1
Title: Disciplinary Literacies: Beyond the Print-Centric Era
David O’Brien, Lisa Ortmann, & Andrew Rummel
University of Minnesota
Purpose
This theoretical paper is a response to the question: What theoretical frameworks and
associated practices best support the notion of disciplinary literacy when literate practices
related to learning are increasingly enacted in multimodal, digital spaces? The paper explores
both the frameworks and instructional implications of moving from print-centric notions of
reading and study strategies, content reading, content literacy, and, most recently, disciplinary
literacy, to digital spaces with multimodal affordances that increasingly support learning. In
addition, we present models for bridging print-centric notions of disciplinary literacy, academic
language, and disciplinary discourses via specific digital transformations supported by theories
as diverse as cognitive theories, linguistic and rhetorical theories, and social semiotics, including
transformations of print-centric strategies to practices in multimodal digital spaces (Reinking,
McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001).
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry (2013), based on some previous work by Leu (e.g.,
2000) define literacy at this point in the digital era as deictic--that is, is changing so much that
how we think of it and use it today might change tomorrow; and it will certainly change
markedly in a year. As a moving target, it is difficult to even conceptualize, let alone study.
Because of the rapidly changing information and communication technologies, Leu et al. note
that things like “book technologies” which are static are not only being replaced by
technologies we know, these print-centric artifacts will certainly be replaced by technologies we
2
don’t even see coming. Leu and his colleagues articulate how this deixis plays out within the
global economy, for example, and discuss the changes the Internet has made in our lives and
refer to new literacies from multiple perspectives, including changing social practices, and
changing reading and writing online.
The approach we take here, however, is to acknowledge that new technologies, or
technology tools (like the rapid appification of everything), are important because they have
afforded new ways of thinking about, and enacting the relationship between texts, readers and
writers, and engagement with learning (e.g., Beach and O’Brien, 2015). We find the topic
compelling also because of the current wave of interest in “disciplinary literacy” as the most
contemporary approach that, according to some scholars, has made progress, as historically
situated in the broad domain of academic literacy, because it acknowledges the importance of
texts, their value in relation to other learning artifacts within disciplines, and their uses within
disciplinary discourse communities.
Frameworks
The approach involves the systematic cataloguing and critique of the frameworks and
assumptions of content literacy and disciplinary literacy, as defined by scholars from a range of
disciplines, then considering how the transformations of these frameworks and assumptions can
be addressed with digital literacies and digital spaces, including digitally mediated discourse and
learning. These frameworks and assumptions are also addressed with a systematic exploration of
the affordances (Beach & O’Brien, 2015; Gibson, 1986; Norman, 2007) of specific digital apps
and online tools through a bridging framework (O’Brien, 2012) that shows how specific digital
transformations support the literacy practices and learning involved in the disciplines. These will
be modeled with exemplars from our recent and current projects.
3
The following are assumptions from our critique of dominant categories of academic
literacy that we explore via digital affordances and disciplinary literacies: For each, we state the
assumption, then, we summarize the digital affordances as next steps in continua to from printcentric to multimodal, digital spaces where disciplinary literacy increasingly resides.
Typical Academic Literacies Perspectives and Assumptions
Content reading, content literacy. The current interest in disciplinary literacy is marked
by a shift in how reading is conceptualized and positioned in relation to the disciplines. (Moje,
2007, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, 2012). Interest in integrating literacy practices with
learning content has been articulated by researchers for 80 years and has taken the form of
strategies instruction for almost 60 years (Alvermann and Moore, 1991; Moore, Readence, &
Rickelman,1983). Herber’s (1970) notion of functional reading moved the locus of instruction
and materials from reading into content classrooms, emphasizing the regular content texts of
subjects like science, social studies, and math rather than special reading materials. The primary
instructional assumption of this era is that that reading strategies, adapted to content area texts,
can improve engagement, comprehension, and learning. The key assumption here is that texts,
represented by print and printed artifacts like textbooks, can be identified as having specific,
relatively consistent characteristics (text structures, vocabulary, writing styles, balance of graphic
to print).
