Literacy Research and Instruction

ISSN: 1938-8071 (Print) 1938-8063 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

Why Content-Area Literacy Messages Do Not

Speak to Mathematics Teachers: A Critical Content
Analysis

Daniel Siebert & Roni Jo Draper

To cite this article: Daniel Siebert & Roni Jo Draper (2008) Why Content-Area Literacy Messages
Do Not Speak to Mathematics Teachers: A Critical Content Analysis , Literacy Research and
Instruction, 47:4, 229-245, DOI: 10.1080/19388070802300314

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070802300314

Published online: 16 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 432

View related articles

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulri20

Download by: [George Mason University] Date: 12 June 2016, At: 08:48
 Literacy Research and Instruction, 47: 229–245, 2008
Copyright © The College Reading Association
ISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 online
DOI: 10.1080/19388070802300314

Why Content-Area Literacy Messages Do Not

1938-8063
1938-8071
ULRI
Literacy Research and Instruction,
Instruction Vol. 47, No. 4, July 2008: pp. 1–36

Speak to Mathematics Teachers: A Critical

Content Analysis

DANIEL SIEBERT AND RONI JO DRAPER

Content-Area
D. Siebert andLiteracy
R. J. Draper
Messages

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

Much has been written to convince content-area teachers to include literacy instruction as part of
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

their regular content instruction. The purpose of this study was to determine how the messages
available in the literature are framed and how they might be viewed by content-area teachers, espe-
cially mathematics teachers. The analysis revealed that messages available to content-area teachers
about literacy neglect, deemphasize, or misrepresent mathematics and/or mathematics education.
These findings may help explain why content-area teachers, particularly mathematics teachers,
resist ideas related to content-area literacy instruction

Keywords content analysis, literacy, mathematics, teacher education

For years, literacy educators have sought to encourage content-area teachers to infuse
literacy instruction with the regular teaching of content. Starting in 1925, the mantra
repeated by literacy educators has been every teacher a reading teacher. The call began
with Gray’s statement that, “Each teacher who makes reading assignments is responsible
for the direction and supervision of the reading and study activities that are involved”
(1925, p. 71). Simpson echoed the call in 1954, “No matter how poorly or how well
high-school students can now read, every high-school teacher can help them to read with
better understanding the textbook and the other materials that are required in his course”
(Simpson, 1954, p. 3). These statements fit well with contemporary messages about content-
area reading, such as, “Content area teachers can make a difference in the school lives of ado-
lescents when they incorporate reading strategy minilessons into their instructional repertoire”
(Vacca, 2002b, 184). Similar messages have been included in content-area methods books
(Alvermann & Phelps, 2002; Brozo & Simpson, 2003; Vacca & Vacca, 2002).
Unfortunately, in the past these calls for reform have gone largely unheeded.
Researchers have investigated the cause of content-area teachers’ unwillingness to
cooperate in literacy instruction, and have concluded that resistance is often due to certain
unhelpful beliefs. The beliefs held by content-area teachers include the following: (a) they
should not have to engage in literacy instruction because it is someone else’s responsibility
to teach reading and writing, (b) they lack the ability or training to teach reading and
writing, and (c) they do not have the time to provide literacy instruction along with their
full content curriculum (O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, &
Dishner, 1985; Stewart & O’Brien, 1989). These findings imply that, historically, content-
area teachers do not share the same understanding of and vision for literacy as do literacy

The authors fully co-authored this article.

Address correspondence to Roni Jo Draper, Ph.D., 206-Q MCKB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
84602. E-mail: roni_jo_draper@byu.edu

229
 230 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

educators. More recently, content-area teachers have demonstrated more interest in

including literacy in their classrooms, but may still lack the necessary knowledge base to
do so (D’Arcangelo, 2002; Vacca, 2002a). Thus, it should come as no surprise that
content-area teachers have not generally implemented literacy instruction as a regular part
of content instruction.
Given the history of resistance on the part of content-area teachers, one must ask:
Why have all of the literacy messages that literacy educators have dutifully sent to
content-area teachers year after year failed to produce a shared understanding and vision
of literacy between the two group of educators? Literacy educators have tried to inform
content-area teachers by writing content-area methods textbooks, position statements, and
research reports (e.g., Alvermann, 2002; Alvermann & Phelps, 2002; Brozo & Simpson,
2003; e.g., Manzo, Manzo, & Estes, 2001; Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999).
Messages have been addressed to both content-area teachers in general and content-area
teachers in specific disciplines (e.g., Borasi & Siegel, 2000; Martinez & Martinez, 2001).
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

And yet little progress has been made. It is tempting to blame content-area teachers and
teacher educators for this lack of a shared understanding and vision. For example,
researchers have suggested that if content-area teachers were not so narrowly focused on
their own discipline (D’Arcangelo, 2002), or if future content-area teachers were offered
more encouraging and progressive accounts of literacy in their content methods courses
(Draper, 2002a), content-area literacy would have caught on long ago. Although such
claims may be true, they neglect any role that literacy educators might play in this
problem, and thus prevent literacy educators from perceiving and pursuing direct
measures to improve the situation. Instead, we suggest a more empowering, alternate
explanation: perhaps literacy messages have not been formulated appropriately to appeal
to and address the needs of content-area teachers. We believe that this second explanation
holds promise, because if found even partly true, it invites and empowers literacy educators
to take direct action to improve the situation by reformulating their literacy messages.
In this article, we invite the reader to reconsider and re-view literacy messages from
the perspective of content-area teachers, specifically from the viewpoint of mathematics
teachers. We realize that when literacy educators typically envision literacy instruction, it
is not in a mathematics classroom. Nevertheless, we believe that the perspective of
mathematics teachers is particularly valuable in reconsidering literacy messages for two
reasons. First, the discipline of mathematics represents a challenging test case for whether
or not it is truly meaningful to talk about reading and writing across the curriculum. From
our experience, mathematics teachers are often among the most skeptical of the value of
reading and writing across the curriculum. If literacy educators can learn how literacy
instruction can be tailored to serve the goals of mathematics teachers, they will be better
prepared to reach out to teachers in other disciplines. Second, by examining a discipline in
which little literacy work has been done, literacy educators are much more likely to
uncover assumptions and beliefs that have guided their literacy efforts in certain carefully
studied disciplines (e.g., language arts, social studies, and science), but that may not be
helpful in disciplines that have received less attention (e.g., physical education or home
economics). In particular, an examination of literacy in mathematics classrooms invites
literacy educators to carefully consider what they mean by text, reading and writing, and
which definitions of these terms make sense for content-area teachers in disciplines where
traditional print materials are not the dominant form of text for communicating and
understanding ideas.
In order to help the reader reconsider literacy messages from the perspective of
mathematics educators, we present a content analysis of the literacy messages from a
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 231

