As I  have been interacting with educators within classrooms and leading district professional learning, it has become apparent to me that despite a great deal of research energy being placed into distinguishing disciplinary literacy (DL) from content area literacy (CAL), this distinction has not carried sufficiently into professional learning practices. In fact, these ideas are still significantly conflated, with DL largely being represented by vocabulary instruction within subject-specific courses. While this can be an entry point for teachers seeking to embed DL practices into their instruction (Savitz, et al., under review), it is limiting and misrepresents DL’s opportunities for real-world problem-solving, interdisciplinary development, and critical thought. The subsequent goal of this blog, as well as the next three month’s themes, is to return to the defining and conceptualizing of DL from a practical standpoint.

Distinguishing Disciplinary Literacy and Content Area Literacy

Helping teachers and future educators distinguish DL from CAL is one of the challenges within the literacy coursework. Recognizing this is an oversimplified concept, I often begin by having students identify DL as the “what” of their teaching – the knowledge, skills, language, discourse, practices, and habits of mind contextualized to and specific within the subject areas (Ippolito et al., 2024; Lent & Voight, 2019). CAL, on the other hand, is the “how” of teaching; it constitutes content-neutral strategies and tools used to support students in attaining knowledge of the content (McKenna & Robinson, 2014; Ortlieb et al., 2024).

To help students better understand the concept behind DL, I ask them to follow a set of instructions they are given auditorily. They are told to follow these instructions to the best of their ability: “Virabhadrasana I, Prasarita Padottanasana, Trikonasana, Parivrtta Trikonasana”. I am usually met with dumbfounded looks. Then, I present the instructions in English: “Warrior I, Intense Leg Stretch, Triangle, Reverse Triangle.” Here, I often get students standing with their arms making a triangle over their heads. While students can decode the words – they understand the concept of a triangle or warrior – and some may even recognize the words are associated with yoga, most are not able to connect the words to the kinesthetic actions needed to perform these yoga poses (Morrison, 2024). This is because the task for this yoga sequence – and for literacy practices in specific disciplines – is not just to acquire information from a text but “rather to embody it in dynamic three-dimensional space, as it unfolds over time, in concert with other individuals” (Chandler-Olcott, 2017, p.151).

I then ask students to demonstrate their understanding of CAL and DL within their own subject area. One of my students, Angelina, explained it this way:

They [DL and CAL] are similar in that they both involve an understanding of how to navigate the topic. Disciplinary literacy involves understanding how the specific content area works—common vocabulary words that may not have the same meaning in other contexts, how to analyze and correct form in a P.E. setting, how to tell the difference between a rondo and trio in a music theory setting, or how to structure a haiku in a language arts setting, among other things. In short, it is everything one needs to be fluent and knowledgeable in the discipline. Content area literacy, however, is all about analyzing, synthesizing, summarizing, and questioning. It is the tools (sic) one needs to think critically about the information to gain a greater understanding of the content…This helps to reinforce the material, provoke focused thought, and engage the students in active learning, as is the goal of content area literacy.

Figure 1: Venn Diagram Showing Student Interpretation of DL and CAL

Another student, Alexis, demonstrated his conceptualization of CAL and DL through a graphic organizer (Figure 1). As can be seen in his example, he has shown the complexity and interaction of CAL and DL while also explaining the distinction between them. He identified content-neutral literacy strategies, like anticipation guides and accountable talk, as well as cross-disciplinary student practices, the 5 Es, as CAL used to support students’ learning. He explained that DL, in his case music literacy, is not just about the vocabulary and ability to read notation or the ability to play notes on a page. As he points out, DL is about students’ ability to “take a piece of music, study it, perform it, and fix any mistakes so they can put on the best performance they can.” In this example, we see how DL becomes about the complex “embodiment” (Chandler-Olcott, 2017, p. 151) of text because a performer who does not have strong DL will not be able to make the immediate pivots and corrections necessary within a performance circumstance.

