Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
description
Transcript of Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and
Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
Timothy ShanahanCynthia Shanahan
University of Illinois at Chicagowww.shanahanonliteracy.com
Two ProblemsPROBLEM I
Significant numbers of students read so poorly that they are unlikely to have access to full participation in American society
Lack of Literacy 25% of 8th and 12th graders read at below basic levels
(NAEP, 2005) 1.2 million students drop out of high school each year
(AEE, 2007) High school dropouts earn an average of $17,299 per
year (U.S. Census, 2005) Less than 10% of African Americans read at proficient or
higher levels (NAEP, 2005)
Two Problems (cont.)PROBLEM II
Significant numbers of students who are deemed literate are not sufficiently literate to succeed in college or career
Insufficient Literacy Attainment
A college degree is now the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings (Children's Defense Fund, 2000)
36% of college students require remedial classes at a cost of $3.7 billion annually (U.S. Department of Education, 2011)—that’s 36% of the 70% who start college
Only about 50% of students entering college are equipped to handle the reading assignments of beginning college classes (ACT, 2006)
Some Solutions
Enhancements to early literacy instruction--According to NAEP, there have been clear reading
improvements among fourth-graders since 1992--And yet, middle school students are reading no
better than then (and high schoolers appear to have fallen)
Some Solutions (cont.)
Avoiding text --Since 1990 there have been content (knowledge)
standards in history, science, mathematics, English language arts
--Teachers have found ways of getting info to students without texts (e.g., Powerpoint, video)
--But ACT has found that amount of text reading between 7th and 12th grades was the best preparation of later success
Some Solutions (cont.)
Reducing Text Difficulty--Low readability textbooks a staple (educators have
lowered readability levels of textbooks for more than 70 years)
--Research has documented correlation between lowered textbook difficulty and lowered SAT performances
--ACT study found not only was amount of in class reading significant, but that this reading had to be
implemented with hard text (not easy text)
Some Solutions (cont.)
Increasing remedial classes--But this will only impact those who are not going to
college--IES studies and funding streams (e.g., Striving
Readers) suggest that at best remedial classes in high school will raise reading achievement only about 2 mos.
Some Solutions (cont.)
Elevating literacy and literacy instruction up through through the grades
--ACT found that state standards did not take specific reading standards through high school
--Common core changes that for 45 states--Specific to content area classes (literature,
science, social studies)
Two Approaches to Secondary Literacy Instruction Content area reading Disciplinary literacy
Content Area Reading Has long history in education Many secondary teachers have preparation
in content area reading Lots of books and resources for teachers
But… Disciplinary literacy is the approach that the common
core has taken The purpose of the first part of this talk is to explore the
dimensions of disciplinary literacy and to distinguish the widely known concept (content area reading) from the newer and quite different concept (disciplinary literacy)
Disciplinary literacy?
Disciplinary Reading Instruction Not the hip new name for content area reading Each discipline possesses its own language, purposes,
and ways of using text that students should be inducted into
There are special skills and strategies needed for students to make complete sense of texts from the disciplines
As students begin to confront these kinds of texts (especially in middle school and high school), instruction must facilitate their understanding of what it means to read disciplinary texts
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1980s
Sources of Content Area Reading In 1920s, the idea of “every teacher a teacher of reading”
first raised Rhetoric is good, but fundamental idea is that reading
experts know the necessary reading skills and that those should be taught across the curriculum
Leads to the development of lots of general study skills approaches: SQ3R, KWL, three-level guides, etc.
Research focuses on effectiveness of these instructional routines (accordingly, content reading approaches are pedagogical in nature)
Sources of Disciplinary Literacy Studies that compare expert readers with novices
(Bazerman, 1985; Geisler, 1994; Wineburg, 1991, etc.) Functional linguistics analyses of the unique practices in
creating, disseminating, evaluating knowledge (Fang, 2004; Halliday, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004, etc.)
