Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article argues that for disciplinary literacy to be addressed successfully by subject-area teachers and students, it needs to choose a different path than the one it has been on. It explains how the road disciplinary literacy has traveled to date has been marked by justifiable subject-area teacher resistance to requirements to infuse literacy teaching and learning strategies into their teaching without regard for disciplinary epistemologies or local perspectives. It argues for an alternative approach that immerses literacy experts in the hybridity of classroom disciplinary learning spaces with respect for literacy and disciplinary discourses as well as school and community subcultural beliefs, practices, and resources. It examines the ways such hybridity has been addressed by disciplinary literacy researchers in the Journal of Literacy Research to date, and it offers recommendations for advancing research, practice, and policy.

Keywords

adolescent literacy disciplinary literacy policy professional development sociocultural aspects of reading

Disciplinary literacy stands at a crucial crossroad. The road it has traveled has been marked by decades of failed efforts of literacy experts who used an infusion approach. This approach required subject-area teachers to infuse various teaching and learning strategies to support students’ literacy into their teaching, often with little regard for subject-area epistemologies and practices (O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995). Yet at the crossroad is another route. This alternate road involves literacy experts immersing themselves in classrooms, a hybridity approach that builds from the variety of discourses in all learning spaces—including literacy and disciplinary discourses as well as school and community cultural beliefs, practices, and resources (Easthope, 1998; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999).

In this article, we—the authors of this essay and longtime academic literacy researchers—argue that literacy experts, including researchers, teacher educators, and school-based practitioners who work with respect for hybridity, are more likely to foster disciplinary literacy in equitable and lasting ways. The following sections review the history that brought the infusion approach to disciplinary literacy, introduce hybridity as an alternative approach, consider how hybridity has been addressed by disciplinary literacy researchers, and offer recommendations for advancing research, practice, and policy along this more promising route.

Infusion Approaches

In the early part of the last century, literacy scholars addressed concerns for supporting students’ reading of newly available subject-area textbooks with what are now called study skills (Moore, Readence, & Rickelman, 1983). This attention evolved into approaches for helping subject-area teachers support students’ use of a limited number of functional reading skills and strategies needed to study texts (Herber, 1970). Researchers then developed sophisticated models of cognitive processes used in reading-to-learn, which begat experimental testing of myriad new teaching and learning strategies (Anderson, Spiro, & Montague, 1977). These strategies were promoted for use in subject-area classes where they typically had not been tested, though subject-area teachers resisted these efforts (Hinchman, 1987; O’Brien & Stewart, 1989) and scholars critiqued them for lacking ecological validity (Alvermann & Moore, 1991). The focus on decontextualized cognitive approaches dissipated with the realization that reading (and writing) are socially and culturally situated, requiring digital, multimodal, and print-based literacies (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

Literacy researchers have explored social aspects of academic literacy in many ways. This has included research to describe new literacies, multiliteracies, and multimodal aspects of disciplinary inquiry (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008). Other researchers exploring functional aspects of academic literacy delineated the workings of academic language in disciplinary texts and discourses (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010). Still other scholars studied how school literacy instruction aligned with youth’s ways of knowing (Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Because of its popularization among equity-oriented literacy researchers (Dyches, 2018a; Moje, 2002; Moje, Ciechanowski, et al., 2004; Moje, Peek-Brown, et al., 2004), more recent theoretical articulations among literacy education scholars (Moje, 2007, 2008; T. Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, 2012); and the proliferation of research catalyzed by the U.S. Common Core State Standards (Goldman et al., 2016), disciplinary literacy also became an important focus of much academic literacy research.

The preceding history means that literacy experts have worked for almost half a century in preservice and in-service university coursework and school-based professional development to help subject-area teachers support students’ reading, then writing, and, more recently, academic language and multiple literacies (e.g., Alvermann, Gillis, & Phelps, 2013; Bean & O’Brien, 2012; Zwiers, 2014). However, many of the disciplinary literacy pedagogical recommendations that followed Common Core mandates ignored disciplinary ideologies and epistemologies and school-based insights (Geisler, 1994). Instead, these recommendations resulted in a new round of infusion efforts that appear to be topically appropriate to disciplinary outsiders but that, once again, have resulted in subject-area teachers’ resistance (Colwell & Reinking, 2016; Fisher & Frey, 2009; Mitton-Kükner & Orr, 2018). Such moves reflect literacy-oriented regimes of truth (Dunkerly-Bean & Bean, 2016) and academic and pedagogical hubris, when literacy experts, including researchers, teacher educators, and school literacy specialists, act with the conviction that their pedagogical acumen and literacy mission position them as best suited to determine instructional focus (O’Brien et al., 1995).

