Luciana

Teaching History and Social Studies
to English Language Learners

Preparing Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers
Edited by Luciana C. de Oliveira

and Kathryn M. Obenchain
Teaching History and Social Studies to English
Language Learners
Luciana C. de Oliveira
Kathryn M. Obenchain
Editors
Teaching History and

Social Studies to
English Language
Learners
Preparing Pre-Service and In-Service
Teachers
Editors
Luciana C. de Oliveira Kathryn M. Obenchain
University of Miami Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Miami, FL, USA Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-63735-8 ISBN 978-3-319-63736-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63736-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959572
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover image © Georgy Dorofeev / EyeEm / Getty Images
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Luciana C. de Oliveira and Kathryn M. Obenchain
2 Developing Culturally and Linguistically Relevant

Historical Thinking Skills: Lessons from U.S. History
Teachers for Newcomer English Language Learners 7
Ashley Taylor Jaffee
3 Teaching History to ELLs in Standards-Based Settings:

Implications for Teacher Educators 39
Paul J. Yoder and Stephanie van Hover
4 Using Historical Building Analysis to Support English

Language Learners’ Bicultural and Historical Thinking
Skills Development 67
Christine Baron, Christina L. Dobbs, and Patricia
Martínez-Álvarez
v
vi Contents
5 Preparing Secondary Social Studies Teachers to Help

English Language Learners Develop Academic Language
and Social Studies Disciplinary Literacy 93
Gayle Y. Thieman, Matthew C. McParker, Elizabeth M.
Leider, and Kent Billingham
6 Preparing Social Studies and ESOL Teachers for

Integrated Language and Content Instruction in
Support of ELLs 127
Andrea Honigsfeld, Carrie McDermott, and Kelley Cordeiro
7 Using Socratic Circles to Engage English Language

Learners in Historical Inquiry and Discussion 159
Hayriye Kayi-Aydar, Jason L. Endacott, and Christian Z.
Goering
8 Bitter Challenge; Swede Success: Simulating Language

Learning Experiences in Social Studies Classrooms 179
Cory Wright-Maley and Jennifer D. Green
9 Apprenticing Students and Teachers into Historical

Content, Language, and Thinking Through Genre
Pedagogy 205
Laura Schall-Leckrone and Debra Barron
Index 233
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 Grant’s (2003) framework for ambitious teaching and

learning of history 41
Fig. 5.1 Predicting patterns: Korean War 107
Fig. 5.2 Four square: electoral college 107
Fig. 5.3 What is it? What is it not? Racial caste 108
Fig. 5.4 Squared up: race 108
Fig. 5.5 Compare/contrast organizer 114
Fig. 5.6 Sequencing organizer 114
Fig. 5.7 Proposition and support organizer 115
Fig. 5.8 Summarization organizer 116
Fig. 6.1 Conceptual Understanding Within the Inquiry Arc of the
College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) and Language-Based
Approach to Content Instruction (LACI) (CU-C3LACI) 132
Fig. 7.1 Example of compelling question for the concept of
globalization that is connected to disciplinary and
content standards 163
Fig. 7.2 Example of compelling question for the concept of
civil rights that is connected to disciplinary and content
standards164
Fig. 8.1 Completed visual display from Oct. 2015 191
vii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Data collection plan 44

Table 3.2 Comparison of class activities on March 13, 2014 53
Table 3.3 Comparison of class activities on February 17, 2014 54
Table 5.1 Sample of student learner profiles 103
Table 9.1 Modeling the genre: what contributed to the expansion
of Rome? 213
Table 9.2 Constructing an historical explanation: what caused the
fall of Rome? 214
Table 9.3 Data sources, analytical strategies, and participants 216
ix
1
Introduction
Luciana C. de Oliveira and Kathryn M. Obenchain
The English language learner (ELL) enrollment in public schools continues

an upward trend. During the 2014–15 academic year, ELLs grew to 4.6
million students, constituting more than 9% of U.S. public school stu-
dents (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016). By the year 2025,
ELLs are predicted to make up 25% of the student population (National
Education Association, 2005), with the largest number of these students
found in California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico,
and Texas. Several other states have also seen substantial ELL growth,
including Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
and Virginia, all of whom have experienced more than 200% growth in the
numbers of ELLs in schools (NCES, 2015). Given the increasing numbers
of ELLs in our schools, the need for all teachers to understand their linguis-
tic and academic needs is essential to optimize ELLs’ opportunities to learn.
L.C. de Oliveira (*)

University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
K.M. Obenchain
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
© The Author(s) 2018 1

L.C. de Oliveira, K.M. Obenchain (eds.), Teaching History and Social Studies to
English Language Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63736-5_1
2 L.C. de Oliveira and K.M. Obenchain
In particular, history and social studies occupy an important academic

space in the curriculum that can be challenging for ELLs and their teach-
ers. Both the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (2010)
and the more recent College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for
Social Studies State Standards (2013) reflect the purpose of the social
studies curriculum: preparing young people to “make informed and rea-
soned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse,
democratic society in an interdependent world” (2010, p. 9). This civic
imperative complements the content (i.e., civics, economics, geography,
history, behavioral sciences) of social studies, providing a roadmap into
mainstream American culture, including the U.S. historical and sociopo-
litical context (Dabach & Fones, 2016). Learning history and social stud-
ies includes two particular challenges for ELLs: the abstract vocabulary
associated with content-specific concepts and the cultural context of
much of the history and social studies curriculum. Chamot and O’Malley
(1994) noted that the vocabulary associated with social studies is replete
with abstract concepts. Discipline-specific terms such as bill, democracy,
state, legislate (civics), interest, market, opportunity cost, goods and ser-
vices (economics), region, place, development, land use, environment,
map (geography) and continuity, primary source, institutions, periodiza-
tion, and causation (history) can be challenging. For example, in eco-
nomics, a market is a place to sell goods, as well as a literal and virtual
space in which stocks are traded. In addition, when something is mar-
keted, it is attractively advertised. In civics, a bill is a draft of a proposed
law. However, it is also a note detailing an amount of money owed for
goods or services. In addition, many of these terms are culturally contex-
tualized to mean something specific in the USA through particular cul-
turally embedded examples (Barton & Levstik, 2004) that are more
familiar to native-born and native English speakers. Democracy contains
some shared characteristics across contexts (e.g., rule by the people), but
democracy and its institutions are defined, understood, and enacted in a
particular way in the USA that is different from Mexico, Japan, and other
democratic states.
Given the civic purpose of social studies education, combined with the
embedded language and cultural knowledge demands, it is imperative
that social studies teachers are better prepared to meet the needs of their
1 Introduction 3
ELLs. This includes attending to both the literacy needs of ELLs by pro-
viding the time and space to work with the content through various
materials and experiences (Taylor-Jaffe, 2016), as well as building on and
honoring the rich knowledge and skills that ELLs bring to the social stud-
ies classroom (Callahan & Obenchain, 2013; Salinas, Fránquiz, &
Guberman, 2006). As the chapter authors in this book illustrate, recog-
nizing the importance of educating pre-service and in-service social stud-
ies teachers to teach ELLs is only the first step. These authors detail
research-supported and concrete approaches that will be useful for cur-
rent and future teachers, as well as their future students. Next, we present
an overview of chapters and their content. Near the end of each chapter,
each author includes implications for teacher education that address
how the fields of social studies and TESOL teacher education, separately,
as well as their intersection are affected. In addition, each chapter con-
cludes with a section that provides ideas for how a teacher educator may
use the particular chapter with pre-service teachers or in-service teachers
within a course or professional development workshop. This section may
include discussion questions or an activity that we think will be helpful
for both instructors and readers.
Ashley Taylor Jaffee analyzes three cases of high school U.S. history
teachers who are working to develop historical thinking skills for their
newcomer ELLs. Using a theoretical framework for culturally and lin-
guistically relevant historical thinking, Chap. 2 shows how three teachers
engaged with newcomer ELLs’ cultural, linguistic, civic, and historical
knowledge and skills while teaching U.S. history in their social studies
pedagogy.
In Chap. 3, Paul Yoder and Stephanie van Hover use a case study of a
middle school U.S. history teacher to examine the teacher’s decision-
making and meaning-making processes in teaching ELLs in his classes.
The chapter highlights that the teacher focused on the skills section of the
state standards as a means of bridging the official curriculum and the
perceived cultural and linguistic needs of his ELLs.
Chapter 4, by Christine Baron, Christina Dobbs, and Patricia
Martinez-Álvarez, describes how historical building analysis offers oppor-
tunities for ELLs to engage in deep disciplinary practices in ways that
simultaneously draw upon and build bicultural and historical knowledge.
This chapter presents a framework for engaging in historical building

analysis, how to implement it in a classroom, and the specific literacy,
linguistic, and cultural practices and skills developed.
In Chap. 5, Gayle Thieman, Matt McParker, Elizabeth Leider, and
Kent Billingham discuss what teacher educators need to know about pre-
paring social studies pre-service teachers to work effectively with ELLs in
secondary social studies classes. The authors share research-based instruc-
tional strategies they use with pre-service teachers and provide examples
from edTPA portfolios and ESOL lessons of two successful pre-service
teachers who taught social studies to ELLs.
Chapter 6, by Andrea Honigsfeld, Carrie McDermott, and Kelley
Cordeiro, presents a case for preparing pre-service and in-service social
studies as well as ESOL teachers to integrate language and content
instruction to offer ELLs an entry point into developing conceptual
understanding of core content. The chapter is built on a theoretical
framework the authors generated for Conceptual Understanding (CU –
C3LACI), by fusing the Inquiry Arc of College, Career, and Civic Life
(C3) Framework (NCSS, 2013) and Language-Based Approaches to
Content Instruction (LACI) (de Oliveira, 2016). They draw on two case
studies from an ongoing study of high school social studies co-teaching
teams consisting of one ESOL teacher and one social studies teacher to
show a rich selection of practices the co-teaching teams incorporated in
their classes for concept development and attainment.
In Chap. 7, Hayriye Kayi-Aydar, Jason L. Endacott, and Christian
Z. Goering describe how Socratic Circles, a dialogic tool that is shown to
increase learning talk, can engage ELLs in historical discussion by using
inquiry methods of learning in the social studies. They use evidence-
based examples and strategies for using historical inquiry and Socratic
Circles in the social studies classroom to teach important yet difficult
concepts (e.g., democracy, liberty) and connect them to content-based
curricula. They conclude by connecting dialogue to the C3 Framework
(NCSS, 2013) to foster ELLs’ civic participation, involvement, and
agency and discuss implications and applications for teacher education.
Chapter 8, by Cory Wright-Maley and Jennifer D. Green, describes
a social studies simulation teacher educators can use in their methods
courses or to facilitate professional development with pre-service and
1 Introduction 5
in-
service teachers. Their simulation demonstrates that effective
English language learning can take place within content-specific class-
rooms without “dumbing down” the curriculum. They conclude the
chapter by offering suggestions on how to further develop teacher
understanding and practice with effective language development
strategies such that they can improve their own teaching of social
studies in ways that respond to a growing body of students in North
America.
Finally, in Chap. 9, Laura Schall-Leckrone and Debra Barron present
a case study of the key role apprenticeship played in teacher learning
when a teacher educator, teacher, and student teacher used genre peda-
gogy with ninth grade world history students. They demonstrate how
history teachers can be apprenticed into teaching disciplinary literacy
skills within a classroom setting through mentoring. They conclude
that student teachers, teachers, and teacher educators should work
together across traditional institutional boundaries to improve learning
opportunities for bilingual youth in history classes and study their
efforts.
References
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Callahan, R. M., & Obenchain, K. M. (2013). Bridging worlds in the social
studies classroom: Teachers’ practices and Latino immigrant youths’ civic and
political development. Youth Engagement: The Civic-Political Lives of Children
and Youth. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 16, 97–123.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing
the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Longman.
Dabach, D. B., & Fones, A. (2016). Beyond the “English learner” frame:
Transnational funds of knowledge in social studies. International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 18(1), 7–27.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI)
for English language learners: Examples from two elementary teachers.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 10, 217–231. doi:10.1080/19313152.
2016.1185911.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast facts: English language
learners. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education
2016 (NCES 2016144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pub-
sinfo.asp?pubid=2016144
National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum standards
for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment. Silver
Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life
(C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the
rigor of k-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD:
National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved from https://www.social-
studies.org/sites/default/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf
National Education Association. (2005). Research talking points on English lan-
guage learners. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/13598.htm
Salinas, C., Fránquiz, M., & Guberman, S. (2006). Introducing historical
thinking to second language learners: Exploring what students know and
what they want to know. The Social Studies, 97(5), 203–207.
Taylor-Jaffe, A. (2016). Community, voice, and inquiry: Teaching global history
for English language learners. The Social Studies, 107(3), 1–13.
Luciana C. de Oliveira, Ph.D., is a professor and department chair in the

Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, Florida. Her
research focuses on issues related to teaching ELLs at the K-12 level. Her work
has appeared in numerous journals and books. She is also a coeditor of two other
Palgrave Macmillan books focused on the content areas. She is the president-
elect (2017–18) of TESOL International Association.
Kathryn M. Obenchain, Ph.D., is an associate professor of social studies edu-

cation at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Her research centers on
democratic citizenship education in the USA and emerging democracies, exam-
ining how classrooms are structured in ways that promote democratic traditions,
as well as students’ experiences in these classrooms. She has published numerous
articles and books on citizenship and social studies education.
2
Developing Culturally and Linguistically
Relevant Historical Thinking Skills:
Lessons from U.S. History Teachers
for Newcomer English Language
Learners
Ashley Taylor Jaffee
Teaching historical content that is relevant, engaging, and accessible for

English Language Learners (ELLs) is something that social studies schol-
ars have been investigating for over a decade (Almarza, 2001; Bunch,
2009; Cho & Reich, 2008; Cruz & Thornton, 2009; Franquiz & Salinas,
2011; Short; 2002; Szpara, & Ahmad, 2007; Terzian & Yeager, 2007).
More recently, scholars have argued the need for additional research on
teaching and learning history and/or social studies with particular atten-
tion to culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy for ELLs (e.g.,
Jaffee, 2016a; Ramirez & Jaffee, 2016; Yoder, Kibler, & van Hover,
2016). The need for research on teaching social studies for ELLs will help
scholars, teachers, and teacher educators gain even more information,
understanding, and clarity on how best to teach this growing and incred-
ibly diverse population of students in U.S. public schools.
A.T. Jaffee (*)

James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

8 A.T. Jaffee
The goal of this chapter is to provide three examples of high school

U.S. History teachers who are working to develop historical thinking skills
for their newcomer ELLs.1 Using a theoretical framework for culturally and
linguistically relevant historical thinking, I blend notions of culturally and
linguistically relevant teaching (Jaffee, 2016a; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lucas
& Villegas, 2010) with elements of historical thinking (Barton & Levstik,
2008; Martin, 2011; Wineburg, 2001; Wineburg, Martin, & Monte-Sano,
2011; Yeager & Wilson, 1997) to understand how three teachers engaged
with newcomer ELLs’ cultural, linguistic, civic, and historical knowledge
and skills while teaching U.S. History in their social studies pedagogy.
The three examples included in this chapter provide varying contexts,
perspectives, and strategies for approaching the teaching of U.S. History
for newcomer ELLs. I hope that by offering three varying, but intercon-
nected, ways of approaching U.S. History content, it will offer pre-service
and in-service teachers multiple examples and contexts, whereby teachers
might find relevant and/or useful examples for their particular classroom
needs, interests, and settings. The approach I have taken in providing pre-
service and in-service teachers varying examples of culturally and linguis-
tically relevant historical thinking is by offering three case studies.
I begin the chapter with an overview of the theoretical framework, to
set the context for how I approached analyzing and interpreting each case
study. Then, I discuss each case study in-depth providing the case context
(e.g., teacher, school, students, and curricular goals), a lesson vignette
(e.g., full lesson with discussion of strategies), and pedagogical themes. I
hope the presentation of the framework and research context will provide
a better understanding of how each teacher approached her/his social
studies pedagogy for newcomer ELLs and offer a foundation for the les-
sons described. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the implica-
tions and applications of the case studies for teacher education.
heoretical Framework: Culturally

T
and Linguistically Relevant Historical Thinking
For this chapter, I created a framework for culturally and linguistically
relevant historical thinking. This framework blends notions of culturally
and linguistically relevant teaching (Jaffee, 2016a; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
2 Developing Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Historical... 9
Lucas & Villegas, 2010) with elements of historical thinking (Barton &
Levstik, 2008; Martin, 2011; Wineburg, 2001; Wineburg et al., 2011;
Yeager & Wilson, 1997).
Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Teaching
Culturally and linguistically relevant teaching draws from culturally rel-

evant pedagogy (CRP) (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and linguistically respon-
sive teaching (LRT) (Lucas & Villegas, 2010). CRP empowers students
to assert and maintain their cultural knowledge and skills in schools and
classrooms, pushing up against and challenging the dominant culture in
U.S. public schools. Ladson-Billings’ (1995) CRP framework includes
three main principles: academic success, cultural competence, and critical
consciousness. These three principles support students in choosing aca-
demic excellence, maintaining their cultural integrity, and challenging
societal inequities in schools through teaching, learning, and community
engagement.
The LRT (Lucas & Villegas, 2010) framework prepares teacher educa-
tors, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers for the successful
instruction of ELLs. The LRT framework includes seven principles. Lucas
and Villegas (2010) argue that principles one through three are orienta-
tions or suggested attitudes and beliefs necessary for teaching ELLs, and
principles four through seven are the knowledge and skills needed for
teaching linguistically diverse students. The principles include (1) socio-
linguistic consciousness; (2) value for linguistic diversity; (3) inclinations
to advocate for ELLs; (4) learning about ELLs’ language backgrounds,
experiences, and proficiencies; (5) identifying the language demands of
classroom discourse and tasks; (6) knowing and applying key principles
of second language learning; and (7) scaffolding instruction to promote
ELL students’ learning.
In the literature on teaching ELLs and teacher’s classroom decision
making, linguistically responsive teachers pay close attention on how to
make content accessible and comprehensible to ELLs. One way scholars
suggest considering ELLs needs when approaching teaching content is by
implementing bilingual practices. Bilingual practices have been argued as
being more successful in helping ELLs learn content in both bilingual
10 A.T. Jaffee
classrooms as well as English-only classroom settings (Cummins, 2000).

Bilingual practices might include translanguaging pedagogies (e.g., build-
ing English proficiency using students’ home languages as a scaffold)
(García & Kleifgen, 2010, p. 63) or an awareness that ELL students pos-
sess multiple literacies (e.g., literacies in their home language, English,
and/or a variety of each/other languages that might not be “accepted” in
mainstream academic contexts) (Cruz & Thornton, 2009, p. 23).
Other scholars, on the other hand, have argued that a successful
approach to teaching ELLs content knowledge is by using the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model (Echevarría, Vogt, &
Short, 2008). This model is widely used in schools with ELL populations.
Most scholars agree, however, that drawing on ELL students’ prior
knowledge and lived experiences and bridging this knowledge with the
learning taking place in schools are of fundamental importance when
teaching content (Bartlett & García, 2011; Flatis & Coulter, 2008;
García, 2005). Prior knowledge in this case includes elements of lan-
guage, culture, and content understanding, particularly in social studies,
where it has been shown that drawing on students’ prior experiences
engages students in discussion and cross-cultural interactions as well as
fosters high-order thinking, inclusive practices, and an overall feeling of
success in the classroom (Jaffee, 2016b).
Culturally and linguistically relevant teaching (CLRT), therefore, com-
bines elements of CRP and LRT by examining overlapping principles
between the two frameworks and focuses on the nuances of culture, lan-
guage, and identity (Jaffee, 2016a). Overlapping principles that comprise
CLRT include a value for and learning about students’ cultural and lin-
guistic diversity; a critical social, cultural, and linguistic consciousness; a
desire to advocate for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students’
educational experiences; and the knowledge and skills to incorporate ELL
students’ cultural knowledge and experiences as well as meet the language
demands that support ELL students’ learning of social studies content.
Historical Thinking
Thinking historically is the process whereby teachers and students become

historical investigators. This investigation requires teachers and students
to use their knowledge and skills of history to evaluate historical content,

documents, and perspectives associated within and across particular his-
torical events (Wineburg, 2001; Stanford History Education Group,
n.d.). Part of historical thinking is being able to knit together narratives
of the past, constructing and/or reconstructing a story, based on various
accounts, interpretations, and understandings. Martin (2011) defines
historical thinking as “the reading, analysis, and writing that is necessary
to develop our understanding of the past.” She argues that the past is dif-
ficult to clearly understand, and developing historical thinking skills can
help us write better, more accurate and more nuanced, narratives about
the past. These conceptions, although largely theoretical, support the
need to develop the skills for historical thinking and inquiry (Barton &
Levstik, 2008) in our pre-service and in-service teachers so they can bet-
ter understand what and how to teach historical thinking.
Yeager and Wilson (1997) made the argument that “teachers ability to
think historically is a likely precondition for the development of appro-
priate historical thinking in their pupils” (p. 122). Thus, it is critically
important for our pre-service and in-service teachers to understand the
goals of historical thinking as well as practice the skills to think histori-
cally. The Stanford History Education Group has identified the following
historical thinking skills: sourcing, close reading, contextualization, and
corroboration (Stanford History Education Group, n.d.) to encourage
the development of historical inquiry and reading/thinking like a histo-
rian. In order to effectively apply these skills, teacher educators as well as
in-service/pre-service teachers should clarify that in order to use these
skills, the following items must be established: (1) understand the
historical context of the event to be discussed, (2) prepare multiple
accounts and perspectives (both primary and secondary sources) to be
analyzed, and (3) develop questions and/or a processing activity to
encourage interpretation and understanding of analyzed sources. Once
these items have been prepared in a lesson plan, historical thinking skills
should be practiced and explored.
To better understand the historical thinking skills mentioned above, I
will provide an explanation of each skill and some sample questions that
were modified from the “Reading Like a Historian” curriculum materials
(Stanford History Education Group, n.d.). Sourcing asks students to
12 A.T. Jaffee
think about a document’s author and its creation. Questions students

might ask include: Who made this document and why was it made?
Close reading asks students to carefully consider what the document says
and the language used to say it, and asks questions including: What
claims does the author make and what evidence does the author use to
support those claims? Contextualization situates the document and its
events in time and place. Questions used to support this skill include:
What was going on when this document appeared and how did those
events influence the creation of this document? Corroboration asks ques-
tions about important details across multiple sources to determine points
of agreement and disagreement. Questions asked might include: What
other texts appeared at this moment and how do they support or compli-
cate this document? Practicing these skills in teacher education courses is
important so that pre-service and in-service teachers can understand and
experience the process of historical inquiry and investigation.
ulturally and Linguistically Relevant Historical

C
Thinking
Culturally and linguistically relevant historical thinking (CLRHT) blends

principles found in the CLRT framework with components of historical
thinking. It requires orientations or attitudinal dispositions toward a
desire to effectively teach ELLs social studies content and skills as well the
knowledge and skills to successfully develop lesson plans and implement
instruction that is specifically designed and delivered to meet the needs of
ELLs. For example, CLRT teachers value ELL students’ backgrounds and
experiences, critique current social inequities that affect ELL students
schooling experiences, and advocate for their equitable experiences in
school. These dispositions are critical for supporting teachers’ dedication
to providing the best educational experiences for ELLs. Furthermore,
they provide a foundation for teachers that will hopefully sustain them
when they are confronted with challenging situations and/or constraints
in their pursuit for educational equity.
With these dispositional foundations, teachers are better equipped
with attitudes necessary for approaching their instructional design and
delivery of historical content in their social studies classrooms.

