Week 6: Disciplinary Literacy - Mathematics

Summary

Video:

Students are able to understand the texts in one class, but not another, which is why focusing on disciplinary literacy is so important. Teachers and students have to navigate all the time, so navigating types of texts and navigating among disciplines is crucial to students' functioning and success. There is interaction among disciplines, between students and teachers, between school knowledge and out-of-school knowledge, etc., so navigation is a literacy skill itself. I is important to note that navigating is not just for advanced students; in fact, it creates greater access to educational opportunities for all students, and it may be particularly beneficial to disenfranchised students. Navigating disciplines supports both students' understanding of interdisciplinary thinking and of concepts in each field. Navigating also supports metacognitive awareness, according to the video. This skill relates to literacy because authentic literacy is an active aspect of learning, which navigating supports. Navigating helps students have more agency in their textual exploration of concepts within a discipline. Teachers must teach literacy skills and strategies and field-specific literacy practices before students can understand navigating. Teachers can teach navigating by focusing on these strategies: expose all students to texts, engage students in disciplinary language, elicit domain-specific knowledge and practices, examine specific aspects of the disciplinary language, and evaluate why/when/how those texts and skills are important. One way to scaffold struggling readers while using these strategies is to give those readers smaller texts with similar tasks like questioning, summarizing, and synthesizing. Another important note is that the disciplines are social in terms of making and communicating claims, as well as evaluating those that others have made. Teachers should focus on these areas within an interactive setting, which also helps scaffold students' understanding. This interactive nature should include reading with students, rather than requiring them to think about the text independently and without models.

H & S-T:

One characteristic of mathematical language is that it incorporates symbolic and visual language into the oral and written language to which students are accustomed in other disciplines. Students are also required to have “the ability to identify the technical meanings of everyday terms,” in addition to the technical vocabulary of mathematics (192). One principle for helping students tackle these difficulties is to have them explore new concepts while using their prior knowledge as a reference point. With that principle, teachers should limit their “initial concern for the precision of [students] verbal expression,” so teachers can later model how to use mathematical language to express those concepts, which is the second principle suggested by the chapter (197). The third principle is to give students the opportunity to practice new mathematical vocabulary and linguistic patterns “in conjunction with mathematics language that was already familiar to them” (197-198). Another important principle is to provide students feedback on their verbal and written use of mathematical language in order to hone their precision of language use. The final principle discussed in the chapter asks students to “assume expert identities” and write for an external audience (203).

J & S:

One important thing to remember about literacy support in mathematics is that the ultimate goal is to help students understand mathematics, not just to read well in general. Literacy is important for achieving this goal, but it is also important to note that "the difficulty in reading many mathematics-related texts may not be facility with print, but facility with the underlying mathematical ideas" (175). Some educators do argue, however, that while literacy for literacy's sake is not valuable, increasing text exposure can result in "an increase of their literacy development" and "an increase in their content knowledge," which creates a cyclical relationship between literacy and content knowledge (176). While traditional texts in math classes may have their place, authentic mathematical activities require that "the textbook becomes a secondary source... for mathematical knowledge and understanding" (179). Because of this complicated relationship between traditional texts and mathematical learning, this chapter redefines "text" to "include all objects created or interpreted for the purpose of constructing, sharing, and negotiating meaning"--a perspective that frames the mathematical classroom as a very text-based environment (182). The chapter continued with an approach to designing mathematics instruction with a literacy-based focus. The first suggested step is to "identify the texts that are to be read and written," with the broadened definition of "text" discussed above" (185). Then teachers should identify "the specific ways that texts are to be read and written," since the texts are so varied and multimodal (185). Finally, teachers should plan instruction to make "explicit the texts and literacies" to be used to support students' learning of mathematical processes (186). The chapter concludes with examples of exemplary mathematics instruction and tips for creating collaborations between teachers and literacy coaches, such as learning from the expertise of the teacher and focusing on a shared purpose.

