Vol.

1, Issue 1 September 2013

Disciplinary Literacy: A Study of the Literature

Summary
Disciplinary literacy is a growing area of interest as educationists see the need for students to not
only have generic literacy skills (the ability to read and write) but to also have the language skills
they need in order to fully understand and work with the different types of texts, whether spoken or
written, that are typical in the subject areas they study. The suggestion is that different disciplines
(or subject areas) have thinking and language practices that are specific to them and that students
are likely to be held back from a full understanding of the content of such disciplines to the extent
that they do not master the related language and thinking practices.

What constitutes disciplinary literacy varies from writer to writer. All see reading and writing as
essential components but some also emphasize such areas as appropriate thinking skills and related
oral skills. For example, for historians (and therefore, it is suggested, for students of history) a text
can be analysed in terms of who the writer was and how the writer’s historical position may have
affected the content. On the other hand, for a scientist, the writer of a text is largely irrelevant. What
is important is the logic of the content. Thus, it is suggested that the thinking skills demanded by the
two disciplines are different.

As this field is relatively new, the available literature generally focuses on the theoretical aspects and
there is very little reported experimental research that supports this approach to teaching in the
disciplines. There is a need to work with researchers, discipline experts, teaching practitioners and
even students to establish what the special language requirements of specific subject areas are and
how they are the same or different from non-specialist language. Once that work is done, it will be
easier to outline the specific needs of the disciplines.

Introduction
The focus of this Digest is disciplinary literacy. literacy, content area literacy and disciplinary
This term relates to students and the content literacy. In this review, we will touch on some
subjects they take such as Mathematics, the of these terms but will focus on defining and
Sciences, the Social Sciences and the Arts. evaluating the concept of disciplinary literacy.
There are a number of related concepts and
terminology to disciplinary literacy. For The interest in disciplinary literacy first grew
example, Moje (2008, p. 97) suggests that in the USA as a result of the perceived
the following terms are used interchangeably difficulty of raising or even maintaining the
depending on the writer – secondary school literacy levels of students in subject areas.
literacy, subject area literacy, subject-matter For example, Bennett (2011, p. 51) notes that
America is in ‘an adolescent civic literacy

ELIS Research Digest, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp 1-14 1

© 2013 ELIS. www.elis.moe.edu.sg
crisis’ where performance levels in Social Learning Research and Development Center
Studies subjects are extremely low and of the University of Pittsburgh. She points
students are bored with Social Studies. She out that their use of ‘literacy’ was unusual as
suggests that a way out of this crisis is it was not restricted to its usual meaning of
through a focus on disciplinary literacy. Altieri ‘reading and writing’ but also included
(2011, p. 5) points out that our view of literacy content knowledge, thinking, speaking, etc.
has changed. We now expect students to She offers the following definition:
deal with a much greater amount and variety
of texts as the development of information Disciplinary literacy involves the use of
technology makes more and more available. reading, reasoning, investigating,
They need to learn how to approach texts in speaking, and writing required to learn
the different disciplines. and form complex content knowledge
appropriate to a particular discipline
These concerns are not peculiar to the USA. (p. 16).
A. Wilson, Jesson, Rosedale, and Cockle
(2012, p. 1) point out the New Zealand Moje (2007, p. 13) reviews four different
Curriculum makes it the responsibility of approaches to disciplinary literacy that she
every subject-area teacher to meet the needs found in the literature.
of students in developing the literacy and
language skills required in their subject area. 1. Teaching cognitive literacy processes

It is worth noting that there are other This approach is built on the assumption that
approaches to literacy in school subjects ‘learning to read (and write)’ should develop
including approaches based on a systemic into ‘reading (and writing) to learn’.
functional linguistic (SFL) framework. However, according to Moje (2007, p. 14), the
Examples of the latter cognitive literacy
are Christie and We now expect students to deal with a strategies taught in this
Derewianka (2010), and much greater amount and variety of texts approach focus more on
Fang and Schleppegrell as the development of information further developing the
(2010). This is another technology makes more and more reading skills of the
major area of study to be available. They need to learn how to students (i.e. on the first
looked at in a future approach texts in the different disciplines. stage of ‘learning to
Digest and so has not read’), albeit in the
generally been included because of space context of content subjects. Despite this, she
limitations although Fang and Schleppegrell notes that research that has been carried out
(2010) is discussed here as their article also shows that these strategies appear to have
relates disciplinary literacy to an approach had some success in developing student
based on the SFL framework. ability to read content subject texts.