Furthermore, the design elements that CLRHT teachers might consider
include the language elements of the historical context necessary to teach
(e.g., two-tier vocabulary, history vocabulary, storying history, etc.) or the
tasks necessary to scaffold the learning of multiple perspectives in history
(e.g., read aloud, paraphrasing, questioning, etc.). Case study teachers in
this chapter present three examples of how to approach CLRHT. The
attitudes, knowledge, and skills each teacher possesses to teach ELL
U.S. History offer teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and in-service
teachers multiple examples for how to approach teaching CLRHT. The
examples listed above, related to the CLRHT framework, will be further
unpacked and explained at the end of each case study (titled “pedagogical
themes”).
ase Studies: Three U.S. History Teachers

C
for Newcomer ELLs
The three case studies included in this chapter describe U.S. History
teachers in two cities in New York and Virginia. I used a qualitative com-
parative case study design in this study (Stake, 1995). The data collected
included observations of each teacher’s classroom, one-on-one interviews
with each teacher, and classroom/school artifact collection. Artifacts col-
lected included lesson plans, classroom handouts, school mission state-
ments/visions, and classroom photographs. In this section, I will describe
each case study including contextual information about the teacher,
school/student, and curricular goals. I will also share a lesson vignette
from each case study teacher and conclude with emerging pedagogical
themes that relate to and expand the CLRHT framework.
Ms. Lisa Scott
Ms. Scott, a white woman in her mid-30s from Massachusetts, gradu-

ated from college in Virginia where she studied social studies educa-
tion. She taught for over seven years in Honduras, Paraguay, and
14 A.T. Jaffee
New York City. Ms. Scott volunteered for AmeriCorps and the Peace
Corps, where she served in Paraguay as a teacher trainer for two years.
During the time between serving in AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps,
Ms. Scott taught high school in New York City, was a career counselor,
and taught English in Honduras. Her time as a volunteer greatly
impacted her views on teaching newcomer ELLs and social studies
education.
Ms. Scott taught U.S. History at Eastern International High School
(EIHS) for three years. She particularly loved the school because of the
different cultures and nationalities represented, supportive administra-
tion, and not having a statewide exam. Students were required to com-
plete a senior portfolio to graduate in lieu of the exam; therefore, Ms.
Scott did not feel constrained by the standardized test and afforded her
the space to go more in-depth into social studies content, provide more
highly scaffolded instruction, and ongoing assessment of ELL students’
content and language needs. Consequently, Ms. Scott frequently worked
one-on-one with her students to support numerous skill-based goals,
including literacy skills (e.g., speaking, reading, writing, listening), his-
torical thinking, and gathering evidence to support opinions.
Eastern International High School
EIHS is located in New York and sought to provide quality education for

recently arrived immigrants through teaching English to newcomer
youth through the content areas. Their stated mission was to “develop in
each of our new learners of English the linguistic, cognitive, and cultural
skills necessary for informed and creative participation in our diverse
society.” The main pedagogical strategy used at EIHS was cooperative
learning, and one often could find students sitting at tables working on
projects, reading texts, and engaging in group discussions.
Approximately 310 students, representing over 50 countries, attended
EIHS. There were over 40 languages spoken, including Arabic, Bengali,
Mandarin Chinese, French, Polish, and Spanish. Students came from
various countries including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, and Yemen. Ms. Lisa Scott’s
U.S. History class represented the demographic and linguistic makeup of

the school. She organized her class into six heterogeneous (linguistic)
groups of three to four students, and changed the groups every three to
four weeks, depending on how groups were working together. Students’
linguistic levels in the class varied slightly.
U.S. History Curriculum Goals
Ms. Scott’s course was centered on three themes/essential questions: (a)

What does it mean to be an American? (b) Is the use of violence ever
justified? (c) What are the different points of view or sides in history? She
began the year with mostly course introductory lessons centered on big
questions/ideas including: What is history? What do we already know/
want to know about U.S. History? What is bias? What is the difference
between primary and secondary sources? Ms. Scott’s course focused on
building students’ study skills through the content, as she felt this was an
essential year, or a “bridge” year, for her newcomers going from 9th/10th
grade to 12th grade. She explained:
I think junior year is really where you develop the formal language skills…
the academic structure of writing, and things like that, that basically gets
them ready for senior year…you get 20 pages of reading, you write huge
papers, and I really see my class as kind of the bridge to that…building the
study habits.
For Ms. Scott, study habits included reading, writing, working in groups,
and researching. She hoped students would use and transfer these skills to
engage with historical content as “controversy” and inquire about history
by questioning what really happened and why. Ms. Scott’s frequent ques-
tioning and challenging of the historical narrative with students was fos-
tered through writing and debating during the course. These practices
supported moving into and developing “academic language” skills
(Cummings, 2008). Examples of pedagogical strategies Ms. Scott imple-
mented include jigsaw, read aloud, journal writing, image analysis/decon-
struction, and paraphrasing.
16 A.T. Jaffee
Lesson Vignette: The Declaration of Independence
The aim for the day was written on the board and read: “What is written
in the Declaration of Independence?” The agenda read: “(a) Quick Write
(10 minutes), (b) Read Aloud (15 minutes), (c) Paraphrase (30 minutes),
and (d) Discussion (5 minutes).” As students entered the room, Ms. Scott
was setting up a podcast. She tested the volume to make sure everyone
could hear, walking to different corners of the classroom while listening
to the reading of the Declaration of Independence. She began the class
asking students to quick write on “what comes to mind when you hear
the word ‘Independence?’.” As some students began to write, she quickly
defined independence, saying, “Independence is to be on your own.”
Students continued writing. Some students wrote in narrative or para-
graph form, while others made lists.
She asked students to stop, and invited volunteers to speak, asking,
“could someone share with us what came to mind when you heard the
word ‘Independence?’” One student said “freedom.” Another student
replied, “Panama gained independence from Colombia.” Students con-
tinued, saying, “the American colonies wanted independence from
Britain,” “celebration,” “war.” Students continued to share a number of
responses and Ms. Scott transitioned, saying, “okay, you all have a sense
of what independence means, so today, we are going to talk about the
Declaration of Independence.” She showed students an “authentic” copy
of the document, explained what the document was, and held it up in
front of the class for all to see. She helped students to visualize how the
document was structured and what it might have looked like.
She then asked, “What are some of the reasons why the colonies would
want to be independent?” Students shared their prior knowledge and
understanding of the events, explaining items including the Sugar Act,
Intolerable versus Coercive Acts, Common Sense, First Continental
Congress, and so on. Ms. Scott further set the context for the American
Revolution, then asked students to take “quick notes” on the Declaration
of Independence. She explained, “It is important to take note that the
Declaration of Independence is a document, it is something written, you
can go to Washington D.C. and see it, and it looks something like this
[shows the artifact to students], and it does what it says it is going to do,
it declares the independence of the colonies [emphasis added based on
Ms. Scott’s stress and tone].” Students took notes and answered intermit-
tent questions involving information on the Second Continental
Congress, Thomas Jefferson, and the purposes/various sections of the
document. After concluding her mini lesson, she asked students, “So are
you ready to see the actual document? Are you psyched?” Students
exclaimed “yes!” Ms. Scott passed out paper copies of the Declaration of
Independence and helped students organize the document, noting the
introduction, body, and conclusion.
After acquainting the class with the primary source, Ms. Scott had
students participate in a read aloud activity using a podcast from the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation narrated by an actor playing Thomas
Jefferson. Before the reading began, Ms. Scott said, “as the person reads,
I ask you please to follow along and highlight or circle words or phrases
that are familiar to you, that are interesting to you, or that are just mean-
ingful to you.” As the reading continued, Ms. Scott stopped the podcast
every three minutes to discuss what has been said, focusing on vocabulary
that might be difficult for students. She hoped by “hearing out loud and
seeing it” students really would get a “sense of the way this document was
written.” Throughout the read aloud, Ms. Scott stopped and highlighted
terms/concepts including self-evident, endowed, and unalienable rights.
For example, she explained, “if things are ‘endowed’ they are given….”
She continued to explain difficult items by rephrasing words, concepts,
and paraphrasing sections. Students continued to actively listen to the
document by highlighting and writing on the text.
Once the read aloud was finished, Ms. Scott asked students to go back
and look at one of the words or phrases that they had either highlighted
or circled, and to choose one to share with the entire class. Students
shared items including “all men are created equal” and “life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.” She proceeded by saying, “since you understand
the document so well, the next task should be an easy one, I ask you
please to put the Declaration of Independence in your own words. Work
in groups to paraphrase each section of the Declaration in your notes.”
She gave students the option of creating an outline to help organize their
18 A.T. Jaffee
paraphrasing, and for the grievances section asked students to choose five
complaints to paraphrase. Students immediately began to work.
Pedagogical Themes
The pedagogical themes that emerged from Ms. Scott’s social studies ped-
agogy and related to the framework, CLRHT, include the following: his-
tory as inquiry, setting a schema or activating student prior knowledge
(Jaffee, 2016a), developing literacy skills, and seeing and experiencing
complete texts. The theme of history as inquiry is highlighted in Ms.
Scott’s curricular goals as well as her practice, as discussed above in the
vignette. By framing her course based on questions about history and
conceptualizing teaching the “controversies” of history, Ms. Scott wanted
her newcomer ELLs to frequently ask questions about historical figures,
facts, and events. Furthermore, she desired for her ELL students to
develop literacy skills while developing skills for historical inquiry. She
frequently had her students writing, reading, speaking, debating, and dis-
cussing various aspect of U.S. History. As seen in the vignette above, stu-
dents practiced the literacy skills of writing (e.g., quick write), reading
(e.g., Declaration of Independence), discussing, and paraphrasing. These
skills were being used, practiced, and learned while exploring student
conceptions of independence and the colonists’ reasons for desiring U.S.
independence from Britain.
Furthermore, Ms. Scott developed historical thinking skills for her
ELLs while also considering their linguistic needs in the social studies
classroom. For example, she set a schema for students by activing their
prior knowledge related to discussing what “independence” meant to
them while also contextualizing the historical document with a short
mini lesson. She also sourced the document prior to the read aloud and
had students participate in a close reading while engaged in the read
aloud. These historical thinking skills were further supported by the focus
on her ELL students seeing and experiencing the complete text. As seen
in the lesson, she wanted students to see, read, listen to, and analyze the
document. The pedagogical themes and examples presented by Ms. Scott
move the CLRHT framework further by providing specific examples for
what teachers might consider doing in their classrooms to support his-

torical thinking skills for ELLs in the social studies.
Mr. Cooper Green
Mr. Green, a white man in his late 20s from New York, graduated with
an undergraduate degree in history, with a certification in social studies,
and a Master of Arts degree in Liberal Studies. He taught at Northeast
International High School (NIHS) for over seven years. While at NIHS,
Mr. Green was involved in a number of professional development and
service opportunities outside of school related to teaching and social
studies education. He was awarded numerous grants and fellowships to
attend conferences on teaching U.S. History and the Constitution. He
also presented on teaching social studies for ELLs and often discussed his
love for sharing with and learning from others at professional
conferences.
Mr. Green taught one section of Advanced Placement U.S. Government
and Politics and four sections of U.S. History. He desired to support his
newcomer ELLs beyond the classroom by encouraging them to use what
they have learned to support their communities, families, and friends.
“Making a difference in their lives” was Mr. Green’s way of giving back to
the teacher who supported his mother (a Cuban immigrant) and pro-
vided meaningful educational experiences when she first arrived in the
USA. Mr. Green’s personal and professional commitment to teaching
social studies for ELLs strongly influenced his classroom instruction. Mr.
Green often used teacher-centered methods as well as employed peda-
gogical strategies that incorporated images, videos, graphic organizers,
and small group work.
Northeast International High School
NIHS was a large school with over 1000 students in grades 9–12 located
in New York. At NIHS, 100% of the students were ELLs. The primary
mission of the school was to “provide immigrant students with an aca-
20 A.T. Jaffee
demic program geared to achieve excellence by responding to their unique

needs.” NIHS is over 15 years old and has been consistently ranked as
one of the top newcomer high schools in the area. While language and
learning English played an important role at NIHS, students were
required to take the end of year statewide exam in all subjects (English,
History, Science, Math). Developing native language skills was also an
important goal to NIHS, offering both Spanish and Chinese transitional
bilingual programs in the social studies. Students in these classes learned
social studies content in their native language and switched to English as
the year progressed. The ultimate goal of a transitional bilingual program
is to provide ELLs with full proficiency in their home language, provid-
ing a “solid linguistic foundation,” as students’ transition to learning
English (Cruz & Thornton, 2009, p. 20). ELL students in Mr. Green’s
class transitioned “out of ” the bilingual program and moved into his
class, which was a sheltered English instruction environment (Cruz &
Thornton, 2009).
The demographic makeup of students at NIHS included 5% black,
57% Hispanic, 6% white, and 32% Asian students. Students attending
NIHS hailed from countries, including Colombia, Honduras, Dominican
Republic, Algeria, Poland, Haiti, Russia, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
(among many others). Mr. Green’s U.S. History class had 34 students,
and the demographic makeup of the class included students from many
of the countries listed above. English proficiency levels varied among the
students in his class, and students interacted across and within different
countries of origin. While Ms. Scott organized groups for her students,
Mr. Green let students choose their own groups. Often times, students
organized themselves in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous group.
While group work was not the primary method of instruction, the class
was highly interactive and students participated in lecture-discussions.
Mr. Green’s U.S. History course focused on developing an understanding

of major themes and events in U.S. History and government. The course
centered on cultivating an appreciation and enjoyment for history
through the following course goals and objectives: (a) understanding how
the past has shaped the present, (b) understanding the U.S. Constitution
and U.S. government, and (c) developing English language acquisition
through studying U.S. History. Mr. Green stressed that students must
“keep up with the pace of the class” as this was a rigorous course in the
11th grade year for his newcomer ELLs.
Mr. Green’s course was taught chronologically and covered the first
half of the New York State U.S. History and Geography curriculum. Mr.
Green ultimately wanted students to walk away from the class with a
fundamental understanding of U.S. government structure and functions,
saying, “if you don’t know how the machine works, you can’t fix the
machine.” Mr. Green hoped his newcomer students would be well pre-
pared for and achieve good grades on the statewide [Regents] standard-
ized exam. He was not always proud to say that “doing well on the exam”
was one of his main goals for the course, but he felt that it was important
for his students to pass the exam; he explained:
it would be a disservice for me, it will be selfish of me to say, ‘I’m going to

teach you what I think you need to know,’ my version would be a very
[Howard] Zinn type of U.S. history, but that is not how the Regents frames
it. So my goal is to get them a good grade on the Regents, but also to be
critical thinkers [and] question things…
Mr. Green struggled with depth versus breadth of U.S. History content

coverage. He was able to navigate this tension by providing students with
extensive vocabulary lists. The lists acted as a skeleton for the course, and
he used a word wall to support students’ learning of social studies con-
cepts/terms. By using the vocabulary as a backdrop for U.S. History con-
tent learned, Mr. Green hoped his newcomer students would be able to
go more in-depth into particular topics.
Lesson Vignette: Introducing the U.S. Constitution
At the beginning of the lesson, Mr. Green prompted students to write

down the aim and language objectives for the day: (a) Aim—how does
22 A.T. Jaffee
the organization of the U.S. Constitution prove to us the intentions of

the founding fathers? (b) Language objectives—reading, writing, and
analyzing primary documents. As students began to write the aim and
language objectives, Mr. Green wrote the “Do Now” on the board: (a)
Test, (b) 5W/1H U.S. Constitution. Mr. Green introduced the class as a
pre-U.S. Constitution lesson, which would be followed in the next two
and half weeks by lessons about the U.S. Constitution itself. Students
were called up one by one to look at their test and final grades for the
marking period, while the rest of the class worked in groups, pairs, or
individually on the Do Now, “5 W/1H on the U.S. Constitution.”
Together as a class, they reviewed what each of the “Ws” and “H” meant:
who, what, where, when, why, and how? To explain each of the 5Ws and
H, he used an example of students talking about a fight while at lunch,
saying, “Who was there? What were they doing? Where was the fight?
Why were they fighting? When? Why? Someone was arrested? How?”
Students laughed at Mr. Green’s animated example and wrote down the
graphic organizer he created on the board. The graphic organizer was a
spider diagram. The U.S. Constitution took the place of the body in the
middle, and each “W” and “H” was attached as a leg. Mr. Green asked
each student to use a textbook and look in the index first for the
“U.S. Constitution” and complete the graphic organizer by asking vari-
ous questions about the document.
Mr. Green solicited students’ ideas about various questions they might
ask when completing the diagram. Students responded: “Who created
the U.S. Constitution? Who supported the U.S. Constitution? Who rati-
fied the U.S. Constitution?” Mr. Green complimented students on their
great “who” questions and said, “you could also do the opposite, ‘who did
not support the Constitution?’” He continued, explaining, “Great, I
want you to be an active reader. What are some ‘what’ questions?” He
asked students to be prepared to write their responses on the board and
complete the graphic organizer “for all to see.” Students immediately got
to work. Examples of questions students created about the
U.S. Constitution included: (a) When was the Constitution created? (b)
Why was the Constitution created? (c) How did the Constitution help
the citizens? As the class finished up the Do Now, Mr. Green asked stu-
dents to make sure they noted from where, in the text, they obtained
their information. This detail was necessary to check the accuracy of the
gathered information when they put their responses on the board and to
assess whether they had interpreted the information in the textbook
correctly.
Twenty minutes into the lesson, Mr. Green began handing out white
board markers to various students. Students with a marker began to write
on the board, filling out the spider diagram. After the first set of students
wrote their comments on the board, they handed their markers to other
students, who would then write more comments for the class to see. In
review, Mr. Green made his way to the “why” question and asked Jose to
explain his comment to the question, “Why did they need to create the
U.S. Constitution?” Jose responded, “to provide a more perfect union, to
provide for the common defense…” Mr. Green replied, “okay, well I
don’t want you to read the document, I want you to tell me why it was
written. Go back to your notes.” Jose went back to his notes, and Mr.
Green asked, “a more perfect union, what does that mean?” Jose said,
“only one country.” Mr. Green responded, “right, we are going to form a
union.” Another student, Lorna, chimed in, “to take their own responsi-
bilities, because they are free from the British.” Mr. Green supported
their comments by noting, “Perfect, because they created a system of
government that did not work, the Articles of Confederation.” He con-
tinued to review the Articles of Confederation and other preceding
historical documents to set the context for understanding the organiza-
tion of the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Green handed out a graphic organizer titled “The 5 Steps of
American Government.” He asked students to follow along with him
using the guiding question “What was the first step toward American
Government?” Students filled out the step chart as a class, including the
date and main idea/themes for each of the five “steps,” including the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution,
Bill of Rights/Amendments, and Changes to the Constitution. Once he
got to the fifth step he noted, “it is very important that you realize that
every President will change the Constitution somehow, and many of
these changes can affect your life in one way or another.” He explained
that it was important for them to be aware of these changes and the
people we elect who make these changes “in our society.” Posted on his
24 A.T. Jaffee
wall was a large “authentic” Constitution. He took it down and walked

around the room so students could see the document up close. As he
walked around the room, he continued to explain a bit more about the
organization of the U.S. Constitution as students listened quietly. Then,
he asked students to take out their U.S. Constitutions. Every student in
the class pulled out a red, pocket-sized Constitution. He wrote on the
board “Organization of the U.S. Constitution” followed by numbers one
through eight. He asked students to take notes, follow along with the
document, and begin writing down each section of the Constitution.
Pedagogical Themes
The pedagogical themes that emerged from Mr. Green’s social studies
pedagogy and related to the CLRHT framework included developing an
active and educated citizenry, the impact of politics on history, storying
history, and contextualizing historical content with vocabulary instruc-
tion. Mr. Green felt that it was critically important to situate his
U.S. History class for newcomer ELLs with the goal of making the con-
tent and skills learned relevant and important for students to take back to
their communities, families, and friends. This goal supported his under-
standing of developing an active and engaged citizenry. Furthermore,
having students think about how politics (and elected officials) have the
capacity to change the U.S. Constitution (e.g., as explained at the end of
the lesson vignette), further supported the notion of preparing his stu-
dents to think critically and engage with the history learned in his class.
As seen in the “Do Now” example in the lesson vignette above, another
pedagogical theme that emerged from Mr. Green’s case study was story-
ing history. He frequently used strategies that would have students think
about history as a story: Who was there? Why? Where were they? Thinking
about the historical narrative, and also historical documents, with this
framework in mind supported historical thinking skills like contextual-
ization, sourcing, close reading, and corroboration. While he did not
teach corroboration in the lesson example on the U.S. Constitution, one
could argue he was teaching the skills necessary to be able to think about
what might have been missing in the document, for example, voices,
ideas, language used. For example, in saying, “you could also ask, ‘who
did not support the Constitution?’” This quick response prepared stu-
dents for examining ideas and documents that argued against the ratifica-
tion of the U.S. Constitution. Lastly, by situating much of his instruction
with a foundation in knowing historical vocabulary (e.g., using vocabu-
lary lists and a word wall), Mr. Green scaffolded students’ linguistic needs
to better understand the content taught. Mr. Green’s instruction also
moved the CLRHT framework forward, similar to Ms. Scott, but in
varying ways.
Ms. Jennifer Edwards
Ms. Edwards, a white woman in her mid-30s from New Jersey, went to
college in Indiana and received an undergraduate degree in archaeology.
Shortly after graduating, Ms. Edwards returned to school to obtain a
Master of Arts degree in American History and Museum Studies. Prior to
teaching, Ms. Edwards worked in the museum field for three years and
was the education director at a farmhouse museum in New York City.
After leaving the museum, Ms. Edwards enrolled in graduate school to
obtain a Master’s degree in Secondary Education. Upon graduating, she
was hired as a social studies teacher in a charter school in New Jersey. For
one year she taught seventh and eighth grade social studies. Soon after,
Ms. Edwards moved to Hilton, Virginia, where she has taught for four
years as a high school social studies teacher. Her experiences as a museum
educator and charter school teacher has greatly influenced her strong
desire to teach the new social history or the history of “unknown people”
and their stories, encourage students to challenge “assumed power struc-
tures” in U.S. society, support “learning about the world,” and teaching
important skills through history.
At Hilton High School, Ms. Edwards taught U.S. History at the dual
enrollment level, regular level, and for ELLs. The ELL U.S. History class
was taught on a full year schedule and met every day for 90 minutes. All
of her U.S. History classes were required to take an end of year statewide
exam. Ms. Edwards often felt constrained by the test and the standards
students were “required” to know. That being said, she was passionate
26 A.T. Jaffee
about teaching newcomer ELLs. She focused very intently on their lin-
guistic and content needs and desired to make the course informative and
engaging for students.
Ms. Edwards cared deeply about her students. I frequently observed her
speaking one-on-one with students asking about how they were doing, or
what was going on in their lives. An example of her deep care for students
and consideration of their everyday challenges was observed by allowing
her students to step out and take phone calls, if they were waiting on
important calls regarding work, family needs, or otherwise. Many of the
students in her newcomer ELL U.S. History class were over 18 and worked
multiple jobs; therefore, she was very cognizant of their needs and goals,
and gave them the space (when needed) to address what was going on in
their lives. Often, she reflected on how schooling was not meeting the
needs of the changing demographics and the reality of students’ lives. Ms.
Edwards directly challenged this conflict by providing a space for students
to speak about issues they were facing or work one-on-one with her to
complete tasks. She was willing and desired to make school accessible and
relevant for her students, as she knew many of them cared deeply about
graduating and moving forward with their lives, careers, and education.
Hilton High School
The changing nature of demographics in Hilton, Virginia, is unique to

the state. Currently, 15% of residents are foreign-born (US Census
Bureau, 2015), and the population of ELLs in Hilton public schools is
approaching 35% with over 49 different languages spoken. Due to an
established refugee resettlement program, Hilton has received families
most recently from Syria, Eritrea, Congo, Iraq, and Cuba. Hilton High
School and Ms. Edwards’ U.S. History class reflect the demographic
shifts that are occurring in the community. Hilton’s vision statement
reads, “Where learning has no limits and together we work for the success
of ALL!” There are 1643 students in grades 9–12 at Hilton. The demo-
graphic makeup of the students includes Latino/as, as the majority, fol-
lowed by white, African American, Asian, multiracial, and American
Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander.
Ms. Edwards’ newcomer ELL U.S. History course had 19 students

and represented both 11th and 12th grades. She shared that her students’
limited English proficiency (LEP) levels range from two through six, sug-
gesting that there was quite a variance in English language proficiency in
her class. The languages spoken included Arabic, Tigrinya, Spanish, and
English, and the countries represented were Kurdistan, Eritrea, Honduras,
El Salvador, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Guatemala. Similar to the overall
demographics of Hilton High School, the majority of students in the
U.S. History class were Spanish-speaking Latino/as. Overall, students in
the class preferred to work with peers from their similar linguistic back-
grounds. Students often sat in rows, like in Mr. Green’s class, but when
organized in groups they chose to work in homogeneous linguistic
groups. Ms. Edwards used a variety of methods to support her ELL stu-
dents’ needs including vocabulary/concept instruction, graphic organiz-
ers, visual representation (e.g., images, film clips, maps), and skill-based
instruction.
Ms. Edwards’ U.S. History curriculum goals focused on challenging the

traditional narrative by discussing stories of everyday people who were
known for notable achievements in history as well as challenged power
structures that existed (and still exist) in society. The issue, however, for
Ms. Edwards was finding the time to engage herself and her students in
challenging the traditional narrative. Ms. Edwards often felt constrained
by covering all of the U.S. History standards in order to best prepare her
newcomer ELLs for the statewide exams; she explained:
It’s hard because I mean that’s the challenge of this job is like at the end of
the day ultimately I feel like my responsibility is to prepare them for this
test… I would hate for a kid not to graduate from high school because I
chose to focus on what I wanted to focus on and didn’t teach them what
they needed to pass this test…
Due to Ms. Edwards’ commitment and dedication to her newcomer stu-

dents, she was willing to work within the system that she was (and is)
28 A.T. Jaffee
trying to challenge. This system, as Ms. Edwards articulated in inter-

views, was perpetuating a narrative of “American exceptionalism”; she
further explained how she was “pushing back against assumed power
structures, and [examining] ‘what does that mean and what does that
look like?’” Ms. Edwards wanted to teach her ELLs about the power
structures that exist in U.S. society and how they came to be historically.
She also wanted to encourage her students to see themselves as agents of
change in this system. Furthermore, having her newcomer students eval-
uate why they might confront a systemic issue was a goal of hers, and she
hoped they would use the historical knowledge gained in her class to help
support their opinions as well as learn the skills necessary to challenge
these systems.
Ms. Edwards worked to achieve these goals by focusing her U.S. History
instruction on “visually” representing concepts and vocabulary. For
example, as a warm up for each lesson, Ms. Edwards often had students
engage in an activity that encouraged them to “visually” represent the
concepts or vocabulary for that unit/section of the unit; activities observed
included word clouds (e.g., brainstorming words related to the previous
unit), “post-it” walls (e.g., writing vocabulary words on a post-it with the
definition on the back to prompt discussion or review), and word identi-
fications (e.g., identifying words in a summary paragraph that represent
key concepts/vocabulary). These activities helped students review con-
cepts/key terms and also encouraged them to practice reading, writing,
and thinking about history in English.
L esson Vignette: Popular Culture in the 1920s

and 1930s
In one lesson, Ms. Edwards went beyond concept and vocabulary instruc-
tion to help students gain a depth of understanding about U.S. society
and culture during the 1920s and 1930s. For example, students were
asked to examine “popular culture of the 1920s and 1930s.” Ms. Edwards
explained to her ELL students that people were facing many highs and
lows in the USA at this time, and “popular forms of entertainment” pro-
vided an outlet for people. These forms of entertainment, she explained,
were spread by “mass media.” Earlier in the lesson they discussed as a class
what the “two-tier” vocabulary words were for the unit and “mass media”
was one of the terms. She explained, “it [mass media] encompasses all the
different ways we spread information.” Pointing to pictures on the
PowerPoint, she said, “so this is mass media today, a radio, a TV, a com-
puter, a phone.” Students in the class responded, “not the radio, Miss.”
Ms. Edwards replied, “Do you not listen to the radio? Not in your car?”
One student replied, “I listen to Q101” [a popular music station].
“Okay,” Edwards replied, “do you think Adele will be popular for a while?
They recorded her songs, so even if she isn’t singing they can still listen to
it.” Another student responded, “yeah, like old songs.” Edwards
responded, “right!” This interaction with her students displayed a peda-
gogy of call and response that often transpired in Ms. Edwards’ class-
room. As the lesson continued, students figured out what mass media was
and reflected on the various forms of media in the USA. Using an exam-
ple of a current popular music artist, students figured out how sharing
Adele’s music using radio helped spread her music and sustain her
popularity, and therefore was a form of mass media and its enduring fea-
tures in U.S. society.
As the lesson continued, Ms. Edwards wanted her students to see and
feel what Americans in the 1920s and 1930s may have been experiencing.
She storied the history explaining to her students:
The radio was also used by the President…this was called “Fireside Chats”
… [the radio] was like a piece of furniture, it would sit in the center of the
living room. Like you do now, you sit in your living room and watch a
show on TV, people would do the same thing with the radio. When it was
a “movie” they would do the sounds like [knocks on the board], and they
knocked on the door.
She restated, “something FDR started to do was a fireside chat, do you

know what a chat is?” One student responded, “a talk.” “Right,” Ms.
Edwards said, “it was a lot less formal…and when things started to get
tough in America, he would start to broadcast these chats…he would
start with, ‘my friends…’ saying, ‘I closed the banks today, but don’t
worry, I’m your President, it will be okay.’” Ms. Edwards’ students listened
30 A.T. Jaffee
intently as she shared various short anecdotes, and followed along with
their notes—highlighting key content items together.
She went on to explain, “Movies at this time, provided an escape from
hard times…people would go to the movies and forget about their trou-
bles for a while.” Then, she pulled up a short film from Charlie Chaplin’s,
“The Lion’s Cage.” Using this clip, students enjoyed what folks in the
1920s and 1930s watched at the movies and experienced what it might
have meant to “forget about their troubles for a while.” One student
asked before the clip started, “Miss, in the old times, did he actually have
to go into the lion’s cage [when filming]?” Ms. Edwards answered, “yeah,
probably!” The students began to laugh and the laughing did not stop.
As the students watched Charlie Chaplin try to negotiate with a lion,
they smiled, laughed, and slipped away from the realities of school for a
moment. Before the video ended, the students asked to view more film
clips, “can we watch another, Miss?” She laughed and displayed an appre-
ciation for their excitement, saying: “So imagine, think about this, in
your real life, in the 1930s maybe you just lost your job, maybe you can’t
pay your bills, maybe you have a nickel, you have 5 cents, and use it to go
to the movies. [When you were watching this] didn’t you forget about
everything you had going on and think, ‘oh my gosh he is about to get
eaten by a lion!’” Students laughed and nodded as the class period ended.
Ms. Edwards ended the lesson focusing on the experiences of North
Americans in the 1920s and 1930s, while also supporting students’
CLRHT skills.
Pedagogical Themes
The pedagogical themes that emerged from Ms. Edwards’ social studies
pedagogy and supported the CLRHT framework included challenging
the traditional historical narrative, advocating for newcomer ELLs, using
two-tier vocabulary, and visualizing history. Her approach to challenging
the historical narrative, as explained above, encouraged the development
of historical inquiry for her newcomer ELLs (Barton & Levstik, 2008;
NCSS, 2013). By supporting students in questioning current power
structures, historically and contemporarily, they were developing the
skills to inquire about stated facts, figures, and concepts that are often
considered “truth” in history classroom instruction. These conceptions of
teaching history related to her philosophical beliefs for teaching new-
comer ELLs. Ms. Edwards’ deep care, commitment, and dedication to
supporting her newcomer students’ experiences in school and society
reflected how she advocated for her ELL students. For example, she was
constantly trying to make her class relevant and useful—reflected above
on the importance of passing the statewide exam—knowing that gradu-
ating from high school was a personal goal for all her students.
In working to achieve these goals, Ms. Edwards employed pedagogical
strategies that supported learning two-tier vocabulary, or words that are
necessary to know in order to understand the historical content. For
example, they include words that support context understanding of his-
torical topics, concepts, figures, or moments. She reflected that two-tier
words were almost as important to know, if not more important to know,
than history vocabulary as these words were transferable to other subject
matters and to communicating in English in their daily lives. Her goal
was to help her ELL students understand the words but also apply the use
of the words to other contexts. She identified these words from analyzing
the state standards, and would pre-teach the two-tier words prior to
teaching the historical content knowledge. As shown in the lesson above,
“visualizing history” was an important pedagogical strategy for Ms.
Edwards. This involved teaching historical vocabulary, texts, and content
through multiple visual forms. For example, images, music, film, graphic
organizers, charts/graphs, and short writing activities. Often times dur-
ing observations I noticed students speaking with their peers, either in
their native language or in English, about the activity and how they might
phrase, draw, or present a concept or vocabulary word, aiding in their
learning of historical content.
Implications for Teacher Education

