Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescent English Language Learners: Vocabulary Development and Reading within the Disciplines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research on disciplinary literacy has called for a paradigm shift among secondary content teachers from perceiving themselves as disciplinary content transmitters to disciplinary literacy teachers who model and engage students in reading, writing, inquiring, and doing like experts within each discipline. How do content teachers incorporate disciplinary literacy and stay responsive to the unique and diverse learning needs of the adolescent English Language Learners (ELLs) who are integrated in the mainstream classes? Drawing on Moje’s (2015) 4Es framework and a translanguaging pedagogy, this paper presents a set of instructional practices to support content teachers in integrating disciplinary literacy within the disciplines to enhance adolescent ELL students’ learning in vocabulary development and reading. La recherche récente en matière de littératie dans toutes les disciplines appelle à un changement de paradigme chez les enseignants des différentes matières du secondaire pour se percevoir non plus comme des transmetteurs de contenu de la discipline mais comme des enseignants de littératie de la discipline qui servent de modèles et motivent les élèves à lire, écrire, se renseigner et à se comporter comme des experts à l’intérieur de chaque discipline. Comment les enseignants de contenu incorporent-ils la littératie dans leur discipline et restent-ils à l’écoute des besoins d’apprentissage uniques et variés des adolescents qui apprennent l’anglais (AALS) et qui sont intégrés dans les classes ordinaires? En s’appuyant sur le cadre 4E de Moje (2015) et sur une pédagogie translangagière, cet article présente une série de pratiques d’enseignement visant à soutenir les enseignants de contenu dans l’intégration de la littératie dans toutes les disciplines de façon à enrichir l’apprentissage des adolescents ASL en matière de développement du vocabulaire et de lecture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".