Disciplinary literacy in the 2. Teaching epistemological processes of the

disciplines
literature
What then is ‘disciplinary literacy’? This approach suggests that the knowledge
McConachie (2010, pp. 15-16) reports that the processes used in a particular subject or
term ‘disciplinary literacy’ was first coined in discipline along with the type of text
2002 by the Institute of Learning at the produced can be taught to students so they

2
can more readily access the material of that 4. Teaching linguistic and discursive
subject or discipline. Students’ learning of the navigation across cultural boundaries
thinking methods of the discipline is seen as
important. The approach has been most The fourth approach seeks to get students to
commonly used in History learning where learn that the different styles of
there has been some criticism of textbooks communication that they meet are cultural in
that present History as a fixed set of nature and are negotiated by the
indisputable facts when expert historians communities that use them. Thus, academic
interpret artefacts that are sometimes discourse of whatever type is not immutable
contradictory. Moje (2007, p. 22) then but can vary by situation and over time. The
reviews Science classes where the thinking approach starts with the students’ own
methods are quite different from those of knowledge of texts, text practices, and
History. She notes that, beyond looking at interests and then moves on to teaching
such aspects as specialist terms, temporal disciplinary text processes. The teaching
cues and subtexts, this approach lays more emphasizes the purposes, norms and
emphasis on modes of thinking than on the conventions for making knowledge in the
language of the disciplines. disciplines. The focus of the approach is on
showing the links between everyday
3. Teaching linguistic processes of the communication and subject specific
disciplines communication. Moje (2007, p. 32) notes that
this approach tends to focus on everyday
This approach involves teachers guiding language and has thus left the definition of
students through the process of academic language rather vague. Much of
deconstructing texts the work in this approach
(highlighting the has been done in the
Early strong reading skills do not
grammatical and lexical language arts and social
necessarily translate into an ability to deal
features of the texts), studies areas with much
with the special language requirements
jointly constructing new less done in the sciences.
met in subject classrooms and, as students
texts using the features
rise through the school, they need ever
found and, finally, Moje (2007, p. 34)
increasing specialized literacy skills.
getting students to suggests that it might be
independently construct possible to productively
their own texts. In this way, students are combine these four approaches to
helped to familiarize themselves with the disciplinary literacy so that prior and expert
texts in a particular subject area. knowledge, the linguistic and rhetorical styles
of disciplinary experts, the technical
Moje (2007, p. 26) suggests, however, that vocabulary of texts, and motivation and
the approach is currently missing out on an interest could all be considered together.
important opportunity by focusing only on
academic texts. She points out that, in their In a subsequent article, Moje (2008, p. 98)
free time, young people do read texts that advises that it would be best to set up
may have very similar language features to disciplinary literacy programmes rather than
those of academic texts and these texts get content teachers involved in teaching
could be used to bridge the gap between literacy practices and strategies, i.e. she
everyday language and school language. emphasizes the second of the four
approaches listed above.

3
Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) consider they call ‘Functional Language Analysis’. (This
disciplinary literacy to be ‘(l)iteracy skills fits in with the third category in Moje (2007)’s
specialized to History, Science, Mathematics, list above.) They suggest that students can
Literature, or other subject matter’ (p. 44). be helped to analyse selected short texts
They (p. 43) suggest that early strong reading according to the experiential, textual and
skills do not necessarily translate into an interpersonal meanings embedded in the
ability to deal with the special language text. They will then learn the preferred
requirements met in subject classrooms and, language functions used in that discipline and
as students rise through the school, they be better able to apply the same principles to
need ever increasing specialized literacy other texts. Their approach does not exclude
skills. They propose spoken text but the
three levels of literacy: Disciplinary literacy is an approach that examples they give are all
basic literacy, combines content with discipline- from written text.
intermediate literacy appropriate habits of thinking. The belief is
and disciplinary literacy that knowledge and thinking must go Altieri (2011, p. 6)
(Shanahan and together in order to develop the deep emphasizes a slightly
Shanahan, 2008, p. 44). conceptual knowledge needed to do well in different interpretation of
As the child moves up the various disciplines. literacy, one that is similar
the levels and their to that mentioned by
literacy skills become more and more McConachie (2010) cited earlier. In the same
specialized by subject area, these skills may way, she suggests that previously the
not always be transferable across subjects. concept of literacy focused only on reading
and writing but points out that in the 21st
Here are the definitions of each level that century:
they give:
Literacy is a complex, multifaceted
 Basic Literacy: Literacy skills such as concept that changes as society
decoding and knowledge of high- changes. Students must not only be
frequency words that underlie virtually all able to read and demonstrate
reading tasks. understanding but also be able to view
 Intermediate Literacy: Literacy skills and comprehend a wide range of texts
common to many tasks, including generic and make intertextual connections.
comprehension strategies, common word Students also must be able to share
meanings, and basic fluency. knowledge through written and oral
 Disciplinary Literacy: Literacy skills communication and through visually
specialized to History, Science, representing information (p. 6).
Mathematics, Literature, or other subject
matter. Thus, she emphasizes the need to develop
student oral skills as well as written skills.
The focus for Shanahan and Shanahan is very
Bennett (2011) defines disciplinary literacy as
much on reading. In fact, they do not
an approach that involves ‘the use of reading,
mention oral skills at all.
investigating, analysing, critiquing, writing,
Fang and Schleppegrell (2010) argue for an and reasoning required to learn and form
approach to disciplinary literacies based on complex knowledge’ (p. 52). She goes on to
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) which say that disciplinary literacy is an approach