There are a number of implications from this chapter for social studies
teacher education and TESOL teacher education, particularly related to
considering the implementation of the CLRHT framework, drawing on
32 A.T. Jaffee
pedagogical ideas/themes in coursework and workshops, and impacting

overall curriculum development on teaching social studies for ELLs.
Teacher educators’ might consider incorporating the CLRHT framework
into coursework and/or professional development experiences when dis-
cussing how to approach teaching ELLs in social studies classrooms. The
CLRHT framework offers two key theoretical concepts, culturally and
linguistically relevant teaching (Jaffee, 2016a; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Lucas & Villegas, 2010) and historical thinking (Barton & Levstik, 2008;
Martin, 2011; Wineburg, 2001; Wineburg et al., 2011; Yeager & Wilson,
1997), for teacher educators to explore and unpack with their pre-service
and in-service teachers in varying communities and classroom contexts.
Further, this framework offers a theoretical foundation for the work that
many teachers may be currently doing (or striving to do) and perhaps the
case studies might provide support for and examples of how to imple-
ment CLRHT in their social studies classrooms.
Furthermore, the case studies in this chapter offer teacher educators a
variety of pedagogical ideas, themes, and lessons to draw from and apply
in their coursework and workshops. These ideas and themes offer pre-
service and in-service teachers a number of different examples for how to
teach social studies content that is culturally and linguistically relevant
(e.g., drawing on students’ prior knowledge and experiences [Bartlett &
García, 2011; Flatis & Coulter, 2008; García, 2005]) while developing
historical thinking skills. Teaching history as inquiry, contextualizing his-
torical content with vocabulary instruction, and visualizing history are
examples of pedagogical ideas this chapter offers teacher educators when
considering how to approach teaching social studies for ELLs.
Lastly, this chapter might also impact curricular development for social
studies and TESOL teacher education at the university, state-wide, and/
or local level, as the case studies provide classroom-based research and
practice for teaching newcomer ELLs. Specifically, the case studies offer
pre-service and in-service teachers a variety of contexts and schools to
examine as well as different approaches and goals for teaching the
U.S. History curriculum for newcomer ELLs. It is my hope that these
case studies offer various examples that teacher educators can draw from
when designing curriculum for their pre-service and in-service teachers.
Applications in Teacher Education

In the following section, I discuss and present examples of how to apply
the case studies described in teacher education courses and professional
development experiences for pre-service and in-service teachers. As a
social studies teacher educator, a main goal of mine is for pre-service
social studies teachers to make sure they include a discussion of why they
chose to incorporate a particular method into a lesson plan, in addition
to including what it is they wish to implement. The consideration of why
one chooses to use a method, in my opinion, encourages teachers to think
about the theoretical as well as pedagogical reasons for implementing
certain methods. I would suggest beginning a lesson or professional
development experience with this discussion.
For example, asking why a teacher might choose to use a read aloud for
a class with ELLs stimulates a meta-cognitive (thinking about your think-
ing) “discussion” about how this method supports (or does not) the
following considerations: who is in the classroom, what are their needs
and experiences, how does this method support their learning of histori-
cal content, why the students may or may not need to learn in this par-
ticular manner, what do they already know/not know about the content
or language needed for this lesson, and/or does this method align with
how I philosophically believe I should teach social studies for ELLs?
These are just a few questions pre-service or in-service teachers might
consider prior to deciding what the best method might be to implement
when teaching ELLs social studies.
After an initial discussion about why to use particular methods, I
would suggest taking the time to analyze the various case studies pre-
sented in this chapter. A critical component to consider regarding the
presentation of each case study is a discussion with teachers (either before
or after the presentation of the cases) about how one might approach
using the various research-based theories and methods in their own con-
texts. Furthermore, the research context for each lesson vignette is impor-
tant for teachers, as it offers the background information for how and
why each teacher used certain methods in particular ways. I hope that
pre-service and in-service teachers will be able to identify with some, if
34 A.T. Jaffee
not all, of the contextual factors and therefore feel supported in their
reasons for why they would approach teaching their current or future
ELL students social studies.
An example of a lesson with pre-service and/or in-service teachers
might involve a jigsaw of the case studies above. This would require teach-
ers to be split into groups of three (or six if it is a larger group, whereby
two groups would read the same case study), and each group would
become experts on one of the case studies: Ms. Scott, Mr. Green, or Ms.
Edwards. Initially, groups would take the time to read, unpack, analyze,
and discuss their assigned case study. I would suggest that teacher educa-
tors create and incorporate discussion points or questions related to the
subsections of each case study: teacher, school/students, curriculum goals,
lesson vignette, and pedagogical themes; therefore, supporting each
group to analyze the entire case study. For example, questions might
include: How does the teacher approach teaching U.S. History for ELLs
and how does their background, schooling, philosophy, and/or commu-
nity context influence this approach? How is their approach to teaching
U.S. History for ELLs reflected (or not reflected) in their lesson vignette?
In your opinion, how does the teacher support and/or extend the CLRHT
framework? After reading and discussing the case study, pre-service and/
or in-service teachers will be re-organized into new groups so that a rep-
resentative (or multiple, depending on the size of the group) from each
case study will be part of the new group.
In the new groups, encourage teachers to share what they learned from
the case study, and after each representative has shared, conclude with
questions for discussion—for example: Which case study did you iden-
tify with the most, explain why? How might you take the ideas and/or
methods presented in the case study into your current or future class-
room? After concluding the jigsaw, an important extension would be to
have pre-service and/or in-service teachers practice the methods in an
actual social studies classroom. A possible assignment prompt might
state: “(1) choose one—two methods explored in the case studies, (2)
modify the method to fit your needs (e.g., context and/or subject mat-
ter), (3) implement the developed method in a classroom setting (e.g.,
methods class, practicum, student teaching, current classroom), (4) write
a short reflection on the experience and be prepared to come back to class
or a future professional development session to share your experiences

with your colleagues.”
During the follow-up class or meeting session, it is critical for
teacher educators to allot enough time for pre-service and/or in-service
teachers to reflect on what worked, what did not work, and what they
might change for next time. It is these moments of reflection that are
often the most powerful and offer the greatest learning experience,
especially when it relates to designing effective and powerful methods
for ELLs. Designing instruction for newcomer ELLs can be difficult,
but it is an incredibly important task to practice and apply in social
studies teacher education coursework and professional development
experiences.
Notes
1. “Newcomers,” also defined as newly arrived immigrants in the literature,
are born in their native country and have arrived in the USA within the
last 5 years (Suárez-Orozco, Pimentel, & Martin, 2009).
References
Almarza, D. L. (2001). Context shaping minority language students’ percep-
tions of American history. Journal of Social Studies Research, 25(2), 4–22.
Bartlett, L., & García, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Press.
Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2008). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bunch, G. C. (2009). “Going up there”: Challenges and opportunities for lan-
guage minority students during a mainstream classroom speech event.
Linguistics and Education, 20(2), 81–108. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.04.001.
Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school
social studies teachers and English language learner instruction. The Social
Studies, 99(6), 235–242.
Cruz, B., & Thornton, S. (2009). Teaching social studies to English language
learners. New York: Routledge.
36 A.T. Jaffee
Cummings, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the
distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language
and education: Vol. 2 literacy (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). New York: Springer.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible
for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Flatis, C. J., & Coulter, C. A. (2008). Teaching English language learners and
immigrant students in secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Franquiz, M. E., & Salinas, C. S. (2011). Newcomers to the U.S.: Developing
historical thinking among Latino immigrant students in a central Texas high
school. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 58–75. doi:10.1080/15235882.20
11.568831.
García, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and
schooling in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and
practices for English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jaffee, A. T. (2016a). Social studies pedagogy for Latino/a newcomer youth:
Toward a theory of culturally and linguistically relevant citizenship educa-
tion. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(2), 147–183. doi:10.1080/0
0933104.2016.1171184.
Jaffee, A. T. (2016b). Community, voice, and inquiry: Teaching global history
for English language learners. The Social Studies, 107(3), 1–13.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The
preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. National Society for the Study
of Education Yearbook, 109, 297–318.
Martin, D. (2011, January 10). What is historical thinking? Retrieved from
http://teachinghistory.org/nhec-blog/24434
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and
civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhanc-
ing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring,
MD: NCSS.
Ramirez, P., & Jaffee, A. T. (2016). Culturally responsive social studies teaching
for newcomer students: A cross-state case study of two teachers in Arizona
and New York. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(1),
45–67.
Short, D. J. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL
Journal, 11(1), 18–24. doi:10.1002/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00062.x.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanford History Education Group. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sheg.stan-
ford.edu
Suárez-Orozco, C., Pimentel, A., & Martin, M. (2009). The significance of rela-
tionships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immi-
grant youth. Teachers College Record, 111, 712–749.
Szpara, M. Y., & Ahmad, I. (2007). Supporting English-language learners in
social studies class: Results from a study of high school teachers. The Social
Studies, 98, 189–196.
Terzian, S. G., & Yeager, E. A. (2007). “That’s when we become a nation:”
Urban Latino adolescents and the designation of historical significance.
Urban Education, 42(1), 52–81.
United States Census Bureau. (2015). State and county quickfacts. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51660.html
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the
future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Reading like a historian:
Teaching literacy in middle and high school social studies classrooms. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Yeager, E. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1997). Teaching historical thinking in the social
studies methods course: A case study. The Social Studies, 88(3), 121–126.
doi:10.1080/00377999709603758.
Yoder, P., Kibler, A., & van Hover, S. (2016). Instruction for English language
learners in the social studies classroom: A meta-synthesis. Social studies
research and practice, 11(1), 20–39.
Ashley Taylor Jaffee is an assistant professor of social studies education at

James Madison University. Ashley received her B.A. in political science and
MAT in secondary social studies from the University of Virginia. She taught
middle and high school social studies in San Juan, Puerto Rico. After teaching in
Puerto Rico, Ashley received her Ph.D. in social studies education from Teachers
College, Columbia University. Her research focuses on social studies and citizen-
ship education, culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy, and immigrant
youth. She currently teaches courses in social studies methods and seminar, stu-
dent teaching practicum and internship seminar, and curriculum theory.
3
Teaching History to ELLs in Standards-
Based Settings: Implications for Teacher
Educators
Paul J. Yoder and Stephanie van Hover
In the mid-1990s, the Commonwealth of Virginia initiated a massive

standards-based reform effort that set expectations for learning in all sub-
ject areas, including history, with frameworks that listed the “essential”
knowledge and skills that every child is expected to learn. Associated
high-stakes multiple-choice exams measure what students learned at the
end of each course. In history, these tests largely emphasize the recall of
factual content. A growing body of research in Virginia and nationally
indicates that teachers feel constrained and pressured to teach to state
standards, particularly when a high-stakes test is administered (Au, 2007;
Grant, 2001, 2010; Grant & Salinas, 2008; van Hover, 2006; Yeager &
van Hover, 2006). This work, however, is largely silent on the experiences
of teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in high-stakes testing
P.J. Yoder (*)

Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA
S. van Hover
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

40 P.J. Yoder and S. van Hover
contexts, particularly in a content area like U.S. history, which relies

heavily on collective memory and prior school experience (e.g., Colombo
& Fontaine, 2009; Janzen, 2008; Yoder, Kibler, & van Hover, 2016). It
is evident that social studies teachers consistently report feeling unpre-
pared to teach ELLs (Cho & Reich, 2008; Jimenez-Silva, Hinde, &
Hernandez, 2013; O’Brien, 2009, 2011), but what are the implications
of teaching ELLs in a standards-based setting?
Given the gap in the literature, as well as the contextual challenges
associated with teaching in a standards-based setting and providing his-
tory instruction appropriate for ELLs, we conducted a case study of one
middle school history teacher in a culturally and linguistically diverse
school district in Virginia. During our data collection in spring 2014,
ELLs made up 21 percent of the students in the middle school in which
the study took place. In this chapter, we examine the teacher’s decision-
making and meaning-making processes in the context of teaching ELLs
in a standardized-based setting.
Literature Review
In a recent review of the literature, we found that there continues to be
limited empirical data on the instructional decisions of social studies edu-
cators who teach ELLs and that there is an ongoing need for additional
training for both pre-service and in-service social studies teachers who
(will) have ELLs in their classes (Yoder et al., 2016). Analysis from the
field of functional linguistics adds a compounding factor for history
teachers as Schleppegrell (2004) and colleagues (2008) have demon-
strated that the complex language structures and academic skills of his-
tory place significant demands on ELLs. Research suggests that history
teachers feel unprepared to meet the needs of their ELLs (Jimenez-Silva
et al., 2013). Teachers specifically identify insufficient training (Jimenez-
Silva et al., 2013; O’Brien, 2011) and inadequate instructional materials
as barriers (Cho & Reich, 2008; Hilburn, 2014). In addition, Cho and
Reich (2008) reported that teachers described a “lack of time” (p. 237) as
a challenge they faced when teaching ELLs (see also Jimenez-Silva et al.,
2013).
3 Teaching History to ELLs in Standards-Based Settings... 41
In addition, the literature on teaching in standards-based settings sug-

gests that teachers narrow the curriculum and teach to the standards when
a high-stakes test is present (Au, 2007; Grant, 2001, 2010; Grant &
Salinas, 2008). Research among Virginia history teachers has yielded sim-
ilar results (van Hover, 2006; Yeager & van Hover, 2006). For example, in
the recent examination of the collaboration between a high school world
history teacher and a special education teacher, van Hover, Hicks, and
Sayeski (2012) found that the history teacher exhibited a “narrow focus
on his students’ test scores” (p. 260). The approaches detailed in this body
of knowledge often reflect what Barton and Levstik (2003) describe as a
“coverage and control” approach to teaching history in which teachers
describe “the need to cover the prescribed curriculum” (p. 359).
In short, history teachers with ELLs and history teachers in standards-
based settings each articulate environmental and curricular challenges. We
expected that teaching history to ELLs within a standardized-based setting
may exacerbate the concerns already addressed in the literature. Yet research
on the teaching and learning of history in standards-based setting has largely
ignored the impact of a high-stakes test on teaching ELLs. As such, we argue
that Grant’s (2003) conception of ambitious teaching and learning in stan-
dards-based settings is appropriate as a frame for this study. In order to ground
our analysis in the existing literature, we draw specifically on Grant’s (2003)
three tenets of ambitious teaching and learning: teacher subject knowledge,
understanding students, and creating a space for learning (see Fig. 3.1).
Subject Knowledge
Creang Space for Understanding

Learning Students
Fig. 3.1 Grant’s (2003) framework for ambitious teaching and learning of
history
In considering Grant’s (2003) first tenet of teacher “subject knowl-

edge,” we draw on existing literature on the disciplinary practices of his-
tory (e.g., Barton & Levstik, 2004; National Council for the Social
Studies, 2013; Vansledright, 2010, 2014). A disciplinary perspective of
history instruction reflects a view of “history as a social construction of
the past” (Barton & Avery, 2016, p. 36). Such an approach invites an
active approach to the teaching and learning of history, one in which
teachers and students engage in asking questions and constructing argu-
ments based on historical evidence (National Council for the Social
Studies, 2013; VanSledright, 2014).
In response to Grant’s (2003) second tenet of “understanding stu-
dents,” we refer to research that suggests that the role of student identity
development and socialization can inform history instruction (Epstein,
2009; Goldberg, 2013; Halagao, 2004; Martell, 2013). For example,
Epstein and colleagues (Epstein, 2009; Epstein, Mayorga, & Nelson,
2011) contend that history educators should learn about students’ cul-
tural and linguistic backgrounds, as well as how these student character-
istics inform students’ historical perspectives. Recent research into the
historical perspectives of ELLs suggests that many factors influence stu-
dents’ perceptions of and experiences with learning history (Choi, Lim,
& An, 2011; Levy, 2014; Peck, 2010; Yoder, 2016).
Finally, in conceptualizing Grant’s (2003) third tenet of “creating a
space for learning” in the context of teaching history to ELLs, we draw on
the literature related to linguistically responsive instruction (Lucas &
Villegas, 2010; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Yoder et al.,
2016) and culturally responsive instruction (Banks, 1999; Epstein et al.,
2011; Gay, 1995; Lee, 2010; Yoder et al., 2016). At a basic level, notions
of linguistically responsive instruction include adjusting instructional
practices and materials to match the English language proficiency of the
students in a given class. Culturally responsive instruction builds on an
understanding of students’ historical positionality and perspectives,
incorporating practices and content knowledge that reflect the cultural
backgrounds of the students (Fitchett & Heafner, 2012; Gay, 1995). In
short, creating space for learning requires history teachers to consider
“what is being taught, in addition to how it is being taught” (Yoder et al.,
2016, p. 31).
In addition to utilizing Grant’s (2003) notions of ambitious teach-

ing and learning, the present study also reflects Thornton’s (1991)
characterization of the teacher as a curricular-instructional gatekeeper.
Such an understanding emphasizes the need for empirical study of
individual teachers in order to better understand and ultimately pre-
pare teachers for the decision-making processes inherent in classroom
practice. In the following section, we describe the methods that guided
the present study.
Methods
In order to allow for rich and in-depth inquiry of a complex and situated
context (Creswell, 2009), we employed a case study approach. The par-
ticipant teacher, Mr. Henry, was purposefully chosen because he taught
U.S. history classes with a high density of ELLs across multiple class sec-
tions. Mr. Henry (a pseudonym) taught seventh grade at Jackson Heights
Middle School in a small city in Virginia. During data collection in
spring 2014, 21 percent of the students at Jackson Heights were labeled
as ELLs; these students were immigrants or the children of immigrants
from over 40 different countries, including Mexico, Ukraine, Iraq, and
Eritrea. The U.S. History II content is outlined by the Standards of
Learning (SOLs) in Virginia (Virginia Department of Education, 2008)
and there was a standardized high-stakes multiple-choice test adminis-
tered at the end of the year (see van Hover, Hicks, Stoddard, & Lisanti,
2010). In response to this unique combination of contextual elements,
this case study explored the following research question: Within a
standards-based, high-stakes testing context, how does one middle school
U.S. history teacher make sense of planning and implementing instruc-
tion for ELLs?
At the time of the study, Mr. Henry was in his second year of teach-
ing U.S. history. Prior to this assignment, he taught for three years in
the school district’s newcomer program for middle school ELLs. Mr.
Henry graduated with a B.A. in Spanish from a local liberal arts col-
lege and subsequently continued his education in order to earn a
teacher’s license with an ESL endorsement. He later added a history
and social studies endorsement through taking the applicable Praxis

test. Mr. Henry reported that though he had taken enough history
classes to earn a history minor, “it was never added to my transcript”
(interview, 2/21/14). Mr. Henry noted that he often read nonfiction
history-related books and that he chose to pursue teaching social stud-
ies after working with ELLs in the newcomer program because “the
stories that students carried with them and the history that kind of
came together through all of what they were going through were fasci-
nating” (interview, 2/21/14).
Data collection included teacher interviews, classroom observations,
and collection of curricular documents including lesson plans and
instructional handouts (see Table 3.1). We conducted three semi-
structured interviews over the course of the study; interviews were audio-
taped and transcribed (Kvale, 2007). We also observed Mr. Henry’s three
afternoon classes on seven separate occasions for a total of 21 hours of
observation, which we documented with detailed field notes including
description and analytic notes. We purposefully selected the three classes
as they had varying concentrations of ELLs and thus allowed for analysis
of variation in classroom practices (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995).
Period six had 12 ELLs out of a total of 21 students; period seven had 8
ELLs out of 18; and period eight had 21 ELLs in a class of 23. Upon
completion of the fieldwork, we engaged in an iterative coding process,
using both analytic induction to identify key themes that emerged from
Table 3.1 Data collection plan

Method Source(s) Dates
Observations (21) Field notes February 17, 2014
Instructional materials February 21, 2014
February 28, 2014
March 7, 2014
March 10, 2014
March 13, 2014
April 11, 2014
Teacher interviews (3) Audio recording February 21, 2014
Transcriptions March 10, 2014
April 11, 2014
across the three data sources (Erickson, 1986) and then linking these
themes to Grant’s (2003) three tenets of ambitious teaching and learning
of history.
Findings
Analysis of data indicate that Mr. Henry was aware of the unique
needs of the ELLs in his classes and, despite preparing one lesson plan
for all sections, adjusted his pacing, student grouping, and other
instructional elements in an attempt to make the U.S. history content
attainable and meaningful. Mr. Henry identified the standards-based
setting as having a pervasive influence on his instruction and wrestled
with how to balance the factual demands of the standardized test with
his students’ varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In short, Mr.
Henry sought to create a space for learning U.S. history content that
took into consideration his knowledge of his diverse students (Grant,
2003).
In presenting the findings in this section, we utilize the three tenets of
the theoretical framework. First, Mr. Henry reported that the standard-
ized curriculum formed the basis of his content planning and discussion
of subject knowledge. Second, Mr. Henry readily identified student char-
acteristics and displayed a strong understanding of his students. Third,
Mr. Henry differentiated his instruction across the three classes and
focused on skills outlined in the official curriculum in an effort to create
space for learning within the high-stakes testing environment.
ubject Knowledge: The “Fragmented” Standards

S
Mandate Coverage
Across the data sources, Mr. Henry consistently referenced and deferred
to the SOLs. A common feature of the lesson plans for the observed les-
sons was the presence of content objectives under the heading: “must
include essential knowledge and skills identified in the SOL Curriculum

Framework” (see Virginia Department of Education, 2008). The essen-
tial knowledge was most frequently presented in a large chunk of text in
the lesson plan. For example, in his lesson plan on World War II, Mr.
Henry wrote:
The student will demonstrate knowledge of the economic, social, and

political transformation of the United States and the world between the
end of World War II and the present by
(a) describing the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after World War II, the
emergence of the United States as a superpower, and the establishment
of the United Nations.
(b) describing the conversion from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
(c) identifying the role of America’s military and veterans in defending
freedom during the Cold War, including the wars in Korea and
Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the collapse of communism in
Europe, and the rise of new challenges.
(d) describing the changing patterns of society, including expanded
educational and economic opportunities for military veterans,
women, and minorities. (fieldnotes, 4/11/14)
The final item in the list was in bold on the lesson plan (as depicted
above) in order to indicate that it was the objective for that day’s lesson.
Underneath this chunk of text, in a different font, was the essential skill
for the lesson: “I will describe economic changes following World War
II.” In addition to documenting these standards in his plans, Mr. Henry
projected the skill on the board each day and asked a student to read it
aloud.
In addition to quoting the SOLs in his lesson plans, Mr. Henry also
demonstrated a strong alignment with the standards in his instruction.
For example, in the following field note excerpt, Mr. Henry appears to be
sticking to a script, repeating verbatim the sequence of events leading up
to U.S. involvement in World War II as they are articulated in the
standards:
Mr. Henry is standing at the front of the room again. He calls out in a loud
voice. “The point that I’m seeing is being missed the most often…Shh…
Listen.” (He pauses as students continue talking.) “The idea of going from
isolationism to economic aid to the allies to direct involvement…” (Joey is
making a humming noise that causes Mr. Henry to pause, but then Mr.
Henry keeps talking and does not address it.) Mr. Henry tells students to
pass their papers forward. (fieldnotes, 3/10/14)
In this episode, Mr. Henry focused on delivering a line dictated by the

standards—“isolationism to economic aid to the allies to direct involve-
ment” (Virginia Department of Education, 2008), providing little con-
text before or after. In a previous interview, Mr. Henry attributed this
kind of a coverage approach to the pressure he felt from outside sources:
Researcher: What is your goal in teaching?

