Preservice Teachers' Views of Content Area Literacy

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal07.8(and their students) view reading science and
磅02falsefalsefalseMicrosoftInternetExplorer4mathematics texts as boring and reading
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte msostrategies generally fail to make Rolex Watches
9]><xml> </xml><![endif]-->boring texts more interesting. Instead, preservice
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-faceteachers want strategies to make the subject
{font-family:宋体; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1matter instruction more experiential and applicable
1; mso-font-alt:SimSun; mso-font-charset:134;to the real world and less text based.
mso-generic-font-family:auto;Compounding this perceived misalignment of goals
mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3is the fact that content teachers may feel poorly
135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-facequalified to teach using content area literacy
{font-family:"\@宋体"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1approaches (Hall, 2005; Lesley, Watson, &
1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134;Elliot, 2007), further reducing the likelihood of their
mso-generic-font-family:auto;use.
mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3A third strand in the literature considers
135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching and
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormalhow such beliefs frame—and ultimately
{mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm;resist—their content area literacy experiences
margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify;in teacher education programs. Holt-Reynolds
text-justify:inter-ideograph; mso-pagination:none;(1992) showed how beliefs filter experiences and
font-size:10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;dramatically shape what is learned in teacher
font-family:"Times New Roman";education courses. For example, based on their
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;own experiences, preservice teachers may
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlinkbelieve listening to lectures is active engagement
{color:blue; text-decoration:underline;in learning and simply dismiss teacher educators'
text-underline:single;} a:visited,arguments that such learning is passive
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;(Holt-Reynolds, 1992). Across these accounts, we
text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} /*find compelling reasons for -why content area
Page Definitions */ @pageliteracy approaches are not visible in preservice
{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;teachers' emerging practices. But -we also notice
mso-page-border-surround-footer:no;} @pagean important feature common to each strand:
Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0ptContent area literacy is largely positioned as a set
72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt;of strategies external to science or mathematics
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;}content. Content area literacy is seen by
div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gtepreservice teachers as a literacy approach that is
mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */secondary, rather than central, to teaching and
table.MsoNormalTablelearning in the content areas.
{mso-style-name:普通表格;For this study, we begin with the assumption that
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;preservice teachers' success in and commitment
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes;to their disciplines also makes it difficult for them
mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4ptto see how literacy practices are central to the
0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm;learning of content. We recognize Fake Watches
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;that our preservice teachers have achieved
mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt;considerable success in school science and
font-family:"Times New Roman";mathematics while pursuing disciplinary subject
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";majors. Like many secondary teachers, their
mso-ansi-language:#0400;primary identities are as disciplinary experts
mso-fareast-language:#0400;(Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000; Helms,
mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> The1998). Because they have been successful at
extensive literature on preservice teachers andlearning anatomy or organic chemistry or calculus,
content area literacy offers a compelling accountthe literacy practices of the disciplines have
for preservice teachers' resistance to literacybecome largely invisible to them (D. Hartman,
approaches that weaves together at least threepersonal communication, March 28, 2007).
major strands. One strand argues that theTo make the literacy practices of content learning
structures of traditional content instruction resistvisible, we use a novel strategy that compares
content area literacy approaches (Alger, 2007;how students in schools engage with both
Moje, 2006; O'Brien et al., 1995). For instance,traditional and Internet texts. The content of
many content area literacy approaches aim tothese texts appropriates features of legitimate
disperse instructional authority across studentsscience or mathematics subject matter but is in
and teachers, while traditional content instructionfact nonsensical. We show how the insertion of
centers authority   on   the   teacher  problematic content into the literacy practices of
and   textbooks (Draper, 2002).school disrupts the invisibility of text and illustrates
A second strand suggests that teachers'how literacy practices fundamentally shape
pedagogical goals resist content area literacyunderstanding. We use Gee's (1989) concepts of
approaches. The problems with texts that manymetaknowledge and powerful literacy to explain
preservice teachers see as pressing are simplywhat our preservice teachers learned from this
not addressed by literacy strategies (Donahue,assignment and how the exercise rendered
2000; Fisher & Ivey, 2005). Many teacherspreviously invisible literacy practices visible.