Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com.

Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago

Two Problems PROBLEM I Significant numbers of students read so poorly that they are unlikely to have access to full participation in American society

Lack of Literacy 25% of 8th and 12th graders read at below basic levels (NAEP, 2005) 1.2 million students drop out of high school each year (AEE, 2007) High school dropouts earn an average of $17,299 per year (U.S. Census, 2005) Less than 10% of African Americans read at proficient or higher levels (NAEP, 2005)

Two Problems (cont.) PROBLEM II
Significant numbers of students who are deemed literate are not sufficiently literate to succeed in college or career

Insufficient Literacy Attainment
A college degree is now the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings (Children's Defense Fund, 2000) 36% of college students require remedial classes at a cost of $3.7 billion annually (U.S. Department of Education, 2011)—that’s 36% of the 70% who start college Only about 50% of students entering college are equipped to handle the reading assignments of beginning college classes (ACT, 2006)

Some Solutions Enhancements to early literacy instruction
--According to NAEP, there have been clear reading improvements among fourth-graders since 1992 --And yet, middle school students are reading no better than then (and high schoolers appear to have fallen)

Some Solutions (cont.) Avoiding text
--Since 1990 there have been content (knowledge) standards in history, science, mathematics, English language arts --Teachers have found ways of getting info to students without texts (e.g., Powerpoint, video) --But ACT has found that amount of text reading between 7th and 12th grades was the best preparation of later success

Some Solutions (cont.) Reducing Text Difficulty
--Low readability textbooks a staple (educators have lowered readability levels of textbooks for more than 70 years) --Research has documented correlation between lowered textbook difficulty and lowered SAT performances --ACT study found not only was amount of in class reading significant, but that this reading had to be implemented with hard text (not easy text)

Some Solutions (cont.) Increasing remedial classes
--But this will only impact those who are not going to college --IES studies and funding streams (e.g., Striving Readers) suggest that at best remedial classes in high school will raise reading achievement only about 2 mos.

Some Solutions (cont.) Elevating literacy and literacy instruction up through through the grades --ACT found that state standards did not take specific reading standards through high school --Common core changes that for 45 states --Specific to content area classes (literature, science, social studies)

Two Approaches to Secondary Literacy Instruction
Content area reading Disciplinary literacy

Content Area Reading Has long history in education
Many secondary teachers have preparation in content area reading Lots of books and resources for teachers

But… Disciplinary literacy is the approach that the common core has taken The purpose of the first part of this talk is to explore the dimensions of disciplinary literacy and to distinguish the widely known concept (content area reading) from the newer and quite different concept (disciplinary literacy)

Disciplinary literacy?

Disciplinary Reading Instruction
Not the hip new name for content area reading Each discipline possesses its own language, purposes, and ways of using text that students should be inducted into There are special skills and strategies needed for students to make complete sense of texts from the disciplines As students begin to confront these kinds of texts (especially in middle school and high school), instruction must facilitate their understanding of what it means to read disciplinary texts

Comparing Content Area Reading and Disciplinary Literacy
Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1980s

Sources of Content Area Reading
In 1920s, the idea of “every teacher a teacher of reading” first raised Rhetoric is good, but fundamental idea is that reading experts know the necessary reading skills and that those should be taught across the curriculum Leads to the development of lots of general study skills approaches: SQ3R, KWL, three-level guides, etc. Research focuses on effectiveness of these instructional routines (accordingly, content reading approaches are pedagogical in nature)

Sources of Disciplinary Literacy
Studies that compare expert readers with novices (Bazerman, 1985; Geisler, 1994; Wineburg, 1991, etc.) Functional linguistics analyses of the unique practices in creating, disseminating, evaluating knowledge (Fang, 2004; Halliday, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004, etc.)

