boisterousbird

This week, I read Analysis of Expert Readers in Three Disciplines: History, Mathematics, and Chemistry by Shanahan, Shanahan and Misischia.  I felt that it was important for me to read this journal because I am working in a group with a colleague who plans to teach middle school science.  Also, many of my classmates are future history teachers.  Versing myself with knowledge of those disciplines can help me better facilitate conversation with my peers.  This article also gave me opportunities to discuss the 4-Es heuristic for disciplinary teaches Moje published in 2015 that we studied in Rainey and company’s But What Does It Look Like? Illustrations of Disciplinary Literacy Teaching in Two Content Areas back in week 3.  To review, the 4-Es that represent disciplinary literacy teaching are as follows:

• “Engaging students in work that aligns with the problem- and text-based work of disciplinarians
• Eliciting and engineering students’ learning opportunities so they are able to successfully accomplish classroom tasks and learn disciplinary practice from them
• Examining words, language, and representations
• Evaluating words and ways with words within and across domains” (Rainey et al., 2018)

Students can be engaged by “[selecting] texts that match the reader’s mathematical interests and actively separates the new and known information to allow greater attention to the new information” (Shanahan, Shanahan, Misischia, 2011).  Teacher’s can engineer and scaffold student success by having students consistently, rigorously, and intensively rereading text to allow them to weigh all information and “[using] text structure to support understanding and to locate particular information” (Shanahan et al., 2011).  Furthermore, we can have students examine text by “[using] text structure to support understanding and to locate particular information” (Shanahan et al., 2011).  Finally, we can have students evaluate claims by having a “strong emphasis on accuracy to ensure clear understanding” (Shanahan et al., 2011).

This week I read David E. Kirkland and Austin Jackson’s “We Real Cool”:  Toward a Theory of Black Masculine Literacies.  I chose to read this journal rather than Allison Skerrett’s Religious Literacies in a Secular Literacy Classroom because I am uninterested in religion.  Where religion effects literature, history, and even the sciences, I don’t see religion playing in the background of the math I do and learn on a daily basis.  I may revise this claim after I take a course next semester that solely revolves around the history of mathematics.

This piece of educational research is organized in such a way that readers aren’t left questioning where the researchers are coming from.  We are given a pretty standard abstract the summarizes the journal and an introduction that states the purpose of the study:  to examine the critical literacy practices of the young black men in the “My Brother’s Keeper” program (MBK).  Kirkland and Jackson go on to define literacy as “a complex system of symbological patterns and practices” (page 279).  The built their own definition using various other pieces of research including the works of Gee and Moje.  The next section – Framing Coolness – was the most interesting section in my opinion.  Kirkland and Jackson juxtapose opposing views of coolness.  Some see coolness as a deficit for young black men:

• “…black males’ lives are compromised deeply by the pursuit of coolness, as coolness corresponds with a set of negative behaviors that impair their ability to succeed academically” (page 280).
• Dionysian trap: “the deadly illusion of acceptance [which can] seem appealing to young black men but in the end ensnares them in a process of self-sabotage and eventual destruction” (page 280).

It’s important to note that not all scholars agree with the above propositions.  Connor (1995) views coolness as “the general state of well-being, a transcendent calm, internal peace, and serenity” which paints the coolness in a positive light (page 280).  Kirkland and Jackson define coolness in this study as “a unique performative act, an attitude, comportment, or way of being characterized through verbal presentation and style” (page 280).

After defining coolness, the authors move on to their methods section where we are first given the context of the study.  We learn that the MBK is “an early intervention program for at-risk black males” at a certain public school in Detroit, Michigan.  They go onto explain the communal impact of the school and provide further details of the study.  It’s important to note that the initial study took place over 30 weeks from September 2003 to June 2004, which in my opinion is a little bit outdated.  Our first African American president from the Midwest has campaigned, won, and served two terms since these exact students were in the MBK program.  It’s possible that some of the young men in this study have had children who are growing into adolescents since the participants were in school.

