Thought Three

What are the strongest arguments for and against taking a disciplinary approach to teach reading at the elementary levels?

“Disciplinary literacy refers to the idea that we should teach the specialized ways of reading, understanding, and thinking used in each academic discipline, such as science, history, or literature.” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2014) In their article, both Shanahan and Shanahan argue reasons for, and against, disciplinary literacy teaching in the elementary grade levels. They present the argument that, as students naturally progress through school, their knowledge of literacies grows with the literature and texts they are exposed to. Yet, they beg the reader to ask themselves, is that enough? Shanahan and Shanahan decide to argue both sides of this fight in their article, showing the reader into the possible outcomes of use, or no use of the disciplinary practice. One of Shanahan and Shanahan’s first, and strongest, arguments are, “disciplinary literacy matters because general reading skills can only take students so far.” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2014) In this argument, the authors are highlighting the importance of taking reading a step farther, through disciplinary approaches. They present ideas that put a strong emphasis on the way students are reading in each content area and what kind of information is important in each discipline, including student reading strategies, comprehension, questioning, etc. The authors also stress the expectation for students to apply a more focused lens across everything they read. They also present an example to highlight that general reading is simple, “not enough, …literary summaries need to do more than capture plot elements; they need to include characters’ emotional responses and motivations.” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2014) They show through this example that students seem to not understand these nuances unless they are explicitly taught to them. (Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, et al., 1996) On the other hand, they also state how, especially in elementary levels, the textbooks used across content areas usually do not differ much in literacy language used, therefore, appreciating these differences in literacies can be difficult to incorporate into lessons. In this respect, the argument would be that disciplinary literacy practices are practically unable to be used with little to no actual difference in textual language. Another one of the author’s strongest arguments for disciplinary literacy is that elementary teachers should use a multitude of texts and kinds of literature, being able to teach across content areas. For example, teaching vocabulary, an English practice, from science, history, or math texts. In summary, their article describes many ways elementary teachers, and educators, in general, can do so much to prepare students for higher education, yet knowing what practices and approaches to utilize and how an educator can utilize them is key to being successful in education.

What discourses, social languages, genres, and/or cultural models help to shape your focal discipline?

When asked to think of what shapes my focal discipline, my mind begins to whirl. As a student who went to both a large, suburban school district, as well as, a small, rural school district, a myriad of practices and aspects have collaborated into my discipline.

For me, looking at both schools in comparison, it is easy to see the difference in social languages and cultural models, yet, the discourse of the schools differ in a way one may not expect. Though the bigger school had more students, funding, and resources, the discourse, face-to-face classroom teaching, was much more one-on-one and intensive at the smaller district. I felt as if there was more of a connection with student and educator at the smaller school, as well as, more of an emphasis on the actual work being produced. The social languages differed extremely, I believe due to socioeconomic and demographic factors. At the larger school, a more 21st-century slang language was used between students, with respect spoken to adults and those with authority. At the smaller school, the social language was more relaxed between student and teacher, as well as, student to administration, and student to student. Being in a small town, everyone seemed to know everyone, or someone that knew someone, therefore, a more comfortable social language was almost uniformly present. At both schools, I was presented with a variety of texts from advanced placement biology textbooks to Hamlet to statistics word problems, and so on. More times than not, I was exposed to more than one type of text at once, in a classroom. For example, during my senior year of high school in my English class, I decided to write a research paper that broke down Hamlet’s psychological thoughts, actions, etc. in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Just researching for and writing that paper alone, I was exposed to the Shakespearean text, scholarly articles, and psychology articles and journals. I believe being exposed to such a wide range of different teaching styles, cultures, social languages, and discourses has made my discipline quite diverse. I also believe that my focal discipline will help me one day in the future, aiding students' understanding, as well as, how they think and learn while in my classroom.