This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 04 October 2014, At: 13:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

Preparing Novice HistoryTeachers to Meet Students’Literacy NeedsJeffery D. Nokes aa Department of History , Brigham Young University ,Provo, UtahPublished online: 02 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Jeffery D. Nokes (2010) Preparing Novice History Teachersto Meet Students’ Literacy Needs, Reading Psychology, 31:6, 493-523, DOI:10.1080/02702710903054923

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710903054923

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Reading Psychology, 31:493–523, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702710903054923

PREPARING NOVICE HISTORY TEACHERS TO MEETSTUDENTS’ LITERACY NEEDS

JEFFERY D. NOKESDepartment of History, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

In spite of calls for increased literacy instruction in secondary content classes,there appears to be little change in practice. One reason for this may be thatcontent area literacy courses inadequately prepared teachers to teach literacyskills specific to their content area. This article describes a program that embedscontent area literacy instruction in a methods course taken by preservice historyteachers. In this course, teaching candidates explore issues of literacy specific tohistory classrooms. Candidates’ written reflections, examination responses, andcourse evaluations reveal the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositionsnecessary to include literacy instruction in history classes.

In recent years there have been increased efforts to include lit-eracy instruction in secondary content area classes (Shanahan &Shanahan, 2008; Snow, 2002; Vacca & Vacca, 2005). For quitesome time much attention has been paid to improving the read-ing of young, elementary students. But there is some indicationthat “early reading skills do not automatically develop into morecomplex skills that enable students to deal with the specializedand sophisticated reading of literature, science, history, and math-ematics” (Shanahan & Shanahan, p. 43), the kinds of texts en-countered in secondary settings. There is a need for continuedand specialized literacy instruction within each secondary contentarea.

The call for content area literacy instruction is going outfrom a variety of sources. Literacy specialists and school admin-istrators have urged every teacher to be a reading teacher inan effort to raise schools’ reading test scores. In addition, re-searchers and literacy advocates contend that improving students’literacy within a content area will increase the learning of content(Snow, 2002; Tovani, 2004; Vacca & Vacca, 2005). For example,

Address correspondence to Jeffery D. Nokes, Department of History, Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: jeff nokes@byu.edu

493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

494 J. D. Nokes

Stahl and Shanahan (2005) argued that history instruction shouldinclude explicit instruction in strategies for thinking criticallyabout evidence found in historical documents. With improved lit-eracy skills, they contend, history students will engage with his-torical ideas in a more sophisticated manner and will develop aricher understanding of history. Researchers propose that con-tent area teachers, as content experts, are the best teachers forliteracy within a discipline area (Nokes, Dole, & Hacker, 2007;Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Snow). In spite of these calls forincreased content area literacy instruction, the RAND ReadingStudy Group claims that there is little literacy instruction takingplace in most content area classrooms (Snow).

One reason for the lack of literacy instruction in contentclasses may be that content area teachers are inadequately pre-pared to provide it. Many teacher preparation programs requirecandidates from various disciplines to take a course in contentarea literacy. In this course, concepts such as reading , literacy, andtexts are typically treated in a general way, discounting the spe-cialized notions of literacy that exist in different discipline ar-eas (Nokes et al., 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Researchshows that the content area literacy course tends to be unpopularwith teacher candidates and does little to improve literacy instruc-tion in content area classrooms (Nourie & Lenski, 1998). More-over, when prospective secondary teachers take methods coursesin their specific disciplines, they may receive instruction that con-tradicts what is taught in the content area literacy course (Draper,2002). For example, some methods textbooks implicitly discour-age the use of reading activities in favor of more hands-on or dis-covery approaches to learning (Draper). Is there a better way toprepare prospective content area teachers to provide literacy in-struction for their students?

Some teacher preparation programs are changing the waycontent area literacy is taught. For example, at one university,ongoing collaboration between literacy experts, content area ex-perts, and secondary teachers is revealing differences in the wayreading is perceived in different content areas. This team has an-alyzed experts’ reading in order to discover the reading strate-gies commonly used by historians, chemists, and mathematicians.In collaboration they have devised instructional strategies thatare appropriate within these disciplines (Shanahan & Shanahan,2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 495

This article will describe a different teacher education pro-gram where efforts are being made to prepare secondary socialstudies teachers to teach content area literacy. Brigham YoungUniversity (BYU) does not offer a general content area literacycourse for prospective secondary teachers. Instead, a content arealiteracy specialist works with methods instructors to help themdevelop appropriate means for addressing content area literacywithin the methods courses designed for their specific disciplines(Draper et al., 2007). This article will describe how a secondarysocial studies methods instructor at BYU, in coordination with thecontent area literacy specialist, has revised his practice to includeliteracy as a theme throughout the methods course and duringthe concurrent practicum experience of teacher candidates.

The determination to revise the methods course was made asa result of the author’s voluntary participation in a “content arealiteracy study group” made up of teacher educators from the fieldsof art, history, math, music, reading, and science. This group, ledby a content area literacy specialist, met twice a month for 2 yearsto discuss common and unique features of literacy across the dis-ciplines. Members of this group worked together to increase theirunderstanding of literacy in their respective fields and to findways to include content area literacy instruction in their methodscourses. It should also be noted that the author’s doctoral workhad focused on literacy in history and that he had taught a generalcontent area literacy course at another institution. As a result hewas eager, and had the background necessary, to follow throughwith the ideas generated in collaboration with the study group.This article addresses the research question: Does this integrationof content area literacy instruction into a methods course buildthe knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for new social stud-ies teachers to provide literacy instruction in their classrooms?

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were the teacher candidates en-rolled in Methods of Teaching Social Studies courses taught bythe author over six consecutive semesters. Average enrollment inthe course was 14.8 candidates in each section with one or two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

496 J. D. Nokes

sections each semester. Data were collected from 119 teacher can-didates, including 32 males and 87 females. Participants in thestudy enrolled in the course near the completion of the teachereducation program, many needing only to complete one semesterof student teaching before graduating and being certified toteach.

Program Description

Although the focus of this article is on the methods course anda concurrent practicum experience, the academic context is rel-evant. BYU offers two types of teaching certificates for prospec-tive social studies teachers, a social studies composite and ahistory teaching certification, both of which emphasize history in-struction. Because most social studies teachers teach some historyclasses, and because of the growing body of research on teach-ing historical literacy to secondary students (Britt & Aglinskas,2002; De La Paz, 2005; Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001; Nokeset al., 2007; Wineburg, 1991), most of the content area literacyinstruction that is included in the methods course focuses on his-torical literacy or relevant general literacy strategies. This focuson historical literacy allows the methods instructor to explore indepth the concepts of texts, literacy, and reading as they are un-derstood within the field of history. Teacher candidates who an-ticipate teaching in other social studies fields are encouraged touse historical literacy as a model and to make appropriate adjust-ments for their political science, geography, psychology, sociology,or economics classes.

