Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 57(6) March 2014 doi :10.1002 /JA AL.269 © 2014 International Reading Association (pp. 444 – 448)

444

CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

Recent scholarship on secondary reading calls for a shift from teaching generic literacy strategies to teaching discipline- specific lan-

guage and literacy practices (Fang & Coatoam, 2013 ). This call reflects the growing recognition that literacy instruction in the content areas should aim to promote the development of students’ ability to engage in so-cial, semiotic, and cognitive practices compatible with those undertaken by disciplinary experts and that such advanced literacy development work is best done in the context of disciplinary learning and socialization. An emphasis on disciplinary literacy presents new challenges for teacher education because it requires deep understanding of both disciplinary content and disciplinary habits of mind. Few content area teacher educators (CTEs) or literacy teacher educators (LTEs) have been trained to be specialists in both domains, however. This augurs the need for LTEs to collaborate with CTEs and to restructure their content area lit-eracy course. This column identifies some of the roles that LTEs can play in this important endeavor.

The Role of Literacy Teacher Educators Cohort the Literacy Course by Discipline Most U.S. states now require secondary teacher cre-dential candidates (TCCs) to take at least one con-tent area literacy course as part of their planned

program of study (Romine, McKenna, & Robinson, 1996 ). Traditionally, TCCs from all content areas (e.g., English, science, social studies, mathematics, eco-nomics, music, agriculture, arts) are mixed and take the same literacy course together. The course typically focuses on learning the same set of generic literacy strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, SQ3R, concept mapping, and note taking) for application pell- mell to different content areas. Regardless of majors, TCCs read the same textbook(s) and complete the same assignments.

With the new focus on disciplinary literacy, TCCs are cohorted by content areas for literacy in-struction so that LTEs can foreground, differentiate, and address the unique literacy demands and habits of mind related to specific disciplines. For example, science uses genres, registers, and literacy practices in ways that differ from history or mathematics (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014 ; Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misichia, 2011 ). These differences can be brought out and explored more fully in discipline- specific co-horts. The new cohort structure enables LTEs to craft learning goals, select instructional materials, and de-sign assignments and field experiences in ways that are more appropriate to and focused on specific disci-plines. It also facilitates collaboration between LTEs and CTEs as well as tracking and support of TCCs during their program of study. As Bain ( 2012 ) report-ed in his description of the history teacher education program at the University of Michigan, cohorting the literacy course by discipline “improved our ability to make more explicit connections between work in our students’ major field, literacy and learning theory, in-structional practice, professional courses, and their field- based experiences in secondary classrooms” (p. 523). As a consequence of cohorting, TCCs will be more likely to embrace–and be motivated to learn

Preparing Content Area Teachers for Disciplinary Literacy InstructionThe Role of Literacy Teacher Educators

ZHIHUI FANG

The department editor welcomes reader comments. Zhihui Fang is a professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA; e- mail zfang@coe.ufl.edu .

445

Pre

pari

ng C

onte

nt A

rea

Teac

hers

for

Dis

cipl

inar

y Li

tera

cy I

nstr

ucti

on:

The

Rol

e of

Lit

erac

y Te

ache

r E

duca

tors

about–literacy because they can see more closely the relevance of literacy to their particular discipline and are afforded more time to explore the literacy- content connections in greater depth and in more substantive, discipline- specific ways.

One of the challenges in cohorting for disci-plinary literacy instruction is finding instructional materials for content areas outside the core subjects of science, history, language arts, and mathematics because there seems to be far fewer literacy- related resources for subjects such as physical education, music, economics, and agriculture (see Moxley, 2012 , and Weekes, 2014 , for rare examples). Another chal-lenge is that enrollment numbers or institutional resources may not always permit the forming of dis-ciplinary cohorts for the content area literacy course. In places where (or at times when) that is the case, it is still possible to enact a disciplinary literacy focus that enables TCCs in each discipline to learn about discipline- specific literacy practices and pedagogies while also developing an appreciation for how disci-plines differ (see, for example, Fang, Sun, Chiu, & Trutschel, in press ). LTEs can assign common, as well as discipline- specific, readings and experiences. Such cross- disciplinary interaction and discussion can help TCCs see connections across disciplines, engender deeper understanding of the literate practices within their own discipline, and stimulate further inquiry into disciplinary ways with words.

