This study reports qualitative findings related to elementary preservice teachers’ perceptions and use of a six-phased planning approach, titled Planning for Elementary Digitally-Supported Disciplinary Literacy, to integrate digitally supported disciplinary literacy into lesson planning. Preservice teachers in this study were seeking PK-6 licensure and were enrolled in a semester-long graduate-level course focused on disciplinary and content literacy, with an emphasis on the integration of digital tools to support disciplinary literacy. The phased approach considered Core Disciplinary Practices to scaffold preservice teachers’ planning. An inductive qualitative approach was used to collect and analyze data. Thematic results explore preservice teachers’ negotiations of knowledge of print and digital texts and tools to plan for disciplinary literacy, preservice teachers’ perceptions regarding complexities of disciplinary literacy in elementary grades, and the idea of core disciplinary practices as a gateway for a reconsideration of literacy. These results provide implications for how elementary teachers might be supported in integrating disciplinary literacy into their classrooms in a manner that aligns with the goals and constructs of elementary education.
AlanogluM.AslanS.KarabatekS. (2022). Do teachers’ educational philosophies affect their digital literacy? The mediating effect of resistance to change. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3447–3466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10753-3
2.
AltieriJ. L. (2011). Content counts! Developing disciplinary literacy skills, K-6. International Reading Association.
3.
AlvermannD. E.GillisV. R.PhelpsS. F. (2012). Content area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classroom (7th ed.). Pearson.
4.
BrockC. H.GoatleyV. J.RaphaelT. E.Trost-ShahataE.WeberC. M. (2014). Engaging students in disciplinary literacy, K-6. Teachers College Press.
5.
CappelloM.LaffertyK. E. (2015). The roles of photography for developing literacy across the disciplines. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1418
6.
CastekJ.BeachR. (2013). Using apps to support disciplinary literacy and sciencelearning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(7), 554–564.
7.
CastekJ.ManderinoM. (2017). A planning framework for integrating digital literacies for disciplinary learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(6), 697–700.
8.
ColwellJ. (2019). Selecting texts for disciplinary literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1762
9.
ColwellJ.HutchisonA.WoodwardL. (2020). Digitally-supported disciplinary literacy for diverse K-5 classrooms. Teachers College Press.
10.
ColwellJ.HutchisonA.WoodwardL. (2022). Digitally supported disciplinary literacy in elementary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 75(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2070
11.
ColwellJ.HutchisonA. C. (2015). Supporting teachers in integrating digital technology into language arts instruction to promote literacy. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(2), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2014.991813
12.
Farland-SmithD. (2009). How does culture shape students’ perceptions of scientists? Cross-American and Chinese elementary students. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03182355
13.
FergusonL. E.BråtenI. (2022). Unpacking pre-service teachers’ beliefs and reasoning about student ability, sources of teaching knowledge, and teacher-efficacy: A scenario-based approach. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.975105
14.
Frambaugh-KritzerC.BuelowS.SteeleJ. S. (2015). What are disciplinary literacies in dance and drama in the elementary grades?Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 11(1), 65–87.
15.
HålandA. (2016). Disciplinary literacy in elementary school: How a struggling student positions herself as a writer. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1541
16.
HodgeR.KressG. R. (1988). Social semiotics. Cornell University Press.
17.
HutchisonA.ColwellJ.GutierrezK.EvmenovaA.OffuttJ.TaylorV. (2021). Designing a model of computer science professional development for elementary educators in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 29(2), 165–193.
18.
HutchisonA.GutierrezK.ColwellJ.EvmenovaA.OffuttJ.GrossM. (2022). Evaluating the role of professional development on elementary teachers’ knowledge, comfort, and beliefs related to teaching computer science to students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2089408
19.
HutchisonA. C.WoodwardL.ColwellJ. (2016). What are preadolescent readers doing online? An examination of upper elementary students’ reading, writing, and communication in digital spaces. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 361–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.146
20.
International Literacy Association & National Council of Teachers of English (2012). Standards for the English language arts. Author. Original work published in 1996.
21.
LeiJ. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed?Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.
22.
LemleyS. M.HartS. M.KingJ. R. (2019). Teacher inquiry develops elementary teachers’ disciplinary literacy. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2018.1520371
23.
ManderinoM.CastekJ. (2016). Digital literacies for disciplinary learning: A call to action. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(1), 79–81.
24.
McKnightL. (2021). Addressing pre-service teachers as digital writers: Conflicts and inconsistencies in practice. Theory Into Practice, 60(2), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1857137
25.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1
26.
National Council for the Social Studies (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for the social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Author.
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2013). Principles to actions: An urgent agenda for school mathematics. Author.
28.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academics Press.
29.
RichardsonJ. S.MorganR. F.FleenerC. E. (2012). Reading to learn in the content areas: What’s new in education (8th ed). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
30.
ShanahanC.ShanahanT. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 636–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1257
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
36.
WilsonA. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for conceptualizing content area literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.6.5
37.
WrightT. S.GotwalsA. W. (2017). Supporting disciplinary talk from the start of school: Teaching students to think and talk like scientists. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1602
