Taking Up Literacy in Advanced Placement Environmental Science

• In Event: Disciplinary Literacy and Learning From Text: Now You See It, Now You Don’t

Abstract

Purpose:
This paper examines how teachers appropriate (Grossman, Smagorinsky, Valencia, 1999) literacy strategies while teaching an AP Environmental Science class (APES) to academically diverse urban students. Designed to cultivate deeper thinking through project-based learning (PBL), this redesigned course aimed to support teachers to integrate literacy instruction and disciplinary learning from texts. I examine how, and to what extent, the curriculum guide and limited professional development supported one teacher’s practice.

Perspectives:
Although many adolescents struggle with literacy (ACT, 2005), current trends have promoted “AP for all,” to provide access to rigorous curriculum for those who are typically denied it. However, evidence suggests that access to these courses is not resulting in acceptable learning outcomes for low-income students (Handwerk, Tognatta, Coley, & Gitomer, 2008). One explanation may be students’ lack of preparation for the demands of content-based text combined with teachers who are ill-equipped to address their needs (Moje, 2010). Studies of literacy practices in “AP for all” contexts have revealed that teachers were not holding students accountable for reading nor helping them access the material (Valencia & Nachtigal, 2012). Teachers did not have the resources or the strategies to help students learn from texts. An important question, then, is how to support practicing teachers in implementing disciplinary literacy strategies.

Methods & Data Sources:
This qualitative case study was conducted in one urban high school classroom. The experienced teacher had limited resources provided by the school (e.g. textbooks, professional development) but he was provided with a curriculum unit guide integrating content and literacy strategies, a short in-service workshop, and limited classroom support from a project coach (2-3 hours). Videotaped class observations of the three-month unit and interviews were coded for evidence of teacher understanding and use of literacy instructional strategies. The constant-comparative method (Glaser, 1965) was used to identify themes and hypotheses.

Results:
Two main findings are suggested from preliminary analyses. First, before this study, the teacher rarely used texts—he relied on lecture and experiments. As a result of having access to the project materials and minimal coaching, the teacher became aware of the role of text learning in APES and attempted to implement most of literacy suggestions in the curriculum guide. However, because his appropriation was typically at the “surface level,” implementation generally did not help students with text-based learning and did not result in successful instruction. Second, when strategies (e.g. setting a purpose for reading, annotating text) were briefly modeled by the project coach, the teacher was more able to build on, and appropriate, literacy instructional strategies.

Significance:
Rigorous disciplinary courses are potential pathways toward deep learning for underprepared students if teachers can provide literacy instructional support to help students learn from text. But teachers need substantial support in order to do that work and to appropriate both the conceptual underpinnings and the practical strategies for using literacy in the disciplines. In a time of declining resources, we need to develop more effective ways to help teachers implement effective disciplinary learning from text.

Author

• Sara Nachtigal, University of Washington - Seattle