“Literacy to me is about power”: reading book-length fiction and non-fiction texts in a disciplinary literacy teacher education course

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to examine the reading of a book-length fiction or non-fiction text in one disciplinary literacy (DL) teacher education course. This paper considers how the assignment may help pre- and in-service teachers understand literacy as multifaceted and connected within and beyond their content areas (Moje, 2015). The research explores how reading a book-length text may help support DL, equity-oriented curricula that consider literacy as empowerment and connected to lived and communal experiences (González et al., 2005; Muhammad, 2020).

Design/methodology/approach

This work is grounded in a qualitative, humanizing methodology and thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Paris and Winn, 2014). This approach examines student work in one DL course, considering how teachers within and beyond English language arts (ELA) respond to the task of reading a book-length text.

Findings

First, the assignment offered space for participants to redefine literacy as empowerment and enjoyment. Second, the assignment helped participants connect literacy within and beyond their content areas and to see literacy as active and interdisciplinary. Third, the assignment includes clear limitations for a DL approach, particularly when participants focus mainly on connections to their content area. This sometimes obfuscated participants’ enjoyment of reading.

Originality/value

The study offers a new perspective on a task that is often seen as specifically “ELA”: reading a book-length text. This project offers space for ELA educators to consider literacy from a DL, equity-oriented framework focused on enjoyment in literature within and beyond ELA classrooms.

Citation

Neville, M. and Marlatt, R. (2022), "“Literacy to me is about power”: reading book-length fiction and non-fiction texts in a disciplinary literacy teacher education course", English Teaching: Practice & Critique, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-11-2021-0146