Teaching disciplinary literacy to elementary students presents a variety of controversial prospects and outcomes for teachers. On the one hand, teaching disciplinary literacy to elementary students provides a solid foundation for future learning. Firstly, it helps students to fully embrace themselves into the mindset of a professional scholar.(Shanahan and Shanahan, 2014) Students are taught to be cognizant of and appreciate the different technical word uses and definitions, mindsets for study, and methodology for learning. This in turn prepares students to easily assimilate themselves into the literacies, as they already possess the necessary skills and knowledge. The teaching of disciplinary literacy also helps students to develop metadiscursivity, the ability of students to consciously switch which disciplinary mindset they use based on the discipline. (Moje, 2008) However, there can be problems with this approach.
On the one hand, the problem of intimidating the students stands as a clear problem. Diving deep into the interior philosophies and mindsets of the professional world may seem frightening to a typical elementary student, particularly one who has been accustomed to the traditional system of primary school education. Furthermore, the problem of confusing the student appears equally concerning. As some discipline use similar terminology, many students may confuse one discipline for another. They may also find the entire practice very frustrating and intimidating. The likely response of an elementary student to disciplinary literacy would be: “Well, what do I need any of this stuff for anyways?” Shanahan and Shanahan suggest having students read and compare multiple different textbooks in order to understand disciplinary literacy. However, this may prove antithetical to inspiring a love of learning. Many elementary students would simply despair over having more books to read and work to do.
This is not to say that teaching disciplinary literacy is bad or harmful. In fact, presenting students at the elementary level with disciplinary literacy serves as an excellent safeguard of their futures. However, teachers must be cognizant of the student’s feelings toward the prospect. No matter what bright-eyed ideals professionals want to hold the idea of children actually wanting to go to school is something of a myth. Most students would much prefer to stay at home. Even college students would much rather spend their days at home, gather all essential life knowledge from whatever flashy YouTube video catches their eyes. This is doubly true for elementary students. Dislike for school and disrespect for the education system is something baked into the American populous’ culture through various media.
As such, presenting students with disciplinary literacy requires breaking the mold. I propose rather than teaching students disciplinary literacy; teachers should show students disciplinary literacy. I propose that teachers should give students, especially elementary students access to disciplinary literacy. I believe that the best medium for this can be found in various education materials focused on adults, such as the History Channel and National Geographic. And when I refer to these specific mediums, I am explicitly referring to the content made with older audiences in mind. I believe that through these resources one can begin the process of exposing students to Disciplinary Literacy. Students will see interviews with and discussions by professionals who actively engage with disciplinary literacy. What’s more, the students will be more accepting of this because of the break in format from traditional educational norms. Obviously, teachers should avoid going carte-blanche with this approach. However, the potential advantages deserve investigation.
Work Cited:
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.
Shanahan, C., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school? The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 636-639.
From the Round Table 