There are two stages in helping candidates develop the abil-ity to teach historical literacy to their students. First, candidatesthemselves must understand the content-specific reading strate-gies that are useful in history and must begin to develop the abilityto engage in historical inquiry. Second, candidates must considerpedagogical methods that will help their students become morehistorically literate. The coursework required of prospective so-cial studies teachers is designed to support them through thesetwo stages. Prior to being admitted into the history or social stud-ies education program, students must complete some of their his-tory coursework, including a course titled “The Historians Craft.”In The Historian’s Craft candidates explore historiography and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 497

the tools of inquiry used by historians. In a subsequent coursestudents are required to write an original research paper usingthese tools of inquiry. As a result of this coursework, the prospec-tive social studies teachers have typically developed some basicskills in historical inquiry at the time that they take the methodscourse.

Although candidates may be in the process of becoming his-torically literate themselves, research shows that expertise in anarea does not automatically translate into the ability to teachthat content to others (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Themethods course, with a concurrent practicum experience, is in-tended to help teacher candidates consider ways that the skillsthat they are in the process of developing themselves can betaught to the students they will be working with as teachers.

Course Description

The Methods of Teaching Social Studies course taken by teachercandidates includes instruction on learning theories, planning, as-sessment, and models of instruction. In addition, the concept ofliteracy is considered throughout the course, with several class ses-sions devoted to literacy. Roughly one third of the time and read-ings of the three-semester-hour course are devoted exclusively toissues of literacy in history. There are four main literacy-relatedefforts. First, candidates are taught explicitly to select appropriatetypes of texts. Second, candidates are taught explicitly research-based instructional strategies that improve students’ abilities tonegotiate historical texts. Third, effective literacy instruction ismodeled with each reading assignment given in the methods class.Fourth, students are asked to consider and apply what they havelearned in the methods class during a concurrent field experi-ence. Each of these four elements of the class will be explained.

TYPES OF TEXTSSeveral class sessions are devoted to improving candidates’

awarenesses of the text resources that are available, appropriate,and effective in teaching history. Candidates are encouraged toask Tatum’s question, “Out of all of the reading materials in theworld, why was this reading selection chosen . . . ?” (Tatum, 2007,p. 188) for each text they use.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

498 J. D. Nokes

One class period is spent discussing textbook-related is-sues including criteria for selecting a textbook (readability tests,courteous text, text structure, etc.); students’ tendencies to beuncritical of the textbook; teachers’ tendencies toward overre-liance on the textbook; and the problems related to textbookuse in history classrooms. For example, it is pointed out that theway textbooks are typically used creates a distorted image of thediscipline of history in the minds of secondary students (Bain,2005; Stahl & Shanahan, 2005). Students who work solely with thetextbook begin to view historical thinking as passive, with theirprimary responsibility being to remember what they read ratherthan to actively construct understanding as historians do (Paxton,2002, Wineburg, 1991). It is pointed out that many of the sameproblems associated with textbooks are also experienced whenstudents use other forms of expository text including digital re-sources (Nokes, 2008a). Candidates are given a list of research-supported instructional strategies that could be used with thetextbook such as the jigsaw (Aronson, Blaney, Stephin, Sikes, &Snapp, 1978), the predict-o-gram (Allen, 2007), and reciprocalteaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

In addition to spending time discussing expository text, oneclass session is devoted to the use of primary sources such asjournals, letters, speeches, and other historical documents. Asdescribed, the candidates, through their history coursework, aredeveloping the ability to engage in historical inquiry but theyhave typically not spent time thinking about how they can teachthese processes to their students. The class discusses research thatshows that secondary students do not instinctively read multipletexts like historians do (Nokes et al., 2007; Stahl, Hynd, Britton,McNish, & Bosquet, 1996; Wineburg, 1991). In order to facili-tate the teaching of the tools of inquiry to secondary students,the complex process of document analysis is broken down intothree heuristics that historians commonly use: (a) sourcing , theconsideration of a document’s source before reading and the at-tempt to understanding the content of the document with thesource in mind; (b) corroboration, the comparing and contrastingof the contents of multiple documents and other evidence in aneffort to piece together an understanding of an event; and (c)contextualization, the placing of oneself in the specific social, polit-ical, and cultural context of a document’s creation (Wineburg).Candidates consider several different ways that researchers have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 499

investigated teaching these strategies to students (Britt &Aglinskas, 2002; De La Paz, 2005; Ferretti et al., 2001; Nokeset al.). Much of the discussion on the use of primary sources fo-cuses on the usefulness of bringing these types of resources intothe classroom. For example, research has shown that students whoare exposed to documents learn historical content better thanthose who have no such exposure and that those who are taughthistorian’s heuristics in conjunction with document use begin touse sourcing and corroboration independently (Nokes et al.). Inaddition, candidates are given practical ideas that will help themdesign lessons that support students as they work with documentsusing unfamiliar reading strategies (Nokes, 2008b).

Other types of texts are also discussed over several class ses-sions. For example, candidates read the novel Mississippi Trial,1955 (Crowe, 2003) and the novel’s author spends one class ses-sion as a guest speaker, discussing his book and ways that socialstudies teachers can teach with historical fiction. During anothersession the class discusses methods that teachers can use to helpstudents construct meaning with nontraditional texts such as arti-facts, paintings, photographs, architecture, maps, charts, graphs,debates, and political cartoons. During another class the relation-ship between reading and writing is discussed (Beach & O’Brien,2007) and the concept of writing to learn is considered (Klein,1999). Candidates are assigned to create a collection of texts of avariety of types, all related to a single event, and to develop lessonideas for the use of the texts. During one of the last class sessionscandidates share these text sets and discuss effective instructionalstrategies that might be used with them.

RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTIONA second theme that runs through the methods course

is research-based literacy instruction. The class spends timediscussing general reading strategies, such as activating priorknowledge, visualizing, and summarizing. In addition, the classdiscusses discipline-specific reading strategies (Shanahan &Shanahan, 2008) such as sourcing, corroboration, using a maplegend, and contextualization. Students read articles aboutexplicit strategy instruction (Nokes & Dole, 2005) and implicitstrategy instruction (Vacca, 2002), and these instructionalstrategies are discussed in class. Metacognition and its role in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

500 J. D. Nokes

comprehension is considered throughout the discussions ofstrategic reading and strategy instruction.

In addition, theories of motivation are discussed in class, inparticular as they apply to adolescent literacy. It is pointed out,for example, that history classrooms present a particularly ap-propriate context for exposing students to multiple perspectivesof historical events, including the perspectives of those who areoften marginalized in traditional historical writing. Candidatesare encouraged to seek out culturally appropriate materials thatappeal to the diversity of students in their classes. Candidatesconsider methods of increasing motivation by bridging students’out-of-school literacies with academic literacies, such as historicalliteracy, through the production and comprehension of authentictexts in purposeful contexts (Beach & O’Brien, 2007).

MODELING EFFECTIVE LITERACY INSTRUCTIONThe text for the class is a collection of articles and chap-

ters related to theories of learning, effective social studies class-rooms, methods of assessing student work, models of instruction,and literacy-related topics. As each reading assignment is made,a research-supported instructional strategy is modeled. For ex-ample, one of the readings is a research report on higher orderthinking in history classrooms (Newmann, 1990). Undergraduatestudents are often unfamiliar with the structure of research re-ports. Familiarity with this structure can improve comprehension.When candidates are assigned to read this article, the instructordiscusses the structure of research articles and what to expect ineach section. Candidates are given a graphic organizer that makesthe text structure more apparent and helps them organize theirnotes. After making this assignment, candidates are taught thatthe structure of textbooks may be unfamiliar to students, particu-larly middle-school students, and helping them recognize the waya textbook is organized can improve students’ comprehension.

Other outside-of-class reading assignments require studentsto complete a double entry journal, making text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections (Tovani, 2004); complete ananticipation guide before and after reading (Readence, Bean, &Baldwin, 1985); complete graphic organizers; construct their owngraphic organizers; search for the main ideas; write summaries;or engage in other research-supported activities that promote

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 501

reading comprehension. Literacy-related instructional strategiesare also modeled through in-class assignments. For example, inone activity explicit strategy instruction is given on how to makeand critique inferences. Candidates then create observation/inference charts to construct meaning with a historical painting(Nokes, 2008c). In this way candidates receive literacy instructionin connection with the texts they are expected to read, which im-proves their ability to provide literacy instruction to their students(L’Allier & Elish-Piper, 2007).

THE FIELD EXPERIENCECandidates who are enrolled in the social studies methods

course are required to participate in a concurrent field experi-ence. This experience involves the placement of the teacher can-didate with an inservice social studies teacher who serves as a men-tor. The teacher candidate is required to spend approximately35–40 hours in the classroom observing, helping students, eval-uating student work, and teaching. Candidates are asked to writea series of reflective papers on their observations and experiencesin the classroom. One of the most revealing of these papers is a re-flection on the literacy practices that they observe and/or provideduring their field experience.

In sum, the methods course provides explicit instruction onthe effective use of various types of texts and instructional strate-gies, models research-supported literacy instruction, and requirescandidates to reflect on literacy practices they observe or attemptin the field.

Data Sources

Four data sources have been used to assess the effects of embed-ding content area literacy instruction into the content methodscourse. Admittedly, each is potentially biased by power relation-ships between the course instructor and teacher candidates. How-ever, patterns of responses can be analyzed to determine candi-dates’ levels of understanding of, if not their actual dispositionstoward, teaching literacy in the classroom. One data source, read-ing reflections, is a series of open-ended response papers thatare associated with required literacy-related course readings. Forexample, in one instance, candidates were required to read an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

502 J. D. Nokes

article on explicit strategy instruction (Nokes & Dole, 2005) andto prepare a graphic representation of the ideas presented inthe article. This assignment provided data on candidates’ under-standings of literacy-related concepts such as reading strategies,metacognition, and explicit strategy instruction.

Second, the midterm and final examinations include ques-tions related to content area literacy and reading instruction. Forpurposes of analysis, questions on these tests have been catego-rized as knowledge questions, skills and application questions, ordisposition questions. For example, one knowledge question onthe midterm exam asks students to list the four steps in explicitreading strategy instruction. A skills and applications questionasks, “If you were to design a lesson using challenging readingpassages from several documents, what are two things you coulddo to help the students learn from the activity?” This questionis intended to assess candidates’ skills in providing various formsof scaffolding and instruction when asking their students to workwith challenging texts. Disposition questions assess candidates’ at-titudes about including literacy instruction in a social studies class.The number of knowledge, skills, and disposition questions var-ied by semester with the number of knowledge questions rangingfrom 3 to 6, skills and application questions from 2 to 3, and dis-position questions from 1 to 2. For a complete list of the midtermand final examination questions and the criteria for evaluatingcandidates’ responses see Appendix A.

A paper, written during candidates’ practicum experience, isa third data source. In the guidelines for this practicum literacypaper, candidates are given numerous prompts asking them todiscuss the types of texts that they observed being used, how thetextbook and other resources were used, what types of reading as-signments were made, how often students were asked to read inthe class, whether explicit or implicit reading strategy instructionwas provided, students’ reactions to reading assignments, and stu-dents’ motivation to read. In addition, the candidates are asked toreflect on their future teaching practices. For example, what willbe the nature of the literacy instruction that they provide basedon their practicum observations and experiences? These papersreveal much about what the students recognize as texts, literacy,and reading and their feelings toward literacy in social studiesclassrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 503

Additionally, the course evaluations that candidates completeat the end of the semester provide a fourth data source on the ef-fectiveness of the methods course. One of the complaints that hasbeen raised about traditional content area literacy courses is thatthey are unpopular with prospective teachers (Nourie & Lenski,1998). The course evaluations reveal whether prospective socialstudies teachers are critical of the methods course when elementsof content area literacy are included.

Analysis

In practice-based research the line between research and prac-tice often becomes blurred (Borko, Liston, & Whitcomb, 2007).Such was the case in this study. The course instructor originally an-alyzed candidates’ responses to literacy-related readings, answerson the midterm and final exams, and reflective papers in an effortto assign students grades and to improve the course. When the in-structor began to realize that the findings might be of interestto others, a more formal process of open coding was conducted(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A brief description of the coding systemfor each data source will be given.

