Reading in The Disciplines: The Challenges of Adolescent Literacy engages with the overwhelming issue of reading and comprehension. As I read this article I could not help but feel that we have covered most this material prior to this reading. Early in the document it is evident that reading strategies used in our CI 414 are demonstrated, such as asking questions, predicting, and summarizing while reading (Lee 3). However, these are characteristics of general strategies that are applicable to various types of literature, and not the disciplinary literacy that must be emphasized in our classrooms. As an aspiring history teacher I found Buehl's analysis and Lee's to be analogous in their perspectives of how students must read historical documents. This emphasis on disciplinary literacy and how students view and analyze texts is reoccurring as history, "necessitates that readers shift into a particular disciplinary lens, in this case, reading like a historian" (Buehl 59). This aspect of reading like a historian is imperative when confronting dense textual evidence and formulating arguments and opinions. But how do we as educators properly teach students how to approach texts, no matter what their discipline may be? I reference history consistently because I have almost no prior knowledge of any science or mathematics courses, but it is evident that in order to succeed in a discipline an individual must possess skills and tactics that are not only demonstrated in detail, and evaluated by educators. This applies to all aspects of education, in order to become a master in your discipline, you must master the general strategies of reading and comprehension which, according to these texts is failing in our school system.

This video demonstrates the key strategies used by educators when attempting to provide students with the skills and tools to analyze history. This breaking away from the textbook and the use of primary and secondary sources is a strategy that is embedded continuously in our minds throughout our courses at UIC. It is evident that these educators are attempting to have their students question every detail, and formulate arguments and opinions as a historian would. 

Unfortunately, this is how most students feel when stuck in history class because they're lecture based courses that bore students to death. This experience is something that most of us are familiar with in any course though. There is an issue when it comes to how educators formulate lesson plans in any class, and this video as vulgar as it is perfectly describes how education desperately needs reform. 

The development of reading and comprehension skills is a complex and difficult process that I do not believe has an efficient and effective guideline. As demonstrated with this article, students who are performing lower than their colleagues are often placed in courses that offer easier alternatives to reading and comprehending material. Rosa, the 9th grade student offers insight into her classroom as, "you didn't have to read. It was something that you could like slide by without them knowing. I don't know if they cared or not, but that's the way everybody did it" (Lee 17). This excerpt proves that there is an issue in our school system, and I couldn't agree more. Aside from reading for a specific discipline, it is without a doubt more important to demonstrate general strategies for reading and writing, as well as to challenge those that need the most help. Following the Lee and Sprately article, I felt hopeful because the issue was at least being raised, and the article provided evidence of school reform. However, can every student achieve success through the use of Content Enhancement Routines? Is the Disciplinary Literacy Project at LRDC as successful as this article portrays it? Just by questioning the article, I've proved I can at least apply one characteristic of a general reading strategy demonstrated in this article and our class. This gives me hope that maybe I can one day demonstrate these skills to students, and then hopefully teach them how to analyze texts as a historian...but I'm a pessimist.