collection of content-area literacy advocacy, policy, and methods texts. We first describe
our method for selecting and analyzing literacy messages. Next, we present our results,
which suggest that many literacy messages fail to resonate with mathematics educators
because they neglect, deemphasize, or misrepresent the nature and content of the disci-
pline of mathematics. Lastly, we discuss the implications of our findings for implementing
literacy instruction in the mathematics classroom and helping mathematics teachers
address literacy in their instruction. We also suggest how the findings of our content
analysis from the perspective of mathematics educators might also inform content-area
literacy work in disciplines other than mathematics.

Examining Literacy Messages from a Mathematics

Teacher’s Perspective: A Content Analysis
As we analyzed a collection of content-area literacy advocacy, policy, and methods texts,
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

we adopted a modified approach to content analysis that differs from traditional content
analysis in two fundamental ways. The first major difference is that rather than use the
traditional approach of choosing a unit of analysis associated with a particular length of
text, such as a word, sentence, or paragraph, we chose to use a more flexible unit of
analysis, which we referred to as messages. We found that analyzing passages of text of a
predetermined length interfered with our attempts to interpret meanings from the
perspective of mathematics educators. Instead, it was more helpful to read the texts in total
to identify segments that consisted of whole, connected ideas related to mathematics
instruction—what we came to refer to as messages about literacy for mathematics
teachers. The messages we identified in the text varied in length, ranging from a single
sentence to several pages of text, and referred to both the content of what was said and
how that content was understood by us as we attempted to view the passages from the
perspective of mathematics educators. We acknowledge that the messages we identified
were not inherent in the texts themselves; rather, just as in all reading, the messages and
meanings emerged as a result of the interaction between the text and the reader—in this
case, ourselves as the readers. A more detailed description of the specific lenses we used
as readers is given later in this article.
A second major difference between our approach and traditional content analysis is
that we chose not to use a priori categories in our analysis. In traditional content analysis,
texts are sorted into pre-determined categories and then counts are made to determine how
many times a unit of the text (a word, a picture, a sentence) falls into a given category
(Holsti, 1996). However, we did not know a priori what categories would be useful in
organizing and making sense of the messages we encountered. Consequently, we chose to
define our categories inductively by reading the texts reflexively (Altheide, 1987). We
began this process by selecting a small subset of documents from our collection and
reading these documents independently to identify problematic messages—messages that
seemed applicable to mathematics teachers from a literacy perspective, but that might be
perceived as irrelevant, confusing, or offensive from a mathematics educator’s perspec-
tive. We then met to share our selections of problematic messages and discuss what made
them problematic. Through these discussions, themes for why the messages were
problematic began to emerge. We then tested the themes against the problematic messages of
a second subset of the documents, modifying and adding to our set of themes as necessary.
We also checked this revised set of themes against the problematic messages we had
identified in the previous subset of documents. We continued this reflexive process of
using documents to test and modify our set of themes, and then checking the modifications
 232 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

against previously read documents, until we had considered every document in our collec-
tion. These themes became the categories by which we sorted the problematic messages.

Sources
We considered various contemporary sources of messages about content-area literacy.
Furthermore, we focused our analysis on literature written specifically to make the case
for content-area literacy instruction. We examined four kinds of literature (see Table 1 for
a complete list of the literature used for this study). The first category was textbooks. This

Table 1
Content-Area Literacy Literature
Content-Area Methods Textbooks:
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (2002). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in
today’s diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brozo, W. G., & Simpson, M. L. (2003). Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding literacy
across the content areas (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Estes, T. H. (2001). Content area literacy: Interactive
teaching for active learning (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. (2002). Content are reading: Literacy and learning across
the curriculum (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Position Statements:
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34, 189–208.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy:
A position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International
Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
General Content-Area Literacy Literature:
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and
implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184–186.
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent
literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 43, 400–410.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to
infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school
culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.
Rycik, J. A., & Irvin, J. L. (2001). What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students’
literacy learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives: Visible and invisible
aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuales (Eds.), What research
has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184–204). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Mathematics Content-Area Literacy Literature:
Borasi, R., & Siegel, M. (2000). Reading counts: Expanding the role of reading in
mathematics classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Martinez, J. G. R., & Martinez, N. C. (2001). Reading and writing to learn mathematics: A
guide and a resource book. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 233

category was chosen because content-area teachers who take preservice or inservice
courses related to content-area literacy are likely to have a textbook that accompanies the
course. We examined content-area literacy methods textbooks used to inform content-area
teachers about literacy theories and instructional methods. The four we considered were
Alvermann and Phelps (2002), Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s
diverse classrooms (3rd ed.); Brozo and Simpson (2003), Readers, teachers, learners:
Expanding literacy across the content areas; Manzo, Manzo, and Estes (2001), Content
area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning (3rd ed.); and Vacca and Vacca
(2002), Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (7th ed.).
Although this list of content-area literacy methods textbooks does not include all the
current literacy methods textbooks available, the list does include the most-popular sellers
(according to BarnesandNoble.com [September 11, 2004] the Vacca and Vacca book was
the number-one seller, the Brozo and Simpson book was the number-two seller, and the
Alvermann and Phelps book was the number-three seller). The Manzo, Manzo, and Estes
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

