An Exploration of Content-Area Literacy
The educational trend that will be referred to here as Content-Area Literacy (or CAL) is more prevalent than many realize; the campaign by many teachers and scholars to implement this strategy is somewhat muddled by its myriad of names: school-wide literacy, content-area literacy, academic literacy, literacy across the curriculum, disciplinary thinking, thinking as literacy, critical thinking, among others (Bayerl, 2007; Swartz, 2008; Roberts & Billings, 2008; Mansilla & Gardner, 2008). Despite the many names and variations of this pedagogical philosophy, there are several strong common threads running throughout. Generally, CAL (and its many alter-egos) can be defined as “the teaching of reading, writing, speaking, and thinking practices in all content areas [italics mine]” (Bayerl, 2007). When I first heard about CAL, I dismissed it. After all, what math or science teacher (for example) has the time (or the ability) to teach reading in their classes on top of their own set of content and skills? However, since I have researched and came to a more nuanced, accurate understanding of what CAL is, I have become an unabashed proponent of it, believing as Bayerl does, that it is not only effective, but necessary (2008).
Heterotextual Encounters: Reimagining “Reading”
Teaching literacy has traditionally been the realm of English teacher, and most English teachers (myself included) teach as though literacy is only the ability to read, write, think, and speak about poetry, novels, and short stories (with the occasional rare foray into movies, art, and/or music). Almost all of it is fiction. This definition of literacy is limited even by the most common understanding of reading and text; non-fiction texts make up a much larger portion of what we (and our students) experience on a day-to-day basis. New York State has recognized this to a point: the first two tasks (out of four total) on the English Regents exam require students to interpret non-fiction texts. Yet the focus by far of most ELA teachers remains fiction. While I am a huge supporter of teaching students to interpret, understand, and appreciate poetry, fiction, and art, this seems to cheat them of the ability to interpret speeches, advertisements, news articles, and other non-traditional or non-fiction texts that is, in some ways, more useful to them. But how is an English teacher supposed to teach non-fiction when it seems he/she barely has time to properly teach fiction? There are so many skills to teach and so many texts to read that including non-fiction more than doubles (by far) the scope of what an English teacher should teach.
Unfortunately, this dilemma has to get worse before it can get better. The proliferation of information seems to be growing exponentially, thanks to increased publishing, academic research, and the internet. The more we learn as a collective human culture, the more there is for the individual to learn. The literary canon has collapsed in favor of teaching anything that is enjoyable and/or has literary merit (and there is much that fits this category). The internet has expanded the ways in which we can communicate with each other. Scientists, historians, and mathematicians have discovered entirely new cultures, new histories, new ways of perceiving and measuring reality. It is all dizzyingly wonderful, and yet, how can we manage now to send our students off into the world with anything more than a fraction of it? One solution to not focus on content/information, but rather what Mansilla and Gardner call disciplinary thinking- “the disposition to interpret the world in the distinctive ways that characterize the thinking of experienced disciplinarians—historians, scientists, mathematicians, and artists” (2008). It is a twist on the old adage about fishing: “Teach a student about The Great Gatsby and they will read for a day. Teach a student to read The Great Gatsby and they will read for a lifetime.” If you believe, as Roberts, Billings, and I do that “Thinking is Literacy, Literacy Thinking” (2008), then we can no longer think of literacy as the ability to read and write, but in a broader sense, the ability to recognize the underlying principles of a system and manipulate that system. Writing an essay, performing a scientific experiment, proving a mathematical equation, analyzing historic trends, and so on are very different tasks, but they all involve understanding the underlying principles of a system and applying them to content (by “reading” it or “writing” about it). This is no different than what teachers in all subjects have been trying to do all along (whether they have been doing it effectively or not). Now, teaching literacy is no longer the sole responsibility of the English teacher- it has become the summum bonnum of education itself!