Response

Video:

I find it fascinating that students could understand one subject's texts well while struggling in another area, but I suppose it really does reflect the different literacy skills that each field requires. It does also reflect my experiences in school; I understood English texts the best, and history was also fairly accessible to me, but I often struggled when reading science and mathematics texts.

Navigating in general is a life skill, and I think teaching it in relation to navigating the disciplines might be the key to helping students who struggle. They need to learn explicitly how to navigate the differences among texts, disciplines, and even those among different environments, jobs, etc. Adaptability and flexibility that comes from navigating skills is an important life skill that is applicable in any situation, literary or not.

I think it is definitely important to expose students to all types of texts at all ages, especially if we are not expecting expertise early on. We think of elementary as the stage of "learning to read" and secondary as the stage of "reading to learn," but I think early exposure to a wide variety of disciplinary texts might help bridge that gap more easily as students transition into secondary school.

I really like the section on "talking to the text." I love that it helps students think about the context of the text, as well as the purpose for reading the texts. It's also focusing on how to relate the texts to each other, as well as evaluating the text. I feel like the way this is broken down, it tackles almost the entirety of Bloom's Taxonomy, and I think that approaching close reading that way helps scaffold deep thinking even for students who struggle with reading.

H & S-T:

The second principle discussed in this chapter “involves being able to explain/define [the concept] using mathematics language” (196). I had a great math teacher in high school, but I really wish that he had not only modeled the language for us, but also asked us to use it in our speech and writing. That was something I always struggled with, even though I eventually picked up on the language. I was very good at math, so I think it would definitely help students who struggle with math because of linguistic issues.

I really like the last principle in this chapter. It’s something you would definitely do after having the students work thoroughly with a concept and the related language, and I’ve done something similar that really helped me see how well students understood the language and ideas. I like the idea of doing that as a sort of late-in-the-game formative assessment.

J & S:

I think this chapter makes a good point about the purpose of disciplinary literacy instruction. I think it's very easy to forget that while general literacy strategies are important, the ultimate goal should be "to develop disciplinary expertise" (174). The chapter brought up instances in which teachers incorporate texts into the classroom just for the sake of incorporating "texts," and it detracted from students' understanding of mathematics. I think that's why it's so important to think about what "literacy" and "text" really mean within each discipline.

I reached a point in this chapter where the author was emphasizing the importance of understanding mathematical ideas when reading mathematical texts. I wondered whether having a strong literacy focus in math classes is actually that important, if the lack of text comprehension often results from not understanding the concepts. However, as I kept reading, I do think it is important to support students' literacy with the symbolic aspects of math texts, as well as the expanded definition of "texts" that the chapter provides. Students are regularly creating and interpreting artifacts and communication, and that is something that might require teacher support.

Questions

• If you’re seeing some trends among your students in terms of misuse of technical vocabulary, what’s an activity you could do with them to hone their language use after you’ve given them feedback?
• If you have students produce writing from an “expert identity,” as discussed in H & S-T chapter 11, how would you address a student who is still struggling with concepts and terms even after having worked with them for quite some time? 
• If there is a mathematics class in which the structure of the class usually follows a framework of lecture followed by individual practice (as many math classes do), would you say that there are any texts being read and written in that class, with the broadened sense of the word "text" as discussed in chapter 7? It's just something I'm curious about.
• What's your favorite tool to teach disciplinary language that the video discusses?

Week 5: Disciplinary Literacy - ELA

Summary

Jetton & Shanahan:  This chapter discusses the dual nature of the ELA classroom--teaching literacy skills and teaching the content area skills of English studies. There are four ideologies about this duality that the chapter discusses. The functional literacy ideology focuses on "skills to be a productive citizen" (127). The cultural literacy ideology, on the other hand, focuses on "'core knowledge' about the people, events, and concepts that form the basis of Western literature and thinking" (127). There is also the progressive literacy ideology,  which approaches the process of "earning to read and write based on themes and topics of interest to students" (127). This chapter posits that all three of those ideologies are incomplete and makes literacy "stagnant", so there is a need for critical literacy, in which students try to "understand both how, and more importantly why, texts are constructed (and can be constructed) in particular ways)" (128). Based on a critical literacy approach, the chapter outlines three literacy frameworks. The first focuses on the four dimensions of literacy (cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural, and developmental) and how "literacy events" fall within each of these dimensions (130). The second literacy framework focuses on new literacies, with a particular focus on the "different 'mindsets' about the world that require an evolution in thinking, about the technologies we use to communicate as well as about the social practices that surround those technologies" (132). The third literacy framework focuses on "designs" that "offer us ways to talk about the situational and complex nature of literacy" (133). The chapter continues by outlining some of the challenges that ELA teachers face, such as the challenge of selecting canonical vs. YA texts, or the challenge of how to "approach writing as a subject" (137). The chapter concludes by describing a unit of study and providing recommendations for instruction, such as including more YAL and inviting students to "compose in different genres, for different audiences, with different media" (150).

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas, Chapter 10: One of the issues with reading and writing across multiple texts, according to this chapter, is the issue of text complexity. Unfortunately, while the "difficulty level of the texts students read is an issue" within this context, "the measurement of difficulty is complex" as well (176). The section on text complexity continues to offer instructional suggestions that depend on the cause of the text complexity issue; these recommendations include pre-teaching "potentially troublesome vocabulary," using anchor texts to build background knowledge, and teaching students about genres and text structure (177). Another issue to consider is how many texts to use. The chapter recommends starting with an anchor text, and then gradually add more texts while talking about each one in comparison to the previous texts. After determining text complexity and the number of texts, teachers must then decide what kind of instruction to implement, which depends on the content area. For history, the purpose for reading will usually be "to determine a credible interpretation of an event," which can be done by approaching instruction through the exploration of "the strategies that historian use when they read: sourcing, contextualization, and corroboration" (179). For science, students will likely read and compare various types of texts: procedure, procedural recount, science report, and science explanation. To help students tackle and synthesize these texts, this chapter recommends that "teachers vary these four elements on any given topic: (1) the genre, (2) the purpose, (3) the audience, and (4) the method of text production" (183). Students in a science class, much like in a history class, can do a contextual analysis to "evaluate the credibility of the information" or interpretation (184). As for mathematics, the focus is on the fact that "precision truly matters," rather than the source or context of the text (185). Instead of focusing on the credibility of the information, teachers should "help students come up with ways to categorize texts problems" (185). To do so, this chapter recommends that students "write multiple texts about the same process" (185).

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas - Chapter 12: This chapter began by exploring various types of knowledge that can be necessary for comprehending a seemingly straightforward text. The first, semantic knowledge, includes both the technical words and the everyday terms (perhaps used in new contexts). Texts may also require mathematical knowledge, which is "not merely definitional" but instead requires some functional mathematical knowledge (211). Historical knowledge may also be required, such as "knowledge of past events, data, people, and social and political issues and conflicts" (212). In addition to historical knowledge, a text might require geographic knowledge and skills, such as those required "to find the countries [on a chart or map] and attempt to identify demographic characteristics of the populations of those countries" (214). The final two types of knowledge the chapter discusses are broadly applicable regardless of the type of text that students read. Discursive knowledge requires students to know "that the construction of texts is tied to the domain in which they are written and to the purposes for which they were originally written" (214). The other final type, pragmatic knowledge and skill, is "the recognition that texts can be questioned" (217). The chapter continues by discussing other issues related to reading challenging texts in high school. One of the biggest issues for adolescents is motivation. This chapter suggests harnessing the "deeply entrenched views and opinions, as well as self-interested perspectives" that teenagers are prone to, as well as "the rich vocabulary and experience students possess" (220, 221). Teachers should also have students approach challenging texts by beginning "with problems to be solved or questions to be addressed," followed by setting a purpose for reading related to that problem or question (223). Additionally, teachers must take into account the "knowledge demanded by a given text..., the knowledge their students bring to the reading..., [and] what they want the students to learn from the text," which seems to follow the purposes of a KWL exercise (224). Once the reading process begins, teachers should scaffold their students' close reading by talking about texts and "nuances in meaning," making texts visible, and working through charts and tables explicitly with students (224). Teachers should also model and practice with students how to answer "why" questions. In addition to that, teachers should support students' visualization of texts to "support print reading and writing (and vice versa)" (226). Finally, teachers should ask students to summarize and synthesize within and across texts, but they must also "teach students how to summarize and synthesize," since those skills are not intuitive for all students (227).

Response

Jetton and Shanahan: The topic of this chapter hit home for me. Because I've been in the reading education program for the entirety of my teaching career, I am always struggling with the balance between teaching students literacy skills and teaching them the content of the ELA field. This chapter discussed a teacher who had not thought critically about "her own assumptions nor... what it means to be literate" (126). I have tried to structure my classes in such a way that I am inclusive about multiple forms of literacy and so that I am critical of my own biases about literacy education. However, I want to make sure this also comes across to my students, so I'd like to try to be more inclusive of nontraditional texts and forms of literacy. This chapter also helped me think about what my own perspective on literacy instruction in the ELA classroom is. I think that I personally lean more toward having a functional literacy ideology than a cultural literacy ideology, which is what many of my colleagues seem to adhere to. I do think that on a personal level, my perspective of literacy is a cultural literacy perspective, and I'm gradually getting better about making sure my teaching reflects that.

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas - Chapter 10: One issue that this chapter points is is that "not only are [students] focusing on one text's interpretation, but they are also comparing that interpretation with others" (177). This is important to remember, especially when so many students struggle even with text-level comprehension. That's why we especially need to scaffold their understanding in this context. First, we need to make sure they're getting the basic comprehension down for each text, and then we can have them interpret and evaluate the text, and then we can have them do so across the texts. Another thing about this chapter that stood out to me was the history section in which the author discusses comparison and contrast charts about the source of each text and the context of each text. I just love that! It requires students to do research, and it gives them a focus for their comparisons rather than just saying, "Here, do this. Good luck!" Also, I noticed that throughout the disciplines, there is a focus on both varying the types of texts that students evaluate, as well as varying the ways in which they respond. I think this is very important, and it really reminds me of the concept of a multi-genre research project, which I think could be used as culminating project for reading and writing across multiple texts in almost any class.

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas - Chapter 12: I had an incident in class this week that reminded me of the semantic knowledge of everyday terms as discussed in this chapter. My students were taking a benchmark, and several students asked me what the word "inclusive" meant (unfortunately, I wasn't allowed to help them until we did our remediation session the next day). When we did our remediation, and I gave them an example of a sentence that had the word "include" in it, many of them were surprised that they hadn't realized that they already essentially knew the word. It's so important to talk about relationships between words and how words differ in several contexts. I also noticed that the end of the "Historical Knowledge" section hearkened to the idea that reading not only requires knowledge of areas such as history and semantics, but reading also requires specific literacy skills that students may not have mastered. That's why it's so important to focus on content area knowledge as well as reading strategies simultaneously. Additionally, I loved that the discursive knowledge section had such a nuanced perspective on how students should approach texts. We should make them aware that reading has a purpose (learning information, exposure to ideas, etc.), and that we must differentiate the relevant ideas and perspectives from the irrelevant ones, as well as determine what to do with the newly learned information.

Questions
- How can we better examine our own assumptions about literacy, and how do you think we can help our peers and colleagues do the same? (Maybe I'm in the mindset of Dr. Beach's coaching class with this one!)
-  I really liked the nuanced way that the Jetton and Shanahan chapter approached new literacies. I'm curious, what ideas do you all have for incorporating technology in ways that are more than just incorporating technology "for technology's sake"?
 - Since the strategies for supporting students' reading and writing across multiple texts depend on the field of study, what things would you need to address in an ELA class?

