8:1 Content Literacy

When and Where Did I Find It:  This is a term I have come across in many sources, but I particularly like the definition I found in McKenna and Robinson's (2002, pp. 8-11) book Teaching Through Text (3rd ed.)  I had first read this source ten years ago (the second edition was published in 1997), but I revisited this discussion in thinking about how to help my students understand how this type of learning objective would be distinct from general literacy objectives or from content knowledge.

What it means:   McKenna and Robinson (2002) detail eight key features of content literacy:

1.  Content literacy is not the same as content knowledge.  The term content literacy is NOT merely a synonym for content knowledge.  Instead, it represents the skills and strategies needed to acquire knowledge of content.  

2.  Teaching content automatically makes students more content literate.  Whether they know it or not, content area teachers enhance their students' ability to read and write about content simply by teaching it....Enhanced prior knowledge always enhances subsequent reading and writing germane to that knowledge.  

3. Content literacy is content specific.  While a general ability to read and write obviously bears on one's success in reading about writing about a specific subject, prior knowledge of the specific topics involved is a vital variable of content literacy.  

4.  In content literacy, reading and writing are complementary tasks.  While reading and writing an serve well enough as alternative means of enhancing content learning, the greatest gains can be expected when the two are used in tandem.  

5.  Content literacy is germane to all subject areas, not just those that rely heavily on printed materials. Students' understanding of the content presented in all subjects could be substantially enhanced through appropriate writing assignments [since we know that] content learning invariably includes the understanding of key concepts and their interrelationships.  

 

6.  Content literacy does not require content area teachers to instruction students in the mechanics of writing.   (NOTE:  This feature generates the most contrasting opinions.)  As Myers (1984) put it, 'Writing to learn is not learning to write' (p. 7).  While mechanical problems in students' writing may be severe enough to distort meaning and may require a teacher's attention, especially in subjects like mathematics, in which precise usage is an absolute necessity (Orr, 1987), but the focus should be meaning, not mechanics. 

 

7.  Content literacy is relative to the tasks expected of students.  The literacy requirements of a classroom, like those of a workplace or of an entire culture, readily define who is literate and who is not (Guthrie, 1983; Hadaway & Young, 1994; Mikulecky, 1990; Moje, 1993; Rafferty, 1992 Wedman & Robinson, 1990).  In an effort to reduce or eliminate the :illiterate: in their classes, teachers all too frequently resort to...circumventing reading assignments, while writing assignments are completely ignored.   [However,] students at even a rudimentary level of general literacy are equipped to advance their understanding through literacy activities whenever (1) reading materials are commensurate with ability (or steps are taken to facilitate comprehension of more difficult material) and (2) writing assignments are within the range of student sophistication.  

8.  Content literacy has the potential to maximize content acquisition. Students who have received opportunities to become content literate will be better able to use content literacy as a means of extending their knowledge of a discipline even after they have completed a given course.   

                           

                                                            (as cited in McKenna & Robinson, 2002, pp.9-11) 

Level of Familiarity:   While I am very familiar with this term and how it is related to but distinct from content knowledge and general literacy skills/strategies, I find myself often revisiting this discussion, particularly when I am evaluating my students' explication of the content literacy learning objectives they include in their unit.   I review this knowledge as a means to cross-check the validity of my evaluation of their work.     

Do I Want to Know This Word Well and Why?   Yes. I think having a clear and distinct understanding of what content literacy is helpful.   I think this is most true when considering McKenna and Robinson's statement that content literacy is content specific.  This is why simply learning an instructional strategy well (e.g., KWL) is not enough.     In order for me to be prepared to select the appropriate strategy for content learning and for developing content literacy abilities, I have to have a well-conceived understanding of what it is I want my students to learn as well as who my students are.  

Do I Think Others Should Know This Word Well...if so WHO and WHY?:   I certainly think LTED 625 students should know this concept --particularly because it will help them be more purposeful in their instruction.   Content Area Teachers often are in love with the facts, dates, places, events, calculations, processes, or phenomena of their content area.   However, to best teach their students they must think carefully about the specific reading and writing abilities they and their students must acquire and hone in order to be deemed "an expert" (Alexander & Jetton, 2000).