4
that combines content with discipline- area.
appropriate habits of thinking. The belief is
that knowledge and thinking must go A. A. Wilson (2011, p. 435) feels that a generic
together in order to develop the deep approach to literacy does not take into
conceptual knowledge needed to do well in sufficient account the discipline-specific
the various disciplines. features of texts. In her article on content
area literacy, she seems to use that term in a
Buehl (2011, p. 15) offers an adaption of the sense that is very similar to that for which
model from Shanahan and Shanahan (2008). others use disciplinary literacy, emphasizing
The third level, the disciplinary level, is now as she does the need to focus on discipline-
broken up into a set of different arrows thus specific characteristics. She (p. 441) highlights
emphasizing that the skills at this level are that these discipline-specific characteristics
more specific to each subject discipline. The are not immutable but may change in
length of an arrow indicates the competence response to changed societal needs. She thus
of an individual in that particular subject argues that it is important that these
(discipline) area. Thus, for example, a reader characteristics are not taught as rules.
could be fairly comfortable with Literary Students should learn the purposes and uses
Fiction but less so with History and be of the different types of text and how these
weakest in Maths, and the Biological and may vary across the disciplines. The approach
Physical Sciences. she suggests would include learning the use
of multimodal representations and seeing
Dehm Bamford (2011) considers disciplinary how different modes for expressing meaning
literacy to be ‘the (texts, graphs, etc.) may
practice of teaching be good for certain
She draws a contrast between content
students how to use purposes but not for
area literacy and disciplinary literacy by
reading, writing, and others.
pointing out that the former focuses on
other literacies, in order
teaching generic literacy skills that can be
to learn and form Colwell (2012, p. 2) states
used across the disciplines or subject areas
complex content that behind the concept
while the latter sees each discipline as a
knowledge’ (p. 1). She of disciplinary literacy is
discourse community with its own
draws a contrast the assumption that,
specialized language and approaches.
between content area within any discipline,
literacy and disciplinary there are specific beliefs
literacy by pointing out that the former and processes associated with the reading
focuses on teaching generic literacy skills and understanding of texts in that discipline.
that can be used across the disciplines or By teaching students those beliefs and
subject areas while the latter sees each processes, we help students build up
discipline as a discourse community with its competence in the discipline.
own specialized language and approaches (p.
8). These must be navigated by any learner In her paper on adolescent literacy, Goldman
and thus literacy forms an important part of (2012, p. 90) suggests that 21st-century
any study of the subjects in question and is literacy makes extra demands on readers in
not an add-on. It thus involves, she suggests four ways. First, readers have to go beyond
(p. 13), the reading, reasoning, investigating, what the text says; they must also consider
speaking and writing skills needed to learn its meaning by synthesizing and evaluating
the knowledge and concepts of the subject the content. Second, they must be able to

