What is the difference between Content, Content area and Disciplinary Literacy?
Content, Content Area and Disciplinary Literacy are all very different. Content is “the what”, meaning that it is the point that is trying to be put across by the author. While Content Area is the subject being taught. Disciplinary Literacy can best be described as when students have to know the content of a certain subject as well as how reading and writing are used in that subject- almost like a combination of both Content and Content Area.
What does “metadiscursivity” have to do with disciplinary literacy? Why is it important?
Metadiscursivity is when individuals engage in many discourse communities and know why and how they are engaging. This relates to disciplinary literacy because it can be compared to students that have to engage in many different subject areas and also have to know how reading and writing are used in each area. This is important because without the engaging factor, there is no point- it would basically just be going through the motions and not actually learning anything.
How does Moje’s disciplinary theory compare and contrast to Gee’s perspectives on reading and language?
Moje’s disciplinary theory can be compared and contrasted to Gee’s perspectives on reading and language. Moje’s and Gee’s perspectives are compared and contrasted because Moje believes that young people cannot actually read without having knowledge of the content while Gee would say they do not need to actually be able to understand what they are reading. Although the young person may be able to read the words of a book, Moje would say it is not reading and Gee might believe that it is.
Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107
Mariah's Blog 
It was an interesting perspective of the differences between Moje and Gee’s articles. I focused on the differences in how the two see discourses in terms of disciplinary literacy, yet I did not see the differences in how the two writers see the idea of reading differently. It was very informative and you did a very good job of explaining what exactly was different in the two viewpoints. Besides, I appreciated how you brought in a subject and how the two viewpoints would view how they read. In your case, you used the subject of a “young person” which allowed me to visualize how the two would perceive the student reading differently.
LikeLike
like mcdonelle7, I also “did not see the differences in how the two writers see the idea of reading differently.” — do you happen to have a quote to show Moje’s definition of reading?
LikeLike