book was chosen because of the significant and formative contribution of the first author’s
work has had on the general field of content-area literacy over the past 30 years (e.g.,
Manzo, 1975, 1987; Manzo & Casale, 1985; Manzo, Manzo, & Estes, 2001), which
continues to be cited in current content-area methods textbooks.
The second category of literature consisted of position statements. We looked at the
position statements because they were written for a “general audience” (including content-
area teachers) and focused on “literacy instruction at the middle and high school level”
(Alvermann, 2002, p. 189). These statements were also important to examine because they
were published by literacy organizations, and thus could be interpreted as reflecting not
just the perspectives, values, and orientations of the authors, but of the broader field in
general. Because the field of literacy is constantly changing, and because current position
statements are typically thought to be an improvement on previous ones, we examined
only the most recent statements published by the International Reading Association (IRA)
(Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999) and by the National Reading Conference
(NRC) (Alvermann, 2002).
The third category was comprised of influential works on general content-area
literacy instruction (McKenna & Robinson, 1990; Moje, Young, Readence, & Moore,
2000; O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Rycik & Irvin, 2001; Vacca, 2002b). We
included this category of literature in our content analysis not so much because we
thought that mathematics teachers would read these works, but because of the strong
influence of these works on the messages that are written about content-area literacy. We
specifically chose the McKenna and Robinson piece and the piece written by Moje and
her colleagues because the purpose of both of these pieces was to define content-area
literacy and adolescent literacy along with the implications for content-area teachers and
classrooms. These articles also appeared in an IRA publication for practitioners—McKenna
and Robinson’s piece was printed in the Journal of Reading and Moje et al. appeared in
the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (formerly the Journal of Reading). The
Rycik and Irvin book was selected because it is marketed by IRA as a companion to
IRA’s Adolescent Literacy Position Statement. The edited book consists of a collection
of articles written for content-area teachers that appeared in a variety of practitioner-
oriented journals (e.g., Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Voices from the
Middle, Middle School Journal). Finally, the piece written by O’Brien and his
colleagues, which appeared in Reading Research Quarterly, was chosen because of its
high citation rate since its publication in 1995 (including the content-area literacy
textbooks used in this study).
 234 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

The fourth category consisted of books that specifically address mathematics content-
area literacy instruction (Borasi & Siegel, 2000; Martinez & Martinez, 2001). We were
particularly interested in books that were written by authors who claimed expertise in
mathematics education. There are only a limited number of pieces that focus specifically
on literacy in mathematics. Borasi and Siegel have worked collaboratively considering lit-
eracy instruction for mathematics classrooms (c.f., Borasi, Siegel, Fonzi, & Smith, 1998;
Siegel, Borasi, & Fonzi, 1998), and their work has culminated in a book for mathematics
educators. The other book, by Martinez and Martinez, was also written specifically for
mathematics teachers and has been marketed at mathematics education conferences
(which was how we first came in contact with it).
The literature used to convince content-area teachers of the importance of literacy
instruction across disciplines is vast; clearly, this analysis only represents a small portion
of the literature. However, as readers of the wider literature, we believe that our close
reading of these few pieces is sufficient to illuminate a problem that has previously gone
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

unexamined. We recognize that other literature may exist that differs greatly in tone and
content from the ones we have identified here—indeed, we hope that is the case—but our
intent was to consider readily and widely available works that other content-area literacy
educators would recognize as legitimate sources of content-area literacy messages.
Therefore, although this study does not represent an exhaustive review of the literature,
the literature that is included does represent the various categories from which the general
messages are found. We also understand that none of these pieces may have been read by
even a small percentage of mathematics teachers. Our goal was to simply choose literature
written by those who have influenced the field of content-area literacy and that have a
reasonable likelihood of being read by mathematics teachers.

Background and Perspectives

As noted earlier, our individual perspectives played an important and unavoidable role in
our content analysis; thus, we briefly describe our personal backgrounds and the lenses
through which we viewed the literature. Our backgrounds in mathematics education and
literacy education provided us with the expertise to critique content-area messages from
outside the discourse of literacy education. Dan, a former mathematics teacher with
graduate degrees in mathematics and mathematics education, came to the reading of the
messages with a clear sense of the purpose of mathematics education and steeped in the
school mathematics reform literature. He was introduced to content-area literacy and
literacy education through recent collaborations with Roni Jo (see Draper & Siebert, 2004)
wherein we have sought to describe the role of literacy instruction for mathematics
learning. Roni Jo, also a former mathematics teacher, has graduate degrees in curriculum
and instruction with a focus on literacy education. She brought both her experience as a
mathematics teacher and her knowledge of content-area literacy and literacy instruction to
the reading of the messages.
Because our perspectives are so heavily influenced by the field of mathematics
education, we present a brief description of this field. Over the past 40 years, mathematics
education has emerged as a research domain with its own goals, standards, theories, and
methodologies. One of the foremost goals of the discipline, as expressed by documents
published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), is that “all
students should learn important mathematical concepts and processes with understanding”
(NCTM, 2000, p. ix). Leaders in mathematics education have long called for mathematics
instruction to focus less on rote memorization of algorithms and paper-and-pencil
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 235

computational prowess, and instead to spend more time engaging students in authentic
mathematical activities, such as forming and testing conjectures, framing and solving
problems, and developing and communicating solutions and justifications (NCTM, 2000).
Underlying these calls for reform is the belief that mathematics instruction that focuses
merely on facts and computations discriminates against certain populations and does not
prepare students to participate in the mathematical activities and discourses that are
important to living a fulfilling life (NCTM, 1989). Mathematics education researchers
have drawn on many theoretical frameworks, including constructivism, social constructivism,
situated cognition, symbolic interactionism, and other sociocultural perspectives, to justify
an instructional focus on understanding, authentic mathematical activity, communication,
and problem solving.
Many of the important issues and concerns of mathematics educators are at least
partially related to literacy. Mathematics educators long have been concerned about the
processes by which students develop meaningful symbols (or representations for mathe-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

