Knowledge of what and for what?

Recently, I had a conversation with a science teacher in which we were discussing the meaning of "scientific literacy." According to him, most teachers emphasize "knowledge of" their disciplines--in fact, it seems to me that this approach is highly emphasized through state standards and tests. For instance, you might seek for students to develop a knowledge of how to divide fractions; a knowledge of how to write a moving narrative; a knowledge of the different components of physical fitness; and much more.

What does learning look like when you envision learning as "knowledge for"? And what is knowledge for, anyway? In science education, some international frameworks talk about using science concepts and scientific reasoning FOR making informed decisions in everyday life. I think the same concept can be applied to most disciplines: using physical education FOR making healthy decisions in regards to diet and exercise; using art FOR analyzing the implicit messages in the visual texts that surround us daily, and so forth.

But is the only purpose of our disciplines for students to make better, more informed personal decisions in their everyday lives? Some people also think that KNOWLEDGE FOR should also encompass KNOWLEDGE FOR promoting social change and KNOWLEDGE FOR a better world. What would mathematics instruction look like if "knowledge of" statistics became "knowledge for" social change? For instance, what if students collected and analyzed statistics about a problem in their communities, and then presented graphical, numerical, and written information to their city council people and used the data to advocate for a solution to the problem?

It seems to me that every teacher implicitly enacts her or his idea of "knowledge for," whether it's "knowledge for" passing the test, "knowledge for" making informed personal decisions, "knowledge for" making the community a better place, and so forth. I think that, by articulating for ourselves "what is my discipline for?," we can structure our learning experiences so that they are more tailored to meet the goals that really matter most to us and those goals that will really matter most to our students.

Hello, I'm Amy Alexandra

New semester, new course, new introduction. A little bit about myself: I recently came from Athens, GA, where I spent most of my waking hours in coffee shops writing my dissertation. I am still very nostalgic for the hot n' humid South, but now I am starting to become accustomed to the snow-capped mountains that have been a regular feature of life here in Logan.

What does the term 'content area literacy' mean to me? I was recently on a string of emails in which professors were arguing that the term 'literacy' should be limited to the reading and writing of printed letters. I get what they mean: the term 'literacy' does come from the same root word as the term 'letter'--therefore, you could call it 'letter-acy.'

But, to me, this position is not viable, and I will explain why. The term 'literacy' has such powerful connotations in our society--Brian Street has argued that the term 'literate' and 'illiterate' now carry the same connotations that the words 'civilized' and 'savage/primitive' used to mean. Therefore, I think that a facility with ALL sign system--gestures, music, speech, and so forth--should be considered literacy so that we do not deny the designation of 'literate' to the people who can produce effective texts using these mediums.

These days, the ability to produce and post a powerful YouTube video may reach more people, and have more communicative power, than the ability to write a blog or an essay. I therefore think that this act of producing a video should be considered an act of 'literacy.' This term shows that the ability to read and produce texts in a variety of formats is a legitimate and important act, worthy of the connotations that are associated with the word 'literate.'

I think that 'literacy' means more than simply being able to comprehend and produce texts, however. I think that literacy also entails critically evaluating texts and using the information that you learn to work toward personal enhancement or social change. What good is reading and writing if they aren't used for something--to make us more thoughtful and well-rounded human beings, to protest the unfair policies, and so forth? I also think that literacy instruction should be grounded in the hoped-for life trajectories, desires, languages, cultures, and identities of the students with whom we are working; as well as in the conventions of the disciplines that we are teaching.

That's my reader's digest version of content area literacy. I'm sure I left something out. Any thoughts?