This study examined three teachers’ responses to professional development initiatives designed to support them in integrating literacy strategies with their social studies curriculum. Data from participant observation, interviews, archival records, and email exchanges provided insights regarding participants ’ efforts to weave together literacy instruction with content goals. During the three semesters of this investigation, each teacher improved her practice in a distinctive way. Brenda, a veteran eighth grade language arts and social studies teacher, welcomed outside resources to help her strengthen a sense of community. Nancy, a sixth grade language arts and social studies teacher in her fourth year, tapped resources which challenged and supported her students’ content learning through integrated projects. Janice, a first-year seventh grade language arts and social studies teacher, developed innovative, student-centered teaching practices to instruct students explicitly in literacy strategies. Results suggest ways to support different teachers as they integrate literacy with social studies and to nurture professional growth through instructional coaching and collaboration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (2000). What Really Matters for Struggling Readers. New York: University Press.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
3.
AllingtonR. L., & CunninghamP. M. (2002). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
AndersonL. H. (2002). Fever 1793. New York: Aladdin.
5.
BlachowiczC. L. Z., BuhleR., OgleD., FrostS., CorreaA., &KinnerJ. D. (2010). Hit the ground running: Ten ideas for preparing and supporting urban literacy coaches. Reading Teacher (63) 5, 348-359.
6.
BislandB. M., O’ConnorE.A., & Malow-IroffM. S. (2009, November). Beliefs and issues in social studies instructional practices: A case study of alternately certified elementary teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Atlanta
7.
BlameyK., MeyerC.K., & WalpoleS. (2008). Middle and high school literacy coaches: A national survey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (52)4, 310-323.
8.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher33(8), 3-15.
9.
Boyle-BaiseM., HsuM., JohnsonS., SerriereS.C., & StewartD. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education (36)3, 233-255.
10.
ChehaylL. (2008). “Books in Action!". Middle School Journal (40) 1, 26-32.
11.
CobumC. E. (2001) Collective sense making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (23), 145-170.
12.
Cochran-SmithM. & LytleS. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education (24), 249-306.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DempseyN. (2007). Science and math coaches in schools. Journal of Staff Development (28)2, 10-13.
15.
DonnellyA., MorganD., DeFordD., FilesJ., LongS., MillsH., StephensD., &StyslingerM. (2005). Transformative professional development: Negotiating knowledge with an inquiry stance. Language Arts (82)5, 336- 346.
16.
FangZ., & WeiY. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. Journal of Educational Research (103)4, 262-273.
17.
FarrisP. J. (2004). Elementary and middle school social studies: An interdisciplinary, multicultural approach. (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
18.
Feiman-NemserS. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching, Teachers College Record103(6), 1013-1055.
19.
FlemingD. M., UnrauN.J., CooksJ., DavisJ., FamanN., & GrishamD. L. (2007). A California State University initiative to improve adolescent reading in all content areas. Teacher Education Quarterly (43)3, 5-17.
20.
Gewertz,C. (2009). Literacy woes put in focus: Panel urges federal action for adolescent students. Education Week (29)1, 1.
21.
GlaserB. G. (2001). Doing grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review (2), 1- 18.
22.
GlaserB. G. (2000). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review (1), 1-8.
23.
GreeneT. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches. Retrieved from National Staff Development Council website 7/29/07.
24.
GrossmanP., WineburgS., & WoolworthS. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record (103)6, 942-1012.
25.
GuidryA., CuthrellK., O’ConnorK., & GoodA. (2010). From the Green Mile to the yellow brick road: Using a practical model to fill in the social studies content gaps. Social Studies (101)1, 22-29.
26.
HagoodM. C., ProvostM.C., SkinnerE. N., & EgelsonP. E. (2008). Teachers’ and students’ literacy performance in and engagement with new literacies: Strategies in underperforming middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal (3)3, 57-95.
27.
HindeE. R. (2005). Revisiting curriculum integration: A fresh look at an old idea. Social Studies (96)3, 105-111.
28.
International Reading Association (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Author.
29.
International Reading Association (2004). Position Statemen. “The Role and Qualifications of the Reading Coach in the United States”. Newark, DE: Author.
30.
IveyG. & BroaddusK. (2000). Tailoring the fit: reading instruction and middle school readers. The Reading Teacher54 (1), 68-78.
31.
JayA. B. (2009). Tackling resistance: Turn what could be a very bad day into a very good opportunity. Journal of Staff Development (30) 5, 56-58.
32.