History Reading (Wineburg) Sourcing: considering the author and author
perspective Contextualizing: placing the document/info within its
historical period and place Corroboration: evaluating information across sources
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1990s
Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized
Content area reading Generalizable skills and activities that can be
used in all or most reading:KWL SummarizationSQ3R PreviewingWord maps BrainstormingFrayer model Notetaking3-level guides QARDR-TA I-ChartsMorphological analysis Reciprocal teaching
Disciplinary reading Specialized skills and activities Idea is to consider the learning demands of a subject
matter Example: textbook use
Science - EssentialHistory - AntitheticalLiterature - Irrelevant
Chemistry Note-taking
Substances Properties Processes InteractionsAtomic Expression
Content area reading: Vocabulary Focus is on memorization techniques: make connections
among concepts, construct graphic organizers, brainstorm, semantic maps, word sorts, rate knowledge of words, analyze semantic features of words, categorize or map words, develop synonym webs,
Disciplinary literacy: Vocabulary Focus is on specialized nature of vocabulary of the
subjects Science: Greek and Latin roots (precise, dense, stable
meanings that are recoverable) History: metaphorical terms, words/terms with a political
point of view
Disciplinary Literacy
Intermediate Literacy
Basic Literacy
Increasing Specialization of Literacy
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1990s
Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized
Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information
How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline
Content area reading The focus is on learning from text The idea is not to read like a chemist, but to know how to
study books (including chemistry books) Emphasis on literacy learning tools:
Exit notes Advanced organizersResponse journals DictionaryInternet Readability analysis
Disciplinary reading The focus is on the specialized problems of a subject
area Disciplines represent cultural differences in how
information is used, the nature of language, demands for precision, etc.
Math Reading Goal: arrive at “truth” Importance of “close reading” an intensive
consideration of every word in the text Rereading a major strategy Heavy emphasis on error detection Precision of understanding essential
Chemistry Reading Text provides knowledge that allows prediction of
how the world works Full understanding needed of experiments or
processes Close connections among prose, graphs, charts,
formulas (alternative representations of constructs an essential aspect of chemistry text)
Major reading strategies include corroboration and transformation
History Reading History is interpretative, and authors and sourcing
are central in interpretation (consideration of bias and perspective)
Often seems narrative without purpose and argument without explicit claims (need to see history as argument based on partial evidence; narratives are more than facts)
Single texts are problematic (no corroboration)
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1990s
Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized
Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information
How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline
Students Remedial Whole distribution
Content area reading Content area reading is promoted for all students But the strategies that are taught tend to work best with
younger and lower level readers – with little evident benefit for average and higher readers
Teachers often won’t use approaches that don’t have a wider impact than that
Disciplinary reading Effectiveness has, for the most part, not yet been tested However, the nature of the activities that have been
developed so far suggest a wider range of learning benefits
Character Change Chart
What is main character like at the beginning of the story?
What is the main character like at the end of the story? How has he or she changed?
Crisis
Given this character change, what do you think the author wanted you to learn? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
History Events ChartTEXT WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? WHY?
1
Relation: 2
Relation:3
Relation4
Main point:
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1990s
Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized
Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information
How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline
Students Remedial Whole distribution
Texts Often encourages use of literary text
Only focuses on disciplinary text
Content Area Reading Often promotes reading of plays, short stories, novels,
poems for math, science, and history Thematic units and integrated curriculum (focused on the
non-disciplinary use of disciplinary information)
Disciplinary Literacy Language differs across disciplines, so it is critical that
readers confront the language of their discipline The Friendly Textbook Dilemma
History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell) History text constructs time and causation Attributes agency (readers need to focus on the reasons
for actions and the outcomes of those actions—cause/effect)
Presents judgment and interpretation (argument) Often narratives with lack of clear connections to thesis
History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell) History texts construct meaning about time, place,
manner through “grammatical circumstances” Thus, in history, many clauses begin with grammatical
circumstances realized in prepositional phrases and adverbs
Over the next decade events led to war. They gathered in Philadelphia. They made enemies by their harsh stands
History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell)
History also constructs participants/actors and the processes that they engaged in to move towards their goals.