History Reading (Wineburg)
Sourcing: considering the author and author perspective Contextualizing: placing the document/info within its historical period and place Corroboration: evaluating information across sources

Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1990s Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized

Content area reading KWL Summarization
Generalizable skills and activities that can be used in all or most reading: KWL Summarization SQ3R Previewing Word maps Brainstorming Frayer model Notetaking 3-level guides QAR DR-TA I-Charts Morphological analysis Reciprocal teaching

Disciplinary reading Science - Essential
Specialized skills and activities Idea is to consider the learning demands of a subject matter Example: textbook use Science - Essential History - Antithetical Literature - Irrelevant

Chemistry Note-taking
Substances Properties Processes Interactions Atomic Expression Experts, teacher educators and high school teachers displayed reluctance in embracing the idea of strategy instruction. For most, the concept was new, and the reading strategies we shared with them seemed contrived and irrelevant. This reluctance was revealing, because it mirrored the disinclination of the preservice students in the high school literacy class. The chemistry team’s reluctance only changed when we introduced our version of structured summarization, a strategy that we based specifically on their insights about chemistry reading. Using this strategy, students take notes in a chart format. Each section of the chart reflected the information that these chemistry specialists said was essential to reading chemistry text. Because chemistry is about the properties of substances and their reactions, a reader who paid attention to these would be engaging in a disciplinary-focused reading. We had illustrated the chart using information from one of the chemistry textbooks the team members had shared with us. One of the chemists who had been dismissive of teaching content area reading strategies (such as summarization) in chemistry reacted by saying, “Well, if they used this, they would be learning chemistry.” He then suggested a modification (the inclusion of a place to summarize atomic expression). The difference between this strategy and summarization was its subject-matter specificity. This strategy was not just about understanding text; it was also about understanding the essence of chemistry. This structured-summarization strategy meshed well with concerns the chemists had expressed earlier when they examined high school chemistry textbooks: the need to identify where the chemistry was. That is, although they understood that some of the information in the text was included purely for motivational purposes or to establish context for students, they were concerned that what students were actually supposed to learn about chemistry was obscured and hidden by these devices. One of the chemistry teachers bitterly complained about a text she had to use in which each chapter began with a real-life problem (such as lake pollution) that was then followed by an explanation of the chemistry behind the problem. She complained that the students were not learning the chemistry. Chemistry learning is somewhat hierarchical in nature. The concepts build on each other, and these concepts can then be applied to situations. That is, the principles are taught as abstractions, and the particulars are exemplars of the abstractions. This chemistry book, however, perseverated on the particular, providing students with little real opportunity to learn the abstractions that could be used to solve other problems.

Content area reading: Vocabulary
Focus is on memorization techniques: make connections among concepts, construct graphic organizers, brainstorm, semantic maps, word sorts, rate knowledge of words, analyze semantic features of words, categorize or map words, develop synonym webs,

Disciplinary literacy: Vocabulary
Focus is on specialized nature of vocabulary of the subjects Science: Greek and Latin roots (precise, dense, stable meanings that are recoverable) History: metaphorical terms, words/terms with a political point of view

Intermediate Literacy
Increasing Specialization of Literacy Disciplinary Literacy Intermediate Literacy Basic Literacy This pyramid illustrates the development of literacy. The pyramid base represents highly generalizable basic skills entailed in all reading tasks, (decoding skills, print and literacy conventions, recognition of high-frequency words, basic punctuation, etc). Most kids master these in the primary grades, and even those who struggle tend to master them before high school entry. As students progress, more sophisticated skills develop. These skills are not as widely applicable to different texts and reading situations, but neither are they linked to particular disciplinary specializations. They include decoding multisyllabic words, less common punctuation (such as split quotes), knowing more vocabulary including words not common in oral language, developing the cognitive endurance to maintain attention to extended discourse, monitoring comprehension, and using fix-up procedures such as rereading. They gain access to more complex forms of text organization, and begin to use author purpose as a tool for critical response. Most students learn these by the end of middle school, but many schoolers struggle with them. In high school, some students even begin to master more specialized reading routines/language uses, but these new routines, though powerful, tend to be constrained in their applicability to most reading tasks. The constraints on the generalizability of literacy skills for more advanced readers — symbolized here by the narrowing of the pyramid — are imposed by the increasingly disciplinary and technical turn in the nature of literacy tasks. Although most students manage to master basic and even intermediate literacy skills, many never gain proficiency with these more advanced skills. Progressing higher in the pyramid means learning more sophisticated, but less generalizable, skills and routines.

Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1990s Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline

Content area reading Exit notes Advanced organizers
The focus is on learning from text The idea is not to read like a chemist, but to know how to study books (including chemistry books) Emphasis on literacy learning tools: Exit notes Advanced organizers Response journals Dictionary Internet Readability analysis

Disciplinary reading The focus is on the specialized problems of a subject area Disciplines represent cultural differences in how information is used, the nature of language, demands for precision, etc.

Math Reading Goal: arrive at “truth”
Importance of “close reading” an intensive consideration of every word in the text Rereading a major strategy Heavy emphasis on error detection Precision of understanding essential For example, during think-alouds, the mathematicians emphasized rereading and close reading as two of their most important strategies. One of the mathematicians explained that, unlike other fields, even “function” words were important. “‘The’ has a very different meaning than ‘a,’” he explained. Students often attempt to read mathematics texts for the gist, or general idea, but this kind of text cannot be appropriately understood without close reading. Math reading requires a precision of meaning, and each word must be understood specifically in service to that particular meaning. In fact, the other mathematician noted that it sometimes took years of rereading for him to completely understand a particular proof. The mathematicians we studied were theoretical rather than applied mathematicians. In their field, errorless proofs are by their very nature true, and the purpose of their work is to create these proofs; hence, to create truth. Because proofs must be error free, they are read carefully in order to discover any possible error. Every word matters. Rereading is essential. One mathematician said, “I try to determine whether it’s [the solution to the problem] correct. That’s the important criteria, and it’s by no means assumed. It would be unusual to read a paper like this and not find something incorrect.” This mathematician is illustrating the belief that truth (correctness within the confines of a particular problem) is attainable if one can determine an error-free solution. However, errors are easy to make, so vigilance is required.

Chemistry Reading Text provides knowledge that allows prediction of how the world works Full understanding needed of experiments or processes Close connections among prose, graphs, charts, formulas (alternative representations of constructs an essential aspect of chemistry text) Major reading strategies include corroboration and transformation The chemists were most interested in the transformation of information from one form to another. That is, when reading prose, they were visualizing, writing down formulas, or if a diagram or a chart were on the page, going back and forth between the graph and the chart. One chemist explained, “They give you the structure, the structure of the sensor is given, so I was looking at the picture as I was reading, and I tried to relate what was in the picture to what they were saying about how mercury binds to one part of the molecule.” This explanation, corroborated by the chemists’ other comments, helped us to understand that in chemistry, different or alternative representations (e.g., pictures, graphs or charts, text, or diagrams) of an idea are essential for a full understanding of the concepts. These various representations are processed recursively as reading progresses. Unlike historians, chemists create knowledge through experimentation. The findings of experiments are somewhat dependent upon the quality of the instrumentation, the design, and the statistical analysis. However, these variables are all decided upon prior to the actual experiment. The findings are generalizable to other experiments under the same conditions. Although chemists are not uncritical readers, we found that the chemists we studied did have more confidence than historians in the utility of the knowledge that had been created; they believed they could use that knowledge to predict what would happen under similar conditions. What is important to them in reading, consequently, was a full understanding of the way in which an experiment took place and the processes the experiment uncovered. Gaining that full understanding required them to think about the phenomenon being presented in prose, to visualize it, and to manipulate it in formulas and equations.

