The Knowledge-Building Dimension

The last dimension explored in this academic literacy apprenticeship is the knowledge-building dimension. To engage with a text, the student needs to have a little background knowledge about the subject to make connections with the ideas. They also need to be aware of the way in which ideas are presented in the subject area classrooms. The first requirement speaks to Rosenblatt’s transactional theory, in which students interact with the same text differently based on their previous experience and education (Ruddell, Ruddell, & Singer, 1994). The second requirement speaks to genre theory as well as a little bit of Gee’s theory. In the knowledge-building dimension, each subject area is its own Discourse, and the subject area writing follows certain rules and conventions (Gee, 1989), (Technical Communication Body of Knowledge). To be successful in the subject area, students need to have some knowledge of the content, as well as an understanding of how ideas are expressed in the subject area.

The metacognitive discussions in this dimension began with a definition and exploration of schemas. They used various texts and analogies to talk about schemas and why they are useful. Building a schema became a logical way to store subject area information. When beginning a new subject, the students worked individually and then in a group to compile (and check for accuracy) information that they already knew about that subject.  Then they turned to paying attention to text schemata. To help students develop this understanding, they used cloze passages, in which they are given a text with certain words missing, and students are required to fill in the blanks. This activity helped the students to understand vocabulary and sentence structure used in different kinds of texts. It may be overwhelming to students to have to know every word in a text, so the authors introduced the students to the concept of survival words, which were key words for understanding a difficult text.

The last section of this chapter goes into detail about how the authors presented these ideas in the Reading History unit for their academic literacy class. The students’ views of studying history were that it was boring, and focused on just learning names and dates. The authors wanted to get them thinking about connections between the past (through the text), and the present (through their current knowledge). To learn genre specific approaches, they had students preview the structure of the text to identify the main ideas and then had them graphically organize the main ideas and supporting details as they read the text. Another way for them to practice identifying the main ideas was to go through the text paragraph by paragraph, writing a single sentence that captures the essential information in the paragraph.

Previewing the topic and thinking about prior knowledge helped the students to connect with the text. To build new knowledge, the authors had the students read multiple texts on the same subject in order to have them exposed to the same ideas and information presented in different ways with different connections. They used primary and secondary source materials at different reading levels, as well as maps and graphical presentations of information. Assessment of the unit focused not only on their knowledge of the material but also the strategies that they used to obtain and organize that information.

This will be my last blog post on this book, but there is a lot more great information in the rest of the book. The next chapter of section two goes into detail (and includes examples) about how subject area teachers embedded these concepts into their classes. In the final chapter of section two, the authors address obstacles that teachers have faced or might face when implementing these strategies. Part three looks at how teachers can examine their own reading processes so that they can become master readers in their apprenticeship, as well as the development of schoolwide reading apprenticeship programs. There are two appendices that present curriculum from the Reading Self and Society unit, and reading assessment methods used.

The book makes a great case that teaching academic and subject area literacy is an important investment that can pay out big on student performance for the rest of the school year, and beyond. As someone who has used many of these strategies unconsciously and always been fluent in reading different kinds of texts, it was enlightening to look at all of the factors that go into this kind of literacy and think about how hard it is for students who don’t have those tools. Examining literacy through the four dimensions has made me understand that the student’s whole self must be taken into account. They must be confident in themselves as readers, and believe that they are capable of making sense of difficult texts. They need a support system where they can share and collaborate with fellow students, and work with master readers. They need a tool kit of cognitive strategies that they can use when they are feeling stuck. And they need to be able to call on previous knowledge and deepen their knowledge base. All four factors need to be included in order to meet the authors’ goals of developing engaged and independent readers.

References

Gee, J. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 5-17.

Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., & Singer, H. (. (1994). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. International Reading Association.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide for improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Technical Communication Body of Knowledge. (n.d.). Genre Theory.