Broaden Conceptions of Text and Literacy Promoting disciplinary literacy instruction also re-quires that LTEs pay due respect to how text and lit-eracy are conceptualized and used in each discipline. Each discipline has its own culture, evolving unique definitions of, as well as ways of using, text and litera-cy. This means what counts as text and literacy varies considerably across disciplines. For example, history is constructed primarily through language (and in-creasingly visuals) in primary sources, textbooks, and other written documents. However, other historical residuals in the form of nonprint texts—photographs, maps, oral recordings, artwork, music, and architec-ture—are also important to historical understand-ing (Draper, Broomhead, Jensen, & Nokes, 2012 ). Becoming historically literate means not just learn-ing about events, facts, and historical figures through reading and comprehending but, more important, developing a sophisticated understanding of histori-cal time, agency, and causality by asking significant questions, assessing authors’ perspectives, evaluating

evidence across multiple sources, making judgments within the confines of the context in question, and determining the reliability of different accounts on the same event (VanSledright, 2012 ).

The texts that music students create and interact with are much more varied, including not only com-positions, concert programs, instrumental methods books, CD liner notes, and music theory texts but also fingering charts, vocal and instrumental musi-cal scores, sounds, and symbols (Moxley, 2012 ). To be literate in music, students must, according to the National Association for Music Education, be able to (a) sing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music; (b) perform on instruments, alone and with others, a range of music; (c) improvise melodies, variations, and accompaniments; (d) compose and arrange music within specific guidelines; (e) read and notate music; (f) listen to, analyze, and describe music; (g) evaluate music and music performances; (h) understand relationships between music and oth-er disciplines; and (i) understand music in relation to history and culture (http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/national-standards-for-music-education/).

These varied conceptions and uses of text and literacy should inform the design and delivery of the content area literacy course. They require that LTEs go beyond the traditional conceptions of text, literacy, and literacy pedagogy, recognizing the cultures and demands of different disciplines and tailoring curric-ulum and instruction to the ethos and goals of each discipline.

Expand Literacy Pedagogical Content Knowledge Effective preparation of TCCs for disciplinary litera-cy instruction requires that LTEs demonstrate strong “pedagogical content knowledge” (Shulman, 1986 ). In addition to sound understanding of “the concep-tual domains of each discipline, how the conceptual domains are pedagogically framed to support learn-ing, and how [TCCs] construct their understand-ing of literacy practices within disciplines” (Dillon, O ’ Brien, Sato, & Kelly, 2010 , p. 641), LTEs need to know a range of teaching practices that are effective for making disciplinary texts accessible to diverse groups of learners and for developing their advanced literacies. A key component of this knowledge is deep understanding of the role of language and literacy in disciplinary learning and socialization. This knowl-edge, referred to as “literacy pedagogical content knowledge” (LPCK), consists of three components: “knowledge of how spoken and written language can

446

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

57(

6)

MA

RC

H 2

014

CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

be best structured for effective learning, recognition that subject areas have their own characteristic lan-guage forms and hence entail distinctive literacy prac-tices, and capacity to design learning and teaching strategies that account for subject- specific literacies and language practices” (Love, 2009 , p. 541).