Mr. Henry: Actually this is something I’ve been thinking about…I’m
always thinking about it, I guess. My younger brother is in a
program through the University of Pennsylvania, trying to
pick up his master’s, but it also involves an administrative
certificate. And one of the things that we’ve been talking
about as he goes through his program and we bat ideas
around is coverage versus uncoverage in terms of how history
is presented—how social studies is explored. The [Standards
of Learning] structure definitely lends itself to this coverage
model, which teaches a specific track of thinking and a spe-
cific set of knowledge, but then in trying to spend so much
energy covering that you actually can be covering up what’s
not been explored. And so the coverage model actually can
be dangerous in that manner. (interview, 2/21/14)
Mr. Henry explained that the content in the standards prescribes “a

specific track of thinking” and that as a result, he felt compelled to teach
a “specific set of knowledge” that was official or sanctioned. Mr. Henry
indicated that the structure of the standards lent itself to a “coverage
model” of instruction in which this “specific set of knowledge” would be
taught or transferred to students. He described the resulting instruc-
tional framework as “dangerous.” Such conclusions align with his com-
ments at other points in the semester, such as when Mr. Henry described
the SOLs as a “few disjointed bullet points” (fieldnotes, 4/11/14). In
reflecting on his frustrations with these limitations, Mr. Henry
c oncluded, “The ideas that are presented in the SOL are a little bit ran-
dom and not well-defined” (fieldnotes, 4/11/14). Mr. Henry’s view of
the SOLs as fragmented helps explain the following exchange between
Mr. Henry and two students:
Mr. Henry changes the slide to show an activity based on matching descrip-
tions to terms and pictures. The four terms are Aryan supremacy, anti-
Semitism, concentration camp, and Holocaust. Mr. Henry tells students to
turn to their notes on page 100. After student volunteers have come to the
Smartboard to move each term next to the corresponding picture, Mr.
Henry turns to the next slide where a table with “Aryan supremacy, anti-
Semitism and systemic removal of Jews” are on the left and directions for
“Your words/interpretation” are in the second column. Mr. Henry asks,
“Supremacy, what does it mean to be supreme?”
Wei-shan volunteers and says it means “Higher.”
Juan (in a staccato, Chinese-sounding accent) “I don’t know…I do not
know.”
Mr. Henry writes on the board: “Aryan race thought they were best.”
(fieldnotes, 3/13/14)
In this lesson, Mr. Henry selected four concepts that are presented in the
SOLs. He first used a matching activity to have students connect images
to the words, and then asked students to write an “interpretation” in their
“own words.” However, when Wei-shan, an ELL from China, volun-
teered an approximation, Mr. Henry provided his own interpretation,
rather than engaging Wei-shan’s response. Furthermore, Mr. Henry
appeared so focused on covering the content that he failed to address
Juan’s blatant mockery of Wei-shan’s accent.
In addition to criticizing the SOLs themselves, Mr. Henry also voiced
frustration with the SOL tests that were in place at the time of the study.
I have always struggled with the question of tests with ELLs because on the
one hand we’re trying to prepare them for SOLs which tests a certain part
of your mind, but it’s all selecting from options, eliminating stuff and
sometimes it involves a bit of a skill—trying to sequence events or identify
who a quote might come from—those are skills. But I feel like the biggest
skill of all that’s going in is your reading comprehension. So I feel like my

ELL students have always struggled to be successful on those tests. So on
the one hand I want to give them those tests and those kinds of questions
so they’re familiar with how that works so that at the end of the year they
are able to approach success. On the other hand, I’m also trying to give
them other ways to show what they know and with mixed success in that
too. This last unit was a long unit with a lot of pieces—Prohibition, Great
Migration, the Roaring Twenties, Harlem Renaissance, Great Depression,
New Deal—there’s a lot of different parts. It was a lot of material, but they
really struggled on the test. (interview, 2/21/14)
In this interview excerpt, Mr. Henry reflects on the efficacy of the SOL
testing format, identifying his own mixed motives, specifically the need
to balance the state mandates on one hand with his professional opinion
on the other. Mr. Henry contrasts his felt need of exposing students to a
multiple-choice format—focusing on students’ ability to read questions
and “eliminate stuff”—with his goal of providing students with “ways to
show what they know.” Near the end of the semester, Mr. Henry reported
that the approaching SOL test was having more sway on him than it had
“back in January or February,” explaining: “As we get closer to the end of
the year, it’s like ‘Oh, shoot, we need to perform, too’—so there is that
pressure that comes into play” (interview, 4/11/14).
In short, Mr. Henry expressed frustration with three aspects of the
standards. First, Mr. Henry reported that the SOLs limited the content
he could teach and the instructional methods he could employ. One
aspect of this is what Mr. Henry described as a “fragmented” curriculum,
which is played out in the form of isolated word study in the field note
vignettes above. A second component was captured by the concept of
coverage as evidenced in the “full steam ahead” approach Mr. Henry dem-
onstrated in the observed lessons. A third and final limitation was the
SOL test, which Mr. Henry criticized as privileging a multiple-choice
format and requiring reading skills not specifically addressed in the cur-
riculum. Together these elements provide evidence that the SOLs limited
Mr. Henry’s instruction. In the following section, we present findings on
Mr. Henry’s perspectives on his students.
nderstanding Students: ELLs Bring Unique Academic

U
and Social Needs
When describing his ELLs, Mr. Henry focused on the mix of academic
and social needs present in his classroom. In general, Mr. Henry charac-
terized his ELLs as needing extra supports compared to their native-
English speaking peers, particularly if they were to learn the academic
content outlined in the SOLs. Yet his knowledge of students was not
purely academic. In our first interview, Mr. Henry demonstrated knowl-
edge of students’ home cultures by stating from memory their individual
countries of origin as we reviewed class rosters. While discussing the
period six class, he named Honduras, Dominican Republic, Cuba, El
Salvador, Mexico, China, and Japan as countries to which students trace
their roots, with the class being “mostly second-generation immigrants.”
In describing the high-ELL-density final class period of the day, Mr.
Henry said:
Period eight, okay these are our ELLs with very few exceptions…we have
Kurdish, El Salvador…Syria, Libya, Cuba, Jordan…it’s all over, isn’t it?
Puerto Rico, China, roots in Mexico. I might be making a mistake here or
there, but generally that’s what we’re talking about. It’s a cultural mix for
sure and linguistically and academically in terms of understanding school
culture and behavior that’s a challenge, too. There’s a lot of needs, but it’s
the kind of thing that one day we can bring out each other’s good sides and
another day we can bring out each other’s worst sides. That’s kind of what
we’re working with. There’s the potential Nadime and Sophia will move
into my first period class because of their English class. Their reading levels
have increased, so that may happen in the fourth quarter. We’ll see. I think
in terms of their test scores, Nadime does great. Sophia’s in the balance…
Moving them into first period could be a behavioral advantage for Sophia,
especially, but I don’t know. (interview, 2/21/14)
Mr. Henry described the unique needs of his ELLs as “linguistic and
academic,” but also identified “understanding school culture and behav-
ior” as a growth area. Mr. Henry expounded on this second component
when he referenced the students in one particular class:
I may have doomed my sixth period by pulling a lot of sort of difficult

students into a similar class, but I hoped that I could kind of work with
them in one space and approach in one way and then all my newcomers
who were kind of approaching class with a different attitude and sort of a
different way, I wanted to preserve their innocence a little bit and try to
work with them. (interview, 2/21/14)
Mr. Henry described the newly arrived students as having an “innocence”

or “different attitude” that he wished to maintain. The fact that Mr.
Henry taught in the district’s newcomer program before taking his cur-
rent position certainly influenced his perception. Mr. Henry contrasted
his “native English speakers…that have a bigger sense of what U.S. his-
tory is to begin with” and recent immigrant students for whom he tried
to “find a way to connect with student experience.” For example, Mr.
Henry described asking students to interview family members when
studying immigration, and looking at Kuwait as a “closer to home” exam-
ple of conflict for his Iraqi immigrants. Mr. Henry similarly described
engaging his Cuban students when they ask, “Is it true that Fidel shot
down the plane himself with own gun?” during discussion of the Bay of
Pigs invasion.
In addition to these prior knowledge differences, Mr. Henry stressed
the language proficiency needs of ELLs. For example, Mr. Henry
explained his “frustration” with the textbook because it was “not very
direct” and too “artsy” for students to follow the storyline in some sec-
tions. He explained his criteria as looking for “comprehensible” texts.
Critiquing the textbook, Mr. Henry said, “It loses a lot of people along
the way, so I try to find resources that are accessible and comprehensible.
It’s sometimes a challenge of its own” (interview, 3/10/14). In a reflective
essay Mr. Henry wrote for one of his master’s classes and then shared with
us, he explained how comprehensibility carried over into other areas of
instruction:
My afternoon alternates between classes with more ELLs and a class with a
majority of native English speakers and I have been working more carefully
to speak in a way that is clear and comprehensible within each context.
Within all classes, I use images and video clips frequently as a way to build
understanding, but it is especially important for ELLs who depend on

nonlinguistic representation to make meaning out of what they hear and
read. (teacher essay, 3/3/14)
In this excerpt, Mr. Henry illustrated his understanding of ELLs as hav-

ing unique oral language needs, in addition to the literacy needs noted
above. Together these linguistic needs constitute one area of ELLs’
unique instructional needs. The other two discussed above included the
attitudes ELLs bring to the classroom, with newcomer classes possessing
a certain “innocence” in Mr. Henry’s view, and the prior knowledge
ELLs bring by virtue of having unique cultural and educational back-
grounds. In response to these needs, Mr. Henry differentiated his
instruction among his three classes, a process which we explore in the
following section.
reating Space for Learning: Differentiating

C
Instruction and Focusing on Skills
In this final section of the findings, we present two key approaches that
Mr. Henry used in order to create a space for learning. The first reflects
his understanding of his students’ needs presented above, namely that he
changed his use of instructional resources across the three classes we
observed. The second speaks directly to the standards-based setting of the
study as Mr. Henry isolated the skills outlined in the SOLs as a way of
focusing on certain disciplinary features of the history content and
attempting to make his instruction linguistically responsive.
Differentiating Instruction In keeping with Mr. Henry’s focus on the

standards, we found that he consistently used the same lesson plan and
the same instructional materials with each of the three classes. Of the
seven lessons we observed, the one exception to this pattern was a day
when period seven students “did not need to retest” and thus had
moved on to an extension activity while students in periods six and
eight took a new version of a test on which they had previously scored
poorly.
Given this overall approach, Mr. Henry reported looking for “materi-
als with built in flexibility so it works with a variety of students and we
can take it in different directions” (interview, 4/11/14). In one interview,
Mr. Henry described how he utilized a recent map activity in such a way.
He explained that with the map activity he had planned, the period seven
students “blew through it in ten minutes” and so he added an extension
activity in which students had to write their own questions based on the
map and then present these to a classmate. In this example, students had
the same materials and Mr. Henry had the same lesson plan, but Mr.
Henry added an activity to keep students engaged with the content.
Such an approach fits with Mr. Henry’s characterization of the adjust-
ments he made based on his students’ needs:
Most of the differentiation happens orally in the discussion that we have

around topics. And then some of it happens in how the lesson is carried
out. The materials are essentially the same but then who gets grouped when
and that kind of thing can vary. (interview, 4/11/14)
Analysis of the field notes and classroom practice provides similar con-
clusions. Table 3.2 demonstrates how Mr. Henry occasionally adjusted
the pacing of the same lesson with different groups of students. In the
lesson depicted above, period eight ended up taking more time discussing
the warm-up and the vocabulary mini lesson, leaving much less time to
watch the video of Oprah and Elie Wiesel touring Auschwitz. In the
comparison in Table 3.3, period seven spent less time in a class discus-
sion, but there is an added element of differentiation. In this lesson,
Table 3.2 Comparison of class activities on March 13, 2014

Activity Period 6 Period 7 Period 8
Introduction and warm-up 11:59–12:06 1:02–1:07 2:01–2:12
7 minutes 5 minutes 11 minutes
Vocabulary 12:06–12:16 1:07–1:17 2:12–2:30
Reader’s theater 12:16–12:45 1:17–1:46 2:30–2:59
Oprah and Elie Wiesel video 12:45–12:59 1:46–2:01 2:59–3:05
Table 3.3 Comparison of class activities on February 17, 2014

Activity Period 6 Period 7 Period 8
Introduction and warm-up 12:00–12:09 1:02–1:13 2:03–2:16
Review of previous units 12:09–12:18 1:13–1:22 2:16–2:24
Business cycle 12:18–12:22 1:22–1:28 2:24–2:29
Cutting 12:22–12:29 1:28–1:35 2:29–2:38
Class discussion of chart 12:29–12:40 1:35–1:40 2:38–2:48
Pair work on chart 12:40–12:49 – 2:48–2:54
9 minutes 6 minutes
Individual work on chart – 1:40–1:51 –
11 minutes
Review chart as class 12:49–12:56 1:51–1:58 2:54–3:00
Gluing in chart 12:56–12:59 1:58–2:01 3:00–3:03
Mr. Henry instructed students in the classes with more ELLs—periods

six and eight—to work with partners when completing the New Deal
sorting activity, while telling students in period seven to work individu-
ally. The following excerpt from Mr. Henry’s reflective essay elucidates
the underlying rationale for this difference:
One of the areas that I want to continue to work on is that of student

interaction. This is one area in which the discussion with other teachers has
given some helpful insights, but I think I could also benefit from seeing
some of my own students responding to structures and procedures for
interaction within other class settings. Sometimes I hear from other teach-
ers that they hesitate with activities that incorporate interaction because
the activities can be easily derailed and destroyed by poor student behavior.
Whole group and independent work have been safer instructional
approaches. I have felt this way through my attempts at times as well.
However, with the challenge that intentional student interaction can be, it
seems important for teachers to work on this collaboratively so that stu-
dents can be successful in these kinds of activities, can benefit from the
language and content practice, and so the school might take steps towards
improving its culture and climate. (teacher essay, 3/3/14)
Mr. Henry identified “student interaction” as a goal, stating that students

“can benefit from the language and content practice” involved in peer
collaboration. While Mr. Henry did not specify ELLs as those who may
benefit from “student interaction,” his reference to “language practice”
denotes his attention to language learning and, by extension, ELLs.
In addition to the adjustments in pacing and student grouping exam-
ined above, Mr. Henry also employed a number of small adjustments in
his instruction with ELLs. For example, in field notes from February 17,
2014, we recorded that “Mr. Henry put his palms up in a questioning
gesture as he asks Josue for another reason.” In this case, Mr. Henry used
a hand motion to aid his communication, a practice that was particularly
noticeable in the period eight class. During the first observation, we also
wrote the following analytic note: “(I wonder if Mr. Henry is talking a
little slower than in the other classes)” (fieldnotes, 2/17/14). Mr. Henry
often enunciated his words more clearly and talked at a slower pace dur-
ing period eight, particularly during the beginning of class as students
were just arriving and during the class discussion of the warm-up activity.
The following episode depicts a final differentiated practice Mr. Henry
used to target vocabulary learning:
Mr. Henry calls out to the class, “Everybody say ‘debt’” and then repeats
the instruction when few students repeat the word. “That’s the money you
owe someone…in this case they owed France and Belgium for what hap-
pened during the war.” (fieldnotes, 2/28/14)
In this example, Mr. Henry presented the causes of World War II during
period six. He frequently instructed the class to repeat a key word or
short phrase after him. Student response levels varied greatly, with most
of the class yelling loudly at times and only a few distinguishable voices
echoing his call on other occasions. A significant element of this practice
was that Mr. Henry rarely asked students in period seven—the class that
had few ELLs—to chant key words.
In summary, Mr. Henry used a variety of differentiation strategies to
adjust instruction to student needs. While Mr. Henry used the same les-
son plan and instructional materials with all his classes a majority of the
time, he modified instruction through the way he grouped students and
the time he devoted to individual activities. Mr. Henry also varied his
speech patterns, added hand gestures, and used call and response as ways
of supporting learning among his ELLs. The increased prevalence of these
informal differentiation techniques in the ELL-rich period eight class
highlights their targeted application among ELLs.
Focusing on Skills As demonstrated in our examination of lesson plans

above, Mr. Henry routinely identified a skill from the SOLs for each les-
son. In the following excerpt from his reflective essay, Mr. Henry articu-
lated his overall approach for using skills as a counterbalance to the
“fragmented” essential knowledge discussed in a previous section:
I have also developed an interest in emphasizing the SOL Essential Skills,

which often support language use. As I put objectives together I have been
trying to use these as a foundational point as well. Incorporating these
skills and language practice has been inspiring and helped me re-imagine
instruction. My planning now focuses more intentionally on how students
may be the active agents in uncovering history’s stories and applying skills
of Social Studies. (teacher essay, 3/3/14)
In his essay, Mr. Henry identified “language practice” as a proxy for talk-
ing about the learning of ELLs. Additionally, Mr. Henry discussed the
relationship between the student and content, depicting students as
“active agents” rather than the receptacles of knowledge invoked by the
coverage metaphor for instruction discussed above. In the following
example, Mr. Henry explicitly communicated this focus to students:
Mr. Henry then calls on Hector to read the language objective. “I will read
to interpret patriotic slogans and excerpts from notable documents.” Mr.
Henry: “Good. One of our skills is to (points to poster with yard stick)
interpret slogans…we haven’t done a lot of this…these are the things we
want you to be thinking about the war.” (fieldnotes, 3/10/14)
In this example, Mr. Henry pointed to one of the posters he had hung
above the Smartboard. Each of the colorful papers included one of the
skills articulated in the SOLs, with pictures illustrating or providing
examples of many of them. In the episode above, Mr. Henry designed an
activity in which students interpreted slogans. In the following excerpt,

two students demonstrate their exercise of another skill—perspective-
taking—while engrossed in a reader’s theater.
Mr. Henry is narrator E and reads that the main characters are “arrested”
(stressing the word). There are gasps across the room and Victoria, who is
reading one of the main parts, points at Fareed (who is the other main
character) and says, “It’s all your fault.” (fieldnotes, 3/13/14)
In this exchange, Victoria went off script in blaming Fareed for the actions
of his character. She was clearly engaged in the reader’s theater as she
spoke from the perspective of her character. This episode demonstrates
how Mr. Henry’s focus on skills made instruction accessible to these two
ELLs, through providing students with historical perspectives in the form
of a comprehensible text.
In short, Mr. Henry created space for student learning through differen-
tiating his instruction and focusing on the historical skills presented in the
curriculum. His approaches reflected an awareness of ELLs in his classes as
he frequently made adjustments across his three afternoon classes.
Furthermore, Mr. Henry sought to identify ways in which his instruction
could engage ELLs in the context of learning and applying new skills.

The case of Mr. Henry provides a unique example of a history teacher
who expressed interest in history, yet had significantly more training and
experience teaching ESL. In describing the transition from the newcomer
program to having his own U.S. history classroom, Mr. Henry stated that
“the world of teaching language with some content has turned out to be
significantly different than teaching the world of content and realizing
that language is still enormously necessary to be successful” (interview,
2/11/14). The challenge for teacher educators who are preparing history
teachers—pre-service and in-service teachers who are typically steeped in
“the world of content”—is to provide learning opportunities that help
teachers to realize just how “enormously necessary” language skills are to
the success of the ELLs in their (future) classes. In this section of the
chapter, we consider how examination of Mr. Henry’s planning and
implementing of instruction may have implications for teacher educa-
tors. We again utilize Grant’s (2003) tenets of ambitious teaching and
learning of history as a heuristic.
First, Mr. Henry’s characterization of the “disjointed bullet points” in
the SOL documents as a “specific set of knowledge” appears to reflect an
understanding of “history as a social construction of the past” (Barton &
Avery, 2016, p. 36). Yet his discussion of and references to “subject
knowledge” routinely referred to the SOLs. Thus, even as Mr. Henry
expressed frustration with the SOLs, his instruction often suggested that
he was succumbing to the pressure to follow a “coverage” model in which
he imparted content knowledge to students who were in turn expected to
be passive recipients. Analysis of Mr. Henry’s experiences suggest that
history teachers need preparation on how to build upon and move beyond
mandated standards or other stagnant sources of content knowledge.
We suggest that teacher educators emphasize the disciplinary nature of
the content when offering guidance on how pre-serve and in-service his-
tory teachers analyze standards and other curricular documents. For
teachers in contexts that have standards similar to Virginia’s SOLs (e.g.,
Virginia Department of Education, 2008), highlighting the “social stud-
ies skills” or “Essential Skills” identified within the standards are critical
first steps. For teachers who (will) use the Common Core State Standards,
drawing on reading and writing standards for “literacy in history/social
studies” will be crucial. For example, the Common Core State Standards
specify that students will demonstrate such disciplinary skills as “citing
specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary
sources” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 62). We
would also encourage teacher educators to introduce teachers to the C3
Framework as a model for how to engage students in inquiry as a part of
their history instruction (see National Council for the Social Studies,
2013). Teacher educators should then model the process of integrating
disciplinary skills into lesson planning and subsequently require teachers
to include them in future planning.
Second, Mr. Henry demonstrated deep understanding of his ELLs.
His clear articulation of students’ cultural and linguistic background
reflected his extensive experience and interest in intercultural teaching.

Mr. Henry directly related his knowledge of students to his instructional
decision-making, explaining how what he knew about students impacted
how he grouped students, the instructional materials he used in class, and
the connections he made to the SOL-based content. In this regard, Mr.
Henry serves as an exemplar of how “understanding students” can serve
to foster effective history instruction (Grant, 2003).
When possible, we recommend requiring pre-service teachers to inter-
view a student—preferably an ELL as appropriate—using Barton and
Levstik’s (1996) protocol. Recognizing that such field experiences may not
always be available, we suggest providing students with opportunities to
discuss articles that foreground the historical perspectives of ELLs (see, for
example, Choi et al., 2011; Peck, 2010). An important next step is for
teachers to reflect on and compare the views of culturally and linguistically
diverse students to their own views, those in the literature (e.g., Barton &
Levstik, 1996; Epstein, 2000, 2009) and those depicted in the traditional
curriculum (e.g., Epstein & Schiller, 2005; VanSledright, 2008).
Finally, Mr. Henry’s explicit attention to differentiated instruction and
focus on historical skills serve as helpful examples of what “creating a
space for learning” may look like in the context of teaching ELLs. While
Mr. Henry described attempts to expand on certain topics beyond what
was articulated in the SOLs, most of his approaches demonstrated ways
in which history teachers can make their instruction more linguistically
responsive (e.g., student grouping, pacing, nonlinguistic representation).
In addition, Mr. Henry highlighted the skills already identified within
the official curriculum as a means of framing his own instructional
decision-making (Thornton, 1991). While these skills were not always
observed in Mr. Henry’s actual practice, his approach is one that teacher
educators can adapt as part of their own framing with pre-service and in-
service teachers.
Given the ways in which Mr. Henry drew on his own teaching experi-
ence, we suggest that teacher educators provide hands-on experience with
translating knowledge of culturally and linguistically diverse students
into practice whenever possible. For example, pre-service teachers at our
institutions tutor or complete practicum placements in a variety of set-
tings to assure that they gain experience working with ELLs. Whether
these types of field experiences are available, we understand the impor-

tance of methods courses and professional development experiences in
which teachers have opportunities to apply conceptual knowledge in
practical ways. As such, we encourage teacher educators to focus on the
importance of differentiating instruction based on learner needs and pro-
vide concrete examples for teaching ELLs (see, for example, Cruz &
Thornton, 2009a, 2009b; Short, Vogt, & Echevarria, 2011). We recom-
mend that teacher educators provide teachers with opportunities to artic-
ulate how they might adapt their own instruction based on the needs of
specific (hypothetical) students in their lesson plans. In addition, we sug-
gest providing time in class to discuss the differentiation process or to
allow teachers to demonstrate their lessons.

In the final section, we provide a few suggestions for how to present the
chapter to pre-service or in-service teachers. In order to help students
fully engage when reading the above case study, we recommend asking
students to discuss and/or journal about their own experiences with (or
as) ELLs before they begin reading. We then propose that teacher e ducators
describe Grant’s (2003) three tenets of ambitious teaching and learning:
content knowledge, understanding students, and creating a space for
learning (see Fig. 3.1). Teacher educators can then provide a simple
T-chart or similar graphic organizer so that teachers can record observa-
tions and questions under each heading during the reading process.
Finally, after pre-service or in-service teachers have read the case study,
they can engage in further discussion and reflection on how Mr. Henry’s
experience may inform their own practice. Such analysis can draw directly
from the notes that students took while they read. Additionally, we sug-
gest that teacher educators invite teachers to identify the (a) advantages
and (b) limitations in Mr. Henry’s approaches, as well as the specific
aspects of Mr. Henry’s pedagogy that they (c) would like to borrow for
their own future use. Teacher educators may also choose to present the
following quotes for individual or collective reflection in order to help
teachers reflect on their own perspectives and practices:
• “My planning now focuses more intentionally on how students may

be the active agents in uncovering history’s stories and applying skills
of Social Studies.”
• Mr. Henry stated that “the world of teaching language with some con-
tent has turned out to be significantly different than teaching the
world of content and realizing that language is still enormously neces-
sary to be successful.”
As teacher educators engage pre-service or in-service teachers in reflec-

tion, we recommend referring to Grant’s (2003) conceptualization of
ambitious teaching and learning. In the context of the present case study,
we found the following understandings most compelling:
(a) Content Knowledge: History must be more than a series of disjointed

facts. Integrating historical skills into instruction is fundamental to
making content accessible.
(b) Understanding Students: Getting to know your students is vital to
providing appropriate instruction that is linguistically and culturally
responsive. In the history classroom, this includes eliciting both prior
knowledge and perspectives on the content.
(c) Creating a Space for Learning: Teachers can adapt instruction to meet
the needs of students through the curriculum and instruction they
choose. Teachers can also modify their teaching and materials through
their use of nonlinguistic representation, pacing, and student grouping.
References
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasyn-
thesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267. doi:10.3102/0013189x07306523.
Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Barton, K. C., & Avery, P. G. (2016). Research on social studies education:
Diverse students, settings, and methods. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 985–1038). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (1996). “Back when God was around and every-
thing”: Elementary children's understanding of historical time. American
Educational Research Journal, 33, 419–454. doi:10.2307/1163291.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2003). Why don’t more history teachers engage
students in interpretation? Social Education, 67, 358–361.
Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cho, S., & Reich, G. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school
Studies, 99, 235–242.
Choi, Y., Lim, J. H., & An, S. (2011). Marginalized students’ uneasy learning:
Korean immigrant students’ experiences of learning social studies. Social
Studies Research & Practice, 6(3), 1–17.
Colombo, M., & Fontaine, P. (2009). Building vocabulary and fostering com-
prehension strategies for English language learners: The power of academic
conversations in social studies. New England Reading Association Journal,
45(1), 46–54.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core States Standards
for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/
uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009a). Social studies for English language
learners: Teaching social studies that matters. Social Education, 73, 271–274.
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009b). Teaching social studies to English lan-
guage learners. New York: Routledge.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field-
notes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, T., & Schiller, J. (2005). Perspective matters: Social identity and the
teaching and learning of national history. Social Education, 69, 201–204.
Epstein, T. L. (2000). Adolescents’ perspectives on racial diversity in U.S. his-
tory: Case studies from an urban classroom. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 185–214.
Epstein, T. L. (2009). Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and pedagogy in
classroom and communities. New York: Routledge.
Epstein, T. L., Mayorga, E., & Nelson, J. (2011). Teaching about race in an
urban history class: The effects of culturally responsive teaching. Journal of
Social Studies Research, 35(1), 2–21.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161).
New York: Macmillan.
Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2012). Culturally responsive social studies
teaching. In W. B. Russell III (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential
reader (pp. 195–214). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Gay, G. (1995). Bridging multicultural theory and practice. Multicultural
Education, 3(1), 4–9.
Goldberg, T. (2013). “It’s in my veins”: Identity and disciplinary practice in
students’ discussions of a historical issue. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 41(1), 33–64. doi:10.1080/00933104.2012.757265.
Grant, 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.
Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning and testing in U.S. high
school classrooms. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Grant, S. G. (2010). High-stakes testing: How are social studies teachers
responding? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research & practice
(pp. 43–52). New York: Routledge.
Grant, S. G., & Salinas, C. (2008). Assessment and accountability in the social
studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social
studies education (pp. 219–236). New York: Routledge.
Halagao, P. E. (2004). Holding up the mirror: The complexity of seeing your
ethnic self in history. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32, 459–483.
Hilburn, J. (2014). Challenges facing immigrant students beyond the linguistic
domain in a new gateway state. Urban Review, 46, 654–680. doi:10.1007/
s11256-014-0273-x.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review
of Educational Research, 78, 1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580.
Jimenez-Silva, M., Hinde, E., & Hernandez, N. J. (2013). How are teachers of
social studies addressing the needs of English language learners in their class-
rooms? In J. Passe & P. G. Fitchett (Eds.), The status of social studies: Views
from the field (pp. 275–286). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, J. S. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy for immigrant children and
English language learners. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook,
109, 453–473.
Levy, S. A. (2014). Heritage, history, and identity. Teachers College Record,
116(6), 1–34.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The
preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. National Society for the Study
of Education Yearbook, 109, 297–318.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically
responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English
language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373.
doi:10.1177/0022487108322110.
Martell, C. C. (2013). Race and histories: Examining culturally relevant teach-
ing in the U.S. history classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education,
41(1), 65–88. doi:10.1080/00933104.2013.755745.
(C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor
of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
O’Brien, J. (2009). High school social studies teachers’ attitudes toward English
language learners. Social Studies Research and Practice, 4, 36–48.
O’Brien, J. (2011). The system is broken and it’s failing these kids: High school
social studies teachers’ attitudes towards training for ELLs. Journal of Social
Studies Research, 35, 22–38.
Peck, C. L. (2010). “It’s not like [I’m] Chinese and Canadian. I am in between”:
Ethnicity and students’ conceptions of historical significance. Theory &
Research in Social Education, 38, 574–617.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics
perspective. New York: Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language
and meaning. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 31, 174–187.
Short, D. J., Vogt, M. E., & Echevarría, J. (2011). The SIOP model for teaching
history-social studies for English learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeping in social
studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching
and learning (pp. 237–248). New York: Macmillan.
van Hover, S. (2006). Teaching history in the Old Dominion. In S. G. Grant
(Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States
(pp. 195–219). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
van Hover, S., Hicks, D., & Sayeski, K. (2012). A case study of co-teaching in an
inclusive secondary high-stakes World History I classroom. Theory & Research
in Social Education, 40, 260–291. doi:10.1080/00933104.2012.705162.
van Hover, S., Hicks, D., Stoddard, J., & Lisanti, M. (2010). From a roar to a mur-
mur: Virginia’s history & social science standards, 1995–2009. Theory & Research
in Social Education, 38(1), 80–113. doi:10.1080/00933104.2010.10473417.
VanSledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge,

and school history education. Review of Research in Education, 32, 109–146.
doi:10.2307/20185114.
Vansledright, B. A. (2010). The challenge of rethinking history education: On prac-
tices, theories, and policy. New York: Routledge.
VanSledright, B. A. (2014). Assessing historical thinking and understanding:
Innovative designs for new standards. New York: Routledge.
Virginia Department of Education. (2008). History and social science standards of
learning: Curriculum framework 2008: United States history: 1865 to the pres-
ent. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/frameworks/history_socialscience_
framewks/2008/2008_final/framewks_ushist1865-present.pdf
Yeager, E. A., & van Hover, S. (2006). Virginia vs. Florida: Two beginning his-
tory teachers’ perceptions of the influence of high-stakes tests on their instruc-
tional decision-making. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1, 340–358.
Yoder, P. J. (2016). Middle school emergent bilingual and bilingual students’ per-
spectives on U.S. history. Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
Retrieved from http://libra.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:11776
Yoder, P. J., Kibler, A., & van Hover, S. (2016). Instruction for English language
learners in the social studies classroom: A meta-synthesis. Social Studies
Research and Practice, 11(1), 20–39.
Paul J. Yoder is an assistant professor of teacher education at Eastern Mennonite