JohnsonM. J. & JanischC. (1998). Connecting literacy with social studies content. Social Studies and the Young Learner (10)4), 6-9.
33.
KayK. (2009). Middle schools preparing young people for 21st century life and work. Middle School Journal (40)5, 41-45.
34.
KillionJ. (2007). Web of support strengthens the effectiveness of school-based coaches. Journal of Staff Development (28)1, 14-16.
35.
LappD., FisherD., FloodJ., &FreyN. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading specialist. National Staff Development Council24(2), 33-36.
36.
LittleJ. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education18 (8), 917-946.
37.
MasseyD. D., & HeatherT. (2004) Promoting reading comprehension in social studies, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy48(1), 28-40.
38.
McConachieS., HallM., ResnickL., RaviA.K., BillV., L., BintzJ., & TaylorJ. A., (2006). Task, text, and talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership64(2), 8-14.
39.
National Council of Teachers of English, The. (2004). Research on adolescent literacy and recommendations. Urbana, IL: Author.
40.
Institute of Literacy (2007). What content area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/publications/adolescent_lit07.Pdf
41.
MarinakB. A., & GambrellL. B. (2009). Ways to teach about informational text. Social Studies and the Young Learner (22)1, 19-22.
42.
McCombsJ. S., & MarshJ. A. (2009). Lessons for boosting the effectiveness of reading coaches. Phi Delta Kappan (90) 7, 501-507.
43.
McGuireM. E. (2007). What happened to social studies: The disappearing curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan (88)8, 620-624.
44.
MyersJ. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the U.S. Theory and Research in Social Education (34)3, 370-394.
45.
MyersP. M., & SavageT. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies (96)1, 18-23.
46.
NorwoodJ.U.S.House of Representatives: Committee on Education and Labor. Formal testimony on NCLB: Preventing Dropouts and Enhancing School Safety. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from www.nasbe.org/GAC/Education_Testimony.htm
47.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). California Sage.
48.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. California: Sage.
49.
PhillipsD. C., BardsleyM.E., BachT., & Gibb-BrownK. (2009). “But I teach math!”: The journey of middle school mathematics teachers and literacy coaches learning to integrate literacy strategies into the math instruction. Education (129)3, 467-472.
50.
PoglincoS., BachA., HovdeK., RosenblumS., SaundersM., & SupovitzJ. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s choice schools. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
51.
ReedD. K. (2009). A synthesis of professional development on the implementation of literacy strategies for middle school content area teachers. Research in Middle Level Education (32)10, 1-12.
52.
RockT., HeatherT., O‟ConnorK., PasseJ., OldendorfS., GoodA., &ByrdS. (2006). One state closer to a national crisis: A report on elementary social studies in North Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(4), 455-483.
53.
RussoA. (2004). School-Based Coaching. Harvard Education Letter Research Online, Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2004-ja/coaching.shmtl
54.
ShanahanT., &ShanahanC. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content- area literacy. Harvard Educational Review (78)1,40-59.
55.
SpillaneJ. P., ReiserB.J., and ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research72 (3), 387-431.
56.
SpradleyJ. A. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
57.
SteckelB. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact?Reading Teacher (63) 1, 14-23.
58.
StrahanD., & HedtM. (2009). Teaching and teaming more responsively: Case studies in professional growth at the middle level. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education (32) 8, 1-14.
59.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (2d. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
SymondsK. W. (2003) Literacy coaching: How school districts can support a long-term strategy in a short-term world. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 477 297).
61.
ThierM. (2010). Science and literacy: Tools for life. Science Scope (33)6, 32- 35.
62.
TollC. A. (2004). The literacy coach’s survival guide: essential questions and practical answers. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
63.
U. S. Department of Education, (2002). High School Reading: Key Issue Brief: Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE).
64.
WilsonS. M., & BerneJ., (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education24, 173-209.
65.
WineburgS. (2006). A sobering big idea. Phi Delta Kappan (87)5, 401-402.
66.
WiseB. (2009). Adolescent literacy: The cornerstone of student success. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (52)5, 369-375.
67.
WoodK.D., PilonietaP., & BlantonW. E. (2009). Teaching content and skills through integrated literacy circles. Middle School Journal (41)1, 56-62.
68.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods (5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
ZhaoY., & HogeJ. D. (2005). What elementary students and teachers say about social studies. Social Studies (96) 5, 216-221.
70.
ZwartR. C., WubblesT.B., BergenT., & BolhuisS. (2009). Which characteristics of a reciprocal peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by teachers and their students?Journal of Teacher Education (60)3, 243-257.