5
apply those skills differently depending on Fang and Coatoam (2013, pp. 627-628)
the subject. Third, advances in technology distinguish between disciplinary literacy and
mean that there are vast amounts of content area literacy. For them, the
information which readers must evaluate and supporters of content area literacy believe
select from. Fourth, readers must learn to that the reading/‌writing requirements are
connect what they learn in one context to largely the same across subjects and thus
topics in other areas. In summary, readers expect students to use fairly generic skills
must select, interpret and synthesize what and strategies in learning subject content. As
they learn from reading. She says that opposed to that, disciplinary literacy focuses
content teachers have a dual responsibility to on developing a student’s ability to utilize the
teach disciplinary content and disciplinary skills used by content experts and these vary
literacy (p. 93). from subject to subject. They go on to
suggest that disciplinary literacy is grounded
In their paper, Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) in the belief that each subject has its own
contrast content area literacy with ways of presenting content and that these
disciplinary literacy, two different constructs are best learnt as part of the subject.
which they felt had been confused in the Importantly, they believe that ‘being literate
literature. They believe that content area in a discipline means understanding of both
literacy focuses on teaching generic reading disciplinary content and disciplinary habits of
skills that can be used across all subject areas mind (i.e. ways of reading, writing, viewing,
by students. Such speaking, thinking,
coaching tends to help Preparing students for life beyond school reasoning and critiquing)’
only weak students. involves preparing them to think and (p. 628). Thus, their view
However, disciplinary communicate effectively in every area of of disciplinary literacy
literacy focuses on the curriculum. covers a broad range of
discovering the reading skills, including not just
approaches used by subject experts and then reading and writing but also speaking and
teaching these to students. The advantage of thinking among others.
this approach, they feel, is that it is likely to
help student at all ability levels and is more Roberts (2013, p. 20) argues for an approach
acceptable to content teachers as it relates similar to that of Buehl (2011), i.e. that at the
more directly to their subjects. disciplinary literacy level there is a multiplicity
of specialist literacies. His own specialization
Billman and Pearson (2013) suggest is History and he argues that History as a
disciplinary literacy is about ‘how to do discipline requires an understanding of the
reading, writing, talking, and thinking in past, a critical view, and the ability to
school subjects’ (p. 25). They argue strongly communicate effectively areas of
that the practice of disciplinary literacy understanding and knowledge not required
should start as soon as students enter school in other subjects.
(or, preferably, before) as they arrive at
school already using language to learn and One common feature to all the explanations
talk about the world (p. 26). They argue of disciplinary literacy discussed above is the
against setting literacy as a goal. Instead, it is belief that different disciplines or subjects
a set of tools to be used in the learning demand different literacy skills and students
process (p. 27). need to learn these skills in order to master
the respective disciplines. However, there are

6
differences in which particular skills are differentiated at secondary and
emphasized. As noted by McConachie (2010, postsecondary levels (p. 3). Fang and
p. 16), the word ‘literacy’ has traditionally Coatoam (2013, p. 628) also discuss this issue
connoted ‘reading and writing’ and all the and come to the conclusion that, while
explanations include some reference to disciplinary literacy is certainly more clearly
reading and writing. Shanahan and Shanahan differentiated at secondary and tertiary levels
(2008) and Buehl (2011) focus on these two of education, instruction in disciplinary
areas. Bennett (2011), Colwell (2012), literacy can start as early as in upper primary.
Goldman (2012) and Roberts (2013) add In fact, Juel, Hebard, Park Haubner, and
thinking like the specialists to the mix. In tune Moran (2010) propose activities for use with
with what McConachie (2010, p. 16) describes children as young as eight years, using
as the original intent of the creators of the different ‘disciplinary lenses’ to question
term, Altieri (2011), Dehm Bamford (2011), texts, that is asking the questions and making
Billman and Pearson (2013), and Fang and responses appropriate to different disciplines
Coatoam (2013) all include speaking as well. such as science and history.
Finally, Moje (2008, p. 99) even suggests that
a student who has learnt well in the discipline Teaching disciplinary literacy
may need to communicate through oral
language, visual images, music and artistic A number of writers have reported that
representations and not just through reading introducing the notion of literacy skills into
and writing. the subject area classrooms has not been
easy. Terms such as ‘content area literacy’
One other area that A. A. Wilson (2011, p. 441) and ‘disciplinary literacy’ have been
adds to this mix is the suggestion that problematic with teachers in the schools.
students should learn Colwell (2012) found that
that the disciplinary Different disciplines or subjects demand the subject teacher she
practices have been different literacy skills and students need worked with was not
developed by the experts to learn these skills in order to master the happy with a focus on
to serve purposes that respective disciplines. ‘literacy’ and only
may change over time cooperated with the
and circumstances. These are not rules that research when she felt that the approach
cannot be changed given the appropriate being suggested was the same as ‘critical
circumstances. thinking’. Colwell (2012, p. 27) goes on to
suggest that the pre-service training of
The models from Shanahan and Shanahan secondary school teachers could actually be
(2008) and Buehl (2011) discussed above an impediment to their willingness to take up
suggest that at the primary school level disciplinary literacy. She feels that the focus
students and teachers need to focus on the for such teachers on developing content
basic or intermediate levels of literacy in all knowledge might lead them to believe that
areas of study and that it is at the secondary literacy was not an important consideration
(or tertiary) level that communication in the content class. Moreover, she quotes
becomes more differentiated between evidence that some pre-service teachers had
subjects (or disciplines). This is in part chosen to teach content subjects in order to
confirmed by Moje (2007), who, in explaining avoid having to deal with students’ reading
the focus of her article, suggests that and writing skills. She thus believes it
disciplinary literacy becomes more clearly important to prepare pre-service teachers to