With the rising popularity and use of digital tools and literacy in digital spaces, texts are
just as likely to be multimodal as they are print-centric, and print-centric strategies no longer
apply in multimodal spaces, at least not without modification. A useful framework that has
never been actualized to its potential, is the notion of designs articulated by the New London
Group (1996, 2000). One angle of available designs is how the grammars of new semiotic
4
systems, complemented by discourses, can be used to better represent meaning. We elaborate on
this later. Add to this that the actual designs are texts that are not static but in flux, often do not
have single authors, are produced rather than consumed by students, and include complex
multimodal design choices. The re-designed are productions that involve multiple forms of
transformations of what print-centric notions used to be.
Cognition and the “acronym” strategies era. (e.g., SQ3R, PQRST, KWL, REAP) The
strategies era emerged with the focus into the 1970s on cognitive perspectives on reading
comprehension and hundreds of strategies, including multiple variations of popular strategies,
appeared in a range of content reading and content literacy textbooks (e.g., Bean, Readence, &
Baldwin, 2011; Tierney & Readence, 2005; Vacca & Vacca, 2008;). Most content reading
textbooks eventually took on new titles with the word “literacy” replacing “reading” in their later
editions due to this broader, more inclusive shift in the field, but the strategies focus, based on
print artifacts like textbooks, has remained intact.
The key assumption of the strategies era is that carefully researched plans and the
enactment of those plans, will lead to more efficient connections between mind--represented by
cognitive structures like schemata, and written discourse. With the increasing multimodality and
participatory negotiation of texts that represent various kinds of transformations within and
across modes, strategic reading moves away from received texts toward strategic production and
“textual presence” necessary in competing in the exponential increase in portable texts. The
notion of strategies, as plans applied to received texts, are being replaced by strategies for
collaborating to raise the status of one’s ideas and texts in digital spaces; the most crucial
strategies involve getting and keeping attention (e.g., Lankshear & Knobel, 2002; Reingold,
2010). Being strategic means using the semiotic and discursive systems to promote textual and
5
discursive presence and which includes not only getting attention but paying attention,
cooperating to be part of the participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006, 2013) knowing how networks
and digital spaces work and, perhaps most important to the other components, being critically
aware of how others semiotic and discursive strategies work as part of “way of being” (Reingold,
2010) in the disciplinary community.
The disciplinary literacy “turn.” Although starting earlier (e.g., Lea & Street,1998;
Moje, 2007) the shifting of content literacy to disciplinary literacy was marked by the spring
2008 issue of the Harvard Educational Review, focusing on adolescent and disciplinary literacy.
In the issue, Draper (2008) critiqued the traditional notion of strategies instruction and content
literacy courses and advocated for reconstructing disciplinary literacy as a collaborative practice
between content and literacy educators; Shanahan & Shanahan (2008) drew distinctions between
the specialized reading that experts within disciplines do, as well as how reading is characterized
by content reading professionals; Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, and Morris (2008) noted the
importance of metadiscourse in showing adolescents how to navigate various disciplinary
discourses while emphasizing the importance of multiliteracies and motivation and engagement
across disciplines; and Conley (2008) argued that strategies included in popular content literacy
textbooks are untested in terms of equipping students with cognitive strategies they need to read
independently and strategically for their own purposes.
This newer perspective on academic literacy, is predicated on the assumption that literacy
professionals’ outside-in approaches, particularly those of importing “generic” strategies into
disciplines, have been ineffective. Consequently, the assumption is that more success will result
from literacy professionals working more directly and collaboratively with peers in the
disciplines. This collaboration is thought to lead to a better understanding of how the discipline,
6
from within, based on its historical foundations and practices, defines and enacts disciplinary
literacy.
Related to our previous comments, this assumption depends on notions of disciplinary
discourses tied to print-centric curricula, and historically situated disciplinary print texts; it is
also tied to the notion of joining disciplinary discourse communities defined to some extent by
shared understanding of these texts. Beyond the print-centric era are disciplinary discourse
communities that represent much more shared understanding, not of static texts marking fixed
points in the chronology of how the discipline unfolded or was constructed over time and written
down, but portable texts with a recursive temporal order. One discourse community member
reads a text and annotates it; the next member writes an updated text that infuses the annotated
text, but reshapes it to a new argument. Yet another member reads the newest text and goes back
to rework a text written weeks or even years before that posted online.
Whereas the newest academic literacy position, disciplinary literacy, advocates for
becoming physically, socially, and intellectually immersed in the daily disciplinary subculture
and practices of members of the discipline, it is much easier now to gain membership in multiple
disciplinary communities via networking, socially or intellectually, and positing and asserting
membership via one’s online presence and the texts one shares there, backed up by presence and
power of their authors.
