RM Winter 2016 FLIP

29 / 88

Reading Matters
Teaching Matters
Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 | |27|
teaching, it is not feasible for literacy teacher educators to fully
understand both measures of text complexity in each academic
discipline. While the quantitative measures are somewhat
objective and typically measured by a computer program –
sentence length, word frequency, Lexile measures, readability
formulas, and so on – it is the qualitative measures that are
more subjective. The Common Core State Standards lists four
qualitative measures – structure (low versus high complexity),
language clarity and conventions (conversational versus academic
language), knowledge demands (prior knowledge), and levels
of meaning (literary texts) or purpose (informational text) – to
consider when determining text complexity (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010). As literacy teacher educators, we can introduce
our students to these qualitative measures by talking about what
each measure means, and then provide them with opportunities
to analyze texts in their own discipline (Carney & Indrisano, 2013).
Conclusion
We are currently preparing to teach the “content area reading
and writing” courses (name as it appears in the course catalog)
mandated by the R2S legislation in the fall semester. Our syllabi
are changing, course objectives are being aligned with the
competencies outlined in the R2S legislation, assignments are
being altered, and assessments are being updated. These changes
come as result of our reading and discussing the similarities
and differences between content area literacy and disciplinary
literacy. While the names of our courses still reflect the idea
of “content area reading and writing,”we are working our way
through the five principles outlined here in the new design and
delivery of these courses. We believe that disciplinary literacy
will be the focus of our teaching, preparing our preservice
and inservice teachers to deliver the appropriate disciplinary
literacy instruction that is unique to each academic discipline.
References
Carney, M., & Indrisano, R. (2013). Disciplinary literacy and pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Education, 193(3), 39-49.
Dew, T., & Teague. (2015). Using disciplinary literacy strategies to enhance student
learning. Science Scope , 38(6), 33-38.
Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy
instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 57(6), 444-448.
Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about
it. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 56(8), 627-632).
Fang, Z. (2012). The challenges of reading disciplinary texts. In Adolescent Literacy
in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies. Guilford
Publications
Gillis, V. (2014). Disciplinary literacy: Adapt not adopt. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 57(8), 614 – 623.
Hynd-Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary
literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(2), 93-98.
Johnson, H., Watson, P. A., Delahunty, T., McSwiggen, P., & Smith, T. (2011). What
is it they do: Differentiating knowledge and literacy practices across content
disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(2), 100-109.
Lesley, M. K. (2014). Policy, pedagogy, and research: Three issues affecting content
area literacy courses for secondary-level teacher candidates. Literacy Research and
Instruction , 53(1), 50-71.
McArthur, K. G. (2012). The metalinguistic protocol: Making disciplinary literacies
visible in secondary teaching and learning. Reading Horizons, 52(1), 26-55.
Ming, K. (2012). 10 content-area literacy strategies for art, mathematics, music,
and physical education. The Clearing House, 85(6), 213-220.
Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and
learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
Mraz, M., Rickelman, R., & Vacca, R. (2009). Content-area reading: Past, present,
and future . In K. Woods &W. Blanton (Eds.) Literacy instruction for adolescents:
Research-based practice (p. 77-910). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
& Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A:
Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards . Washington DC: Author.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Snow, C., & Moje, E. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy?
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 66-69.
Dr. Kavin Ming is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the
in Literacy Program at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC.
She teaches undergraduate literacy methods courses and graduate
content area literacy and practicum courses. Kavin’s research interests
include at-risk student populations, culturally responsive pedagogy,
content area literacy instruction, and multisensory teaching of
literacy skills. Kavin can be contacted at .
Dr. Cheryl Mader is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Studies at
Winthrop University. She teaches undergraduate literacy methods
courses, content area literacy courses, and children’s literature as
well as graduate literacy courses and curriculum and instruction
courses. Cheryl’s research interests include struggling readers,
content area literacy, and how technology can be used for teaching
and learning. Cheryl can be contacted at .