READING REFLECTIONSStudents’ responses to reading assignments were evaluated

using a Reading Reflection Coding Sheet (see Appendix B). Eachresponse was assigned a value of very good understanding, goodunderstanding, inadequate understanding, or poor understand-ing, based on the presence or absence of the indicators listedon the coding sheet. Once the papers had been evaluated us-ing the coding sheet, a second evaluation was conducted search-ing for patterns in students’ responses. It was found that patternswere more a product of the content of the reading than students’knowledge, skills, or dispositions, so no further analysis was con-ducted.

MIDTERM AND FINAL EXAMINATION QUESTIONSLiteracy-related questions on students’ midterm and final ex-

aminations were graded using the Midterm and Final Exam Ques-tions and Scoring Guide (see Appendix A). For each question the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

504 J. D. Nokes

answers were categorized as very good, good, inadequate, or poor.Once grades had been established, a second evaluation was con-ducted to search for patterns in students’ responses. During thissecond evaluation a process of open coding was followed, with re-curring regularities being noted (Guba, 1978; Strauss & Corbin,1990). Data were categorized and further evaluated until generalstatements could be made about the trends that were commonas well as patterns that were less common but still existent in thedata.

PRACTICUM LITERACY PAPERSCandidates’ descriptions of the literacy practices they ob-

served or used with students were evaluated using an open cod-ing system. The open-ended prompt allowed students to explorevarious topics of their own choosing. Eventually, and in workingwith a second evaluator, four categories of responses were recog-nized and indicators were developed for each category (see Ap-pendix C). Candidates’ understandings were rated as very good,good, inadequate, or poor in each category, or a fifth rating of“no indicator” was used when a student’s focus did not includeany items related to a category. Patterns of responses from onesemester to the next were used to find weaknesses in the methodscourse and changes were made to the course based on those pat-terns. Evolving patterns of responses over the six semesters of thisstudy provided feedback on the effectiveness of changes in thecourse. Once the coding system had been formalized, a secondreader evaluated 23% of the papers in order to assess the reliabil-ity of the course instructor and the coding system. In a point-by-point analysis the evaluators gave the same rating in 84% of casesand were within one rating on 97% of cases. Discussion betweenevaluators resolved differences in every case.

COURSE EVALUATIONSStudents’ end-of-semester course evaluations were informally

compared to those of students in all courses at BYU, all coursesin the Department of Teacher Education, and all similar methodscourses across disciplines.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 505

Results

Reading Reflections

One hundred and thirteen of the 119 candidates demonstrated agood or very good understanding of literacy-related instructionalstrategies on all of their reading reflections, with 36 candidatesshowing a very good understanding. For example, after readingan article on explicit strategy instruction one candidate prepareda graphic representation of the reading process by drawing anillustration that she labeled “Metacognition Factory of a GoodReader” (see Figure 1). The illustration showed a person engaged

FIGURE 1 A teaching candidate’s graphic representation of strategic reading.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

506 J. D. Nokes

in reading. Little people inside the reader’s head recognized abreakdown of comprehension and called for the use of a com-prehension strategy. A reading strategy was selected from a collec-tion of many potential strategies and put into use to fix the break-down. This student’s diagram revealed an awareness of many con-cepts that are essential in understanding the reading process ofstrategic readers, including metacognition, monitoring compre-hension, reading strategy, and strategy selection. Although not allof the candidates’ responses to this reading assignment revealedthe same sophistication of understanding, almost 95% of the re-sponses revealed a good or very good understanding of literacy-related issues.

Midterm and Final Examinations

KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONSEvidence exists that candidates possess a rich knowledge base

in content area literacy pedagogy. For example, candidates’ testscores showed that 93% had a very good or good understand-ing of the stages involved in explicit reading strategy instruction.Moreover, many of their responses revealed a high level of sophis-tication in their understanding of the stages, particularly modelingand guided practice. For example, one candidate described model-ing in the following way. “The teacher . . . shows [students] how tothink through it. The teacher [does] this by reading the text andthinking out loud to the students. The students see the invisiblethought process that is used in this strategy.” Another candidatewrote, “Do the strategy in front of them. Think out loud, so theycan see what should be going on in your head. Make the invisibleprocesses visible for them.” Almost 70% of the students describedthe need to demonstrate the thought processes involved in strategicreading by thinking aloud. Most researchers suggest that these arethe key elements of modeling (Pressley, 2002).

When describing guided practice, only about half of the can-didates used the term scaffolding , but over 80% gave examplesof scaffolding. For instance, one candidate wrote, “Students aregiven cues, examples, work in groups, or are given steps to com-plete the strategy. The teacher is available and also acts as a guideto help the students learn it.” Another wrote, “Allow students topractice their new skill with scaffolding that can be removed later.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 507

With few exceptions, students listed numerous forms of scaffold-ing that teachers can provide during guided practice.

Another knowledge question asked candidates to list two lit-eracy strategies that would help students comprehend historicaldocuments. As described earlier, historians employ sourcing, cor-roboration, and contextualization when working with documents.At least one of these historians’ strategies was listed by 93% of thecandidates, with the remaining 7% listing general reading strate-gies such as questioning and summarizing. These results are par-ticularly revealing because it is very unlikely that the historians’strategies would be considered in general content area literacycourses that are not designed specifically for history or social stud-ies teachers.

SKILLS AND APPLICATION QUESTIONSOne of the skills questions asked candidates to tell how they

would help students learn from an activity that involved multiplechallenging historical texts. The responses typically fit into threecategories, with some candidates providing answers in all cate-gories. First, candidates wrote about the value of teaching readingstrategies for dealing with difficult texts. Several suggested that theteacher take time to teach specific strategies, such as sourcing ornote-taking, that might help the students make sense of the con-tent. Second, candidates wrote about instructional strategies theywould use to help the students comprehend. For example, severalcandidates wrote that they would take the time to discuss diffi-cult vocabulary or build background knowledge before assigningthe reading. One candidate added that it would be important touse formative assessments during the activity to monitor the stu-dents’ frustration levels and learning. Third, several candidateswrote about different types of scaffolding that they would pro-vide. One suggested that they might “give them scaffolded work-sheets” with the structure of the documents outlined in skeletonform, also suggesting that certain parts of the texts could be high-lighted or underlined to help students know where to concentratetheir attention. Another candidate discussed placing students inmixed-level groups so that those who were more proficient couldhelp those who struggled to comprehend. Without exception,candidates’ responses to this question revealed a repertoire of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

508 J. D. Nokes

reading strategies, instructional strategies, or scaffolding thatcould be used to help students deal with challenging texts.

