The value of Disciplinary Literacy is elemental to higher education. That is to say, the language of specialties within the broader reaches of the civilizational design that we have in modern times requires focused attention that reaches beyond normative conversation for regular day-to-day activities. To isolate this, the delineation of Disciplinary Literacy (DL) and Content-area Literacy (CaL) can be defined by the utility of the language, whether it is either unique to a discipline, or generally useful, respectively. To illustrate this, we can consider a clear example from within the sciences.
Certainly, it is useful to understand the variations of an intermediate dose of methotrexate when combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and prednisone when treating non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (Gomez, et al.). However, to a lay person like myself, these are not words that I will commit to memory, nor chemical interactions that I will expect myself to be familiar with. They are specialized. They are within the realm of Disciplinary Literacy. I do have a working knowledge, or Content-area Literacy for the sciences, generally. This less specialized literacy can be viewed in the context of talking about petri dishes, wave lengths, displacement, and many more common notions that are more broadly applicable to life on earth. This would be an illustration of where the fields of literacy diverge, when language is pertinent to some, but perhaps not others. Finer discernment will follow.
Methodologically thinking, Content-area Literacy and Disciplinary Literacy work differently as well. As Heather Lattimer describes in relation to DL, we are not “teaching students the core ideas of our discipline. Instead, we are inviting students to engage in the processes and practices of the disciplines…” (Lattimer 2010). The recognition of the differential between teaching core ideas versus processes and practices is key. It is cumulative, in a way that DL follows CaL, advancing the specialization of the language and structural norms of the defined realm of focus. As noted above, learning about petri dishes is basic to science, but how prednisone acts within a petri dish is a specific practical application that is a recognizable step beyond CaL into the arena of DL. In even more basic a view, the petri dishes may be considered unique to science, so could be considered to fall within DL. So, another way to look at it might be to consider strategies rather than vocabulary. In notable contrast to DL strategies, CaL strategies are possible to use across disciplines. Consider, for example, language used in areas of study such as the inquiry that comes from textbooks and tests. If a student is able to read and understand the questions that come along with close reading texts, they are exemplifying their ability to show their CaL. It is the details and structural constructs that extend beyond the basic language that extend into DL.
E.g., “Contrast the perspective of Johnny Star against that of Cole Porter in the story you just read in relation to how they interpret the actions of Davie in a way that illustrates their respective understandings of Davie’s motivations.”
In this example (made up, from a non-existent text), Johnny and Cole both witness Davie from alternative perspectives and backgrounds. It can be take for granted that the impact of Davie’s actions has different value and meaning to these two other people. Teaching CaL in relation to this task would address the notion of contrasting perspectives in general. Whereas teaching DL could extend the aspectual implications of the psychological and sociological deeper meanings of Davie’s actions in relation to the two other characters.
To further consideration on this topic, I will focus on the provided extract of Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Being that the provided text is decontextualized and brief, the focus below will assume that broader offering of context for the story than that which is provided here can be available to students. The single paragraph would be insufficient for a reasonable analysis. Context would need to be established for the close reading to proceed. As far as describing three disciplinary reading strategies to use to do so, they follow.
An initial strategy that would be appropriate would be one found described in Think-Literacy, Cross-Curricular Approaches, a text provided by WGU, created by “classroom teachers and literacy consultants with extensive classroom experience in Grades 7 to 12, from public and Catholic school boards across Ontario” (Ontario n.d.). They offer the strategy they call “Reading Literary Texts.” While the title is deceptively general, as described on pages 88-90 of their text, it can be remarkably specific in method.
It is broken up into three areas of approach: before, during, and after reading. Previous to reading the text, one would consider the visual aspects such as the size of the text, the title, context, language conventions, perhaps some historical contextualization, and more. This helps a reader to situate oneself into a positioning to approach the text. After considering all those things, one would begin reading with notable constructs in mind. Some of those include considering the motivations of the characters, making predictions about what might follow, imagining the setting in a thoughtful way that may even include making sketches, perhaps making annotations in the text itself, and more. Graphic organizers can be employed during this stage so that a student can easily notate what they are reading. Especially for texts such as The Metamorphosis, inferring what the author is saying beyond the exact story is elemental to understanding the text. Encouraging students to consider this metaphorical realm is important for a successful reading of such a text. Within this strategy, after reading, one can immediately start to write. Starting with quotations from the text that stuck out and timelines/sequence descriptions, a reader can make notes about the turning points in the story that were highlights. Similarly, a student can summarize the text so that it could be retold in discussion, thoughtfully expanding on the metaphorical implications along with a retelling of the story line.
Another reading strategy from the Ontario collective shared would be “Sorting Ideas Using a Concept Map.” This is a graphic organizer of a specific sort, one that is particularly useful for this kind of reading. The way they describe it (again by organizing it in the three stages of Before, During, and After reading), a teacher would begin by introducing the model, exemplifying it, discussing it with students in a way that encourages inquiry on their part and then leading into the reading stage. During reading, students use post-it notes during their reading so they can identify notable elements. As well, they use their Concept Map model they’ve created in preparation for their reading by placing these sticky notes upon it. They can write in bubbles like a normal brainstorming map, but notably, this one is organized by “overall topic, sub-topics, and details.” Following their reading, they then join up with other students to compare and contrast their results to expand and extend their learning and understanding of the material. A broader class discussion follows so groups can share what they’ve come up with (Ontario n.d.).
A third strategy that would be useful would be focusing on a Close Reading of the text. This type of strategy is characterized as large or small heterogeneous groupings of students using challenging and complex, grade-appropriate texts along with notably text-dependent questions and repeated readings in order to approach an extract or otherwise small-ish reading with multiple perspectives of approach (Frey & Fisher 2013). By using short passages, a student can more intensely focus on the content with various goals. These goals are specified by text-dependent questions. An interesting aspect of close reading that other strategies don’t emphasize as much is the distinctly necessary re-reading of a text for success. With close reading, three separate readings can be defined. They focus on Key Ideas and Details first, followed by a look at Craft and Structure, and finally thoughtful Integration of Knowledge and Ideas (Burke). Each reading is intentional in its form. The first attends to things like the story line and main ideas within the text and can be done in a variety of ways such as in groups, independently, or in workshops. The second section encourages students to look at how the work is put together in relation to text structures and features that elicit style. Then, to close things up, a more cerebral focus is applied, reaching into synthesis and analysis of information from various inputs around the text for a more eclectic approach to the work. Each stage may employ note-taking techniques such as marginal notation, annotation, or use of notebooks or graphic organizers to retain thoughts while moving through the work.
These three strategies would each be appropriate for the segment provided from The Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka. However, if I were to use only one to illustrate how it might be used in an activity that could be described as “being effective for helping students to understand the text,” as the task defines, I would choose “Close Reading” because of how The Metamorphosis really lends itself to being looked at from many perspectives and in many different ways. By offering the students layers of questions, as this form of activity can be imagined, students could unpack the deeply metaphorical passage to derive creative meanings in addition to discussing the structure and the sociological positioning that it stood in at the time of its initial writing as well as in modern times. A first reading (key ideas and details) may incorporate a view of the language conventions, isolating the voice of the speaker, naming who that character is, describing the location of the setting and what is going on within it. All of these are all good starting points. I would consider this first reading to be one where students work independently. From that, a second layer of focus (craft and structure), requiring a second reading, would be spurred by other text-dependent questions that had a focus on how the rhythm of the language helped the pacing. It could look at how the point of view of the main character was in juxtaposition to that of others in the story. (Again, I would incorporate more than the provided extract for an expanded contextualization of the story.) Also, the order of information could be analyzed to discuss why Kafka gives us certain parts of the story at different times. Isolating this type of organized focus allows for a discussion of the deeper artistry of the work. I would have students work together in small groups or individually at this junction. Further in, a third reading that aims even deeper (integration of knowledge and ideas) would be able to focus on unpacking the rich metaphorical designs of Kafka’s. By encouraging students to peel apart the meaning within this illustrative text in a way that focuses on the analogue of the insect in relation to a man, we can provide not only a way for a student to understand textual matters, but also the world around them, better (Burke n.d.). I would have students work in pairs or groups of three for this portion of the exercise so that students could share their insights and learn from each other during this intrinsically thoughtful line of questioning.
Using the reading strategy of close reading is particularly effective for helping students understand this text because of how many things are going on at the same time in it. There is the story telling about a bug that can be appreciated for how weird and descriptive it is, but at the same time, there is a totally different story going on about how the man is feeling like a bug. He isn’t one at all, but is one in a metaphorical sense that has recently been brought to back to the modern psyche by the modern Netflix series and 2006 novel by Liu Cixin, The Three-Body Problem (Liu 2006). This “being bugs” mentality is a philosophical discussion that is wholly available as an arena of discourse that students can open up into a debate about social structures and our places in them (Kafka n.d.). This third perspective that employs the metaphorical realm, following the more literal, but still pointed, previous ones, is an entirely necessary line of discussion for opening up this particular text. However, without the first two layers of details and craft as the focus, it is not accessible. This is why close reading would be a uniquely good strategy for studying The Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka.
Citations
Burke, Beth (n.d.). A Close Look at Close Reading, Scaffolding Students with Complex Texts. NBCT. https://nieonline.com/tbtimes/downloads/CCSS_reading.pdf Retrieved May 2024.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). Rigorous Reading: 5 access points for comprehending complex texts. Corwin Press.
Gomez, G. A., Barcos, M., Han, T., & Henderson, E. S. (1987). Cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and prednisone (CHOP) with and without intermediate dose methotrexate for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas of diffuse histology. Cancer, 60(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19870701)60:1<18::aid-cncr2820600105>3.0.co;2-0
Kafka, F. (n.d.). Metamorphosis. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5200/5200-h/5200-h.htm
Lattimer, Heather (2010). Reading for Learning: Using Discipline-based Texts to Build Content Knowledge. National Council of Teachers of English.
Liu, Cixin (2006). The Three-Body Problem. Trans. Ken Liu. Tom Doherty Associates, New York. Chongqing Publishing Group, Chongqing.
Ontario School Districts (n.d.). Think Literacy, Cross Curricular Approaches Grades 7-12. Government of Ontario, Canada