CAL= Consistency and Coherency
Some of my colleagues complain that CAL would drastically change what they teach. I think they imagine, for example, cutting a math lesson short in order to fit in time to read and discuss a story about math. Although I believe every discipline does utilize reading and writing (in their traditional definitions!) and could benefit from reading texts investigating issues of that content and discipline, that is not really what CAL is all about. Rather, it’s a way of thinking about the skills they are probably already teaching. As we have discussed, “literacy” is not meant to be taken literally, but as an analogy for the mindset that allows students to succeed in that particular discipline. If every teacher in school pushes that “skill-oriented” philosophy, students will be receiving a consistent message about what is important. Imagine: one year a history teacher expects his/her students to understand historical trends, question historical assumptions and analyze/evaluate historical data. Next year’s teacher grades entirely based on rote memorization of dates, names, and events. How many students will forget the skills the first teacher taught them through disuse? How many students will stop thinking that skills are important because they are no longer relevant for them to pass the class. Four years of a coherent philosophy of learning promoted consistently by teachers across the school will send students out into the world ingrained with the skills to handle new situations, not just some knowledge of old ones. Mastering a “toolbox” of strategies for accessing and understanding content will help them in any subject area, in or out of college (Bayerl, 2008).
CALculations: Teacher and School Growth
Certainly, this way of thinking and teaching will require some reflection and adjustment for most teachers and principals. In order for CAL to work, there needs to be, according to Meltzer and Ziemba, a long-term commitment (at least three years) by the principal to enforce and promote a schoolwide CAL program, a serious professional development schedule that will show introduce the philosophy of CAL to teachers and show them how it looks in a classroom setting, and “buy-in” from the teachers, who must be willing to learn the philosophy of CAL and enact its strategies (2006). For these three essential components to work, there must be consistent communication between and amongst teachers, administrators, and literacy coaches. Professionally-led training will improve teacher quality, and communication between school faculty and staff will lead to a collegial relationship and a “professional culture of collaboration where the focus is on student success” (Bayerl, 2008). Content-area literacy instruction can work on the level of individual classrooms, but for its greatest level of success, it should be enacted on a school-wide level.
CALligraphy: Reflections on Writing and Reading about Content-Area Literacy
Researching content-area literacy has been insightful for me as I assemble my own philosophy as a teacher. Its focus on “skills” or “tools” rather than on content really speaks to me; it begins to answer deep-seated questions inside of me on how to live in a world increasingly laden with content and an academic culture that emphasizes knowing it all. It also begins to articulate the voice in my gut that fills my body with reverberations of importance in English class, despite the fact that one can read a perfectly rich life without having read Romeo and Juliet or Native Son. The entire world is a text to be read, and the savviest individual will not only be able to understand the messages being sent to him by these texts, but will be able to “talk back” to these texts in their own languages. Though much of this doesn’t always require “literacy” as we traditionally think of it, the language of literacy seems to be the most effective way of understanding this concept. Because of this, I think we English teachers must take the lead in explaining and engendering the philosophy behind CAL, because we are already most intimate with the language of text, literacy, and readership.
There is much still for me to explore in CAL. I haven’t even fully explored what name to properly call it. I chose content-area literacy because its acronym lent itself well to wordplay, but perhaps another one of its many signifiers better represents what it truly is. In addition, I have not seen CAL in action. We had a dedicated literacy coach at our school, but she met with extremely little support from the principal or many of the teachers. If I ever want to be a truly outspoken advocate for this strategy, I need to see how it works and decide if it is truly effective or a nice-sounding theory like so many others that doesn’t work in action. It has struck me, nonetheless, as no other pedagogical fad has. Even if it fades away like so many, the wheels it has started in motion in my head will produce something fruitful.
References
Bayerl, K. (2007). Rigor plus support: How science teachers use literacy techniques to get
students ready for college. Early College High School Initiative.
Mansilla, V.B., & Gardner, H. (2008). Disciplining the mind. Educational Leadership, 65(5),
14-19.
Meltzer, J., & Ziemba, S. (2006). Getting schoolwide literacy up and running. Principal
Leadership, 7(1), 21-26.
Roberts, T., & Billings, L. (2008). Thinking is literacy, literacy thinking. Educational
Leadership, 65(5), 32-36.
Swartz, R.J. (2008). Energizing learning. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 26-31.
No comments:
Post a Comment