History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrel)
Clause Circumstance Actor Process Goal Circum.1 Over the next
decade,further events
steadily led to war
2 Some colonial leaders, such as Samuel Adams
favored independ-ence from Britain.
3 They encour-aged
conflict withBritish authorities.
4 At the same time,
George II and his ministers
made enemies of many moderate Colonists
by their harsh stands
Science Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell) Technical, abstract, dense, tightly knit language (that
contrasts with interactive, interpersonal style of other texts or ordinary language)
Nominalization (turning processes into nouns) Suppresses agency (readers need to focus on causation
not intention)
Science Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell) Sentence density: unpacking complex nouns Experimental verification of Einstein’s explanation of the
photoelectric effect was made 11 years later by the American physicist Robert Millikan. Every aspect of Einstein’s interpretation was confirmed, including the direct proportionality of photon energy to frequency.
Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary LiteracyContent Area Reading Disciplinary LiteracySource Reading experts since
1920sWider range of experts since 1990s
Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized
Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information
How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline
Students Remedial Whole distribution
Texts Often encourages use of literary text
Only focuses on disciplinary text
Role of graphics Ignored or taught generally
Specific to the discipline
Content Area Reading Graphics as adjuncts Interpretive skills are general for pictures, tables, charts,
etc. No differences across disciplines
Disciplinary Literacy Need for translation skills in sciences Pictures differ in their role (describing/defining nouns,
verbs (processes), relationships) Difference between technical drawing and other photos
or drawings? Is the information: Descriptive?
Sequential? Relational/hierarchical? Causal?
Conclusion Clearly, we need to improve literacy practices within the
disciplines Making sure students have opportunities to engage in
the challenging reading and writing of the disciplines in ways that are appropriate to the disciplines
The leverage to do that is the common core standards…. so knowing about the foundations of disciplinary literacy is not enough, you need to know the challenges of the common core as well…
An important outcome of this workCOMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOREnglish Language Arts And Literacy in History/Social Studies &
Science/Technical subjects
Common Core State Standards• In 2009, the National Governors Association, Council of
Chief State School Officers, and the Gates Foundation developed a set of core standards for the English Language Arts and Mathematics
• Since then 45 states and DC have adopted these standards (about 85% of teachers and students in the U.S.)
• In 2014-2015, current state tests will be replaced by one of two exams that will be taken by students in about half the states
Standards changes are hard, but they are especially hard in this case…
These standards are at a higher level than previous standards
These standards have a different style and organizational structure that makes them more challenging for schools to work with
Common core standards are based on different theories (reading comprehension, writing, differentiated instruction) than past standards, so they are qualitatively different in several ways
Next…
• We will give you insights into how and why these standards are different
• And familiarize you with some of the major challenges of teaching with the common core state standards
1. Backmapping
• Traditional standards started with kindergarten and then added years of work on top of those (and have focused heavily on existing curricula and notions of development)
• The common standards began with college and career readiness standards and then backmapped from there
• This means that the standards demand growth aimed at ensuring students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past)
• This makes these standards more challenging than past standards
1. Backmapping (Cont.) Implications: • The common core standards are markedly harder than
past standards since they are designed to ensure that students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past)
• Larger percentages of students likely to fail to meet these standards
2. Coordinated structure Standards are usually not much more than random lists
of skills, knowledge, and strategies But the common core state standards have very strong
progressions and an organization that requires attention Reading comprehension is divided into 2 and 4 lists of
standards (each list has 10 standards and these standards are analogous, meaning that it is worthwhile to consider all of the #1s, #2s, etc.)