Disciplinary literacies as progress. There is a clear distinction between content literacy
and disciplinary literacy as it has been conceptualized in recent literature: content literacy
denotes an anachronistic and ineffective approach, focusing on study skills and generically
oriented strategies that support student learning from content texts, while disciplinary literacy
involves immersion into disciplinary communities and tools used by persons from within a
7
discipline to create and use texts (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). Additionally, disciplinary
literacy is considered a form of critical literacy that requires an understanding of how knowledge
is produced and communicated in disciplines, what counts as knowledge, and what it means to
learn in the disciplines in order to gain membership in the disciplinary discourse communities
(Moje, 2008).
This perspective is based on assumptions drawn from Lave & Wenger’s (1991) theory of
social practice which posits that “learning, thinking, and knowing are relations among people in
activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world” (p. 50-51). The
social practice of individuals is understood through his or her participation in the world, as a
member of a sociocultural community. Additionally, learning for the sociocultural person
involves not only a change in participation with his or her world, but also, as Lave and Wenger
explain, a change in identity. The critique of this notion of progress, as one might expect,
represents progress historically tied to print text. But it is also more compatible, via its foci on a
theory of social practice and identity with the movement of texts into digital spaces and the
understanding of how communities are defined and function when greatly expanded into
participatory cultures (Jenkins, 2006, Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013 )
Examples of the Frameworks
Bridging from print-centric to digital . There are multiple frameworks from learning
technologies and related fields that rely on the metaphor of bridging--that is, bridging traditional
instructional designs and curricula (like print) with newer approaches and products based on the
use of digital tools and spaces. The idea behind these frameworks is that educators need to know
how we are changing lessons or instructional frameworks for the better--for ‘value added”
benefits, if we use technologies in place of what has been defined as best practices before the
8
technologies are applied. These are some that we have used, critiqued, and adapted (SAMR,
TPACK, RAT) and one that we (Beach and O’Brien) have developed (App Affordances). SAMR
and TPACK have been explored extensively in terms of the types of transformation they denote
and the processes one goes through in in thinking through their components to redesign and
evaluate the quality of the redesigned (to hark back to design notions in the Pedagogy of
Multiliteracies Model). For example,
http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf.
Disciplinary literacy as social and discursive practice. Applied linguists who study
disciplinary literacy and language (e.g., Hyland, 2000) have pointed out very specific linguistic
distinctions across disciplines. Like their literacy colleagues, these theorists acknowledge that to
understand a discipline is to become a member of its academic discourse community. Implicit in
that membership is participation in the observable practices in published, written discourse
(Hyland, 2000) as well as acceptance into the broader academic and social practices of the
discipline; hence, disciplinary literacy should be cast as a “collective social practice” that is both
socially shaping and being shaped by the discipline (Hyland, 2000). Similarly, scholars of
rhetoric and the technology of texts like Geisler (1994) have argued that many academic texts
afford and sustain both expert and naive interpretations, with expert interpretation reserved for
those inside the discourses and social practices of the profession. These insider “implied
readers” are not who literacy scholars think they are, nor do they read like we think they might.
Geisler contends that in order to understand disciplinary literacy, we need to understand the
cultural practices from within the discipline.
The challenge of using discourse frameworks for studying the cultural practices of
disciplinary insiders is that where disciplines (synonymous with Gee’s “big D Discourses”) are
9
defined historically and rather abstractly, discourses (little d) are defined locally. Furthermore,
what constitutes a discourse is constantly fluid and evolving (Gee, 1989). Although there may
be common practices within a discourse community, the boundaries around a discourse are
flexible, widening and narrowing depending on the ways individuals introduce other discourses
into the discourse community, thus changing discursive practices. Therefore, how the larger
disciplines are taken up and recontextualized within these smaller, situated discourses in schools
is of particular significance to theories of disciplinary literacy.
