Reference Information

Reisman, A. (2017). Integrating Content and Literacy in Social Studies: Assessing

Instructional Materials and Student Work From a Common Core-Aligned
Intervention. Theory & Research in Social Education,45(4), 517-554.
doi:10.1080/00933104.2017.1292162.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00933104.2017.1292162?scroll=top&needAcce
ss=true

Authors Abstract

“The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) call on science and social studies teachers to
engage in literacy instruction that prepares students for the academic rigors of college. The
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) designed a framework to address the challenge of
literacy–content integration. At the heart of the intervention are fill-in-the-blank writing
prompts that teachers are expected to populate with appropriate content in English Language
Arts (ELA), history, or science. This study examines 42 LDC instructional units designed by
8th grade social studies teachers from 2 states as well as the student written work that emerged
from these instructional units. My analysis suggests that, on its own, the content literacy
approach reflected in the LDC framework is inadequate for helping students use textual
evidence in the ways stipulated by CCSS. In particular, students are unlikely to acknowledge
authorship or indicate why the evidence they selected is relevant or credible.

Published in 2010, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) called on science and social
studies teachers to engage in literacy instruction that prepares students for the academic rigors of
college. Although standards documents often have a muted impact on actual classroom
instruction (e.g., Cohen, 2011Cohen, D. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]; Grant, 2001Grant, S.G. (2001). An
uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York State on teaching
social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398–426. doi:10.1111/tcre.2001.103.issue-
3[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]), some have hoped that the subject-specific
standards might prompt content teachers to incorporate high-level literacy instruction (Gewertz,
2012bGewertz, C. (2012b, April). Reading on science, social studies teachers’ agenda.
Education Week, 31(29). Retrieved fromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs-
ela.h31.html?qs=gewertz+++common+core [Google Scholar]). One question that emerged from
this policy context was how to support those science and social studies teachers with little
experience integrating content and literacy.
The Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC), launched in 2009 and initially sponsored by the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, designed a framework to address the challenge of literacy–
content integration. According to the eight core principles that guide the approach, LDC (a)
aligns with Common Core State Standards; (b) distributes responsibility for reading and writing
beyond the English Language Arts (ELA) classroom; (c) makes tasks central to instruction; (d)
connects reading and writing; (e) uses back mapping to determine which literacy skills will be
necessary to complete a particular task; (f) encourages teachers to design instruction to address
their students’ particular needs; (g) encourages local autonomy and choice with regard to
curricular content; and (h) strives to be teacher friendly (Crawford, Galiatsos, Lewis, & Ottesen,
2011Crawford, M., Galiatsos, S., Lewis, A. C., & Ottesen, K. K.(2011). The 1.0 guidebook to
LDC: Linking secondary school core content to the Common Core State Standards. The Literacy
Design Collaborative. Retrieved fromhttp://www.literacydesigncollaborative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/LDCBook_web.pdf [Google Scholar]).

At the heart of the intervention are “task templates,” or fill-in-the-blank writing prompts with
suggested extensions for higher-performing students. Teachers are expected to populate the tasks
with appropriate content in ELA, history, or science. For example, the following templates
prompt argumentative and informational/explanatory writing:

(Argumentative/Analysis L1, L2, L3): After researching _______ (informational

texts) on _______ (content), write an _______ (essay or substitute) that argues your
position on _______ (content). Support your position with evidence from your
research. L2 Be sure to acknowledge competing views. L3 Give examples from
past or current events or issues to illustrate and clarify your position. (Appropriate
for: social studies, science)

(Informational or Explanatory/Definition L1, L2): After researching _______

(informational texts) on _______ (content), write a _______ (report or substitute)
that defines _______ (term or concept) and explains _______ (content). Support
your discussion with evidence from your research. L2 What ___________
(conclusions or implications) can you draw? (Appropriate for: ELA, social studies,
science)

To support students in developing the requisite literacy skills to complete the template tasks,
teachers design instructional activities using the LDC “instructional ladder,” which comprises
four “skill clusters”: preparing for the task, reading process, transition to writing, and writing
process. Each skill cluster includes core activities (or “mini-tasks”) that provide ongoing
opportunities for formative assessment. The final product—instructional ladder plus template
task—is referred to as an LDC module. Though structured, the LDC framework grants teachers
tremendous autonomy to choose the topic, select and prepare appropriate texts for classroom use,
and design all aspects of instruction around reading and writing.

