of the eras is valuable for teachers to draw upon because associated theories and research have offered valuable knowledge toward informing literacy practices.

Basic and Intermediate Literacy

Increased literacy demands in content area classes reflect the need to explore new teaching strategies to assist students with navigating these demands. Certain literacy related abilities, such as being able to read and comprehend printed material, are required across all content area classes; however, as the complexity of content area learning increases, more specialized strategies are needed to comprehend texts and learn from them. A useful framework for showing the differences between these types of literacy strategies was introduced in Shanahan and Shanahan (2008). This framework features three components, including basic literacy (e.g., reading and writing), intermediate literacy that enables learning across all disciplines (e.g., using graphic organizers, visualizing, predicting, asking questions), and disciplinary literacy, which involves "technical uses of literacy" (p. 45) within the academic disciplines. Disciplinary literacy strategies are discussed in more detail after a brief discussion about basic and intermediate literacy strategies.

To be successful at learning in content area classes, students need to master foundational literacy skills, such as being able to read. As word recognition accuracy develops, children begin to read words and sentences more automatically, which facilitates reading comprehension (Perfetti, 1985). But even though the development of basic literacy skills is required to develop more advanced literacy skills, mastery of basic literacy does not guarantee that students will be able to comprehend what they read.

Basic literacy skills mostly involve the application of automatic cognitive processes such as recognizing words and reading fluently; however, intermediate literacy skills involve the application of comprehension strategies that require deliberate cognitive effort (see Chapter 4 of this textbook for more information on strategy use). For example, when a student encounters a phrase such as, "the worker's expression darkened as she considered the potentially devastating impact of the decision she was about to make," students may read the words automatically; however, to understand the meaning behind the worker's face darkening requires thinking about what the author means rather than only what the words mean.

An example of intermediate literacy strategies includes the use of graphic organizers to provide a visual structure to show relationships among concepts, terms, and ideas (Strangman, Vue, Hall, & Meyer, 2003). There are many types of graphic organizers (see examples under Web Resources at the end of this chapter) that can be used to facilitate comprehension. A helpful website that shows the process of defining key terms using graphic organizers is from Vanderbilt University ( The IRIS Center, 2015). One featured organizer is called the Frayer Model( The IRIS Center, 2015) and requires students to write a word in the center of a page and then record defining information in a surrounding quadrant. The quadrant includes a space to write a definition, characteristics of the term and provides both examples and non-examples. Exploring vocabulary in this way helps students know how to make meaning of terms within the context of their reading, as well as in decontextualized situations.

Early research on the effects of teaching intermediate literacy strategies that can be generalized across the disciplines has shown positive results for improving students' comprehension. There is an especially strong research base for the use of a specific kind of comprehension strategy instruction, which includes activating prior knowledge, predicting, visualizing, summarizing, and asking questions (Pressley, 2000). To date, findings from scientifically-based research evaluating the effects of comprehension strategy instruction can be readily found in the National Reading Panel Report (NRP; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000), as well as in a research synthesis containing many studies published since the NRP (Butler, Urrutia, Buenger, & Hunt, 2010). As outlined in Chapter 2 of this textbook, scientifically-based research is especially valuable for informing teaching practices because it isolates the effects of instruction (e.g., comprehension strategies) from other factors that can also influence achievement (e.g., IQ, socioeconomic status, maternal education). Taken together, scientifically-based studies on comprehension strategy instruction show positive results and provide strong evidence for informing current teaching practices.

Despite evidence that teaching students to use these more generalizable comprehension strategies is beneficial, many content area teachers have been reluctant to teach the strategies or even cue students to use them (O'Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995). According to O'Brien et al., many content area teachers do not believe that teaching reading strategies is part of their role and that this sort of teaching is better left to English language arts or English teachers. Additionally, some teachers have communicated that practicing these strategies will take time away from content area instruction, and to them, the trade-off is not worth it (O'Brien et al., 1995). According to Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) content area teachers' lack of enthusiasm for using generalizable literacy strategies may be understandable, since learning academic content likely requires the use of both generalizable and more specialized strategies.

Disciplinary Literacy

According to McConachie and Petrosky (2010), disciplinary literacy refers to "the use of reading, reasoning, investigating, speaking, and writing required to learn and form complex content knowledge appropriate to a particular discipline" (p. 16). Research has recently been conducted within the area of disciplinary literacy which holds the potential to inform content area teaching. An account of this research will be presented next, followed by a discussion of the application of content area instruction.

Disciplinary Literacy Research

Current research has begun to focus on the use of discipline specific literacy strategies to improve both literacy and content area learning (Jetton & Shanahan, 2012; Moje, 2007, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, 2012; Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011). Discipline specific strategies can be added to the use of more generalizable comprehension strategies to reflect how disciplinary experts actually navigate and learn from reading texts in various disciplines (Shanahan et al., 2011).

Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) described the need for secondary teachers to teach the use of disciplinary literacy strategies to students, based on a two-year literacy initiative they undertook to explore the reading demands of various content area disciplines. Shanahan and Shanahan described preliminary findings of a study involving the analysis of how disciplinary experts read texts in their fields. For instance, based on observations of the experts thinking aloud as they read texts, Shanahan and Shanahan described how much intensive rereading mattered when mathematicians read texts in their field. An example provided is how words such as "the," "a," and "of," which are normally not very meaningful, take on great significance when reading mathematics texts (see Table 2). Comprehension of mathematical texts also required being solution-focused and vigilant to detect and fix any comprehension problems.

Observations of chemistry experts' reading showed the need to divide attention among many different representations of information, including charts, graphs, symbols, and words written in texts. Alternatively, historians appeared more contextually-focused. Knowing who an author was and the nature of the source material were observed to be essential for interpreting information read in historical documents. Unlike mathematicians and chemists, historians did not focus as much on facts or solutions but on making judgments and assessing credibility.

When Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) discussed teaching generalizable comprehension strategies in content areas, they found that individuals in their participant sample were not interested in teaching students how to "read," which was similar to findings in the study by O'Brien et al. (1995). As a result of discussions with content area experts, Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) identified strategies that were more discipline specific, to which content area experts reacted more positively.

Table 2 summarizes ways that reading and writing across the disciplines are unique, and by analyzing how literacy happens within disciplines, more specialized strategies and approaches to learning can be created. Notice how in Table 2 the literacy features and demands of mathematics and science appear to overlap more with each other than with history, English, and the arts. In spite of certain similarities, the ways that mathematics, history, science, and arts texts are accessed, viewed, read, discussed, debated, critiqued, and written about often require the use of specialized strategies that differ from strategies used to comprehend narrative fiction. The strategies used depend, at least in part, on the nature of the texts and knowledge traditions associated with the various disciplines.

Mathematics

Texts are typically concept and idea densea

Function words ("the," "a," "of") and symbols (+, ∑ ) have specific meaninga,c

Every word and symbol mattersa,c

Numbers may be uninterpretable without unit labels (meters)

Many technical words contain Latin or Greek roots and have specialized meaning, such as "trigonometry"b

Many visual representations

Make meaning from every word, symbol, and their relationsa

Intensive reading and rereading to analyze detailsa

Get more than just the "gist"; precision/error free focusa

Identify all parts of words and their meaning

Divide attention across multiple representations of contenta

Switch strategies when reading prose, graphs, equationsa

Use mathematically-specific text features to make meaning

Construct proofs and deconstruct principlesa

Focus on what is actually in the texta; authorship is less of a concern

Science

Texts are typically concept and idea densea

Letters and numbers (H₂O) have unique meaningsa

Numbers may be uninterpretable without unit labels (grams)

Many technical words contain Latin or Greek roots that not only reveal meaning but help to enable scientific classificationsb

Descriptions of procedures and testing of hypothesesa

Many visual representations

Analysis of procedures/performances, such as lab experiments

Make meaning from every word and symbola

Close reading and rereadinga

Focus on order of proceduresa

Conduct and record observations/lab experiments; critique procedures used by othersd

Detect and correct errors

Analyze key words and word parts for identification and classificationa purposes

Divide attention across multiple representations of contenta

Use scientific (and sometimes mathematical) text features to make meaning

History

Texts contain historical events, which vary in concept and idea densitya,e

Authorship central to interpretation of textsa,b,h

Contextual factors are key (who, what, where, and when), along with the author's purpose/perspectivea