LPCK is especially important for LTEs because disciplinary content in secondary schools is typi-cally presented through texts in language (and other modalities) that are often simultaneously technical, dense, abstract, metaphorical, and specialized (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014 ). These texts pres-ent new challenges for disciplinary learning, and to handle these challenges, adolescents need to develop new language skills and literacy strategies beyond those they have learned in the elementary grades. To support TCCs in meeting this need, LTEs need to go beyond the traditional approach that typically emphasizes the teaching of basic language skills and generic literacy strategies. They need to become fa-miliar with a range of discipline- specific language/literacy strategies and practices, helping TCCs not only understand how language and other semiotic uses vary across disciplines in ways that are functional for making discipline- specific meanings but also de-velop effective strategies for assisting students to cope with the language demands of disciplinary reading and writing. Acquiring this new knowledge is also crucial for guiding TCCs to enact “close reading” (Fang & Pace, 2013 ) and to effectively support diverse learners’ language and literacy development (Valdés, Bunch, Snow, & Lee, 2005 ).

Support Content Area Teacher Educators for Literacy Instruction The development of modern western disciplines is heavily dependent on language and text (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008 ). Being literate in a discipline means not only knowledge of disciplinary content but also the ability to read, write, think, and reason with texts in discipline- specific ways. Traditionally, CTEs have focused their job on helping TCCs learn how to teach the body of disciplinary content these candidates are expected to have mastered in their

baccalaureate studies. With little formal training in the reading and writing demands of their disciplines, CTEs rarely make literacy an explicit or central part of their courses, nor do they typically consider literacy pedagogy within the purview of their responsibilities. As one middle school science teacher revealed about her teacher preparation program:

As a first-year teacher, I came straight from a col-legiate education program that stressed hands-on, inquiry-based activities. When being observed by my advisors, I felt they would be most impressed with lessons that involved labs and other hands-on activities. I felt that these advisors would frown upon textbook-based lessons. This led me to believe that teaching using the text was not ideal. Therefore, I used the text very little and even tried to avoid it. (Fang et al., 2008 , p. 2079)

LTEs can help ameliorate this situation by rais-ing their CTE colleagues’ consciousness about the essential and pervasive role of literacy in disciplin-ary practices and about the role of TCCs in sup-porting students’ advanced literacy development, encouraging them to take up literacy instruction in their courses, and offering assistance in a supportive manner. Draper et al. ( 2012 ) described an institution- wide effort at Brigham Young University, where one LTE worked with a dozen CTEs to address issues of central concerns in their preparation of secondary teachers. These teacher educators met bimonthly as a Literacy Study Group to explore answers to such questions as “How can teacher educators adequately prepare prospective teachers to support the literacy development of adolescents? What does literacy in-struction look like for content area classrooms? How can literacy instruction remain true to the basic prin-ciples and values of the various disciplines? How can harmony be created between the work of the literacy teacher educator and content teacher educators?” (p. 368). During these meetings, the LTE selected ma-terials for common readings, facilitated discussion of these materials, and modeled literacy strategies. She also interviewed CTEs, observed their classrooms, and provided feedback about their teaching. As a re-sult of this collaborative work, the CTEs were able to revise their preexisiting theories about texts, litera-cies, and literacy pedagogies; and they made positive changes to their teacher preparation programs, course designs, classroom instruction, and assessment prac-tices. They enacted and supported literacy instruction in their content area courses, reinforcing the central

The ultimate goal of literacy

instruction is to support disciplinary

learning and socialization.

447

Pre

pari

ng C

onte

nt A

rea

Teac

hers

for

Dis

cipl

inar

y Li

tera

cy I

nstr

ucti

on:

The

Rol

e of

Lit

erac

y Te

ache

r E

duca

tors

message from the literacy course that literacy and lit-eracy instruction are essential to developing disciplin-ary literacy. TCCs are more likely to embrace literacy and implement literacy instruction when the same message is also emphasized by their CTEs.

Build Connections Between Content Area and Literacy Courses A key feature of an effective teacher preparation pro-gram is coherence (Darling- Hammond, 2006 ). One way to achieve programmatic coherence is to build connections between literacy and content area cours-es. As part of joint planning, LTEs and CTEs can to-gether identify disciplinary knowledge, skills, habits of mind, and other research- based practices that are valued in the target discipline or recommended by relevant professional organizations and government agencies. They then discuss how these standards and competencies are to be distributed, cross- referenced, and reinforced across various courses in the program. Such efforts help build an iterative, spiraling curricu-lum in which key knowledge, skills, and dispositions are systematically introduced, developed, mastered, and refined over the entire secondary teacher prep-aration program (usually one year). They also en-able LTEs and CTEs to “consider and understand programmatic trajectories, sequences, and learning progressions, while collaboratively working on curric-ulum and problems of professional practice” (Bain, 2012 , p. 525).