History Reading History is interpretative, and authors and sourcing are central in interpretation (consideration of bias and perspective) Often seems narrative without purpose and argument without explicit claims (need to see history as argument based on partial evidence; narratives are more than facts) Single texts are problematic (no corroboration) Historians emphasized paying attention to the author/source during reading. Before reading, they would consider who the authors were and what their biases might be. Their reading purpose seemed to be to figure out which story that particular author wanted to tell; they were keenly aware that they were reading an interpretation and not “Truth.” One historian said when reading a text about Lincoln: “I saw, oh I don’t know him very well, but he [the author] is part of a right-wing group of southern conservatives who is a secessionist. I’m not sure that the best model for thinking about Lincoln as a president is one that comes from a racist. So I have my critical eyes up a little bit, so it’s a bit of a stretch to be friendly to, so I wanted to make sure to read it fairly.” In this nuanced example, the historian reveals that he does not read the text as truth, but rather as an interpretation that has to be judged based upon its credibility. He attempts to evaluate its credibility through an examination of the author’s biases. However, he also knows that he, as a reader, has his own biases, and that his disregard for right-wing secessionist groups might color his reading and he could miss important insights. He reads with a view that both author and reader are fallible and positioned. The varied emphases shown in these examples are related to the intellectual values of a discipline and the methods by which scholarship is created. History relies on document analysis (document being widely defined to include films, interview protocol, etc.). These are collected after an event occurs, and their selection/analysis take place somewhat simultaneously. Thus, it is possible for a historian to choose and analyze evidence, unwittingly perhaps, that corroborates a previously held perspective. The historians we studied read with that caution in mind. Unfortunately, the nature of historiography (how history is written/presented) is not often the subject of discussion in adolescent history classes. Students believe they are reading to learn “the facts,” and fail to consider potential bias.

Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1990s Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline Students Remedial Whole distribution

Content area reading Content area reading is promoted for all students
But the strategies that are taught tend to work best with younger and lower level readers – with little evident benefit for average and higher readers Teachers often won’t use approaches that don’t have a wider impact than that

Disciplinary reading Effectiveness has, for the most part, not yet been tested However, the nature of the activities that have been developed so far suggest a wider range of learning benefits

Character Change Chart
What is main character like at the beginning of the story? What is the main character like at the end of the story? How has he or she changed? Crisis Given this character change, what do you think the author wanted you to learn? ________ ________________________________________________________________________

History Events Chart TEXT WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? WHY? Relation:
1 Relation: 2 3 Relation 4 Main point: In the history meetings, the team liked a number of strategies and made suggestions for improvement. One such strategy was the history events chart. Coherence and understanding how the stories of history connect to each other is crucial to understanding narrative history. As students read about a particular event, they write down answers to the questions of who, what, where, when, how, and why in order to summarize the key narrative events. They do the same with each event they read about. However, the compelling task — the one that addresses a specific disciplinary problem in reading history — is to determine what the relationship is between the first and second event, between the second and third event, and so on. Students are asked to think about the most likely connections and to write these on the chart. The historians were approving of this task because it mirrored the kind of thinking that historians do. That is, historians infer cause-and-effect relationships when they study events and what precedes and follows them. These relationships are not necessarily visible in the events themselves, nor are they always made explicit in high school history texts, so they must be surmised. And, if they are made explicit in the text, students generally regard the connection as “truth” rather than as the construction of the writer. The task, then, not only mirrored historians’ thinking, but also offered the opportunity for students to construct the cause-and-effect relationships themselves. The high school teachers have tried out several promising strategies in the classroom, including the ones described above. One of the history teachers engaged in a quasi-experimental study of another history strategy — one he called “The Multiple Gist” strategy. In this strategy, students read one text and summarize it, read another text and incorporate that text into the summary, then read another text and incorporate that text into the summary, and so on. The summary has to stay the same length, essentially, and this forces a student to use words such as similarly or in contrast when incorporating texts that compare or contrast with each other. His preliminary results reveal that students who learned the multiple-gist strategy wrote longer, more coherent answers to essay questions.

Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1990s Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline Students Remedial Whole distribution Texts Often encourages use of literary text Only focuses on disciplinary text

Content Area Reading Often promotes reading of plays, short stories, novels, poems for math, science, and history Thematic units and integrated curriculum (focused on the non-disciplinary use of disciplinary information)

Disciplinary Literacy
Language differs across disciplines, so it is critical that readers confront the language of their discipline The Friendly Textbook Dilemma

History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell)
History text constructs time and causation Attributes agency (readers need to focus on the reasons for actions and the outcomes of those actions—cause/effect) Presents judgment and interpretation (argument) Often narratives with lack of clear connections to thesis

History texts construct meaning about time, place, manner through “grammatical circumstances” Thus, in history, many clauses begin with grammatical circumstances realized in prepositional phrases and adverbs Over the next decade events led to war. They gathered in Philadelphia. They made enemies by their harsh stands

History also constructs participants/actors and the processes that they engaged in to move towards their goals.

History Reading (Fang & Schleppergrel)
Clause Circumstance Actor Process Goal Circum. 1 Over the next decade, further events steadily led to war 2 Some colonial leaders, such as Samuel Adams favored independ-ence from Britain. 3 They encour-aged conflict with British authorities. 4 At the same time, George II and his ministers made enemies of many moderate Colonists by their harsh stands

Science Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell)
Technical, abstract, dense, tightly knit language (that contrasts with interactive, interpersonal style of other texts or ordinary language) Nominalization (turning processes into nouns) Suppresses agency (readers need to focus on causation not intention)

Science Reading (Fang & Schleppergrell)
Sentence density: unpacking complex nouns Experimental verification of Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect was made 11 years later by the American physicist Robert Millikan. Every aspect of Einstein’s interpretation was confirmed, including the direct proportionality of photon energy to frequency.

Source Reading experts since 1920s Wider range of experts since 1990s Nature of skills Generalizable Specialized Focus Use of reading and writing to study/learn information How literacy is used to make meaning within a discipline Students Remedial Whole distribution Texts Often encourages use of literary text Only focuses on disciplinary text Role of graphics Ignored or taught generally Specific to the discipline

Content Area Reading Graphics as adjuncts
Interpretive skills are general for pictures, tables, charts, etc. No differences across disciplines

Disciplinary Literacy
Need for translation skills in sciences Pictures differ in their role (describing/defining nouns, verbs (processes), relationships) Difference between technical drawing and other photos or drawings? Is the information: Descriptive? Sequential? Relational/hierarchical? Causal?

Conclusion Clearly, we need to improve literacy practices within the disciplines Making sure students have opportunities to engage in the challenging reading and writing of the disciplines in ways that are appropriate to the disciplines The leverage to do that is the common core standards…. so knowing about the foundations of disciplinary literacy is not enough, you need to know the challenges of the common core as well…

An important outcome of this work
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR English Language Arts And Literacy in History/Social Studies & Science/Technical subjects

Common Core State Standards
In 2009, the National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Gates Foundation developed a set of core standards for the English Language Arts and Mathematics Since then 45 states and DC have adopted these standards (about 85% of teachers and students in the U.S.) In , current state tests will be replaced by one of two exams that will be taken by students in about half the states

Standards changes are hard, but they are especially hard in this case…
These standards are at a higher level than previous standards These standards have a different style and organizational structure that makes them more challenging for schools to work with Common core standards are based on different theories (reading comprehension, writing, differentiated instruction) than past standards, so they are qualitatively different in several ways

Next… We will give you insights into how and why these standards are different And familiarize you with some of the major challenges of teaching with the common core state standards

1. Backmapping Traditional standards started with kindergarten and then added years of work on top of those (and have focused heavily on existing curricula and notions of development) The common standards began with college and career readiness standards and then backmapped from there This means that the standards demand growth aimed at ensuring students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past) This makes these standards more challenging than past standards

1. Backmapping (Cont.) Implications: The common core standards are markedly harder than past standards since they are designed to ensure that students reach graduation targets (rather than depending so heavily on what we have done in the past) Larger percentages of students likely to fail to meet these standards