Specialized terms such as "oligarchy" signal classification systems (e.g., forms of government)a

Culturally specific words have specialized meaninge

Information related to timelines and datelinesa

Analyze details related to the sources of information and why they were documenteda,e

Close reading, often across multiple documents/sources and in reference to one another (i.e., corroboration)a,e,h

Analyze specialized words for meaning and at cultural, emotional, and cognitive levelsa,e

Analysis of documents (who, what, where, and when) is a primary method used to study texts a

Use historical text features to make meaningh

Intense critique of sources of textse

English

Texts from genres such as novels, poetry, plays, and dramasf

Contextual factors are key (who, what, where, and when), along with considering the author's purpose/perspective

Figurative language (e.g., metaphor, irony) and other abstractions used by authorsh

In analysis of texts, use of specialized terms such as "denouement"

Attend to characteristics of genres and their conventions (plot, setting, characters, conflict)

Determine the "gist" and analysis of details

Adjust speed of reading based on diverse genre and dialect features (poetry and drama vs. prose)

Analyze figures of speech in reference to contexth

Manage ambiguity and make inferencesf,h

Reconstruct story elements when presented nonlinearly

Use of specialized text features to make meaning

The Arts

Texts include photographs, paintings, sculptures, sheet music, exhibits, and performancesg

Specialized materials such as canvases, acrylic paints, color wheels, musical instrumentsg

Specialized terms such as "overture," "octave," "Cubism," "collage," "hue," and "gild"

Culturally specific words that have specialized meanings from languages other than English, such as "adagio" and "pirouette"

2/4 and 4/4 designate rhythms, and many symbols ( ♯, ♫) have specialized meaningg

Greater emphasis on listening, speaking, viewing, and performance aspects of literacyg

Deconstruct ideas represented by design elements and principles, such as space, texture, color, shape, movement, rhythm, and balance related to visual arts, music, and danceg

Frequent rehearsal and/or practice of artistic expressions based on modeling by peers, teachers, and other expertsg

Make meaning of words and concepts from languages other than English

Use of technical and specialized text features to make meaning

Note. Although English may include narrative and informational texts, informational texts are not included in the English section of the chart.
a Mathematics, science, and history features and strategies adapted from Shanahan and Shanahan (2008).
b Mathematics, science and history features and strategies adapted from Shanahan and Shanahan (2012).
c Mathematics features and strategies adapted from Siebert and Draper (2012).
d Science features and strategies adapted from Shanahan (2012).
e History features and strategies adapted from VanSledright (2012).
f English language arts features and strategies adapted from Hicks and Steffel (2012).
g Arts features and strategies adapted from Moxley (2012).
h Mathematics, science, history, and English features and strategies adapted from Moje (2007).

Differences in literacy-related knowledge traditions become most obvious when considering violations of these traditions. For example, what if the following sentence were encountered in a chemistry textbook:

The despondent chemist tenuously grasped the test tube and lifted it feebly over the dancing blue flame of the Bunsen burner, fluttering the cylinder back and forth like a tiny flag signaling his surrender to the very science he was studying.

Why is this funny? Because it reflects a clear violation of disciplinary communication style associated with chemistry. This same feeling of awkwardness can happen when someone tries to use a strategy that supports comprehension in one discipline but not in another. For example, if an author began a chapter on disciplinary literacy with the phrase, "This chapter focuses on different approaches to disciplinary literacy strategies instruction that content area teachers can use to maximize students' understanding of content in academic disciplines," students would likely appreciate the explicit guidance of what will be discussed. Conversely, if an author started a novel with the sentence, "This is a story about a boy whose dog dies after being bitten by a rabid wolf," no one would want to read it because the ending is revealed before the story even begins-a clear violation of novel writing conventions. And finally, consider the physics textbook beginning with the phrase, "Once upon a time." It is not that the sentences and phrases used above are technically incorrect; they just do not conform to the communication traditions associated with the corresponding discipline.

Incorporating Disciplinary Literacy Strategies into Content Areas

This chapter will now turn to providing examples of disciplinary literacy teaching and learning in action. The examples are not meant to encompass all of the dimensions featured in Table 2 or represent all content areas but are intended to contextualize selected specialized strategies relevant to mathematics, science, history, and the arts. Examples related to English are also provided in Table 2 as a comparison to other disciplines.

Mathematics

How do mathematicians learn about their discipline? They do a lot of reading and writing (Siebert & Draper, 2012). Recall from Table 2 that what makes learning mathematics and comprehending mathematics texts challenging is the fact that they are concept and idea dense, and they also require attention to many unique features within the texts. Mathematics texts do not just involve reading word problems but require translation and decoding of innumerable symbols that take up very little space but still carry a great deal of meaning. In addition, students must constantly use visual literacy strategies to make meaning of charts and graphs that are also dense. Given some of the differences in both text features and the ways that mathematics is discussed and written about, it makes sense why using only generalizable comprehension strategies such as graphic organizers and making predictions would not be sufficient to make meaning of mathematics texts.

When a mathematics teacher asks students to read a text to learn how to graph (x,y) coordinates, the text the students read would likely span very few pages. The ratio of words to symbols would be different than texts in most other disciplines, and unlike when reading English, history, or arts texts, reading about graphing (x,y) coordinates does not require the same type of thinking about the author's purpose. The mathematics text probably contains a heading that summarizes what that section is about-perhaps something not very surprising like, "Graphing (x,y) Coordinates." Not all students pay attention to text features such as chapter titles or headings because they may not realize these features reveal the big picture of what is coming. Their lack of attention may stem from being used to seeing chapter numbers in narrative texts with no title or vague titles such as, "Chapter 6: Fading Away." Students may mistakenly believe that titles are not that important in revealing what a text is about, but in many disciplines, including mathematics, chapter titles and section headings are essential for directing attention and self-monitoring comprehension.

Across disciplines, titles and headings will likely differ, but what they have in common is that they give the reader a preview of what is coming. Ignoring text features can leave readers without a needed foundation to organize their thinking. Consider the following example. Suppose students are asked to examine two sets of numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 1, 4, 9, 16, 25. Students begin to notice that each set contains five numbers, they are all 25 or less, and most of them are odd. But if they notice the heading preceding the number sets- Prime Numbers and Squares -the students will be immediately oriented to the meaning of the number sets (provided they know or are taught what prime numbers and squares are).

Teachers who model how to read headings in mathematics texts and discuss the importance of this reading behavior are preparing their students to comprehend complex texts. In addition, teachers who model mathematics specific literacy strategies require students to do some reconceptualizing of what a "text" actually is (Siebert & Draper, 2012). Recall that in Chapter 1, text was defined quite broadly as including not only printed documents like stories and articles but also diverse modes of communication, which in this case, include mathematical symbols, graphs, charts, equations, questions, and exercises. Because text features in mathematics may be different from text features in other disciplines, reminding students to "read every word" in a math text may not be good advice if texts do not contain very many words. Students who approach reading mathematics texts like they approach reading a novel will miss many important features designed to direct their attention and ease their learning. Perhaps the reminder to "read and interpret every feature of texts" is better advice.

Because students may not understand the role of all of the text features they encounter in reading within specific disciplines, teachers can explicitly show students how to make meaning of these features. Students may need to look at an example problem many times before they understand how to transfer the learning to a new problem. Looking back and forth at components until comprehension is solid is a great strategy to use in this situation, whereas, looking back at the same paragraph in a novel 20 times would probably not be a good strategy to apply. This is why teachers must teach disciplinary literacy strategies according to the processes and procedures that make sense, based on the conventions and content of their disciplines (Moje, 2007).

It should be noted that strategies such as the ones described above are not limited to traditional texts such as textbooks but lend themselves well to digital texts, which may also include applications (apps) and videos (Draper, Broomhead, Jensen, Nokes, & Siebert, 2010). Students may require different types of modeling to know how to access and interpret text features found in these media. An example includes showing students how to display a figure and its companion explanation using a split computer screen so looking back and forth is easier.

