Despite many calls for K–12 disciplinary literacy instruction—instruction that teaches students the specialized ways of reading, writing, and reasoning of the academic disciplines—there are questions about what disciplinary literacy instruction means for the prominent school domain of English language arts. This article investigates the disciplinary literacy practices and teaching approaches of 10 university‐based literary scholars who participated in semistructured interviews and verbal protocols with literary fiction. Findings point to the fundamentally social and problem‐based nature of academic work with literature and to a set of six shared literary literacy practices that scholars use in their work with literature. These findings were generated as part of a larger study that compared literacy practices and teaching approaches of 10 university‐based scholars and 12 high school English language arts teachers (Rainey, 2015).

Disciplinary literacy scholars promote text-based instruction in the service of disciplinary inquiry, and scholars of teacher education promote practice-based preparation for teachers. This study brings these scholarly communities into conversation by investigating how practice orientations in teacher education influence novice teachers’ literacy teaching. We conducted video analyses of teacher education coursework and novice teachers’ classroom instruction in secondary English language arts. Data were collected during a summer institute for novice teachers designed through a partnership between a university and an alternative teacher education program. Analyses revealed that when learning targets for novice teacher participants were explicitly connected to teaching practice through the use of representations, decompositions, and approximations, those targets were more frequently observed in novices’ subsequent classroom instruction.

The authors offer a framework for disciplinary literacy teaching and two illustrations of disciplinary literacy teaching in classrooms.

Physician objectivity may be limited by biases against home birth, which stem from limited familiarity with published evidence, negative experiences with home-to-hospital transfers, and distrust of home birth providers in a health care system not designed to support home birth.

No abstract