Literacy and Language in Subject Areas

Wilson, A., Jesson, R., Rosedale, N., & Cockle, V. (2012). Literacy and language pedagogy within subject areas in years 7–11: final report, Auckland: Auckland UniServices.

Click here to read the full text.

Background

The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) contains recommendations on subject-specific literacy in various subjects including Mathematics and Science. However, there is evidence that instruction on literacy is not being incorporated into lessons in the New Zealand schools.

Aims

The authors wanted to see the extent to which literacy activities were being incorporated into subject classes.

Sample

Believing that it was more likely that ‘effective’ teachers were incorporating literacy teaching into their lessons, the authors intensively investigated a small sample of twelve classes (six Mathematics and six Science) spread over three secondary and two intermediate (middle) schools in Auckland. They chose the most effective secondary schools in terms of test results and the schools chose their most effective teachers.

Method

The authors used structured classroom observations, teacher interviews and student interviews. They also used a short questionnaire to check the teachers’ beliefs about difficulties students might have understanding particular texts.

Findings

Most classroom texts were short texts created by the teacher.
The teachers knew and taught much more about subject specific vocabulary than they did about other aspects of literacy and language.
Lessons were characterised by whole class question and answer (Q & A) sessions, followed by individual work where teachers roved and assisted.
Instruction in both subjects was largely undifferentiated, especially in Year 9 and 10 classrooms.
Formative assessment mainly consisted of Q & A sessions or checking.
There was little focus on developing students’ critical literacy or strategy use.

Implications

(The study used a very small sample and any conclusions drawn from it may not apply elsewhere.) One possible conclusion is that, as these highly effective teachers do not generally prepare their students in subject-content literacy, such preparation is not necessary for effective teaching in these subjects. However, the authors suggest that these teachers are trying to help their students learn content by reinterpreting subject texts for them, knowing that subject literacy is a barrier to such learning. The problem is that in the long term this might not be helpful to the students who, as a result, will not be in a position to understand subject texts outside the classroom. They will be able to do reasonably well in tests but not excel in these subjects as a result.

Original article retrieved through Google Scholar.