University. A former English as a Second Language teacher and middle school
social studies teacher, Paul now trains pre-service and in-service teachers in both
fields. Paul earned his Ph.D. from the Curry School of Education at the
University of Virginia. His dissertation research investigated the historical per-
spectives of seventh grade emergent bilingual and bilingual students in the con-
text of two US history classrooms. Paul’s scholarship interests focus on the
teaching and learning of history and social studies among culturally and linguis-
tically diverse student populations.
Stephanie van Hover is a professor of social studies education at the Curry

School of Education at the University of Virginia. She serves as the faculty advi-
sor for the secondary social studies teacher education program. Her research
explores the teaching and learning of history in standards-based settings.
4
Using Historical Building Analysis
to Support English Language Learners’
Bicultural and Historical Thinking Skills
Development
Christine Baron, Christina L. Dobbs,
and Patricia Martínez-Álvarez
The work of learning history begins at home, at our kitchen tables, in our
houses, our neighborhoods, our visceral experiences in the historical
landscapes in which we are raised. In these settings, students develop
foundational knowledge that they bring with them into their social stud-
ies classrooms. Yet, as social studies texts, which heavily rely on a mono-
lingual written language approach for meaning making, are
overemphasized at the secondary educational level, English language
learners’ (ELLs) cultural and linguistic resources are underutilized in the
learning experience. ELL students are placed at a disadvantage when such
approaches are used in exclusive ways. Accordingly, teacher preparation
programs are challenged to identify concrete ways in which teachers can
C. Baron (*) • P. Martínez-Álvarez

Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
C.L. Dobbs
Boston University School of Education, Boston, MA, USA

68 C. Baron et al.
learn to create successful experiences for ELL students with such limited
tools. Historical building analysis is a method that utilizes a wide array of
cultural and linguistic resources to build historical content knowledge
and historical habits of mind, making it a strong instructional approach
for language learners. Herein, we outline how teachers can use historical
building analysis to draw upon and support ELL students’ linguistic and
cultural resources for teaching new language and content.
Historical building analysis is built on the idea that buildings are lay-
ered texts (Baron, 2012). As such, buildings can be read and interpreted
from multiple perspectives promoting critical inquiry. Not only does his-
torical building analysis offer opportunities to consider the circumstances
in which a building was built, it includes the analysis of the evidence
embedded in the building that captures in the physical and functional
changes in the building and its surroundings since its origins.
As children walk through their worlds, they encounter the buildings—
homes, schools, stores, churches, recreation centers—that comprise their
neighborhoods, which are themselves, collections of buildings. As they
engaged in informal conversations about people that have interacted in
these spaces, and events that are either historically or personally relevant,
which have taken place there, or in places that resemble these buildings,
they are socialized in the multiple meanings of these spaces. This means
that children, regardless of the language(s) they may speak, have had
many informal experiences on which they can develop their abilities in
formal historical building analysis, providing rich contexts for discussion
and language-rich explorations.
For English language learners, who have multiple languages and cul-
tural experiences outside what is typically recognized in schools, recog-
nizing buildings as layered texts offers multiple benefits. First, by inviting
children to share what they know through direct exploration of build-
ings, rather than written texts, we open opportunities for children to
utilize varied semiotic resources. Semiotic resources are artifacts we use for
communicating and making meaning and can take the form of actions,
visuals, or stories among others (van Leeuwen, 2004). Additionally, ELL
students often have family and community members with immigrant
backgrounds who have experience with buildings whose styles or attached
histories echo those in their adopted country. These are untapped
4 Using Historical Building Analysis to Support English... 69
resources we can explore using appropriate mediators (e.g., inviting chil-

dren to interview family or community members, conducting research in
the Internet together, or bringing in family artifacts in the form of pho-
tographs or cultural tools). Once gathered, the multigenerational learn-
ing materials gathered through such an exploratory process can be used
for critical inquiry (Martínez-Álvarez, 2017).
Buildings contain evidence of all of the time periods in which they
have existed, from their groundbreaking to the present. Frequently, build-
ings are built to address particular community needs and then evolve to
meet the changing needs of those in the community. As the community
uses these buildings, the buildings themselves are altered to better attend
evolving purposes or changing populations (e.g., a bank branch that
becomes a storefront church, a factory building that becomes live-work
space for artists, etc.). Embedded in its buildings is the evidence of these
changing needs and cultural manifestations of the ways of living within
those communities. This chapter will present some ways this form of
critical inquiry using historical building analysis can be initiated and the
pedagogical dispositions needed for effective implementation.
While the development of historical building analysis draws upon cog-
nitive theories and disciplinary expert practice (Wineburg, 1991), the
applications to the classroom we mentioned significantly draws upon
sociocultural theories including funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff,
& Gonzalez, 1992). The work in funds of knowledge aims to “develop
innovations in teaching that draw upon the knowledge and skills found
in local households” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 132). The term is used to refer
to “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowl-
edge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and
well-being” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 134).
In order to learn and build on students’ funds of knowledge, teachers
need to respectfully reach out to students’ homes and communities to
learn from them. For example, exploring the families’ labor traditions
and their transnational experiences reveals linguistic and cultural resources
of their homes (e.g., Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1989). In this process,
teachers can begin to uncover the rich prior knowledge that students
bring with them to the social studies classroom. Historical building anal-
ysis can then serve as a mediator for teachers to draw out and build upon
70 C. Baron et al.
students’ prior knowledge and existing cultural resources. So too can his-
torical building analysis be a pathway into broader literacy and social
studies habits of mind for ELL students to promote strong language,
ways of thinking, and comprehension skills through nontraditional texts,
which ELL students can use when reading traditional text as well.
What Counts as Historical Text?

For pre-service teachers who grew up in monolingual spaces and experi-
enced academic success using monolingual texts and text strategies, one
of the most critical pedagogical dispositions they need to develop to sup-
port all of their students, but especially their ELL students, is a broader
sense of what counts as “text”.
Within the studies of disciplinary literacy in the history classroom, text
has been very narrowly defined as the written word. Accordingly, signifi-
cant research has been done to support students’ ability to access and
analyze traditional text in their classrooms (Afflerbach & VanSledright,
2001; Hynd, 1999; Monte-Sano, 2011; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995;
Reisman, 2012a, 2012b). However, the use of that historical text that
narrowly constructed would be itself “unnatural act” (Wineburg, 2001)
for many historians who rely upon the richness of imagery, material cul-
ture, built spaces, and all manner of human-crafted evidence to tell the
stories of people in the past (cf. Deetz, 1996; Ulrich, 2001). Thus, the
desire to develop deep disciplinary literacy requires that students develop
the analytical skills to engage with the full range of historical materials
that historians use for making meaning. Therefore, this approach, which
broadly benefits all students and their literacy development, uniquely
positions ELLs and their multicultural expertise as central.
Efforts to expand the notion of literacies have been underway for
nearly two decades, beginning with the findings of the New London
Group (1996). These efforts have only amplified as we develop clearer
understandings about how people learn (NRC, 2000) and teachers
encounter increasing linguistic and cultural diversity in their classrooms.
Accordingly, we encourage teachers to embrace Wade and Moje’s (2000)
definition of text as “representations that people generate or use to make

meaning either for themselves or others” (p. 610) and become facile with
modes of expression beyond the linguistic, such as the oral, visual, or
corporeal (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000) as a way to create successful learn-
ing experiences for ELL students. Similarly, as advocates of disciplinary-
based learning, we support the notion of identifying “effective, subject
specific literacy strategies” that will “develop relevant content and literacy
skills in tandem (Zygouris-Coe, 2012, p. 35)”. Such an approach to
understanding text can stimulate ELL’s use of their multiple semiotic
resources.
Successful teaching experiences then must focus on “developing lan-
guage and literacy across the curriculum, connecting school to students’
lives, [or] teaching complex thinking” (Figueroa, Klingner, & Baca,
2013, p. 4). For ELL students, the opportunity to work with this broader
range of text, such as historical buildings, removes some of the barriers to
understanding that traditional text imposes. Further, through critical
inquiry facilitated through the use of multigenerational learning artifacts,
it provides opportunities to develop broader literacy skills, like making
inferences, synthesizing disparate information, and other critical think-
ing skills, that ELL students frequently under-develop because of the
overemphasis placed on decoding traditional text. Finally, it offers an
entry point into disciplinary literacy that acknowledges the materials and
experiences that students authentically encounter in their daily lives
(Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1997).
oving Beyond the Observational

M
Apprenticeship
Herein we see the second pedagogical disposition that pre-service teach-
ers need to develop: A willingness to move beyond the observational
apprenticeships (Lortie, 1975) of their own educational experiences and
engage with knowledge and pedagogical strategies that they, themselves,
did not use or need to be able to understand larger historical movements,
moments, or ideas. In order for pre-service teachers to understand and
72 C. Baron et al.
use historical building analysis in their classrooms, they need to experience

it firsthand. For many pre-service teachers, who themselves were taught
social studies almost exclusively through traditional text, it is not enough
to just tell them about the possibilities inherent in the process. Modeling
and direct experience is necessary.
It is critical for pre-service teachers to develop both a facility with
and a deep understanding of how to work with culturally laden, non-
traditional text like historical buildings. Now more than ever before,
teachers are working with students who speak a language other than the
language of instruction at home. In the USA, almost 23% of 2014
school-age children (5–17) spoke a language other than English at
home, with Spanish being the most frequent of these languages
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), and there were even more children who
had at least one foreign-born parent during that same year. Some of
these students are labeled as English language learners (ELLs) when
they enter the school system, but they are actually emergent bilinguals,
learning to use multiple languages. All of them bring knowledge and
other cultural resources, which are not aligned with what is recognized
in schools as valuable for learning and building analysis can highlight
these resources.
Knowledge and ways of learning that contrast with those of dominant
groups and recognized in schools are often judged as deficient and left
unattended (e.g., Cole & Bruner, 1971; McShane & Berry, 1986). Research
suggests that teachers may be unfamiliar with ELL students’ funds of
knowledge and ways of learning (e.g., Harry & Klingner, 2006; King,
2005). This unfamiliarity might cause novice teachers to interpret these
contrasting resources as disabilities and seek additional labeling and reme-
diation for their ELL students (e.g., Harry, 2008; Oswald, Coutinho, Best,
& Singh, 1999; Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008). It is important thus for teacher
preparation programs to provide candidates the expertise they need to
interact with students who have been raised in households that engage in
practices different from their own (Ladson-Billings, 1995) by learning and
researching culturally responsive pedagogy principles (Skiba et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is critical for new teachers to deeply understand the
important role of bilingual and bicultural community landmarks (e.g.,
Ghiso, Martínez-Álvarez, & Dernikos, 2013) where historical learning

takes place. Since learning history begins at home, teachers need to learn
to explore, value, and build upon students’ experiences in the historical
landscapes in which they are raised, especially knowledge that serves as a
bridge between local and transnational knowledge (Ghiso, 2016). Such
encounters allow ELL students to make meaningful content connections
that integrate the cultural richness of their lived experiences. For exam-
ple, students might have traveled to their ancestors’ places of origin where
they found buildings that resemble those in the USA. When encouraged
through projects or assignments, conversations with family and commu-
nity members might stimulate the transfer of transnational historical
knowledge. This enriches their historical understanding of how the move-
ment of people affects built environments.
Even when students have never been outside of the USA, guided con-
versations with relatives or community members from or in other coun-
tries and/or photographs from their parents’ countries of origin, they will
or might already have developed a visual sense of a specific place. As older
generations explain their community’s living experiences before immi-
grating to the USA, or as they explore past generations’ transnational
spaces using family artifacts or even the Internet, this imagery encourages
children to interpret other buildings and surrounding spaces they see
every day in their communities. Community landmarks including com-
mon places such as churches, laundromats, bakeries, corner stores (i.e.,
boticas/bodegas), or international supermarkets (e.g., Ghiso et al., 2013;
Martínez-Álvarez & Ghiso, 2014) that draw upon students’ visual sensi-
bilities about buildings beyond the USA then become essential starting
points for teachers to begin their community research and for students to
begin their analyses.
As students work in analyzing buildings with which they are familiar
and their histories near their communities, they also make analytical and
analogous connections to other buildings that resemble, in either form or
function, the target building and integrate knowledge often artificially
separated by curricular boundaries. Opportunities to situate this kind of
historical analysis in places significant to students’ worlds empower stu-
dents to act as agents of their own learning (Ghiso et al., 2013).
74 C. Baron et al.
onnecting to Community Histories: New York

C
City’s El Barrio
Drawn from the neighborhoods in which our research is set, we offer an
example of how exploration of historical buildings can connect students
to the multiple histories embedded in the fabric of their world. In the
East Harlem neighborhoods of New York, also known as Spanish Harlem
or El Barrio, the buildings carry histories of the immigrant groups and
individuals who built them, and the Southern and Eastern European and
Latino people who have lived here for generations, creating opportunities
for critical inquiry explorations in social studies with ELL students.
Puerto Ricans began setting in New York’s East Harlem in the 1930s,
peaking in the years after the end of World War II with the great wave of
immigration (Thomas, 2010). As the concentration of residents of Puerto
Rican descent increased through the 1960s, but the larger economy of
New York City declined, Latino activist movements began to advocate
for the needs of the peoples in their neighborhoods.
One of the most famous protest for the needs of the Puerto Rican
community occurred in 1969 when students of Puerto Rican origin, who
called themselves the Young Lords, occupied buildings throughout East
Harlem (Kaufmann, 1969). The center of their operations was the new
First Spanish United Methodist Church, built only in 1966, which dur-
ing their occupation was dubbed “The People’s Church”, a moniker by
which it is still known today. During that occupation, activists used the
church to provide childcare and meals for children, health care, and other
services the community needed. The physical manifestations of that
occupation—the murals painted, the use of space for social programs—
as well as the symbolic transformation evident in the name change,
remain today. The activists who led the occupation went on to found
other cultural organizations in the city related to the Nuyorican
Movement, including El Museo Del Barrio, which celebrates the contri-
butions of the residents of El Barrio to New York and beyond. Now a
major cultural institution in New York City, El Museo Del Barrio began
in a school house, moved into storefronts, and a former fire station,
before finding its permanent home in the neoclassical Heckscher build-
ing, situated prominently on New York’s Museum Mile.
Using historical building analysis, students can explore this activist

landscape. In the People’s Church they can search for historical evidence
in the layers of the buildings’ exterior and interior. They can chart the
changes in the needs of the community in the functions of the church
from a place of worship to a community center. They can discover how
one set of actions by a community fomenting for change in one space
begat the development of different spaces in which to celebrate the lives
of the people in this neighborhood, ultimately changed the neighbor-
hood itself.
As children are invited into exploring the buildings in their communi-
ties and engage in historical building analysis, they can not only learn
about the history of the building itself but also the history of their own
people and their struggles to live as minoritized communities in the
USA. In this way, historical building analysis is a vehicle for uncovering
buried histories (Campano, 2007). Critical inquiry using buildings and
the history they have witnessed can become thus a means for pedagogy
for social transformation (Freire, 1970).
While these community locations immediately bring to mind the K-5
social studies lessons focusing on understanding community and local
history, they offer significant opportunities for curricular connections for
middle and high school students. Buildings reveal history that people
recreate in their encounters with the building’s multiple dimensions (i.e.,
how the location speaks to the lionizing or ghettoizing of different popu-
lations, how an underlying philosophy guides the design and makes you
“feel” a particular way when you enter, or a building’s function—such as
a museum that celebrates your community’s accomplishments—that has
regional or national implications). Thus, funds of knowledge centered on
families’ histories and community buildings are essential tools that can
mediate ELL students’ social studies learning across the grade levels (for
more detailed examples for integrating historical building analysis into
secondary social studies, see Baron & Dobbs, 2015).
Pre-service teachers, who are monolingual English speakers, did not
grow up in bilingual communities, struggle with traditional text, or per-
haps were successful with traditional text, but prefer other types of text,
need opportunities to explore pedagogies that accomplish curricular goals
in nontraditional ways. Adequately tuning instruction to attend to these
76 C. Baron et al.
linguistic and cultural particularities offers pressing challenges for new

teachers to create successful learning spaces and experiences for all. To do
so effectively, pre-service teachers need to find and be comfortable imple-
menting instructional methods beyond what “worked” in their own edu-
cational experiences.
How to Conduct Historical Building Analysis

Turning now toward helping pre-service teachers practice and implement
this technique, we believe three elements are critical: (1) provide teachers
with the expertise they need to interact with ELL students who have been
raised in households that engage in practices different from their own; (2)
assist teachers in understanding bilingual and bicultural community
landmarks around their local schools, where historical learning takes
place and can be furthered; and (3) help teachers build upon students’
experiences in the historical landscapes in which they are raised. This is
particularly important with knowledge that serves as a bridge between
local and transnational knowledge. Following are some steps for achiev-
ing these aims.
Reflection Prior to Conducting Analysis
In order to encourage pre-service teachers to reflect on their beliefs, it is

important to begin by asking teachers to consider the ways that they
learned history in school. In our experience, pre-service participants often
describe learning history statically, primarily through textbooks and
teacher lectures at the K‑12 level, though they often describe slightly dif-
ferent processes for learning as they pursued history into university. These
experiences inevitably shape how teacher candidates envision their own
classrooms and approaches.
Engagement in a truly reflective process can begin to counter those
static experiences and open new teachers up to different modes of
expression. Accordingly, we encourage instructors to incorporate a mul-
timodal approach in this reflective process by moving beyond the typical
written reflection. Instead, ask participants to create a composition on

large pieces of paper representing through images, symbols and/or words
ways in which they were exposed to history in school. Depending on the
number of participants and their preferences, pre-service teachers can be
invited to illustrate with the movement of their bodies the kind of his-
torical engagements they remember experiencing while growing up (i.e.,
at different stages in their lives such as elementary school, high school, or
while in higher education).
Here are some guiding questions to shape this process:
• Describe your first historical memories. Consider the places, people,

events, holidays, clothing, stories, foodways, objects, songs and so on
that makes up those memories.
• What do you remember about learning history in elementary, middle,
and high school? How does that contrast with your first historical
memory? What history did you already know before you went to
school?
• What were the primary tools your teachers used to guide your under-
standing? How did those experiences shape what you think learning
history should look like?
• When you visited historical sites (if you did), what was that experience
like? What do you recall about those visits? How was that different
from your classroom history? From the history you learned from daily
life when you visited other kinds of buildings that had endured mul-
tiple transformations over time?
• What did you enjoy about your learning in history throughout your
schooling? What did you wish you could have changed?
• What did you struggle with as you learned history? What seemed easy?
• What from your own experience do you hope to carry into your own
teaching?
By analyzing the ways that past experience shape philosophies, we can

set the stage for encouraging teacher participants to consider potentially
new pedagogies for teaching diverse students and for supporting English
language learners. Furthermore, engaging in this kind of “self-reflective
work can surface ideologies that teacher candidates hold” (Athanases,
78 C. Baron et al.
Banes, & Wong, 2015, p. 69) and that reveal unconscious biases for or
against particular materials or pedagogies.
It is important to carefully document the information that surfaces dur-
ing this first stage of the process. Connections must be made throughout
with some of the initial beliefs and practices so that these are reconsidered
in the context of new ideas and experiences. In this way, this kind of reflec-
tive process has the potential to ignite self-transformation, rather than end-
ing up fortifying pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices (Gomez, 1996).
Thus, this process can open up opportunities to shape new beliefs about
teaching pedagogies and to consider this multimodal approach.
Guiding Principles for Historical Building Analysis
The process of historical building analysis described herein is derived

from the processes that historians use to analyze buildings (Baron, 2012).
The principles that guided their analysis were: (1) historical buildings are
layered artifacts containing evidence of all the time periods from the
moment they were built until the present, and (2) the building is a physi-
cal manifestation of the choices that people made over the course of that
building’s existence. This notion of choice becomes critically important
for understanding the history of the site and its connection to the larger
history of the time periods represented. The choices that people make
infuse the building with layers of meaning related to philosophy—the
ideas they were trying to convey to a public—or artistry, values of the
community, the function(s) of the space, finances (both boom or bust),
legal (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-required wheelchair
ramps), and logistical. Beginning to understand why this community
made this set of choices is a record of that community’s actions over time.
In these areas, ELL students can offer particularly rich perspectives to
the larger conversation. For example, architectural revivals—the reap-
pearance of a particular style or subset of design elements intended to
evoke connection to the original styles (e.g., Gothic Revival, Spanish
Colonial, etc.) draw upon architectural elements that may not be widely
accessible in their original iteration in the USA. However, students with
prior knowledge based on their exposure to architecture in other coun-
tries may be able to more readily identify these revival features than less
traveled native-born students. We encourage you to draw upon these
strengths as they emerge.
Identify a Space to Analyze
Buildings reflect the lives of individuals who built and inhabited them,
and they often bear the marks of history as they get changed by inhabit-
ants over time. Historians often study the spaces and artifacts of the peo-
ple they are studying, and this habit ensures that the written record is not
privileged over other forms of historical record. Studying buildings, both
famous and ordinary, can help students understand and analyze the lives
of people in spaces, and these understandings are key components for
developing knowledge of communities and the habits of historians. With
ELL students, we want to emphasize the lives of people in those spaces
who, just as the children currently are, have been minoritized and living
in the USA. So, buildings present a unique opportunity for teachers to
capitalize on the knowledges of linguistically diverse students while initi-
ating students into the disciplinary habits of historians and building key
comprehension skills as well (Baron & Dobbs, 2015).
In working with current pre-service teachers, we choose an interior
space and an exterior space on campus, or nearby that can help us con-
nect to the lives of the ELL students teachers will have in their class-
rooms. These spaces offer opportunities for the pre-service teachers to
focus on places that they pass by or through daily, but have not stopped
to consider, or have not considered in ways that might be relevant for
ELL students. It also offers opportunities to consider not just facades,
which may change infrequently or subtly, but interior spaces and sur-
roundings, which change in response to the daily needs of the building’s
users. This also reinforces the notion that history is literally everywhere
and no special trip is needed to find it.
The exploration then would take the teachers to learn about the histo-
ries that are attached to the buildings. Particular emphasis should be
made in terms of histories that carry efforts of minoritized communities
to have their voices heard.
80 C. Baron et al.
Making Curricular Connections
Historical building analysis needs to serve a clear curricular purpose.