If we take an example from education where disciplinary literacy would hypothetically be
observed, we can trace how this challenge may play out. Imagine a high school Biology
classroom. We might say the biology teacher is charged with teaching the disciplinary practices
of the discipline of Biology, within the larger academic domain of “Natural Science,” however;
she is not a disciplinary insider because she is not a biologist. Furthermore, the biology teacher,
being a particularly effective teacher, draws on multiple discourses in her attempts to teach the
important concepts of her discipline. She uses multiple sources of information, various texts,
experiential learning situations, she requires students to represent learning using multiple
modalities, and engages students in inquiry-based projects to apply their knowledge. We could
make the argument that each of these approaches access and require students to participant in a
variety of discourses, and that the totality of these constituted the “discipline” of biology for her
students. We wonder, where did “disciplinary” literacy begin and “generic” literacy end in this
example? Furthermore, which discursive practices should be privileged on the unit exam in this
teacher’s classroom?
Students need to find ways to see their own discourse practices as opportunities, not
limitations on their disciplinary learning. In acquiring disciplinary knowledge and skills,
10
students encounter a “new and dominant literacy,” often finding their own writing practices to be
criticized by their teachers as they attempt to imitate a discourse (Hyland, 2000, p. 146). This is
not an effective, or motivating, learning stance. Hyland contends that the goal of imparting the
literacy of the disciplines, “involves developing a generative capacity rather than an adherence to
rules, an exploitation of forms rather than compliance to them (p. 148). Thus, a static and
superimposed conception of what it means to “do a discipline” is counter to the classroom
environments we want to promote.
The participatory culture of an effective classroom community, like the one just
described, is exactly the kind of learning community we are finding in online environments
today. In these environments, individuals draw from a variety of discourses in order to interact
with individuals who draw from their own discourses. Together in these online learning spaces,
individuals read, negotiate, challenge, and re(present) disciplinary knowledge and disciplinary
practices in ways that have never before been afforded through the traditional print-centric ways
of disciplinary text production and consumption.
Strategies and Strategic Reading in the Disciplines. Developments within disciplinary
literacies and within new literacies calls for a new conception of the strategic reader.
Traditionally, developing strategic readers has served as a major focus in elementary and
secondary reading instruction. Defined in a number of ways, the flexible use of strategies that
foster a reader’s interaction with a text moves from two distinct places within the context of the
reading event. Developing a strategic reader who constructs meaning from a wide variety of texts
has focused on providing instruction first in cognitive reading strategies (Paris, Lipson &
Wixson, 1983) and then the use of particular instructional strategies that provide support for
readers to enact particular cognitive processes (Moje & Alvermann, 2013). The use of particular
11
instructional strategies have been modeled after the processes of preparing to read, constructing
meaning during the act of reading, reflecting on the meaning after reading, and thinking
metacognitively about the reading experience (Pearson, 2009). For example, the widely used
KWL strategy (Ogle, 1983) has students enact the cognitive processes of activating prior
knowledge, setting goals before they read, and reflecting on the information learned from text.
Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) provides the structure for students to predict,
summarize, clarify, and question. Although reciprocal teaching adds the element of sharing the
experiences of making meaning from text with others, it is again focused on the concept that
there is a stable text with which to make meaning and that meaning making process takes place
within the single reader’s mind. As work in disciplinary literacies expands, the traditional role of
text and reader continues to dominate research and recommended instructional practice.
Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) mark the differences in the use of texts and the strategies
employed by members of particular disciplines. However, the new strategic reader will need to
move beyond the isolated work of a single reader and a single text to new collaborative work
centered on learning with and creating new texts. Within this work, disciplinary literacies is a
reorienting of the locus of control and power. Although disciplinary literacies has been
approached from the perspective of literacy theories rather than disciplinary learning (Conley,
2008; Moje, 2008), it should be collaborative practice (Draper, 2008) and should focus on
processes and literacy practices integral to learning rather than as sets of literacy strategies based
on the cognitive processing of engaging with texts (Draper, 2008; Moje, 2008; Shanahan &
Shanahan, 2012). This reconceptualization of literacy as learning driven rather than focused on
the application of predetermined strategies is a signal to the shift in how the reader positions
12
themselves with texts and how reading instruction positions texts, readers, and strategies (Hall,
2012).
Digital tools and online spaces invite collaboration and the creation of texts and tasks
from the ground up rather than imposing strategies and their associated ideologies or discourses.
The new strategic reader flexibly navigates the reading of texts and the social practice of
collaboratively creating new texts. Collaborative knowledge building and collective intelligence
(Jenkins, 2002) requires literacy practices that are shaped by multiple discourse communities.