The researchers then determine which of the 16 students in MBK were considered the “cool kids” and give rationale as to why the decision was made.  They go on to explain what data were collected and how it was analyzed.  They also include a small section to explain their proximity towards the study and how it might have impacted the results.  A very detailed results section follows which I detailed in the graphic organizer we were provided.

I read A Literature Review on Disciplinary Literacy:  How do Secondary Teachers Apprentice Students Into Mathematical Literacy by Ann Marie Hillman.  Since the majority of my classmates did not read this article and I don’t believe we have studied any other works by Hillman in class, I think it’s important to mention her relationship with literacy.  Ann Marie Hillman is a reading specialist at a suburban high school as well as a doctoral candidate and associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.  Hillman’s article answers the following research questions: 

• How does disciplinary literacy apprentice students to a subject? 

• How do the CCSS represent mathematical literacy?

• How is mathematical literacy embedded in classroom instruction?

This reading is the first time I’ve heard of an apprenticeship.  Hillman references an older work by Collins, Brown, & Newman (1989) and defines apprenticeships as a model that “deemphasizes didactic approaches in favor of observation, coaching, successive approximation of mature practices, and student reflection on problem-solving approaches”.  Apprenticeships are beneficial to students because they participate in active learning and are able to more comfortably express their learning.  Teachers are able to guide students through intermediate stages or mastery and when students misapply new knowledge, they can learn from their mistakes. 

This last pilar of apprenticeships is exemplified later in the article.  Hillman says “it is possible for teachers to create an atmosphere in which students can arrive at wrong answers but still be considered competent at mathematics.”  She then goes on to reference a 2009 study by Gresalfi where the conceptions of competence by eighth- and sixth-grade math teachers with different instructional styles were examined:

“The grade 8 teacher focused on helping all students use predetermined procedures. Student struggles were framed as lack of understanding to be fixed with the teacher’s help. In the sixth-grade classroom, the teacher helped students in an open-ended activity. When students struggled, the teacher helped them articulate what was difficult and ways to work through it. The teacher helped students explain confusing ideas to one another. The conception of competence influenced whether wrong answers were OK. When the sixth-grade teacher acknowledged that tasks were difficult and would take several attempts, students persevered in problem solving.”

“Doing mathematics” and simply getting answers correct are two completely entities and I really think this is an approach to disciplinary literacy in disguise.  Mathematicians fail.  A lot.  Doing good mathematics isn’t a “plug and chug” kind of situation where you plug numbers into an equation or formula and churn out a situation.  If students are struggling to get from point A to point B because they are using a skill set they don’t have much practice in, they are still practicing math.  I would rather do more practice so that students understand why they took each step to a solution rather than get an answer quickly and not know why it’s correct.  This resonates with the claim that “part of the teacher’s responsibility is to direct students’ attention to the procedures they use, so that students do not focus on right answers without understanding the process and underlying concepts” (Johnson & Watson, 2011).

Hillman references professional organizations like the National Council of Teachers for Mathematics (NCTM), studies with applicable results, connections between Common Core State Standards and disciplinary literacy discourses/mathematical discourses, and distinguished authors we have previously read in this course – Gee, Moje, and Shanahan & Shanahan to name a few. 

Watching the Reading Rockets and Tedd teaching videos this week were a nice change of pace.  I’m really interested in watching people teach, especially at those younger grades that I don’t seem to remember myself.  I spoke with someone in my reading group after reading Rainey et al 2018 during week 3 about how beneficial it would be to have video evidence of your teaching practices.  It’s also a great way to learn from experienced teachers.

The first video we watched on the Reading Rockets youtube channel was about the vocabulary and comprehension strategy list-group-label.  This strategy has students brainstorm a list of related words, group the words into subcategories, and label the groupings with descriptive titles.  List-group-label helps students develop categorizing skills, build background knowledge, activate critical thinking skills, and grow vocabulary.  While this activity could be used with science vocabulary, math terms, key points in history, or plot elements from a reading, the activity itself remains the same.  Students aren’t looking at the activity through a science, math, history, or ELA lens which speaks more to content area reading to me.  However, I think this is a great strategy even if it isn’t disciplinary.  I really liked that students were encouraged to continue to add words to the subgroups.  I wouldn’t say say students were limited by the headings because they could always create a new heading or brainstorm more words so that every word was part of the group. 