Figure 2: Student Representation of Disciplinary Literacy and Content Area Literacy

Shifting the “Thinking Like” Mantra

Building on this idea of text “embodiment,” one of the prime mantras of DL has been to have students “think like experts” within the specific discipline, e.g. to “think like scientists” or “think like mathematicians” (e.g. Lent & Voigt, 2019). However, instruction within subject areas is really less about “thinking like an [expert]” and more about inhabiting the habits of mind – the perspectives and worldviews – that align with the discipline. It is about solving real-world problems and engaging in real-world experiences using the knowledge and epistemologies of specific disciplines in contextualized ways.

Here is a way I think about this. Four years ago when I moved to Texas, I decided to be a beekeeper because… “Save the bees!” I entered into this field with little knowledge and no skills related to beekeeping. However, as I have progressed in my learning to care for and provide for my hives, I have had to approach problems that arise in ways I would never have previously considered. Yes, I use vocabulary related to beekeeping – swarm, drone, absconding – and yes, I have gained a conceptual understanding of how bees gather pollen, make honey, and communicate with each other. However, I have had to gain knowledge through the reading, writing, communicating, and viewing practices master beekeepers engage in. This includes reading many, many articles, working with a mentor, and watching way too many YouTube videos at 1 AM in order to gather information that helps me make decisions that significantly impact the welfare of my hives. I have learned to “read” brood patterns on my frames to determine the health of my queen and make decisions about what I might need to provide the hive to ensure her strong production or, sometimes, her replacement. I have learned what bearding looks like and, given particular factors, if that means I have a potential swarm situation or if the bees are just getting fresh air.

Perhaps more importantly, I have noted my shift in thinking about my environment as it has become more “bee-centric”. I am adamant about planting native pollinator-friendly plants within my yard including using tiny purslane succulents as groundcover in lieu of mulch in order to feed the honey bees through Texas summer droughts. I do not spray or even pull out dandelion “weeds” because they are often the first food bees have in the spring. I see bees in other places and closely examine them, garnering information about their health and production from these observations. In essence, my view of the world has changed, and I operate in it differently because of my gaining DL on beekeeping. What is important here is that I have gained DL in beekeeping to conduct discourse with other beekeepers and to solve the problems we are all faced with (e.g. varroa mites, hive beetle infestations) through an embodiment of the discipline.

As we teacher leaders, teacher educators, and professional development leaders work toward greater DL implementation within classrooms, it is important for us to realize that discipline-specific vocabulary instruction – while a good entry point – is far from encompassing the complex and multifaceted conceptions undergirding DL.

References

Chandler-Olcott, K. (2017). Disciplinary literacy and multimodal text design in physical education. Literacy UKLA, 51(3), 147-153.

Ippolito, J., Dobbs, C., Charner-Laird, M, Uttaro, J. & Williams, J. (2024). Disciplinary Literacy Inquiry & Instruction (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.

Lent, R.C., & Voigt, M.M. (2019). Disciplinary literacy in action: How to create and sustain a school-wide culture of deep reading, writing, and thinking. Corwin Literacy.

McKenna, M.C. & Robinson, R.C. (2014). Teaching Through Text: Reading and Writing in the Content Areas. Pearson.

Morrison, J.D. (2018). [Paper presentation]. Disciplinary literacy in the “othered” courses: Valuing the related arts’ and physical education’s literacies. South Carolina Council for Teachers of English (SCCTE) conference. Kiawah Island, SC.

Morrison, J.D. (2024). Disciplinary literacy in the visual arts. In E. Ortlieb, B.D. Kane & E.H.Cheek (Ed.), Unpacking Disciplinary Literacies: From Research to Practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

Ortlieb, E., Kane, B.D. & Cheek, E.H. (2024). Disciplinary Literacies: Unpacking Research, Theory, and Practice. Guilford Press.

Savitz, R., Kane, B.D., Brown, C., Morrison, J.D., Aldrich, C. & O’Byrne, W.I. (in review). Secondary teachers’ self-efficacy in disciplinary literacy.

About the Author