Preliminary evidence of LDC’s effectiveness has begun to emerge. A quasi-experimental

evaluation of implementation among eighth-grade science and social studies teachers using LDC
in 11 Kentucky districts found a small but statistically significant positive effect on students’
reading performance (Herman et al., 2015Herman, J., Epstein, S., Leon, S., La Torre-
Matrundola, D., Reber, S., & Choi, K. (2015). Implementation and effects of LDC and MDC in
Kentucky districts(CRESST Policy Brief No. 13). Los Angeles: University of California,
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. [Google Scholar]).
A large-scale survey of over 1,800 LDC teachers across 24 states found strong evidence that
participating teachers believed in the underlying principles of the approach, in particular that
content teachers should teach literacy (Levin, Leow, & Poglinco, 2013Levin, S., Leow, C., &
Poglinco, S.(2013). Scale-up and sustainability studies of the LDC and MDC initiatives.
Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action. [Google Scholar]). On the other hand, survey data
suggest that science and social studies teachers experience greater challenges integrating LDC:
56% of science and social studies teachers (compared with 34% of their ELA counterparts)
reported being unsure about how to give feedback on student writing (Beaver & Reumann-
Moore, 2014Beaver, J. K., & Reumann-Moore, R. (2014). Enacting Common Core instruction:
A comparative study of the use of LDC literacy tools in three sites. Philadelphia, PA: Research
for Action. [Google Scholar]).

Though largely promising, the findings from these studies offer only a bird’s-eye view of
implementation. Concerned primarily with questions of scalability, both studies collapse teacher
implementation across content areas, and neither study analyzes student work produced in LDC
classrooms. Nor does either study examine content learning—specifically, the extent to which
the LDC framework helped teachers integrate literacy and social studies content. This study
examines 42 LDC instructional units designed by eighth-grade social studies teachers from two
states, as well as the student written work that emerged from these instructional units, in order to
determine the extent to which the LDC framework is adequate for promoting meaningful
engagement with texts. In particular, I ask:

● What resources do social studies teachers draw upon to design reading and writing
instruction using the LDC framework?
● Did students receiving such instruction incorporate textual evidence into their
writing in ways that align with Common Core State Standards for literacy?

Summary of the Background

 The basis for this research study is the Common Core standards which ask science and
social studies to teach literacy that prepares for the rigors of college. This introduced the
question of how to support those science and social studies teachers with little experience
integrating content and literacy. The Literacy Design Collaborative developed a framework to
tackle this problem. The concern is that the LDC’s framework doesn’t adequately equip the
teachers or students. Studies prior to this have found strong evidence that participating
teachers believed in the underlying principles of the approach, in particular that content
teachers should teach literacy. On the other hand, survey data suggest that science and social
studies teachers experience greater challenges integrating LDC: 56% of science and social
studies teachers (compared with 34% of their ELA counterparts) reported being unsure about
how to give feedback on student writing. These studies offer a very wide shallow view while
this study looks closely at the integration of the LDC framework.

Research Questions

The following questions are posed directly in the article: “What resources do social
studies teachers draw upon to design reading and writing instruction using the LDC
framework? Did students receiving such instruction incorporate textual evidence into their
writing in ways that align with Common Core State Standards for literacy?” She aims to
address these in her research.

Research Design(Independent Variable)

The research design included organizing twenty-one eighth grade social studies
teachers who have been teaching between two and thirty-one years. These teachers were in
two common core states Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Each teacher had to submit two LDC
modules with three samples (high, low, and medium performing) of their students’ work per
module. They also had to send in two logs per week that detailed instruction in one of their
classrooms. The main focus was the writing that was suppose to use evidence.

Performance Measure (Dependent Variables)

The way the success of these lessons were measured is by looking at only the work of
those students that the teachers submitted as high preforming. It then looked at how these
students used evidence in the students writing using an use-of-evidence rubric.

Research Results
 The study found that many students failed to site any source at all when writing and
none were able to score a 5 by using evidence based counter claims. Most of the zeroes came
from the lessons that connected reading and writing but that did not require students to
synthesize the readings or use evidence to support their claims. Student writing was
descriptive rather than explanatory or argumentative. Another finding is that some of the
lessons seem to be conceptually flawed, forcing students to defend the bizarre claim that the
American Revolution would not have happened had it not been for Paul Revere.

Implications of Research

There must be support for teachers and students if the states want to ensure that the
Common Core standards and LDC are efficiently incorporated into classrooms especially
regarding available materials. Furthermore, essays allowed students to utilize evidence better
without additional scaffolding than other written pedagogies like brochures. Lastly, there
needs to be support between teachers so that the teachers do not have to do it on their own.

Question or Concerns Regarding the Reading

A concern with this study is it is relatively small in scope and takes little consideration
the demographics of the schools and other outside factors. The other concern is the flaws with
LDC or the Common Core standards.