I. Introduction
A. Background on disciplinary literacy
Disciplinary literacy refers to how experts in different disciplines think and communicate with each other within those disciplines. An anthropologist approaches a text differently than a biologist or historian would. Experts in these fields use discipline-specific strategies, skills, practices, and habits of mind to make meaning from texts.
B. Purpose and focus of the paper
The purpose of this paper is to examine current research on disciplinary literacy across different subject areas and outline implications and recommendations for classroom instruction and teacher professional development. The paper will focus specifically on literacy practices in science, history, and literature, analyzing how discipline experts approach, understand, and communicate within these fields.
C. Thesis statement
While disciplinary literacy is an emerging area of research, current studies indicate that explicitly teaching students the literacy practices unique to different subjects can help improve comprehension and higher-order thinking. Findings also suggest the need for enhanced teacher training to strengthen subject area expertise and ability to develop disciplinary literacy.
II. What is disciplinary literacy? Defining key characteristics
A. Definition of disciplinary literacy
Present a consolidated definition based on key scholars (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Moje, 2007, 2015) that disciplinary literacy involves the specialized ways of participating through reading, writing, talking, investigating, and reasoning required by experts within a discipline.
B. Disciplinary literacy vs. content area/general literacy
Compare and contrast disciplinary literacy with more general notions of content area or secondary literacy to highlight unique aspects like domain-specific forms of argument, specialized genres/registers, and characteristic epistemic beliefs.
C. Key practices/characteristics across disciplines
Outline major literacy strategies/practices commonly employed within general disciplines like science (e.g. experimentation, modeling), history (e.g. sourcing, contextualization), and literature (e.g. close reading, interpreting texts). Cite studies/scholars to support.
III. Developing disciplinary literacy in science
A. Science experts’ text use and meaning-making
Review relevant literature on how scientists approach scientific texts and make sense of new information. Cite studies on characteristic epistemic practices like sense-making, hypothesizing, testing ideas.
B. Impact of explicit instruction on middle/high school students
Summarize key findings from studies that explicitly taught literacy strategies specific to science like those mentioned above (e.g. Norris & Phillips, 2003; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010). Discuss impacts on conceptual understanding and ability to “think like a scientist.”
C. Implications for instruction and teacher PD
Propose implications based on research, such as incorporating literacy into core concepts/labs, engaging genre structures typical of science writing, and suggestion for teacher support.
IV. Developing disciplinary literacy in history
A. Historians’ interpretation of evidence and perspectives
Summarize research on how historians evaluate sources, weigh perspectives, and construct arguments based on historical contexts (e.g. Wineburg, 1991). Outline typical habits exhibited by experts.
B. Effects of sourcing and contextualization instruction
Synthesize key findings from studies that explicitly taught students to think like historians by applying strategies like sourcing, contextualization, and considering multiple viewpoints in history classes (e.g. Reisman, 2012; Monte-Sano, 2011). Discuss impacts.
C. Implications for history instruction and teacher preparation
Translate findings into recommendations, including need for document-based instruction, explicit modeling of thought processes, developing teachers’ ability to foster interpretive thinking.
V. Developing disciplinary literacy in English/literature
A. Text interpretation and critical analysis by literary experts
Cite research showing how literary scholars/critics approach texts through deep reading, interpretation, consideration of contextual/historical frames (e.g. Shanahan et al., 2011). Highlight practices like close reading.
B. Incorporating literacy strategies in high school ELA
Summarize major outcomes from interventions focused on teaching interpretive moves like determining themes, analyzing authors’ craft/style to enhance literary analysis (e.g. McKeown et al., 2009; Hall, 2007). Impact on engagement, motivation discussed.
C. Implications and recommendations
Suggest ways for ELA instruction and teacher credential/professional programs to strengthen disciplinary aspects like purposeful reading, genre study, understanding of literary/criticism techniques with reference to cited research results.
VI. Conclusion
A. Summary of key findings
Briefly reiterate the main results and implications from studies across disciplines: that focusing instruction on authentic literacy practices leads to improved comprehension and ability to think like a discipline expert.
B. Considerations for future research
Propose new areas for further exploration, such as longitudinal impacts, developing assessments to evaluate disciplinary thinking, exploring additional disciplines, teacher beliefs.
C. Final statement on importance of disciplinary literacy
Conclude with a restatement of the need to recognize and nurture discipline-specific ways of reading, writing, and thinking to truly educate students within each content area. Teacher learning also critical.
Andrew Stroud