matics), and the relationship between symbol development, mathematical understanding,

and mathematical discourse in the community (e.g., classroom) (cf. Cobb, Yackel, &
McClain, 2000). Mathematics educators have also been concerned about communication
in general, recognizing the essential role that communication and discourse play in
developing understanding and participating in mathematical activity (Hiebert et al., 1997;
NCTM, 1989, 2000). Finally, reform efforts in mathematics education have widened the
number of objects that mathematics educators must help their students “read” and “write,”
including diagrams, pictures, explanations, calculator displays, and manipulatives
(NCTM, 2000). These concerns and developments suggest that mathematics and literacy
educators may share many common interests and goals, which further highlights the need
to better understand why literacy messages have not resonated well with mathematics
teachers.

Problematic Literacy Messages: Mathematics Neglected, Deemphasized,

or Misrepresented
An analysis of the problematic messages identified from our collection of documents
indicated that they shared a core problem: they failed to properly acknowledge the
influence of the discipline of mathematics on what counts as text, reading, and writing.
We found that messages tended to overlook the influence of the discipline in one of three
ways, which led us to form three categories of problematic messages. These categories
consisted of (a) messages that neglected disciplinary influences, (b) messages that
deemphasized or minimized disciplinary influences, and (c) messages that misrepresented
the discipline of mathematics.
These three types of problematic messages seemed to be widespread across the
literature we analyzed. In fact, for each of the three categories of problematic messages, at
least one message of that type was found in documents from at least three of the four
categories of documents that were considered in this study. In some cases, messages of a
particular type permeated all of the documents of a certain category, or were widespread
among all categories of documents we analyzed. Furthermore, every document we
analyzed contained at least one problematic message, and most contained many such
messages, sometimes from all three categories. The widespread occurrences of problematic
messages across all of the documents we analyzed suggested to us that these messages
may in fact be at least partially responsible for current communication problems between
literacy and mathematics educators.
 236 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

Of course, one might argue that problematic messages may not be harmful if they are
accompanied by other messages that clarify or compensate for the problematic message.
Unfortunately, we found that documents seldom contained passages that repaired or offset
problematic messages, at least not in ways that we felt would be understood and appreci-
ated by mathematics educators. On the contrary, it seemed to us that often the authors’
attempts to specifically address mathematics teachers and help them understand and
engage in literacy instruction were perhaps the most problematic of all the messages we
encountered, as we illustrate in the examples that follow. Furthermore, even when we did
find helpful messages in the documents, it was unclear if the messages sufficiently
addressed and compensated for the damage done by problematic messages. It is likely that
one problematic message could cause distrust in mathematics educators that would be
hard to dispel with several helpful or positive messages. For these reasons we reject the
claim that the problematic messages we encountered were somehow tempered or compen-
sated for by other passages in the documents we considered, and thus can be dismissed.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

We now present descriptions of the three types of problematic messages. To help the
reader see how these messages are problematic, we present specific examples and discuss
how these passages conflict with mathematics educators’ views of mathematics and
mathematics teaching and learning.

Messages that Neglect Disciplinary Influences

The first category of problematic messages consists of passages that neglect disciplinary
influences on what counts as text, reading, and writing. Written for content-area teachers
in general, messages of this type either explicitly or implicitly advocate a single definition
of text, reading, and writing across all content areas. Typically, the term text is used in
these messages to imply traditional print material in the form of words and sentences,
whereas reading and writing are equated with consuming and creating such print
materials. Mathematics teachers are likely to find such messages problematic because they
seldom rely solely on written words and sentences to develop, convey, and negotiate
mathematical meaning. Instead, they typically employ such texts as graphs, diagrams,
tables, manipulatives, and symbolic expressions to represent mathematical concepts,
structures, and objects. Although we recognize the appeal of general messages about
literacy for building consensus among large groups of people, we question whether these
messages are useful for mathematics teachers unless they specifically acknowledge the
role of the discipline in determining what counts as text and literacy. To illustrate this
point, we examine two types of literacy messages that neglect disciplinary influences,
namely descriptions of theoretical models of reading and recommendations based on
adolescents’ in- and out-of-school literacies.

Theoretical Models of Reading. One type of general message that neglects discipline-
specific influences on literacy consists of the theoretical models of reading that literacy
educators use in their content-area literacy methods textbooks. Some of the models we
found in methods textbooks (e.g., Alvermann & Phelps, 2002; Brozo & Simpson, 2003;
Manzo, Manzo, & Estes, 2001; Vacca & Vacca, 2002) include schema theory, interactive
models, cognitive models, and constructivist models. In discussions of these models, we
discovered that the influence of the discipline was typically acknowledged only implicitly
in terms of the influence of students’ backgrounds and the influence of the social and
historical contexts on literacy processes. Seldom was the discipline acknowledged as
playing a fundamental role in determining what counts as text, reading, and writing.
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 237

For example, Vacca and Vacca (2002) begin their content-area literacy methods book
with a theoretical model for reading based on schema and reader response theory. Their
model places emphasis on the interaction between the student and text in the learning
process, but omits the discipline from which the text was selected. Furthermore, underlying
their model is the view of text as consisting of “written language” (p. 14). They explain
that “text, whether it is printed or electronic, may consist of a single word, sentence,
paragraph, page, chapter, or text screen” (p. 14). Because mathematics teachers spend the
majority of their time helping students “read” and “write” objects that do not fall under
this definition of text, this depiction of literacy is not appealing. What makes matters
worse is that Vacca and Vacca’s definition of text as words, sentences, and paragraphs
causes them to limit all of their examples of mathematics texts to the types of text that are
not highly valued in today’s reform-oriented mathematics classrooms, namely traditional
story problems and snippets from textbooks.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

In- and Out-of-School Literacies. A second type of general message that neglects
discipline-specific influences on literacy are those embedded in reports of recent
investigations into the in- and out-of-school literacies of adolescents. These investigations
describe adolescents’ use of technology to support communication (e.g., cell phones,
computers, pagers), adolescents’ tastes and choices of literature (e.g., teen-zines, novels),
and the content of adolescents’ communication (Bean, Bean, & Bean, 2001). The value of
these additions to the literacy literature is that they document the literacies in which
adolescents can and do engage and highlight what adolescents are capable of “reading”
and “writing” (Lewis, 2001; Worthy, 1998). Nevertheless, messages that arise from
investigations into adolescents’ in- and out-of-school literacies lack a clear connection to
literacy instruction for mathematics teachers. For example, Bean et al. (2001) suggest that
content teachers “move away from a dependence on didactic, text-bound modes of
teaching” and help bridge the gap between adolescents’ in- and out-of-school lives by
“tapping the multiple literacies in adolescents’ lives” (p. 223). However, like the other
authors of similar pieces, they do not provide suggestions for how mathematics teachers,
or other content-area teachers, might incorporate adolescent literacies in such a way as to
help students become fluent with discipline-specific texts and discourses. Without such
suggestions and examples, it is difficult for mathematics teachers to envision how they can
incorporate adolescent literacies into their instruction and still portray an accurate account
of mathematical activity and discourse.
These two examples taken from writings on literacy theories and adolescent in- and
out-of-school literacies illustrate how messages that neglect disciplinary influences might
be confusing and misleading to mathematics teachers. In particular, they paint a picture of
literacy that does not clearly match up with mathematics teachers’ understanding of math-
ematical discourse and activity. Without help interpreting these messages, mathematics
teachers are left in a quandary concerning how to act on these messages. Mathematics
teachers may feel forced to choose between incorporating literacy activities that do not
make sense to them, or rejecting the messages because they contradict their understanding
of the discipline.

Messages that Deemphasize Disciplinary Influences

The second category of problematic messages consists of those that deemphasize mathe-
matics as a discipline of study with its own unique discourses and literacies. Typically,
these messages are addressed to content-area teachers in general, concern the role of the
 238 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

content in secondary classrooms, and explicitly attempt to either minimize the differences
between disciplines or assert that certain texts, literacies, and literacy instructional
practices are appropriate for all disciplines. For instance, O’Brien et al. (1995) depict
distinctions between disciplines as somewhat arbitrary and as a “struggle for power”
(p. 449), thus ignoring the goals, perspectives, and literacies that are unique to the field of
mathematics. Equally as problematic, Manzo et al. (2001) assert that a particular approach
to literacy instruction can be “translated into an instructional framework for planning and
teaching any reading-based lesson in any subject at any level” (p. 45), and McKenna and
Robinson (1990) claim “that students’ understanding of the content presented in all sub-
jects could be substantially enhanced through appropriate writing assignments or through
supplemental reading” (p. 185). Mathematics educators would likely be skeptical of such
broad claims, because they know that to truly understand certain mathematical concepts,
objects, and structures, students need to engage in reading and writing non-traditional
texts (e.g., symbolic notation, diagrams, graphs, manipulatives) in ways that are unique to
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

the field of mathematics and that do not fit neatly within the activities envisioned by
Manzo et al. or McKenna and Robinson.
Messages that deemphasize the uniqueness of disciplinary literacies are likely to be
even more problematic to mathematics educators than messages that neglect disciplinary
influences. Because these messages dismiss or denounce the inherent differences between
discipline-specific discourses and literacies, they are likely to be taken as evidence by
mathematics teachers that literacy educators do not understand the discipline of mathe-
matics, and thus lack the expertise to offer advice or pass judgment on mathematics
instructional practices. Because of this, messages that deemphasize disciplinary influences
are much more likely to be rejected by mathematics educators than messages that neglect
the discipline.

Messages that Misrepresent Mathematics

The third category of problematic messages consists of messages that misrepresent
mathematical discourse and activity. Unlike the first two categories, this category consists of
messages that are written specifically for mathematics teachers and directly address literacy
instruction in the mathematics classroom. What makes these messages problematic is that
they contain misconceptions about or misrepresentations of the kinds of texts and literacies
that are appropriate for learning and participating in mathematics. Unfortunately, our content
analysis revealed that a vast majority of the messages seemingly written specifically for
mathematics teachers were problematic in terms of the way they depicted mathematical
practice or discourse. These messages typically exhibited one of the following problems:
they included questionable texts and genres, recommended questionable instructional
practices for common mathematics texts, or included samples of mathematics reading and
writing that are problematic but were not recognized as such.

Questionable Texts and Genres. Many of the messages in our study that specifically
addressed literacy instruction in mathematics focused on texts and genres that are atypical
for mathematics classrooms. For example, Borasi and Siegel (2000) introduced historical,
philosophical, and popular texts into the mathematics classroom so that they could engage
mathematics students in reading. Unfortunately, such texts typically contain very little
mathematics content, and the mathematical content they do contain is often peripheral to
the school mathematics curriculum and treated in a superficial way. The excerpts provided
by Borasi and Siegel suggest that the texts they selected were no exception to this
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 239

characterization. Although Borasi and Siegel claimed that their students were learning
mathematics from their readings, mathematics educators would likely conclude that their
students were actually learning about the philosophy of mathematics rather than learning
mathematics content. Furthermore, because the kinds of texts that the students were
reading are not the types of texts typically used to communicate mathematics, reading
these texts likely did little to help the students improve in their ability to read mathematics.
Equally problematic are many of the messages Martinez and Martinez (2001) provide
concerning how to foster reading and writing in the mathematics classroom. In their book,
entire chapters are devoted to activities to help students read and write different genres—
stories, newspaper articles, and Web pages—using mathematics as the content. Again,
learning to read and write such genres with mathematics as the subject is very unlikely to
help students learn to read and write mathematics, because these genres are not common
in the discourse of mathematics. Moreover, they are not common because these genres are
limited in their capacity to convey mathematical thinking. Mathematics educators are
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

likely to reject suggestions to use these genres, and instead direct their students’ efforts to
reading and writing texts that are better suited for creating, conveying, and negotiating
mathematical meaning.