History

How do historians learn about their discipline? They do a lot of reading and writing (VanSledright, 2012). Reading historical texts is central to gaining an understanding of the past and its implications for the future. To some, it may seem as if historical documents largely resemble texts students encounter in English, but readers must approach some history texts in markedly different ways (see Table 2). Texts read in a history class may include sentences and paragraphs but also may include many visuals, such as charts, figures, and even photographs of clothing (Campbell, 1996), since meaning can be made of each of these visual representations. Historical texts reveal the author's perspective and context, with more emphasis on these attributes than occurs in most other disciplines. A person who writes history also shares his or her attitudes, culture, biases, political and/or religious beliefs. Similarly, a person who reads history filters what is read according to his or her own attitudes, culture, biases, political and/or religious beliefs. So reading history without connecting the "who, what, where, and when" of the information to the person who created it, and to the person reading it, is like finding a bottle of soda on the ground and just opening it up and drinking it. Historians are especially reluctant to consume things when they do not know where those things came from.

Like mathematicians, historians use specialized strategies to make meaning of texts they read (VanSledright, 2012). Think for a moment about a history teacher handing students a copy of a document discussing Prohibition, for the purpose of generating debate about the legalization of marijuana in the United States. Prior to reading the document, the teacher would likely direct students to determine who wrote it, as well as to note the year the document was written to contextualize it within the attitudes, beliefs, and customs of that time period. Next, the teacher might ask students to read the document to get the gist of what is communicated, and then reread the document while analyzing the information from varying perspectives. Each idea would be carefully considered in reference to the author, the time of the writing, the issue, and through the lens of today. In effect, literacy instruction in history involves a great deal of contextualization of every fact, opinion, word used, and perspective of those who lived before and after an event that took place.

Science

How do scientists learn about their discipline? They, like mathematicians and historians, do a lot of reading and writing (Shanahan, 2012). Mathematics and science actually share some important characteristics in reference to strategies students can use to understand what they read, write, and discuss in science classes, so it is useful to borrow from the mathematics strategies previously discussed (see Table 2). For example, science also uses many symbols, graphics, and charts that require focused processing of visual information, as well as words, sentences, and paragraphs. For subjects which are more classification oriented, there are additional strategies worth discussing to help students make meaning of what they read.

Just as in the section of this chapter discussing mathematics and history where ideas of what a text is needed to be broadened, with science, ideas about what a text is need to be extended even further. Visual literacy strategies are needed for looking through a microscope at a cell and labeling the mitochondria and are also needed during the dissection of a frog, while students try to find, label (and spell!) the pancreas. Are magnified cells and frogs "texts"? If students are asked to make meaning of them, then arguably they are. What is more, students may be required to view many of these texts concurrently, so rather than just looking back and forth between words and figures in a text, biology students may be required to divide their attention across a textbook, a frog body, a microscope, a lab packet, and more.

One troubling aspect raised by Shanahan (2012) about the way science is taught in some schools is when teachers completely avoid the use of science texts because teachers believe that the texts are too difficult for students to understand. As an alternative, teachers may choose to present content using other means, such as orally or by facilitating discussions. A danger to this approach is that students may never become skilled at reading and interpreting science texts if they do not have opportunities to engage in reading about science. Furthermore, avoiding the use of science texts limits students' ability to learn more about science outside of these contexts (i.e., college and career settings).

An alternative to avoiding the use of science texts was teaching students how to read and understand them, using some of the same disciplinary literacy strategies experts use. Science texts often contain unique features, such as dense classification charts based on nominalized terms. Nominalization is when words such as "dissolve" become more abstract by the addition of endings which turn verbs into nouns (dissolu tion; Shanahan, 2012). Similar to mathematics texts, readers of science texts must switch strategies when going from sentences and paragraphs to viewing formulas or graphics to reading paragraphs again. Differences in the density of idea units (sometimes referred to as "lexical density"; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) can make scientific texts especially challenging for students to read and remain motivated to understand.

An example of this difficulty with reading dense science texts is discussed by Moje (2007), who described a student's reaction to such an encounter. The student shared, "You read the whole section [of a biology book] and you're like, okay, you gotta read it four times just to understand it a little bit" (p. 34). The student then remarked, "It's just written the way adults read it.... And they have the knowledge to do that.... And they write it in their own language that only them can understand" (emphases in original; p. 34). The student continued to describe how all of the big words and adult language made the texts inaccessible to her to the point that "it gets you brain dead" (p. 34). This student's reaction to the challenges of reading texts in the disciplines provides support for the need for explicit instruction related to how to navigate disciplinary texts.

The Arts

How do artists, musicians, and dancers learn about their discipline? They engage in reading and writing like other content area experts; however, many specialists in the arts also spend considerable time engaging in and viewing creative expressions of their disciplines (Moxley, 2012), perhaps in slightly different ways than what has been described so far. In the arts, the idea of what constitutes texts needs to be broadened once again to include even more diverse modes of communication such as paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures, dance movements, and musical performances. Teaching a student to play a musical instrument would likely not involve poring over textbooks and articles and then writing a research paper about playing the instrument. Instead, the student would likely view a model of someone playing the instrument so that he or she could carefully observe body movements, postures, and the creation of music. Reading about how to place a violin under the chin, versus viewing a picture or even experiencing an expert placing the violin under a student's chin, provide vastly different information to a novice musician. In addition to modeling, teachers of music observe a student practicing the instrument and provide frequent feedback to help the student progress in learning. When considering examples such as these, it is easy to see how important certain aspects of literacy are to the arts, such as viewing and performing.

Disciplinary literacy in the arts makes unique demands on teachers and students, with examples included in Table 2. Specialized materials do not include supplies such as Bunsen burners or graphing calculators but include materials like paints, sheet music, and color wheels. As in many other disciplines, learning in the arts requires focused processing of visual and/or auditory information, as well as the integration of that information with other print-based modes of communication, such as articles, books, reviews, and concert programs. An important aspect of musical and performing arts is engagement in rehearsals, which involve repeated practice that culminates in performances that eventually meet standards to be more formally shared with others. Just as the work of a student learning science may reach a certain standard to be presented at a science fair or conference, the work of individuals in the arts often culminates in the creation of portfolios, exhibitions, or stage performances.

The specialized nature of literacy in the arts can again be understood by considering violations of conventions within the discipline. Recall our despondent chemist who was waving his test tube in surrender. Imagine if he decided to express the findings of his experiment by engaging in interpretive dance or by breaking into song! Likewise, imagine an audience's reaction if a performance artist approached a podium to give a long speech describing a series of dance movements. Teaching students about various modes of expression in the arts and other disciplines does not mean unnecessarily restricting their response patterns but involves helping them understand what their response patterns mean within each discipline.

Teachers in the arts can guide students in using literacy strategies to learn within their discipline. For example, a text feature in theater might include the placement of masking tape on a stage to signal location of movement. While some students may be able to deduce the meaning of this cue, other students may need more direct teaching to comprehend the meanings of arts-based terms and symbols, such as stage tape. For this type of instruction to occur, it may be helpful for theater teachers to think about a stage as a text and how stage tape acts as a text feature that has specialized meaning that can be taught. Likewise, thinking about other arts-based texts such as photographs, color wheels, and musical scores can help prompt teachers to explain the meaning of discipline specific text features such as color, space, texture, and movement (Moxley, 2012).

In summary, texts in mathematics, history, science, and the arts have many unique features that potentially pose challenges for students trying to gain understanding of the discipline specific content these texts contain. It is for this reason that teachers need to address the challenges these texts pose through the teaching of literacy strategies, including disciplinary literacy strategies, to scaffold learning. Although it is not realistic to expect secondary students to become disciplinary experts (Heller, 2010), it is realistic for students to engage "in the kinds of knowledge production and representation, on a limited scale, of course, that members of the various disciplines enact on a regular basis" (Moje, 2010, p. 275). Both teachers and secondary students need to think about, learn, and try out specialized literacy strategies to communicate and learn within and across the disciplines.