Update after class on Tuesday: One thing I wasn’t too keen on is the idea that students could add any word they wanted as long as they could argue they belong to that group.  I’m afraid students could generalize this strategy and use it in a math.  One thing I liked so much about the Tedd video is that students needed to justify every step they took with “math facts.” For example, one student misused the distributive property.  As we discussed in class, there are right and wrong ways to use these “math facts” all throughout mathematics whereas in an ELA class, two people can interpret a poem differently and they can both be right, but English and mathematics require different, specific skills.  It was hard to distinguish whether the teacher was teaching science or an ELA lesson.  Either way, I think a better lesson could have been developed.

I was really intrigued by the Tedd video because I want to be a math teacher.  We’ve talked in my other math class about how students decide whether or not they like math around the 3rd grade.  It’s possible that many of the students in this 4th grade classroom have already made up their minds.  Math is a massive barrier in our education system and for many, determines if college is a possibility.  Again, these were discussions we had in another education course so while I don’t have a source, I trust my professor who is a veteran math teacher has the literature to back up this claim.

Back to the video.  Students were given a division problem and had to determine if the equation was true or false.  Students were instructed to determine whether the equation was true or false, and then needed to explain their reasoning to their classmates.  A big part of higher academia is convincing your colleagues that your reasoning is sound.  I’m at a slight disadvantage because I am not familiar with the math curriculum at the elementary curriculum but I wonder how much students have worked with the distributive property, because it seems like the one student who was convinced the equation was true was trying to use the property in an inappropriate context.

I noticed the classroom teacher did not give the answer away.  She had everyone who thought the equation was true explain why.  It seemed she got more people voting for false each time she represented the problem in a different context.  First, she used a story problem to represent the operations that were taking place.  She then used visuals, and when one student was not convinced that the problem was false, used names of students to represent how many pieces of candy each student was getting.

I would go out on a limb and say some of the students in the class didn’t have a good enough understanding of what it means for two numbers to be equal.  One thing I learned in one of my math classes is that this misunderstanding of what it means for expressions to be equal follows students into math classes at the collegiate level. The first student to explain her thought process used the same thought process I used to determine whether the equation was true or false.  She also had an appropriate understanding of the equals symbol.  I think this added step of having to explain their answer makes it disciplinary.  I don’t know if I’m ready to make the generalization that anytime you explain your reasoning, you are using a disciplinary literacy skill.

The Shanahan and Shanahan reading this week provides us with the opportunity to take a stance on whether disciplinary literacy has its place at the elementary level.  This journal “sold” me on disciplinary literacy more than previous readings because the authors defined disciplinary literacy based on the idea that teaching students the specialized ways of reading, understand, and thinking used in each academic discipline, students will experience further success in those areas.  We know that each content area is different, but I feel that educators in the past have just assumed students have understood those differences that are often times crucial to understanding the content. 

It was mentioned that students tend not to understand these nuances unless they are taught them.  Since reading is an important skill across the curriculum, I believe early childhood educators should use disciplinary literacy in their classrooms regardless of the fact that CCSS only directly impact grades 6-8.  I think the strongest argument for taking a disciplinary approach is that it will hopefully influence student’s later success.  Other than the fact that taking a disciplinary approach is more time consuming for teachers, elementary school teachers may not be able to see the payoff of disciplinary literacy in their class.  I can also see how teachers may be overwhelmed already with training to teach students basic literacy skills.

Looking back on my experiences as a math learner, I don’t remember any of my teachers taking a disciplinary approach.  I also don’t remember being taught the nuances of mathematics.  I didn’t realize how precise you had to be with your definitions until I had various theory based courses under my belt.  Perhaps if my past teachers would have taken this approach I would have been better prepared.  With that, I think disciplinary literacy has its benefits even if students never become professionals in that field.