Questionable Instructional Practices. Some of the messages in our study that

misrepresented mathematics focused on common mathematical texts, but recommended
instructional practices that contradict the type of mathematical activity valued by
mathematics educators. For example, Manzo et al. (2001) cited 30-year-old research (i.e.,
recommendations made by Dahmus, 1970) to conclude that students should use the key
word method to solve mathematics word problems. This method consists of identifying
key words in word problems and using those as cues for constructing the appropriate
equations. Mathematics educators have long denounced this method, because there are
many word problems, like the following, where this strategy leads to incorrect responses:

Write an equation using the variables S and P to represent the following

statement: “There are six times as many students as professors at this
university.” Use S for the number of students and P for the number of
professors. (Clement, 1982, p. 17)

When students use the key word method to write an equation for the aforementioned situ-
ation, they typically write 6S = P, or six times as many students as professors. However,
this is incorrect, because if the number of students was 10,000, then the equation would
imply that there are 60,000 professors at the university. The correct equation is actually
S = 6P. Manzo et al.’s recommendation to use key words to translate English directly into
mathematical equations undermines the quantitative reasoning that is required to solve
this and many other mathematical word problems.
Equally as problematic is Brozo and Simpson’s (2003) suggestion to use a charting
method to “improve . . . students’ skills in solving word problems” (p. 70). In their
instructional activity, mathematics students are encouraged to complete a chart with the
information provided from the word problem. From there, students simply set up the
equation and solve for the missing variable. Unfortunately, such an approach, like the key
word method presented earlier, only works on some word problems; the more complex,
multi-step problems that are being used in reform curricula do not conform to this solution
method. Furthermore, some mathematics educators would argue that the use of such an
algorithmic approach to mathematics problem solving communicates to students that all
 240 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

mathematics problems are well-defined and can be easily solved in a short period of time
with an equation or algorithm (Schoenfeld, 1988). These beliefs can be very unproductive
when solving mathematics problems.

Problematic Examples of Reading and Writing. Occasionally we encountered messages

that included examples of mathematics reading and writing that the authors seemed to
think were exemplary, but that were nonetheless problematic from a mathematics
educator’s perspective. For example, the following writing sample was given as an exem-
plary student’s response to the prompt, “Explain to someone how to bisect an angle”:

Make an acute angle. Label it ∠ABC – making point A on one ray, B at the
vertex, or point where rays meet, and C on the other ray. Now, with a
compass, draw an arc of any measurement which will cross both rays. Next,
use your compass to measure the distance between the two points you made
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

by making the arc and keep the measurement locked on your protractor. Now,
put the point of your compass on one of the arc points and make a slash in the
middle of the angle. Do the same from the other dot on the other ray. The
slash marks should cross in the center. Make a point where the slashes cross.
uuur
Label it point D. Draw a ray starting at point B going through point D. BD
now bisects ∠ABC. (Vacca & Vacca, 2002, p. 270)

As a mathematics explanation, the above account is inadequate, because it contains no jus-

tification or explanation for why the student performed any of the steps in the procedure—
a hallmark of mathematical discourse. The student does not explain what each step
accomplishes, why the steps are appropriate, and why the steps produce the desired results.
From a pedagogical perspective, the aforementioned explanation is also undesirable,
because it does not require students to develop and express their understanding of the
important underlying mathematical concepts. In fact, mathematics educators have long
been suspicious of explanations like the one above, because many students can produce
such explanations even when they have little understanding of the process they are
describing.
In summary, messages that misrepresent the discipline of mathematics are judged
inadequate by mathematics educators because they violate what mathematics educators
know and value about the discipline of mathematics. Similar to messages that deempha-
size disciplinary influences, these messages are very likely to be rejected outright by
mathematics educators. Furthermore, they are likely to cause mathematics educators to
doubt the possible contribution of literacy instruction in the field of mathematics. This is
particularly unfortunate, given that these messages were probably written to appeal to and
recruit mathematics educators.

Implications
Our analysis of literacy messages from the perspective of mathematics teachers suggests
that many of these messages can be interpreted in ways that have negative connotations
for mathematics instruction. In particular, literacy messages often do not adequately
acknowledge the discipline-specific texts, literacies, and discourses that are an integral
part of learning, teaching, and doing mathematics. They also seldom address the “reading”
and “writing” of objects that are not traditional print material, or the discipline-specific
ways these objects (or even traditional print materials) are used to create, convey, and
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 241

negotiate mathematical meaning. As a result, it is likely that mathematics educators will

find many content-area literacy messages either somewhat irrelevant to their mathematics
teaching, or in direct contradiction to the instructional goals and practices that are valued
in their discipline. What mathematics educators need are messages that provide them with
ways to conceptualize and facilitate the reading and writing of discipline-specific texts,
particularly the types of texts that are already present in many mathematics classrooms, in
discipline-appropriate ways.
We believe that our findings, although based on analysis from the perspective of
mathematics teachers, have implications that extend to content-area teachers in general. In
particular, our study suggests that when content is not given a prominent position or is
misrepresented in literacy messages, then the role of the content and discipline in deter-
mining what constitutes texts, discourse, and literacy is obscured. This can easily lead
content-area teachers to form two unhelpful views about literacy instruction. First, when
text and literacy are not content-specific, it is easy to assume that literacy in all content
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