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Up to this point, what has been discussed in this chapter has emphasized the importance of teaching students how to use literacy strategies to improve learning in content area classes. In addition to this approach to teaching, it is also important to develop skills and strategies to support students related to cultural factors that also play a role in facilitating learning. One approach involves using teaching that is "culturally responsive" (Gay 2010), which includes thinking beyond teaching content to thinking about teaching students. Culturally responsive teaching involves ways of educating students based on principles of social justice. A key purpose of culturally responsive teaching is to provide all students with learning opportunities, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, or first language. (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Moje (2007) has characterized this trait as teaching with social justice. An equally important purpose discussed by Moje is the idea of teaching for social justice. Teaching with social justice, referred to by Moje as teaching in socially just ways, focuses on the process of teaching that includes providing access to learning opportunities. Teaching for social justice leads to more socially just outcomes designed to address and correct unjustified power differences in society. Each of these concepts will be discussed more in the next section as they have bearing on culturally responsive teaching.

Culturally Responsive Teaching with Social Justice

Culturally responsive teaching with social justice brings cultural and linguistic strengths of students into the classroom. This approach requires being deliberate about getting to know and understand the knowledge and experiences students have acquired outside of school, along with respecting, valuing, and using these "funds of knowledge" (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) when teaching. A primary goal of culturally responsive teaching is to ensure that students from diverse backgrounds have meaningful opportunities to experience quality instruction that consistently incorporates cultural components to support learning.

Culturally responsive teachers support students by seeking out knowledge about different cultures. Teachers may do this by asking students direct questions, asking students to complete interest inventories, meeting with families, attending cultural events in communities, and seeking out information about cultural traditions through reading, viewing, and traveling. Culturally responsive teachers also seek to understand how their own backgrounds, experiences, and biases may influence their teaching, such as having different expectations for various student groups based on stereotypes.

One way that researchers have learned about culturally responsive teaching is by exploring and deconstructing examples of what happens in classrooms. For example, research by Moje and Hinchman (2004) highlighted the culturally responsive practices that a seventh grade science teacher named Ms. Hall enacted. Ms. Hall was observed teaching a unit related to communicable diseases in a classroom that included a group of mostly African American students. Moje and Hinchman observed that Ms. Hall appeared to have gotten to know her students well and used that knowledge to help students connect their everyday language and experiences to new concepts being taught. Ms. Hall made curriculum changes to bring students' interests into the classroom, as well as encouraged her students to communicate using language most familiar to them, rather than demand that discussions use only Standard American English. Ms. Hall also decided to change texts from ones that had little to do with her students' lives to texts that her students would be able to relate to more easily. She strove to meet lesson objectives using resources that better matched her students' backgrounds and interests.

Research on culturally responsive teaching has mostly included the use of qualitative methods, such as observing and interviewing small samples of teachers and students (Epstein, Mayorga, & Nelson, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Moje & Hinchman, 2004). These research methods have been most useful for exploring culturally responsive teaching because to date, there are no standardized prescriptions for how to enact culturally responsive teaching. Engaging in this kind of teaching depends on characteristics of students in specific classrooms, as well as characteristics of their families and communities. Culturally responsive teaching is complex and requires flexibility, which is why culturally responsive teaching has been mostly studied using qualitative forms of inquiry. Based on what has been learned through research, culturally-based theories of teaching continue to be refined to better inform teaching practices.

Culturally Responsive Teaching for Social Justice

Culturally responsive teaching for social justice goes beyond providing access to learning opportunities and focusing on how to effectively help students learn and apply content knowledge, to answering the question of how students can "question, challenge, and reconstruct knowledge" (Moje, 2007; p. 4). In other words, rather than the primary focus being on bridging what students know with what they need to learn, culturally responsive teaching for social justice includes a focus on how what is learned can be used to address power and oppression in society. Some researchers have used the term "culturally-relevant teaching" to describe this additional focus (Ladson-Billings, 1994), while other researchers have included these components within the framework of culturally responsive teaching (Moje, 2007).

A book chapter by Moje (2007) entitled Developing Socially Just Subject Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching represents a unique effort to synthesize culturally responsive teaching with disciplinary literacy, which is not an easy task. Recall that teaching students to use disciplinary literacy strategies requires initiation into established traditions of academic disciplines, which Moje describes as students needing "access to knowledge deemed valuable by the content domains" (p. 1). While this purpose may seem in opposition to the ideas of using and valuing students' knowledge and experiences, it actually is not. Culturally responsive disciplinary literacy instruction involves respecting what students know and can do, creating bridges between out-of-school knowledge and disciplinary knowledge, and teaching students to critique ways in which knowledge traditions can transmit or transcend oppression in society. Unfortunately, there are some barriers that may exist to becoming a more culturally responsive teacher; however, becoming aware of these barriers can be a helpful step toward learning to overcome them.

The Influence of Apprenticeship of Observation

One possible barrier to becoming a culturally responsive teacher is based on a theory by Lortie (1975) known as "the apprenticeship of observation" (p. 61). This theory cautions that preservice teachers may believe that because they observed so much teaching happen when they were in school that teaching merely involves replicating what they experienced (Lortie, 1975). This belief is especially problematic when preservice teachers who attended mostly suburban and rural schools rely on approaches they observed as the basis to teach students from culturally- and linguistically-diverse backgrounds.

I once saw an example of this kind of incompatibility while observing a young White preservice teacher who was trying to make a point to a group of mostly Black students about the influence of wealth on a person's life. During the lesson, the preservice teacher provided an example of wealth by referring to Bill and Melinda Gates, who are wealthy White business people in the U.S. Some students began nodding their heads at the reference, whereas other students just looked puzzled. Finally, a student raised her hand to generate a more familiar reference point for wealthy people and asked, "You mean like Jay Z?" When the teacher nodded hesitantly (he did not seem certain who Jay Z was), an audible, "Ohhhhh," rippled through the classroom. Essentially, the inquiring student created a culturally responsive reference point for the rest of the students rather than the teacher creating it.

When I debriefed with the preservice teacher after his lesson, I recounted with him what I had observed. He said that he thought his reference to the Gates couple was a good example and faulted the students for not understanding it. He had not even considered the idea of asking his students to generate examples of people who are wealthy, and he did not seem to appreciate the benefits that accompany using students' funds of knowledge in teaching. Perhaps it had not occurred to him that there are people of color who are wealthy as well. My impression was that the preservice teacher planned examples that helped him make connections but had not yet developed the insight to realize why his example failed to work within this context. The example illustrates the importance of teaching in ways that go beyond a single perspective.

Disciplinary literacy and culturally responsive teaching rely on teachers being open to perspectives outside of their own, being flexible in how they teach content, and situating teaching and learning within a social justice framework. When content area teachers incorporate disciplinary literacy strategies into their teaching, their students' understanding of the content can be extended. When content area teachers teach in culturally responsive ways, they can help students better leverage discipline specific knowledge to negotiate a world that privileges some at the expense of others.

Summary

Teaching literacy strategies is often associated with English language arts; however, this chapter has stressed the importance of literacy as being fundamental to learning in all academic disciplines. While teaching basic literacy skills and generalizable comprehension strategies have a strong research base for promoting comprehension, disciplinary literacy strategies are conditional and require deep understanding of the knowledge traditions and communication styles used within and across disciplines. Texts used in mathematics, history, science, and the arts differ in important ways that require content area teachers to know how to use the most effective literacy strategies. Because an emphasis on the use of disciplinary literacy strategies is so new, more research is needed to determine the degree to which students actually benefit from the instruction.

In addition to teaching disciplinary literacy strategies, teachers can adjust what they teach and how they teach according to the cultural characteristics and funds of knowledge of their students. Learning about the knowledge and experiences that students bring into school is consistent with culturally responsive teaching and socially just educational practices. Students can also be taught to use discipline specific knowledge to negotiate a complex, and at times, unjust world. Work by Moje (2007) has affirmed the importance of not only teaching with socially just methods but teaching for social justice. Using both culturally responsive teaching practices and disciplinary literacy strategies is essential to address the needs of an increasingly diverse population of students who are expected to achieve high levels of literacy and content knowledge across all academic disciplines.

Questions and Activities

1. How are generalizable literacy strategies and disciplinary literacy strategies different? Describe why and how they can be explicitly taught in content area classes.

2. Do you believe that content area teachers should be teaching literacy strategies? Discuss your beliefs about teaching literacy strategies in content area classes.

3. Identify examples of texts you have encountered in different disciplines and discuss the different strategies you have applied to comprehend and learn from them.

4. What is culturally responsive teaching, and why is it important to serving the needs of a diverse student population?

5. Discuss ways that disciplinary literacy strategies can be used along with culturally- responsive teaching methods. What are some of the challenges teachers face when trying to meet the needs of all students in content area classes?