7
be ready to focus on areas of literacy. students’ learning. She goes on to suggest
that the classroom should become an
McConachie and Petrosky (2010a), Moje apprenticeship into the discipline (p. 22), i.e.
(2008) and Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) teachers must demonstrate the accepted
have all highlighted the difficulty of getting approaches to the subject area and then get
teachers of subject areas other than students to use these approaches while the
language to take on board the idea that they teacher scaffolds their learning. In order for
may be responsible for the communication this to happen, the students must solve given
and literacy skills of students in their subject problems and the teacher’s job then
areas. Many feel that this is the sole purview becomes the presentation of problems that
of the language teachers. Even those content are sufficiently challenging but not beyond
teachers who believe in the importance of the capabilities of the students. To maximize
helping students read and write in their student use of the appropriate language and
discipline may feel ill-equipped to help them strategies, the students can be organized
(A. A. Wilson, 2011, p. 435). into groups so that their processing can be
monitored by the teacher. The questions the
Goldman (2012, p. 94) suggests that one students are asked can be on the subject
reason for the poor teaching of ‘reading-to- content or on the ways of working (or habits
learn’ subject matter is that it involves a lot of of mind) related to the subject. Nagy and
factors that can vary Townsend (2012, p. 96)
independently (different Teachers need to engage their students point out that the
strategies, different through classroom discussions that show learning in subject areas
texts, different goals, them the literacy and thinking skills is not simply about
ensuring interaction with necessary for ‘doing’ the subject they are getting students to learn
peers, etc.). Working teaching. lists of vocabulary. To
with all these factors really learn the subject
together can be a difficult task. These and the related vocabulary and concepts,
problems are very much an issue in students need to have constant and repeated
approaches to disciplinary literacy. Moje exposure to their use.
(2008, p. 104) also talks of the complex
‘repair work’ that teachers may be involved in McConachie (2010, pp. 30-31) goes on to
in helping students learn the subject matter. elaborate five interdependent principles for
She also wonders how well the teachers implementing disciplinary literacy:
themselves are prepared in the thinking of
the disciplines they are trying to teach. Principle 1: Knowledge and thinking must go
hand in hand. The suggestion is that learning
According to McConachie (2010, p. 21), for knowledge without understanding is short-
teachers to teach and guide the students term. Students soon forget the
towards disciplinary literacy, they themselves decontextualized facts they have learnt once
must be familiar with the structure and the exams are over. Similarly, thinking
organization of knowledge common to the without the requisite knowledge is futile.
subject they are teaching. They need, she Thus students need to learn the two
says, to have the content knowledge and the together.
habits of thinking associated with the subject
(discipline) as well as the teaching techniques Principle 2: Learning is apprenticeship. The
and practices needed to support the activities in the classroom apprentice