DISPOSITION QUESTIONSCandidates were asked to respond to the following prompt:

“Teachers have a limited amount of time with their students. Isit a mistake for history teachers to take a significant amount oftime away from the content instruction to teach important read-ing strategies? Why or why not?” In no instance did candidatesrespond that it would be a mistake to take time to teach read-ing strategies, although some gave certain conditions for doingso. Candidates’ responses were categorized into three areas, withsome responses fitting into more than one category. The mostcommon type of response, given by 77% of candidates, said sim-ply that teaching reading strategies was not a mistake. Many can-didates argued that students would forget many of the facts thatthey were taught, but the reading skills that they developed wouldhelp them become lifelong learners. For example, one candidatewrote,

High school is a preparatory school for life—whether that be additionalschooling, a vocation, or neither. In all of these situations individuals meeta diversity of texts on a daily basis which they will need to read to makesense of in order to function in society. (i.e., political campaign reviews,tax forms, newspaper articles/cartoons, etc.). Students who learn skillsthat will improve comprehension, retention, and help them to identifymeaning, structure, and bias will be benefited in any future situation theymay find themselves in life.

A second type of response, given by 31% of candidates, sug-gested that teachers should balance content instruction and read-ing instruction. Most argued that it would not take a significantamount of time to conduct mini-lessons on reading strategiesfrom time to time. One candidate wrote,

I believe there is a balance in all things. . . . In the end, I believe that theteacher actually saves time in the classroom because the teacher can en-gage the class in meaningful discussion instead of spending time explain-ing what the text was about.

Another wrote,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 509

The key word, to me, is “significant.” I do not think teachers should neces-sarily take a great deal of time away from content to teach reading strate-gies. . . . However, I do think it is wise for teachers to take some time toteach these skills.

The third type of response, given by 23% of candidates, sug-gested that reading instruction should be embedded in contentinstruction. Teachers did not need to choose either literacy in-struction or content instruction, but activities could be designedthat teach strategies while working with content. For example, onecandidate wrote, “Students will be able to understand history dif-ferently and deeper if they can read critically. . . . Because theyquestion the reading they begin to see history differently. . . .”One student suggested that he would prefer to occasionally teachstrategies explicitly but more commonly “teach [strategies] invis-ibly with good assignments that require strategies.” In sum, all ofthe candidates demonstrated a disposition toward providing lit-eracy instruction in their classrooms. Some suggested that teach-ers should seek a balance of literacy and content instruction andothers proposed that literacy instruction could be embedded incontent instruction.

Practicum Literacy Papers

Papers written about literacy observed or engaged in during thecandidate’s practicum reveal much about their attitudes abouttexts, reading, and literacy. Four patterns emerged in these pa-pers: (a) an awareness of literacy and literacy instruction, (b) anawareness of various types of texts, (c) an awareness of students’literacy identities, and (d) a disposition to include literacy instruc-tion in their classrooms.

AN AWARENESS OF LITERACY AND LITERACY INSTRUCTIONOne of the patterns that emerged across candidates’ literacy

papers was their awareness of the presence or absence of liter-acy instruction. It was common for candidates to criticize literacyactivities and lament a lack of literacy instruction. Overall, 66%of candidates expressed a general dissatisfaction with the type ofreading they observed. For example, one candidate described:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

510 J. D. Nokes

Students would only use reading they were given to finish assignments, notto actually really learn much. They would flip through books looking forhighlighted vocabulary words that were in their worksheets just to finishthe assignment.

Some candidates were critical of the lack of reading activities alltogether, one reporting that reading activities were “few and farbetween.” Another reported that “[the teacher] gives them thetextbooks and then never expects them to actually use them.”

In a couple of instances candidates praised activities that theyobserved. For example, in one geography class, the teacher tooka few minutes each day to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(Twain, 2003). This teacher skillfully wove themes of geographyaround the events of the story. The candidate wrote,

It was particularly interesting to watch how the teacher incorporated infor-mation throughout the novel to the five themes of geography and wouldperiodically indulge in classroom discussion regarding the novel . . . apply-ing geography terms and emphasizing what they were learning from theclassroom into an everyday scenario.

The most complimentary papers described an eighth-gradeU.S. history teacher as he taught students how to preview a text-book chapter. One student described the following:

He modeled this by having each of the students follow along with him ashe read each of the [headings] and looked at the pictures. . . . He taughtthem that when readers preview they can recall certain information fromtheir background knowledge. This allows each of the students to connectthe [headings] and information from the textbook with previously heldknowledge so that they can build on and associate with something thateach of the students already know. He taught them that this is how we, asindividuals, learn actively and retain information.

That the two practicum candidates that were with this teacher sim-ilarly recognized this teaching as outstanding literacy instructionreveals much about the effects of the methods class.

AN AWARENESS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF TEXTSCandidates paid a great deal of attention to the types of texts

that teachers used with many criticizing the way teachers usedtextbooks. For example, one candidate wrote, “[Students] did not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 511

seem overly interested in the textbook, outside of the interest thatstems from knowing that there is a test coming up covering thismaterial.” Another explained, “The only reading activity that wasutilized by my cooperating teacher in the classrooms I observedwas for students to read out of the textbook.” Another reported,“The majority of students were not interested in reading abouthistory from a textbook.” On the other hand, this same candidatenoted that “the students were very into reading novels.” Many can-didates commented on the lack of primary source materials thatwere used.

Candidates reported that when reading involved materialsbesides the textbook students’ interest and motivation increased.One candidate reported, “Most students were interested in vari-ous outside articles that added depth to the core curriculum. . . .

As for reading from the text, . . . students did not want to do it.”Another wrote, “Interest goes noticeably down whenever the stu-dents read from the textbook.” Several stated explicitly or implic-itly that they would use more historical fiction in their classrooms.One commented on the use of fiction, suggesting that

I think that the key to improving reading and motivation within a contentarea is to make these personal connections. If you can remember how youfelt while reading something, you remember the details of the situationand you learn more effectively.

Candidates’ perceptions about the textbooks mirror current re-search on textbook use in history classrooms (Paxton, 2002).

In another class the teacher “had oodles and oodles of writ-ten books based on history. The students could pick from a num-ber of books.” The candidate reported that in this class, “studentsliked the readings that they could relate to modern times.” Inter-estingly, this candidate, unlike most of the others, suggested that“the students seemed to comprehend the material well.”