Week 4: Reading Disciplinary Texts

Summary

J&S Chapter 1:

As students enter the secondary grades, they transition from learning to read into reading to learn. Particularly, disciplinary texts, which become “much more technical in nature,” become difficult for many students to decipher (2). One reason for this is that they are “replete with abstractions,” rather than relying solely on concrete events and ideas (3). This chapter also explains various comprehension strategies and instructional strategies, as well as the importance of differentiating the two. The authors claim that “teachers need to understand the reading strategies that they need to teach explicitly” so that students focus on the strategies for reading that they can use rather than the process for practicing those strategies (such as K-W-L) (7). The chapter continues by outlining a few comprehension models for disciplinary texts. One model the DIME model, focuses on “background knowledge, inference, reading comprehension strategies, vocabulary, and word reading” (7). A framework that teachers can use to focus on textual engagement is Reciprocal Teaching (which we discussed last week), emphasizes “strategies of prediction, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing” with a gradual release framework (9). Another framework discussed is CORI, in which “readers utilize specific cognitive strategies that include activating their prior knowledge, generating questions, searching for information, organizing new knowledge, and monitoring their comprehension” (10). The chapter concludes by discussing the difference between comprehension strategies with digital literacies and traditional literacies, as well as the value of using discussion to promote comprehension.

J&S Chapter 2:

This chapter discusses how language within disciplinary texts “varies from one content area to another” (35). Science, mathematics, and history texts can all be a challenge for adolescents because of their use of nominalizations, which are “nouns that derive from grammatical structures such as verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, prepositional phrases, or clauses” (42). Science and math both can be challenging in terms of having “long noun phrases” because of the use of nouns to expand information (40). One challenge that is specific to the field of science is the technical vocabulary. Many of these words are “unique to the realm of science,” and many others “assume specialized or metaphorical meanings when used in a scientific context,” which can make them difficult for students to comprehend (39). One of the challenges that mathematical texts present is the need to “understand hierarchies of relationships among the terms” in the text (48). Mathematics also relies less on language itself and instead relies more on “mathematical symbolism and visual displays [that] are often juxtaposed with language in the construction of mathematical meaning” (51). As for history texts, history on the secondary level is often discussed with the use of generic nouns so as to talk about the “big picture” of history rather than just chronological events.

J&S Chapter 3:

This chapter focuses on how experts within fields read disciplinary texts. According to this chapter, experts “know whether or not a particular piece of information belongs in their field or not,” since there are key textual markers that can clue readers in about the topic of the text (72). Experts are also able to look at information and identify “what was created, how it was created, and for what purpose was it created” (72). In terms of knowledge sharing, different disciplines have different conventions for conveying information, such as temporization in science or narrative in history. When historians read, they tend to be “nuanced, conscious, critical, and reflective” (77). They compare what they read to other interpretations of history that they have seen, and they take into account the context of the text, such as the author, the time period in which it was published, etc. Chemists, on the other hand, are more “flexible, pragmatic, and recursive” in their reading (80). Chemists tend to fixate “only on the important information,” such as the content of the chemical principles, rather than the context of the text (81). Conversely, mathematicians focus on “convergence, repetition, accuracy, reason, and elegance” (84). Rather than focusing on evidence to prove theories or the author’s textual context, mathematicians fixate on whether or not the mathematical principles described in the texts are logically sound. This chapter argues that teachers can focus on teaching strategies that are “general, adaptable, and specific,” including K-W-L (general), comparison-contrast charts (adaptable), and contextualization (specific to history) (88).

