Abstract
Following some decades of empirical and theoretical attention on the acquisition of the generic skills of reading and writing, in particular as they are dealt with in the early years of schooling, significant interest has resurfaced in the ways in which each curriculum domain puts literacy to work in distinctive ways. Motivating this interest is a reaction to an apparent belief that explicit pedagogical work on the generic, content-free elements of reading and writing (decoding, encoding, comprehension and so on, as exemplified in the US National Reading Panel, 2000) is enough to prepare students adequately for the increasingly complex and specialised reading and writing demands of the secondary school’s curriculum domains. Researchers, like teachers, have found that this belief amounts to a policy of leaving many students behind and a systematic misreading of literacy difficulties as a lack of aptitude or effort (Freebody, Chan, & Barton, in press; Moje, 2007).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., & Tweedie, F. (1996). Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literacy and Linguistic Computing, 11, 121–131.
Chotlos, J. (1944). A statistical and comparative analysis of individual written language samples. Psychological Monographs, 56, 77–111.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. London: Continuum.
Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: Defining and theorizing school subjects. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 66–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Enright, K. (2010). Language and literacy for a new mainstream. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 80–118.
Freebody, P., Chan, E., & Barton, G. (in press). Curriculum as literate practice: Language and knowledge in the classroom. To appear in K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research in children’s literacy, learning and culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Freebody, P., & Muspratt, S. (2007). Beyond generic knowledge in pedagogy and disciplinarity: The case of science textbooks. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2, 35–48.
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (Eds.). (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2006). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45, 368–377.
Lemke, J. (2002). Multimedia semiotics: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In M. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 21–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 58–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.
Revelle, W. (1978). ICLUST: A cluster analytic approach to exploratory and confirmatory scale construction. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 739–742.
Revelle, W. (1982). ICLUST: A program for analysing the internal structure of tests. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Illinois.
Richards, B. (1987). Type/token ratios: What do they really tell us. Journal of Child Language, 14, 201–209.
Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. Wilkoff (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 229–272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tweedie, F. & Baayen, H. (1997). Lexical ‘constants’ in stylometry and authorship studies. Joint international conference of the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, Queen’s University, Ontario, June 3–7, 1997.
Tweedie, F., & Baayen, H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32, 323–352.
Tweedie, F., Holmes, D., & Corns, T. (1998). The provenance of De Doctrina Christiana, attributed to John Milton: A statistical investigation. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13, 77–87.
US National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Youmans, G. (1990). Measuring lexical style and competence: The type:token vocabulary curve. Style, 24, 584–599.
Corpus Materials
Ash, J., Jess, T., Wilson, B., Heffernan, D., & Learmonth, M. (1987/87/89). Elements of science. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Chapman, B., Perry, B., Russell, D., & Stead, K. (1989/90/90). Science. Brisbane: Brooks Waterloo.
Coghill, G., & Wood, P. (1987/88/89). Science spectrum. Melbourne: Rigby Heinemann.
Stannard, P., & Williamson, K. (1985). Exploring science (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Macmillan.
Wintour, J. A., & Wintour, J. M. (1987/88/89). Enjoying science. Brisbane: Jacaranda Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Muspratt, S., Freebody, P. (2013). Understanding the Disciplines of Science: Analysing the Language of Science Textbooks. In: Khine, M. (eds) Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4167-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4168-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)