Given the need to foreground the disciplines in disciplinary literacy instruction, it is important that what is taught in the literacy course serves the goals of the target discipline. This means that “con-ceptual and instructional frameworks that originate from within the field of literacy no longer enjoy an elevated status” (Dillon et al, 2010 , p. 641). Instead, LTEs need to think about how the language and literacy knowledge, strategies, skills, and practices that they expect TCCs to master can in fact support adolescents in developing essential knowledge (e.g., core ideas, key relationships, unifying themes) and habits of mind (e.g., reading, writing, thinking, rea-soning) in the discipline. To this end, LTEs would benefit from consulting with their CTE colleagues to identify concepts, skills, and dispositions that are central to the discipline. For example, if questioning, contextualizing, and corroborating sources is a key goal of history education, then LTEs need to design reading/writing assignments that highlight this skill, such as providing opportunities for TCCs to assemble

text sets consisting of primary and secondary sources, read and analyze multiple accounts of the same event, compare perspectives, and create (orally and in writ-ing) evidence- based argument about issues involved.

LTEs and CTEs can also develop shared vision and goals in other ways. They can observe one an-other ’ s classes, discussing how each could build on, reinforce, or extend what the other is doing. They can also design common assignments and experi-ences that repeatedly expose TCCs to core concepts and practices in the target discipline across multiple courses. For example, TCCs can develop one unit plan that satisfies the learning objectives of both con-tent area and literacy courses (Fang et al., in press ). Specifically, TCCs assemble an annotated bibliogra-phy of rich, significant texts on a grade- appropriate topic that is important to the discipline. They then analyze sample texts from the list for their reading challenges and discuss how these challenges can be addressed pedagogically. Next, TCCs plan sample lessons that achieve the content goals while also ad-dressing the reading challenges identified earlier. Lastly, the unit is implemented in a common field placement and evaluated by both CTE and LTE for its significance to the discipline, appropriateness of lesson activities, strength of literacy- content connec-tions, conceptual coherence, effectiveness of delivery, and impact on student learning.

Conclusion Teacher education programs across the United States are searching for new ways of preparing secondary teachers who are capable of effectively promoting ad-vanced literacy development among diverse groups of students (Braunger, Donahue, Evans, & Galguera, 2005 ). Disciplinary literacy instruction represents a paradigm shift in content area literacy pedagogy, re-quiring LTEs to reenvision and redesign their course in ways that support students’ acquisition of disciplin-ary content and habits of mind. It underscores the no-tion that literacy instruction is a shared responsibility between CTEs and LETs and that the ultimate goal of literacy instruction in the content areas, much like that of content area instruction, is to support students¹ disciplinary learning and socialization. In this con-text, the relationship between language/literacy and content must be reconceptualized. Instead of seeing language/literacy merely in a supportive role serving content learning, we should consider the two as not only central to but also equal partners in disciplinary

448

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

57(

6)

MA

RC

H 2

014

CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

learning and socialization because they are inex-tricably intertwined in the development of modern disciplines. After all, content is made prototypically of language; and without language and literacy, the social and cognitive practices that make the modern disciplines possible could not be engaged. Only until this reconceptualization is embraced by both CTEs and LTEs can the role of LTEs in the preparation of secondary TCCs be truly valued and not mar-ginalized. Finally, although there is still a dearth of empirical studies documenting the impacts of this new approach on secondary teacher preparation, pre-liminary data (e.g., Bain, 2012 ; Fang et al., in press ) suggest that a focus on disciplinary literacy instruc-tion enables TCCs to build deeper understanding of the literacy- content connections in their disciplines, higher motivation to learn language/literacy strategies that make disciplinary texts accessible to their stu-dents, and greater capacity for designing and imple-menting units and lessons that develop truly literate individuals in target disciplines. Clearly, disciplinary literacy instruction opens up a fertile ground for those seeking innovation and improvement in secondary teacher preparation.

