Thought One

What is the difference between Content, Content area and Disciplinary Literacy? 

In the field of education, the phrases, “content”, “content area”, and “disciplinary literacy” get thrown around a lot, yet, what do they mean? According to a writing by T.D. Wolsey and D. Lapp, Literacy in the Disciplines, each phrase has their own, unique, and quite important, meaning. Quite simply, content can be defined as what the words are about. Wolsey and Lapp believe it is essential for students to not only learn content, what aboutthe words, but, also, how reading and writing are used in that field. According to other scholars mentioned in the writing, Shanahan and Moje, attention to building literary capacity and effectively teaching content and patterns is crucial to students’ disciplines. With content, comes content area. Content area can be shortly defined as the equivalent of a subject area. A student’s growth, progress, and success in subject areas in schools give them an idea of fields of study to potentially master in the future, for college or the workplace. Students will more than likely not master all fields, but find ones they are most comfortable with. Wolsey and Lapp suggest that while students are not experts in all fields required in schools, yet, they are amateurs seeking to make sense of the world. (Wolsey & Lapp, 2017) Along with content and content area, is disciplinary literacy. Disciplinary literacy does not have as simple a definition as content and content area, rather, it can be explained as being aimed toward what professionals teach: what students read and the information they use. This type of literacy, according to Wolsey and Lapp, neglects how instructors teach. For example, if a student can read a science book well enough to pass an exam.

What does “metadiscursivity” have to do with disciplinary literacy? Why is it important?

When talking about disciplinary literacy, the adjective, metadiscursive, may be mentioned. Metadiscursive means, “that people not only have to engage in…different discourse communities [they]…also know how and why they are engaging, and what those engagements mean for them and others in…social positioning and larger power relations.” (New London Group, 1996) In short, this means that students are able to maneuver a myriad of disciplinary, or discourse, communities, being fully aware of their involvement, position, and the outcome. In Wolsey and Lapp’s article, they mention scholars who state that students engage in many discourse communities in their day-to-day lives and are remarkably flexible in how they do so, in and out of school. The importance of students being metadiscursive in the educational and social lives in that students need to be able to properly flow with the variety of reading and conversation types that are going to be presented to them on an everyday basis. To be able to smoothly shift from a formal conversation about a topic you are studying for an exam and then smoothly slide into an informal conversation about one’s plans this coming weekend, is crucial to navigating everyday life.

How does Moje’s disciplinary theory compare and contrast to Gee’s perspectives on reading and language

Moje defines disciplinary literacy as an experience with the text you are reading. She describes that it is critical that educators work to expand youth knowledge, practices, and texts as a function of education. Moje believes in expanding youth understanding of discipline by making educators look back to historical background in secondary school literacy areas such as, subject area, subject matter, and disciplinary literacy. Moje also talks of “reconceptualizing learning and literacy in the subject areas” (Moje, 2001). Moje believes that learning skills and habits of fields and disciplines permits students to become keener in their everyday lives. This also allows them to become decisive critics of knowledge, therefore creating informed citizens. Moje also presents the ideas that language is always conceptual and connects to social activity, giving socially situated identity. Having an understanding of a plethora of languages is crucial in education. For example, for a nursing student, having a knowledge of the language of medicine and language of textbooks in quintessential. On the other hand, according to Gee, social languages and disciplinary languages are crucial to development, aiding in student reading and understanding, while also, aiding in their personal writing. Gee suggests social languages are learned through socialization, and cannot be taught. Both Moje and Gee share an emphasis on the socialization and fluidity needed in disciplinary literacy for success. Moje focuses more on the educational and reading comprehension and understanding, while Gee is more focused on understanding, interest, and exposure to fields.