2. Coordinated structure
Standards are usually not much more than random lists of skills, knowledge, and strategies But the common core state standards have very strong progressions and an organization that requires attention Reading comprehension is divided into 2 and 4 lists of standards (each list has 10 standards and these standards are analogous, meaning that it is worthwhile to consider all of the #1s, #2s, etc.) Strong connections across comprehension, oral language, and writing

2. Coordinated structure (cont.)
Implications: Read through the themes or numbered items across grade levels to figure out what items mean and what the progression looks like Look to the writing, speaking/listening, or language items to gain insights into what the reading standards mean

3. Challenging Text Theory of standards in the past: schools needed to focus on cognitive skills and text was largely irrelevant or uncontrolled Theory of the common core: Text difficulty is central and all cognitive skills have to be executed with texts of a specified difficulty range Item #10 in all of the reading comprehension lists focus on text difficulty and specify the Lexile range that has to be the target

3. Challenging Text (Cont.)
Implications: Students will likely be taught from texts that are more challenging in the past Less emphasis on “guided reading” Greater emphasis on stretching students to meet the demands of reading harder text (rather than on placing students in the leveled reader according to instructional level or in using low readability textbooks) Need to learn how to scaffold challenging reading (without reading it to students or telling them what it says)

4. Disciplinary literacy
Past standards have not made a big deal out of reading in history/social studies or science Past emphasis was on learning how to read (and the idea was that students could apply these skills to content area textbooks) However, research is revealing unique reading demands of the various disciplines (reading history is not the same thing as reading literature, etc.) The common core state standards requires specialized reading emphasis for history/social studies and science/technical subjects

4. Disciplinary literacy (cont.)
Implications The ELA standards should be shared by the science and history departments It is essential that literature, science, and history include texts in their instructional routines Content teachers will need to emphasize aspects of literacy that they have not in the past (these are disciplinary standards, not content area reading standards—the idea is not how to apply reading skills and strategies to content subjects but how to teach the unique uses of literacy required by the disciplines)

Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – Key Ideas/Details
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources. Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; summarize the source, basing the summary on information in the text rather than on prior knowledge or opinions. Identify key steps in a text’s description of a process related to history/social studies (e.g., how a bill becomes law, how interest rates are raised or lowered). Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information. Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; summarize how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text and the causes that link the events; distinguish whether earlier events caused later ones or simply preceded them. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole. Determine the main ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide a summary that makes clear the relationships between the key details and ideas. Analyze how ideas and beliefs emerge, develop, and influence events, based on evidence in the text .

Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – Craft & Structure
Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including vocabulary specific to domains related to history/social studies. Identify how a history/social studies text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally). Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author’s point of view or purpose (e.g., loaded language, inclusion or avoidance of particular facts). Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including the vocabulary describing political, economic, or social aspects of history. Explain how an author chooses to structure information or an explanation in a text to emphasize key points or advance a point of view. Compare the point of view of two or more authors by comparing how they treat the same or similar historical topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts. Interpret the meaning of words and phrases in a text, including how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51). Analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured, including how key sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text contribute to the whole. Evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors’ claims, evidence, and reasoning.

Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-8, 9-10, 11-12) – Integration
Integrate graphical information (e.g., pictures, videos, maps, time lines) with other information in a print or digital text. Distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a historical account. Analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same topic. Integrate quantitative or technical information presented in maps, time lines, and videos with other information in a print or digital text. Assess the extent to which the evidence n a text supports the author’s claims. Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources. Synthesize ideas and data presented graphically and determine their relationship to the rest of a print or digital text, noting discrepancies between the graphics and other information in the text. Evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other sources of information. Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.