Note The term content area is used interchangeably with discipline in this article, with the former considered the latter recontextual-ized for educational purposes.

References Bain , R.B. ( 2012 ). Using disciplinary literacy to develop co-

herence in history teacher education: The clinical rounds project . The History Teacher , 45 ( 4 ), 513 – 532 .

Braunger , J. , Donahue , D.M. , Evans , K. , & Galguera , T. ( 2005 ). Rethinking preparation for content area teaching: The reading apprenticeship approach . San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .

Darling-Hammond , L. ( 2006 ). Powerful teacher education . San Francisco, CA : Wiley .

Dillon , D.R. , O ’ Brien , D.G. , Sato , M. , & Kelly , C.M. ( 2010 ). Professional development and teacher education for read-ing instruction . In M.L. Kamil , P.D. Pearson , E.B. Moje , & P. Aff lerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 629 – 660 ). New York, NY : Routledge .

Draper , R.J. , Broomhead , P. , Jensen , A.P. , & Nokes , J.D. ( 2012 ). (Re)imagining literacy and teacher preparation through collaboration . Reading Psychology , 33 , 367 – 398 .

Fang , Z. , & Coatoam , S. ( 2013 ). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 56 ( 8 ), 627 – 632 .

Fang , Z. , Lamme , L. , Pringle , R. , Patrick , J. , Sanders , J. , Zmach , C. , Charbonnet , S. , & Henkel , M. ( 2008 ). Integrating read-ing into middle school science: What we did, found, and learned . International Journal of Science Education , 30 ( 15 ), 2067 – 2089 .

Fang , Z. , & Pace , B.G. ( 2013 ). Teaching with challenging texts in the disciplines: Text complexity and close reading . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 ( 2 ), 104 – 108 .

Fang , Z. , & Schleppegrell , M.J. ( 2008 ). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy . Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press .

Fang , Z. , Schleppegrell , M.J. , & Moore , J. ( 2014 ). The linguis-tic challenges of learning across academic disciplines . In C.A. Stone , E.R. Silliman , B.J. Ehren , & G.P. Wallace (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders ( 2 nd ed. , pp. 302 – 322 ). New York, NY : Guilford .

Fang , Z. , Sun , Y. , Chiu , C.C. , & Trutschel , B. ( in press ). Inservice teachers’ perception of a language- based approach to content area reading instruction . Australian Journal of Language and Literacy .

Love , K. ( 2009 ). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in sec-ondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines . Language and Education , 23 ( 6 ), 541 – 560 .

Moxley , K. ( 2012 ). Learning with text in the arts . In T. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 227 – 266 ). New York, NY : Guilford .

Romine , B.G. , McKenna , M.C. , & Robinson , R.D. ( 1996 ). Reading coursework requirements for middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 40 ( 3 ), 194 – 198 .

Shanahan , C. , Shanahan , T. , & Misichia , C. ( 2011 ). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry . Journal of Literacy Research , 3 , 393 – 419 .

Shulman , L. ( 1986 ). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching . Educational Researcher , 15 ( 2 ), 4 – 14 .

Valdés , G. , Bunch , G. , Snow , C. , & Lee , C. ( 2005 ). Enhancing the development of students’ language . In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 126 – 167 ). San Francisco, CA : Wiley .

Vansledright , B. ( 2012 ). Learning with texts in history: Protocols for reading and practical strategies . In T. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic dis-ciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 199 – 226 ). New York, NY : Guilford .

Weekes , T. ( 2014 ). From dot points to disciplinarity: Theory and practice of disciplinary literacies in business studies and mu-sic . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.