In addition, affordances of digital space serve to relocate the expert and the novice,
placing them closer than traditional conceptions of literacy. Traditionally, texts (and teaching)
positioned the novice and expert in fixed locations. The text represented a stable expertise from
which the novice learned. The unidirectional nature of the interaction was supported by teaching
strategies that supported this unidirectionality. The reader employed strategies when needed in
order to better understand the knowledge represented in the text. Although this traditional
concepts of texts, reader, and their relationships (Rosenblatt, 1983) has been questioned before
the turn towards disciplinary literacies and digital literacies reading instruction, specially reading
instruction focused on the cognitive processes used by readers, continues to position texts as
stable repositories of meaning. However, as purpose and audience for reading continue to move
into digital spaces, there is the movement towards greater understanding of the impact of text
creation (and its rhetorical context) on the reading experience.
Digital spaces relocate the expert novice relationship, essentially placing the expertise
within the discourse community (Jenkins, 2006; Benkler, 2006). Through online communities
the expert-novice relationship becomes dialogic in nature (Zagal & Bruckman, 2010). The reader
of multiple texts moves from an awareness of discourse communities as they attempt to move
13
their work into wider audiences (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013). This practice of both original
content (such as original works shared through Youtube) and mimetic content (in which content
is modified from an original form) moves from the goal grounded in both particular and wider
audiences. This practice of spreadable media (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013) requires readers to
create for an audience and for the goal of cultural participation in the practice of sharing. The
new strategic reader moves between the many texts and tools in order to share new texts. These
new texts most notably afford portability, and move among audiences. Strategic readers
understand how to create and move their texts out to new audiences.
An aspect of the relocating of expert and novice is the product of a shift in the purpose
and goals of reading. Traditionally, reading texts within classrooms consisted of reading and
responding about reading through teacher questioning. As digital tools continue to develop new
literacy practices, the literacy event in which reading takes place is expanded to the hopeful
afterlife of the texts create as a response to the reading of texts.
Digital spaces afford much more dynamic discursive opportunities through online
forums, social bookmarking, annotating, and syntheses and sharing of multiple-authored texts.
Within classrooms, this marks a shift from teaching texts in isolation of developing new ways to
author texts that move across authors and audiences. For example, schools employ web-based
tools in order to get students to build sites and blog in response to their reading and as
representation of their reading identities (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Hall, 2012). In the
creation of texts, students negotiate not only the meaning they make from the texts, but how the
texts they create represent them in new ways. Historically, some students do not apply the
strategies taught to them in an effort to develop their strategic approaches as a reader. A reader’s
identity and the goals they have for how others perceive them impacts their willingness to adopt
14
particular stances towards and practices with reading (Hall, 2009; Moje & Lewis, 2007). Digital
spaces and tools provide the opportunity to develop different types of readers and readings. The
opportunity for students to engage in disciplinary literacy practices and evolving disciplinary
identities. The spaces allow for what Lave and Wenger (1991) define as “legitimate peripheral
participation,” an essential element of the novice experience of making social practices their
own. Within digital spaces levels of engagement with particular communities varies, yet
participatory practices center on the belief that participation is valued and rewarded (Jenkins,
2006).
Disciplinary literacies as intermedial, intertextual and multimodal: Disciplinary
literacies involve teaching young people “how to access, interpret, challenge, and reconstruct the
texts of the disciplines” (Moje, 2008) rather than looking at texts as reflective of distinct learning
silos with well defined features. Access to many more texts, tools to create intertexts, including
multimodal texts, and sharing of portable textoids fosters shared, multimodal understanding;
much more text construction is possible than in the print-centric era focusing on fixed canonical
texts. Illustrated through the use of many new digital tools in the classroom, the new strategic
reader responds to learning through sharing new texts. For example, an 8th grade science teacher
engages students in the creation of the popular text called memes (consisting of an image with
words layered over them). The strategic reader in this case, makes sense of content by selecting
the image with the content in mind and also with the goal of getting the image to spread to new
uses. The student would also select the words that will capture elements of the content but also
be written in a way to capture the attention of many viewers. Finally, the strategic reader
navigates digital networks in order to get the work viewed and spread by as many people as
possible. From this perspective, digital work moves ‘beyond the linguistic’ (Jewitt, 2005) to a
15
theory that acknowledges many elements of meaning. Mulitmodality is centered on the concept
of intentionality and design (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006), focusing
on the social aspect of communication and transformation of texts.
