Gayle Thieman, Portland State UniversitySusan Lenski, Portland State UniversityNational Council for Social Studies CUFA

December 1, 2011

Research Questions

How do secondary social studies pre-service teachers incorporate literacy strategies in their student teaching Work Samples?

To what extent and under what conditions do secondary social studies pre-service teachers use higher levels of literacy strategies in their Work Samples?

What are the implications of this research for teacher preparation that seeks to challenge the status quo of lowered literacy expectations for marginalized students?

Literacy in social studies (NCSS, 2010)

Sequence eventsDifferentiate fact vs. opinion

Compare similarities and differences

Analyze cause and effect

Explore complex patterns

Evaluate sources for credibility and validity

Use variety of media to access, create, and present information

Interpret and analyze diverse historical and contemporary perspectives

Literacy Strategies (Lee & Spratley, 2010)Activate prior knowledgeBuild vocabularyLearn to deconstruct complex sentencesUse knowledge of text structures and genres to predict main ideas

Map graphic representations against explanations

Pose relevant questionsCompare claims across textsEvaluate evidence and claims

ContextLarge Pacific Northwest university that prepares 120 secondary teachers yearly in a cohort-based post baccalaureate program

Fall term prior to student teachingContent area reading strategies classIntro social studies methods class

Winter term prior to student teaching IIAdvanced social studies methods course

Data Sources16 secondary pre-service teachers

o 12 Work Sample I o 15 Work Sample IIo 27 Work Samples Totalo (classroom context, lesson plans, instructional materials, reflections on teaching the lessons, attention to literacy,)

o Work Sample I: 2-3 weeks of lessons in ST I

o Work Sample II: 4-5 weeks of lessons in ST II

Qualitative document analysis (Altheide, Coyle, DeVriese, & Schneider, 2010)

Constant Comparative (Corbin & Strauss, 2007)

Read and coded Work Samples individually, met weekly to compare coding, 95% agreement, came to consensus on differences

1. Generated categories using open coding2. Selected categories within a literacy

model (axial coding) 3. Connected the categories (selective

coding)

Analysis: What is literacy?First, we had to agree on what is a literacy strategy

in social studies instruction.

Used existing literature to develop list of 28 literacy strategies

Applied the strategies to five modalities: reading (digital and print) writing, speaking, listening, viewing

Higher level activities: Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 2005)

Steps of Analysis

Developed a chart for each work sampleAnalyzed each literacy event: specific literacy activity

Summarized literacy activitylabel countries on a map

Identified corresponding literacy termLabel map

Decided the DOK level of the literacy activity (1-4)I Recall

Low DOK levels

I RecallLabel mapDefine vocabularyRecall information

Take notesDraw representation

II Skill/ConceptsIdentify patternsSummarize information

Make predictionsOrganize information

Compare/contrastInterpret historical document

High DOK LevelsIII Strategic ThinkingAnalyze consequences

Evaluate policy proposals

Develop logical argument

Debate merits of proposal

Draw conclusions

IV Extended ThinkingSynthesize information from multiple sources

Create new understanding

Apply concepts in novel ways

Findings: Number of Literacy EventsNumber of literacy events increased from Student Teaching I to Student Teaching IIWS I: mean 24; range 11-40 (part-time)

WS II: mean 29; range 10-44 (full-time)

Higher mean of literacy events in the ST II work sample may be due to increased number of lessons or increased experience and confidence in lesson design

Findings: DOK Level of Literacy Strategies

Level 1 strategies decreased a little from WS I to WS IIWS I Level 1 Mean: 26% range 6%-46%WS II Level 1 Mean: 23% range 9%-33%

Level III, IV strategies increased from WS I and WSII

WS I Level III, IV Mean: 22% range 0-60%

WS II Level III,IV Mean: 29% range 15%-48%

Findings: DOK Level varied with classroom contexts

Some candidates teaching in high poverty schools (>40% FRL) had higher percentages of Level 1 strategies (> 30%)

A few candidates teaching in high poverty schools (>40% FRL) had higher percentages of Level III,IV strategies (>40%)

Most capable graduate students Higher level literacy strategies were more frequent in WS II

Most candidates teaching in low poverty schools had higher percentages of Level III, IV strategies

Candidates who taught younger students used more Level 1 strategies >30%.

Candidates who taught both Work Samples in the same school decreased their percentages of Level 1 strategies.

Implications for Further ResearchDevelop shared definitions of literacy and shared vocabulary of literacy strategies.

Collaborate on common literacy assignments.Explicitly teach candidates how to incorporate higher level thinking and strategies, especially with students in high-poverty/high diversity classrooms.

All of the Work Samples included a variety of primary documents and texts. Teach candidates how to match text difficulty with student literacy ability.