areas is only about the decoding and writing of traditional forms of texts. Consequently,
content-area teachers may come to believe that in order to engage in literacy instruction,
they must teach with traditional texts. This can lead to the hegemony of traditional print
materials in content-area classrooms where other objects might be the predominant choice
of members of that discipline to create, convey, and negotiate meanings. A second and
equally likely outcome of separating content from literacy is the assumption that literacy
instructional activities designed for and successfully tested in one content area can be used
in another content area with little or no modification. If what counts as text, literacy, and
discourse is not explicitly linked to the content area, then there is no reason to assume that
literacy instructional methods designed for, say, a social studies class would not be
equally as successful in a mathematics class.
Unfortunately, the very nature of some content-area literacy messages may actually
encourage content-area teachers to refrain from literacy instruction. If content-area
teachers interpret and accept literacy messages as stating that literacy is limited to
traditional print materials and general literacy instructional practices, they can easily
justify that content-area literacy instruction should be turned over to someone else who
has expertise with traditional print materials, general literacy strategies, and literacy
instructional methods, and who does not have the pressures of an overloaded curriculum.
Note that this reasoning fits well with the reasons given in the research for why content-
area teachers do not support literacy, namely that it is someone else’s responsibility, they
lack the ability or training, or they lack the time to fit literacy instruction into their content
curriculum (O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner,
1985; Stewart & O’Brien, 1989). In contrast, content-area teachers may choose to
completely ignore literacy messages because they are unable to see the connections
between content-area literacy messages and their discipline-specific texts, literacies, and
discourses. Regardless of which of these two courses of action content-area teachers
choose, the students lose, because neither leads to explicit literacy instruction that can help
students become fluent in the discourses and literacies of the different disciplines.

Courses of Action
We offer this analysis of content-area literacy literature not to simply point out problems
with the messages, but to propose courses of action for literacy educators to remedy
the situation. We suggest two courses of action for literacy educators that hold promise in
reconciling ideas about content-area instruction and content-area literacy instruction. First,
 242 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

we suggest that literacy educators adopt broadened definitions of text and literacy that are
inclusive of the objects and activities valued by content-area teachers. Second, we suggest
that literacy educators collaborate with content-area educators to create content-specific
messages about content-area literacy. We discuss each of these courses of action in greater
detail in the specific context of mathematics teaching, with the recognition that many of
our comments may also be applicable to other content areas.

Broadened Definitions of Text and Literacy

If literacy messages are to include rather than exclude mathematics teachers, they must be
reformulated to include broader notions of text and literacy. In our own experience with
teaching mathematics, we have found it useful to consider literacy instruction in terms of
the texts that naturally arise as a part of reform-oriented mathematics instruction, rather
than trying to infuse traditional print materials into the classroom. By text, we mean
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

anything that people use to create, convey, and negotiate meaning. Thus, in a mathematics
classroom, text includes, but is not limited to, diagrams, pictures, calculator readouts,
manipulatives, equations, small group and whole class discussions, and conceptually ori-
ented explanations and justifications. When a broadened notion of text is used, one cannot
help but conclude that the mathematics classroom is a text-rich environment. Furthermore,
a broadened definition of text implies that literacy is a legitimate and crucial concern for
mathematics teachers, because learning mathematics cannot be separated from the texts in
which meaning is created, conveyed, and negotiated. Mathematics teachers who wish their
students to learn mathematics must therefore teach them how to read and write the texts
through which mathematics is constructed and communicated.
A broadened definition of text and literacy can also directly address the concerns sug-
gested by our content analysis that mathematics teachers may develop from reading the
content-area literacy literature. First, a broadened definition of text no longer privileges
traditional print material. Therefore, mathematics teachers need not feel compelled to
introduce print materials that may only be tangentially related to their discipline-specific
instructional goals in order to check literacy off of their to-do list. Instead, they can focus
on increasing their students’ ability to create and consume the texts they are currently
using in the classroom. Literacy then becomes a natural part of everyday mathematics
instruction, not something that has to be “imported” or “infused.” Second, a broadened
definition of text and literacy suggests that not every literacy instructional strategy may be
appropriate for helping students develop fluency with certain types of mathematics texts.
Mathematics teachers, therefore, need not feel compelled to use certain literacy
instructional strategies when they do not make sense in a given context. Instead, they can
choose to modify current strategies or develop new strategies for helping students become
literate in mathematics texts.
To help mathematics educators adopt a broadened definition of text, and subsequently
perceive the relevancy of literacy in their mathematics instruction, literacy educators can
take the following two actions. First, when talking about texts, particularly texts in the math-
ematics classroom, literacy educators can include specific examples of the mathematics
texts that are a part of everyday mathematics learning and mathematical activity, including
those mathematics texts listed earlier. This would help mathematics teachers understand
that their classes are text rich environments, and consequently, that literacy is an important
and unavoidable part of learning mathematics. Second, literacy educators should resist the
urge to advocate for the use of non-mathematics texts (e.g., short stories, poetry, or plays) in
the mathematics classroom, because these genres have a limited capacity for communicating
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 243

and developing mathematical ideas, and are not widely accepted genres within the field of
mathematics. Thus, they do not typically fit well with the goals of mathematics instruc-
tion. Although we can imagine situations where writing short stories, say, might be helpful
to mathematics students, we anticipate that students would be engaged in such an activity
for only a short period of time, and that the majority of their experience would focus on
reading and writing more discipline-appropriate texts.

