Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 254-278

  Moje, Elizabeth Birr ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930894286     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: 19435045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.254     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765. doi: 10.1080/09500690601075629
2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.
4. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.
5. Bain, R. B. (2006). Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the authority hidden in the history classroom. Teachers College Record, 108, 2080-2114.
6. Bain, R. B., Lander, A., Hines, M., & Mercado, G. (2008, April). Working toward a problemcentered history classroom: Using historical inquiry and literacy to teach American history. Paper presented at the National Council of History Education Annual Conference, Louisville, KY.
7. Bain, R. B., & Moje, E. B. (2012). Mapping the teacher education terrain for novices. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(5), 62-65.
8. Ball, S., & Lacey, C. (1984). Subject disciplines as the opportunity for a group action: A measured critique of subject sub-cultures. In A. Hargreaves & P. Woods (Eds.), Classrooms and staffrooms: The sociology of teachers and teaching (pp. 234-244). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
9. Bass, H. (2006, March). What is the role of oral and written language in knowledge generation in mathematics? Paper presented at the Toward the Improvement of Secondary School Teaching and Learning: Integrating Language, Literacy, and Subject Matter conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
10. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of the social studies. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 44-47.
11. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
12. Bransford, J. (Ed.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13. Bransford, J., & Donovan, S. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
15. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221-244). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
16. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 778-807.
17. Coffin, C. (2006). Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413-429.
18. Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], National Governor's Association. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
19. Demirag, M., & Gunel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 386-391.
20. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21. Enciso, P. (2013, December). Imagining and landscaping futures. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association, Dallas.
22. Erickson, A. (2014). Counting on the knowledge of others: Rational dependence in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
23. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Designbased science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110. doi: 10.1002/tea.20040
24. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.
25. Gee, J. P. (2000/2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 25, pp. 99-126). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
26. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.
27. Goldman, S. R. (2012, April). A framework for conceptualizing reading for understanding: Evidence-based argumentation in history, science, and literature. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia.
28. Greenleaf, C. (2006). Fostering metacognitive conversation in professional learning communities and subject-area classrooms. Retrieved from www.ohiorc.org/adlit
29. Greenleaf, C., & Brown, W. (2014, December). From muddling to modeling: Building teacher capacity to support text-dependent argumentation as a way of learning in science. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association, Marco Island, FL.
30. Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and Instruction, 45(2), 91-113.
31. Hall, R., & Turow, S. (2006, April). Hybrid interactional practices: Expanding the disciplinary expertise of a middle school mathematics classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
32. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
33. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
34. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Heller, R. (2010). In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje's "call for change" in secondary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(4), 267-273. doi: 10.1598/jaal.54.4.4
36. Herber, H. L. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
37. Hinchman, K. A., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Reading for success in a tenth-grade global-studies class: A qualitative study. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 91-106.
38. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3(3), 149-164.
39. Leander, K. M., & Lovvorn, J. F. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 291-340.
40. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines and the challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie.
41. Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. C. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441-486.
42. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
43. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
44. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.
45. Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (1990, Summer). Literacy as reasoning within multiple discourse: Implications for policy and educational reform. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers Summer Institute on Restructuring Learning, Educational Development Center, Literacies Institute, Newton, MA.
46. Moje, E. B. (1996). "I teach students, not subjects": Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172-195.
47. Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge in chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 35-44.
48. Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 31, pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
49. 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.
50. Moje, E. B. (2010). Response: Heller's "In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje's 'call for change' in secondary literacy." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(4), 275-278. doi: 10.1598/jaal.54.4.5
51. Moje, E. B. (2014, May). Teaching students and teachers disciplinary literacy: Studying a novel teacher education program. Paper presented at the International Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.
52. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades 4-12 (pp. 227-251). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
53. Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 107-154.
54. Moje, E. B., & Speyer, J. (2014). Reading challenging texts in high school: How teachers can scaffold and build close reading for real purposes in the subject areas. In K. Hinchman & H. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (2nd ed., pp. 207-231). New York: Guilford.
55. Moje, E. B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text in disciplinary learning. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, P. A. Afflerbach, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 453-486). New York: Taylor & Francis.
56. National Research Council [NRC]. (Ed.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
57. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
58. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2002). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
60. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). The public understanding of science information: Communicating, interpreting, and applying the science of learning. Education Canada 43(2), 24-27.
61. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
62. Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
63. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
64. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 152-193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65. Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 315-339.
66. Phelps, S. F. (2005). Ten years of research on adolescent literacy, 1994-2004: A review. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
67. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68. Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93
69. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-61.
70. Shreiner, T. (2009). Framing a model of democratic thinking to inform teaching and learning in civic education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
71. Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344.
73. Snow, C. E., & Moje, E. B. (2010). What is adolescent literacy? Why is everyone talking about it now? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 66-69.
74. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learing to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75. Stevens, R., O'Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Toward a three-dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 355-368.
76. Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. (2004). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
77. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
78. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and the academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.
79. Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319-346.
80. Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
81. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672-692.