Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Top Lang Disorders
Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 35–50
Copyright c 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Disciplinary Literacy and the
Common Core State Standards
Vassiliki (“Vicky”) I. Zygouris-Coe
The purpose of this article is to present a perspective on disciplinary literacy and the Common Core
State Standards based on the argument that disciplinary literacy is embedded in the standards. The
article highlights possibilities and challenges associated with national efforts to prepare students
for success in college and the workforce. Information is presented on the basis of a selected
literature review of disciplinary literacy, adolescent literacy, student achievement, and the common
core standards. Instructional strategies also are presented for developing students’ disciplinary
literacy and meeting common core goals. In the article, I call for collaborative inquiry and shared
accountability among stakeholders to ensure that all students’ literacy and learning needs are
met in a new era of educational reform. Key words: adolescent literacy, college and career
preparation, common core state standards, disciplinary literacy, educational reform
NEED FOR ADVANCED LITERACY 2010). Although U.S. students in Grade 4
INSTRUCTION AND IMPROVED score among the top in the world, by Grade
STUDENT ATTAINMENT 10 they place close to the bottom among de-
veloped nations (Organisation for Economic
Literacy is necessary for success in schools, Co-Operation and Development, 2006, 2008).
colleges, career, and life. Because of a global Some projections estimate that 63% of pro-
information-intensive society, the globaliza- jected job openings for 2018 will require at
tion of labor markets, economic demands, least some college education. This presents
and the increasing demands of a technolog- a challenge, given evidence that 15-year-old
ically advanced workforce, literacy has been Americans rank 14th among developing na-
viewed as a main factor for societies’ financial tions in reading and that low literacy skills
growth and success. In order for the United are associated with low levels of employment,
States to remain competitive with other highly high rates of remedial course work (e.g., 42%
developed countries and for young Americans of college students take remedial work in read-
to succeed in the global workplace, there has ing and mathematics), and increased drop-out
to be an improvement in the literacy skills rates (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011;
of middle and high school students (Dando, U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, students’ literacy per-
formance from 8th to 10th grades has
Author Affiliation: College of Education, School of remained low over the past four decades (Lee
Teaching, Learning, and Leadership, University of & Spratley, 2010; National Center for Educa-
Central Florida, Orlando.
tion Statistics, 2010). Results from The Na-
The author has disclosed no significant relationships tion’s Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and
with, or financial interest in, any commercial compa-
nies pertaining to this article.
Mathematics 2009 National and Pilot State
Results report (National Center for Education
Corresponding Author: Vassiliki (“Vicky”) I.
Zygouris-Coe, PhD, College of Education, School
Statistics, 2010) show that 1 in 5 low-income
of Teaching, Learning, and Leadership, University of and minority students is proficient in read-
Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, ing and about 1 in 10 low-income students
FL 32816 (Vassiliki.Zygouris-Coe@ucf.edu).
is proficient in mathematics. Reading ability
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31824561a2 is a key predictor of achievement in science
3536 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012 and mathematics (American College Testing, Because the United States is in the midst of 2006), and for the United States to thrive finan- an adolescent literacy crisis, what are possi- cially and culturally in a competitive global ble avenues for emerging from it? The Com- economy, American youth will have to pos- mon Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010) ini- sess advanced literacy, mathematics, and sci- tiative is viewed by many as a possible cata- ence skills (Alliance for Excellent Education, lyst for improving the educational attainment 2011; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). (especially in mathematics and science) of Several works have redirected the atten- adolescents in the United States. The CCSS tion of the public to the need for compre- propose a leveling of the field in academic hensive improvement in adolescent literacy. expectations by back mapping college and These include the report, A Nation at Risk career readiness standards that students will (National Commission on Excellence in Edu- build through Grade 12 by starting in kinder- cation, 1983); the No Child Left Behind (U.S. garten. The standards position literacy and the Department of Education, Office of Elemen- reading of complex text in the “heart” of each tary and Secondary Education, 2002) Act of content area. The hypothesis of disciplinary 2001; the Reading Next report (Biancarosa literacy approaches is that, by incorporating & Snow, 2004, 2006); position statements effective, subject-specific literacy strategies, issued by the National Council for Teach- skills, and practices into content instruction, ers of English (2004); the report commis- students will develop relevant content and lit- sioned by the National Reading Conference eracy skills in tandem (Shanahan & Shanahan, (Alvermann, 2001); the report issued by Amer- 2008). Adoption of the CCSS implies a disci- ican College Testing (2006); reports pub- plinary literacy learning framework; that is, all lished by the Alliance for Excellent Education teachers, including teachers of history/social (2011; Kamil, 2003); and reports by Strick- studies, science, mathematics, and technical land and Alvermann (2004) and the National disciplines, will be addressing 10 reading and Institute for Literacy (2007). Some evidence 10 writing standards through disciplinary in- supports a conclusion that the national em- struction in their respective subject areas. Im- phasis of the 1990s on improving young chil- plementation of disciplinary literacy and CCSS dren’s reading achievement produced growth guidelines has the potential to improve the in early reading scores. For example, re- content and literacy knowledge, skills, and ports indicate that 9-year-olds in the United performance of adolescents. States are reading much better than they were In this article, I argue that using the CCSS 12–15 years ago (Perle, Grigg, & Donahue, and teaching for disciplinary literacy will help 2005). students develop specialized knowledge and Unfortunately, early reading improvement skills that are relevant to each subject area, does not guarantee that students will be able to college and career preparation, and to the to read and comprehend the specialized texts world. The CCSS are organized in a disci- of English language arts, science, mathemat- plinary fashion, and disciplinary literacy con- ics, and other content areas (Lee, Grigg, & siderations are central to the CCSS. Con- Donahue, 2007; Perle et al., 2005). The as- tent area teachers will not be able to im- sumption that secondary students “already plement disciplinary literacy without under- know how to read” has contributed to years standing the responsibility the CCSS place on of adolescent literacy neglect by policymakers every area teacher to develop students’ read- and researchers and limited literacy instruc- ing, writing, thinking, speaking, and listening tion beyond Grade 3 (Biancarosa & Snow, skills that are unique to, and necessary for, 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Graham & learning in each subject area. Perin, 2007; National Assessment of Educa- The purpose of this article is to present the tional Progress, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009; Snow case for the complementary relationship be- & Biancarosa, 2003). tween DL and the CCSS and for the potential
Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 37
of disciplinary literacy and the CCSS to work struction, however, many content area teach-
in tandem to develop students’ content and ers have resisted incorporating reading in-
literacy knowledge in each discipline, prepar- struction in their classes due to lack of time
ing them for college and careers. A secondary and belief that literacy skills are unrelated
purpose is to describe the possibilities and to their content (Alvermann & Moore, 1991;
challenges associated with disciplinary liter- O’Brien & Stewart, 1990; O’Brien, Stewart,
acy and CCSS implementation. & Moje, 1995; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
Many secondary teachers assume that stu-
DISCIPLINARY LITERACY dents should arrive in secondary grades hav-
ing mastered the necessary reading and com-
The landmark report by the National Com- prehension skills. Even when they realize that
mission on Teaching and America’s Future not all students are able to read the text of
(1996), What Matters Most: Teaching for the disciplines, they do not assume the read-
America’s Future, identified teachers’ knowl- ing instruction responsibility because of their
edge as the key factor in student achievement. perceived need to cover more content and
Other reports since then have focused on the their lack of reading expertise (O’Brien et al.,
same relationship (e.g., U.S. Department of 1995).
Education, 2007) and have highlighted the Generalized approaches to literacy devel-
need for placing a highly qualified teacher in opment in the content areas, whereby con-
every classroom. A highly qualified secondary tent area teachers “sprinkle” their content
school teacher is expected to be equipped with generic literacy strategies, have neither
not only with content knowledge and peda- been received nor implemented well, nor
gogy but also with knowledge about how to have they improved the ever-alarming crisis
support the development of students’ literacy in adolescent literacy (Phelps, 2005; Shana-
skills across the content areas (Biancarosa & han & Shanahan, 2008). Many content area
Snow, 2004). teachers have viewed this approach as infring-
Adolescents face many challenges for ing on their content plans and schedule in-
achieving high levels of literacy, including stead of as a means to supporting and assess-
the literacy demands of content area texts, ing student learning of the content (O’Brien
literacy demands in a fast-changing world, et al., 1995; O’Brien & Stewart, 1992). Much
advanced examinations, and a disconnect of content area literacy instruction has fo-
between in-school culture and out-of-school cused on generic literacy skills (e.g., summa-
culture (Moje, 2002). That reading in the sec- rizing, predicting, questioning), and instruc-
ondary grades is different from reading in the tion sometimes does not extend beyond as-
early grades is supported not only by literacy signing the reading and writing of content-
research, but also by the new CCSS. Accord- specific texts (McConachie & Petrosky, 2010;
ing to Lee and Spratley (2010), 10th-grade stu- Snow & Moje, 2010). Most importantly, the
dents in the United States score among the reading in the content areas approaches does
lowest in the world, struggling with issues not recognize the different demands of each
such as (a) engagement with reading (espe- discipline (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).
cially expository text) and motivation to read, Proponents of disciplinary literacy argue
(b) vocabulary, (c) comprehension, and (d) that focusing on generalizable skills and abili-
self-regulating their comprehension. ties, such as decoding, fluency, and basic com-
Intervention research has shown that stu- prehension strategies will not prepare stu-
dents can benefit by having reading in- dents to deal with the complex literacy and
struction incorporated in their content areas content demands of each discipline (Plaut,
(Anders & Guizzetti, 1996; Ivey, 1999; Moore, 2009; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Snow
Readance, & Rickelman, 1983). Despite the & Moje, 2010). I also argue that general
benefits of content-area embedded reading in- strategies are insufficient for coping with the38 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012 demands of new educational standards. As stu- acy needs to be positioned as a discipline- dents advance through grades, their literacy specific process within each content area. instruction should become increasingly more Content area teachers need to teach students complex and discipline-based and should not only about their content area, but also support students’ understanding of complex how to read and understand from informa- texts in each content area (Snow & Moje, tional text (Snow & Biancarossa, 2004), espe- 2010). There is a need for specialized content- cially in an era of educational reform. Further- area instruction that allows students to de- more, this instruction should be specific to velop comprehension and knowledge within the literacy expectations of each discipline. the advanced content of the disciplines in the Disciplinary literacy is prominently fea- secondary grades (Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz, tured in the new CCSS. Also reflected in 2007; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004; the CCSS is the view of content and liter- Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Yore & Treagust, acy knowledge developing in tandem (Shana- 2006), and the CCSS are most likely to be met han & Shanahan, 2008). Content area teachers if secondary teachers learn new strategies for need to see that disciplinary literacy instruc- promoting literacy practices specific to their tion can facilitate, and not compete with, con- disciplines. tent learning (Hall, 2005). The CCSS convey Disciplinary literacy is built on the premise the disciplinary literacy principle that each that each subject area or discipline has a dis- discipline has a specific approach to literacy course community with its own language, knowing and learning. They imply that con- texts, and ways of knowing, doing, and com- tent area teachers in secondary grades are municating within a discipline (O’Brien, Moje, best suited to teach reading in their respec- & Stewart, 2001). It moves beyond the notion tive disciplines because of their knowledge of “every teacher is a reading teacher” and lit- of the content and implicit knowledge of eracy as an “add-on” set of generic strategies the structure and language of their discipline used to improve the reading and writing of (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). For example, subject area texts. Rather, it situates literacy history teachers are best positioned to teach as an integral part of content (Moje, 2008) so students how to read and write about his- that “literacy within the discipline” becomes tory, just as English teachers are best suited the goal of disciplinary literacy. to teach students how to read literature and Shanahan and Shanahan (2008, 2012) pro- write literary analyses. Professional develop- posed that disciplinary literacy, compris- ment in disciplinary literacy can provide sec- ing advanced literacy instruction embedded ondary content area teachers with discipline- within content-area classes, such as mathe- specific strategies that will help students meet matics, science, and social studies, should be the literacy demands of each discipline, while a focus of literacy efforts at middle and sec- developing their content knowledge (Lee & ondary school settings. Disciplinary literacy Spratley, 2010). “involves the use of reading, reasoning, in- Moje (2008) suggests that disciplinary lit- vestigating, speaking, and writing required eracy instructional programs need to build to learn and form complex content knowl- skills, rather than just encourage content area edge appropriate to a particular discipline” teachers to apply literacy strategies to their (McConachie & Petrosky, 2010, p. 16). Dis- various disciplines. Many literacy strategies ciplinary literacy highlights the complexity, are not deeply penetrating enough and do not literacy demands, and differentiated thinking, equip teachers with literacy tools that repre- skills, and strategies that characterize each sent the uniqueness of the various disciplines discipline. According to this approach, def- (Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). initions of literacy in the secondary grades Because of the distinctive manner in which must be anchored in the specifics of individ- each discipline arrives at constructing knowl- ual disciplines. Within this framework, liter- edge, literacy itself becomes a core aspect of
Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 39 disciplinary practice, instead of just a set of history, or biology texts? If students do not tools brought into the discipline to improve have discipline-specific content and literacy reading and writing of content-specific texts knowledge and skills, will they be able to read (Moje, 2008). This includes teaching students and comprehend varied complex texts, know to read complex texts in each content area. how to identify the author, the audience, pur- Textbooks are at the center of content area pose, whether other sources support or con- instruction, but many students have difficul- tradict information, or whether information ties reading the textbooks. Some teachers do is credible, inaccurate, or biased? Will they be not even use them because the textbook is able to meet the new educational standards if too complex for students. Teachers should they do not have effective discipline-specific play a role, therefore, in selecting relevant, literacy skills? In order for students to be ready meaningful, and complex texts, and they must to face the literacy demands of college and ca- learn how to engage students in learning more reer, they will need to read many complex about the content. texts, learn how to use information as evi- Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) invited a dence, present well-reasoned oral and written panel of disciplinary experts (i.e., in chem- arguments, and conduct synthesis and com- istry, history, and mathematics) to discuss parative evaluation of information. how they approached reading discipline- specific materials and identify challenges stu- THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS dents would face with reading such materials. Participants varied in the way they read, in In 2010, the Carnegie Council for Advanc- what they considered to be challenges in the ing Adolescent Literacy (2010) released a land- text, and in how the texts should be taught. mark report titled, Time to Act: An Agenda In terms of discipline-specific strategies, for for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for Col- example, sourcing, contextualizing, identify- lege and Career Success. This report arrived ing arguments, and how the author portrays at a pivotal time in education history. Also events, are useful to history. In chemistry, sep- in 2010, the National Governors Association arating essential information from nonessen- and the Council of Chief State School Offi- tial information, visualizing, and thinking of cers released the publication of the proposed examples are some of the strategies teach- new academic standards, CCSS, in English lan- ers should teach. Explaining concepts, writ- guage arts and mathematics (K–12). The pur- ing equations, and illustrating data are some of poses of CCSS are to improve U.S. educa- the strategies that will help students read and tional outcomes, standardize educational op- comprehend text in mathematics. To achieve portunity, and focus on fewer and more rigor- change, national efforts must be expanded ous standards that are internationally bench- to support adolescent literacy development, marked. The CCSS map the knowledge and identify more advanced curriculum, and pro- skills students should develop in grades K– vide quality instruction to support older read- 12 that will adequately prepare them for the ers’ literacy and discipline-specific knowledge workforce and college careers. and skills. There is also a need for all edu- In English language arts, the CCSS place an cators to come together, problem-solve, and increased focus on expository text and mul- collaboratively develop schoolwide plans that tiple texts from the earliest grades, critical will help facilitate the implementation of dis- reading of text, disciplinary literacy in the up- ciplinary literacy and CCSS guidelines. per grades, the importance of text complex- Several pressing questions motivate this call ity and text evidence, the value of canonical to action. How can adolescents develop the text, academic vocabulary, informational writ- knowledge and thinking patterns of mathe- ing (starting in kindergarten), and integration matics, history, or biology if they do not know of literacy in mathematics, history/social stud- how to read and comprehend mathematics, ies, science, and media/technology. In math-
40 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012 ematics, the CCSS emphasize deep under- ing, and language are also translated into lit- standing and mastery of key critical topics at eracy standards in history and social studies, each grade level, a balance between concep- science, and technical subjects. Standards for tual understanding and increasing procedural the development of writing target arguing and fluency, and critical thinking and problem- explaining. These genres account for 80% of solving skills students will need to master the writing focus of the later grades. There- to be successful and internationally compet- fore, emphasis should be placed on writing to itive 21st-century thinkers. In science, stu- argue, inform, and persuade using evidence dents from the early grades are expected to from text(s)—on the college and career readi- write logical arguments based on evidence, ness forms of writing. Standards increase in provide sound reasoning, participate in short- complexity from K to 12, helping to articu- and long-term research, and present findings. late what students need to know and be able Close reading is a focus of the CCSS to do along this trajectory and assist with