Disciplinary Literacy: Are We Testing for It in Our Schools?

Shaunteca Simmons & Stefon Witkowski

Scientific literacy almost sounds like an oxymoron. It does not seem like those two words even go together. When one thinks of literacy, they think of an English class or something dealing with more of reading and writing. However, science contains both reading and writing. So is that what is meant by scientific literacy, being able to read and write about science? Not quite; literacy in science is more than this. It involves the ability of one to be able to make observations, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze and draw conclusions, and make connections of scientific work and findings. Children are taught this all through grade school and continue to build on it as the get more advanced. However, the problem lies in how the educational system chooses to measure, or determine, if a student is scientifically literate or not. This is done primarily through high-stakes, often standardized testing which is unfair to some students and can create a disadvantage.

Let’s first delve a little deeper into what we are defining here as scientific literacy. Scientific literacy is, first and foremost, a type of disciplinary literacy. According to Shanahan & Shanahan (2008), there are three levels of literacy inside one topic: basic literacy, intermediate literacy, and disciplinary literacy. As a student’ literacy grows, they become able to understand and decode more difficult words, phrases, and concepts. Eventually, this can lead to disciplinary literacy.

Another way to define it as done by Fang (2012) is as the ability to engage in social, semiotic, and cognitive practices consistent with those of content experts. Moje (2007) also brings up things such as disciplinary traditions, theoretical stances, and research foci. Plaut (2009) gives the best explanation by defining scientific literacy as”’…abilities and habits-of-mind required to construct understandings of science, to apply these big ideas to realistic problems and issues involving science, technology, society and the environment, and to inform and persuade other people to take action based on these science ideas’ (Yore, Bisanz, and Hand, 2003, p.690).” (p.83) Certainly, we are looking at something much deeper than reading a textbook and learning vocabulary. And many would argue that these things, new abilities gained, should be valued. It is the difference in being able to learn a single phrase and recite it in a language you don’t know and learning the language. A difference between being able to ask your Spanish teacher if you can use the restroom in a way that won’t get you in trouble and being able to talk to him about his vacation in Spanish.

But are we valuing this level of understanding, this literacy? Certainly it’s hard to say that we do from the standpoint of teaching for and administering standardized tests. The problem with teaching for these standardized tests is that they usually solely focus on the content. Gillis (2014) states that this is only reinforced by the high-stakes testing that usually take place in our classrooms. She goes on to suggest that a mixture of content area instruction and discipline-appropriate literacy practices are the best strategy. Furthermore, Zygouris-Coe (2012) suggests that we need to perform assessments that better gauge and prepare students for college and career readiness. We need to teach them the ideas that they’ll need to apply as professionals. This is what prepares them for their adult lives. Additionally, as part of her “Instructional Recommendations for Combined Disciplinary Literacy and Common Core State Standards Implementation,” in which she lays out a basic plan of how to best teach our students, she also suggests multiple forms of assessment so that we can actually come to understand their learning. Simply put, it can’t be as simple as teaching them a narrow stream of facts and then testing for their memory. They deserve a deeper understanding of the content, and unless you know how they learn you won’t get them there. But it’s not enough to simply test for this literacy. Building on this, Draper et al. (2010) point out that for these proper assessments to matter, your lessons have to match. They create a hypothetical situation where a teacher’s students haven’t received proper literacy instruction, but she expected them to show a deeper understanding nonetheless on her tests. This is unacceptable.

and discipline-appropriate literacy practices are the best strategy. Furthermore, Zygouris-Coe (2012) suggests that we need to perform assessments that better gauge and prepare students for college and career readiness. As part of her “Instructional Recommendations for Combined Disciplinary Literacy and Common Core State Standards Implementation,” in which she lays out a basic plan of how to best teach our students, she also suggests multiple forms of assessment so that we can actually understand their learning. But it’s not enough to simply test for this literacy. Draper et al. (2010) point out that for these proper assessments to matter, your lessons have to match. They create a hypothetical situation where a teacher’s students haven’t received proper literacy instruction, but she expected them to show a deeper understanding nonetheless on her tests. This is unacceptable.

In summation, scientific literacy goes beyond just reading and writing of scientific literature. It is getting an actual understanding for whatever large concept of science that applies to the situation or whatever is being studied and being able to apply it to other issues with the hopes of resolving those issues from prior scientific knowledge. It requires a true understanding of scientific concepts and ideas, and this can not be measured or determined by standardized testing alone. The school systems fail adolescents by trying to use standardized tests to determine how scientifically literate they are. However, many students that do not appear to be scientifically literate based on test scores are extremely smart and possess lots of scientific knowledge; they just do not test as well as others for various reasons.

Sources:
Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A., Nokes, J. D., Seibert, D.. (2010). (Re) imagining content-area literacy instruction. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/

Fang, Z.. (2012). Language Correlates of Disciplinary Literacy. Top Lang Disorders, 32 (1), 19–34. Retrieved from: http://alliedhealth.ceconnection.com/files/TLD0112B-1337958964160.pdf

Gillis, V. (2014). Disciplinary Literacy: Adapt Not Adopt. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (8), 614–623. Retrieved from: http://www.lindareedclassroom.com/teaching-resources/ewExternalFiles/Disciplinary%20Literacy.pdf

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. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.493.8873&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Plaut, S. (2009). The right to literacy in secondary schools: Creating a culture of thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T.. (2008). Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-Area Literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 40–59. Retrieved from: https://www.nesacenter.org/uploaded/conferences/FLC/2015/Handouts/Shanahan_HER_2008.pdf

Zygouris-Coe, V. I.. (2012). Disciplinary Literacy and the Common Core State Standards. Top Lang Disorders, 32 (1), 35–50. Retrieved from: http://alliedhealth.ceconnection.com/files/TLD0112C-1337958977390.pdf