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?