dif- across grades and content areas. Students ferentiation. are expected to read closely to determine The CCSS are designed to be rigor- what the text says explicitly and implicitly ous, clear, and specific (i.e., providing pre- and cite specific evidence from text(s) when cise details about the “what”), teachable, writing or speaking to support conclusions learnable, measurable, coherent, with lim- drawn from one or multiple sources. These ited repetition across grades, informed by expectations become progressively more other top-performing countries, evidence- complex and require multiple sources/texts based, aligned with college expectations, con- as students move into the upper grades. In sistent and clear, building upon existing state this context, the standards focus on close standards, and with rigorous content and ap- reading, on explicit understanding of what a plication of knowledge through higher order text says and does not say, and on students’ skills (see http://www.corestandards.org). ability to gather evidence from complex texts The standards establish benchmarks for to support their understanding. The CCSS “what” all students must be able to read and establish expectations for students to deter- comprehend so they are ready for the types mine word meanings, expand their basic and of reading they will have to do in college and specialized vocabulary, and prepare them for the workforce by the end of high school. The the literacy demands of the 21st century. The core standards are not a curriculum. They out- standards call for a “balanced diet” of reading line a clear set of expectations of knowledge fiction and nonfiction text, with an emphasis and skills that students will need to succeed in on students reading more nonfiction texts higher education and employment. How the to better prepare them for the types of text standards are to be met is left up to the states, they will read in college and in their future school districts, principals, and educators. careers. According to the standards, in the But how will educators support students fourth grade, students should be reading with language disorders and other needs un- equally from fiction and informational text; der the CCSS initiative? The CCSS do not in the eighth grade, 45% of text should be define advanced work beyond the core nor literary and 55% informational, and by 12th the interventions needed for students below grade, 30% literary and 70% informational. grade level, and they do not provide guid- In elementary grades, informational texts ance on the full range of support for English occur primarily in the areas of science and language learners (ELLs) and students with social studies, and teachers use informational special needs. Although the CCSS initiative texts to help students learn about the world is promising for stimulating higher level lit- on an equal basis to literary text. In the high eracy learning, there are many questions as- school grades, the English language arts stan- sociated with the CCSS that will guide edu- dards for reading, writing, speaking, listen- cators’ and policy makers’ discussions for the
Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 41
years to come. Will the CCSS bring about pos- tion, knowledge, and experiences) and task
itive change on the teaching profession and considerations (e.g., purpose and task com-
will they provide the support and empower- plexity). States and districts will need to con-
ment necessary for teachers to succeed? Will sider these components as they review exist-
the CCSS promote more implementation of ing literacy assessments to provide data for
disciplinary literacy instructional practices es- common core alignment, develop tools that
pecially in the upper grades? How will this will help teachers assess literacy in each dis-
initiative help recruit, prepare, and sustain cipline, identify discipline-specific materials
high-quality educators at the elementary- and for assessing students’ reading abilities, and
secondary-grade levels? develop a model for a collaborative, cross-
The core cognitive processes in the CCSS in- disciplinary instruction of reading in the sec-
clude the following: precision and accuracy, ondary grades.
problem formulation, communication, inter- In the area of English language arts, states
pretation, and research. All of these cognitive and districts will need to design rubrics that
processes are embedded from a young age will help first to understand the three ele-
throughout the core, including social stud- ments that interact to determine the complex-
ies, science, and technical subjects. The five ity of texts (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and
components of English language arts include reader and task considerations), and second,
reading, writing, speaking, listening, and lan- to assess qualitative measures of text complex-
guage; these components are to be incorpo- ity and student comprehension. In addition,
rated in each content area and at each grade they will need to provide assistance to teach-
level. The CCSS aim to help states, schools, ers in all content areas on how to access, read,
and teachers focus their instruction on key and comprehend texts of varied complexity.
cognitive skills and strategies students need
for college and the workforce—a goal that Implications of the CCSS for
is also shared by disciplinary literacy learn- professional development
ing guidelines, although the methods in Disci- The CCSS should trigger a shift in teacher
plinary literacy emphasize discipline-specific preparation and in-service education. English
approaches rather than a focus on general cog- language arts and reading faculty are no
nitive processes. longer the sole educators responsible for
literacy. Literacy is positioned at the core of
Implications of the CCSS for each content area and each teacher in every
student assessment subject area at every grade level is responsible
At present, 45 states have formally adopted for students’ literacy. School districts will
the CCSS and have agreed to replace their need to provide professional development
state tests with new assessments aligned with for educators to help them know: (a) about
the CCSS. If implemented correctly, they will the CCSS and the kinds of instructional, cur-
catapult U.S. education toward world-class ricular, and pedagogical changes motivated
learning standards. by the new standards; (b) how to assess
The CCSS provide a three-part model for de- performance tasks using rubrics; (c) how
termining text complexity that can inform as- to create face-to-face and online artifacts to
sessment. The model includes analysis of the assess performance; and (d) how to identify
following components: (1) qualitative dimen- progress monitoring assessments for English
sions of text complexity (e.g., levels of mean- language arts and mathematics by grade
ing or purpose, structure, clarity, language level. All educators must be engaged in
conventionality, and knowledge demands); collaborative inquiry concerning the imple-
(2) quantitative dimensions of text complex- mentation of the standards and participate in
ity (e.g., word and sentence length, and text designing rigorous curricula and assessments
cohesion); and (3) reader (e.g., reader motiva- that will help all students succeed in schools42 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012
and beyond. In addition, districts should acy actions such as analyzing, evaluating, and
develop pilot performance-based assessment synthesizing.
