Approaches to Disciplinary Literacy
How can teachers help adolescents become literate in a discipline? The course materials offer several responses to this question.
Buehl recognizes that identity formation can play a role in how or whether adolescents are able to embrace teachers’ efforts to convey disciplinary content and “habits of mind” in the classroom. That is, a student’s orientation towards books (reader identity) and towards school (academic identity) matter in how readily a student embraces texts that are outside of their comfort zones. Since much of the reading that students will do in school is obligatory rather than based on personal choice, teachers will also have to figure out how to shore up those aspects of students’ identities that will help them to embrace a range of texts and become confident readers and writers. Given that students’ identities are fluid rather than fixed, and that the context of an encounter with a teacher can have an outsized impact on how students perceive themselves as readers and writers, it seems like this conversation about disciplinary literacy should begin before high school.
In the framework that Buehl offers, disciplinary learning and literacy seems limited to the conventional areas of academic education: social studies, english language arts, sciences. Within these areas, preparation of students for disciplinary literacy involves mentoring them, providing scaffolding for their learning, offering ‘apprenticeship’ opportunities where they receive supervision while they practice what they learn from “experts”, all so they will eventually be able to read, write and think in disciplinary ways without the help of adults. I can’t help but think about the ways that schools reflect existing social inequalities in the society, and wonder about where or whether people from marginalized communities are featured as experts in the respective disciplines. As students build out reader and academic identities, they need to be able to see themselves in these disciplinary spaces as contributors not just as targets for remediation.
Wickens et. al, introduces some important correctives to Buehl’s framing. First, they decenter the idea of experts, and question the notion that students need to identify with the discipline or with the experts in order to be able to become literate in the discipline. Second, rather than position students as perpetual outsiders who do not have the requisite skills and must be brought into the fold by “insiders”, on should assume that students already have something to contribute to the disciplinary conversation. Third, they introduce the concept of “habits of practice” to shift focus away from the individual to the pactices that they are engaged in. The scholars show that there are various modes of engagement with disciplines and that cognition (reading, writing, thinking) is only one way for students to demonstrate and participate in learning and achieving. Kinesthetic (physical) movement also counts as a space of learning and inquiry. In other words, non-academic disciplines that are taught in high schools have something unique to contribute to the conversation about disciplinary literacy.
Wickens et al. seems to be challenging an unquestioned elitism in the conversation about disciplinary literacy, one that affirms the supremacy of academic disciplines over non-academic ones, and which values certain ways of students expressing themselves over others. In that way, they also value some students over others. I can see how their intervention makes room for a more diverse group of students to come into view, ones like Keeth Smart, whose pursuit of disciplinary excellence in fencing falls outside the conventional frames of academic achievement.
Hi Natalie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this concise run-down and thoughtful analysis of this week’s readings. Two comments of yours stood out to me in particular: 1) the importance of featuring people from marginalized communities as experts in their respective disciplines, because “ As students build out reader and academic identities, they need to be able to see themselves in these disciplinary spaces as contributors not just as targets for remediation,” and 2) how “Wickens et al. seems to be challenging an unquestioned elitism in the conversation about disciplinary literacy, one that affirms the supremacy of academic disciplines over non-academic ones, and which values certain ways of students expressing themselves over others.”
1) This issue is of paramount significance if we are to take the importance of mentorship to the development of disciplinary literacies seriously. Who are we presenting as experts in fields for students to embody? How do we make those experts as inclusive as possible? Who am I telling my students can be an expert in this field? As a white woman, it will be crucial for me to present experts other than myself. In my history/social science classrooms, I can do this through my choice of texts and assignments. History itself provides a rich pool of diverse experts. Selecting primary source documents authored by people from marginalized communities that demonstrate their expertise in historical thinking will likely be a very important resource to this end (I just read Castro’s speech, “The Second Declaration of Havana,” for another class, and I think that excerpts from this would work beautifully here). I can also ask others to visit my classroom and speak about their experiences and share their practices. I could organize field-trips to watch experts in action at museums, universities, or in activism. I am also inclined to make spaces for students to show their expertise in things (even if it isn’t “on-topic). It’s worth mentioning too that Wickins et al provide us a space to move away from the notion of embodying the expert, and suggest moving instead towards a person who is literate in the field and “learned the skills necessary to participate” (78). This phrasing makes me think about having upperclassmen or college students come in to mentor underclassmen. I really like that idea a lot! These are just a few ideas though, and I’d be very interested to hear what others have to say about this issue.