Web Resources

References

Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 33-68). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Butler, S., Urrutia, K., Buenger, A., & Hunt, M. (Eds.). (2010). A review of the current research on comprehension instruction (Contract No. ED-08-CO0123). National Reading Technical Assistance Center, RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/compfinal.pdf

Campbell, C. (1996). The meaning of objects and the meaning of actions: A critical note on the sociology of consumption and theories of clothing. Journal of Material Culture, 1, 93-105. doi:10.1177/135918359600100105

Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., Nokes, J. D., & Siebert, D. (Eds.). (2010). Reimagining content area literacy instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Epstein, T., Mayorga, E., & Nelson, J. (2011). Teaching about race in an urban history class: The effects of culturally responsive teaching. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 35, 2-21. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3098949/Teaching_about_Race_in_an_Urban_History_Class_The_Effects_of_Culturally_Responsive_Teaching

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Graham, S. (2009-2010, Winter). Want to improve children's writing? Don't neglect their handwriting. American Educator, 33(4),20-27, 40. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/graham.pdf

Heller, R. (2010). In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje's "Call for change" in secondary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 267-273. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.4.4

Hicks, T., & Steffel, S. (2012). Learning with text in English language arts. In T. L. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 120-153). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Jetton, T. L., & Shanahan, C. (Eds.). (2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (2010). Content matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1-44. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07300046001

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96-107. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1

Moje, E. (2010). Response: Heller's "In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje's call for change in secondary literacy." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 275-278. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.4.4

Moje, E. B., & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 321-350). New York, NY: Guilford.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory I nto Practice, 31, 132-141. doi: 10.1080/00405849209543534

Moxley, K. (with Batcheller, J., Burditt, L., Gamble, S. Gumm, A. J., Paas, J., & Thurston, J.) (2012). Learning with text in the arts. In T. L. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 227-266). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington DC: author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf

O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463. doi: 10.2307/747625

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). New York, NY: Routledge.

Schoen, L. T., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor the challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22, 181-203. doi: 10.1177/0895904807311291

Shanahan, C. (2012). Learning with text in science. In T. L. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 154-171). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59. doi: 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7-18. doi: 10.1097/tld.0b013e318244557a

Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393-429. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11424071

Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2012). Reconceptualizing literacy and instruction for mathematics classrooms. In T. L. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 172-198). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Strangman, N., Vue, G., Hall, T., & Meyer, A. (2003). Graphic organizers and the implications for universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-graphic-organizers-udl.html

The IRIS Center. (2015). Secondary reading instruction (part 1): Teaching vocabulary and comprehension in the content areas. Retrieved from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/sec-rdng/

VanSledright, B. (2012). Learning with texts in history: Protocols for reading and practical strategies. In T. L. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 199-226). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12. Culturally Responsive Disciplinary Literacy Strategies Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This chapter focuses on different approaches to disciplinary literacy strategies instruction that content area teachers can use to maximize students' understanding of content in academic disciplines. Although teaching literacy strategies is often associated with English language arts, in reality, these strategies are integral to learning in all academic subjects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The value of embedding literacy instruction in content teaching has been known for decades. Back in 1979 while studying for my Masters degree, one of my courses was titled Reading in the Content Areas. Since then, I have come across literally hundreds of books and courses with the same title. There has long been a consensus based on decades of research that content teachers can play an important role in teaching students literacy skills (Snow, 2002; Meltzer et al, 2003; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). This is a major tenet of the Common Core State Standards, as evidenced in the title of the literacy standards: Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects and highlighted in the introduction to the standards:

"Literacy standards for grade 6 and above are predicated on teachers of ELA, history/social studies, science, and technical subjects using their content area expertise to help students meet the particular challenges of literacy in their respective fields." (Common Core, 2010, p. 3)

Traditionally, the goal of content literacy instruction has been to increase students' ability to write, listen and speak as they read and learn content from different subjects, also described as content disciplines. My Key Comprehension Routine, Key Vocabulary Routine, and Keys to Content Writing professional development programs train teachers of all subjects how to provide content literacy instruction. I believe that content teachers are in the best position to do this because they know the unique demands of reading and writing in mathematics, science, history, or other specific disciplines.

In the last several years the term disciplinary literacy is popping up in educational publications and research articles. Most teachers I know conclude that this must just be another name for content literacy. But for those who are considered disciplinary literacy experts, there is a fundamental difference between content and disciplinary literacy.

What is disciplinary literacy?

Timothy and Cynthia Shanahan published a 2012 article in Top Language Disorders that is often cited in discussions about disciplinary literacy titled " What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? "

They describe the difference between content and disciplinary literacy this way:

"Content area literacy focuses on study skills that can be used to help students learn from subject matter specific texts. Disciplinary literacy, in contrast, is an emphasis on the knowledge and abilities possessed by those who create, communicate, and use knowledge within the disciplines. The difference is that content literacy emphasizes techniques that a novice might use to make sense of a disciplinary text (such as how to study a history book for an examination), whereas disciplinary literacy emphasizes the unique tools that the experts in a discipline use to engage in the work of that discipline... Content area reading prescribes study techniques and reading approaches that can help someone to comprehend or to remember text better (with little regard to type of text), whereas disciplinary literacy emphasizes the description of unique uses and implications of literacy use within the various disciplines." (p. 8)

Emily Rainer and Elizabeth Moje wrote about disciplinary literacy in a 2012 article published in English Education titled " Building Insider Knowledge: Teaching Students to Read, Write, and Think within ELA and across the Disciplines ".

They describe disciplinary literacy this way:

" Disciplinary literacy refers to the shared ways of reading, writing, thinking, and reasoning within academic fields (Moje, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Each discipline has unique ways of asking questions and solving problems. Similarly, each discipline has unique expectations for the types of claims that are made and the way those claims are supported. These differences play out in the ways that texts are written and in the demands those texts place on the readers. For these reasons, we can say that each discipline has its own discourse community, a shared way of using language and constructing knowledge." (p. 73)

They also note:

"Disciplinary literacy practices are cultural constructions, and many of those practices are not learned simply by observation. Thus, middle school and high school teachers, who are already part of the disciplinary culture by virtue of their disciplinary preparation, need to help students into the culture by making explicit the discipline-specific literacy practices of their areas (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). Such disciplinary literacy instruction does not seek to make experts of teen- age students. Rather, disciplinary literacy instruction begins to help students to read, write, and think in ways that are aligned with experts in the field." (p. 73)

I have a mixed reaction to this relatively new focus on disciplinary literacy. On the one hand, it makes sense that students should benefit from learning what is unique about the way literacy is used in one discipline such as math versus another discipline such as history. This is especially the case for students who go on to post-secondary education or who start careers in areas that require a high degree of disciplinary-specific reading and writing skills.

On the other hand, there are huge numbers of high school students who have below grade-level reading and writing skills - they have not learned even basic content comprehension and writing skills. My concern is that high school, and especially middle school, content teachers will focus on more advanced disciplinary literacy skills at the expense of teaching more fundamental content literacy skills.

This sentiment is reflected in a 2012 article by Michael Fagella-Luby and colleagues in the same issue of Top Language Disorders as the Shanahans' piece. It is titled " Building a House on Sand: Why Disciplinary Literacy Is Not Sufficient to Replace General Strategies for Adolescent Learners Who Struggle "

They note this about disciplinary literacy:

"There is growing interest in disciplinary literacy instruction as a primary means of improving adolescent literacy outcomes. At times, this disciplinary framework has been represented as a replacement for the more broadly known general strategy instruction. However, disciplinary literacy, a potentially powerful idea, cannot replace general strategy instruction for all adolescent learners because adolescents who struggle with reading and writing do not possess the foundational skills and strategies necessary to learn proficiently. We believe that such a statement is necessary because, at times (including Fang, 2012, and Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012), disciplinary literacy has been represented as a replacement for the more broadly known general strategy instruction. To suggest that content teachers need only focus on the strategies that will unpack the complexity of specific concepts in certain content areas is a likely recipe for teacher frustration as teachers face the challenge of today's academically diverse students in middle and secondary school classrooms. Moreover, such a linear disciplinary focus implies that content teachers do not bear responsibility for teaching foundational general strategy instruction to all students in their classes." (p. 70)

Don Deschler, Director of the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas, summarizes this position in a two-minute video titled " What are specific considerations that teachers must make related to disciplinary literacy for students with reading difficulties?"

