Research School Network: Curriculum Conversations: Designing for Depth and Breadth through Disciplinary Literacy Curriculum Conversations, Disciplinary Literacy

This was how I opened our first professional development session with colleagues as we began to re-examine reading across the school. At the time, we had recently launched a three-year strategic plan with eight core ambitions, one of which was a Literacy Curriculum that Empowers All.

Our initial priority was cultural rather than technical. We focused deliberately on winning hearts and minds: ensuring that colleagues understood why reading matters and recognised that it is the responsibility of every adult in the school. This reflects a key principle from the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) Implementation Guidance Report, which highlights that successful implementation depends on shared understanding, staff buy-in and a supportive professional culture.

We were explicit that reading is not solely a route to academic success. It is central to improving behaviour and wellbeing, addressing social disadvantage, developing empathy, fostering enjoyment and helping young people to develop a sense of identity and agency. Establishing this shared moral purpose was an essential foundation for the work that followed.

This stage was relatively straightforward. The greater challenge was deciding where to begin. Initially, we focused on supporting struggling readers and on strengthening reading for pleasure. While important, we were clear that this was only part of the picture. We believed that disciplinary literacy — the distinct ways in which reading, writing and language operate within different subjects — would have the greatest impact for the majority of our students.

Although this blog focuses on one strand of our disciplinary literacy work, its wider purpose is to explore how we approached implementation. At Wales, we implement complex strategies over a three-year period. This allows time to build habits, develop expertise and secure sustained change, closely aligning with the EEF’s view that implementation is a process rather than a single event. We often describe this approach as ​‘low and slow’: introducing change carefully, building it incrementally and refining it over time so that it becomes embedded in everyday classroom practice.

We were confident about the importance of disciplinary literacy. As Amanda Spielman noted, ​“reading with fluency is the gateway to almost all learning. Without reading, there is little science, no history, no geography.” However, we also recognised its complexity.
Shanahan and Shanahan argue that many schools rely on ​‘content area reading’ approaches, which promote generic reading strategies that are applied uniformly across subjects. While such strategies have value, they risk obscuring the fact that different disciplines require different ways of reading, interpreting and constructing meaning. Instead, Shanahan and Shanahan advocate for ​“more explicit guidance… to understand the specialised ways that literacy works” within individual subjects.

This resonated strongly with us. Our starting point for any curriculum development is to build strong professional knowledge, drawing on academic and empirical evidence. We visited schools and explored existing approaches to disciplinary literacy, many of which focused on whole-school reading strategies such as inference, questioning and prediction. Although useful, we felt that these approaches alone were insufficient to develop students’ fluency and understanding within subject-specific contexts.

In the longer term, we knew we needed a coherent approach to reading within subjects. In the shorter term, we wanted a clear, manageable whole-school focus that would respect disciplinary differences while building shared practice.

Like many schools, we engaged closely with Alex Quigley’s Closing the Vocabulary Gap and the EEF’s Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools guidance report. The EEF is explicit that vocabulary is a critical component of disciplinary literacy and recommends that teachers provide ​“explicit vocabulary instruction to help students access and use academic language.”

Vocabulary plays a dual role: it enables students to access complex texts and supports the development and expression of subject knowledge. Without secure command of disciplinary vocabulary, students are less able to read fluently, think precisely or participate fully in classroom discourse.
We therefore decided that vocabulary would be our starting point for disciplinary literacy. This became Building Word Power.

Building Word Power is underpinned by the belief that language is both powerful and enabling. A rich, secure vocabulary allows students to unlock meaning, build knowledge and engage more confidently with disciplinary thinking. This aligns closely with the EEF’s emphasis on making the language of learning explicit rather than assuming that students will acquire it implicitly.

LWe worked carefully to design a classroom approach that was clear, consistent and evidence-informed. We chose to use the Frayer model, adapting the ​‘non-examples’ section so that students instead applied their understanding by writing the word accurately in a sentence.

Departments identify four to six ​‘unlocking’ words per half-term within each scheme of work. These words are knowledge-rich and predominantly Tier 3, closely tied to disciplinary concepts. Teachers use Lexonik Wordology to explore precise definitions and morphology, selecting and adapting this information to ensure it is relevant and meaningful within their subject context.

Vocabulary instruction is introduced explicitly and sequentially. Teachers check for prior knowledge, rehearse pronunciation using an ​‘I say, you say’ approach, explain morphology and meaning, and provide examples before students apply their understanding in writing. This reflects the EEF’s guidance that effective vocabulary instruction should be explicit, carefully scaffolded and embedded within subject teaching rather than treated as an isolated activity.

While the approach itself mattered, how we implemented it mattered more. The EEF’s Implementation Guidance Report emphasises the importance of careful planning, sequencing and ongoing support to ensure that new practices are used well and sustained over time.

Before launching Building Word Power, we followed a structured, phased approach.
During Years 1 and 2, we focused on research, development and refinement. This included engaging with evidence, visiting schools, designing the classroom model, sharing and trialling it with senior leaders, middle leaders and the Teaching & Learning group, and refining it based on feedback. We invested heavily in professional development, with CPD focused on reading, early reading and phonics, morphology, and the relationship between vocabulary, knowledge and disciplinary understanding. Middle leaders received additional training to support subject-specific implementation.
Crucially, we protected curriculum development time: three 90-minute sessions for departments to work collaboratively on identifying key vocabulary, integrating it into schemes of work and developing high-quality resources. This time was essential in ensuring clarity, consistency and quality.

By Year 3, Building Word Power was ready for full implementation. By this point, colleagues had experienced sustained CPD and had the opportunity to develop their curricula. We often describe our leadership approach as ​‘tight – loose – tight’. Initially, we are tight on principles, purpose and non-negotiables: in this case, our shared vision for reading, disciplinary literacy and explicit vocabulary instruction. We then allow greater flexibility, enabling colleagues to adapt and embed the approach within their subjects. Finally, we tighten again by observing practice, speaking to staff and students, and evaluating impact.

This process led to refinements, such as subject-specific adaptations of the Frayer model, while preserving the core principles underpinning Building Word Power. By establishing shared understanding and practice first, we created the conditions for flexibility without losing coherence. This balance has been key to ensuring that the approach is both effective and sustainable.