Infusion approaches have yielded other unintended consequences. In our view, focus on literacy instead of subject-area goals undermines the intended purposes for subject-area study in schools, and, thus, subject-area teachers’ maintenance of expertise, student interest, and engagement. In elementary schools, prioritizing literacy can result in limited mathematics and tokenistic science and social studies instruction (Marco-Bujosa & Levy, 2016). In secondary schools, students may find subject-area classes replaced with leveled, digitized topical readings and study guides completed in assembly lines of uninteresting, ineffective literacy test preparation (Roberts-Mahoney, Means, & Garrison, 2016).

Toward Hybridity

As academic literacy researchers were exploring varied social aspects of literacy, disciplinary scholars were describing disciplinary subcultures’ richness, depth of knowledge, logic, ways of thinking, and epistemological and pedagogical practices. K-12 disciplinary education scholars realized that students needed support to address the unique literacy demands of their respective disciplines, as illustrated in work by Wineburg (1991) in history, Pimm (1987) in mathematics, and Hyland (2004) in composition. Shulman (2005) asserted that teaching in the professions needed to develop students’ “habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of the hand” (p. 59). He explained that within-discipline signature pedagogies should foster students’ understanding of knowns within disciplines as well as the tensions, perspectives, and parameters associated with these knowns. As an example of this, Calder (2006) contended that signature pedagogies for college history survey courses should involve student inquiry using multimodal information sources, including print text.

Literacy researchers (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) drew on scholarship from linguistics and cognitive psychology to show how discipline-specific literacy practices are central to disciplinary study. They explained that

although the disciplines share certain commonalities in their use of academic language. . . they also engage in unique practices. That is, there are differences in how the disciplines create, disseminate, and evaluate knowledge, and these differences are instantiated in their use of language. (p. 48)

Wineburg (1991) maintained that even well-prepared subject-area teachers forced to use reductive school curricula over time could lose touch with the essence of learning in their respective disciplines . Draper (2008) noted that literacy experts could be more effective at supporting students’ literacy in collaboration with disciplinary experts to ground efforts in content to be learned. These ideas suggest that those charged with generating new knowledge in disciplines, including academics, practitioners, and researchers, may better represent Shulman’s disciplinary habits of mind, heart, and hand in plans for compelling classroom inquiry.

One approach to planning inquiry involves the use of third-space pedagogy. This pedagogy invites students and teachers to engage in inquiry together, merging perspectives into hybrid new viewpoints as they work (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Moje, Ciechanowski, et al., 2004). We think such hybridity is especially powerful in subject-area study when inquiry focuses on current, compelling questions of the disciplines, the kinds of questions that are most likely to be identified by disciplinary experts. We have experienced firsthand how much easier it is for these colleagues to develop inquiry questions that are true to disciplines, including their tensions. The teachers we have worked with resonate during collaborations with our non-K-12 disciplinary colleagues’ assertions about essential disciplinary questions. Subject-area teachers also contribute what they know about students and communities to shape questions that are intriguing and accessible. Literacy experts help when they collaborate with teachers and disciplinary experts to identify multimodal information sources offering multiple affordances to students and ways to support students’ use of these sources. Students who engage in such inquiry begin to understand how they, too, can contribute to disciplinary knowledge with new insights that emerge from their wide-ranging viewpoints.

Building on several years of disciplinary literacy scholarship, Moje (2015) posited disciplinary literacy as a construct with domain-specific social and cultural practices. This construct includes approaches to inquiry that are unique to disciplines. This disciplinary-driven definition of disciplinary literacy finds value in and draws on difference. Literacy, with its own disciplinary subcultural identities, works in iteration with various disciplines as subcultural groups and not as a primary focus. Through intensive collaboration over time, individuals working from within their respective disciplinary subcultures work the tensions and differences to translate and value each other’s identities and practices, leading to enriching, engaging forms of research and practice that yield hybrid new insights.

Disciplinary Literacy Hybridity in the Journal of Literacy Research (JLR)

Wondering whether and how hybridity approaches have been playing out in disciplinary literacy research, we examined 17 disciplinary literacy studies we found in an online search of JLR. We considered how much they allowed researchers to understand how disciplinary literacy practices were embedded in classroom cultures, who were positioned as disciplinary experts, and what counted as data and effective teaching (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Disciplinary Literacy Articles in Journal of Literacy Research.

