M: Cyndie, you've been doing research on disciplinary literacy for about 20 years now.
In that time, you've probably been asked just about everything possible.
What question comes up most often these days?
W: That's easy. We're doing better convincing teachers that disciplinary literacy is worth teaching,
but they still are hesitant about their students' reactions.
A teacher said to me recently, "I have enough trouble getting my kids to read a textbook chapter. How would I ever motivate them to read in a disciplinary way?"
M: Is that a real question or is it just a mask for teacher resistance?
W: I think it's a real question, and in fact, it's also our biggest problem, because many teachers still don't understand the distinctions between content area reading and disciplinary literacy.
M: What is disciplinary literacy anyway? You said that's different.
W: Disciplinary literacy doesn't promise to make someone a better student.
It invites students to join the disciplinary field itself.
It's a kind of invitation to join a club.
M: Does it mean it invites students to join the "history club" by reading like a historian or the "science club" by reading like a scientist.
W: Right, but it goes beyond that. It says, "We want you to join us. We want to share with you our cognitive secrets, our way of thinking about the world, and how we solve problems.
We want to count you as one of us." In doing that, it both holds out the promise of affiliation, connecting with others is a big motivator,
and the promise of greater competency with challenging tasks -- not competency in being a kid or a student,
but competency in being successful with the kinds of things that adults do.
M: What about assessment? How do we test disciplinary literacy?
W: There aren't any standardized disciplinary reading or writing tests yet,
but one can easily imagine how classroom assessments could change in the future as instruction becomes more disciplinary in focus.
M: Past assessments in history, literature, or science have aimed to find out if students had mastered particular information.
Questions about content would certainly still have a place in disciplinary literacy since knowledge matters in disciplinary literacy too.
But what would a more disciplinary assessment look like?
W: I think a more disciplinary assessment would seek to find out whether students are interpreting such information in a sophisticated way according to the traditions of that discipline.
For example, a disciplinary test in history might ask not only what we know about a historical event,
but how we know about it -- students would be questioned about the source of the information, the reliability of the source, and how the information matches with information from other sources.
In cases where the information is contradictory, the assessment might ask students to determine whose account was more credible, requiring students to weigh evidence using the same kinds of criteria that historians use.
M: Uhmm. That sounds interesting.
W: Or a literature assessment might ask students to engage in deeper interpretation than in the past.
Instead of asking about the theme of a story, for example, an assessment might ask students to determine alternative themes and to decide --
based on text evidence -- which one the author seemed most sympathetic to.
In other words, it would ask the student to participate in the reading more as a literary critic than a student.
M: How should we prepare teachers to teach disciplinary literacy in teacher training institutions?
W: So far, teacher training institutions haven't done a very good job of helping subject matter teachers understand the discourse practices of their disciplines;
so those practices often remain implicit, untaught.
M: I agree with that. But have you seen any good examples?
W: Sure, there are some examples of programs that do make disciplinary literacy practices explicit.
The best of these programmes, in my opinion,
are the result of literacy and disciplinary experts collaborating to determine what these practices are and then engaging students in them.
This is the end of the second interview.
Questions 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard.
6. According to the woman, what is the biggest problem in teaching disciplinary literacy?
7. What does disciplinary literacy really mean?
8. What would a more disciplinary assessment ask students to do?
9. Which is the best practice in teacher training institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?
10. What is the purpose of the interview?
男：辛蒂，到现在为止，你已经研究学科素养大概20年了。
在这段时间里，你可能被问到各种可能问到的问题。
这些天里，哪个问题是最常问的？
女：这很容易。我们在说服老师“学科素养是很值得教的”这一点上做得更好了，
但他们依然对学生的反应持犹豫的态度。
最近，有一个老师和我说：“我很难让我的学生们阅读教材的一个章节。我怎么用学科的方式来激励他们呢？”
男：这是一个真实的问题还是教师抗拒的掩饰？
女：我认为这是一个真实的问题，事实上，这也是我们最大的问题所在，因为许多老师仍然不明白内容区域阅读和学科素养的区别。
男：那什么是学科素养？你说那是不同的。
女：学科素养不会保证让一个人成为更好的学生。
它邀请学生加入学科领域。
它是一种加入俱乐部的邀请函。
男：这是否意味着通过像历史学家一样阅读来邀请学生加入“历史俱乐部”，或是通过像科学家一样阅读来邀请学生加入“科学俱乐部”。
女：是的，但它不止这些。它表示：“我们想让你加入我们。我们想与你分享我们的认知秘密、我们是如何看待这个世界以及如何解决问题的。
我们想把你算作我们的一员。”这样做的话，它会遵守入会的承诺，与别人联系正是一个很大的动力，
而且会遵守承诺，让你拥有更强的能力来应对具有挑战性的任务——不是作为一个孩子或学生的能力，
而是能够成功应对成年人所做事情的能力。
男：那评估呢？我们如何测试学科素养呢？
女：目前还没有任何学科阅读或写作的标准化测试，
但你很容易就能想象得到，随着教学更加关注学科，课堂评估在未来会发生怎样的改变。
男：过去对历史、文学或科学的评估都致力于了解学生是否掌握了某个具体的信息。
关于内容的问题一定依然在学科素养里留有一席之地，因为知识在学科素养里也很重要。
但一个更侧重于学科的评估是什么样子的？
女：我认为一个更侧重于学科的评估会考查学生是否能根据该学科的传统，用更深刻的方法解释这些信息。
比如，一个历史学科测试可能不单单会问“我们知道一个历史事件的哪些知识”，
还会问我们是怎么知道的——学生会被问到信息的来源和可靠性，以及这个信息是如何与其他来源的信息相匹配的。
如果信息是矛盾的，评估会让学生判断哪个描述是更为可信的，这要求学生用历史学家使用的判断标准来权衡证据。
男：嗯。听起来很有趣。
女：一个文学评估可能会让学生做出比过去更为深刻的解读。
例如，评估不会问故事的主题，而会让学生从中选择一个主题——
基于文章中的证据——哪一个是作者最为赞同的。
换句话说，它会让学生从文学评论家的角度来参与阅读，而不是从学生的角度。
男：那我们如何在教师培训机构让老师们教授学科素养呢？
女：到目前为止，教师培训机构在帮助课程至上的老师懂得他们所授学科的授课实践方面做得还不是很好；
因此，那些实践经常是含蓄且未经训练的。
男：我同意这一点。但你见到过正面的例子吗？
女：当然，有一些项目确实让学科素养实践变得十分明确。
我认为，这些项目的最好之处在于，
素养和学科的专家合作来决定这些实践是什么，然后让学生参与其中。
第二个访谈到此结束。
根据刚刚听到的内容，回答6至10题。
6.根据这位女士的说法，教授学科素养的最大问题是什么？
7.学科素养是什么意思？
8.一个更侧重于学科的评估让学生做什么？
9.在教师培训机构里，促进学科素养教学的最佳实践是什么？
10.这个访谈的目的是什么？
昂之傳
打卡11.6