Without that larger curricular connection, the value of conducting such
analysis is quite limited. Thus, pre-service teachers should consider the
ways in which the building or interior spaces illuminate or exemplify
content, concepts, or themes in the mandated curriculum. When consid-
ering exterior spaces that pre-service teachers can work with to support
ELL students, historical building can take the form of “community land-
marks” such as the school building, the supermarket, or the library (Ghiso
et al., 2013, p. 170) that would spark connections with community and
family knowledges. School buildings themselves offer a record of the val-
ues of a community over time, as well as larger national trends that are
especially important for making curricular connections for secondary
students (Baron & Dobbs, 2015).
Engaging in critical inquiry should be the central aspect of the lessons
in historical building analysis. It is through critical inquiry that historical
building analysis is materialized as a vehicle to assist in the process of
becoming aware of situations of inequality, or as Freire (1970) calls it,
conscientization.
Identifying Literacy Connections
There are a number of literacy skills that can be built by going through
the process of historical building analysis. As visual literacies or the litera-
cies associated with how viewers interpret and interrogate what they see
(Elkins, 2008; Serafini, 2011), are related to reading comprehension,
some skill-building work can take place as we support students in doing
the highly disciplinary task of analyzing buildings. Analysis of buildings
and other artifacts, while a key skill in its own right, can build student
background knowledge, aid in the acquisition of discipline-specific
vocabulary, support students in making claims and supporting those with
evidence, and consider ideas from multiple perspectives and purposes. By
supporting these skills without text, we build a context for honing com-
plex skills wherein students who have less facility with English are able to
engage in building the language necessary read texts more fully in English,
and we do so while working in a context that emphasizes the work of
historians. This avoids creating spaces where some students do not engage
in analytic work because they are not as fluent in the language of instruc-
tion, or do not have opportunities to bring their existing knowledge into
the learning space. Doing this work with visual media has been shown to
help support students in building vocabulary and strengthening compre-
hension (De La Paz, 2005; Fingon, 2012), because students can utilize
multiple semiotic resources for meaning making, rather than being lim-
ited to the written text.
Developing an Inquiry
For exterior spaces, the front entrance of a building is a good place to

start. This entrance was intended by the architects and builders to present
the “main idea” about what this building would be about, how it would
be used, and what larger message it was sending would be encapsulated.
Additionally, any space where a significant addition or alteration occurred,
for example, a new wing or new building that has been tacked on, offers
excellent opportunities to see the changes over time and theorize to what
they were responding. As in our earlier example, it is possible to consider
an entirely new space—the move of El Museo Del Barrio from a store-
front to a fire station—as a distinct institutional and physical layer.
Interior spaces that are particularly rich for identifying the layers of
historical time are, oddly enough, public bathrooms. Frequently, there
are multiple kinds of soap, hand sanitizer, hygiene supplies, and paper
towel dispensers that, rather than being removed when they were no lon-
ger needed, were simply left in place without supplies in them. No one
would choose to set up a space with four empty paper towel dispensers
and only one working. Using this space you can start to see the conversa-
tion about how people make decisions in buildings that accumulate over
time.
Searching for elements that represent the bilingual and bicultural
worlds of the students that pre-service teachers will encounter in their
classrooms will enrich this exploratory learning process. These elements
82 C. Baron et al.
might include environmental print (i.e., bilingual messages), images or

symbols that communicate a certain cultural value (i.e., a photograph of
the statue of liberty), or national affiliations (i.e., country flags), and
other concrete dimensions of the buildings and their surroundings (see
Ghiso, 2016). Conversations on how and why these elements have come
to exist within these buildings can surface historical tensions in relation
to language and cultural affiliations ELL students experience on a daily
bases which are often left unattended when using strictly traditional text-
based resources. Teacher preparation programs need to prepare candi-
dates to be ready to engage in meaningful and critical conversations with
ELL students. Meaningful conversations can only surface if children are
encouraged to explore the buildings history in relation to minoritized
people, rather than staying within historical aspects unrelated to their
experiences.
One critical idea in historical study is the notion that when you move
people, you move ideas. Here, analyzing buildings can make plain the
complex migration patterns of people around the world. For example,
many buildings in Latin America were built by European settlers and
carry European styling, for example, in the use of terra cotta tiles, arched
doorways, or covered colonnades. These styles were then echoed when
immigrants from Latin America built buildings in their new neighbor-
hoods in the USA. Even the names of the different styles of architecture—
Greek Revival, Spanish Colonial, Mission style, Italianate—are signals of
cultural diffusion and imperialism worthy of consideration. Teachers can
explore how this cultural transmission and diffusion is evident in the
architecture found in buildings (or entire neighborhoods) built by and
for people of Latin American descent. Through these learning experi-
ences, teachers can themselves become aware of hierarchies and issues of
power embedded in the architecture and histories that surround build-
ings. Teachers will then be more prepared for engaging their students in
these forms of critical inquiry.
Once the buildings to analyze have been chosen, the pre-service teachers
begin a process of thinking about various aspects of the building’s physical
structure and guided suppositions about its inhabitants over time. The goal
of this process is to deeply understand how a building came to exist, how
people have interacted with it, and what it tells us about the community as
a microcosm of the larger national story. As we have tried to show through

this chapter, historical building analysis can engage children in learning
about the experiences of other minoritized people in the USA. In this way,
ELL students have a better chance at engaging their own cultural and lin-
guistic experiences and becoming aware of buried histories within their
communities and families. We describe the steps in this guided inquiry
process, which is the same process for training teachers as well as when
students go through this process.
Guided Inquiry
Once you have identified the spaces you want to work with, begin the
analysis with a guided inquiry (Windschitl, 2003) in which “teachers pro-
vide students with a problem to investigate but the methods for resolving
the problem are left to the student” (p. 114). The process requires the
instructor to pose a series of questions for the pre-service teachers to con-
sider. The pre-service teacher participants engage in the process by dis-
cussing their thoughts with each other and potentially taking some notes.
This guided inquiry stage can help teachers think of ways to connect with
and build on their future students’ resources and practices. The example
below offers a series of questions that model how to engage in a guided
inquiry for building analysis. These five areas are ones that historians
regularly identified as they engage in their own building analysis.
Stratification
The most useful way to begin a building analysis is with stratification.

Stratification focuses on identifying the different layers of historical evi-
dence inherent in a particular building. Remember, buildings occupy
multiple time periods all at once. Encourage students to find all different
layers of the building: How many layers of time can you identify in this
building? What makes you think that? What evidence can you see of
changes over time? Have you seen these layers or evidence in other places?
What adaptations have been made to the façade? Why do you think that
is? What could be driving those changes?
84 C. Baron et al.
Once you establish the different layers of time, begin to add dates.
Beginning with loose periods like “the Sixties” or “late 1800s” is fine. If
there is a cornerstone with a date, use that to anchor the time period.
Origination
Once you establish the oldest part, find the outline of the “original” part
of the building. Now, start asking questions about the original purpose of
the building. Does this building still serve the same function as it did
when it was first built? Did it serve a different function or a different
community than it does now? What were the original surroundings for
this building? Did the town/city grow up around it? If so, how has the
neighborhood changed/stayed the same? Why would this be the site cho-
sen for this particular building? Is it close to other community buildings,
industry, transportation, or natural resources that would guide the choice?
What is the history of the neighborhood in terms of cultural/racial
distribution?
While some of these questions are evident in the physical space, some
very basic research via the Internet or local library/community resources
could provide some deeper answers.
Intertectonality
Intertectonality means to compare one building to another to analyze the

similarities and differences in both form and function. Using your target
building, compare this building to others you have encountered before.
Consider both form and function. Does this (school) building look like
other (school) buildings you have seen before? Are there any historical
periods or movements that it is trying to evoke? What does the use of that
kind of styling tell you about the goals or values of the people who built/
renovated it?
Particularly evocative for working with ELL students and bilingual
and English as a second language (ESL) teachers who have had experi-
ences (or have relatives who have had experiences) outside of the USA,
how would this building also connect to other buildings that resemble,
in either form or function, ones that they have encountered before?

What transnational knowledges around similar buildings does the tar-
get building embody? For example, as mentioned earlier, students
might have lived in or heard about places where there are buildings that
resemble those in the USA, or which are very different. Both cases
count as knowledge for building analysis, and it is important for pre-
service teachers to learn about this knowledge and identify it as such. At
the same time, students should be made aware of these transnational
resources, so that they can make comparisons and connections to help
them learn history.
Supposition
After you have gathered your evidence, what questions remain? Is there
something that is missing or out of place? Why do you think that is? Can
you pose a hypothesis to explain the missing piece?
Empathetic Insight
What does the evidence presented tell you about the lives of the people
who use(d) this building? Have you been in this building before? What
kinds of practices have you engaged in and what other practices have you
observed? What is the relationship between the evidence presented and
the practices you have observed or you imagine? What does it tell you
about their values, culture, ways of communicating, beliefs, struggles, or
triumphs? These moments of synthesis and the ones used in supposition
draw on high-level inferential skills and push students to make an argu-
ment that they then support with evidence, skills that work quite simi-
larly to skills prioritized in document-based teaching.
Reflection
Once pre-service teachers have gone through the guided inquiry, then
they have opportunities for reflection about what they have discovered
86 C. Baron et al.
and the process in which they have engaged. Pushing pre-service teachers
to reflect on the promise and even the potential challenges of this process,
is a key part of the process of learning to conduct historical building
analysis with students. We have found the following questions to be use-
ful to guide the reflection process:
Questions about the process itself:
• What was surprising or unexpected about analyzing a building?

• How do you think this process relates to the processes historians use?
• How does this process differ than learning about the lives of people
through reading text?
• What comprehension skills do you use as you analyze buildings?
• How can we use historical building analysis to raise awareness of the
processes of oppression in the USA and Latin America?
Questions about teaching pedagogy:
• Do you recall doing a process like this in your own schooling

experience?
• How do you think culturally and linguistically diverse ELL students
might fare with this process? What specific aspects of this process
might provide an advantage and which might pose a challenge when
working with ELL students?
• What is the potential here for students to engage with the material? To
build analysis skills? To become novice historians? To become agents of
their own learning?
• How might you use their process in your own school building, neigh-
borhood, or community?
• What kind of practices could help you learn more about how to imple-
ment this process with ELL students? What do you know about your
own students that you think might be useful in this process? If you
don’t know, how would you find out about the knowledge your stu-
dents have that might be used for historical building analysis?
• Did this process shift your thinking about what approaches you might
use in your own teaching?

For pre-service teachers, these experiences, and the reflections on them,
will help develop a greater facility with the full range of historical materi-
als available and encourage them to fully integrate the rich cultural lives
and transnational knowledge of their students into their classrooms. It is
important that pre-service teachers who might have experiences with
buildings outside the USA learn to utilize this knowledge so that they can
then help their students in doing the same. Additionally, prospective
teachers would benefit from engaging not just in learning about connect-
ing their own knowledge and experiences for historical building analysis
but also in researching and actively exploring the resources of their own
students. By conducting research with students and their families and
communities, they can begin to understand “the relation of individual
learning and the practices of cultural communities” while at the same
time attending to “individuals’ and groups’ histories of engagement in
cultural practices because the variations reside…as proclivities of people
with certain histories of engagement with specific cultural activities”
(Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003, p. 19). That is, prospective teachers could
explore more general cultural activities and learn about significant
buildings across countries that could potentially connect to children of
immigrant background. However, what we believe can make a meaning-
ful difference is to uncover the particular knowledge of real ELL students,
so they learn to appreciate the particularities of each child and connect to
different knowledge.
As students work collaboratively with teachers and their peers to analyze
buildings and engage in conversations about these experiences with family
and other community members, rather than individually (Engeström,
1987), hybrid spaces surface (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda,
1999). In these surfaced hybrid spaces multiple languages, knowledges,
and interpretations coexist for a more permeable and fair learning experi-
ence when working with ELL students. Thus experiencing historical build-
ing analysis, while at the same time learning from the kinds of integrated
analysis their students do as part of their sociohistorical context, is a process
that can substantially contribute to the preparation of teachers and the
88 C. Baron et al.
learning experience and comprehension skills of ELL students. With such

understanding, pre-service teachers can shift their teaching from an empha-
sis on more static and definite cultural learning styles approach toward the
dynamic ways in which students, their families, and communities have
been involved in historically based processes.
Applications for Teacher Education

For many pre-service and in-service teachers, using historical building
analysis in teacher education courses and professional development expe-
riences offers the opportunity for authentic inquiry and discovery in the
way that few pedagogical activities can provide. The novelty of exploring
the built landscape in a structured way—a landscape that they have navi-
gated daily but have not really seen—provides a genuine thrill and a new
way of seeing history in places they have taken for granted. For instruc-
tors planning to use historical building analysis, we recommend not
searching for the “most historic” building available, but rather, one with
which students are intimately acquainted—the classroom building they
are sitting in, a storefront near campus, the school their students attend.
As “homework” ask them to look for layers of time in the landscapes they
traverse daily and report back during the following session. These focal
orientations help them not only see how available multiple histories are
in their environment but raise important questions related to representa-
tion of different peoples in the stories we tell about those places.
References
Afflerbach, P., & VanSledright, B. (2001). Hath! Doth! What? Middle graders read-
ing innovative history text. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 696–707.
Athanases, S. Z., Banes, L. C., & Wong, J. W. (2015). Diverse language profiles:
Leveraging resources of potential bilingual teachers of color. Bilingual Research
Journal, 38(1), 65–87.
Baron, C. (2012). Understanding historical thinking at historic sites. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 833–847. doi:10.1037/a0027476.
Baron, C., & Dobbs, C. (2015). Expanding the notion of historical text through
historic building analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 462–471.
Campano, G. (2007). Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing, and

remembering. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1971). Cultural differences and inferences about psy-
chological processes. American Psychologist, 26, 867–876.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing
strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school class-
rooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139–156.
Deetz, J. (1996). In small things forgotten: An archeology of early American life
(Revised ed.). New York: Anchor Books.
Elkins, J. (Ed.). (2008). Visual literacy. New York: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Figueroa, R., Klingner, J., & Baca, L. (2013). The present and future of bilin-
gual/ESL special education. Impact, 26(1), 4–5.
Fingon, J. C. (2012). Nontraditional texts and the struggling/reluctant reader.
Voices from the Middle, 19(4), 70–75.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Ghiso, M. P. (2016). The laundromat as the transnational local: Young children’s
literacies of independence. Teachers College Record, 118, 1–46.
Ghiso, M. P., Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Dernikos, B. P. (2013). Writing from and
with community knowledge: First-grade emergent bilinguals’ engagements
with technology-integrated curricula. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.),
Exploring Technology in Writing and Writing Instruction (pp. 169–185).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gomez, M. L. (1996). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching “other
people’s children.” In K. Zeichner, S. S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.),
Currents of reform in pre-service teacher education (pp. 109–132). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejada, C. (1999). Rethinking diver-
sity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual
traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special
education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse fami-
lies: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372–388.
90 C. Baron et al.
Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple texts in
history. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428–436.
Kaufman, M. T. (1969, November 9). Black panthers join coalition with Puerto
Rican and Appalachian Groups. New York Times, 1.
King, J. E. (Ed.). (2005). Black education: A transformative research and action
agenda for the new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for
the American Educational Research Association.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. London: University of
Chicago Press.
Martínez-Álvarez, P. (2017). Language multiplicity and dynamism: Emergent
bilinguals taking ownership of language use in a hybrid curricular space.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 5, 1–22.
Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Ghiso, M. P. (2014). Multilingual, multimodal compo-
sitions in technology-mediated hybrid spaces. In R. S. Anderson & C. Mims
(Eds.), Handbook of research on digital tools for writing instruction in K-12
settings: Student perception and experience (pp. 193–218). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
McShane, D., & Berry, J. W. (1986). Native North Americans: Indian and Inuit
abilities. In J. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural
context (pp. 385–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary:
Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective,
and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multi-literacies: Designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic
representation in special education: The influence of school related economic
and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 194–206.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and
reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reisman, A. (2012a). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curricu-
lum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112.
Reisman, A. (2012b). The ‘Document-based Lesson’: Bringing disciplinary

inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling read-
ers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 233–264.
Rosenzweig, R., & Thelen, D. (1997). The presence of the past: Popular uses of
history in everyday life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Serafini, F. (2011). Expanding perspectives for comprehending visual images in
multimodal texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 342–350.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibbs, A. C., Karega Rausch, M., &
Cuadrado, J. (2008). Achieving equality in special education: History, status,
and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.
Thomas, L. (2010). Puerto Rican citizen: History and political identity in twentieth-
century New York City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing pre-service educators for
cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American Community Survey 1-year estimates.
Retrieved August 2, 2016, from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableser-
vices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Ulrich, L. T. (2001). The age of homespun: Objects and stories in the creation of an
American myth. New York: Knopf.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Introducing social semiotics: An introductory textbook.
London: Routledge.
Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. (1989). Formation and transformation of
funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican households in the context of the border-
lands. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Washington, DC.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. III, pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can
investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual class-
room practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive
processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.
Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting
the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Zygouris-Coe, V. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state stan-
dards. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 35–50.
92 C. Baron et al.
Christine Baron, Ed.D., an assistant professor of social studies and education

at Teachers College, Columbia University, is a former high school history teacher
and museum educator. Dr. Baron’s research focuses on using museums and his-
toric sites for teacher education. Her related interests include examining histori-
cal thinking related to nontraditional texts and teaching and learning in informal
settings. She has been recognized by the NCPH, AASLH, and NCSS for her
research related to using historic sites to foster historical thinking. Dr. Baron has
published in such venues as Journal of Educational Psychology, American
Educational Research Journal, Teaching and Teacher Education, and the Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
Christina L. Dobbs is an assistant professor in the English education program

at the Boston University School of Education. Christina’s research focuses on
academic language, the development of adolescent writing skills, and the profes-
sional learning that supports teachers in these areas. Christina is interested in
effective disciplinary instruction for students who are diverse along a variety of
dimensions. Christina recently authored Investigating Disciplinary Literacy
(2017). She earned her master’s and doctoral degrees at the Harvard Graduate
School of Education, is a literacy coach and reading specialist, and began her
teaching career as a high school English teacher in Houston, Texas.
Patricia Martínez-Álvarez is an assistant professor in bilingual/bicultural edu-

cation at Teachers College, Columbia University. Dr. Martínez-Álvarez is a for-
mer bilingual special education teacher. The unique contribution of her research
lies in crafting transformative spaces for theorizing with technology in the field
of disabilities as it relates to language, culture, and learning. Throughout her
career, she has conducted workshops with teachers in different parts of the
world. A 2013 Early Career Award recipient from the Bilingual Special Interest
Group at AERA, Patricia’s work is featured in venues such as the Bilingual
Research Journal and the International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism.
5
Preparing Secondary Social Studies
Teachers to Help English Language
Learners Develop Academic Language
and Social Studies Disciplinary Literacy
Gayle Y. Thieman, Matthew C. McParker,
Elizabeth M. Leider, and Kent Billingham
This chapter builds on prior research on the academic needs of linguisti-

cally diverse learners and the preparation of social studies pre-service
teachers to integrate culturally and linguistically responsive instruction
(Cruz & Thornton, 2009, 2013; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez,
2008). In a national survey, the majority of social studies teachers reported
they teach English Language Learners (ELLs) with intermediate English
proficiency but lack time, resources, and knowledge of how to integrate
academic language development with higher-order thinking
( Jimenez-Silva, Hinde, & Jimenez-Hernandez, 2013). Teacher education
programs are being challenged to prepare educators who can skillfully
G.Y. Thieman (*) • M.C. McParker

Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
E.M. Leider
Alder Creek Middle School, Milwaukie, OR, USA
K. Billingham
Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

94 G.Y. Thieman et al.
address and adapt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to the
language and content needs of ELLs (de Oliveira, 2016).
This chapter includes examples of instructional strategies taught by a
university social studies methods instructor and modeled by a middle
school cooperating teacher to support ELLs’ academic language develop-
ment, interaction with complex text, and engagement in inquiry and
higher-order thinking. The authors provide examples from the edTPA©
portfolios and ESOL lessons of two pre-service social studies teachers,
who completed the social studies methods coursework and also earned an
ESOL endorsement in the teacher education program.
This chapter supports teacher educators who are preparing social stud-
ies and humanities pre-service teachers to help English Language Learners
(ELLs) meet expectations of the Common Core Standards for Literacy in
History/Social Studies. The chapter also provides concrete examples for
in-service social studies teachers who seek research-based strategies that
support ELLs in acquiring content knowledge and academic language in
mainstream classes.
Context and Methodology of the Study

Two teacher educators (a university professor and a classroom teacher/
adjunct faculty member who co-teach the social studies methods class)
and two graduates of a post-baccalaureate program in a large urban uni-
versity conducted this study. The graduate teacher education program
(GTEP) featured in this study focuses on a critical constructivist, social
justice orientation to curriculum and instruction with required course-
work in culturally and linguistically responsive practice, disciplinary lit-
eracy strategies, and social studies methods. Additional ESOL
endorsement coursework provides in-depth instruction in linguistically
responsive practice and additional field-based experiences working with
ELLs.
Responding to the new state English Language Learner Standards for
teacher preparation programs (ODE, 2015), we sought to conduct a
self-study of the pedagogical content knowledge and culturally respon-
sive pedagogy embedded in our social studies methods course. The pur-
5 Preparing Secondary Social Studies Teachers to Help English... 95
pose of the self-study was to critically examine what teacher educators

need to know about preparing social studies pre-service teachers to work
effectively with ELLs in secondary social studies classes. To help examine
our practice, we invited two recent graduates who had taken the year-
long social studies methods course and earned an additional ESOL
endorsement while student teaching in middle school social studies
classes.
The goal of self-study was to use the experiences of the self-study
researchers as a resource with the goal of reframing beliefs and/or prac-
tice (Lassonde, Galman, & Kosnik, 2009). As Lassonde et al. (2009)
notes
Self-study builds on the personal processes of reflection and inquiry

and takes these processes and makes them open to public critique. Self-
study is not done in isolation, but rather requires collaboration for
building new understandings through dialogue and validation of find-
ings. (p. 5)
While the self-study process is not the focus of this chapter, it is impor-
tant to describe the data sources included in the study: the instructor’s
social studies methods course syllabi and lesson plans, the cooperating
teacher’s instructional strategies, the two pre-service teachers’ edTPA©
portfolios and ESOL work sample lessons, and their Graduate Teacher
Education Program (GTEP) and ESOL course notebooks. All four
researchers were participant observers in the research.
The participant observers met at the end of the GTEP program to
develop the research question: What do teacher educators need to know
about preparing social studies pre-service teachers to work effectively
with ELLs in secondary social studies classes? We spent many hours talk-
ing about how the pre-service teachers had integrated the theory and
strategies they learned in the social studies methods class, ESOL endorse-
ment coursework, and the instructional practices modeled by their social
studies cooperating teachers, one of whom is a member of the self-study
group. The pre-service teachers (now graduates) shared their edTPA port-
folios and ESOL work sample lessons, as evidence of the linguistically
responsive practices they learned and used with their middle school social
studies students. Based on our findings, we modified the social studies

methods course this year to integrate even more linguistically responsive
strategies in our instruction and class assignments.
All pre-service teachers in our teacher preparation program complete
the edTPA© performance-based, subject-specific assessment that mea-
sures their ability to differentiate instruction for diverse learners, includ-
ing ELLs through planning, instruction, and assessment. The edTPA©
requires an intentional focus on academic language and documented
support for ELLs throughout instructional planning, instruction, and
assessment. The assessment also requires identification of a language
function needed to learn the content, as well as essential vocabulary and
discourse. The Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity
(SCALE, 2016) defines language function as “the content and language
focus of the learning task. Common language functions in history/social
studies include interpreting maps, graphs, and data; evaluating and inter-
preting purpose and message; examining evidence used to support claims;
analyzing arguments; and writing/presenting persuasive arguments
(p. 46).” Pre-service teachers develop a learning task that provides stu-
dents the opportunity to practice using the language function and also
document and evaluate planned instructional supports to help students
gain skill in the language demands. To prepare for the edTPA©, social
studies teacher educators in the program focus on developing academic
language skills in the content methods courses.
In this study the instructors examined the relevant instructional strate-
gies they taught in social studies methods class and the instructional prac-
tices they modeled in a middle school social studies classroom. Using
their edTPA© portfolios and ESOL work samples, two program gradu-
ates identified academic language demands (Ohara, Pritchard, & Zweiers,
2012) and showcased strategies for teaching disciplinary linguistic knowl-
edge (Turkan, Oliveira, Lee, & Phelps, 2014) to ELLs.
Both pre-service teachers did their student teaching and taught these
lessons over the entire year while taking university coursework. Elizabeth
Leider taught an eighth grade social studies class in a suburban middle
school with emergent bilinguals (41% were at ELPA levels 3, 4 or moni-
tored). This middle school’s students spoke 17 different languages. Sixty
percent of the students were white; the remaining students were identified
as multiracial, or Hispanic, Asian, or black/African American. Only 30%

qualified for free/reduced lunch.
Kent Billingham taught a seventh grade social studies class in a cultur-
ally diverse (60% students of color), high poverty (94% free or reduced
lunch) urban middle school with emergent bilingual students (51% were
at ELPA levels 3, 4 and monitored). Thirty-six different languages were
spoken at the school, representing every continent except Antarctica; the
majority of the students spoke Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, or Somali.
Theoretical Framework
According to Cho and Reich (2008), the content of social studies is cul-
turally embedded and incremental. ELLs may find it challenging to learn
American culture and social norms, which may lead to difficulties in
using schema for connecting content-specific learning (Cruz & Thornton,
2013; Heafner & Plaisance, 2016). Furthermore, the most common text
structures of history/social studies texts are sequential or chronological
and cause/effect. Language demands include language functions such as
explain and justify and language skills such as taking notes and finding
the main ideas (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014).
An emphasis on reading, writing, speaking, and listening is essential
for ELLs’ academic success. Reading and writing develop comprehension
skills, and these activities are often emphasized heavily in social studies
classrooms. Speaking and listening activities, which are productive lan-
guage skills, are often left out of core curriculum classes. In our experi-
ence, too many ELLs do not practice speaking, listening, and participating
in conversations in their social studies classes.
Research on English Language Learners focuses on the need to teach both
academic language and social studies disciplinary linguistic knowledge.
Academic language includes content-specific vocabulary as well as social
studies specific learning tasks and the text structures that shape social studies
discourse (Ohara et al., 2012). Disciplinary linguistic knowledge focuses on
the academic discourse characteristics for a specific subject (Turkan et al.,
2014), that is, the knowledge of specific literacy skills students need to
read, write, listen, and speak in a subject such as social studies.
Academic Language in Social Studies
Academic success in secondary social studies requires students to use aca-

demic language to develop and communicate their understanding of spe-
cific content and participate in the activities of the content area such as
historical inquiry, spatial reasoning, political and economic analysis.
Teachers of ELLs also need to understand the academic language demands
of social studies content. These demands are the specific ways that vocab-
ulary, language functions, and discourse are used in the content area to
communicate their disciplinary understanding (Ohara et al., 2012).
Students use both general academic vocabulary such as describe, explain,
compare, interpret, analyze, and evaluate and subject-specific words, for
example, cause and effect, civil war, map projection, political party, and
supply/demand curve. Language functions represent social studies spe-
cific tasks such as interpreting maps, graphs, charts; evaluating primary
sources; examining evidence to support claims; describing and analyzing
causes. Students must also learn the specific discourse structure of social
studies, that is, the structure of the written and oral language and distinc-
tive features or text structures of how information is communicated
(SCALE, 2016, p. 46). Social studies discourse includes chronological,
causational, and spatial reasoning, expository and persuasive speaking
and writing, and data presentation in charts, graphs, and timelines. These
language demands are challenging for most students and especially for
English Language Learners who must simultaneously develop content
area knowledge and vocabulary and oral language skills (Vaughn,
Martinez, Linan-Thompson, & Reutebuch, 2009).
The Common Core Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies
(CCSS) are predicated on teachers using their content area expertise to
help students meet reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language
expectations in social studies (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2017). Literacy is seen as a shared responsibility across disciplines in a
school. The recurring message is that literacy matters, not only in an
English Language Arts classroom but also across all content areas
(Howard, 2016, p. 29.) These standards require students to acquire gen-
eral academic and domain-specific vocabulary and phrases (August &
Artzi, 2016).
The CCSS History/Social Studies standards are organized around

anchor standards for reading and writing, but their content is similar to
the recommendations from the National Council for the Social Studies
(NCSS), which focuses on understanding text structure in order to iden-
tify central ideas and evidence to support a position (National Governors
Association, 2010). Lacking proficiency in academic language often pre-
vents English Language Learners from comprehending and analyzing
texts to support their conceptual thinking and being able to express
themselves orally and in writing (Francis et al., 2007).
Disciplinary Linguistic Knowledge in Social Studies
Literacy in teacher preparation programs has typically consisted of teach-

ing generic literacy strategies that were assumed to be applicable to the
different disciplines. However, Moje (2008) and Shanahan and Shanahan
(2008, 2012) assert learning to read disciplinary texts requires content-
specific, higher-level skills that must be explicitly taught. All students
need to be taught discipline-based literacy strategies to become proficient
in reading, writing, and speaking about social studies (Thieman & Altoff,
2008; Nokes, 2010). In a report on academic literacy, Lee and Spratley
(2010) list the kinds of discipline-specific literacy strategies that students
use in social studies. They include building on prior knowledge, develop-
ing vocabulary, learning to deconstruct complex sentences, using knowl-
edge of text structures and genres to predict main ideas, mapping graphic
representations against explanations, posing relevant questions, compar-
ing claims across texts, and evaluating evidence and claims.
In a prior study (Thieman & Lenski, 2015), researchers examined
work samples of secondary social studies teacher candidates who taught
linguistically and culturally diverse learners in high poverty schools. The
pre-service teachers scaffolded increasingly complex literacy strategies,
organized instruction around compelling questions, and taught social
studies content through an inquiry perspective. Sample disciplinary lit-
eracy instruction that addressed CCSS included close reading to develop
hypotheses, make predictions, and cite evidence and determining the
central ideas of texts by identifying patterns and themes such as compare/
contrast and cause/effect. The pre-service teachers taught their secondary

social studies students to use context clues and references to determine
the meaning of words and phrases and evaluate text in diverse formats
and media. Middle and high school students wrote routinely and used
graphic organizers and sentence frames to support writing position state-
ments, letters, short essays, timelines, journal prompts, and exit slips. The
pre-service teachers also incorporated a variety of vocabulary strategies to
help their students develop and use academic language in partner, small
group, and whole class discussions, and in written assignments. Pre-
service teachers helped their students build prior knowledge by respond-
ing to films and journal prompts and engaging in role-playing and
hypothetical scenarios. Lessons also helped students develop real-world
connections to the subject matter with connections to students’ lives and
experiences.
ELLs enter US schools with “varying levels of first or native language
(L1) proficiency, different degrees of formal educational experience, and
a distinct personal understanding of what school is and its related rou-
tines and behavior” (Turkan et al., 2014, p. 3). Many of the ELLs who
attend the schools in the metropolitan area of this teacher preparation
program are newly arrived immigrants who have had little exposure to
academic learning. In addition to English language development and
content area learning, these ELLs are in the process of acclimating to the
linguistic, social, cultural, and political norms of public schooling
(Amanza de Schonewise & Klingner, 2012, p. 51). The cultural context
of the social studies curriculum in schools in the area of this teacher edu-
cation program is similar to the high cognitive load of social studies con-
tent and discourse, rigorous academic language, and higher-order
thinking skills such as interpretation, evaluation, and argumentation
described by Jimenez-Silva et al., 2013.
Since the majority of ELLs are mainstreamed into social studies class-
rooms, and most are at the intermediate level of proficiency (Jimenez-
Silva et al., 2013), their teachers may assume that these ELLs do not need
additional instructional support. It is vitally important that teachers
understand the linguistic diversity that ELLs bring to school (Almanza de
Schonewise & Klingner, 2012; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). A majority of
social studies teachers report differentiating instruction for ELLs but also
report insufficient materials, time, and preparation (Jimenez-Silva et al.,

