Literacy teaching toolkit: levels 7-10 explained

Each subject or discipline, such as Mathematics or Visual Arts, has its own distinctive language and literacy demands (Christie & Derewianka, 2008).

Teachers who can incorporate the literacy of their subject areas into their day-to-day teaching enable students to become independent and successful learners (Plaut, 2009) and improve student knowledge and learning outcomes across discipline areas.

The Literacy Teaching Toolkit for Levels 7-10 provides teachers with strategies to support the development of literate practices within 7 learning areas of the Victorian Curriculum:

  • The Arts
  • English
  • Health and Physical Education
  • The Humanities
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Technologies.

Literacy is the:

“ability to interpret and create texts with appropriateness, accuracy, confidence, fluency and efficacy for learning in and out of school, and for participating in Australian life more generally” (VCAA, 2016).

Much more than being able to read and write, being literate also means:

  • having the ability to develop knowledge and understanding
  • being able to participate actively in the workplace, community and society (UNESCO, 2004).

Literate practices are:

  • the knowledge, skills and strategies people use to understand, create, respond to, and manipulate texts.

The literate practices we use vary depending on the type of text being read or produced; for example, print, digital, oral, or multimodal.

The strategies outlined in the toolkit:

  • incorporate all language modes – Reading, Writing and Speaking and Listening
  • build students’ literacy in order for them to communicate their understanding
  • incorporate ways teachers can differentiate tasks to cater for a diversity of learners
  • may be modified and used from one learning area to other learning areas
  • align to one or more of the teaching and learning cycle stages (see diagram below) and are designed to support teachers to explicitly teach and speak about literacy.

Using the Teaching and Learning Cycle to Support Student Writing (Love, Baker & Quinn, 2009). This image was created through online software.

The strategies should be used in a recurring way to support students to develop, enact and test their growing content knowledge. As students progress within a discipline area, they will continually use different literate practices to move between the stages of the Learning and Teaching cycle.

Six principles of the literacy teaching toolkit for levels 7-10

  1. Language is foundational to all learning experiences (Vygotsky, 1962), and literacy ability has been directly linked to academic outcomes (Thomson et al., 2017).

    Supporting students to develop their literate abilities within one discipline will positively impact on their learning outcomes in others.

  2. Development of a shared language for talking about literacy empowers student learning and establishes a consistent metalanguage for teachers to explain and unpack literate strategies to their students (Rose & Martin, 2012).

    Teachers and students equipped with a grammatically informed metalanguage are more able to engage in meaningful discussions about language and texts. Glossaries are available:

  3. Literate practices need to be explicitly taught and scaffolded.

    In order to progress learning, students need to receive high quality feedback aligned to specific goals and criteria (Hattie 2008). Explicit teaching, scaffolding and feedback are integral components of the teaching and learning cycle

  4. The language modes (Reading and Viewing, Writing, and Speaking and Listening) are interrelated.

    A student’s development in one mode supports and extends a student’s understanding of the other modes (VCAA, 2016). That said, academic writing is the most complex, requiring extensive linguistic, cognitive and cultural resources (Myhill, Jones, Lines & Watson, 2012; Graham & Harris, 2016).

  5. The literate practices valued and required by students differ across the discipline areas (Fang, 2012; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

    For example, the ways students read a text in English differs from how text is read in Mathematics or History.

  6. Differentiated and targeted learning activities are required to support and value diverse student needs and abilities.

    Differentiation recognises the abilities, cultures, languages, motivations and interests of students.

The structure of the toolkit

Within each of the seven learning areas, literacy strategies are grouped based on their primary purpose:

  • Developing understanding: to engage and build discipline-specific understandings
  • Communuicating understanding: to transform and present discipline-specific understandings.

Each strategy combines the language modes to promote student learning. Where appropriate, the modes being used are indicated.

The final section of each learning area is 'putting it together'. This section includes:

  • suggestions on how teachers can use a range of strategies to design a lesson sequence
  • using the learning and teaching cycle to support students to produce an extended piece of writing.

Disciplinary literacy

Disciplinary literacy refers to the learner’s ability to read, write and speak in ways that are valued and used by people in a given discipline (Moje, 2007). That is, to “think like mathematicians, read like historians and write like scientists” (Lee, 2004, p. 61).

Disciplinary literacy:

  • recognises that literate strategies differ across the disciplines (Fang, 2012; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008)
  • means that literate strategies and discipline-specific content are intertwined (Fang & Coatoam, 2013, p. 628)
  • enables students to develop their content knowledge, skills and understanding to become experts within a discipline (Billman & Pearson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2011; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).

The toolkit embraces a disciplinary literacy approach to simultaneously engage with:

  • subject-specific content—core concepts, big ideas, key relationships
  • disciplinary habits of mind—reading and viewing, writing, speaking and listening, thinking and reasoning, and problem solving.

Supporting diversity and differentiation

Students come from diverse backgrounds and have a range of learning needs, requiring differentiated and targeted learning activities, to support their diversity within the classroom.

Some of the student groups teachers need to consider include:

The evidence-based teaching strategies contained in the toolkit support teachers to scaffold and differentiate to meet the skills and capabilities of all students in their classroom.

Multimodality and 21st century learning

Multimodal texts take a range of forms such as posters, infographics, picture books, textbooks, video, animation, interviews, oral presentations and diagrams (Anstey & Bull, 2006; Bull & Anstey, 2010; Kress, 2010; Zammit & Downes, 2002).

