Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Academic Literacy Across the Curriculum

  • Jon-Philip Imbrenda
  • Michael W. Smith
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_115-2

Introduction

This entry examines academic literacies across the curriculum with respect to the orientations scholars have developed to the nature of the knowledge of reading and writing required for academic literacy and to the extent to which that knowledge is generalizable across different texts and different contexts. The focus is on reading and writing here as these are the most prevalent modes of participation in academic settings, recognizing both that students engage in a wide variety of other literacies outside school and that both in-school and out-of-school literacies could be enriched by a more permeable boundary between those settings. The questions of if, when, and how learners transfer or appropriate knowledge across domains and contexts has long been of interest to educational psychologists, and research in academic literacy has paralleled those debates (Smagorinsky and Smith 1992). Three distinct understandings have emerged: academic literacy as general knowledge, as...

Keywords

Reading theory Writing theory Transfer Cognitive theory Sociocultural theory Genre theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  3. Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re) envisioning “first-year composition “as” Introduction to Writing Studies”. College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 552–584.Google Scholar
  4. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  7. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rabinowitz, P. J. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. W. (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: The question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seidel School of Education and Professional StudiesSalisbury UniversitySalisburyUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA