Disciplinary Literacy in the Advanced Placement Government Course in Poverty-Impacted Urban Schools

• In Event: Advanced Placement Government in Poverty-Impacted Urban Settings: Multidisciplinary Research on Access, Learning, Literacy, and Engagement

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this paper is to examine the instructional context and application of disciplinary literacy in a project-based learning (PBL) advanced-placement government and politics course (APGOV). We explore how literacy issues interact with content when rigorous coursework is moved into high-poverty, low-performing, urban schools.

Perspectives. As AP coursework and Common Core Standards are increasingly demanded of students in urban schools, teachers will be challenged by students who are likely to have reading and writing difficulties as well as limited background knowledge in the subject matter (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil, et al., 2008). The problem is exacerbated because high school classroom practices typically focus on building knowledge in a subject matter without addressing literacy strategies needed to learn from text (Moje & Speyer, 2009). Although reports on adolescent literacy tout the importance of teaching specific disciplinary literacy strategies (e.g. Lee & Spratley, 2009), few studies are situated in contexts that simultaneously engage rigorous coursework and students who struggle with literacy, and fewer still work within the constraints of having limited resources (e.g., core texts, Paper 1) to use for text-based learning.

Methods and Data Sources. This qualitative study was conducted in three classrooms across three urban high schools. We observed 6-8 lessons in each classroom, focusing on how the teachers used texts and how they supported students in reading and learning from these texts. We reviewed the content and structure of the texts and interviewed teachers to understand how they made instructional decisions with regard to the texts. We also conducted think-aloud protocols with a purposive sample of students as they read course-related texts.

Results/conclusions. Our analysis led to four main findings. 1) Textbooks were rarely used for learning information or concepts. Although teachers frequently assigned text reading, it was rarely done by students and was not required to receive a good grade. During class, students used Internet sources or handouts—all of which were shorter and easier than the textbook—and they read collaboratively. Teachers tended to “work around” the textbook and individual reading. 2) When reading was assigned or lectures given, little support was provided to help students know how to approach these tasks, how the information would be used, or how to use the information to study for a test. 3) Students did not enter the course with a basic knowledge of government that teachers assumed they had. Limited content knowledge and reading strategies combined with assumptive teaching practice conspired to make learning from text both unnecessary and difficult for students. 4) Teachers were not aware of the wide range of reading abilities of their students and, further, they did not accommodate these differences in class instruction or assignments.

Significance. Current discourses of “rigor for all” and “college readiness” may bring unintended consequences of student failure, fundamentally undermining these initiatives. Furthermore, the push to implement specific disciplinary literacy strategies may be a long way from the reality of high school courses where simply requiring and supporting students’ use of texts for learning might be a first step.

Authors

• Sheila Valencia, University of Washington

• Sara Nachtigal, University of Washington - Seattle

• Carol Margaret Adams, University of Washington