Conclusions/Interpretations
Some work from cognitive, social and cultural perspectives on multiliteracies and
multiple forms of literate practices has already begun on reconceptualizing disciplinary and
academic literacies in light of the rapid shift to digital learning spaces (e.g., Kiili, Makinen, &
Coiro, 2013). This work is in its infancy. The most clearly articulated research program,
developed over the last decade, is on the complexity of reading online (Coiro, 2012; Leu et al.
2011). Although many scholars of content literacy and disciplinary literacies note the
importance of considering digital texts, multimodality, and collaborative digital spaces (Conely,
2012; Draper, 2008; Moje, 2008) and some have systematically examined issues like
multimodality and learning (Beach & O’Brien, 2015; Bean, 2010), there are still few systematic
attempts to critique the print-centric assumptions and offer a framework for transitioning to
digital multimodal texts and digital spaces in improving how literacies can support learning.
Disciplinary literacy is now a given replacement for content literacy but, as explained herein, has
a range of definitions in the scholarly literature to date. A movement beyond print-centric
notions of text and learning promise multiple, interdisciplinary frameworks focusing on such
topics as the dialogic co-construction of texts, the development of a new generation of
community participants in an almost cyborg-like collective for producing and sharing knowledge
and redefining disciplines, and the replacement of most notions of texts as static repositories with
dynamically shifting portable intermedial representations of disciplines.
16
References
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research Volume III (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 951983). New York: Longman
Bean, T. (2010). Multimodal learning for the 21st century. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell
Educational Publishing.
Bean, T. W., Readence, J. E., & Baldwin, R. S. (2011). Content area literacy: An integrated
approach (10th ed., rev.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and
Freedom. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645-648.
Conley, M. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the
promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84108.
Conley, M. (2012). Foregrounding the disciplines for teacher preparation in secondary literacy.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 141-150.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. Psychology Press.
17
Draper, R. J. (2008) Redefining content literacy teacher education: Finding my voice through
collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 60-83.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral
participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace
learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49-68.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and
knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Hall, Leigh A. (2012) Rewriting identities: Creating spaces for students and teachers to
challenge the norms of what it means to be a reader in school. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy 55(5), 368-373.
Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. New
York, NY: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individual and community in academic discourse.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting
the Challengesof Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.
Jenkins, H. (2002). Interactive audiences? The collective intelligence of media fans. The new
media book, 157-170.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
18
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a
networked culture. NYU Press.
Kiili, C., Mäkinen, M., & Coiro, J. (2013). Rethinking Academic Literacies. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(3), 223-232.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2002). Do we have your attention? New literacies, digital
technologies and the education of adolescents. Adolescents and literacies in a digital
world. New York: Peter Lang.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies
approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual
level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E.
Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, and R. B. Ruddell, Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (6th ed.), 1150-1181.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, G. W., O'Byrne, I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., . . .
Forzani, E. (2011). The New literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the
literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the
Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching. In G. J. Kelly, A. Luke & J. Green (Eds.),
Review of research in education (Vol. 31, pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: American
19
Educational Research Association.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning:
A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
Moje, E. & Alvermann, D. (2013). Adolescent Literacy Instruction and the Discourse of “Every
Teacher a Teacher of Reading” in Ruddell, Unrau, & Alvermann eds. Theoretical Models
and Processes of Reading (Kindle Locations 136-137). International Reading Association.
Kindle Edition.
Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent
literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 107-154.
Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content
area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419-438.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
educational review, 66(1), 60-92.
Norman, D. A. (2007). The design of future things. Philadelphia: Basic books.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., Wixson, K. K., Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K.
(1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293316. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175. Rheingold,
Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies." Educause
Review 45.5 (2010): 14.
Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and
technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter?
Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
Tierney, R. J., & Readence, J. E. (2005). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (6th
ed.). New York: Pearson.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Ed. and
Trans.. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. (2008). Content area reading: Literac y and learning across the
curriculum (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Zagal, J. & Bruckman, A. (2010). Designing Online Environments for Expert/Novice
Collaboration Wikis to Support Legitimate Peripheral Participation Journal: Convergence:
The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
21