Disciplinary Literacy in Engineering:
The Social, Cognitive, and Semiotic
Practices of an Engineering Expert
Suzanne Chapman & Zhihui Fang
LEAP Conference
San Antonio, Texas
May 2-3, 2017
Defining Disciplinary Literacy
• The ability to engage in cognitive, social,
semiotic practices consistent with those
valued by disciplinary experts (Fang, 2012).
– Social: the everyday work routine
– Cognitive: mental routines during reading/writing
– Semiotic: using signs to make meaning
Background
• Academic disciplines are highly specialized
fields of inquiry where people with shared
norms and habits of mind engage in
professional practices.
Background
• Each discipline is a discourse community with
its own rules of using language and ways of
creating, communicating, evaluating and
renovating knowledge.
• These conventions shape -- and evolve in
response to -- new developments in the
discipline.
Background
• Disciplinary differences are a reflection of the
fundamental differences in disciplinary
epistemology, methodology, and goals.
• Part of learning a discipline thus involves
learning the literacy practices associated with
the discipline.
Background
• Recent scholarship on secondary literacy, as
well as the CCSS, recognizes this disciplinarity,
calling for a shift from teaching generic
literacy strategies to teaching disciplinespecific literacy practices.
Background
• Successful implementation of disciplinary
literacy instruction requires, first and
foremost, that teachers have a deep
understanding of the literate practices that are
specific to each discipline.
Purpose
• This study aimed to identify the valued literacy
practices reported and demonstrated by experts
in key academic disciplines.
– How do experts read and comprehend texts within
and outside their area of specialization? (cognitive
practice)
– How do experts interact with people within their
professional community? (social practice)
– What are the genres and typical language features of
the textual materials experts use in their work?
(semiotic practice)
Context of the Study
• Setting
– Large, public, research university in the
southeastern U.S.
– Data to be collected in the participants’ natural
work environments
• Participant Selection Criteria
– Has a terminal degree in their discipline
– Has published in a peer reviewed outlets
– English as first language and highly verbal
Data Collection
• RQ 1: How do experts read and comprehend
texts within and outside their area of
specialization?
– Think-Aloud Protocol-video and audiotaped
•
•
•
•
Training
Concurrent Reports
Reading Materials/Texts
Probing
– Discussion of video of Think-Aloud
– Interviews
Data Collection
– RQ 2: How do experts interact with people within
their disciplinary community?
• Participant-Observations
– Field Notes
• Interviews
– Audiotaped & Transcribed
• Artifacts
– Examples of emails, powerpoints, materials from collaborations, etc.
Data Collection
– RQ 3: What are the valued genres and typical language features of
the textual materials experts use within their work?
• Participant-Observations
– Field Notes
• Interviews
– Audiotaped & Transcribed
• Artifacts
– Reading materials, data used for analysis, etc.
Data Analysis
• Think-Aloud
– All think-alouds were videotaped & transcribed
• Coding
–
–
–
–
Informal and inductive
(Re)read the transcripts a number of times to gain familiarity
Develop categorizations of strategies
The codes were developed into a narrative to describe the
experts’ cognitive strategies
Data Analysis
• Interviews & Discussion of Think-Aloud
– Both were transcribed by researcher/assistant
– Transcriptions were coded for themes
• Initial Coding
• Focused Coding
• Field Notes
– All field notes were coded for themes
• Initial Coding
• Focused Coding
Validation Strategies
• Member Checking
• Data Triangulation
– Cognitive• Think-aloud, Discussion of think-aloud video, &
Interview
– Social• Interview, Participant-Observations, & Artifacts
– Semiotic• Interview, Participant-Observations, & Artifacts
Description of Participant
• B.S., M.S., & Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (honors
student)
• Full professor-30+ years at university level
• Was employed by Caterpillar
• During summers, he served as a professor in Japan and
a researcher for a university in Germany
• Travels abroad up to five times a year to present at
international conferences
• Has given over 20 formal international presentations
• Multiple awards and honors
• Served on 300+ thesis and dissertation committees
• Has 200+ publications
• Editor in chief for a top tier journal
Findings—Social Practices
• International Community of Engineering
– Travel
– Awareness of engineering needs of other countries
– Translation
• Interdisciplinary Practices
• Collaborative Relationships
– Mentoring Relationships
– Research & Writing
– Editorial service
Findings—Semiotic Practices
• Genres—Research articles, magazines (columns & articles)
• Interdisciplinary—Engineering and Agriculture
– Research Articles—readership=academics
• Format-Abstract, introduction, experimental setup, results, discussion
• Simultaneously dense, technical, abstract
• Includes visual, graphical, mathematical resources
– Magazines—readership=academics and practitioners
• Featured articles
– Technical, dense. Not as dense as research article
– Visual resources-drawings, photographs. No mathematical
• One-page column
– Dense and abstract. Non-technical, no visuals
– Opinion piece-Causality, persuasive language
Findings—Cognitive Practices
• Think-aloud 1: Nonlinear Modeling & Identification of
an Autonomous Tractor-Trailer System
– Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Previewing the text (determining value, gathering background)
Setting a purpose for reading
Sourcing
Questioning the Authors
Monitoring confusions
Gathering information from pictures & figures (non-linear reading)
Skipping-ahead
Close-reading
Findings—Cognitive Practices
• Think-aloud 2: Lying relies on the TruthJournal article
– Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Sequence for reading
Personal connections/corroboration
Self-monitoring strategies
Skipping ahead—effort versus reward
Questioning the Author
Similarities in the Two Think-Alouds
• Initial examination of title and authors
• Used the strategy of Questioning the Authors
and their methodological choices
• Carefully monitored confusions
• When information in the text was too
challenging or dense, he skipped ahead to
other sections
Differences in the Think-Alouds
Engineering Article
Conducted an initial scan of the
entire article, focusing on the
pictures & graphs
Non-linear reading. Flipped
back and forth between visual
elements & linguistic text
No personal connections to the
text were observed
Lying Article
Did not scan the article after
reading the title and authors
Read the article sequentially
Used the strategy of using
personal connections
Implications
• Research
– Larger scale quantitative study on expert practice
• Study should focus on cognitive, social, & semiotic practices
– More research on pedagogical models that best support DLI
• multiple texts, expert cognitive strategies (e.g. sourcing), social practices (e.g.
peer review, questioning), semiotic practices (e.g. data)
– More research on the usefulness of content area reading strategies
– More research on the interdisciplinary nature of the content areas
• Practice
– Abandonment of instruction on content area reading strategies is
premature
– Based on the findings of this study and previous studies, instruction
with multiple texts combined with heuristics, and generic strategies
may be beneficial for learners in the secondary content areas
Questions/Comments
Suzanne Chapman
[email protected]
Zhihui Fang
[email protected]