H&S-T Chapter 6:

This chapter discusses text complexity, particularly within the context of the CCSS standard that "students should read and understand texts that gradually increase in complexity from grade to grade" (101). One way to measure text complexity is through quantitative means, which "gauge the readability of texts based on formulas including word repetition, word and sentence length, vocabulary, and syntax" (101). Qualitative measures, on the other hand, evaluate a text's "levels of meaning, text structure, language conventionality/clarify, and knowledge demands" (104). Determining text complexity is important, but these methods "do not take into consideration the specific characteristics of readers or the tasks in which they engage," so this chapter advocates for a holistic perspective on text complexity (106). Teachers should also take into account "social configuration..., type of response..., and allocation of time" (106). When approaching challenging texts, students should be given ample opportunity for deliberate practice with the complex texts. These opportunities should, as the chapter explained through a sports metaphor, provide "frequent practice sessions at an appropriate level of difficulty, with just the right progression of difficulty, immediate and frequent corrective feedback, and some level of determination" (107). Students should be encouraged to consider not only what good readers do, but also how good readers gained the skilled reading practices that they use--by "deliberately engag[ing] in reading texts that are challenging to them" (110). As students develop automaticity with reading skills, they must increase the challenges that texts make on them, or their skill development will halt. Teachers must also consider "what students bring to specific learning situations" when selecting texts and when selecting instructional approaches" (113). Finally, as the sports metaphor described, teachers must provide "immediate and valid feedback to learners" so that students can develop better skill-developing and problem-solving strategies when approaching challenging texts (113).

Response

J&S Chapter 1:

One recommendation this chapter has is that students be exposed to “a variety of expository texts as they progress through elementary school” (3). I think that’s absolutely imperative, and it’s possibly a major part of the comprehension issue that students are having. I don’t remember reading very many expository texts in elementary school. When we did read them, I remember having fill-in-the-blank worksheets and hunting for the “answers” rather than actually reading the texts. Students deserve better than that, and I think the mere exposure would be more beneficial than we might realize.

I really liked the instructional strategies section of this chapter. I especially loved the description of the teacher who changed “KWL” to “KWHHL.” I think it’s so important for teachers to take instructional strategies that they find valuable and tweak them to their style and the needs of their students.

J&S Chapter 2:

I think that since nominalizations exist as a challenge for students in almost all content areas, they are one of the most important things to focus on. Perhaps that’s something that could be approached through language manipulation, or maybe with a game? I feel like having students create their own nominalizations, and perhaps introduce it with the idea of “verbing” (which is something most of them would be familiar with) might help make it easier for them to grasp.

I’m intrigued by the idea of helping students understand generic nouns for history class. I wonder if it would help to teach them explicitly by having students brainstorm specific nouns that would fit under the umbrella of some of the generic nouns. I bet that it’s possible to teach it in such a way that they make the connection even when they see a generic noun that wasn’t “brainstormed” together in class.

J&S Chapter 3:

I thought it was interesting to learn this week that disciplinary knowledge isn’t just about technical vocabulary and topical knowledge, but instead it also includes “knowledge of the way information is created, shared, and evaluated” within a particular field (71). I think that might explain why I sometimes struggled with readings in science class—maybe I never understood the discourse surrounding scientific theory, hypothesizing, experimentation, etc. Fascinating!

I liked how the section “The Way Knowledge Is Created” implies very adaptable principles for teaching comprehension. For example, readers should keep in mind “what was created, how it was created, and for what purpose it was created” when reading disciplinary texts, and I would argue, when reading any text at all (72). If students can determine those three things, they can approach the text with their own goals in mind, and they can better understand how to determine which information is important and how it should be interpreted in context.

H&S-T Chapter 6:

One aspect of text complexity that I felt wasn't properly addressed in this chapter is text appropriateness, which I think affects students' ability to approach a text as much as syntax, word count, etc. could. For example, I'm pretty sure that To Kill a Mockingbird is on a fourth grade reading level according to Lexile measurements, and even more qualitative measures would likely fail to account for the fact that it is appropriate perhaps for late middle school at the earliest. We, as teachers, must be conscious of topics and themes that our students are ready to tackle, as well as what would be appropriate in the eyes of school administration and parents. Asking them to do so too early comes with a lot of issues, but it certainly would add an extra challenge to their reading of the text.

Qualitative measures seem to me to be very appropriate for evaluating disciplinary texts. A lot of times when students struggle with informative texts, they have issues with the text structure or the topical knowledge. A text with straightforward language construction could be very demanding for an adolescent who is unfamiliar with another aspect of the informative text. Combining various forms of text complexity measures is always important when selecting a text and supporting students' reading, but I feel like it might be even more important within the content areas.

Questions

Chapter 1 of J&S discusses the “apparent comprehension differences between traditional printed texts and online information,” since “online information is linked in so many more ways than traditional text” (12). This section really emphasized the importance of intertextuality. One thing that I think I would struggle with would be how to emphasize intertextual links when reading long works of fiction. What strategies and types of texts do you think I could bring in for that situation?

The section about “texture” in chapter 2 of J&S totally went over my head, and it still didn’t fully click no matter how many times I read over it. Did anyone else understand what it was talking about? Can you explain it to me in layman’s terms?

How do you motivate students to read texts that they find challenging? I have a student who's been begging me to let us read Bluford series books in class, when they're not part of the curriculum (nor are they challenging enough), and I'd love some tips for engaging him in the complex texts that I need him to approach!

Week 3: Comprehension

Synthesis:

• Jetton and Shanahan: Before selecting texts and activities within the academic disciplines, according to this chapter, teachers should take into consideration students’ sociocultural context. This is important because their “social and cultural identities mediate and are mediated by text,” and their identities are “developed through activity” (95). In terms of the learning environment, teachers and students should discuss learning goals in order to increase “students’ motivation and self-efficacy in that discipline” (97). Teachers should also support students’ autonomy through controlled choices to encourage students to be more persistent and responsible with their literacy tasks. Teachers must additionally focus on fostering topic knowledge within the discipline, as well as teaching students “the mode of inscription experts use to convey information within [the discipline]” (98). In terms of text selection, teachers should “contemplate… the nature of the text itself and the goals they have for using that particular text,” and then they should help students better understand the language of the discipline so they can be more equipped to approach the texts (100). Regarding instructional strategies for approaching literacy within the disciplines, teachers must scaffold student learning by activating and supplementing their prior knowledge. They can also work with students to learn how to determine the importance of information within texts, depending on the learning goal. Students can learn to tackle informational texts within the disciplines by creating visual imagery and symbols to better aid their understanding. Additionally, teachers can work with students to develop general literacy strategies, such as generating various types of questions to  “develop a more personally driven interpretation,” making inferences about texts, or continually monitoring their comprehension (106). Finally, teachers should use discussions to help create a “bridge between the everyday-world discourses of an adolescent and the various academic discourses in which students engage in school” to make the disciplinary areas more relevant to students (112).
• Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas: One of the comprehension strategies discussed in this chapter is questioning, and the text describes both the value of questioning and what types of questioning are valuable, such as focusing on text-dependent questions before text independent questions. The chapter posits that these questions should be a foundation for discussions about the text, rather than being framed as isolated, independent tasks. The text continues by discussing the importance of vocabulary development for reading comprehension, and the chapter stresses the importance of equipping students with multiple strategies for tackling unknown words. In terms of instructional practices, teachers should work with students to think about the learning objective and establish relevance. Teachers should also help students “experience their teachers’ thinking” by using “I” statements so that students can better understand the necessary thought process behind the expected skills (147). Additionally, students can develop close reading skills through repeated readings (with various methods: independently, with auditory support, or through partnered reading), annotations, and text-dependent questions.
• Fisher, Frey, and Ross: This chapter begins by discussing factors that influence comprehension, which include variables related to the reader, the text, the educational context, and the teacher. The text emphasizes the importance of activating prior knowledge within the context of reading comprehension, and it suggests that the best way to create prior knowledge when students lack it is to “get them to read, and to read a lot” (330). As discussed in the other texts, teachers should also work with students to determine their purpose for reading, and this purpose should be “authentic, in that [students have] a choice” (331). There should be a focus on not just one purpose for reading, but rather there should be a discussion about the various purposes that a reader could have for approaching a particular text. Teachers should also focus on vocabulary development, particularly “vocabulary across content areas,” rather than focusing solely on content specific words or solely on vague academic terms (333). In terms of instructional strategies, teachers should model their thinking during the reading process (including all aspects of the process at once), and they should give students repeated exposure and opportunity to practice. Teachers can also set up a reciprocal teaching activity (within a gradual release framework) so as to help students practice and model reading strategies with one another.