programs that will collect and develop valid As also supported by the CCSS, academic
and reliable performance assessments and subject matter becomes progressively more
task-related resources that are aligned to the complex and specialized across grade lev-
CCSS. Collecting and studying student work els, as does literacy. Being able to read a
and data will help educators reflect on how novel does not transfer to reading specialized
performance-based assessments can inform texts that require different ways of reading,
and improve instruction for all students. speaking, writing, inquiring, communicating,
and knowing (McConachie & Petrosky, 2010).
Reading a history textbook is not the same as
RELATIONSHIPS OF DISCIPLINARY reading a chemistry textbook. Unfortunately,
LITERACY AND THE CCSS teachers may expect that transference of gen-
eral reading strategies and skills will result in
Disciplinary literacy tasks are prominently understanding specialized texts—both disci-
positioned within CCSS to promote the devel- plinary literacy and CCSS contrast with this
opment of content knowledge, reading, writ- viewpoint. Although basic reading skills are
ing, and higher order thinking skills across embedded in all reading tasks (Shanahan &
grades and within each content area. Disci- Shanahan, 2008), in intermediate through sec-
plinary literacy is complex and is reflective of ondary grades, students are expected to read
the individualized structure, demands, texts, and comprehend progressively more com-
and habits of mind associated with each dis- plex texts that warrant specialized skills and
cipline. According to the CCSS, literacy is po- routines. In a history class, for example, stu-
sitioned in the center of each subject area. dents would read primary documents, con-
The CCSS emphasize reading in history/social struct meaning from multiple sources, exam-
studies, science, and other subject areas. The ine photos and artifacts, consider the author’s
standards require specialized reading empha- purpose and perspective for writing the docu-
sis for each subject area and require the teach- ment or text, and evaluate information. On the
ing of comprehension with both literary and contrary, in a science class, students would
informational texts. According to the CCSS, read graphs, charts, and formulas, question
it is imperative that history/social studies and procedures, and draw conclusions. To pre-
science teachers include texts in their instruc- pare students to succeed both in college and
tional routines. in the workforce, teachers need to teach them
Content area teachers will need to empha- how to access, read, and critically analyze
size disciplinary standards. This means that text, its meaning, and implications.
they must learn how to teach the special-
ized uses of literacy in each content area in- Implications for practice
stead of just layering generic reading and writ- Both the CCSS and disciplinary literacy
ing strategies to content subjects. Both dis- place challenges on students and teachers.
ciplinary literacy and the CCSS place much The standards place an increased emphasis
emphasis on reading and interpreting multi- on informational text, multiple texts, crit-
ple texts at all grade levels, and in reading, ical reading, disciplinary literacy, compre-
writing, and oral language. Inherent in disci- hension, oral language, writing about text,
plinary literacy and in the CCSS is the increas- and technology in literacy and language.
ing expectation for students to incorporate According to Lee and Spratley (2010), ado-
research into their reading and writing. The lescents need more targeted, comprehensive,
CCSS also expect students to use technology and “discipline-tailored” literacy support in
to gather information through print and digi- the academic areas. All educators need to de-
tal resources, while applying disciplinary liter- velop knowledge about the unique practicesDisciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 43 of each discipline and how learning is created disciplines include purpose setting/problem and shared (e.g., Fang, 2004; Geisler, 1994; framing, whole-group knowledge elicitation Halliday, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004). Students and development, text-based discussions us- can benefit from learning-specific literacy ing multiple texts types, questioning and mod- strategies that engage them with complex eling thinking with texts types, visualizing and texts, build their background knowledge, de- visual representations, and summarizing and velop their comprehension, and write in a synthesizing with texts (Moje, 2008; Moje & way that is consistent with each discipline. Speyer, 2008). Professional development should address Disciplinary literacy focuses on the special- disciplinary literacy and the CCSS in tandem. ized problems of each subject area, expert Lee and Spratley (2010) call for developing comparisons, the language, and thinking educators’ and policymakers’ understanding patterns of each discipline. Teaching low- of disciplinary literacy, improving policy, and performing readers discipline-specific strate- providing specialized, quality professional de- gies and helping them make expert compar- velopment to teachers. As discussed previ- isons, use the language of each discipline ously, the CCSS will also require targeted com- to exchange ideas, offer solutions, and raise prehensive teacher professional development questions will best prepare them to handle on the standards, assessment, and implemen- the complex literacy and curricular demands tation. Teachers of reading in the disciplines of each discipline. Key factors for successful face unique challenges because first, it is dif- discipline-specific instruction include devel- ficult to motivate a reader to read a text he oping a classroom culture of high expecta- or she is not interested in (Fisher & Frey, tions (Lee, 2007) and delivering instruction 2009), and second, it is difficult to understand that is purposeful, authentic, relevant, and the text when the reader has limited back- critical. For CCSS and disciplinary literacy pur- ground knowledge and specialized vocabu- poses, teachers need to organize instruction lary about the topic. Reading comprehension in engaging ways; provide guided support; se- of complex texts in the disciplines (and across quence discipline-specific skills; include care- grades) is not a natural outcome of teaching a ful reading of complex texts that will help few effective comprehension strategies. Both build background knowledge and compre- CCSS and disciplinary literacy call for the de- hension; model rereading as needed; teach velopment of student independence fostered students how to analyze the author’s use of by the explicit teaching of discipline-specific language, grammar, and organization to make strategies aimed at helping students to read sense of the text; and help students develop and comprehend texts of varied complexity discipline-specific vocabulary and discourse while building their background knowledge knowledge (Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, of each discipline. 