Strong connections across comprehension, oral language, and writing
2. Coordinated structure (cont.) Implications:• Read through the themes or numbered items across
grade levels to figure out what items mean and what the progression looks like
• Look to the writing, speaking/listening, or language items to gain insights into what the reading standards mean
3. Challenging Text
• Theory of standards in the past: schools needed to focus on cognitive skills and text was largely irrelevant or uncontrolled
• Theory of the common core: Text difficulty is central and all cognitive skills have to be executed with texts of a specified difficulty range
• Item #10 in all of the reading comprehension lists focus on text difficulty and specify the Lexile range that has to be the target
3. Challenging Text (Cont.) Implications:• Students will likely be taught from texts that are more
challenging in the past• Less emphasis on “guided reading” • Greater emphasis on stretching students to meet the
demands of reading harder text (rather than on placing students in the leveled reader according to instructional level or in using low readability textbooks)
• Need to learn how to scaffold challenging reading (without reading it to students or telling them what it says)
4. Disciplinary literacy
• Past standards have not made a big deal out of reading in history/social studies or science
• Past emphasis was on learning how to read (and the idea was that students could apply these skills to content area textbooks)
• However, research is revealing unique reading demands of the various disciplines (reading history is not the same thing as reading literature, etc.)
• The common core state standards requires specialized reading emphasis for history/social studies and science/technical subjects
4. Disciplinary literacy (cont.) Implications• The ELA standards should be shared by the science and
history departments• It is essential that literature, science, and history include
texts in their instructional routines• Content teachers will need to emphasize aspects of
literacy that they have not in the past (these are disciplinary standards, not content area reading standards—the idea is not how to apply reading skills and strategies to content subjects but how to teach the unique uses of literacy required by the disciplines)
Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – Key Ideas/DetailsCite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; summarize the source,
basing the summary on information in the text rather than on prior knowledge or opinions.Identify key steps in a text’s description of a process related to history/social studies (e.g., how a bill
becomes law, how interest rates are raised or lowered).
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.
Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; summarize how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text and the causes that link the events; distinguish whether earlier events caused later ones or simply preceded them.
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.
Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide a summary that makes clear the relationships between the key details and ideas.
Analyze how ideas and beliefs emerge, develop, and influence events, based on evidence in the text .
Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – Craft & StructureDetermine the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including vocabulary specific to domains
related to history/social studies.Identify how a history/social studies text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively,
causally).Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author’s point of view or purpose (e.g., loaded language,
inclusion or avoidance of particular facts).
Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including the vocabulary describing political, economic, or social aspects of history.
Explain how an author chooses to structure information or an explanation in a text to emphasize key points or advance a point of view.
Compare the point of view of two or more authors by comparing how they treat the same or similar historical topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts.
Interpret the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51).
Analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured, including how key sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text contribute to the whole.
Evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors’ claims, evidence, and reasoning.
Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – IntegrationIntegrate graphical information (e.g., pictures, videos, maps, time lines) with other information in a
print or digital text.Distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a historical account.Analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same topic.
Integrate quantitative or technical information presented in maps, time lines, and videos with other information in a print or digital text.
Assess the extent to which the evidence n a text supports the author’s claims.Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.
Synthesize ideas and data presented graphically and determine their relationship to the rest of a print or digital text, noting discrepancies between the graphics and other information in the text.
Evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other sources of information.
Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.
Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – IntegrationIntegrate graphical information (e.g., pictures, videos, maps, time lines) with other information in a
print or digital text.Distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a historical account.Analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same topic.
Integrate quantitative or technical information presented in maps, time lines, and videos with other information in a print or digital text.
Assess the extent to which the evidence n a text supports the author’s claims.Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.
Synthesize ideas and data presented graphically and determine their relationship to the rest of a print or digital text, noting discrepancies between the graphics and other information in the text.
Evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other sources of information.
Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.
5. Informational text
• Past standards have usually emphasized both literary and informational texts
• However, this emphasis left the distribution of this emphasis to the teachers
• The common core standards requires the teaching of comprehension within both informational and literary texts
• These new standards emphasize informational texts equally with literary texts (in Grades K-5) and literature falls to 25% after that