Here are some additional resources related to disciplinary literacy:

References

Biancarosa, G., and Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Meltzer, J., Smith, N.C., and Clark, H. (2003). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research and practice. Providence, R.I.: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.

Snow, C. (2002). (Chair). RAND reading study group: Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Disciplinary Literacy? - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The value of embedding literacy instruction in content teaching has been known for decades. Back in 1979 while studying for my Masters degree, one of my courses was titled Reading in the Content Areas. Since then, I have come across literally hundreds of books and courses with the same title.

# data[].attributes.headline
Describing the terms "content literacy" and "disciplinary literacy"

# data[].attributes.subject
Describing the terms "content literacy" and "disciplinary literacy"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The value of embedding literacy instruction in content teaching has been known for decades. Back in 1979 while studying for my Masters degree, one of my courses was titled Reading in the Content Areas. Since then, I have come across literally hundreds of books and courses with the same title. There has long been a consensus based on decades of research that content teachers can play an important role in teaching students literacy skills (Snow, 2002; Meltzer et al, 2003; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). This is a major tenet of the Common Core State Standards, as evidenced in the title of the literacy standards: Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects and highlighted in the introduction to the standards:

"Literacy standards for grade 6 and above are predicated on teachers of ELA, history/social studies, science, and technical subjects using their content area expertise to help students meet the particular challenges of literacy in their respective fields." (Common Core, 2010, p. 3)

Traditionally, the goal of content literacy instruction has been to increase students' ability to write, listen and speak as they read and learn content from different subjects, also described as content disciplines. My Key Comprehension Routine, Key Vocabulary Routine, and Keys to Content Writing professional development programs train teachers of all subjects how to provide content literacy instruction. I believe that content teachers are in the best position to do this because they know the unique demands of reading and writing in mathematics, science, history, or other specific disciplines.

In the last several years the term disciplinary literacy is popping up in educational publications and research articles. Most teachers I know conclude that this must just be another name for content literacy. But for those who are considered disciplinary literacy experts, there is a fundamental difference between content and disciplinary literacy.

What is disciplinary literacy?

Timothy and Cynthia Shanahan published a 2012 article in Top Language Disorders that is often cited in discussions about disciplinary literacy titled " What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? "

They describe the difference between content and disciplinary literacy this way:

"Content area literacy focuses on study skills that can be used to help students learn from subject matter specific texts. Disciplinary literacy, in contrast, is an emphasis on the knowledge and abilities possessed by those who create, communicate, and use knowledge within the disciplines. The difference is that content literacy emphasizes techniques that a novice might use to make sense of a disciplinary text (such as how to study a history book for an examination), whereas disciplinary literacy emphasizes the unique tools that the experts in a discipline use to engage in the work of that discipline... Content area reading prescribes study techniques and reading approaches that can help someone to comprehend or to remember text better (with little regard to type of text), whereas disciplinary literacy emphasizes the description of unique uses and implications of literacy use within the various disciplines." (p. 8)

Emily Rainer and Elizabeth Moje wrote about disciplinary literacy in a 2012 article published in English Education titled " Building Insider Knowledge: Teaching Students to Read, Write, and Think within ELA and across the Disciplines ".

They describe disciplinary literacy this way:

" Disciplinary literacy refers to the shared ways of reading, writing, thinking, and reasoning within academic fields (Moje, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Each discipline has unique ways of asking questions and solving problems. Similarly, each discipline has unique expectations for the types of claims that are made and the way those claims are supported. These differences play out in the ways that texts are written and in the demands those texts place on the readers. For these reasons, we can say that each discipline has its own discourse community, a shared way of using language and constructing knowledge." (p. 73)

They also note:

"Disciplinary literacy practices are cultural constructions, and many of those practices are not learned simply by observation. Thus, middle school and high school teachers, who are already part of the disciplinary culture by virtue of their disciplinary preparation, need to help students into the culture by making explicit the discipline-specific literacy practices of their areas (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). Such disciplinary literacy instruction does not seek to make experts of teen- age students. Rather, disciplinary literacy instruction begins to help students to read, write, and think in ways that are aligned with experts in the field." (p. 73)

I have a mixed reaction to this relatively new focus on disciplinary literacy. On the one hand, it makes sense that students should benefit from learning what is unique about the way literacy is used in one discipline such as math versus another discipline such as history. This is especially the case for students who go on to post-secondary education or who start careers in areas that require a high degree of disciplinary-specific reading and writing skills.

On the other hand, there are huge numbers of high school students who have below grade-level reading and writing skills - they have not learned even basic content comprehension and writing skills. My concern is that high school, and especially middle school, content teachers will focus on more advanced disciplinary literacy skills at the expense of teaching more fundamental content literacy skills.

This sentiment is reflected in a 2012 article by Michael Fagella-Luby and colleagues in the same issue of Top Language Disorders as the Shanahans' piece. It is titled " Building a House on Sand: Why Disciplinary Literacy Is Not Sufficient to Replace General Strategies for Adolescent Learners Who Struggle "

They note this about disciplinary literacy:

"There is growing interest in disciplinary literacy instruction as a primary means of improving adolescent literacy outcomes. At times, this disciplinary framework has been represented as a replacement for the more broadly known general strategy instruction. However, disciplinary literacy, a potentially powerful idea, cannot replace general strategy instruction for all adolescent learners because adolescents who struggle with reading and writing do not possess the foundational skills and strategies necessary to learn proficiently. We believe that such a statement is necessary because, at times (including Fang, 2012, and Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012), disciplinary literacy has been represented as a replacement for the more broadly known general strategy instruction. To suggest that content teachers need only focus on the strategies that will unpack the complexity of specific concepts in certain content areas is a likely recipe for teacher frustration as teachers face the challenge of today's academically diverse students in middle and secondary school classrooms. Moreover, such a linear disciplinary focus implies that content teachers do not bear responsibility for teaching foundational general strategy instruction to all students in their classes." (p. 70)

Don Deschler, Director of the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas, summarizes this position in a two-minute video titled " What are specific considerations that teachers must make related to disciplinary literacy for students with reading difficulties?"

Here are some additional resources related to disciplinary literacy:

References

Biancarosa, G., and Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Meltzer, J., Smith, N.C., and Clark, H. (2003). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research and practice. Providence, R.I.: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.

Snow, C. (2002). (Chair). RAND reading study group: Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Disciplinary Literacy? - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The value of embedding literacy instruction in content teaching has been known for decades. Back in 1979 while studying for my Masters degree, one of my courses was titled Reading in the Content Areas. Since then, I have come across literally hundreds of books and courses with the same title.

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy for all Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
October 2006 | Volume 64 | Number 2
Reading, Writing, Thinking Pages 8-14

Stephanie McConachie, Megan Hall, Lauren Resnick, Anita K. Ravi, Victoria L. Bill, Jody Bintz and Joseph A. Taylor

The disciplinary literacy framework, introduced in 2002 by the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh, is grounded in five principles for designing rigorous, inquiry-based instruction that integrates academic content and discipline-appropriate habits of thinking. The following stories show how teachers are bringing disciplinary literacy principles to life.

Principle 1: Knowledge and thinking must go hand in hand.

To develop complex knowledge in any discipline, students need opportunities to read, reason, investigate, speak, and write about the overarching concepts within that discipline. Because of time constraints and coverage concerns, many teachers understandably choose to teach either content or process instead of marrying the two. But to build students' literacy in a specific disciple, instruction must do both at once.

Ed Abbott's 10th grade U.S. history class at Central High School in Providence, Rhode Island, is beginning a new unit on immigration that a group of Providence teachers adapted from an Institute for Learning model unit (Ravi, Leinhardt, Stainton, & Mohr, 2005). For the first lesson, Becky Coustan, a fellow teacher who helped to develop the unit, begins by introducing two overarching questions that the students will be addressing:

What are some of the forces pushing people away from their homelands and pulling people to immigrate to the United States?

What were the attitudes toward immigration in different historical periods?