2013). Content area teachers also need a deeper understanding of second
language acquisition and how to integrate academic language develop-
ment with higher-order thinking.
Key Findings from the Self-Study

As we examined our own teaching practice and that of the two pre-service
teachers in our self-study group, we focused on core beliefs and instruc-
tional strategies. The first core belief focuses on understanding individual
student differences from a strength-based approach. The second core
belief is grounded in culturally responsive pedagogy. Next we organized
the instructional strategies into six clusters: vocabulary development,
reading comprehension, content acquisition through note-taking and
visuals, writing support, research skills, and higher-order thinking. While
we discuss each cluster separately, we recognize that ELLs benefit more
when they experience multiple instructional strategies. Vaughn et al.
(2009) compared vocabulary knowledge and content comprehension of
control and experimental groups who experienced explicit vocabulary
instruction, strategic pairing, video to build concepts and promote dis-
cussion and graphic organizers. English Language Learners in the experi-
mental groups outperformed the students in the control groups,
indicating that explicit instruction in multiple strategies is effective.
ore Belief: Understanding Individual Student

C
Differences
A foundational principle in working with ELLs is understanding indi-

vidual student differences. While it would seem obvious, ELLs are not all
the same. Individual student differences in second language learning,
intelligence, language learning aptitude, learning styles, personality, atti-
tudes and motivation, identity and ethnic group affiliation, and learner
beliefs (Lightbrown & Spada, 2013) and ELLs’ linguistic and academic
skills in the primary language (Lucas et al., 2008) must all be taken into
account when choosing instructional strategies. The goal is to meet stu-

dents at the intersection of all of their individual differences. The teacher
preparation program in this study requires teacher candidates to develop
a demographic/learning profile for each student (Table 5.1).
Students may come from homes with very different cultures than those
commonly represented in US schools. This can be difficult for immigrant
students, and it is important for teachers to be aware of the cultural back-
grounds of their students. Pre-service teachers need to understand how
different cultures view education. What is the family’s role in supporting
their students’ language learning, reading, writing, speaking, and listen-
ing? How do different cultures view gender roles in public speaking?
Some cultures may view teachers as transmitters of knowledge, and there-
fore students may have trouble forming and expressing opinions about a
subject or topic. Recent arrivals from a country with a traditional educa-
tional system may struggle when asked to collaborate with peers in a
group activity (Lucas et al., 2008).
Understanding the cultural differences between English learners’ lives
and classroom culture may make it easier for both teachers and students
to adjust and feel accepted. It is important for teachers to be responsive
to the needs and culture of their students, but it is also important for
students to learn the culture of the classroom. Lee (2003) stressed that
teachers should find ways to connect students’ cultural backgrounds to
the content. Delpit (2006) emphasized honoring students’ cultures in the
classroom and specifically mentioned social studies as a good avenue to
do so. Olneck (2000) discussed how a multicultural emphasis can keep
hegemonic cultural capital from forming, which makes minority stu-
dents feel more included. Teaching about different cultures and class-
room expectations can create a more inclusive social studies class
environment.
The teacher also needs to create an atmosphere of safety and trust for
English Language Learners and all students to be able to share their needs
without feeling singled out. Teachers can become more informed about
each student by giving a short survey or questionnaire that asks students
what their needs are or if there is anything the teacher can do to avoid
making them feel uncomfortable. As instructors we modeled the process
of learning about individual student differences while learning to know
Table 5.1 Sample of student learner profiles
ELPA
level &
years Years in Limited/
at ELPA US Home interrupted Race or Learning Implications for
Student level schools language schooling Gender ethnicity preferences teaching
E 3 7 Spanish None F Hispanic Rarely speaks Sentence frames,
3 in class but frequent
works well explanation of
with academic
partners on vocabulary, avoid
assignment. using unnecessarily
Speaks softly complicated words
when called during instruction,
on provide vocabulary
banks for reading
M 1 1 Spanish Hearing loss; M Hispanic Completes Sentence frames,
1 limited most frequent
schooling prior assignments, explanation of
to arrival actively academic vocabulary
dislikes during direct
being called instruction, avoid
on and using unnecessarily
dislikes complicated words
writing. during instruction,
5 Preparing Secondary Social Studies Teachers to Help English...
Reports he provide vocabulary

struggles banks for reading,
with spelling pair with stronger
reader
103
(continued)
Table 5.1 (continued)
104
ELPA
level &
years Years in Limited/
at ELPA US Home interrupted Race or Learning Implications for
Student level schools language schooling Gender ethnicity preferences teaching
N 4 4 Vietnamese Attended school M Asian Prefers Sentence and
1 in previous working paragraph frames,
country with pen & pre-teach
paper. Likes vocabulary, provide
G.Y. Thieman et al.
working academic vocabulary

with partner, banks, frequent
will shine check-ins
when called
on, doesn’t
mind writing
G 1 1 Spanish Interrupted F Hispanic Frequently Sentence frames,
1 1–2 years no misses pre-teach
school school. Will vocabulary and use
participate academic vocabulary
when banks. Avoid using
present but unnecessarily
lags behind complicated words
with during instruction,
materials provide alternate
test location, verbal
assessment when
lots of writing is
involved
the pre-service teachers. Furthermore, we emphasized the value of under-

standing individual differences through storytelling and discussing per-
sonal experiences in our own teaching practices.
Core Belief: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Culturally responsive pedagogy incorporates the cultural characteristics and

experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse students for more effective
teaching (Choi, 2013; Gay, 2010). Pre-service teachers need to relate the
curriculum to their ELLs’ cultural backgrounds. In order to teach ELLs
effectively, the material needs to be relatable to them and they need to feel
like what they’re learning is applicable and meaningful. This can often be
difficult in history classes where the lessons are about events that took place
long ago and about cultures they may not know about or relate to; conse-
quently, students may not be very interested in the material. One way to get
students more engaged in their social studies lesson is to bring in elements,
stories, and voices from history to which they can relate. Traditionally, US
and world history has been taught through a very Eurocentric lens. The
white explorer or historian is the voice behind the narration. Teaching this
way doesn’t give students from other cultures perspectives on historical
events that might get them more interested in the lessons.
Allowing students to hear stories and perspectives from other groups
of people throughout history can help students think more critically and
not just accept a single point of view on a subject. For example, in teach-
ing about the US civil war, the social studies methods instructor modeled
including slave narratives (primary source interviews of former slaves). In
teaching about the Great Depression, the methods instructor included a
documentary about the plight of young African American males who
were unemployed and homeless. In teaching the Mexican-American War,
one of the pre-service teachers included the Mexican perspective as well
as the US perspective.
Including current events in a history class enables ELLs to encounter
significant events in countries and voices from all over the world. Teaching
different points of view provides a more inclusive account of the story.
English learners who feel their cultures are represented in the curriculum
are much more engaged in learning.
Instructional Strategies for Vocabulary Development
Vocabulary development is essential, especially when it is tied to the key

concepts in the lesson or unit. ELLs benefit from rich, intensive, explicit
vocabulary instruction (Almanza de Schonewise & Klingner, 2012;
Vaughn et al., 2009). In the social studies methods course, our teacher
candidates learned 20 vocabulary strategies organized into 4 instructional
routines: grouping and organizing, mapping and visualizing, comparing
and contrasting, and defining and associating (Heafner & Massey, 2012).
Our students created digital graphic organizers using text and images to
explain each of the vocabulary strategies.
Grouping and organizing routines help ELLs identify word patterns,
sort word lists into categories and label them, connect words to concepts,
and relate word organization to reading, such as predicting patterns
(Heafner & Massey, 2012). After reading an historical account, students
assign key terms to categories such as people, places, outcomes, conflict
and then create a GIST statement that summarizes the word categories
created from the reading (Fig. 5.1).
Mapping and visualizing enables ELLs to learn the meaning of words
through word charts; the “four-square matrix” is a common example
(Heafner & Massey, 2012) (Fig. 5.2).
Comparing and contrasting is one of the most frequent academic lan-
guage functions in social studies. Comparing and contrasting is an essen-
tial skill, especially when students learn thematically about various
cultures, for example, examining how government, religion, agriculture,
trade, language, and technology were expressed differently around the
world. Pre-service teachers learned a variety of strategies to use with ELLs
such as Venn diagrams and T-charts. “What Is It? What Is It Not?” can be
used to reinforce and review a key concept (Heafner & Massey, 2012)
(Fig. 5.3).
The defining and associating routine provides ways for ELLs to gain
more in-depth understanding of key vocabulary. For example, students
learn the definition, antonyms and synonyms, and other associated terms.
ELLs can also create personal vocabulary journals in their Interactive
PEOPLE PLACES MISC (unknown word)
Kim Il Sung Korea Stalemate
General MacArthur China escalation
President Truman Japan
Mao Zedong 38th Parallel
OUTCOMES CONFLICTS GIST STATEMENT
Armistice Cold War The Korean was an
DMZ Incheon landing escalation of the Cold War to
Containment Crossing Yalu River an international armed
conflict between the USSR,
China, the US and its allies
Fig. 5.1 Predicting patterns: Korean War
DEFINITION: the body of voters representing the WORD IN A SENTENCE: To win the
number of Senators and Congressional Presidential election, a candidate has to
representatives from each state who case the state’s win 270 Electoral College votes.
official vote for President
ANTONYM: popular vote, direct election ILLUSTRATION: (hand-drawn or
SYNONYM: representative government digital image)
Fig. 5.2 Four square: electoral college
Student Notebooks, using word mapping, creating picture dictionaries,

and using context clues to define words. “Squared Up” uses synonyms
and antonyms to build student understanding of target vocabulary
(Heafner & Massey, 2012) (Fig. 5.4).
What is it? What is it Not?
Ranking system Fair System
Based on color Includes all Americans
Hierarchy Equal
Social Order Humane
Social Control Easy to Change
Bigotry Equitable
Fear Based on the content of one’s character
System of Oppression
Separation of Classes
Targets Minorities
Definition: Racial Caste is an unfair system of oppression based off fear, that is inhumane and
seeks social control through a separation of class by race and targets African Americans.
Fig. 5.3 What is it? What is it not? Racial caste
Step 3 Define the word Step 1 List the target word Step 5 List
A group of people identified RACE Synonyms: Antonyms:
as distinct from other groups (as a social construct) nationality nonracial
because of supposed physical ethnicity
or genetic traits shared by the minority
group
Step 4 Use word in a sentence Step 2 List various forms of Step 5 List associated words
Her heart was hurt to realize the word negro, colored, Jim Crow
she was defined by her race racism, racial, racialized chattel slavery
rather than her personality. white supremacy
Fig. 5.4 Squared up: race

Instructional Strategies for Reading Comprehension
Reading social studies textbooks or primary documents is very challeng-

ing for ELLs, and teachers need to provide reading comprehension strate-
gies in order to enhance language, literacy development, and content
learning for ELLs (Almanza de Schonewise & Klingner, 2012). Often
ELLs can listen to and understand more aurally than they can understand
by reading. In this teacher preparation program, pre-service teachers
learned to provide access to social studies content prior to reading with
conversational activities such as Think-Pair-Share-Square, Line Dance,
Give One-Get One, and Choose Five and Summarize.
Think-Pair-Share-Square is a highly structured conversation on a social
studies topic such as democratic decision-making. Each individual thinks
about the topic (step 1) and finds a partner in the small group of four to
six ELLs (step 2). In step 3, A shares with B for one minute; then B shares
with A for one minute. Students find a new partner (step 4), and new
partners share about the topic for one minute each (step 5). The whole
group shares and reflects on what they heard from other people in the
group (step 6) and finally (step 7) the whole class shares by retelling and
using language stems such as, “My partner said… My partner shared two
main points… one and two…” This strategy can be used as a warm up to
prime the students for the day’s topic and in-class reading. In a unit on
government, the students think about different ways they might go about
making decisions as a class. They then share their ideas with partners so
they can hear different proposals. After that the teacher elicits the variety
of answers and relates them to different ways societies have decided to
govern themselves. Having built background knowledge for the topic,
ELLs are now ready to read with greater comprehension.
Line Dance involves ELLs forming two lines with students standing
directly across from a partner. Each student has a different concept from
the readings. First, students in the inner circle share their response with a
partner facing them in the outside circle. Next, students in the outer
circle share a response with their partner in the inner circle. Then stu-
dents in the inner circle rotate to the right, and the entire process begins
with new partners until every student has shared with every other student
in the class. Similar to think-pair-share, this strategy provides o pportunities
for students to use academic language as they discuss a controversial issue

from various perspectives they read about.
The Give One-Get One organizer involves ELLs jotting down three ideas
from their reading, getting up to find a partner, giving one idea to their
partner and getting one new idea from a partner which they write in their
interactive notebook. ELLs move to a new partner and repeat the process.
This activity often occurs after ELLs have completed a reading assignment
or taken notes in class. For example, students read about multiple causes of
a major historic event such as the American Revolution, Great Depression,
or World War II. In the initial stages of learning a new word or concept,
students need to have as many opportunities to see and use a word as pos-
sible. Using an activity like Give One-Get One allows students to individu-
ally write and speak a word, followed by speaking it and explaining it to
others. This activity also allows students to be the teacher of the information
to others, which can be beneficial for knowledge retention.
Often students, especially ELLs, have a difficult time understanding
the central concept of a reading about social studies because of the vocab-
ulary difficulty and the unfamiliar concepts. Choose Five and Summarize
is a vocabulary activity where students pick five of the vocabulary words
from the lesson and then write a few sentences that describe the word.
For example, in a lesson on ancient Chinese government, the student
chooses five vocabulary words, for example, meritocracy, aristocracy,
emperor, empire, and government, and writes one to three sentences for
each word describing what it is. Students can pair up with one or two
other students and compare their descriptions and write down a new
word they did not choose on their own list. Finally the students write a
sentence frame-supported summary of the lesson using the five terms or
concepts. This strategy helps ELLs practice the skill of pulling out the
most important parts of a reading.
Instructional Strategies for Content Acquisition

Through Note-Taking and Visuals
Ask any middle or high school student in social studies, and you will
most likely hear, “I hate taking notes!” One reason is that taking notes
can be very passive and time consuming. Students often concentrate

more on trying to get everything written down rather than on what the
teacher is saying about the actual content. Writing detailed notes can be
even more difficult for ELLs if they are still acquiring the language nec-
essary to understand the content. However, guided note-taking, a form
of graphic organizer that allows students to write in key words while
they listen to a lecture or slide presentation, is more palatable. Our pre-
service teachers learned to use guided note-taking in their social studies
lessons.
As the teacher presents information, ELLs have a worksheet with writ-
ten notes corresponding to the lecture with blanks for the key terms and
concepts. As the instructor presents the lecture, these words are repeat-
edly emphasized so ELLs hear the word several times in context while
writing.
Another strategy is interactive student notebooks (ISNs) that allow
ELLs to learn and practice organizational skills while encouraging them
to develop a personal connection to their work. The ISN is a key compo-
nent of the Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) program
and includes a specific style of note-taking; many of our pre-service teach-
ers were familiar with AVID strategies used at their field placements.
Social studies ISNs often include student-created visuals, cartoons, and
maps. ELLs can also create personal vocabulary journals in their interac-
tive student notebooks, using word mapping and context clues to define
words, and creating picture dictionaries. In classrooms with 1:1 technol-
ogy, ELLs can create a digital interactive notebook in a Google folder,
incorporating teacher-created documents and multimedia presentations
as well as student-created content such as illustrated vocabulary, time-
lines, and notes.
Our pre-service teachers learned to integrate a variety of visuals such as
photographs, drawings, paintings, maps, timelines, political cartoons,
posters, charts and graphs into their social studies lessons. Subjects such
as geography and history emphasize visual data via maps and charts.
Visuals offer concrete representations of abstract concepts and can reduce
cognitive load while exposing students to conceptually rich subject mat-
ter. While “all students benefit from this approach, ELLs stand to benefit
the most” (Cruz & Thornton, 2012, p. 99).
In our social studies methods class we modeled a picture walk, an

engaging vocabulary activity in which students walk around the room
viewing pictures and visual representations of the target vocabulary.
Depending on the class size or makeup, students move individually or in
groups from station to station, identifying the depicted vocabulary word.
This activity can be augmented by requiring a description or definition or
by including two pictures at each station for comparison or contrast.
When learning about history, being able to see images and representa-
tions of how life used to be is a way to help ELLs understand the social
studies content. Photographs can be used as an advance organizer to sup-
port a skill such as compare/contrast or as a pre-reading tool to generate
student interest (Cruz & Thornton, 2012). During a lesson about
Japanese and European feudalism, one of the pre-service teachers posted
historical photographs and prints around the room. These sets included
European knights and Japanese samurai, king and emperor, knight’s
swords and samurai swords, and different castles. Students walked to each
of these stations in groups where they wrote what each picture depicted
and then wrote what was similar and different between the concepts. This
activity provided a more in-depth understanding of the concept than
merely defining the terms. It also allowed students who were unfamiliar
with the content to see images depicting life in medieval Japan and
Europe. Especially for students who are learning English, the pictures can
help them visualize the era better than using words they are still trying to
learn.
A third visual format involves the strategic use of video clips to provide
meaningful access to the curriculum. Video segments provide additional
background information to support text reading and discussion (Vaughn
et al., 2009). Frequently, social studies pre-service teachers embedded
short video clips in their multimedia-enhanced lectures.
Instructional Activities for Writing Supports
Writing is a key social studies skill, and ELLs need a variety of supports
so they can express their ideas effectively. Graphic organizers help stu-
dents organize information and their thoughts after reading and prior to
writing (Obenchain & Morris, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2009). Sentence
frames are also effective ways to teach argumentation to beginning writ-
ers. This structured language practice provides opportunities for students
to practice using academic language to express language functions
(Donnelly & Roe, 2010).
ELLs often have trouble expressing an opinion or making an argument
using specific evidence from their lessons, text, or research. They may be
able to make a vague argument using ideas that they learned. For exam-
ple, in a lesson about feudal Japan and Europe where students are required
to write about which culture they would rather live in and why, a student
wrote, “I would choose to live in Japan, because they have samurais.” The
student was expressing an opinion, but didn’t give specific evidence of
why samurais are the reason the student wanted to live in that culture.
Graphic organizers can be tailored to specific purposes to help students
develop their writing. For example, if the teacher is expecting students to
compare and contrast the forms of feudalism in Europe and Japan, the
teacher can use an organizer to show the similarities and differences
(Fig. 5.5).
Similarly, if the teacher is expecting students to sequence the events
leading up to the American Revolution, a sequencing organizer can be
included (Fig. 5.6).
If the student’s task is to make an argument about which form of gov-
ernment is preferred, a proposition and support organizer could be used
(Fig. 5.7).
If the final task is to summarize the effects of the Crusades, a summa-
rization organizer would be best (Fig. 5.8).
Modeling the writing process and giving examples is an effective way
to help ELLs express their opinions or make an argument. This involves
writing a sample paragraph or sentence in front of the class. Using the
Japanese/European feudalism example, the teacher asks students why the
example isn’t using specific evidence from the lesson. This gives students
a chance to analyze their own thought process and reasoning. Then the
teacher asks students for examples of specific evidence they could use and
writes model sentences such as “I would choose to live in Japan, because
samurais use more advanced weapons and hand to hand combat”. This
sentence shows evidence from the lessons and makes an argument.
Topic 1 – European What is similar or different? Topic 2 – Japanese
Feudalism Feudalism
Information Information
4 main levels Japan had more levels 5 main levels
Top level = king King had more power than Emperor Top level = emperor
nd
2 level = lord Shogun had more power than most lords 2nd level = Shogun
Lords Both managed land and hired protection Daimyo
Knights Both protected land and the other levels Samurai
Knights Knights wore metal, samurai wore Samurai
leather
Knights Different training Samurai
Knights Knights-code of chivalry; Samurai-code Samurai
of Bushido
Peasants Both worked the land Peasants
Fig. 5.5 Compare/contrast organizer
French and Indian War
Sugar Act
Stamp Act
Townshend Acts
Boston Massacre
Boston Tea Party
Concord
Fig. 5.6 Sequencing organizer

Proposition Sentence A republic is the best form of government
Supporting Quotes/Examples/Facts Explain in your own
Reasons/Details words
Most governments are Wikipedia: “As of 2017, 159 of the world’s Nearly all of the
republics 206 sovereign states use the world world’s governments
‘republic’ as a part of their oficial names.” consider themselves
republics
People get to choose Dictionary.com: “a state in which the Representatives, chosen
who represents them supreme power rests in the body of citizens by the people, have
entitled to vote and is exercised by power
representatives chosen directly or indirectly
by them.”
Representatives, chosen by the people, have
power
A republic is supposed www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal In a democracy, the
to protect all citizens, /aspects/demrep.html: “Its purpose is to majority is always in
not just the majority control the majority strictly, as well as all charge. In a republic,
others among the people… the minority is
protected.
A republic is a better form of government than any other. Most of the world’s countries seem to
think so. In a republic, everyone gets a say because they choose their representatives, but not
everyone has to have power. Only representatives have to make the tough choices. As opposed
to a democracy, a republic actually protects all of its citizens, because it is not always a majority
decision. The representatives get to make the final choices.
Fig. 5.7 Proposition and support organizer

Supporting
Details
Many people Many nobles Europeans Arabian Trade Crusaders
died lost their traveled, peninsula was increased exposed to
fortunes many for the far more new forms of
first time advanced in art
many ways
Main Ideas
Feudalism ended Europeans learned from Europeans began designing
advanced in the Arabian and creating new things
Peninsula
Summary
The Crusades had many effects on European civilization. The dominant social system of the
middle ages, feudalism, ended because so many people died and many of the wealthy lost their
fortunes. Because Europeans were traveling so far, and to a place far more advanced than
Europe, Crusaders returned with much more knowledge than they had left with. Another effect
was that Europeans began to design and build new things after being exposed to new forms of art
and increasing their participation in trade. Overall, the Crusades led to a shift in the lives of
many Europeans.
Fig. 5.8 Summarization organizer
Instructional Strategies for Research Skills
Being able to read and judge an online resource is a valuable skill that
students will need as they advance in their academics. For example, when
teaching about potentially sensitive topics like world religions, it is
important that students understand that some websites about religion are
biased. It can be difficult for ELLs to judge the reliability of a website, so
it is an important lesson to include in the curriculum. One way to have
students practice this skill while still teaching content is to add a require-
ment to rate the digital resources they use for their writing or research
project. First the teacher presents a mini-lesson on resource credibility
and asks ELLs to use a rating system for each resource, including the
reasons for their ratings. When students begin to write, they use evidence
from the resources they rated the highest. Teaching students to analyze
their research sources and think critically will help their information-
gathering skills and improve the quality of their writing over time.
Higher-Order Thinking
Research suggests that the “implementation of pedagogical practices that

engage students in activities to promote higher order thinking skills
through the use of inquiry-based learning and project/problem based
learning supports the development of academic language and discourse
necessary for students to be successful in school” (Ulanoff, Quiocho, &
Riedell, 2015, p. 36). An example from an eighth grade edTPA© portfo-
lio illustrates these practices. This inquiry-based unit provided the oppor-
tunity for students to explore the checks and balances system. Students
considered whether one branch of government (executive, legislative, or
judicial) has more power than another and engaged in a simulation of the
checks and balance system. The pre-service teacher created a digital pre-
sentation and an audio-clip and transcript to provide content background
for the reading. Students described the main function of each branch of
government and the relationships between the branches using a graphic
organizer for support. Finally they responded in writing to the essential
question: How does the system of checks and balances prevent abuse of
power in government?