8
students into the disciplines (subject areas) 1. modelling and observation (where the
they are learning. For the apprenticeship to activity is modelled and the students ask
succeed, the students must carry out questions and comment);
activities related to the discipline and come 2. active practice (where students take over
to understand the habits of thinking of the the activity in a controlled environment);
discipline that direct the reading, talking and
writing they do. They need to be able to 3. scaffolding (where learners can be helped
articulate what activities help to to complete a task by their teachers or
communicate the disciplinary ideas and why. more competent peers but where the
help is reduced over time);
Principle 3: Teachers as mentors of 4. coaching (where the teacher or more
apprentices. Teachers provide an array of competent peers observe and challenge
approaches that help initiate students into the students at work); and
the thinking and approaches of the discipline,
scaffolding their development appropriately. 5. guided reflection (where students reflect
on what they have done, evaluating and
Principle 4: Classroom culture socialises considering ways for improvement).
intelligence. This principle emphasizes that McConachie and Petrosky (2010b) give a
the classroom culture table in Appendix A of
should encourage
Students must show they have learnt the their book (pp. 197-214)
students to believe that
core ideas and concepts as well as the that gives a framework
they have something to
‘habits of thinking’ of the subject area or showing how these
contribute to the
discipline in order to be said to be principles would work in
learning process and that
disciplinary literate. practice for students and
they can ask questions, teachers in four core
discuss and evaluate the subject areas – History/Social Studies,
content they are learning so that they Mathematics, Science and English Language
become more competent in the discipline. Arts.
Principle 5: Instruction and assessment drive Murnane, Sawhill, and Snow (2012, pp. 9-10)
each other. Different forms of formal and
also offer some suggestions for post-primary
informal assessment procedures are used to teachers although their ideas are exclusively
feed into the apprenticeship so that students related to reading. The suggestions include
can see how they are developing in the developing a reason for reading, showing
discipline. The assessment matches the how to read actively, teaching reading
instruction, replicating many of the activities strategies, studying different subject-related
that are appropriate to the discipline. The genres and pre-teaching important
assessment results feed into the instruction vocabulary.
for both teacher and students.

McConachie and Apodaca (2010, pp. 190-191) Assessing disciplinary literacy

give a list of features of a student
Inevitably, once disciplinary literacy is
apprenticeship (which they suggest can also
defined, the question becomes how we
be used in training ‘apprentice’ teachers in
recognize when a student has developed
disciplinary literacy approaches). The five
such literacy. McConachie (2010, p. 21)
features are:
suggests that students must show they have

9
learnt the core ideas and concepts as well as that little has been done to turn the theory of
the ‘habits of thinking’ of the subject area or disciplinary literacy into workable classroom
discipline in order to be said to be disciplinary practice that accomplishes the intended
literate. Murnane et al. (2012, p. 3) note that goals while appealing to both teachers and
advanced literacy is not just a matter of students. Shanahan and Shanahan (2012, p.
decoding a text. It involves using that skill to 14) point out that the empirical roots of
access knowledge, to evaluate disciplinary literacy is not focused on
argumentation, to synthesize and to learn teaching specifically and that there has been
new topics. little research on the effectiveness of
disciplinary literacy in the classroom. The
Fang and Coatoam (2013, p. 630) believe results of the research that has been done
students’ disciplinary literacy can be assessed have been mixed. Fang and Coatoam (2013,
by giving authentic tasks p. 629) also suggest that
that allow them to so far the work in the
Approaches that incorporate disciplinary
demonstrate control area has been largely
literacy are relatively new and much that
over the reading, writing, theoretical with a focus
has been written has been theoretical
thinking, reasoning and rather than based on experimental studies. either on making a case
enquiring skills that are for the approach or on
required by the particular highlighting the language differences
subject area. They suggest this would call for between subject areas. They claim that
subject teachers and literacy teachers empirical studies have been limited in
working together to devise such tasks along number with very few meeting the evidence
with the scoring criteria particular to those standards of the What Works Clearing House.
tasks and subject areas.
A. Wilson et al. (2012) carried out a study to
What the evidence tells us see how far the disciplinary literacy practices
recommended in the New Zealand
Unfortunately, approaches that incorporate Curriculum appeared in actual classrooms.
disciplinary literacy are relatively new and They chose to observe twelve classes in five
much that has been written has been of the best performing schools given by
theoretical rather than based on teachers chosen by their schools on the basis
experimental studies. Moje (2007, p. 35) that they were the top performers. The
notes that much of the writing on disciplinary researchers chose this approach because of
literacy is theoretical and that very few the belief that they were more likely to see
classroom trials have demonstrated student the target practices in this type of class. They
learning gains in any standard way, with a found there was little evidence of disciplinary
number of studies failing to provide sufficient literacy practices even in these classes. They
details of the actual research for the research suggested that one possible interpretation
to be replicated. This is confirmed by was that disciplinary literacy was not related
Goldman (2012, p. 90) who notes that little to student ability in a subject. However, they
has been done experimentally for the felt it was also quite possible that these
emerging field of disciplinary literacy. Most of effective teachers, recognizing the difficulty
the work is descriptive rather than students had with disciplinary texts, were
experimental. However, she emphasizes that, reinterpreting the texts for the students
despite this, the work that has been done is thus helping them learn the content and
instructive. Colwell (2012, p. 5) similarly claims perform reasonably well. They felt, however,

