There
are currently two approaches to literacy development: content area literacy and
disciplinary literacy. The former focuses on explicitly teaching generic
strategies to develop students’ abilities to effectively read and write across
content areas (Fang & Coatoam, 2013, pg. 627). The latter recognizes that
literacy skills and strategies and disciplinary content are “inextricably
intertwined” (pg. 628), and therefore, literacy strategies specific to the
content area must be taught. Within the content area of history, students
should learn the reading and writing strategies that actual historians practice
in their field. According to Lee and Spratley (2010), historical documents
discuss issues of politics, economics, and societal issues that students need to
be prepared to understand in order to become informed, civically involved
members of their communities (pg. 6).
Disciplinary
literacy is a more advanced form of literacy that many school districts are
moving towards implementing because of its ability to help struggling readers overcome
a variety of challenges (Lee & Spratley, 2010, pg. 2). These challenges can
include problems with “vocabulary knowledge”, “general knowledge of topics and
text structures,” “knowing what to do when comprehension breaks down,” and
ability to monitor one’s own comprehension (pg. 2). In their article, Lee and
Spratley (2010) propose using disciplinary reading as strategy for
transitioning from “learning to read” in kindergarten to “reading to learn” in
middle through high school (pg. 2). In the discipline of history, one example
of reading to learn includes the ability to decide whether a document comes
from a reliable source in order to understand a historical event (pg. 6). By
focusing literacy development on the specific demands of each discipline,
students will be prepared to delve deeper into the issues they study in class,
and potentially see more value in their classes because they are taking on the
role of professionals in those fields. While teaching disciplinary literacy
will not necessarily ensure that all students will become professionals in
those fields, it will still prepare them to be critical thinkers capable of
comprehending what they read (Fang & Coatoam, 2013, pg. 628).
Disciplinary
literacy is said to be possible to implement starting as early as upper
elementary school, and requires that teachers be properly trained on the
content of each discipline, the discourse patterns, and the “habits of mind”
that professionals in such fields exercise (Fang & Coatoam, 2013, pg. 629).
However, despite its’ recent rise to prominence, many believe that the false
dichotomy has been created between content area literacy and disciplinary
literacy (Brozo, et. al., 2013, pg. 353). Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, and Stewart
(2013) advocate for a combination of the two literacy development strategies,
which they call the radical center” (pg. 354). The radical center holds that
calls to replace content area literacy practices with disciplinary literacy
practices are unproductive, especially for students who are struggling readers.
This is of particular interest to me as a future English as a Second Language
teacher because students will still be developing their English proficiency and
therefore be struggling with literacy development. Working from the radical
center does not imply “making things easy” for students; it meets students
where they are at in their literacy development path and works with them from
that point using all resources available. Teachers using both methods will still
be creating a “culture of high expectations” (Lee & Spratley, 2010, pg. 17)
for their students when teaching literacy from the radical center. To begin
implementing this more pragmatic approach to literacy, discipline specific
teachers and literacy specialists need to be willing to engage in dialogue that
explores the fusion of the two and effectively support the learning needs of
all students.
There
are currently two approaches to literacy development: content area literacy and
disciplinary literacy. The former focuses on explicitly teaching generic
strategies to develop students’ abilities to effectively read and write across
content areas (Fang & Coatoam, 2013, pg. 627). The latter recognizes that
literacy skills and strategies and disciplinary content are “inextricably
intertwined” (pg. 628), and therefore, literacy strategies specific to the
content area must be taught. Within the content area of history, students
should learn the reading and writing strategies that actual historians practice
in their field. According to Lee and Spratley (2010), historical documents
discuss issues of politics, economics, and societal issues that students need to
be prepared to understand in order to become informed, civically involved
members of their communities (pg. 6). 