RM Winter 2016 FLIP

Hynd-Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 57(2), 93-98.

teaching, it is not feasible for literacy teacher educators to fully understand both measures of text complexity in each academic discipline. While the quantitative measures are somewhat objective and typically measured by a computer program – sentence length, word frequency, Lexile measures, readability formulas, and so on – it is the qualitative measures that are more subjective. The Common Core State Standards lists four qualitative measures – structure (low versus high complexity), language clarity and conventions (conversational versus academic language), knowledge demands (prior knowledge), and levels of meaning (literary texts) or purpose (informational text) – to consider when determining text complexity (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). As literacy teacher educators, we can introduce our students to these qualitative measures by talking about what each measure means, and then provide them with opportunities to analyze texts in their own discipline (Carney & Indrisano, 2013). Conclusion We are currently preparing to teach the “content area reading and writing” courses (name as it appears in the course catalog) mandated by the R2S legislation in the fall semester. Our syllabi are changing, course objectives are being aligned with the competencies outlined in the R2S legislation, assignments are being altered, and assessments are being updated. These changes come as result of our reading and discussing the similarities and differences between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy. While the names of our courses still reflect the idea of “content area reading and writing,”we are working our way through the five principles outlined here in the new design and delivery of these courses. We believe that disciplinary literacy will be the focus of our teaching, preparing our preservice and inservice teachers to deliver the appropriate disciplinary literacy instruction that is unique to each academic discipline. References Carney, M., & Indrisano, R. (2013). Disciplinary literacy and pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Education , 193(3), 39-49.

Johnson, H., Watson, P. A., Delahunty, T., McSwiggen, P., & Smith, T. (2011). What is it they do: Differentiating knowledge and literacy practices across content disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 55(2), 100-109. Lesley, M. K. (2014). Policy, pedagogy, and research: Three issues affecting content area literacy courses for secondary-level teacher candidates. Literacy Research and Instruction , 53(1), 50-71.

Reading Matters Teaching Matters

McArthur, K. G. (2012). The metalinguistic protocol: Making disciplinary literacies visible in secondary teaching and learning. Reading Horizons , 52(1), 26-55.

Ming, K. (2012). 10 content-area literacy strategies for art, mathematics, music, and physical education. The Clearing House , 85(6), 213-220.

Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 52(2), 96-107.

Mraz, M., Rickelman, R., & Vacca, R. (2009). Content-area reading: Past, present, and future . In K. Woods &W. Blanton (Eds.) Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based practice (p. 77-910). New York, NY: 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, Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards . Washington DC: Author. Snow, C., & Moje, E. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy? Phi Delta Kappan , 91(6), 66-69.  Dr. Kavin Ming is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the M.Ed. in Literacy Program at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC. She teaches undergraduate literacy methods courses and graduate content area literacy and practicum courses. Kavin’s research interests include at-risk student populations, culturally responsive pedagogy, content area literacy instruction, and multisensory teaching of literacy skills. Kavin can be contacted at mingk@winthrop.edu . Dr. Cheryl Mader is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Studies at Winthrop University. She teaches undergraduate literacy methods courses, content area literacy courses, and children’s literature as well as graduate literacy courses and curriculum and instruction courses. Cheryl’s research interests include struggling readers, content area literacy, and how technology can be used for teaching and learning. Cheryl can be contacted at maderc@winthrop.edu . Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review , 78(1), 40-59.

Dew, T., & Teague. (2015). Using disciplinary literacy strategies to enhance student learning. Science Scope , 38(6), 33-38.

Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 57(6), 444-448.

Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 56(8), 627-632).

Fang, Z. (2012). The challenges of reading disciplinary texts. In Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies. Guilford Publications

Gillis, V. (2014). Disciplinary literacy: Adapt not adopt. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57(8), 614 – 623.

Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 | scira.org | 27 |


Made with