Responses:

• Jetton and Shanahan:

o   This chapter reminded me of why I have been trying harder to talk in-depth with my students about their learning goals. The book emphasizes that “classroom contexts where the focus is solely on grades and performance relative to other students causes students to focus less on the norms of practice within that discipline” (97). I think there are several reasons why this is an issue, but I really want my students to know what they are learning and why those things have value.

o   I loved the idea of using disciplinary literacy as an opportunity for students to explore their own identities. The tandem stories project described in the chapter allows students to “reconsider their own textual interpretations in light of [peers’] views and restructure their own beliefs and views about the diversity issues represented in the literature” (96). That’s one reason I place so much value on open-ended discussion questions. Our students need to be able to see themselves in literature, and talking about these things within an open-ended sociocultural framework helps them do that.

• Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas:

o   I really liked the point about how “too many questions are text independent and therefore take students quickly away from the text” (140). I think text independent questions are very important, but we really need to scaffold them. I went to a NMSI workshop this summer that was super useful in relation to this issue. I’m really working on scaffolding complex questions this year. For example, if I want students to be able to use close reading to talk about how a novel would have been received during its time period, I would perhaps have to start by having students discuss motifs that they notice, then themes that might relate to those motifs, and then connect those themes to the historical context. I’m finally starting to get a good idea of how scaffolding ideally should work!

o   I loved the way this chapter discussed modeling skills. The text describes modeling as helping students “experience their teachers’ thinking,” which I think is very apt (147). Often, explaining processes won’t be enough for students who aren’t already using those skills on some level. They need to step inside the head of someone who is using the thought processes they need to develop in order to truly understand what a particular skill involves.

• Fisher, Frey, and Ross:

o   I like the idea of giving students controlled choices within the context of determining their purpose for reading. I really think that makes it more authentic for them, and it helps them be more motivated to learn. I think a lot of times students struggle to know why they are reading, and even when teachers are always dictating their reading purposes, they lack investment in the learning process.

o   I’m glad that the modeling section talked about specific aspects of modeling the reading process. One thing I hadn’t really thought about was that you really do need to model the whole process at once, rather than focus on one strategy at a time. I’m personally fairly weak in this area. Sometimes I will ask students to focus on one or two strategies on a given day, but I fail to emphasize that they need to still use the other strategies—I definitely need to model this for them.

Questions:  

• I’ve been seeing a new problem in my classes this year, in relation to the “questioning to deepen comprehension” as discussed in Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas. I find that even when I give students question starters, leveled question guides, or other constraints for their questions, this year many of my students are either trying to jot down questions that they already know the answer to, or they’re asking good questions but refusing to go back to the text to explore them. How can I increase their motivation for repeated readings to aid in answering the questions that they have about the text?
• I want your opinion about the reciprocal teaching discussed in Fisher, Frey, and Ross. I teach a literacy for life class that has a very wide range of reading abilities. Some of my students are definitely still in the decoding stage, despite being in high school. Do you think that reciprocal teaching would work in those classes, and do you think I’d be able to get my more struggling readers to be willing to participate surrounded by higher level readers? If so, how do you think you might structure it?