When looking at education, literacy stands as arguably the most important ability to possess in both obtaining and providing education. Literacy here means not just the ability to read, but also the ability to engage in discourse. Discourse, as Gee defines it, means ways of combining and coordinating words, deeds, thoughts and other people to enact and engage specific socially-situated identities and activities. As such, one must be literate in the discourses of education, being able to play the part of the student or teacher in the pursuit of knowledge. However, a problem emerges in identifying exactly what kind of literacy should be used to engage in the discourse we call ‘education.’ Wolsey and Lapp bring to light a potential problem for literacy in the education system in the form of disciplinary literacy. Disciplinary literacy is a particular discourse and cultural model of mindset, terminology and self-identity that is specific to that discipline. For each branch of knowledge found in education, there is a distinct form disciplinary literacy. Natural Scientists do not think in the same manner as fiction writers and literary critics nor do historians use the same terminology and vocabulary as a physical education instructor. Each of these branches of education possess entirely distinct discourses. However, in school settings, students are instructed to engage with all of these various modes of discourse. When looking at education, literacy stands as arguably the most important ability to possess in both obtaining and providing education. Literacy here means not just the ability to read, but also the ability to engage in discourse. Discourse, as Gee defines it, means ways of combining and coordinating words, deeds, thoughts and other people to enact and engage specific socially-situated identities and activities. As such, one must be literate in the discourses of education, being able to play the part of the student or teacher in the pursuit of knowledge. However, a problem emerges in identifying exactly what kind of literacy should be used to engage in the discourse we call ‘education.’
However, one should not make the mistake of discouraging the use of disciplinary literacy. Here, content-area literacy comes into use. Content-area literacy differs from discourse literacy in that content-area literacy focuses on imparting the disciplinary literacy of that discipline rather than just the discourse of the discipline. The content of the subject is the subject of the learning itself, whether it be math or social studies, which the student must learn. Content-area, as the name implies, moves and organizes the subject and its discourses into areas, thus making it more accessible to the learner. Through content-area literacy, students are exposed to the language of the disciplines while each is kept separate from the other by the specific areas. Through content area literacy, educators teach students to access the separate disciplinary literacies of each subject. Over time, the teacher of the subject familiarizes the student not just with the content but the way that experts in the field think and reason, their disciplinary literacy. However, one should not make the mistake of discouraging the use of disciplinary literacy. Here, content-area literacy comes into use. Content-area literacy differs from discourse literacy in that content-area literacy focuses on imparting the disciplinary literacy of that discipline rather than just the discourse of the discipline. The content of the subject is the subject of the learning itself, whether it be math or social studies, which the student must learn. Content-area, as the name implies, moves and organizes the subject and its discourses into areas, thus making it more accessible to the learner. Through content-area literacy, students are exposed to the language of the disciplines while each is kept separate from the other by the specific areas.
From here, metadiscursity becomes very important. As Moje defines it, a metadiscursive student is aware of how and why they are engaging in different discourse communities. As both Gee and Woje express, people, particularly students, already engage in active metadiscursive literacy throughout their lives. Changing one’s behavioral mind-set from “student at school” to “child at home” is an example of metadiscursivity. Therefore, if students can alter their behavioral discourses from setting to setting, it should be possible for them to engage with the discourses of different disciplines. Both Woje and Gee identify the ability to switch into different identities depending on the setting. However, Woje specifies that the teacher must help the student to engage in this discourse. While Gee holds that both parties will quickly adapt to the discourse as seen in the example of the child reading, Woje holds that the teacher must help create the identity best suited for the learning discourse. Thus, teachers have the responsibility of teaching students to be literate in the disciplines that they are taught. From here, metadiscursity becomes very important. As Moje defines it, a metadiscursive student is aware of how and why they are engaging in different discourse communities. As both Gee and Woje express, people, particularly students, already engage in active metadiscursive literacy throughout their lives. Changing one’s behavioral mind-set from “student at school” to “child at home” is an example of metadiscursivity. Therefore, if students can alter their behavioral discourses from setting to setting, it should be possible for them to engage with the discourses of different disciplines. Both Woje and Gee identify the ability to switch into different identities depending on the setting.
works cited
Gee, J.P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 59(4), 377-384
Moje, E.B. (2008) Foregrounding the Disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult literacy 52(4), 371-379
Wolsey, T.D. & Lapp,D. (2017) Literacy in the disciplines: A teacher’s guide for grades 5-12. Chapter 1. New York, NY: Guilford.
From the Round Table 
Your statement, based off of Wolsey and Lapp’s article, about the importance of literacy stuck out to me because I came to this conclusion, too, when I read the article. The ability to engage in discourse and understand content is crucial for kids. If their literacy levels are low, is there a purpose is attending school? Why make students sit through classes when they lack the skills to understand content, content-area and disciplinary literacy? As an aspiring English teacher, I want to make sure my students understand how and why we are engaging with certain texts, which comes from Moje’s term “metadiscursivity”. However, there is a challenge with this and you touched on that in your blog. We must keep in mind that not all students think the same and not everybody (in fact, almost none of the students) will be experts in my field. At the end of the day, they are just children. Your example of natural scientists thinking differently than phys. ed. teachers is a great way to portray this.
LikeLike
I can’t help but think about the way the discourses of school are their own thing– the way grades, classes, hand-raising, “paper-handing-in”, perceptions of authority and who’s in charge, take an enormous amount of energy and time to teach. It’s possible that, of all the discourse communities you belong to, the disciplinary practice of “studenting” is the one you are most expert in by the time you become a college student. The question is whether studenting practices actually transfer to other discourses. IN what ways are the discourses of studenting applicable in the discipline of scientific discover? or teaching? In what ways are student discourses only good for more studenting?
LikeLike
MrO, your comment is very engaging and thought-provoking. However, I find that the thoughts provoked by your comment are complete disagreement. I think what you are describing is more a cultural practice than exercising discursive literacy. From my standpoint, school and education is a separate culture in which all students take part in during their formative years. The processes of “hand-raising”, “paper handing-in” and the authority of the teachers over the students more reflect a different culture and social hierarchy than a particular discipline.
It’s not so much that students are taught the literacy of the classroom as so much as they are socialized into the culture of a school setting.
To contextualize what I’m talking about, if you study Chinese mythology then your discipline is that and you have the mindset of a Chinese mythology scholar with the literacy prepared for learning and explaining Chinese mythology. But you can still have the culture of an American living in the United States. But if you moved to China to learn more about Chinese mythology and adopted the cultural practices, then you would both be practicing the literary discipline of Chinese mythology scholar and the Chinese cultural norms and mores.
When students enter the school, they adopt the student identity and culture. In my opinion, their practice of the disciplines like math, science, literature and art are very different from “studenting.” The processes of establishing the perceptions of authority and the traditions of handing in papers and related matters belong to the cultural practices of the school subculture rather than the discipline of “studenting.”
LikeLike