One important finding of this study is that when candidatesare taught to view all historical resources as “texts” and to viewinstruction with these resources as “literacy instruction” they be-gin to have a different view of the role of history teachers. Inthe first five semesters of this study, in spite of some efforts toexpand candidates’ notions of texts, candidates’ papers focusedon traditional print texts. In fact, only 7 of the 86 candidates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

512 J. D. Nokes

discussed nontraditional texts prior to the most recent semesterof this study. However, during that semester candidates were ex-plicitly asked to consider all of the resources that they observedbeing used as texts and to reflect on the ways teachers helped stu-dents construct meaning with all types of historical resources. Inresponse, 25 of 27 candidates described a wide range of traditionaland nontraditional texts in their papers. One social studies candi-date transferred ideas about historical texts to the psychology classhe observed. He wrote

The psychology instruction also focused a great deal on “human” liter-acy. The objective for much of the course is to interpret and understandhuman behavior and interactions. . . . [Students] were taught to read theactions of others by seeing, reading, and doing. I felt that this course espe-cially offered a wide variety of texts for the students. . . .

Until this most recent semester there was some question aboutwhether the lack of writing about nontraditional texts was a re-sult of the lack of these types of texts in the classroom or a failureof candidates to recognize these resources as texts. The resultsfrom this final semester suggest that the texts have been thereall along and that a change in the instruction provided in themethods course helped candidates expand their view of texts andliteracy.

AN AWARENESS OF STUDENTS’ LITERACY IDENTITIESOne important finding of this study was that only a handful

of candidates recognized students’ unique literacy identities. Infact, only three candidates discussed the unique literacy needs ofany individual student. One of these wrote in some detail abouta young woman who was an outstanding reader in her native lan-guage but struggled when reading in English. He described effortsthat he made to support her reading of historical documents. Onthe other hand, many candidates considered general class-widetrends in students’ interest and motivation. Some candidates ex-pressed surprise by the students’ lack of motivation to read. Onereported that, “When I graded [an] assignment fewer than halfthe class had actually completed [it].” There were no instancesof candidates acknowledging students’ out-of-school literaciesand only a few weak examples of teachers working to bridge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 513

nonacademic and academic literacies for students. The absenceof such content reveals a serious gap in the literacy instructionprovided in the methods course.

A DISPOSITION TOWARD INCLUDING LITERACY INSTRUCTIONIN THEIR CLASSROOMS

The most common pattern in candidates’ practicum literacypapers was an expression of the value of literacy instruction in his-tory classrooms. For example, one candidate wrote, “It is impera-tive that teachers, especially within the field of history, which reliesheavily on literacy, teach proper skills and reading techniques toimprove the literacy of each one of their students.” This commentwas representative of the feelings of candidates, particularly dur-ing the most recent semester, when 25 of 27 students expressedthe intent of integrating literacy instruction into content instruc-tion. This also substantiates the data obtained from the disposi-tion questions on the examinations.

Course Evaluations

Candidates’ course evaluations were overwhelmingly positive forthe methods course. In all six semesters, the course was eval-uated higher in overall quality than university courses in gen-eral, education-related courses, and methods courses offered inother fields of education. In addition, the evaluation of instruc-tional methods and materials was higher for this course than forother university courses, education-related courses, and methodscourses offered in other fields. Comments students made on theevaluations reflect general positive attitudes about the course, par-ticularly with the practical nature of instruction. The high evalua-tions given for this methods course stand in stark contrast to thegenerally negative reviews given to general content area literacycourses (Nourie & Lenski, 1998).

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of em-bedding content area literacy instruction in a Methods of Teach-ing Social Studies course and a practicum experience. Would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

514 J. D. Nokes

such a course build the knowledge, skills, and dispositions neededfor new social studies teachers to provide literacy instruction intheir classrooms? As practice-based research, this study representsa work in progress. The instructor continues to make revisionsand to further assess the program. Overall, the initial results arepositive with a few notable exceptions. Patterns in candidate’spracticum papers suggest that they recognize a need to changefrom traditional literacy practices, which tend to rely solely on thetextbook, to the use of a wide variety of sources, including docu-ments, historical fiction, and various nonprint texts. This changeis supported by current research on learning in history (Bain,2005; Bransford et al., 2000; Nokes et al., 2007; Stahl & Shanahan,2005). Candidates also recognize the role of literacy instruction inhelping students learn social studies content. They seem to be dis-posed toward including literacy instruction in content instructionas suggested by the RAND reading study group (Snow, 2002). Inaddition, candidates appear to develop the knowledge base andthe skills necessary to provide general and discipline-specific liter-acy instruction to help students comprehend a variety of historicaltexts.

Although the initial findings of this study lead to optimism,they must be understood in the context of the data collection. Asmentioned, power relations between the instructor of the meth-ods course and the candidates may have influenced the data thathave been collected. A more reliable source of data would be ob-servations of the actual classroom practice of social studies teach-ers who have completed the program. In addition, more formalcomparisons of history teachers who have gone through this pro-gram and history teachers who went through more traditionalprograms could be conducted with a focus on the types of textsthey use and the types of literacy instruction and activities thatthey provide. Eventually comparisons of students could be con-ducted to see whether strong claims could be made about the im-pact of teacher preparation programs on students’ developmentof historical literacy.

The ongoing analysis of data has led to several changes tothe methods course, some of which are now showing positive re-sults. For example, there initially appeared to be a need to shiftinstruction from content area reading to content area literacy, witha focus not simply on print materials but on nontraditional texts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 515