5. Informational text (Cont.)
Implications• Text selections are going to need to shift greatly
(textbooks and leveled books)• Primary grade teachers are going to need to raise their
comfort level for working with informational text (informational text will get a great emphasis in upper grades, too, but this is not as big a change for these grades)
• Need to guard against informational text being taken over by literary treatments of factual information (such as biography)
6. Close Reading
• Past standards have been based largely upon theories of reading comprehension drawn from cognitive science
• These theories have emphasized procedures or strategies that readers could use to guide their reading (e.g., summarization, questioning, monitoring, visualizing)
• The common core standards are also based upon theory, but literary theory not psychological theory
• These standards depend heavily upon “New Criticism”
6. Close Reading (cont.) Implications• Students will need to engage to a greater extent in deep
analysis of the text and its meaning and implications• Less emphasis on reader’s background information,
comprehension strategies, picture walks, etc. (though these still can be brought in by teachers)
• Greater emphasis on careful reading of a text, weighing of author’s diction, grammar, and organization to make sense of the text (more attention to how text works)
• Rereading will play a greater role in teaching reading• Each discipline has its own definition of close reading
7. Multiple texts
• Past standards have emphasized the reading of single texts: students had to learn how to make sense of a story, article or book (with perhaps an occasional emphasis on multiple texts)
• The common core state standards emphasize the interpretation of multiple texts throughout (at all grade levels, and in reading, writing, and oral language)
• Students will still have to be able to interpret single texts, but much more extensive emphasis on reading and using multiple texts (about 10% of the ELA standards mention multiple texts)
7. Multiple Texts (cont.)Implications• There will be a greater need for combinations of texts
that can be used together• Need for greater emphasis on text synthesis (how to
combine the information from multiple sources into one’s own text or presentation)
• Need for greater emphasis on comparative evaluation and analysis
• Need for a consideration of non-text sources (e.g., video, experiments)
8. Writing about text
• Past standards have emphasized writing as a free-standing subject or skill
• Students have been expected to be able to write texts requiring low information (or only the use of widely available background knowledge)
• The common core puts greater emphasis on the use of evidence in writing
• Thus, the major emphasis shifts from writing stories or opinion pieces to writing about the ideas in text
8. Writing about Text (cont.)Implications• Writing will need to be more closely integrated with
reading comprehension instruction• The amount of writing about what students read will
need to increase• Greater emphasis on synthesis of information and critical
essays than in the past
9. Argumentation
• Past standards have tended to treat text as being just a form of neutral information
• The common core state standards begin with the theoretical premise that texts (and other forms of language) are a form of argument
• Arguments depend upon the use of evidence and reason• Given the emphasis on argument, critical reading (and
writing) take center stage in the new common core standards
9. Argumentation (cont.) Implications• Teachers will be expected to teach students to discern
the arguments underlying a text or presentation• Need for a greater emphasis on trying to figure out
author perspective, tone, position• Much greater emphasis on the use of evidence • Greater emphasis on making one’s own arguments
(persuasion is only one aspect of this)
10. Technology
• The emphasis on technology has been minimal in past English language arts standards
• Again, the idea has been that students would learn generalizable reading and writing skills and then they could apply these within any context or technology
• The common core state standards reflect a much heavier emphasis on how to take advantage of the affordances provided by technology
10. Technology (cont.)
Implications• Students are going to need to know how to search, read,
and use information drawn from the Internet• Students are going to need to know how to use word
processors and other technological supports in their writing
• Students are going to need to know how to use presentation software in their oral presentations
• Students are going to need to know how to use various online references
Conclusion• The common core state standards are based upon
very different theories and conceptions of teaching than our current standards are
• Teacher preparation and textbook design are largely based upon theories and approaches that are (somewhat) inconsistent with those supporting the common core standards
• Changing instructional practices to better support the standards will require a major professional development and materials transformation
Valuable Resources
http://www.corestandards.org/
http://www.achieve.org/PARCC
http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/
Some resources
Shanahan & Shanahan. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misichia (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393-429.
Fang & Schleppegrell. (2008). Reading in second content areas: A language-based pedagogy. University of Michigan Press.
Brozo & Simpson. (2003). Teachers and learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and
Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
Timothy ShanahanCynthia Shanahan
University of Illinois at Chicagowww.shanahanonliteracy.com