10
that this was likely to leave the students achieving them.
without the thinking and language skills
appropriate to the subjects, thus These principles underscore the need for
disadvantaging the students in the longer students to communicate. If they do not talk
term. or write, their misunderstandings will not
come to light and they will not have the
One source of research opportunity to be
evidence that may well Learning must start from what the learners corrected. A simple
be seen as support for know (or think they know) so it must be example given is the
the principles of learner-centred. It must be based on the notion that the Earth is
disciplinary literacy as knowledge that has to be mastered. That round. According to the
defined by writers such is, it must be knowledge-centred. The writers, many students
as McConachie (2010) learning must also be assessed so that the have difficulty imagining
could come from next steps in learning can be decided on. In the Earth as a sphere as it
research into the brain. other words, it must be assessment- would mean that objects
Bransford, Brown, and centred. Finally, it must be community- at the ‘bottom’ of the
Cocking (2000), and based as the learners learn from each other sphere would fall off.
Donovan and Bransford and from the environment they live in. The They thus tend to
(2005, pp. 1-2) report that teacher is not the only source of learning. redefine the teacher’s
three principles have use of ‘round’ as ‘like a
now been well established in brain research: pancake’. If students are not helped to
correct this false image of the Earth, their
1. Students come to the classroom with understanding of and ability to incorporate
preconceptions about how the world certain facts will be seriously impeded. When
works. If their initial understanding is not helped to develop the appropriate concepts,
engaged, they may fail to grasp the new students are better able to remember facts
concepts and information, or they may that fit in with the concepts. Moreover, by
learn them for purposes of a test but getting students to talk about and monitor
revert to their preconceptions outside the their own learning, teachers help students
classroom. take over their own learning.

Bransford et al. (2000, p. 134) and Donovan

2. To develop competence in an area of
and Bransford (2005, p. 13) expand the three
inquiry, students must:
principles gleaned in brain studies into a four-
i. have a deep foundation of factual
item framework which, they believe, is
knowledge,
consonant with the three principles.
ii. understand facts and ideas in the
According to this framework, learning must
context of a conceptual framework,
start from what the learners know (or think
and
they know) so it must be learner-centred. It
iii. organize knowledge in ways that
must be based on the knowledge that has to
facilitate retrieval and application.
be mastered. That is, it must be knowledge-
centred. The learning must also be assessed
3. A ‘metacognitive’ approach to instruction so that the next steps in learning can be
can help students learn to take control of decided on. In other words, it must be
their own learning by defining learning assessment-centred. Finally, it must be
goals and monitoring their progress in community-based as the learners learn from

11
each other and from the environment they There are a large number of potential subject
live in. The teacher is not the only source of areas that could be studied but the writers
learning. reviewed here have generally worked with a
few groupings. The most common number of
Moving Forward groupings seems to be four with McConachie
and Petrosky (2010b), Shanahan and
Moje (2007) suggests that much more Shanahan (2008), A. A. Wilson (2011) and
detailed research needs to be done to others generally using the groups History/‌
demonstrate the benefits of disciplinary Social Studies, Science, Mathematics, and
literacy if it is to gain traction. Moreover, she Literature/Language
suggests, a lot more Arts.
work needs to be done
Student teachers who have taken courses As mentioned earlier,
to clarify what language
in content literacy during their pre-service Goldman (2012, p. 106)
is used to what
training may not be implementing the skills suggests that one of the
audiences and why. This
learned when they enter their schools. This difficulties in introducing
will involve working with
could be because of time constraints in the disciplinary literacy is
experts in the disciplines,
syllabus, a lack of understanding of the that the content teachers
with teachers in the
importance of such literacy by the teachers themselves have not
school subjects, with
and a simple resistance to seeing literacy as been exposed to ‘doing
teacher educators and
part of the content of their subject area. History’, ‘doing Maths’,
even with the school
learners themselves (p. etc. As they do not have
36). At the same time, she advises that a the experience themselves, they have
parallel study into the everyday language of difficulty passing on the necessary skills to
the young people who form the target group their students. They need to engage their
should be undertaken. This would allow for students through classroom discussions that
an understanding of the differences and show them the literacy and thinking skills
similarities not only in the language but the necessary for ‘doing’ the subject they are
cultural reasons for those, an understanding teaching. Reading and writing, as well as
that would inform classroom practice. speaking, can then be seen as tools in
learning the subject. She sees preparing
In a similar vein, Shanahan and Shanahan teachers for this as a long-term project
(2008, p. 57) note that their work has shown involving not only demonstrations of how it
the benefits of getting disciplinary experts, can be done but also the formation of
literacy experts, high school teachers, and learning communities among the teachers.
teacher educators working together to work
on the training needs of pre-service Dehm Bamford (2011, p. 3) mentions the
secondary teachers. Instead of trying to belief that student teachers who have taken
persuade teachers of content subjects to courses in content literacy during their pre-
adopt in their subjects approaches to reading service training may not be implementing the
developed by reading experts, they worked skills learned when they enter their schools.
together with the experts from a variety of This could be because of time constraints in
areas such as discipline experts and this the syllabus, a lack of understanding of the
helped focus attention on the literacy skills importance of such literacy by the teachers
relevant to the particular subject areas. and a simple resistance to seeing literacy as
part of the content of their subject area (p.