such as photographs, maps, charts, graphs, speeches, architecture,and artifacts. As described, changes in the course appear to havehelped resolve this problem, because students in the most recentsemester discussed traditional and nontraditional texts in theirpracticum papers. Second, the results of this study suggest thatchanges should be made to the practicum experience to createan opportunity for candidates to apply literacy strategies in theclassroom. The reflective papers reveal an awareness of literacyissues, but in very few cases did candidates describe their actualexperiences teaching literacy in their practicum classrooms. Fu-ture practicum students may be required to teach literacy-relatedlessons and reflect on the effectiveness of the lessons as part oftheir reflection on content area literacy. In addition, field place-ments for candidates’ practicums should be made with teacherswho value and model literacy instruction such as the eighth-gradeU.S. history teacher described in this paper. Third, the methodsof teaching social studies course is required of all social studies ed-ucation graduates, a few of whom do not intend to teach history.The focus on historical literacy in this methods course precludesan in-depth look at geographic literacy, sociological literacy, eco-nomic literacy, psychological literacy, or the unique literacies ofother social studies content areas. Currently those few studentswho have expertise in other social studies fields are asked to maketheir own interpretations of literacy in their content areas basedon their experiences with historical literacy. There does not ap-pear to be an easy solution to this problem, which is similar tothe problem faced in general content area literacy courses. Thenumber of candidates in social studies fields outside of history istoo small to justify providing a unique methods course in eachfield. This problem is further highlighted by the lack of researchon discipline-specific strategies outside of the fields of history, sci-ence, and math (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). For example, thenotion of psychological literacy has not been studied to the ex-tent that historical literacy has and would be difficult to teach toprospective psychology teachers. Fourth, current literacy researchrecognizes the unique literacy identities of adolescents and theneed to bridge out-of-school literacies with academic literacies.Data from this study suggest that candidates are not prepared torecognize or draw on their students’ literacies to foster contentlearning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

516 J. D. Nokes

In spite of these perceived program needs and the need togather data from the secondary students taught by graduates ofthis program, the data that are currently available suggest thatembedding content area literacy instruction in a social studiesmethods course yields positive results. Candidates appear to bepositively inclined toward content area literacy. They appear tohave developed the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed toinclude literacy instruction in their classrooms. They appear to bein a good position to answer the call for increased content arealiteracy instruction in social studies classrooms.

References

Allen, J. A. (2007, March). Beating the odds: Curriculum, instruction and assessmentthat make a difference. Paper presented at Instructional Leadership in the 21stCentury Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsawclassroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bain, R. B. (2005). “They thought the world was flat?”: Applying the principlesof How People Learn in teaching high school history. In M. S. Donovan &J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History mathematics, and science inthe classroom (pp. 179–213). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Beach, R., & O’Brien, D. G. (2007). Adopting reader and writer stances in under-standing and producing texts. In L. S. Rush, A. J. Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.),Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practice (pp. 217–242).Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007). Genres of empirical research inteacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 3–11.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,mind experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify anduse source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.

Crowe, C. (2003). Mississippi trial, 1955. New York, NY: Speak/Penguin Group.De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strat-

egy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139–156.

Draper, R. J. (2002). Every teacher a literacy teacher? An examination of theliteracy-related messages in secondary methods textbooks. Journal of LiteracyResearch, 34, 357–384.

Draper, R. J., Adair, M., Asay, D., Broomhead, P., Hendrickson, S., Jensen, A.,et al. (2007, November). (Re)imagining content-area literacy instruction: Preparingteachers to support adolescents’ print and non-print literacies. Paper presented atthe National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 517

Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for histori-cal understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24,59–71.

Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational eval-uation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–269.

L’Allier, S. K., & Elish-Piper, L. (2007). “Walking the walk” with teacher edu-cation candidates: Strategies for promoting active engagement with assignedreadings. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 338–353.

Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A ra-tionale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 22(1), 41–56.

Nokes, J. D. (2008a). Aligning literacy practices in secondary history classes withresearch on learning. Middle Grade Research Journal, 3(3), 29–55.

Nokes, J. D. (2008b, October). The evolving concept instructional strategy: Studentsreflecting on their processing of multiple, conflicting historical sources. Paper pre-sented at the National Social Science Association Fall Professional Develop-ment Conference, Albuquerque, NM.

Nokes, J. D. (2008c). The observation/inference chart: Improving students’ abil-ity to make inferences while reading non-traditional texts. Journal of Adolescentand Adult Literacy, 51(7), 538–546.

Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2005). Helping adolescent readers through explicitstrategy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Re-search and practice (pp. 162–182). New York, NY: Guilford.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students touse heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 492–504.

Nourie, B. L., & Lenski, S. D. (1998). The (in)effectiveness of content area lit-eracy instruction for secondary preservice teachers. The Clearing House, 71(6),372–374.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1, 117–175.

Paxton, R. J. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school studentssolving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 197–248.

Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-centurystatus report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:Research-based best practices (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford.

Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1985). Content-area reading: Anintegrated approach (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to ado-lescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1),40–59.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in readingcomprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Reading Study Group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

518 J. D. Nokes

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996).What happens when students read multiple source documents in history?Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430–456.

Stahl, S. A., & Shanahan, C. (2005). Learning to think like a historian: Disci-plinary knowledge through critical analysis of multiple documents. In T. L.Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Research and practice (pp. 94–115).New York: Guilford.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce-dures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Tatum, A. W. (2007). Literacy development in African American males. InL. S. Rush, A. J. Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What re-search reveals for classroom practice (pp. 184–202). Urbana, IL: National Councilof Teachers of English.

Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading: Content comprehension, Grades6–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Twain, M. (2003). The adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Penguin.Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives: Visible and

invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 184–204). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning acrossthe curriculum. Boston: Pearson Education.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on thebreach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal,28, 495–519.

Appendix A: Midterm and Final Exam Questionsand Scoring Guide

(with scoring guidelines printed in italics)

Knowledge Questions

• Name and describe each of the four stages of explicit (visible)strategy instruction.4: Candidate lists each stage correctly and provides a thorough descrip-

tion of how it is accomplished3: Candidate lists the stages but provides weak descriptions2: Candidate incorrectly lists one of the stages or provides no descriptions1: Candidates incorrectly lists two of the stages0: Candidate incorrectly lists three or four of the stages

• List two reading or study strategies that a history teacher couldteach using each of the following types of texts:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 519

◦ Textbook (outlining, note-taking, skimming, setting a purpose forreading, activating background knowledge, critical reading, etc.)

◦ Historical documents (sourcing, corroboration, contextualization,determining relevance, etc.)

◦ Historical literature, poetry, children’s books (distinguishingfact from fiction, contextualization, sourcing, etc.)

◦ Nonprint texts (making observations and inferences, sourcing, cor-roboration, critical reading, etc.)2, 1, or 0: Number of strategies appropriate for the text listed by can-didate

• What are two similarities and two differences between explicit(visible) strategy instruction and implicit (invisible) strategy in-struction?4, 3, 2, 1, or 0: Number of differences and similarities listed

• What are two of the advantages and two of the disadvantages ofusing historical fiction in a social studies classroom?4, 3, 2, 1, or 0: Number of disadvantages and advantages listed

• List and describe three strategies that students should be taughtin order to read primary sources more effectively.3, 2, or 1: The number of strategies that they list (sourcing, corrobora-

tion, contextualization, critical reading, determining relevance, etc.)• Describe a lesson that provides implicit strategy instruction.