Authors	Dates	Methods and purposes	Study length	Who counts as expert?	What counts as data?	What counts as best practice?
Athanases and de Oliveira	2014	Mixed-method study of two high school teachers scaffolding for ELLs	1.5 years	Researcher-designed observation tools, inductive qualitative analysis	Survey, field notes, video, observation tool, classroom artifacts	Fading scaffolding, students viewed as capable
Blackburn and Schey	2018	Teacher research into collaborative composing in LGBTQ literature course	1 semester	Ethnographic, researcher as teacher, qualitative structural coding, and constant comparison	Field notes, video and audio recordings, classroom artifacts	Practices favoring teacher–student vulnerability and values interrogation
Chandler-Olcott, Doerr, Hinchman, and Masingila	2016	Exploration of teachers addressing literacy in mathematics curriculum materials	3 years	School–university collaboration, inductive qualitative analysis	Field notes, interviews, classroom artifacts	Integrated scaffolding of literacy and mathematics for students’ independence
Collin	2014	Conceptual review of content area and disciplinary literacy	NA	Bernstein’s theory of pedagogy for deductive analysis	Frequently cited texts from subject-area and disciplinary perspectives	Instruction that draws on subject-area and disciplinary views as context indicates
Doerr and Temple	2016	Design-based research to support students’ mathematics reading	4 years	School–university collaboration, inductive qualitative analysis	Field notes, interviews, classroom artifacts	Integrated scaffolding of reading and mathematics for students’ independence
Dunkerly-Bean and Bean	2016	Conceptual review of content area and disciplinary literacy	NA	Foucault’s regimes of truth for deductive analysis	Frequently cited texts from subject-area and disciplinary perspectives	Instruction that draws on subject-area and disciplinary views as context indicates
Dyches	2018b	Exploration of Black female teacher of British literature	18 weeks	Ethnographic case study, deductive and inductive qualitative analysis	Multicultural Teacher Capacity Scale, interviews, field notes	Culturally responsive critique of canonical texts
Howell, Butler, and Reinking	2017	Formative experiment to teach multimodal argumentative writing	11 weeks	Qualitative constant comparison, grounded theory, retrospective analysis	Interviews, field notes, student reflections, classroom artifacts	Tasks supporting multimodal composition suited to context
Learned	2018	Exploration of youth’s participation in history literacy practices	1 year	Qualitative constant comparison, grounded theory, retrospective analysis	Interviews, field notes, classroom and school artifacts	Instruction situating youths to critique historical texts, disrupting positioning
Mirra, Coffey, and Englander	2018	Teacher-researcher collaborative exploration of support for students’ figured worlds in citizenship inquiry	6 weeks	Critical ethnographic, figured worlds for deductive qualitative analysis	Classroom field notes, interviews, classroom artifacts	Disciplinary literacy that positions students’ figured worlds as central
Monte-Sano and De La Paz	2012	Exploration of task structures and students’ historical reasoning and writing quality	NA	Multiple regression analysis	Cold War knowledge quiz, rubric-score quality, and historical reasoning in written responses	Writing prompts focused on sourcing, corroboration, and causation
Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misischia	2011	Comparison of expert reading in three subject areas	1 year	Collaborative researcher–academic scholar–teacher teams’ qualitative analysis of reading and feasibility for teaching	Think-aloud expert-reader protocols, collaborative team focus groups	Instruction to develop discipline-specific reading approaches
Skerrett	2018	Analysis of one male youth’s music literacy practices across geographies	3 years	Inductive qualitative analysis using multimodal, transnational, and global cultural flow theories	Interviews, video recordings, artifacts	Instruction that supports youth’s use of literacy resources from various geographies
Tanner	2017	Teacher research of mediation of administrator understanding of student class project	2-week sequence from a yearlong critical ethnography	Teacher-as-researcher qualitative narrative analysis of pedagogical intra-action	Field notes	Emergent, improvisation in literacy teaching and learning
Weyand, Goff, and Newell	2018	Micro-ethnographic analysis of argumentative writing instructional conversations	NA	Discourse analysis of instructional chains and representative epistemology events	Interviews and written artifacts	Argumentative writing instruction as learning how to read, think, and share ideas
Wilson, Boatright, and Landon-Hays	2014	Social semiotic descriptive study of gestures in subject-area teaching	1 year	Qualitative constant comparison and multimodal concordance charts of gesture types, frequency, and centrality	Field notes, photographs, video recordings	Teachers’ gestures vary by subject area, need to know how to support students’ comprehension of these differences
Wright and Domke	2019	Content analysis of literacy in elementary Next Gen Science Standards and C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards	NA	Deductive analysis of references to language, literacy, and related terms	Standards documents	Language and literacy instruction aligned Next Generation social studies and science standards

Note. ELLs = English language learners; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning; NA = not applicable.