Developing Discipline-Specific Literacy Messages

Although a broadened definition of literacy and text is a strong first step in reaching out to
mathematics teachers, it is not enough. Literacy educators must move beyond generalities
and begin to address the specific texts, literacies, literacy strategies, and instructional
methods that are necessary to enable students to read and write mathematics texts in disci-
pline-appropriate ways. Currently, literacy messages are of limited use to mathematics
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

educators, because they seldom address the specific texts, discourses, and literacies that
are common in mathematics classrooms. Consequently, mathematics teachers who wish to
help their students learn to read and write mathematics may experience little benefit from
turning to literacy educators for help and advice. If literacy messages do not eventually
move beyond generalities, then literacy educators will have little influence and input into
how mathematics teachers address literacy in their classrooms. Even worse, literacy
educators may be discarded and left behind as mathematics teachers seek elsewhere for
discipline-specific solutions to teaching literacy.
Unfortunately, literacy educators are likely lacking the expertise in mathematics to speak
about discipline-specific texts and literacies. Thus, before attempting to address mathematics
teachers, we suggest that literacy educators thoroughly read the Principle and Standards
(NCTM, 2000) to help them consider the kinds of texts and instructional activities supported
by current reform efforts (texts and activities that may still not be represented in current math-
ematics textbooks). This reading can help literacy educators think about how strategies like
KWL, Jigsaw, DR-TA, discussions, and so forth can be applied to mathematics classrooms.
We also suggest reading Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (Cobb,
Yackel, & McClain, 2000). Although a theoretically more difficult text to read, it holds
potential for literacy educators to gain an understanding of the kinds of discourse, texts, and
activities that are valued by mathematics educators (Draper, 2002b).
We anticipate that literacy educators who wish to address literacy in the mathematics
classroom could also benefit greatly from collaborating with mathematics educators.
Collaborating mathematics educators can help identify the types of texts that are important
in learning mathematics, as well as how those texts should be written and read. They can
provide literacy educators with access to mathematics classrooms to observe and consider.
They can also provide literacy educators with feedback on their messages and suggestions
on how to make them more relevant to mathematics educators in general. In particular,
they can help literacy educators avoid creating messages that misrepresent mathematical
discourses and literacies.
In this article, we have argued that mathematics teachers’ lack of response to calls for
literacy across the curriculum may at least be partially the consequence of the way that
content has been neglected, deemphasized, and misrepresented in the literature about
content-area literacy. Teachers from other content areas may also be similarly affected by
these messages. Rather than describing content-area teachers as uncooperative and
resistant, literacy educators must depict content-area teachers as professionals who care
about students and who have discipline-specific goals, texts, and literacies that they must
 244 D. Siebert and R. J. Draper

address. We believe that when literacy educators revise their literacy messages to address
these discipline-specific goals, texts, and literacies, they will likely be perceived by
content-area teachers as partners, not critics, who value disciplinary learning goals and
who will work with teachers to help children develop fluency in negotiating, creating, and
challenging discipline-specific texts. Only when literacy educators create messages that
address the goals, texts, and literacies inherent in the various disciplines will there be hope
of literacy instruction across the curriculum.

References
Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65–77.
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34, 189–208.
Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (2002). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bean, T. W., Bean, S. K., & Bean, K. F. (2001). Intergenerational conversations and two
adolescents’ multiple literacies: Implications for redefining content area literacy. In J. A. Rycik
and J. L. Irvin (Eds.), What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students’ literacy learning
(pp. 207–225). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Borasi, R., & Siegel, M. (2000). Reading counts: Expanding the role of reading in mathematics
classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to
support sense-making and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 275–305.
Brozo, W. G., & Simpson, M. L. (2003). Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding literacy across the
content areas (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problems: Thought processes underlying a common
misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 16–30.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2000). Symbolizing and communicating in
mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
D’Arcangelo, M. (2002). The challenge of content-area reading: A conversation with Donna Ogle.
Educational Leadership, 60(3), 12–15.
Dahmus, M. E. (1970). How to teach verbal problems. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 121–138.
Draper, R. J. (2002a). Every teacher a literacy teacher? An examination of the literacy-related
messages in secondary methods textbooks. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 357–384.
Draper, R. J. (2002b). Book review: Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms.
Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 693–702.
Draper, R. J., & Siebert, D. (2004). Different goals, similar practices: Making sense of the
mathematics and literacy instruction in a Standards-based mathematics classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 41, 927–962.
Gray, W. S. (1925). A modern program of reading instruction for the grades and high school. In G.
M. Whipple (Ed.), Report of the National Committee on Reading: 24th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. 21–73). Bloomington, IL: Public School
Publishing Company.
Hiebert, T. L., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997).
Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Holsti, O. R. (1996). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Lewis, C. (2001). Rock ‘n’ roll and horror stories: Students, teachers, and popular culture. In J. A.
Rycik & J. L. Irvin (Eds.), What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students’ literacy learning
(pp. 198–206). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
 Content-Area Literacy Messages 245

Manzo, A. V. (1975). Guided reading procedure. Journal of Reading, 18, 287–291.

Manzo, A. V. (1987). Note cue: A comprehension and participation training strategy. Journal of
Reading, 33, 608–611.
Manzo, A. V., & Casale, U. P. (1985). Listen-read-discuss: A content reading heuristic. Journal of
Reading, 28, 732–734.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Estes, T. H. (2001). Content area literacy: Interactive teaching for
active learning (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Martinez, J. G. R., & Martinez, N. C. (2001). Reading and writing to learn mathematics: A guide
and a resource book. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications.
Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184–186.
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy
for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43,
400–410.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:48 12 June 2016

statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into
the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.
Ratekin, N., Simpson, M. L., Alvermann, D. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1985). Why teachers resist
content reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 30, 432–437.
Rycik, J. A., & Irvin, J. L. (Eds.). (2001). What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students’
literacy learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of well-taught
mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
Siegel, M., Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (1998). Supporting students’ mathematical inquiries through
reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 378–413.
Simpson, E. A. (1954). Helping high-school students read better. Chicago: Science Research
Associates.
Stewart, R. A., & O’Brien, D. G. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice
teachers. Journal for Reading, 33, 396–401.
Vacca, R. T. (2002a). From efficient decoders to strategic readers. Educational Leadership, 60(3),
6–11.
Vacca, R. T. (2002b). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives: Visible and invisible aspects
of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about
reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184–204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the
curriculum (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Worthy, J. (1998). “On every page someone gets killed!” Book conversations you don’t hear in
school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(7), 508–517.