3: Names a strategy and describes in some detail how the teacher gets stu-dents to use a strategy without explicitly naming or talking about thestrategy

2: Names a strategy and gives a vague description of the literacy lesson orfails to name the strategy but gives a detailed literacy lesson

1: Gives a weak example or confuses explicit and implicit strategy instruc-tion

0: Fails to list or describe explicit or implicit strategy instruction

Skills/Application Questions

• If you were to design a lesson using challenging reading pas-sages from several documents, what are two things you could doto help students learn more from the activity?2: Gives two research supported instructional strategies to provide direct

instruction (vocabulary instruction), modeling, or scaffolding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

520 J. D. Nokes

1: Gives two research-supported instructional strategies to provide directinstruction (vocabulary instruction), modeling, or scaffolding

0: Gives two research supported instructional strategies to provide directinstruction (vocabulary instruction), modeling, or scaffolding

• Given each of the objectives that a teacher might have in thefollowing situations, list or describe an activity that the teachermight use to reach the objective and write a short explanationwhy that activity would be appropriate.◦ The teacher wants to assess and activate students’ background

knowledge before having them read a passage from theirtextbook.2: Lists an appropriate instructional activity (Know, Want, Learn

[KWL] Chart, skimming, looking at pictures and illustrationsfrom textbook, etc.) and gives a rich description

1: Lists an appropriate instructional activity without a rich descrip-tion

0: Lists an inappropriate instructional activity◦ The teacher wants students to take notes in outline form while

reading a textbook passage but is certain that some studentsin the class do not know how to outline.2: Lists an appropriate instructional activity (explicit strategy instruc-

tion, etc.) and gives a rich description1: Lists an appropriate instructional activity without a rich descrip-

tion0: Lists an inappropriate instructional activity

• What are three guidelines for using the textbook in a social stud-ies class?3, 2, 1, or 0 depending on the number of appropriate guidelines listed

(pay attention to reading level, help students recognize text and usetext structure to support learning, don’t let textbook dictate curricu-lum, give opportunities for students to discuss reading, don’t overuseit, use it as a resource rather than the resource, supplement with pri-mary sources, etc.)

Disposition Questions

• Teachers have a limited amount of time with their students. Isit a mistake for a history teacher to take a significant amountof class time away from content instruction for explicit strategyinstruction? Why or why not?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 521

4: Candidate states an opinion and gives at least three reasons for it, dis-cussing the connection between content and literacy, the importance ofskills for lifelong learning, the value of implicit instruction, or otherliteracy related rationale for their opinion

3: Candidate states an opinion and gives 2 reasons for it2: Candidate states an opinion and gives a weak rationale1: Candidate states an opinion without rationale0: Candidate fails to take a stand

• What are three guidelines for using the textbook in a social stud-ies class?3, 2, 1, or 0 depending on the number of appropriate guidelines listed

(pay attention to reading level, help students recognize text and usetext structure to support learning, don’t let textbook dictate curricu-lum, give opportunities for students to discuss reading, don’t overuseit, use it as a resource rather than the resource, supplement with pri-mary sources, etc.)

Appendix B: Reading Reflection Coding Sheet

Very Good Understanding

• Focuses attention on important and relevant items from the text• Shows no misunderstandings of material• Critically evaluates ideas presented in the material• Shows thorough understanding of main ideas• Integrates material with other concepts studied in class (inter-

text connections)• Uses relevant vocabulary with precision• Finds spontaneous applications for concepts discussed in mate-

rial (instructional applications)

Good Understanding

• Captures most of the main ideas• Shows no misunderstandings• Deals with article in isolation without integrating it with other

concepts studied in class (no intertext connections)• Discusses article on knowledge or comprehension level without

errors• Uncritically accepts ideas from the article

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

522 J. D. Nokes

Inadequate Understanding

• Captures most of the main ideas but misses some importantpoints

• Demonstrates a basic understanding of the article but makesno connections to other readings and does not consider the in-structional implications

• Includes some minor misunderstandings

Poor Understanding

• Misses main points of material• Focuses attention on trivial or irrelevant ideas• Demonstrates numerous misunderstandings• Makes inappropriate connections or finds inappropriate in-

structional implications• Does not try to use new vocabulary introduced in the article

Appendix C: Coding System for Students’ PracticumLiteracy Reflections

1. Addresses literacy instruction:• Very Good/Good

◦ Recognizes examples of explicit or implicit reading strat-egy instruction, including modeling or scaffolding or im-plicit efforts to improve comprehension

◦ Discusses writing instruction or the integration of readingand writing

◦ Notes missed opportunities for literacy instruction or ageneral lack of literacy instruction

◦ Describes literacy lessons he or she provided◦ Notes a specific need for literacy instruction (i.e., students

struggling to comprehend, vocabulary needs)• Poor/Very Poor

◦ Discusses methods/motivations in absence of literacy in-struction (make students accountable, make assignmentsworth more points)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Preparing Novice History Teachers 523

2. Shows awareness of students’ literacy identities, linking aca-demic and nonacademic literacies:• Very Good/Good

◦ Recognizes the role of students’ interests in their literacypractices

◦ Recognizes students’ literacies, both academic and nonaca-demic

◦ Pays attention to the unique needs of individual stu-dents (English-language learners, struggling readers,males/females, etc.)

◦ Notes students’ motivation or lack of motivation• Poor/Very Poor

◦ Complains about the need for accommodations or adapta-tions

3. Pays attention to the types of texts used:• Very Good/Good

◦ Notes the use of a variety of types of texts (textbook, histor-ical fiction, documents, maps, etc.)

◦ Notes the use of nonprint as well as print texts◦ Discusses the absence of certain types of texts◦ Distinguishes between the types of texts

• Poor/Very Poor◦ Fails to recognize work with nonprint texts as literacy re-

lated4. Indicates a disposition to include literacy instruction in their

classroom• Very Good/Good

◦ Discusses the importance of literacy instruction◦ Expresses intent to include literacy instruction in future

teaching◦ Discusses the relationship between content and literacy in-

struction◦ Notes the need for literacy instruction specific to his-

tory/social studies and their responsibility to provide thisinstruction

• Poor/Very Poor◦ Indicates displeasure with demand to include literacy in-

struction in social studies class◦ Indicates intent to not include literacy instruction

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

04

Oct

ober

201

4