For the next few weeks, these questions will drive the class's intellectual work. Unlike old-fashioned drill questions that students can answer by memorizing isolated bits of information, these overarching questions push students to go beyond lecture and textbook toward using multiple sources to construct their own explanations-practices mirroring those of the history community.

To fully explore these essential questions in the classroom, Ms. Coustan explains, the class will study immigration to the United States during four different eras-the 1890s, 1920s, 1960s, and 1990s. To answer the first question, students will explore the conditions and historical context of the home country of each group of immigrants, as well as the political and social context of the United States during each era. To answer the second, students will analyze the public debate over immigration during each period, looking for evidence of how the United States responded to each wave of immigration. They will be working in the same way historians do: reading and analyzing a variety of primary and secondary source documents, including key pieces of immigration legislation; artifacts of public discourse, such as newspaper reports and political cartoons; and oral histories from immigrants coming to the country in each period.

Ms. Coustan knows that the students can decode text and understand generic reading processes. Still, she does not assume that they know how to work with these materials in ways that help them respond to the overarching questions. She and Mr. Abbott will support students' initial forays into this kind of genuine historical inquiry by modeling and making explicit the ways they want students to read, interpret, and talk about the documentary evidence before them.

Ms. Coustan also knows that more than half of Mr. Abbott's students are first- or second-generation immigrants and are thus likely to have some prior knowledge and beliefs about immigration issues. She spends the first 10 minutes of the 50-minute period tapping into what the students bring to the classroom from their personal lives.

"Let's look at the first question and talk about what you already know about immigration. See if we can come up with some pushes-reasons why people leave their country-and pulls-reasons why people come to the United States."

As the class generates a list of pushes (such as war, poor living conditions, and lack of food) and pulls (such as job opportunities, freedom, and the desire to join family), Ms. Coustan listens carefully. She is assessing what each student knows and believes so that she can determine what supports to provide later in the unit, when she will ask the class to read and analyze a primary source depicting one immigrant's experience.

Next, Ms. Coustan models how to read source materials for specific push and pull factors before letting students practice this kind of reading in their groups. At the end of the unit, students will be expected to produce a written response to the two overarching questions for the unit using evidence from their analysis of primary and secondary source materials.

Principle 2: Learning is apprenticeship.

In disciplinary literacy classrooms, students act as historians, mathematicians, scientists, readers, and writers as they engage with subject-matter tasks, texts, and talk that apprentice them into each discipline's ways of working.

Sarah Weaver's 7th grade science class at Washington Middle School in St. Paul, Minnesota, has been investigating interactions between living and nonliving things in ecosystems. For today's lesson, Ms. Weaver has designed a task using mealworms to give students a concrete experience that mirrors work in the field of ecology.

"How do you think we're going to be working with these mealworms today?" she opens.

"Checking out their properties," one girl volunteers.

"And why would we do that?" Ms. Weaver presses.

"Because we're doing ecology and that's how ecologists find out what things are," the girl replies.

"And then we can change something in the environment," adds a boy across the table, "and see if the worms act differently."

The boy gestures toward the over-arching questions for the unit, which are posted on the wall: How do changes in the environment affect the behaviors of organisms living in that environment? How do changes in an organism's behaviors affect its ability to obtain and use resources, to grow, to reproduce, and to maintain stable internal conditions? How can we investigate these questions?

With a quick scan of the room, Ms. Weaver confirms that everyone has understood the boy's shorthand reference to the now-familiar questions.

"Where should we start?" she prompts.

"We need to think up an experiment question."

"OK, who wants to remind us what makes a good experiment question? Javier?"

The student nearest the classroom's flip chart begins turning pages until he reaches one that reads,

1. Start with "what" or "how"; don't start with "why."

2. Include something to compare.

3. Include something to measure.

These criteria, which Ms. Weaver helped the students generate at the beginning of the unit, are based on the characteristics of scientifically oriented questions described in the National Research Council's Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2002). Ms. Weaver's challenge is to sustain students' natural curiosity and enthusiasm as she helps them understand what a scientifically oriented question is and how it functions, judge how well the questions they generate will support a well-designed investigation, and refine their questions as needed. Ms. Weaver knows that the vocabulary and norms for academic discourse in science are new to all of her students, even the native English speakers. To limit the language challenge, Ms. Weaver uses the term the students came up with, experiment questions, interchangeably with the term that the science community uses for the same concept, scientifically oriented questions.

"OK," says Ms. Weaver, "we're looking for scientifically oriented questions that meet these three criteria. To get started, let's say everything we're curious about."

In groups of two and three, the students observe their mealworms and generate ideas about what to investigate. Ms. Weaver circulates, listening closely, occasionally asking a question to assess what students understand or to advance a group's thinking. She wants to help students decide what is most important without taking the intellectual work away from them. She also makes sure that everyone is participating and that language issues are not interfering with any student's ability to fully engage in the task.

Following some spirited discussion, the students reach consensus on a question they want to investigate: How fast do mealworms move if you put them on something really hot? "All right," Ms. Weaver says, "I like the way you're starting to design your study. Do we have our scientifically oriented experiment question, then?"

Consulting their criteria list, the students determine that the question meets two of the criteria-it starts with "how" and it includes something to measure-but is missing something to compare. With a bit more discussion, the students refine the question to be more scientific: How does the speed of the mealworms change with changing temperature?

After devising a safe way to conduct their investigation using sheets of paper that Ms. Weaver warms and cools, the students begin to quantify their observations, measuring the surface temperature of each sheet and the distance and total time that each mealworm moves, calculating the average speed of each mealworm, and developing explanations that they will share with their classmates about how different surface temperatures affect mealworm behavior.

This lesson serves as a bridge between students' prior knowledge about how living and nonliving things interact with the environment and the overarching questions posed at the beginning of the unit. Together with similar experiences in recent days and in days to come, the lesson will help Ms. Weaver's students communicate as scientists do by developing and defending explanations that address these overarching questions.

Principle 3: Teachers mentor students.

In disciplinary literacy classrooms, teachers design lessons that make explicit the discipline-centered literacy habits that scaffold students' collective content learning and enable them to function independently in the wider disciplinary community.

Back in Central High School, as the U.S. history unit on immigration continues, Ms. Coustan's students are reading a text about a Cuban immigrant named Augustin who arrived in the United States in 1980 (Morrison & Zabusky, 1980). She has asked students to locate information in the text that helps them identify forces pushing people away from their homelands and pulling people to immigrate to the United States. As the students work through the text in pairs, Ms. Coustan listens in and helps them shape their language as they discuss push and pull factors. Toward the end of the period, she calls the class back together.

"I'd like one person from each of the teams to write their idea on the board-something that pushed or pulled Augustin to the United States."

When all of the teams' ideas are posted, Ms. Coustan launches the discussion:

"Eva, what was your idea for a push? What pushed him out?"

Eva refers to the idea she wrote: "The Cuban government, because it was too controlling."

"Was there an example of that?" Ms. Coustan presses.

"I'm not sure," Eva demurs.

Ms. Coustan turns her question to the group. "Did anyone read an example of the government being controlling? Dela, you said you found an example."

Dela reads from her notes: "There was no way for young people to enjoy life in Cuba because there was no dancing or good times."

"So the government was really controlling," Ms. Coustan responds, linking Dela's example to the chart entry. "If people can't even dance, who knows what the government is like with other parts of life, right?"

By asking students to provide specific examples from the text to support their arguments, Ms. Coustan is modeling and making explicit the process of gathering evidence to support an argument in the study of history.

Principle 4: Instruction and assessment drive each other.

To make disciplinary literacy work, teachers must conduct ongoing formative assessment of each student's understanding, skills, and interests using multiple sources of data (such as conferences, discussions, quick-writes, and quizzes) to inform instruction and guide students to deeper levels of understanding. In Tara Brash's 7th grade math class at Washington Middle School in St. Paul, students are working in small groups. Their task is posted on the board:

To celebrate your election to the student council, your grandparents take you shopping. You have a 20-percent-off coupon. The cashier takes 20 percent off the $68.79 bill. Your grandmother remembers that she has an additional coupon for 10 percent off. The cashier takes the 10 percent off what the cash register shows. Does this result in the same amount as 30 percent off the original bill? Explain why or why not.

