1. Gayle Thieman, Portland State University Susan Lenski, Portland State University National Council for Social Studies CUFA December 1, 2011

2. 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?

3. Literacy in social studies (NCSS, 2010) Sequence events Differentiate 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

4. Literacy Strategies (Lee & Spratley, 2010) Activate prior knowledge Build vocabulary Learn to deconstruct complex sentences Use knowledge of text structures and genres to predict main ideas Map graphic representations against explanations Pose relevant questions Compare claims across texts Evaluate evidence and claims

5. Context Large Pacific Northwest university that prepares 120 secondary teachers yearly in a cohort-based post baccalaureate program Fall term prior to student teaching Content area reading strategies class Intro social studies methods class Winter term prior to student teaching II Advanced social studies methods course

6. Data Sources 16 secondary pre-service teachers o 12 Work Sample I o 15 Work Sample II o 27 Work Samples Total o (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

7. 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 coding 2. Selected categories within a literacy model (axial coding) 3. Connected the categories (selective coding)

8. 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

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

10. Steps of Analysis Developed a chart for each work sample Analyzed each literacy event: specific literacy activity Summarized literacy activity label countries on a map Identified corresponding literacy term Label map Decided the DOK level of the literacy activity (1-4) I Recall

11. Low DOK levels I Recall Label map Define vocabulary Recall information Take notes Draw representation II Skill/Concepts Identify patterns Summarize information Make predictions Organize information Compare/contrast Interpret historical document

12. High DOK Levels III Strategic Thinking Analyze consequences Evaluate policy proposals Develop logical argument Debate merits of proposal Draw conclusions IV Extended Thinking Synthesize information from multiple sources Create new understanding Apply concepts in novel ways

13. Findings: Number of Literacy Events Number of literacy events increased from Student Teaching I to Student Teaching II WS 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

14. Findings: DOK Level of Literacy Strategies Level 1 strategies decreased a little from WS I to WS II WS I Level 1Mean: 26% range 6%-46% WS II Level 1Mean: 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%

15. 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.

16. Implications for Further Research Develop 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.