Content Area Reading and Disciplinary Literacy: A Case for The Radical Center

Abstract

Within the past few years literacy scholars have begun voicing serious doubts on theoretical and practical grounds about the efficacy of the longstanding notion that every teacher is a teacher of reading. In this commentary, we add our voices to the conversation around content area literacy as well as offer our perspectives on the recent calls for alternative practices grounded in disciplinary literacy. We conclude by advocating compromise based on honest, intelligent dialogue between literacy specialists and content area teachers.

Reading and Engineering: Elementary Students’ Co-Application of Comprehension Strategies and Engineering Design Processes

“…In sum, theorists and researchers have presented a seeming dichotomy between teaching generic comprehension strategies and teaching discipline-specific practices (Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, & Stewart, 2013), such as engineering design processes. To investigate whether this dichotomy appeared in the discipline of engineering, we sought to determine whether and how students' application of comprehension strategies shared common ground with their application of engineering design processes.…”

“…We situate this study in the context of the larger debate between proponents of content area literacy and proponents of disciplinary literacy (Brozo et al, 2013). Proponents of content area literacy (e.g., Fagella-Luby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012;Heller, 2010) have asserted that students should receive instruction on comprehension strategies across academic disciplines.…”

“…Although the dichotomy between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy remains prevalent in the literature (e.g., Fang & Coatam, 2013;Shanahan, 2012), several scholars (e.g., Brozo et al, 2013) have questioned the so-called ''literacy-content divide,'' arguing instead that content area literacy instruction and disciplinary literacy instruction are complementary rather than competing approaches. According to this latter body of thought, generic comprehension strategies-such as inferring, predicting, and summarizing-can build students' proficiency with authentic disciplinary practices, such as scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving, and (presumably) engineering design.…”

“…In order to achieve viable designs, engineers enact a series of design processes (Atman et al, 2007). Though these processes have been defined in different ways (Mehalik & Schunn, 2006), they typically include defining the problem, developing and evaluating solutions, and realizing solutions (Atman et al, 2007).In sum, theorists and researchers have presented a seeming dichotomy between teaching generic comprehension strategies and teaching discipline-specific practices (Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, & Stewart, 2013), such as engineering design processes. To investigate whether this dichotomy appeared in the discipline of engineering, we sought to determine whether and how students' application of comprehension strategies shared common ground with their application of engineering design processes.…”

“…In contrast, proponents of disciplinary literacy (e.g., Moje, 2008;Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) have asserted that discipline-specific practices, and not generic comprehension strategies, should be foregrounded in teachers' instruction. One end goal of this second type of literacy instruction is to use the creation and production of texts to build students' proficiency with discipline-specific practices, such as engineering design.Although the dichotomy between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy remains prevalent in the literature (e.g., Fang & Coatam, 2013;Shanahan, 2012), several scholars (e.g., Brozo et al, 2013) have questioned the so-called ''literacy-content divide,'' arguing instead that content area literacy instruction and disciplinary literacy instruction are complementary rather than competing approaches. According to this latter body of thought, generic comprehension strategies-such as inferring, predicting, and summarizing-can build students' proficiency with authentic disciplinary practices, such as scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving, and (presumably) engineering design.…”