Almost all the classroom-based studies in the collection involved researchers in long-term immersion in school and subject-area communities. Most were at least a semester in length and many were longer. These time frames suggested that the researchers’ practices were in keeping with understanding the hybridity of school communities’ ways of seeing disciplinary learning and literacy. One classroom study (Mirra, Coffey, & Englander, 2018) followed a shorter time frame than others, though it was an explicit teacher–researcher partnership in terms of study design, analysis, and authoring, which also reflected respect for local viewpoints. A cursory Internet search hinted that most, perhaps all, researchers were current or former teachers, which may help to explain why research designs showed such appreciation for context-specific perspectives.

In all cases, literacy researchers were first authors, and they determined the general focus and designs of the studies. This, of course, gave them interpretive power. These researchers addressed disciplinary expertise and students’ interests in various ways. Two studies were designed in collaboration with local school leaders (Blackburn & Schey, 2018; Chandler-Olcott, Doerr, Hinchman, & Masingila, 2016), the latter of which also involved collaboration of literacy and disciplinary researchers and teachers. Two additional studies also involved explicit collaborations of literacy and disciplinary scholars, along with classroom teachers, to represent disciplinary and school-based ways of knowing (Doerr & Temple, 2016; Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011). One study drew on collaborations with disciplinary teachers as co-researchers (Mirra et al., 2018), another on a disciplinary teacher as intervention co-designer (Howell, Butler, & Reinking, 2017), and five others on disciplinary teachers as study participants who invited researchers to explore their disciplinary literacy practices (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2014; Dyches, 2018b; Learned, 2018; Monte-Sano & De La Paz, 2012; Weyand, Goff, & Newell, 2018; Wilson, Boatright, & Landon-Hays, 2014).

Researchers were the disciplinary teachers in two studies, drawing on long-standing recommendations for teacher research to develop context-specific teaching ideas (Blackburn & Schey, 2018; Tanner, 2017). Two studies privileged students’ perspectives (Learned, 2018; Skerrett, 2018). Two conceptual analyses critiqued overly simple notions of content area and disciplinary literacy, suggesting that context-specific support for disciplinary literacy would require learners to deploy a variety of literacy practices (Collin, 2014; Dunkerly-Bean & Bean, 2016). One study was a content analysis of how elementary school disciplinary learning standards suggested a need for language and literacy support (Wright & Domke, 2019).

JLR’s classroom-based disciplinary literacy studies were almost all qualitative and exploratory, which is not surprising given quickly evolving ideas about disciplinary literacy research. These studies both explored multiple perspectives and honored the realities of local contexts without unduly valuing versions of best practice conceived in more controlled settings. The deductive and quantitative studies in the collection also attended to how settings, pedagogical features, or pedagogical tools worked for teachers and students in classrooms.

All the studies we found seemed grounded in concern for hybridity. They valued teachers’ perspectives, compelling inquiry, authentic disciplinary texts, supportive practices, gradually withdrawn scaffolds, and expectations that students were capable of using available resources to construct new learning—varied, context-driven approaches drawing on generic and discipline-specific literacy practices. Students appeared to be engaged, motivated, and willing to learn during inquiry that welcomed their insights and critique (Blackburn & Schey, 2018; Learned, 2018; Skerrett, 2018).

What Does Hybridity Mean for Disciplinary Literacy Research and Practice?

Recent JLR disciplinary literacy research gives us reason for optimism that the field is heading down a disciplinary literacy road that values hybridity. However, as disciplinary literacy scholars and teachers, we spend a lot of time in schools, attend conferences, and review articles for possible publication in literacy journals, including JLR. What we sometimes see worries us about how ideas connected to disciplinary literacy are being applied in schools, in the formulation of policy, and in some literacy research efforts that continue to promote infusion with artificially mapped skills, strategies, and texts onto disciplines. Experience has taught us that the inauthenticity of these approaches could well give disciplinary literacy a bad name among subject-area teachers.

