Middle and High School Teachers’ Perceived Expertise and Needs in Disciplinary Literacy
- Type
- Journal article
- Venue
- AERA Open
- Year
- 2025
- Topics
- literacy · teacher-education · education
Citation
Savitz, Rachelle S; Morrison, Jennifer D; Brown, Christy; Kane, Britnie D; Aldrich, Charlene; O’Byrne, W Ian. (2025). Middle and High School Teachers’ Perceived Expertise and Needs in Disciplinary Literacy. AERA Open.
Abstract
For years, secondary educators have been tasked with incorporating literacy into their instruction, supported by training and courses; however, these may not fully meet the specific needs of teachers. Despite their existing expertise, teachers are often taught general literacy strategies, which leaves gaps in targeted and ongoing professional learning because their needs were not included in the co-design process. This study aimed to recognize teachers’ perceived expertise, challenge misconceptions that subject-area teachers do not incorporate literacy practices, and inform professional learning through teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Therefore, we surveyed 165 middle and high school teachers across eight subject areas to assess their knowledge and self-efficacy in disciplinary literacy. Our results extend existing research that highlights the expertise of subject-area teachers, while also building on scholarship that emphasizes the need for the literacy scholar’s expertise to be combined with others’ perspectives and expertise.
Savitz2025 - Middle High School Teachers’ Perceived
Notes
This one sits at the crossroads of two things I’ve been thinking about for a long time: the tendency of literacy education to position content-area teachers as problems to be fixed, and the gap between what professional learning claims to do and what teachers actually need.
The study design itself is an argument. We went directly to teachers, surveyed 165 of them across eight subject areas, and asked what they already knew and where they felt less confident. That’s a different posture than the typical literacy PD model, which starts from the assumption that teachers need to be taught literacy — full stop. The deficit framing runs deep in the field, and this paper tries to disrupt it by centering teacher voice at the design stage, not just as a nod to participation.
What surprised me most in the data was how much variation existed within subject areas, not just across them. It’s easy to say “science teachers need X” or “ELA teachers already do Y.” The reality is more textured. A PE teacher might have sophisticated disciplinary literacy practices that no rubric would ever catch. A math teacher might be doing DL without knowing that’s what it’s called. That gap between practice and naming matters — both for how teachers see themselves and for how literacy scholars relate to them.
The communities of practice framing changed what we were actually looking for. When you look for community, you start seeing the collaborative resources teachers already have. When you look for deficits, you only see gaps. That shift in orientation is one of the most useful moves in this paper.
📄 Full Text
![[Middle_and_High_School_Teachers_Perceived_Expertise.pdf]]
Connected Concepts
- [[Disciplinary Literacy]]
- [[Teaching Philosophy]]
- [[Digital Literacy]]