This is the first in a series of blog posts in preparation
for an upcoming Literacy Research Association Google Hangout with Kristy Pytash, Phil Wilder, Ian O'Byrne, Greg McVerry, and myself on November 4 to
discuss the topic of disciplinary literacy.
Disciplinary literacy has been theorized as an approach to disciplinary
or subject area instruction. Stagnant
literacy growth in terms of standardized scores like the National Assessment of
Educational Progress is often cited as a rationale for moving towards a
disciplinary approach versus a content area literacy one. It is also argued that disciplinary literacy
acknowledges the unique literacy demands of the disciplines as opposed to more
generalized approaches. In this first
post, the construct of disciplinary literacy is discussed.
What is Disciplinary Literacy?
"What matters in
learning science is not only what we know but how we know what we know and how
that knowledge came to be. Anything less offers only a partial view of the
achievements of science." –Jonathan
Osborn, Stanford University
Literacy scholars have argued that each domain or discipline
possesses unique literacy practices (Alexander, 1998; Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; 2012).
Content knowledge is often the primary focus of subject area classes like
science, history, or literature. These subjects are considered an
academic domain. Domain knowledge
refers to the scope of an individual’s knowledge, including content knowledge,
in a given field of study (Alexander, Shallert, & Hare, 1991).
Alexander (1992) posits that domain knowledge consists of declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge that are not equal across domains of
learning. Domain knowledge is a specialized field of content knowledge.
Domain knowledge in history is different than domain knowledge in
chemistry and both possess a broader scope of knowledge than non-academic
domains. Courses like chemistry, biology, and physics are what constitute the
domain of science in school. Topic knowledge is what most often guides
teaching and learning in content area classrooms. Topics often come in the form
of curricular units like states of matter or acids and bases. However,
disciplinary knowledge is the more formalized subset of domain knowledge
(Alexander, et al., 1991). Shanahan (2009) distinguishes disciplinary
knowledge to include knowledge of how information is created, what information
is valued, how knowledge is communicated, and who controls knowledge
dissemination in a domain.
The focus of disciplinary knowledge is not on
content itself but on how readers come to make sense of content based on their
knowledge of how the domain functions. According
to the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh:
“Disciplinary
literacy is based on the premise that students can develop deep conceptual knowledge
in a discipline only by using the habits of reading, writing, talking, and
thinking which that discipline values and uses.” (McConachie, S., Hall,
M., Resnick, L., Raci, A., Bill, V, Bintz, J., Taylor, J., 2006).
Disciplinary literacy then, is an approach to
building the requisite disciplinary knowledge required by a given domain.
Consequently, disciplinary literacy cannot be solely reduced to habits of
thinking. It is comprised of the:
2. cultural tools,
including language practices and the full range of texts that mediate thinking and practice;
3. linguistic
structures that serve to communicate disciplinary meanings;
4. habits of
practice instantiated within the disciplines, and;
5. epistemic
beliefs about knowledge and knowledge production that constitute the
discipline (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010; Manderino, 2012;
Moje, 2007;
2009 Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; 2012, Wilson, 2011).
These five elements may serve as a useful starting place for grounding
teacher preparation and classroom instruction. In subsequent posts, these five
elements of disciplinary literacy will be unpacked and how they impact
instructional and assessment will be discussed. Stay tuned.