2008; Michaels, O’Connor, Hall, & Resnick, Prior knowledge is a good predictor of 2002). All should be aimed at building stu- comprehension (Dole, Valencia, Greer, & dents’ independence as readers. Wardrop, 1991). As supported by both the For states and school districts to be ready CCSS and disciplinary literacy, the various dis- to implement the CCSS by 2014 to 2015, as ciplines provide an appropriate context for planned (CCSS Initiative, 2010), it is impera- building and activating students’ prior knowl- tive that they provide professional opportu- edge. To do that, teachers have to develop nities for cross-disciplinary educator teams to a strategic approach to selecting texts and engage in collaborative learning and planning, teaching in a way that will allow students develop understanding of text complexity, to problem-solve and develop higher order and identify discipline-specific instructional thinking skills across the disciplines (Moje, strategies for scaffolding students’ access to 2008; O’Brian et al., 1995, 2001). Core literacy complex texts. Figure 1 summarizes instruc- teaching practices that can be used across the tional recommendations (developed by the
44 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012
Figure 1. Instructional Recommendations for Combined Disciplinary Literacy and Common
Core State Standards Implementation
Classroom environment
Create a language- and print-rich classroom environment that includes high expectations for all
students to demonstrate inquiry, engagement, critical thinking, academic discourse,
collaboration, rigorous and relevant instruction, purposeful assessment, and support.
Instruction
Provide students with a curriculum that is characterized by both depth and consistency across
grade levels.
Teach students how to pose discipline-specific questions and apply discipline-specific habits of
mind. Teach them how to inquire, read, write, talk, reflect, and represent the critical questions,
problems, and concepts defined by each discipline’s standards and content requirements.
Teach students how to read critically, compare, evaluate, and synthesize evidence from multiple
texts, and write critically about the ideas across texts.
Use a variety of instructional approaches to develop student learning (e.g., direct instruction,
modeling, inquiry, observations, discussions, flexible grouping, guided reflection, and
differentiation of content, process, and product).
Teach students how to locate, read, evaluate, and use information from the Internet, and how to
use technology for writing and oral presentations.
Provide instructional accommodations, adaptations, and augmentations for English language
learners, students with disabilities, and gifted and talented students.
Materials/texts
Promote classroom reading, writing, listening, speaking, and critical thinking using authentic
materials that support the development of content-specific knowledge.
Select multiple text selections (and nontext sources).
Build student background knowledge of topics through wide reading.
Guide students through complex texts by using discipline-specific literacy strategies that develop
a conceptual understanding of language, deepen students’ content knowledge and skills, and
promote transfer of learning.
Teach students about text features and how to construct meaning from them (e.g., graphs, charts,
illustrations, and headings).
Teach text structure and genres, and how to read, predict main ideas in text, and evaluate
information from multiple complex texts. Explain what counts as evidence within the
discipline.
Vocabulary and comprehension
Analyze the language of each discipline—grammar can help with an understanding of vocabulary,
complex sentences, and ideas. Help students with identifying “signal” words that can help
direct and build meaning.
Provide students with effective tools (or strategies) for vocabulary and comprehension, how to
access text, how to organize information, and what to do when meaning fails.
Develop students’ specialized vocabulary and monitor student comprehension.
Invite students to make their understanding of text visible and tangible (e.g., What am I
understanding from this text? What is problematic with this text? What questions do I have
about this text?).
Help students to deconstruct complex sentences, words, and ideas in text(s).
Teach students how to identify types of ideas (e.g., explicit vs. implicit) and relationships among
ideas.
Assessment
Use multiple forms of assessment (e.g., formal, informal, formative, summative) to provide
instruction that will meet all students’ learning; apply progress monitoring of student learning.
Monitor student progress and use data to make instructional decisions.Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 45
author) for teachers (and other profession- Curriculum materials
als) to help with the implementation of disci- As more states adopt the CCSS, all need to
plinary literacy and CCSS guidelines in each practice common sense in the assignment of
content area in order to improve student texts to students, especially if one of the main
outcomes. English language arts program goals is to pro-
mote a love of reading in students. Curriculum
developers need to write texts that are rele-
Possibilities and challenges
vant and rigorous. Barton (2010), a senior as-
The CCSS present a call to higher standards sociate with the Educational Testing Service,
and increased student ability to meet them. calls for the practice of sanity and emphasizes
What role would disciplinary literacy guide- the need to pay attention to teachers’ views
lines, the CCSS, common core assessments, about the CCSS. The standards make no ad-
and prescribed materials play in the current justments for ELLs, students with disabilities,
educational reform efforts? Although there is gifted students, or students who enter kinder-
common agreement about the need for high- garten with little exposure to books. Teachers
quality education standards, there is disagree- will still have to make instructional accommo-
ment among many about the potential impact dations for those students. How will (should)
of these policies on students, teachers, and materials be modified to meet CCSS and disci-
schools. How do the CCSS account for uncom- plinary literacy guidelines?
