Teachers often complain about students’ lack of writing skills and go on ✓ Solved

teachers often complain about students’ lack of writing skills and go on to remark it is not their job to teach students to read and write. Imagine you are meeting with a professional learning community (PLC) or team. Write an argument, supported by research, that proves otherwise as an original response. Why do teachers resist incorporating writing and reading instruction into content instruction? Using the Module 8 reading by Graham et al. (2017) as a resource, how would you explain the differences and overlaps between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy?

Why is it beneficial for teachers to know the difference? How can literacy leaders support content area teachers in the teaching of reading and writing skills? R1 Content area teachers often express frustration over students’ lack of writing skills, frequently asserting that teaching literacy is not part of their job. However, this perspective overlooks the integral role that reading and writing play in mastering subject-specific content. Literacy is not confined to English Language Arts; it is a foundational skill that supports learning across all disciplines.

According to Reading Rockets, writing helps students clarify their thinking, deepen understanding, and retain information. When students write to explain a scientific concept or analyze historical events, they engage more critically with the material (Reading Rockets, n.d.). One reason content area teachers resist incorporating literacy instruction is a lack of training and confidence. For example, physics teachers often rely on shorthand, equations, and visual data, which may not align with traditional writing instruction. This disconnect can lead teachers to believe they are unqualified to teach reading and writing.

However, Graham et al., (2017) emphasize that disciplinary literacy, how experts read, write, and think within their fields, is essential for authentic learning. Teaching students to engage with texts as professionals do in each discipline fosters deeper comprehension and critical thinking. Understanding the distinction between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy is crucial for effective instruction. Content area literacy involves general strategies like summarizing, questioning, and using graphic organizers that apply across subjects. In contrast, disciplinary literacy focuses on the specialized ways of reading and writing unique to each field, such as interpreting graphs in science or analyzing primary sources in history.

Graham et al. (2017) argue that while content area literacy builds foundational skills, disciplinary literacy enables students to think and communicate like experts. Recognizing this difference allows teachers to tailor instruction to both general and discipline-specific needs. Literacy leaders can support content area teachers by acknowledging two key benefits of integrating reading and writing: improved comprehension and enhanced critical thinking. Professional development that demonstrates how literacy strategies align with disciplinary goals can empower teachers to incorporate these practices confidently. By embracing literacy instruction, content area teachers not only improve student outcomes but also cultivate deeper engagement with their subjects.

References Graham, A. C. K., Kerkhoff, S. N., & Spires, H. A. (2017).

Disciplinary literacy in the middle school: Exploring pedagogical tensions. Middle Grades Research Journal, 11 (1), 63–83. Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Should content-area teachers teach writing? What particular writing skills do they need to teach?

R2 Recognizing the significance of literacy, research indicates that integrating literacy components into subject-specific courses can improve student learning outcomes. A key barrier to this integration remains educators’ comfort and proficiency in embedding literacy within their own disciplines. Therefore, targeted coursework designed to reinforce students’ literacy development in reading and writing is essential. Technological advancements offer valuable resources for such integration and contribute to diversified learning opportunities; however, teachers’ confidence and fidelity in implementing these approaches are still under scrutiny. While early education prioritizes foundational literacy skills, educators at higher grade levels often lack comparable training or exposure needed to strengthen what was established during students’ formative years.

This inconsistency in instructional practice leads to an increased prevalence of students deficient in basic reading and writing abilities, consequently challenging teachers’ abilities to support these critical skills within their current coursework. Literacy is known to establish essential foundations, and research (Graham et al., 2017) underscores the need for discipline-specific literacy instruction tailored to student needs. Given the challenges educators face, curriculum demands, differentiated instruction, and large class sizes, it is vital to equip both novice and experienced teachers with appropriate tools and professional development necessary to enhance student learning outcomes.

Paper for above instructions

Introduction

Across the United States, teachers frequently express frustration regarding students’ limited writing abilities, often insisting that teaching literacy is the responsibility of English Language Arts (ELA) teachers alone. However, research across the last several decades strongly demonstrates that literacy—including both reading and writing—is foundational to learning in every discipline. Whether students are solving mathematical word problems, interpreting scientific research, analyzing historical events, or evaluating artistic works, the processes of reading, writing, and meaning-making are inseparable from subject-area mastery. This essay presents a research-based argument for why all teachers must incorporate reading and writing instruction into their content areas, explains why teachers resist taking on this responsibility, analyzes Graham et al. (2017) to clarify the differences and overlaps between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy, and provides recommendations for how literacy leaders can support educators in strengthening literacy instruction throughout the curriculum.

Why All Teachers Must Teach Reading and Writing

Decades of research verify that students learn content more effectively when reading and writing are integrated into instruction. Writing supports comprehension, promotes deeper reasoning, and strengthens retention because students must transform information into their own words (Graham & Perin, 2007). Reading within a content area helps students acquire academic vocabulary, interpret discipline‐specific structures, and engage in higher-level thinking (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Therefore, literacy is not supplemental—it is essential for learning.

For example, in science, students must interpret diagrams, understand procedural texts, and write lab reports using discipline-specific conventions. In mathematics, students must make sense of complex word problems, justify their reasoning, and interpret symbolic representations. In social studies, students read primary sources, compare historical perspectives, and write evidence-based arguments. Literacy is the vehicle through which content is accessed, constructed, and communicated.

The belief that only ELA teachers should teach literacy ignores the cognitive demands of disciplinary thinking. Research consistently demonstrates that students who write about what they learn outperform peers who do not (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004). Thus, literacy instruction must be shared across the faculty, not isolated in a single department.