5. Informational text Past standards have usually emphasized both literary and informational texts However, this emphasis left the distribution of this emphasis to the teachers The common core standards requires the teaching of comprehension within both informational and literary texts These new standards emphasize informational texts equally with literary texts (in Grades K-5) and literature falls to 25% after that

5. Informational text (Cont.)
Implications Text selections are going to need to shift greatly (textbooks and leveled books) Primary grade teachers are going to need to raise their comfort level for working with informational text (informational text will get a great emphasis in upper grades, too, but this is not as big a change for these grades) Need to guard against informational text being taken over by literary treatments of factual information (such as biography)

6. Close Reading Past standards have been based largely upon theories of reading comprehension drawn from cognitive science These theories have emphasized procedures or strategies that readers could use to guide their reading (e.g., summarization, questioning, monitoring, visualizing) The common core standards are also based upon theory, but literary theory not psychological theory These standards depend heavily upon “New Criticism”

6. Close Reading (cont.) Implications
Students will need to engage to a greater extent in deep analysis of the text and its meaning and implications Less emphasis on reader’s background information, comprehension strategies, picture walks, etc. (though these still can be brought in by teachers) Greater emphasis on careful reading of a text, weighing of author’s diction, grammar, and organization to make sense of the text (more attention to how text works) Rereading will play a greater role in teaching reading Each discipline has its own definition of close reading

7. Multiple texts Past standards have emphasized the reading of single texts: students had to learn how to make sense of a story, article or book (with perhaps an occasional emphasis on multiple texts) The common core state standards emphasize the interpretation of multiple texts throughout (at all grade levels, and in reading, writing, and oral language) Students will still have to be able to interpret single texts, but much more extensive emphasis on reading and using multiple texts (about 10% of the ELA standards mention multiple texts)

7. Multiple Texts (cont.) Implications
There will be a greater need for combinations of texts that can be used together Need for greater emphasis on text synthesis (how to combine the information from multiple sources into one’s own text or presentation) Need for greater emphasis on comparative evaluation and analysis Need for a consideration of non-text sources (e.g., video, experiments)

8. Writing about text Past standards have emphasized writing as a free-standing subject or skill Students have been expected to be able to write texts requiring low information (or only the use of widely available background knowledge) The common core puts greater emphasis on the use of evidence in writing Thus, the major emphasis shifts from writing stories or opinion pieces to writing about the ideas in text

8. Writing about Text (cont.)
Implications Writing will need to be more closely integrated with reading comprehension instruction The amount of writing about what students read will need to increase Greater emphasis on synthesis of information and critical essays than in the past

9. Argumentation Past standards have tended to treat text as being just a form of neutral information The common core state standards begin with the theoretical premise that texts (and other forms of language) are a form of argument Arguments depend upon the use of evidence and reason Given the emphasis on argument, critical reading (and writing) take center stage in the new common core standards

9. Argumentation (cont.) Implications
Teachers will be expected to teach students to discern the arguments underlying a text or presentation Need for a greater emphasis on trying to figure out author perspective, tone, position Much greater emphasis on the use of evidence Greater emphasis on making one’s own arguments (persuasion is only one aspect of this)

10. Technology The emphasis on technology has been minimal in past English language arts standards Again, the idea has been that students would learn generalizable reading and writing skills and then they could apply these within any context or technology The common core state standards reflect a much heavier emphasis on how to take advantage of the affordances provided by technology

10. Technology (cont.) Implications
Students are going to need to know how to search, read, and use information drawn from the Internet Students are going to need to know how to use word processors and other technological supports in their writing Students are going to need to know how to use presentation software in their oral presentations Students are going to need to know how to use various online references

Conclusion The common core state standards are based upon very different theories and conceptions of teaching than our current standards are Teacher preparation and textbook design are largely based upon theories and approaches that are (somewhat) inconsistent with those supporting the common core standards Changing instructional practices to better support the standards will require a major professional development and materials transformation

Valuable Resources http://www.corestandards.org/

Some resources Shanahan & Shanahan. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents. Harvard Educational Review, 78, Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misichia (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, Fang & Schleppegrell. (2008). Reading in second content areas: A language-based pedagogy. University of Michigan Press. Brozo & Simpson. (2003). Teachers and learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. Merrill, Prentice-Hall.

Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy
Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago

Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Teaching Literacy in the Disciplines and Teaching Disciplinary Literacy Timothy Shanahan Cynthia Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago www.shanahanonliteracy.com."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback