Language correlates of disciplinary literacy

Topics in Language Disorders

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 19-34

  Fang, Zhihui ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

adolescent literacy; disciplinary literacy; functional linguistics; linguistic variation; literacy development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856821952     PISSN: 02718294     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31824501de     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bain, R. (2008, November). What is competent historical thinking in and out of the classroom? Paper presented at The History Summit II: What promise does history education hold for student learning? University of California, Davis, CA.
2. Bean, T. W., Readence, J. E., & Baldwin, R. S. (2008). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (9th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
3. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2006). Reading Next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4. Biggs, A., Hagins, W. C., Kapicka, C., Lundgren, L., Rillero, P., Tallman, K. G., Zike, D., & National Geographic Society. (2006). Biology: The dynamics of life (Florida ed.). Chicago: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe.
5. Christie, F. (1998). Learning the literacies of primary and secondary schooling. In F. Christie & R. Mission (Eds.) Literacy and schooling (pp. 47-73). London: Routledge.
6. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
7. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.
8. Crowe, C. (2003). Getting away with murder: The true story of the Emmett Till case. New York: Phyllis Fogelman Books.
9. Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., Nokes, J. D., & Siebert, D. (2010). (Re)Imagining content-area literacy instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520. (Pubitemid 43435982)
11. Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the fab five: Helping students cope with the unique linguistic challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(6), 478-487.
12. Fang, Z. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
13. Fang, Z. (2011). Reading secondary school history: Linguistic challenges and coping strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Orlando, FL.
14. Fang, Z. (2012). The challenges of reading disciplinary texts. In T. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies (pp. 34-68). New York: Guilford.
15. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
16. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587-597.
17. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve the writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. New York: Carnegie Foundation of New York.
18. Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescents to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79-129.
19. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
20. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science (Vol. 5 in The collected works ofM. A. K. Halliday, J.Webster [Ed.]). London: Continuum.
21. Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education (Vol. 9 in The collected works of M. A. K. Halliday, J. Webster [Ed.]). London: Continuum.
22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
23. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377-424). London: Longman.
24. Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
25. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2005). Reading comprehension requires knowledge-of words and the world. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends (pp. 121-130). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
26. Jetton, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
27. Jurgensen, R., Brown, R., & Jurgensen, J. (2004). Geometry. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
28. Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459.
29. Lager, C. A. (2004). Unlocking the language of mathematics to ensure that our English language learners acquire algebra (No. PB-006-1004). Los Angeles: University of California.
30. Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Larson, R., Boswell, L., Janold, T., & Stiff, L. (2001). Algebra I. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
32. Lee, C., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
33. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
34. Lemke, J. (2002). Multimedia semiotics: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 21-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Lemke, J. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarellis (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Brooklyn, NY andOttawa, Ontario, Canada: Legas.
36. Lukin, A. (2004). Studying literature, studying language. In A. A. Samad (ed.), Perspectives on grammar in language education (pp. 71-87). Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
37. Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics 'good enough' for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realizing the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 9-23.
38. Martin, J. (1997). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London: Continuum.
39. Martin, J. R. (2002). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourse of the past. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 87-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. McConachie, S. M., & Petrosky, A. R. (2010). Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
42. Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publication.
43. Nielsen, T. W., & Graveley, B. R. (2010). Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing. Nature, 463(28), 457-463.
44. O'Halloran, K. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: Amultisemiotic analysis. Linguistics & Education, 10(3), 359-388.
45. O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
46. Ravi, A. K. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in the history classroom. In S. M., McConachie, & A. R. Petrosky, (Eds.). Content matters: A disciplinary literacy approach to improving student learning (pp. 33-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of information: Challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 288-307.
49. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-61.
50. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012).What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
51. Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
52. Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 185-216). London: Continuum.
53. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
54. Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.
55. Wilkinson, L. (2009). Pink. New York: HarperTeen.
56. Yore, L.,Hand, B.,&Florence,M. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.