In recent days, Ms. Brash and her teaching coach, John Benda, have used a protocol furnished by the Institute for Learning (Hughes & Smith, 2004; Smith & Bill, 2004) to help them think through this lesson. They have identified all the ways the problem can be solved and anticipated misconceptions that students might have. They have also discussed the characteristics of questions that assess and advance students' understanding without reducing the cognitive demand of the task. As a result, Ms. Brash has a plan for supporting students' learning as she circulates from group to group. She asks at one table, "Which is a better deal: 30 percent off all at once, or 20 percent and then an additional 10 percent off?"

"Thirty percent," replies Keisha, "because when you figure out 20 percent and then 10 percent, you do two subtractions. So that makes it less."

Ms. Brash uses the students' conjectures to assess what students do and don't understand so she can continually adjust her instructional plan for the whole class and differentiate the support she provides to individual students. Ms. Brash is concerned about the conjecture she has just heard because, although two subtractions did occur, that is not the reason the discount is less. She decides to assess other group members' understanding.

"Who can add to what Keisha said?"

One boy replies, "We took 20 percent off $68.79, and then we took 10 percent off what was left.¡¯"

Ms. Brash sees that this student knows that 10 percent is subtracted from the new, smaller base amount.

"It's 10 percent of $55.03," adds another student. "We took 30 percent of the whole amount, the $68.79."

Ms. Brash's coach, John Benda, has been observing and offering occasional comments. He is not convinced that the group understands that the real reason the two separate deductions amount to a smaller total discount is because the second coupon is deducted from a smaller base amount. Some students still appear to attribute the difference to the number of times subtraction occurs, and Mr. Benda wants to be sure this faulty idea is dispelled. Drawing from questions that he, Ms. Brash, and other project teachers have worked with extensively, Mr. Benda selects an appropriate mathematical challenge to help the students make sense of the concept. On a blank sheet of paper, he writes,

Subtract 20% of $68.79 and then subtract 10% of $68.79.

Subtract 20% of $68.79 and then subtract 10% of ($68.79 minus 20%).

"Try this," he challenges.

Working independently, the students solve both problems correctly.

"What did you notice?" Mr. Benda asks.

"The price for the first problem is $48.15," states one student.

"That's lower!" adds another. "It's $50.40 the second way."

"Oh, so it's different? But why? They both have two subtractions-first 20 percent and then 10 percent. So what's causing the difference?"

"Oooh, I know!!" Keisha cries.

"Talk as a team, then," says Ms. Brash, satisfied that everyone in the group is on the way to understanding. "Write your explanation on your chart paper and be ready to explain your reasoning to the rest of the class."

The dynamic relationship among task, text, and talk enables the teacher and coach to formatively assess how much students understand as the lesson progresses. They will use their assessments to drive instructional decisions.

Principle 5: Classroom culture socializes intelligence.

In classrooms striving for disciplinary literacy, teachers treat students as capable thinkers, readers, and writers who expect to take risks, solve problems, and reflect on their learning (Resnick & Nelson-LeGall, 1996). Heather Rhodes's 7th grade English classroom, at Washington Irving Middle School in District 4 of the Los Angeles Unified School District, is a hive of activity. The walls are plastered with handwritten charts and diagrams. Most appear to be records of ideas students have generated in discussion. As students talk and write, they refer to the displays. A couple of students sit at computers, doing research online. Others work independently or in pairs at desks piled high with books and papers.

The class is coming to the end of a disciplinary literacy unit, "Read and Write Like a Reporter" (Mihalakis & McConachie, 2006). During the past six weeks, they have been reading, writing, talking, and thinking in specific patterned ways about a sequence of texts that serve as both sources of information and models of good report writing (Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986/2002). Now they're working on their final research papers. Instead of writing about topics that the teacher selected, students were asked to interview someone about a historical event and use that information to come up with their own research question. To learn how to generate good research questions, students analyzed an exemplary student article that modeled good expository writing. Ms. Rhodes instructed them, "You're a reporter. Here are the lenses you're going to use." The research questions that students chose included "Why is the Race for the Cure a significant event to my mother and certain other people?" and "How do Cinco de Mayo celebrations in Mexico compare to my neighborhood's celebration?"

Ms. Rhodes explains, "It was a more authentic way of generating a topic, and students liked that control. They chose good topics, too. Most kids interviewed a family member or someone else they know. It was a great way for them to see that their home and community cultures are a source of information that's valuable in school."

A pair of students approaches Ms. Rhodes.

"When are we going to the library again?" asks one girl. "I found out online about a report I need to read."

"And can we work on our articles in class again tomorrow?" asks the other.

Ms. Rhodes suppresses a grin. "Yes, this will be the newsroom again tomorrow," she replies. "And of course, reporters who want to gather additional source material will have library access."

"Thank you," sing the girls as they return to their work.

Ms. Rhodes reflects, "Those two girls used to be really shy, but now they participate more. They're getting more skilled at accessing information, and they want to show what they know."

Bringing Disciplinary Literacy to Life

The stories recounted here show that content knowledge and literacy development can go hand in hand. The teachers and coaches in these examples are working hard to learn and implement an apprenticeship approach to rigorous, assessment-driven instruction. Through their efforts, they are creating classroom cultures that build secondary students' disciplinary literacy from the academic ground up.

References

Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. R. (Eds.). (1986/2002). Ways of reading: An anthology for writers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's Press.

Hughes, E. K., & Smith, M. S. (2004, April). Thinking through a lesson: Lesson planning as evidence of and a vehicle for teacher learning. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Mihalakis, V., & McConachie, S. (2006). Read and write like a reporter: Research and expository writing. (Professional development module). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Morrison, J., & Zabusky, C. F., (Eds.). (1980). American mosaic: The immigrant experience in the words of those who lived it. New York: E. P. Dutton.

National Research Council. (2002). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ravi, A., Leinhardt, G., Stainton, K., & Mohr, J. (2005). To close or not to close the door? Immigration and American identity, 1890-2001. (Professional development module). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Resnick, L., & Nelson-LeGall, S. (1996). Socializing intelligence. In L. Smith, J. Dockrell, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond (pp. 145-158). London: Routledge.

Smith, M. S., & Bill, V. (2004, January). Thinking through a lesson: Collaborative lesson planning as a means for improving the quality of teaching. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, San Diego, CA.

Endnotes

The following teachers and administrators contributed information for this article: Ed Abbott, Richard Alonzo, Elaine Amagno, John Benda, Tara Brash, Becky Coustan, Donnie Evans, Barbara Halzel, Patricia Harvey, Mike McCollor, Kimberly Beaver Noble, Heather Rhodes, Ursula Rosin, Roy Romer, and Sarah Weaver.

This is an adaptation of a widely used task. It most closely resembles the version in G. Lappan, J. T. Fey, W. M. Fitzgerald, S. N. Friel, & E. D. Phillips, Connected Mathematics: Bits and Pieces I (Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2004).

Stephanie McConachie ( mcconach@pitt.edu) is a Fellow, Megan Hall ( mwhall@pitt.edu) is Director of Product Development, Anita K. Ravi ( aravi@pitt.edu) is a Fellow, and Victoria L. Bill ( vbill@pitt.edu) is a Fellow at the Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Lauren Resnick ( resnick@pitt.edu) is Director of the Institute for Learning and its parent institute, the Learning Research and Development Center. Jody Bintz ( jbintz@bscs.org) is a Science Educator, Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), Colorado Springs, Colorado, and a member of the Institute for Learning's Disciplinary Literacy Science team. Joseph A. Taylor ( jtaylor@bscs.org) is Assistant Director, BSCS Center for Research and Evaluation, and leader of the Institute for Learning's Disciplinary Literacy Science Team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Task, Text, and Talk: Literacy for All Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
October 2006 | Volume 64 | Number 2 Reading, Writing, Thinking Pages 8-14 Stephanie McConachie, Megan Hall, Lauren Resnick, Anita K. Ravi, Victoria L. Bill, Jody Bintz and Joseph A. Taylor The disciplinary literacy framework, introduced in 2002 by the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh, is grounded in five principles for designing rigorous, inquiry-based instruction that integrates academic content and discipline-appropriate habits of thinking.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is disciplinary literacy and why is it important?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is disciplinary literacy and why is it important?

# data[].attributes.body
Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Disciplinary Literacy for Deeper Learning MOOC-Ed