12
43). Until teachers accept that preparing effectively in every area of the curriculum,
students for life beyond school involves the problem is likely to continue.
preparing them to think and communicate

References
Altieri, J. L. (2011). Content counts!: Developing Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 627-632.
disciplinary literacy skills, K-6. Newark, DE: Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary
International Reading Association. literacies across content areas: Supporting
Bennett, S. M. (2011). Moving beyond a single secondary reading through functional
discipline: Disciplinary literacy in a social language analysis. Journal of Adolescent &
studies classroom. Journal of Content Area Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587-597.
Reading, 9(1), 51-66. Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent Literacy: Learning
Billman, A., & Pearson, P. D. (2013). Literacy in the and understanding content. The Future of
disciplines. Literacy Learning: The Middle Children, 22(2), 89-116.
Years, 21(1), 25-33. Juel, C., Hebard, H., Park Haubner, J., & Moran, M.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2010). Reading through a disciplinary lens.
(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, Educational Leadership, 67, 13-17.
experience and school (Expanded Edition). McConachie, S. M. (2010). Disciplinary literacy: A
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. principle-based framework. In S. M.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in the academic McConachie & A. R. Petrosky (Eds.), Content
disciplines. Newark, DE: International Reading matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to
Association. improving student learning (pp. 15-31). San
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2010). School discourse. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
London: Continuum. McConachie, S. M., & Apodaca, R. E. (2010).
Colwell, J. R. (2012). A formative experiment to Embedding disciplinary literacy: Leadership
promote disciplinary literacy in middle-school and professional learning. In S. M.
and pre-service teacher education through McConachie & A. R. Petrosky (Eds.), Content
blogging. (Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to
University). Retrieved from improving student learning (pp. 163-196). San
http://search.proquest.com/docview/10395551 Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32?accountid=132909 ProQuest Dissertations McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (2010a). Engaging
& Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social content teachers in literacy development. In
Sciences Collection database. S. M. McConachie & A. R. Petrosky (Eds.),
Dehm Bamford, B. J. (2011). Instructional coaching and Content matters: A disciplinary literacy
disciplinary literacy: An examination of the approach to improving student learning (pp. 1-
engagement of secondary content-area 13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
teachers in professional development. McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (Eds.). (2010b).
(Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State Content matters: A disciplinary literacy
University). Retrieved from approach to improving student learning. San
http://search.proquest.com/docview/8795644 Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42?accountid=132909 ProQuest Dissertations Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-
& Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social matter instruction: A review of the literature
Sciences Collection database. on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How Research in Education, 31(1), 1-44.
students learn: History, mathematics, and Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in
science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
National Academies Press. call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
What you want to know about it. Journal of Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy

13
 challenges for the twenty-first century: disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?
Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
22(2), 3-17. Wilson, A., Jesson, R., Rosedale, N., & Cockle, V. (2012).
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Literacy and language pedagogy within
Learning academic vocabulary as language subject areas in years 7-11. Retrieved from the
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), New Zealand Ministry of Education, Education
91-108. Counts website: http://www.
Roberts, P. (2013). Re-visiting historical literacy: educationcounts. govt. nz/publications/series
Towards a disciplinary pedagogy. Literacy /Secondary_Literacy/Literacy_and_Language_
Learning: The Middle Years, 21(1), 15-24. Pedagogy
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching Wilson, A. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for
disciplinary literacy to adolescents: conceptualizing content area literacies.
Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6),
Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59. 435-444.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is

14