mon student differences? Will implementing
the CCSS alone ensure that all students in the
English language learners
United States will graduate with the advanced
skills needed for success in an information- To help ELLs meet high academic standards
intensive world? in language arts, teachers should take advan-
tage of the skills and knowledge they bring
(Almanza-de-Schonewise & Klingner, 2012)
Stakeholders and should ensure that they can provide qual-
National and partner organizations and the ified support. ELLs need to be immersed in
International Benchmarking Advisory Group literacy-rich environments and in diverse lan-
(Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and guage experiences. Teachers will have to em-
Development, 2008) call on state leaders to ploy additional resources and strategies to
close the achievement gap between low- make coursework comprehensible to ELLs.
and high-performing students by strengthen- Instruction should promote active student
ing the curriculum, placing highly qualified participation in the classroom, collaboration,
teachers in schools, updating state standards, evidence-based discussions, and writing that
and leveraging states’ influence to ensure that is critical to ELLs’ success across the content
textbook and other materials are aligned to areas.
internationally benchmarked standards by re- ELLs need to develop communicative
vising state policies for teacher preparation strengths in language arts. Ongoing assess-
and support, monitor implementation of in- ment, progress monitoring, and feedback are
terventions, and examine student attainment necessary to support their learning. In math-
in an international context. Policy makers ematics, ELLs first need to understand the
will have to collaborate with all educators in text of the word problem before they attempt
the development of curricular and assessment to solve it. Classroom instruction should fo-
frameworks for students in grades K–12 that cus on discipline-specific discourse and aca-
meet CCSS expectations and support a disci- demic language. Teachers also should encour-
plinary literacy learning framework. Will the age ELLs to use the language of each disci-
CCSS requirements narrow the achievement pline, require that they use words in various
gap or expand it? contexts, ensure that they understand spoken46 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012
and written words orally and can use them in sessments will be used for accountability pur-
writing, and teach them to engage in negoti- poses. What kinds of assessments will be used
ating meaning. across grade levels and subject areas? How
will the assessments be constructed and how
Students with disabilities will the results be used for accountability pur-
poses? How will the standards, and the states’
The CCSS articulate rigorous grade-level ex-
response to them, prepare students for col-
pectations in the areas of mathematics and
lege and career success? Lastly, how will the
English language arts. Promoting a culture of
core assessments meet the needs of students
high expectations for all students is a funda-
with disabilities, ELLs, and students who are
mental goal of the CCSS. Students with dis-
gifted?
abilities must be challenged (and supported)
Because the standards do not tell states
to excel within the general curriculum and
what the standards should look like in prac-
be prepared for success in schools and be-
tice, there is a need for targeted conversations
yond. How the standards will be taught and
about CCSS alignment, implementation, what
assessed is of vital importance in reaching stu-
books students will read in each grade level,
dents with disabilities. Instruction provided
what data to collect, and how to assess student
by teachers and specialized instructional sup-
learning and performance. Most states rely on
port personnel (see Ehren, Murza, & Malani,
single standardized assessments to measure
2012) must include supports and accommo-
student achievement (and teacher effective-
dations to provide students with disabilities
ness in several states). States need to improve
with various means of learning and opportu-
their assessments, provide teachers with ex-
nities to demonstrate their knowledge so they
amples of formative assessments aligned to
can gain access to the general education cur-
college-ready core standards, and build data
riculum.
platforms that teachers can use to improve
instruction (Phillips & Wong, 2010).
Assessment
Systematic literacy and curricular efforts
Many educators have expressed concern can be powerful driving forces to school im-
about the availability and capacity of local provement (Irvin, Meltzer, Mickler, & Phillips,
resources to implement the CCSS effectively 2008). Will the access to coherent standards,
and also about the frequency and types of assessment, and curricular sources help prac-
core assessments. Two consortia have been titioners have improved and timely access to
awarded funding through the Race to The knowledge, skills, data, and information that
Top Assessment competition to design new are typically reserved for school administra-
assessment systems. The Partnership for the tors? How will schools assimilate and accom-
Assessment of Readiness for College and Ca- modate the standards and what will they do
reers comprises a group of 26 states commit- to facilitate disciplinary literacy (especially in
ted to developing an assessment system for grades 6–12)? How are states, school districts,
grades 3 through 12. The SMARTER Balanced and teacher preparation institutions prepar-
Assessment Consortium comprises a group of ing for the implementation of the CCSS? Will
31 states that are developing online tests, in- the standards help educators to make more
cluding summative examinations and optional focused curricular and assessment decisions?
formative examinations. States and school districts need to put in place
Although top-performing countries allow mechanisms for a critical examination of the
for greater school autonomy and choice in core standards, align the CCSS with existing
the areas of accountability and monitoring of state standards and assessments, develop as-
student progress, there are many unanswered sessments to measure student progress, pro-
questions about how the common core as- mote collaborative inquiry, and plan to meetDisciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards 47
the needs of all students. Educators will need school psychologists, literacy coaches, “En-
resources, support, and time to adjust instruc- glish as a Second Language” teachers, and spe-
tion, align instructional materials to the stan- cial educators to make necessary data-driven
dards, and participate in collaborative inquiry. modifications and accommodations for stu-
dents with language and other learning needs.
