This article begins with a review of the forms of writing promoted in the Common Core State Standards. Across content areas, Common Core encourages teachers to attune students' writing to rhetorical concerns of audience, purpose, task, and disciplinary thinking. To address these concerns, teachers might take a rhetorical approach to the study of genres. In this view, genres are seen as resources writers use to build and act in particular situations. That is, genres help writers shape their writing to fit particular audiences, purposes, tasks, and forms of disciplinary thought. This article explains the rhetorical approach to genre studies by describing how particular genres (e.g. lab reports) are used by people to negotiate particular situations (e.g. labs in chemistry classes). Examples are offered throughout the article of how genre studies can be carried out in classrooms.

This article examines two approaches to teaching content area literacy: a strategies approach focused on general practices of reading and writing and a disciplinary approach attuned to the particular discourses of particular domains. Basil Bernstein's theory of the pedagogic device is used to critique both approaches' assumptions about content area literacy. Neither approach, it is argued, accounts for the ways content areas bring together discourses from multiple fields. The strategies approach, for instance, does not account for the ways literacies in different content areas are bound up with different discourses. The disciplinary approach, on the other hand, conflates content area discourses with university and professional discourses. At the same time, the disciplinary approach minimizes content area discourses' connections to the discourses of domains such as the public sphere and everyday life. At the end of the article, Bernstein's ideas are used to formulate questions content area teachers might consider when teaching different ways of reading, writing, speaking, thinking, and listening.One of the most productive debates currently underway in literacy studies revolves around content area literacies, or literacies used in secondary school math, science, social studies, and so forth. Parties to the debate argue over whether and how content area literacies should be taught as discrete sets of practices used in discrete communities. Some educators and researchers, including authors of popular texts on literacy instruction, emphasize continuities across content areas and promote common strategies for

This article revisits Goody's arguments about literacy's influence on social arrangements, culture, cognition, economics, and other domains of existence. Whereas some of his arguments tend toward technological determinism (i.e., literacy causes change in the world), other of his arguments construe literacy as a force that shapes and is shaped by disparate social processes. This article also reviews the critiques of Goody's work developed in the subfield of sociocultural literacy studies. Although the critics are right to object to the elements of technological determinism in his work, their rejection of his larger project leads them to miss ideas that can help clarify literacy's role in the transformation of society. Moreover, their misreading of Goody's work contributes to the field's underestimation of the distinct force of literacy and overestimation of the force of local cultures. In other words, how they misread Goody's work limits the depth of the answers that they provide to questions about literacy and its relations to culture, economics, politics, and other social spheres. These relations can be better understood when Goody's work is reread with an interaction model of literacy that figures changes in literacy as conditions of and conditional upon changes in other domains. Equipped with this model, researchers may rectify the supposed technological determinism of Goody's approach and the cultural determinism of some sociocultural accounts of literacy. Researchers may then synthesize these ideas to develop approaches that clarify literacy's evolving relations with other aspects of the world. This article concludes by explaining how a revised understanding of genre may bring into view the interplay between literacy and different social processes.

No abstract

debate has taken place. We readily acknowledge the importance of other approaches to literacy research, including those that foreground cognition (e.g.,