More research is needed to identify features of the disciplinary pedagogical approaches outlined above, including efficient and effective ways to work with disciplinary and local experts to define essential questions for inquiry, locate suitable multimodal texts, recognize local resources, and identify literacy practices and needed scaffolds. Qualitative research remains a way to represent these varied points of view, though quantitative approaches that respect local points of view could also be helpful for validating tools and aggregating observations of planning, practice, and outcomes. If researchers do not ground their work in the hybridity of disciplinary literacy, they run the risk of producing results that are replicated by few and forgotten by most.

Literacy scholars, practitioners, and policy makers should avoid the hubris of thinking they have expertise to demand literacy instructional practices without the collaboration of disciplinary experts, subject-area teachers, and students. We are not sure how much disciplinary and local expertise is “enough.” How much and what kind of disciplinary expertise are needed depend, in part, on collaborators’ disciplinary currency, confidence, and knowledge of the kinds of questions students find compelling. Addressing disciplinary habits of mind, heart, and hand takes time—to understand disciplines, develop good questions, locate texts, and design, teach, or observe sufficient amounts of instruction.

If the field continues to choose the road to hybridity in disciplinary literacy—the road that shows respect for students’, subject-area teachers’, and disciplinary ways of knowing—the long-term prospect for disciplinary literacy research, practice, and policy is promising. Choosing this road will generate teachers’ and students’ interest in disciplinary study and, thus, their engagement in disciplinary literacy in new, equitable, hybrid ways.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Patricia Anders, Roni Jo Draper, and Cynthia Shanahan for helpful reviews of an earlier draft of this commentary.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kathleen A. Hinchman

References

Alvermann

D. E.

Gillis

V. R.

Phelps

S. F.

(2013). Content area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Alvermann

D. E.

Moore

D. W.

(1991). Secondary school reading. In Barr

Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research ( Vol.2, pp. 951-983). New York, NY: Longman.

Anderson

R. C.

Spiro

R. J.

Montague

W. E.

(1977). Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Athanases

S. Z.

de Oliveira

L. C.

(2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 263-299. doi:10.1177/1086296X14535328

Bean

O’Brien

(2012). Past and future directions in content area literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 275-278. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00138

Blackburn

M. V.

Schey

(2018). Shared vulnerability, collaborative composition, and the interrogation and reification of oppressive values in a high school LGBTQ-themed literature course. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 335-358. doi:10.1177/1086296X18784336

Calder

(2006). Uncoverage: Toward a signature pedagogy for the history survey. The Journal of American History, 92, 1358-1370. doi:10.2307/4485896

Chandler-Olcott

Doerr

Hinchman

K. A.

Masingila

(2016). Bypass, augment, or integrate: How secondary mathematics teachers address the literacy demands of standards-based curriculum materials. Journal of Literacy Research, 47, 439-472. doi:10.1177/1086296X16632040

Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

(2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Collin

(2014). A Bernsteinian analysis of content area literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 306-329. doi:10.1177/1086296X14552178

11.

Colwell

Reinking

(2016). A formative experiment to align middle school history instruction with literacy goals. Teachers College Record, 118(12), 1-42.

12.

Cope

Kalantzis

(Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Doerr

Temple

(2016). “It’s a different kind of reading”: Two middle-grade teachers’ evolving perspectives on reading in mathematics. Journal of Literacy Research, 48, 5-38. doi:10.1177/1086296X16637180

14.

Draper

R. J.

(2008). Redefining content-area literacy teacher education: Finding my voice through collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 60-83.

15.

Dunkerly-Bean

Bean

T. W.

(2016). Missing the savoir for the connaissance: Disciplinary and content area literacy as regimes of truth. Journal of Literacy Research, 48, 448-475. doi:10.1177/1086296X16674988

16.

Dyches

(2018a). Investigating curricular injustices to uncover the injustices of curricula: Curriculum evaluation as critical disciplinary literacy practice. The High School Journal, 101, 236-250. doi:10.1353/hsj.2018

17.

Dyches

(2018b). Particularizing the tensions between canonical and bodily discourses. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 239-261. doi:10.1177/1086296X18765910

18.

Easthope

(1998). Bhabha, hybridity and identity. Textual Practice, 12, 341-348. doi:10.1080/09502369808582312

19.

Fang

Schleppegrell

(2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 587-597. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.7.6

20.

Fisher

Frey

(2009). Student and teacher perspectives on the usefulness of content literacy strategies. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 246-263. doi:10.1080/19388070802300330

21.

Geisler

(1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Goldman

S. R.

Britt

M. A.

Brown

Cribb

George

Greenleaf

Shanahan

(2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51, 219-246. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741

23.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Baquedano-López

Tejeda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286-303. doi:10.1080/10749039909524733

24.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Morales

P. Z.

Martinez

(2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33, 212-245. doi:10.3102/0091732X08328267

25.

Herber

H. L.

(1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

26.

Hinchman

K. A.

(1987). The textbook and three content-area teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 24, 247-263.

27.

Howell

Butler

Reinking

(2017). Integrating multimodal arguments into high school writing instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 49, 191-209. doi:10.1177/1086296X17700456

28.

Hyland

(2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

29.

Learned

(2018). Doing history: A study of disciplinary literacy and readers labeled as struggling. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 190-216. doi:10.1177/1086296X17746446

30.

Marco-Bujosa

L. M.

Levy

A. J.

(2016). Caught in the balance: An organizational analysis of science teaching in schools with elementary science specialists. Science Education, 100, 983-1008. doi:10.1002/sce.21239

31.

Mirra

Coffey

Englander

(2018). Warrior scholars & bridge builders: Civic dreaming in ELA classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 423-445. doi:10.1177/1086296X18784335

32.

Mitton-Kükner

Orr

A. M.

(2018). A multi-year study of pre-service teachers’ literacy practices in the content areas: Time epistemologies and indicators of stasis and growth. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13, 19-35. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376670

33.

Moje

E. B.

(2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for new times: Studying youth as a resource. Literacy Research and Instruction, 41, 211-228.

34.

Moje

E. B.

(2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1-44.

35.

Moje

E. B.

(2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 296-107. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1

36.

Moje

E. B.

(2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 254-278.

37.

Moje

E. B.

Ciechanowski

K. I.

Kramer

Ellis

Carrillo

Collazo

(2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38-70.

38.

Moje

E. B.

Peek-Brown

Sutherland

L. M.

Marx

R. W.

Blumenfeld

Krajcik

(2004). Explaining explanations. In Strickland

D. S.

Alvermann

D. E.

(Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, Grades 4-12 (pp. 227-251). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

39.

Monte-Sano

De La Paz

(2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273-299. doi:10.1177/1086296X12450445

40.

Moore

D. W.

Readence

J. E.

Rickelman

R. T.

(1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419-438.

41.

O’Brien

D. G.

Stewart

R. A.

(1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice teachers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 32, 396-401.

42.

O’Brien

D. G.

Stewart

R. A.

Moje

E. B.

(1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.

43.

Pimm

(1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classroom. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

44.

Roberts-Mahoney

Means

A. J.

Garrison

(2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Policy, 31, 405-420. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1132774

45.

Shanahan

Misischia

(2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393-429. doi:10.1177/1086296X11424071

46.

Shanahan

(2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.

47.

Shanahan

(2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7-18. doi:10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a

48.

Shulman

(2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

49.

Skerrett

(2018). Learning music literacies across transnational school settings. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 31-51. doi:10.1177/1086296X17753502

50.

Tanner

S. J.

(2017). Teaching to the Golem: A pedagogical intra-action. Journal of Literacy Research, 49, 321-341. doi:10.1177/1086296X17715288

51.

Weyand

Goff

Newell

(2018). The social construction of warranting evidence in two classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 97-122. doi:10.1177/1086296X17751173

52.

Wilson

A. A.

Boatright

M. D.

Landon-Hays

(2014). Middle school teachers’ discipline-specific use of gestures and implications for disciplinary literacy instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 234-262. doi:10.1177/1086296X14532615

53.

Wineburg

S. S.

(1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495-519. doi:10.2307/1163146

54.

Wright

T. S.

Domke

L. M.

(2019). The role of language and literacy in K-5 science and social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research, 51, 5-29. doi:10.1177/1086296X18821141

55.

Zwiers

(2014). Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards across disciplines, Grades 5-12 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Disciplinary Literacy: From Infusion to Hybridity

Abstract

Keywords

Infusion Approaches

Toward Hybridity

Disciplinary Literacy Hybridity in the Journal of Literacy Research (JLR)

What Does Hybridity Mean for Disciplinary Literacy Research and Practice?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References