Instructional considerations Speech–language pathologists, for example,
The CCSS set the context for text difficul- will play a vital role in CCSS and disciplinary
ties being intensified and for teachers avoid- literacy implementation—their role will be a
ing the practice of moving students to easier must in supporting students to master the
text when the reading of complex text be- speech and language skills required for meet-
comes difficult. Does this mean that teachers ing the CCSS.
will be reading only complex text to students? Supportive and ongoing communication
How about students who are having difficul- among all educators will be needed to pro-
ties reading, in general? How can instruction mote delivery of quality instruction, identify
in disciplinary literacy be tailored to meet the and support students who are having diffi-
needs of those students? The CCSS are at a culties meeting grade-level expectations, and
high level for early readers. How will complex make data-informed educational decisions.
texts facilitate progress in learning reading de- Both the CCSS and disciplinary literacy incor-
coding and phonics? porate the concept that each discipline has
On the contrary, what is the optimum level a unique approach to literacy and that con-
of text difficulty? Should students read some tent teachers are in the best position to teach
text that is at their reading level? How will discipline-specific literacy skills that are rel-
teachers scaffold students’ learning from com- evant and important to their subject areas.
plex texts? Multiple texts need to be intro- There needs to be a systematic and shared
duced in kindergarten and used throughout approach to language, literacy learning, and
Grade 12. What professional development interventions within the CCSS, disciplinary
will teachers receive to help them do so and literacy, and intervention frameworks across
who will need to participate in it? Should grade levels. To best prepare all students in
professional development be offered to class- language, literacy, and content, it is impera-
room teachers only or to all educators? The tive that classroom teachers collaborate with
standards are clear about expecting students other support personnel in order to under-
to compare and contrast, analyze, evaluate, stand the needs of ELLs and students with dis-
and synthesize information across texts and abilities and make appropriate instructional
engage in evidence-based evaluation. How and assessment decisions. Everyone will need
will teachers and other professionals help all to learn and use a CCSS and disciplinary liter-
students meet the demands of such texts? acy common language as they work to meet
The CCSS and disciplinary literacy present the needs of all students.
new challenges for students with language
and other learning difficulties and the educa- CONCLUSION
tors who teach them and support them. All
educators will need to reframe their views One of the CCSS premises is that states
of literacy; for example, both disciplinary lit- are no longer competing with other states
eracy and the CCSS embrace deep learning, but with other countries around the world.
specialized knowledge, and ambiguity. With Many U.S. educators and policymakers are
proper training, content area teachers can concerned about the number of tests students
learn how to support the needs of all stu- already take and the costs associated with
dents through the application of discipline- such tests. According to the CCSS, there is
specific practices. They will need to col- a need to prepare students for college and
laborate with speech–language pathologists, career and for assessments that will indicate48 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2012
whether students are on track for college and the CCSS help all students make the grade?
career readiness. The CCSS promise rigor, fo- Will they bring the academic coherence they
cus, and coherence, and disciplinary literacy are aiming for? Although the standards do not
offers “discipline-tailored” learning. The CCSS define how teachers should teach, in order
include disciplinary literacy considerations for them to meet CCSS in secondary grades,
and call for a restructuring of educational poli- teachers will need to implement disciplinary
cies that will help the United States achieve literacy instruction to meet CCSS expecta-
true international competitiveness. Although tions.
in theory the benefits of the CCSS and disci- Educational change is not an automatic re-
plinary literacy are obvious, many challeng- sult of new policy. Change cannot take place
ing tasks and questions remain about cur- without broad-based participation, shared vi-
riculum development, assessment of student sion and accountability, and ongoing collab-
progress, teacher professional development orative inquiry from all stakeholders. Educa-
in both the CCSS and disciplinary literacy, tional solutions need to be both theoretical
and the needs of ELLs and students with ex- and practical (Fullan, 2004). The road to CCSS
ceptionalities. The CCSS goals are noble, but and disciplinary literacy implementation is
the outcomes remain to be determined. How loaded with possibilities, questions, and un-
will disciplinary literacy and the CCSS impact certainties. This education reform movement
teacher recruitment, retention, classroom in- warrants gathering evidence to support the
struction, and professional development? impact of the CCSS on student learning and
A focus on literacy in each content area will success in the disciplines, in schools, and
have an impact on student learning but will beyond.
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). Engineering so- school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation
lutions to the national crisis in literacy: How to of New York (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for
make good on the promise of the Common Core Excellent Education.
State Standards. Washington, DC: Author. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A
Almanza-de-Schonewise, E., & Klingner, J. (2012). Lin- vision for action and research in middle and high
guistic and cultural issues in developing disci- school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of
plinary literacy for adolescent English language New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for
learners. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), Excellent Education.
51–68. Bulgren, J., Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K.,(2007).
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order think-
for adolescents. Executive summary and paper com- ing about history concepts using integrated content
missioned by the National Reading Conference. enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabil-
Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. ities, 40(2), 121–133.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary Carnegie Council for Advancing Adolescent Literacy.
school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosen- (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advanc-
thal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading ing adolescent literacy for college and career
research. (Vol. II, pp. 951–983). New York: Longman. success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of
American College Testing. (2006). Reading between the New York.
lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Com-
in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. mon core state standards: Preparing America’s stu-
Anders, P., & Guizzetti, B. (1996). Literacy instruction in dents for college and career. Retrieved from http://
the content areas. Journal of Adolescent and Adult www.corestandards.org
Literacy, 43(8), 728–739. Dando, K. (2010, June 2). National Governors Associ-
Barton, P. (2010, March 17). Common core standards ation and state education chiefs launch common
[Web blog post]. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http:// state academic standards. Council of Chief State
www.susanohanian.org/quotes.php School Officers Press Release. Retrieved from http://
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A www.ccsso.org/Whats_New/Press_Releases/14241
vision for action and research in middle and high .cfmYou can also read