2) This was probably my biggest take-away from this reading. As a nerdy student who was always weird and never particularly athletic, I felt excluded from the physical learning that was taking place in gym class, but it's important for me to remember that is likely how some students may feel in my history classes! This reading made me think about how I can incorporate more corporeal means of expression and communication into my classrooms and make space for kinesthetic learners. But is this straying too far from the disciplinary practices central to history, which are primarily and highly cognitive? Is letting students express their knowledge in ways that match their learning styles—by offering students the option to complete a final project as a paper, an art piece, a dance, or a song—capable of achieving this leap if they are able to show me their thought processes? What if the way your discipline's experts behave is incongruous with the learning styles in your classroom?
Lucy - I have grown to think in an interdisciplinary way about most things, so I get the frustration about the ways that disciplines can foreclose certain possibilities in terms of teaching and learning. Your comment about experts and making space for kinesthetic learners in history made me think: what if you taught about sports and dance as part of your history class? What if you honored that way of learning by showing students the contributions that sports and dance have made in US history?
DeleteHi Natalie,
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me in your post was the need for teachers to incorporate other parts of a student’s identity in the work they must do. By doing this it can help students not only enjoy the work they must do more, but it can also help them feel more confident in their ability to read and write in literacies. I do wonder how an educator we will be able to learn about the other identities students hold. While some may be more apparent such as, race, ethnicity, and gender, other might be harder to see such as, one’s fluency in science or math. I am eager to lead students and help them build confidence but am nervous about overstepping boundaries and making snap judgements/ assumptions about aspects of identity.
The other aspect of your post that struck me was your investigation of the Wickens article and the “supremacy of academic disciplines over non-academic ones”. This stood out to me because it feels like art is one of the studies that normal literary disciplines might not consider. I was thinking about our presentations on strategy this week. While the books were great resources for outline and explanation of strategy, they did not give any straightforward examples of how they could be applied in an art class. Maybe these are my own complaints.
Overall, great analysis of the articles presented.
Ana
Hi Natalie,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. You did a great job identifying the main points from each of the readings and expressed your concerns with the Buehl reading. Personally, I enjoyed Wilken’s article more but saw some value in the Buehl reading. The scaffolding method he mentioned can be used to help students understand a document that is not particularly interesting to them. I know that as a high school student, I hated science. Reading a science article used to bore me to death. Although this was the case, my teacher implemented a method similar to what Buehl is talking about and it helped me get through the reading and comprehend the material. However, I agree with Wilkens and think we need to rethink what disciplinary literacy means and what subjects can teach disciplinary literacy. For many of our students in the class, as Ana brought up, Art and other non-academic disciplines have been considered subjects that can not teach disciplinary literacy. However, I think they can, and teachers can use some of the methods in the strategies book to teach disciplinary literacy.
Ana, at first, I was thinking the same thing as you when reviewing the strategies. I was curious how our art students were going to tackle this assignment and use the strategies that were presented in the text. However, after thinking about it now, maybe you could have students use a knowledge/question/response chart and have them analyze a period piece. You could have students look at a piece of artwork from a period of history. Then you could have them write down what stands out to them from the piece. For instance, students can analyze the realism of a piece of artwork or the portrayal of religious figures and write down their knowledge about the piece. Then you can have them ask questions that reflect the knowledge they wrote down. Finally, you can have them reflect on their insight and learn what other students have to contribute to this discussion. This exercise could help students learn not only about what topics like realism and impressionism mean but also about the components that go into the piece. This could help them create works of art that reflect these topics.
For a topic like physical education, I think teachers could have exercises that teach students about the history and background of sports. I had a P.E. teacher in my high school who talked to us about the history of basketball and how it got its name. I also learned geography from him, especially during the week we played soccer. We talked about how soccer has impacted certain countries and become an identity for places like England.
^Brett Hyink
DeleteHi Natalie, Buehl's recognition of the role of identity formation in students' of disciplinary content resonated deeply with me. As a future educator, I believe that it is crucial to acknowledge and address the identities students bring to the classroom in order to foster a supportive learning environment where they feel empowered to interact with a wide range of texts. I agree that this conversation about disciplinary literacy should begin early in a student's academic journey, laying a foundation for lifelong learning and critical thinking. Your reflection on Wickens et al.'s corrective to Buehl's framing raises important questions about inclusivity and diversity within disciplinary spaces. By decentering the idea of experts and challenging elitism, Wickens et al. advocate for a more inclusive approach to disciplinary literacy that recognizes and values diverse modes of engagement and expression. I appreciate their emphasis on the contributions of non-academic disciplines and the importance of valuing all students' voices and experiences.
ReplyDeleteHi Natalie! I absolutely agree that we need to incorporate a form of nurture within our classroom instead of contributing to the harshness that academics can be. Teaching disciplinary literacy helps to promote critical thinking and we as educators have the job of presenting our students with all the information they could need but our students should have the critical thinking skills to be able to not make only the right decision but their own decision. This also reminded me of the text we read within Williams class this morning about how the Alaskan Native's handled education and how connectedness is important to our social emotional learning.
ReplyDelete