Discipline Literacy vs. Content-Area Literacy

Below (in italics) is my response to the article from a couple of years ago. Now with a couple of years of teaching experience under my belt – I’d like to respond to the article again and myself.

The article “How Does Discipline Literacy Differ from Content-area Literacy” attempts to reinforce concepts read in the previous week. I acknowledge the fact the two are different with discipline literacy being more focused than the other; however, I believe master of discipline literacy is not simply talking the talk (as described in Buehl pages 41-46) but walking the walk. Students are intelligent enough to decipher vernacular to play the part. Think of how long it has taken a teacher to become a “master” or an “expert” in their field. Typically, teachers of disciplined subjects are not really considered “experts” in that discipline/industry, much less in another subject. Albeit, we are still able to use skills and strategies more effectively simply due to the knowledge and practice gained over the years. Asking students to master “walking the walk” in each discipline by the time they graduate high school is a daunting task. How many English teachers can read a Math textbook in the correct way and factor polynomials on the first try? I would venture to say not many without modeling and scaffolding, even then it would take multiple attempts. Fischer and Frey lay that point on thickly on page 13 to develop reading comprehension for students and I appreciate that this text highlights this key concept. Teaching the students to talk the talk is much easier than to walk the walk. Beuhl backs this point up in Discourse Outsiders on page 51 stating, “People who are outsiders in a discourse need support and mentoring when encountering texts packed with insider knowledge.”

I wholeheartedly agree with making sure students understand and are clear on learning objectives. Students need to be able to self-assess and assess texts to better utilize the proper strategies to tackle an assignment/text for its intended learning purpose. Once students realize this they can further “assume some of the attributes of insiders” (Buehl 74). I understand the reasoning behind all the authors points. I am eager to see specific, practical strategies such as the Argumentation in Disciplinary Literacy section in Buehl pages 48, 57-63, as we move through the textbook and class.

So I reference a lot of different texts in addition to the article to make my points. I wish I had the time to go back and read the original text I was referencing, but I remember them enough to respond appropriately. I think of all the times I’ve tried to complete assignments of other content areas and failed simply because I was not familiar or literate in the subject. I could probably have thought critically enough to figure out the processes, but because I did not have a base knowledge.

Discipline literacy, in and of itself, (while still valued) is simply not enough. You are to use the literacy learned in each discipline to apply yourself in writing or whatever else may be asked of you. Stepping into the shoes of a historian to become discipline literate is much different than skating by with particular close reading due to the nuances. We as the experts of our content need to be enthusiastic about the information and model how we interact with the intricacies of the language, structure, etc.