Why Teachers Resist Integrating Literacy

Despite evidence supporting cross-disciplinary literacy instruction, many teachers resist incorporating reading and writing into their lessons. Several common barriers contribute to this resistance.

1. Lack of Training: Many content area teachers receive little or no formal preparation in literacy pedagogy during pre-service education. Secondary teachers in fields such as chemistry, physical education, or algebra may feel unqualified to teach reading strategies or writing skills (Fisher & Frey, 2020).

2. Perception of Time Constraints: Teachers often feel overwhelmed by pacing guides, curriculum demands, and standardized testing pressures. As a result, they fear that integrating literacy will “take away from” content coverage.

3. Misconception That Literacy Instruction Equals ELA Instruction: Many teachers mistakenly believe that teaching literacy involves grammar, spelling, and mechanical writing exercises rather than the type of applied literacy that supports subject-specific learning.

4. Students’ Low Skill Levels: Ironically, the very issue—weak literacy skills—that makes literacy instruction necessary is what discourages teachers from implementing it. When students struggle to read assigned texts or articulate explanations, teachers may avoid these practices altogether.

5. Lack of Administrative Support: Without school-wide expectations or professional development, teachers may not see literacy as part of their job description.

Understanding these barriers is essential so literacy leaders can address them through collaboration, professional development, and resources that empower content area teachers.

Content Area Literacy vs. Disciplinary Literacy

The reading by Graham et al. (2017) clarifies the relationship between two important frameworks: content area literacy and disciplinary literacy. These frameworks overlap but serve distinct purposes.

Content Area Literacy refers to general reading and writing strategies—such as summarizing, questioning, predicting, annotating, and using graphic organizers—that support comprehension across all subjects (Graham et al., 2017). These strategies are universal and not tied to any specific discipline. For example, teaching students how to identify the main idea or how to paraphrase complex information supports understanding whether they are reading a biology chapter or a history article.

Disciplinary Literacy, on the other hand, concerns the specialized ways of thinking, reading, writing, and communicating that experts in specific fields use (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Historians source documents, evaluate bias, and corroborate evidence. Mathematicians construct proofs, reason abstractly, and interpret symbolic language. Scientists read empirical studies, analyze data tables, and write lab reports using methodological precision. These practices cannot be generalized because they reflect the unique epistemological structures of each discipline.

Graham et al. (2017) emphasize that disciplinary literacy engages students in authentic disciplinary inquiry. While content area literacy builds broad literacy skills, disciplinary literacy helps students think and communicate like experts in the field. Both are essential.

Why Teachers Must Understand These Differences

Understanding the distinction between content area and disciplinary literacy helps teachers make informed instructional decisions. When educators mistakenly conflate the two, they may either avoid literacy instruction entirely or implement inappropriate strategies. For instance, using generic reading strategies exclusively will not teach students the specialized ways historians evaluate sources or how scientists construct arguments.

Teachers who understand the distinction can:

• Integrate literacy practices that genuinely support content learning
• Teach students how to navigate discipline-specific texts
• Improve student comprehension and engagement
• Provide more meaningful feedback on student writing
• Support equitable access to complex academic content

Literacy-literate teachers also help close achievement gaps, as students cannot succeed in content classes without strong reading and writing abilities.

How Literacy Leaders Can Support Content Area Teachers

Literacy leaders play an essential role in shifting school culture toward shared responsibility for literacy instruction. Several strategies can support this transition:

1. Provide Discipline-Specific Professional Development. Training should focus on how experts read, write, and think within each field. For example, PD for science teachers might address argument writing using claim-evidence-reasoning frameworks.

2. Build Collaborative PLC Structures. Literacy-based PLCs allow teachers to examine student work, develop common rubrics, and share effective strategies. These communities create collective efficacy—a key driver of school improvement (Hattie, 2016).

3. Offer Co-Teaching or Coaching. Instructional coaches can model lessons, observe instruction, and support teachers in implementing new strategies with confidence.

4. Provide High-Quality Instructional Materials. This includes discipline-specific graphic organizers, reading guides, writing scaffolds, exemplar texts, and rubrics tailored to disciplinary expectations.

5. Promote School-Wide Literacy Goals. When literacy becomes a shared institutional priority, teachers understand that integrating reading and writing is not optional—it is essential.

6. Recognize Teacher Barriers. Literacy leaders must validate teachers’ concerns and provide manageable, efficient strategies that enhance—rather than disrupt—content instruction.

Conclusion

Teachers who view literacy as “not their job” overlook an essential truth: reading and writing are deeply embedded in every discipline, and students cannot master content without mastering the literacy practices that shape disciplinary thinking. Content area literacy equips students with transferable comprehension strategies, while disciplinary literacy helps them think like mathematicians, historians, scientists, and artists. When teachers understand and integrate both forms of literacy, student achievement strengthens across the curriculum. Through professional development, coaching, collaborative structures, and clear expectations, literacy leaders can empower teachers to bring literacy practices into their instruction. Ultimately, embracing literacy as a shared responsibility is not an added burden—it is the foundation of effective teaching and learning.

References

1. Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions. Review of Educational Research.
2. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2020). Developing Digital Literacies. Corwin.
3. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents. Alliance for Excellent Education.
4. Graham, A. C. K., Kerkhoff, S. N., & Spires, H. A. (2017). Disciplinary literacy in the middle school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 11(1), 63–83.
5. Hattie, J. (2016). Visible Learning for Literacy. Routledge.
6. Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Should content-area teachers teach writing?
7. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents. Harvard Educational Review.
8. Shanahan, T. (2015). The six Ts of effective elementary literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher.
9. Moje, E. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.
10. Torgesen, J. (2006). Instruction to prevent reading failure. American Educator.