Disciplinary Literacy (DL) is an orientation to the work of teaching that (re)claims a focus on action: knowing how to do, to use, to apply, to act, to verb. This requires an instructional focus on process and application over receiving and demonstrating knowledge. It is therefore a form of resistance to the version of schooling that is ruled by accountability metrics – where tests, credits, and other metrics have become a school’s reason for being rather than tools to measure and improve it. In this way, it is radical: it affects the fundamental nature of what teachers imagine can and should happen in class with students. And, its absence is a signal of the slow creep of oppressive policies that can become naturalized as how we ‘do school’ in the US.
In too many middle and high school classrooms, content knowledge has been divorced from the communities that produce, apply, and critique it outside of classroom settings. In that divorce, we have lost the connection to the purpose that motivates and the audience that gives meaning to the structure of the text and task (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. An expanded purpose-audience-format triangle
A DL orientation is essentially a suit for custody – for deeper connection – to each of these. Otherwise, it requires educators to work against the grain of typical curricula and related tasks (e.g. testing and test preparation, data collection, and classroom sorting). We have to pause business as usual to do a standalone project that brings authentic context into focus. We have to look up from representations of knowledge and re-present or re-frame them in ways that allude to their purpose in the world.
In my experience, instruction that is oriented towards application and use exists as the exception rather than the rule in core academic classes. However, it is more likely to be found in the courses that do not count for graduation or in the enrichment opportunities that are reserved for those who do well: a choir that performs, an auto shop that repairs, a science elective that grows or conserves, or a language class that visits another culture. I suspect that this is because these areas are the least tested and the most likely to have educators or curricula directly connected to the doing: playing music for performance rather than for a quiz on what it includes; fixing a car to make it run again, rather than for a matching test on the names of engine parts. The more academic and abstract knowledge is, the less likely it is to stay connected to use. These tenuous marriages of knowing and doing exist on the margins of academic experiences as reminders that specialized literacies are not necessarily harder than general literacy.
Texts reflect the particularities of their purposes, processes, and the conditions in which they were produced. For example, jazz musicians are likely to play off of a lead sheet rather than a full score showing every detail of every instrument’s parts. They need a text that shares a basic structure across collaborators so that they can improvise within it. Conductors need a detailed account of every part so that they can understand how all parts contribute to the whole and understand everything that might be happening simultaneously. The texts match the tasks. Though a conductor’s score might seem infinitely more challenging than a single part or a simplified lead sheet, their use of it may actually be quite simple. Unlike a lead sheet where each symbol contains a lot of information that might be highly consequential, conductors are really only following patterns across pages and parts – not reading every symbol of every line.
This is similar to the way that an actor might do a close reading of a single part of a single scene with lots of repetition of their own lines but would never try to read 30 pages of a play that way for homework. A director might likewise review a scene to visualize blocking. This process may not prepare them to do the kind of activity that might be found in an English classroom divorced from the text’s uses (e.g. a quiz question on a vocabulary word found on one of the pages they skimmed), but it will prepare them for the work they are doing with the text. Their purpose for reading influences their process for reading, and the amount or type of text with which they engage. The way we orient ourselves to the task of reading a text assigned for English class sets and limits students’ access to the context, meaning, and motivation. The literate process (e.g. reading for blocking, close reading, skimming for patterns, extrapolating from summary) may actually be a simpler cognitive task if it is specified instead of general. And, specialized tasks are more likely to resonate with a set of purposes and meaningful contexts. When texts are connected to a discipline – communities that produce, critique, and interpret them – students have the benefit of the sense of purpose and meaning to support their motivation and guide their inferences.
Disciplinary connection is not a feature of the text itself, but of the framing or relationship between the text and what students are doing with it: is their activity connected to a purpose and process that align with the particularities of some use? Or are they reading a text for a generic reason that is divorced from any specific purpose and process? This divorce makes the reading inherently harder because we use the larger context to predict and confirm meaning, and the larger purpose to ignite and sustain motivation.
About the Author
Dr. Gabriel is Professor of Literacy Education at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. She is author of more than fifty refereed articles, and author or editor of seven books for literacy teachers, leaders, and education researchers. Rachael currently teaches courses for educators and doctoral students pursuing specialization in literacy, and is Editor in Chief of The Reading Teacher. A former teacher and reading specialist, Rachael’s research is focused on: literacy instruction, leadership, and intervention, as well as policies related to teacher development and evaluation. Her current projects investigate how educators and school leaders build collective capacity, state literacy policies, and discipline-specific literacy instruction.