Digital texts may include:

  • moving image
  • sound
  • hyperlinks.

Live texts, such as dance, performance and oral storytelling convey meaning through various combinations of semiotic systems including gestural, spatial, audio, and spoken language.

In all disciplines, students need to compose and make sense of multimodal texts—texts which use two or more semiotic (meaning-making) systems to convey meaning. These include written language, still image, and spatial design in paper-based forms.

Teaching students to effectively read and compose forms of multimodal texts used in each discipline is essential to develop their understanding. For example:

  • to read a graphic novel in English, students need to be able to make sense of the written text and the images, and how they work together to create meaning
  • to read a diagram about the impact of erosion in Geography or Science requires students to be able to ‘read’ the written and visual elements in relation to one another
  • when viewing a documentary in History or Visual Arts, students need to understand how the combination of the verbal commentary, the selection of images, music and written text work both independently and together to present the account.

Genres in secondary school

Genres are the types of texts we create to achieve particular purposes (Derewianka & Jones, 2016, p. 7). Texts of similar genre tend to follow similar structural patterns or generic structures (Butt, Fahey, Feez & Spinks, 2012, p. 251).

In addition to understanding the structure and features of various genres, secondary students need to be familiar with the language features of the texts. For example, arguments typically use a range of connectives and/or conjunctions to organise the text and connect ideas, such as ‘to begin with’, ‘in conclusion’ and ‘however’.

Students will read and write texts with one genre, as well as texts with multiple genres. For example:

References

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies. Delaware, USA: International Reading Association.

Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.

Bartlett, L. (2008). Literacy’s verb: Exploring what literacy is and what literacy does. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(6), 737–753.

Billman, A., & Pearson, P.D. (2013). Literacy in the disciplines. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 21(1), 25–33.

Bynner, J., McIntosh, S., Vignoles, A., Dearden, L., Reed, H., & van Reenen, J. (2001). Improving adult basic skills: Benefits to the individual and to society. London: DfEE.

Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2010). Evolving pedagogies: Reading and writing in a multimodal world. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.

Chiswick, B., Lee, Y., & Miller, P. (2003). Schooling, literacy, numeracy and labour market success’, The Economic Record, 79(245), 165–81.

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. M. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. (1 ed.). London: Continuum.

Chudgar, A. (2009). The challenge of universal elementary education in rural India: Can adult literacy play a role? Comparative Education Review, 53(3), 403–433.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). A grammar of multimodality.  International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 361–423.

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018a). English as an Additional Language in Victorian government schools 2017. Melbourne: DET.

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018b). Teaching gifted and talented students.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). (2011). Powerful learning: Taking educational reform to scale.

Dolan, P., Fujiwara, D., & Metcalfe. R. (2012). Review and update of research into the wider benefits of adult learning. London: Department of Business, Innovation & Skills

Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 19–34.

Fang, Z., & and Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(8), 627–632.

Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy Education in School: Research perspectives from the past, for the future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Glewwe, P. (1999). Why does mother’s schooling raise child health in developing countries? Evidence from Morocco. The Journal of Human Resources, 34(1), 124–159.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2016). A path to better writing. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 359–365.

Hattie, J. (2008) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic literacies in the Middle Years: A framework for enhancing teacher knowledge and student achievement. New York and London: Routledge.

Humphrey, S. & Feez, S. (2016). Direct instruction fit for purpose: applying a metalinguistic toolkit to enhance creative writing in the early secondary years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(3), 207–219.

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. In Review of research in education (Vol. 32, pp. 241–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: American Educational Research Association.

Johnson, H., Watson, P.A., Delahunty, T., McSwiggen, P., & Smith, T., (2011). What it is they do: Differentiating knowledge and literacy practices across content disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(2), 100–109.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: New York: Routledge.

Lee, C.D. (2004). Literacy in the academic disciplines and the needs of adolescent struggling readers. Voices in Urban Education, 3, 14–25.

Lee, C.D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Louden, W., Rohl, M., Gore, J., McIntosh, A., Greaves, D., Wright, R., Siemon, D., & House, H. (2005). Prepared to teach: An investigation into the preparation of teachers to teach literacy and numeracy. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (1997). Australian literacies: Informing national policy on literacy education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Love, K., Baker, G., & Quinn, M. (2008). LASS. [electronic resource]: Literacy Across the School Subjects: a multimedia resource for middle & senior years. Information Services, University of Melbourne.

Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.

Moje, E B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. In Review of research in education (Vol. 31, pp. 1–44) Thousand Oaks, CA: American Educational Research Association.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A., & Lines, H. (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: a pedagogy for writing. Literacy, 47, 103–111.

Plaut, S. (Ed.) (2009). The right to literacy in secondary schools: creating a culture of thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scull, J. (2016). Effective literacy teaching for Indigenous students: Principles from evidence-based practices. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(1), 54–63.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Schmid, M., Rodrigues, S., & Fullarton, J. (2017). PIRLS 2016: Reporting Australia's results. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. Paris: UNESCO

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2016a). Curriculum design: Learning areas and capabilities

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2016b). English: Structure.

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2016). Literacy learning progressions.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Watson, S.M.R., Gable, R.A., Gear, S.B., & Hughes, K.C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(2), 29–89.

Wigglesworth, G., Simpson, J., & Loakes, D. (2011). NAPLAN language assessments for Indigenous children in remote communities: Issues and problems. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 320–343.

Zammit, K., & Downes, T. (2002). New learning environments and the multiliterate individual: A framework for educators. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(2), 24–36.