I am a little bit confused by the first sentence of the first article: “there is growing consensus that disciplinary literacy teaching is necessary for advancing goals of college readiness and social justice: (Rainey et al. 2018).  I can totally see that possessing disciplinary literacy would help students be college ready, but I can’t immediately think of how disciplinary literacy would make you socially aware.  This definitely piqued my interest though.

Without knowing much about disciplinary literacy, it is obvious that Moje is a pioneer in the field.  In any field, disciplinary literacy has students engage in work that aligns with the problem- and text-based work of disciplinarians; examine words, language, and representations; and evaluate words and ways with words within and across domains.  Disciplinary literacy practices also elicit and engineer students’ learning opportunities so that “they are able to successfully accomplish classroom tasks and learn disciplinary practices from them” (Rainey et al. 2018).

Mr. Franchi started his lesson by telling his students what historians do and don’t do in regard to analyzing primary sources in pursuit of a historical question because he wanted his students to look at the task at hand as if they were historians themselves.  He provided a guide of what this looks like.  I was happy to see this because I would imagine that not too many students interact with a historian outside of their school environment and might not know what being a historian entails.  This also isn’t the first-time historical literacy practices have been used is Mr. Franchi’s classroom.  I couldn’t tell if Mr. Coupland had used disciplinary literacy practices prior to his physics lesson (I imagine he did as he is a veteran teacher and helped cowrite this article), but I would have liked to see what it would be like to build opportunities for students to build their disciplinary literacy skills from the ground up.  What if your students didn’t have any experience with this?  What would the lesson look like?

I was pleased to see that Mr. Franchi was flexible when the student who was speaking on behalf of Tecumseh brought up a new point of discussion.  It seems that there were some really meaningful exchanges that took place there if the students continued the conversation for 20 minutes without Mr. Franchi participating and nearly everyone participated.  I found that a lot of my concerns were addressed as the article drew to a close.  Mr. Franchi “required [his] students to apply historical empathy and historical perspective and helped them build these skills in the process” (Rainey et al. 2018), but mentioned that this could be a little rocky when discussing events that are unjust by today’s standards.  It was also mentioned that disciplinary literacy practices have been made successful in a wide variety of schools, but I would have liked to see how Mr. Coupland’s lesson could have been completed in a school that didn’t have the technology his classroom had.  In the future, I would also like to see how inclusive disciplinary literacy can be made in regard to students with different needs.

The first reading highlights the differences between a number of similar-sounding terms.  Content is what the author tries to convey to the reader.  The author may use a variety of approaches, including but not limited to words, images, or sounds.  At the same time, the reader brings their own experiences to the content.   I think this would appeal to Gee based on last week’s reading.  Content area takes content and organizes it based on subject – language arts, science, math, social studies, etc. – and grade level.  At first glance, content-area literacy and disciplinary literacy appear to mean the same thing.  According to T. Shanahan, content-area literacy “focuses on imparting reading and study skills that may help students to better understand and remember whatever they read,” while disciplinary literacy is achieved when students know how reading and writing are used in the field in addition to the essential content of said field.  It is imperative that we teach our students both as one in not more important than the other.  This is demonstrated in what the author calls the “versus” syndrome.

            The Moje reading introduces this idea of metadiscursivity.  The New London group defined metadiscursivity to describe how “people not only engage in many different discourse communities but also know how and why they are engaging, and what those engagements mean for them and others in terms of social positioning and larger power relations.”  Metadiscursivity relates to disciplinary literacy because students are cognoscente of how information is being used.  This is important because students are not learning, and thus advancing their disciplinary literacy skills, in a static environment.  Students bring in what they have learned at home into the classroom, once again, appealing to Gee’s philosophy.

            Moje goes on to talk about what it means to learn and what counts as knowledge.  We had similar discussions last week when we were analyzing Gee to determine what actually counts as reading under his school of thought.  Moje stresses that especially at the secondary level, we have been approaching this through the lens of literacy theory rather than disciplinary learning theory.  Again, this is so important because it takes into account the knowledge children obtain from their home communities.