While recent estimates forecast the number of English Language Learners
in public school classrooms to continue increasing, the expectations for
teachers of ELLs have not changed much since Flynn and Hill (2005)
outlined the skills teachers need: understand bilingualism and second

language development, know how to make content comprehensible,
integrate language with content instruction, recognize how culture and
language intersect with classroom participation, and understand the
needs of students with different levels of formal schooling.
Responding to the new state English Language Learner Standards
(ODE, 2015) for teacher preparation programs, we critically examined
our own practice, considering the pedagogical content knowledge and
culturally responsive pedagogy embedded in our social studies methods
course instruction and assignments and in our pre-service teachers’
edTPA© portfolios and ESOL lessons. The purpose of the self-study was
to ask what teacher educators need to know about preparing social stud-
ies pre-service teachers to work effectively with ELLs in secondary social
studies classes.
Adoption of the Common Core State Standards by 42 states and asso-
ciated high-stakes assessments such as Smarter Balanced and PARCC
have increased the level of rigor and accountability for academic success
by all K-12 students, including English Language Learners. A sample of
disciplinary literacy skills addressed by the CCSS History/Social Studies
Standards (2010) include:
• Read closely: make predictions, cite evidence

• Determine central ideas of text: identify patterns and themes, compare
contrast; cause effect
• Evaluate text in diverse formats and media: analyze political cartoons,
paintings, photos, maps, charts, graphs, timelines
• Write informative text: use graphic organizers and sentences frames to
support writing a position statement or expository letter
• Discuss and collaborate in partner, small group and whole class
discussions
• Use academic language in conversation with peers and in written
assignments
In this chapter we presented six clusters of research-based instructional

strategies to support English Language Learners in developing academic
language and social studies disciplinary literacy. These strategies focused
on vocabulary development, reading comprehension, content acquisition

through note-taking and visuals, writing support, research skills, and
higher-order thinking. Each of these strategies is designed to support the
literacy skills required by the CCSS History/Social Studies Standards.
From the research and our own experience, we know that pre-service
teachers need time to learn about the needs of ELLs and apply the con-
cepts and instructional strategies learned in teacher preparation course-
work to their teaching of ELLs, whether in K-12 sheltered classes or social
studies specific classes. A single course in general content literacy devel-
opment is insufficient for pre-service teachers to develop these skills.
Instruction in disciplinary literacy in social studies should be combined
with coursework in academic language development and the opportunity
for pre-service teachers to understand the linguistic and cultural diversity
of their students and the importance of culturally responsive pedagogy.
Teacher candidates need repeated opportunities to learn and apply
instructional strategies for vocabulary development, reading comprehen-
sion, analytical writing, and higher-order thinking to support social stud-
ies content and skills. The authors’ experience suggest that a consistent
focus on these skills in social studies methods and ESOL coursework in
conjunction with a year-long field experience in secondary schools with a
significant population of English Language Learners is one way to meet
these expectations.

Our recommendations for teacher educators focus on the core beliefs and
instructional strategies in this chapter. To help pre-service teachers under-
stand individual student differences from a strength-based approach, we
recommend that teacher educators assign a full-day student shadow expe-
rience. After spending an entire day attending all of the classes and
school-related activities with a K-12 student, we ask pre-service teachers
to summarize their observations and reflect on these questions: What is
your overall impression of the lived experiences of this student, at this
school, on this day? What do you think are the implications of the stu-
dent’s gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, language, ability, class,
and/or culture on the students’ connection to school? This has proven to

be one of the most powerful experiences our pre-service teachers have
prior to student teaching.
Culturally responsive pedagogy incorporates the cultural characteris-
tics, experiences, and perspectives of diverse students into instructional
decisions. Before our pre-service teachers can begin to plan culturally
responsive lessons, they need to know the students they will be teaching.
We recommend that teacher educators assign an in-depth class context at
the beginning of the pre-service teachers’ field placement experience. Our
pre-service teachers organize the information about their students and
present it as modeled in Table 5.1.
Instructional Strategies
To support pre-service teachers’ ability to learn and implement instruc-

tional strategies for vocabulary development, reading comprehension,
content acquisition, writing, and higher-order thinking we explicitly
model many of the strategies included in this chapter. We recommend
that teacher educators provide multiple opportunities for pre-service
teachers to plan and teach lessons incorporating these strategies. Our pre-
service teachers work in pairs or triads to create and teach the lessons to
our class and then all of the pre-service teachers evaluate the lesson with
appropriate rubrics.
Rich, intensive, explicit vocabulary instruction is helpful for all stu-
dents, and it is essential for English Language Learners. We recommend
that teacher educators prioritize social studies vocabulary development
by teaching instructional routines such as those articulated by Heafner
and Massey (2012). We use a jigsaw strategy to facilitate learning the
vocabulary strategies and also require vocabulary development in each of
our students’ edTPA© lessons.
Reading social studies textbooks or primary documents with unfamil-
iar text structures, such as sequential, chronological, compare/contrast,
or cause/effect, is challenging for all students, especially ELLs. We encour-
age teacher educators to model the use of reading guides or graphic orga-
nizers such as timelines, T-charts, and cause/effect tables. We also
recommend that teacher educators explicitly teach reading comprehen-

sion strategies. For example, we ask pre-service teachers to complete an
anticipation guide to activate their prior knowledge and build curiosity
prior to reading a short text. Pre-service teachers respond to several ques-
tions that support or challenge their knowledge of the subject. After read-
ing, they respond to the same questions and then reflect on how reading
the text either supported or changed their prior understanding.
Visuals help students acquire content knowledge by providing con-
crete representations of abstract concepts, aiding comprehension of sub-
ject matter with high cognitive load and unfamiliar vocabulary. While all
students benefit, these visuals are especially supportive for ELLs. We sug-
gest that social studies teacher educators integrate a variety of visuals such
as photographs, drawings, paintings, maps timelines, political cartoons,
posters, charts and graphs into their presentations. After modeling visuals
such as these, we require our pre-service teachers to integrate them into
the lessons they develop.
Teaching writing across the curriculum supports all students as they
learn to express their knowledge in formal academic language; this is
especially important for English learners who may be unfamiliar with the
vocabulary and syntax of social studies. We teach a variety of graphic
organizers to support writing and also recommend that teacher educators
use response templates for written assignments. Rather than asking our
pre-service teachers to read the text and write a reflection, we provide
specific question prompts and a digital table for their responses. As more
schools adopt 1:1 technology, we model the use of digital platforms for
student written responses and frequent teacher feedback that is sustain-
able with large classes.
Engaging students in instructional activities that promote higher-order
thinking through inquiry-based learning supports student use of aca-
demic language including subject area language functions. We recom-
mend that teacher educators model the development of a lesson in which
pre-service teachers assume the role of student and use social studies lan-
guage functions such as interpreting maps, graphs, charts; evaluating
purpose and message of primary sources; examining evidence to support
claims; and analyzing arguments. Next pre-service teachers identify
examples of social studies language functions in online lessons and then
pair up to create a mini-lesson on a social studies topic in which students

use one or more of the language functions. The pre-service teachers pres-
ent the mini-lesson to their peers who assume the role of student as they
participate in the lesson and then provide feedback about the experience.
This instructional activity is especially helpful for teacher educators who
prepare pre-service teachers for the edTPA© Planning Task; we ask our
pre-service teachers to evaluate how the mini-lesson identifies and sup-
ports the language function associated with the social studies task.
We have found that pre-service teachers are more likely to use interac-
tive, inquiry, project-based learning when they have experienced such
teaching in their university classes and/or in their cooperating teacher’s
classroom. Simulations, role-plays, document-based questions, and mock
trials are very time-intensive, and pre-service teachers generally do not get
to experience a rich variety. Consequently, we schedule guest speakers from
organizations such as Rethinking Schools, DBQ Project, Choices Program,
Population Connections, and the Classroom Law Project to engage our
pre-service teachers in these exemplary programs. What makes these guest
presentations so powerful is that our pre-service teachers experience what
their students will learn and also talk with the presenters about how to
implement these strategies in their own classrooms with diverse learners
While this chapter focuses on the self-study findings of two social
studies methods instructors and two graduates of the program, we realize
that meeting the needs of English learners is a system-wide responsibility
involving teacher educators, state and district boards of education,
administrators, K-12 teachers, and counselors. Recently, our teacher
preparation program reviewed the new state ELL standards and began
the process of mapping each of the standards to our teacher preparation
coursework. The next step is to integrate the standards into our course
curricula, lessons, and assessments. However, changing our syllabi on
paper is not sufficient. We need to change our practice as well as our
policy and that requires collaboration within and across departments and
supported time for such efforts. Furthermore, we need to include our
pre-service teachers and graduates in this work as their insights during
and after program completion are vital to the success of our endeavor.
And finally we need to engage in dialogue with other teacher preparation
programs in our region to learn from and with each other.
References
Almanza de Schonewise, E., & Klingner, J. K. (2012). Linguistic and cultural
issues in developing disciplinary literacy for adolescent English language
learners. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 51–68.
August, D., & Artzi, L. (2016). Helping ELLs meet standards in English lan-
guage arts and science: An intervention focused on academic vocabulary.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 373–396.
Cho, S., & Reich, B. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school
Studies, 99, 235–242.
Choi, Y. (2013). Teaching social studies for newcomer English language learn-
ers: Toward culturally relevant pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1),
12–18.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). Preparing America’s students
for success. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009). Teaching social studies to English language
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2012). Visualizing social studies literacy:
Teaching content and skills to English language learners. Social Studies
Research and Practice, 7(2), 98–111.
de Oliveira, L. (2016). The Common Core State Standards for literacy in history/
social studies, science and technical subjects for English language learners. Grades
6–12. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3),
220–231. doi:10.1177/0022487105285966.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the
literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of
Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482. doi:10.3102/0034654314532695.
Donnelly, W. B., & Roe, C. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic
vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 131–126.
Flynn, K., & Hill, J. (2005). English language learners: A growing population.
McRel policy brief. Retrieved from http://inet-migrant.org/resources/2013/
educational/policyBrief_ELL.pdf
Francis, D. J., August, D. L., Snow, C. E., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S.,
Hiebert, E. H., et al. (2007). Oracy/literacy development in Spanish-speaking
children. Funding by the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, #HD-39–521. Development of literacy in Spanish Speaking
Children.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Heafner, T., & Massey, D. (2012). Targeted vocabulary strategies for secondary
social studies. Culver City, CA: Social Studies School Service.
Heafner, T., & Plaisance, M. (2016). Exploring how institutional structures and
practices influence English learners’ opportunity to learn social studies.
Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.
org. ID Number: 21363.
Howard, C. (2016). Creating spaces for literacy, creating spaces for learning.
Reading Horizons, 55(2), 2016.
Jimenez-Silva, M., Hinde, E., & Jimenez Hernandez, N. (2013). How are
teachers of social studies addressing the needs of English language learners in
their classrooms? In J. Passe & P. Fitchett (Eds.), The status of social studies:
Views from the field. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Lassonde, C. A., Galman, S., & Kosnik, C. (Eds.). (2009). Self-study research
methodologies for teacher educators. Boston: Sense Publishers.
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of
adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in sci-
ence education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489.
Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically
responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically
diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–73). New York:
Routledge.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically
responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English
language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and
learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English lan-
guage arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
ELA-Literacy
Nokes, J. D. (2010). (Re)Imagining literacies for history classrooms. In R. J.

Draper, P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, & D. Siebert (Eds.), (Re)
Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 54–67). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Obenchain, K., & Morris, R. V. (2011). 50 social studies strategies for K-8 class-
rooms (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Ohara, S., Pritchard, R., & Zwiers, J. (2012). Identifying academic language
demands in support of the common core standards. ASCD Express, 7(17).
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol7/717-ohara.aspx
Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural
capital? American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 317–348.
doi:10.3102/00028312037002317.
Oregon Department of Education. (2015). 584-420-0010 English language learner
(ELL): ELL standards for all programs. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.
gov/tspc/Pages/News_Release_11_16_15 Proposed/Division_420.aspx
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 40–59.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy, and why
does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.
Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning & Equity. (2016). edTPA secondary
history/social studies assessment handbook. Palo Alto, CA: Leland Stanford
Junior University.
Thieman, G., & Altoff, M. (2008, May). Social studies: Discipline-based literacy
strategies. Paper presented at the international reading association annual con-
ference, Atlanta, GA.
Thieman, G., & Lenski, S. (2015). Preparing secondary social studies teacher
candidates to address Common Core State Standards and the C3 Framework
with diverse learners. Oregon Journal of the Social Studies, 3(1), 13–32.
Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowl-
edge base for teaching academic content to English language learners:
Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(3). http://
www.tcrecord.org/library. ID Number: 17361.
Ulanoff, S. H., Quiocho, A. M., & Riedell, K. (2015). The use of questioning
in inquiry-based lessons with bilingual learners: Developing academic lan-
guage and discourse. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1 & 2), 35–56.
Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Linan-Thompson, S., & Reutebuch, C. K. (2009).
Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade
English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297–324.
Gayle Y. Thieman, Ed.D., is an associate professor in the Graduate School of

Education at Portland State University, Oregon. She teaches courses in social
studies methods and action research, advises secondary pre-service teachers as a
cohort leader, and serves as the graduate teacher education program secondary
coordinator. Current research focuses on how social studies pre-service teachers
integrate disciplinary literacy strategies, instructional technology and opportu-
nities for civic engagement by their K-12 students. Dr. Thieman is a former
secondary social studies teacher and administrator and a past president of the
National Council for the Social Studies.
Matthew C. McParker, Ed.D., is an adjunct professor in the Graduate School

of Education at Portland State University, Oregon. He teaches courses in appli-
cation of theory, social studies methods, literacy, and general teaching practices,
as well as advising a cohort of world language teachers. Dr. McParker focuses his
research on the experiences of marginalized students in multicultural classrooms
and integrating literacy skills into content area classrooms. He also teaches sev-
enth grade social studies at Ron Russell Middle School in David Douglas School
District, Portland, Oregon, where he has taught for 11 years.
Elizabeth M. Leider, M.Ed., completed the Graduate Teacher Education

Program at Portland State University with endorsements in secondary social
studies and ESOL. She completed the ESOL practicum in a sheltered ESOL
class and also student taught social studies in a suburban middle school with
emergent bilinguals. Ms. Leider has additional experience working with recently
arrived refugee adult English language learners. Ms. Leider currently teaches
seventh grade social studies at Alder Creek Middle School in Milwaukie,
Oregon.
Kent Billingham, M.Ed., completed the Graduate Teacher Education Program

at Portland State University with endorsements in secondary social studies and
ESOL. He completed the ESOL practicum and student taught in a culturally
diverse, high poverty, urban middle school with emergent bilingual students. He
currently works as a substitute teacher in several school districts around the
Portland metropolitan area.
6
Preparing Social Studies and ESOL
Teachers for Integrated Language
and Content Instruction in Support
of ELLs
Andrea Honigsfeld, Carrie McDermott,
and Kelley Cordeiro
English language learners (ELLs) in secondary schools face the complex

challenge of mastering core content while also developing language pro-
ficiency and acquiring disciplinary literacy skills in English. It is no lon-
ger a viable option for educators of ELLs to work in isolation from each
other; teachers of ELLs need to have access to the general education cur-
riculum and understand the grade-level academic expectations for ELLs.
What Rance-Roney (2009) reported on how teachers approach their
work with ELLs a few years ago needs to change to ensure all teachers are
prepared to address the diverse academic, linguistic, and sociocultural
needs of their students.
In many schools, the EL specialist or English as a second language (ESL)

teacher goes it alone. The EL classroom is viewed as the one-stop shop for
all the needs of English language learners—testing, translating, counseling,
A. Honigsfeld (*) • C. McDermott • K. Cordeiro

Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York, NY, USA

128 A. Honigsfeld et al.
editing college applications, and even health care. Mainstream school per-
sonnel may abdicate responsibility for the needs of ELLs because they
believe that the specialist understands these students better. (p. 34)
There is a growing consensus that all teachers are teachers of ELLs and
responsible for supporting their overall school success. All secondary con-
tent teachers must embrace their role as teachers of academic language
and disciplinary literacy and develop the necessary knowledge and skills
(Turkan, de Oliveira, Lee, & Phelps, 2014).
It has been noted that social studies teachers tend to be underprepared
to address the complex needs of ELLs who represent cultural, linguistic,
and academic diversity (Yoder, Kibler, & van Hover, 2016). Yoder et al.
also emphasized the need for culturally and linguistically responsive
instruction in the social studies classroom, additional training for social
studies teachers to better prepare them for working with ELLs, and con-
tinued research of this topic. While research specific to social studies
teaching for ELLs is emerging, it has been suggested that social studies
teachers of ELLs need to focus on “(1) building empathy for the difficul-
ties associated with learning a language; (2) understanding how second
languages are acquired; (3) adapting curricula to students’ language
needs; and (4) employing literacy skills in the disciplines” (Misco &
Castaneda, 2009, p. 186). Similarly, ESOL teachers would also benefit
from understanding and responding to ELLs’ needs in the core content
courses by connecting language development instruction to the academic
and linguistic demands of the content curriculum.
This chapter will present a unique way to achieve these goals by offer-
ing two case studies of language and content integration through the
adaptation of the C3 (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) and
LACI frameworks (de Oliveira, 2016) for supporting preservice and in-
service teachers in their work with diverse ELLs in the secondary social
studies classroom. More specifically, the two case studies will provide a
deeper view into the language-based instructional practices and strategies
used to support concept development and attainment in secondary his-
tory instruction. We will demonstrate how both using the LACI core
principles and associated instructional strategies will support inductive
processes (concept development) and deductive processes (content attain-
ment) (Obenchain & Morris, 2015).
6 Preparing Social Studies and ESOL Teachers for Integrated... 129
heoretical Framework: Conceptual

T
Understanding Within the Inquiry Arc
of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
and Language-Based Approach to Content
Instruction (LACI) (CU-C3LACI)
For this research, we created a framework based on instruction and
inquiry to develop ELLs conceptual understanding of World History
topics. Our framework is based on adaptations of the inquiry arc of the
college, career, and civic life (C3) framework (National Council for the
Social Studies, 2013) and the language-based approach to content
instruction (LACI) framework (de Oliveira, 2016). Combining the
dimensions of the inquiry arc and the core principles of LACI offers a
comprehensive approach to instructional strategies for ELLs in social
studies classrooms.
Inquiry Arc of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)

Framework
The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) has introduced the
C3 inquiry arc focusing on inquiry and critical thinking as a means for
conceptual understanding and development in civics, economics, geogra-
phy, and history. This arc is identified as features “the four dimensions of
informed inquiry in social studies are: developing questions and planning
inquiries; applying disciplinary concepts and tools; evaluating sources and
using evidence; and communicating conclusions and taking informed
action” (NCSS, 2013, p. 17). When teachers plan instruction using the
inquiry arc of the C3, they help students understand the world around
them by cultivating thinking abilities through critical themes including
analysis, evaluation, problem solving, and finding/producing solutions.
The four dimensions of the arc we discuss below are interconnected, cycli-
cal, and are well suited to support language and content development.
Dimension 1: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries Students

are expected to understand and deconstruct their thinking and process-
ing of information to produce informed questions that are purposeful,

lead to implications, and are used to help interpret information. Taba,
Durkin, Fraenkel, and McNaughton (1971) noted that “…[thinking]
skills will arise from a dynamic interaction between the student and the
stimulation [s]/he receives from well-phrased and carefully sequenced
questions” (p. 65). Students need to have reasoning capabilities to deci-
pher thinking and conceptual development to ask compelling and
thought-provoking questions.
Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools Knowledge

and understanding of social studies concepts are based in the disciplines
of civics, economics, geography, and history. Students activate prior
knowledge to begin the process of decoding information through
deeper investigation and questioning. The disciplinary tools and con-
cepts help inform learners as they dig deeper to investigate ideas which
build upon their knowledge base. Dimensions one and two are interwo-
ven, and as students have more knowledge of these concepts and tools,
they begin to think more critically using twenty-first-century skills.
Dimension 3: Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence Students use

their resources to analyze information, make claims, and think deeply
to evidence evaluative responses to compelling and supporting ques-
tions. The inquiry, concepts, and tools from the first two dimensions are
used in conjunction with these evaluative practices to instill knowledge
and thinking to help students make claims, back them up, find alterna-
tives, and make sense of all aspects of this in the world around them.
Dimension 4: Communicating Conclusions and Taking Informed

Action Collaboration and communications with peers, teachers, parents,
and those in the public sector are the result of students using their knowl-
edge and applying it to think deeply about social studies through conceptual
understanding and reasoning. Student collaboration is an essential compo-
nent of students’ understanding of their roles in the world around them.
The arc is an organizational structure which features the four dimen-

sions of the framework that serve as guidance for “the concepts, skills,
and disciplinary tools necessary to prepare students for college, career,

and civic life” (NCSS, 2013, p. 17). Within this framework, students
learn to collaborate and practice disciplinary literacy skills anchored
through the process of inquiry and critical thinking. To successfully
accomplish the content goals in social studies and history classes, the
LACI framework bridges the academic and linguistic skills necessary to
be successful and helps students learn language and content simultane-
ously (de Oliveira, 2016).
L anguage-Based Approach to Content Instruction

(LACI) Framework
The LACI framework approaches content through language-embedded

instructional practices that are used to develop the conceptual under-
standing of discipline-specific topics for ELLs through the six core prin-
ciples: connection, code-breaking, community and collaboration, culture,
challenge, and classroom interaction. The goal of this framework is to
provide ELLs with “access to language” in integrated content classes “…
by enabling them to manipulate language as it is written, without simpli-
fication” (de Oliveira, 2016, p. 218). Next we will unpack each of the six
core principles to substantiate the claim that it is a viable structure to be
infused into the C3 inquiry arc (see Fig. 6.1 later).
Connection Students’ backgrounds and experiences play a critical role

in learning. This principle identifies the curricular and pedagogical link(s)
to the funds of knowledge students bring to school. When teachers use
this knowledge to implicitly teach information, students make a stronger
connection and identify more readily with the information to make
learning accessible.
Culture Student’s linguistic and cultural knowledge are the building

blocks for learning as it helps them navigate what they already know and
make sense of what they are learning. Their knowledge base reinforces,
enhances, and sustains academic learning thus teachers make intentional
use of students’ lived experiences (de Oliveira, 2016; Valenzuela, 1999).
Fig. 6.1 Conceptual Understanding Within the Inquiry Arc of the College, Career,
and Civic Life (C3) and Language-Based Approach to Content Instruction (LACI)
(CU-C3LACI)
Code-Breaking Identifying the structures of school in conjunction with

learning both language and academic content simultaneously is the cata-
lyst for integrating foundational knowledge for students to identify and
create cohesive relationships to construct meaning (de Oliveira, 2016).
When teachers are mindful of this principle, their students have the
opportunity to learn how to break down information into meaningful
parts to build language through academic concepts.
Community and Collaboration Students work together in collaborative

communities to co-construct meaning and knowledge (Brown & Campione,
1994; de Oliveira, 2016; Lave & Wenger, 1991) about what they are learn-
ing. Students forge relationships with their peers and teachers as they grap-
ple with language and content cohesively within learning communities.
Challenge Students are expected to meet high standards to become liter-

ate in academic disciplines in addition to using higher-order thinking,
reasoning, and problem solving skills in a new language. Classroom activ-
ities, processes, and goals are directly aligned with these expectations and
students must meet the demands to achieve graduation or diploma status
following several years in school.
Classroom Interaction ELLs need time to interact with their peers to

practice their language skills through authentic and rigorous activities.
Giving students time to work in pairs and small groups with specific
goals, gives them opportunities to strengthen their language skills (both
academic and conversational) in a way that is less threatening because
they are only speaking with a few others instead of the entire class.
While the focus of the LACI model is to use language as the impetus for
content instruction, it gives both teachers and students a foundation to
build academic learning and literacy. The goal is to give students opportu-
nities to construct content knowledge through access to a cademic language
by using the six core principles of connection, code-breaking, community
and collaboration, culture, challenge, and classroom interaction.
onceptual Understanding Within the Inquiry Arc

C
of C3 and LACI
The conceptual understanding within the inquiry arc of the college,

career, and civic life and the language-based approach to content instruc-
tion (CU-C3LACI) blends the core principles of LACI with the dimen-
sions of the C3. These social studies habits of mind will need to be
developed and methodically aligned with the linguistic needs of ELLs in
order to create a roadmap to integrated, inquiry-based social studies
instructional practices. When social studies teachers integrate language
and content instruction using the LACI framework, they are able to ana-
lyze the social studies curriculum and plan instruction based both on the
academic and linguistic demands of the content. See Fig. 6.1 for an illus-
tration depicting theoretical framework for this study and showing the
interconnections between conceptual understanding within the inquiry
arc of the college, career, and civic life (C3) and language-based approach
to content instruction (LACI) (CU-C3LACI).
ase Studies: A Language-Based Approach

C
to Content Instruction (LACI) in Support
of Concept Development
Since conceptual understanding is a critical component of all social studies
and history classes (Beck, 2008; Gallagher, 2012; Obenchain & Morris,
2015; Taba, 1967), pedagogically sound approaches to concept develop-
ment and attainment for the sake of ELLs are key to their success both
linguistically and academically. Earlier we introduced LACI, one such
instructional approach, which focuses on “content through language rather
than on language through content, and can be a method through which
instruction for ELLs can be accomplished in meaningful ways in a main-
stream classroom” (de Oliveira, 2015, p. 2). While ELLs face cultural, aca-
demic, and language-based challenges in the core content classes, through
LACI, teachers design and deliver instruction that makes the language of
social studies not only accessible to these students but a primary target as
well (de Oliveira, 2016). The language and disciplinary literacy skills associ-
ated with social studies and history are no longer afterthoughts; instead,
they drive instruction and lead to deeper receptive and productive language
use. The following case studies illustrate how teaching social studies
grounded in the pedagogy of LACI allows for ELLs to participate in acquir-
ing social studies content and literacy skills through a comprehensive
approach based on the six Cs: connection, culture, code-breaking, chal-
lenge, community and collaboration, and classroom interactions. In both
case studies, the six Cs will be made visible through annotations placed in
brackets to indicate their presence, while the specific use of each element
will be elaborated on in the case descriptions and analyses.
To date, the language-based pedagogy informed by the LACI frame-
work has been used with noteworthy success in the mainstream elementary
classroom (de Oliveira, 2015, 2016). We recognize its potential as a tool

for preparing preservice teachers and enhancing in-service teachers’ peda-
gogical skills at the secondary level as well, in helping ELLs master content-
specific language and meet both content and language goals. The two case
studies we present here explore how the six Cs of the LACI framework are
incorporated into secondary, co-taught global studies classrooms in two
suburban high schools on Long Island, New York, where teachers “fore-
ground language as a way into content” (de Oliveira, 2016, p. 218) while
they focus on the grade-appropriate social studies/history course content.
The study involves two co-teaching teams, who were selected based on
their collaborative partnerships and their commitment to working with
ELLs in an integrated setting to teach history. Based on the recently
revised Commissioner’s Regulations Part 154 (CR Part 154)—the direc-
tives that determine and hold all school districts responsible for identify-
ing and serving English language learners/multilingual learners (ELLs/
MLLs) in New York State—all ELLs receive integrated classes. As part of
a plan to provide appropriate services for ELLs/MLLs, Integrated English
as a New Language (ENL) classes had to be established in which students
receive content-area instruction in conjunction with English language
development. In order to provide such instruction, the two school dis-
tricts where the case studies took place developed Integrated ENL courses
that include co-taught social studies courses in addition to the more com-
monly implemented integrated ENL/ELA courses, with the goal of situ-
ating language development in the social studies classroom (Schleppegrell
& de Oliveira, 2006).
Since elsewhere Honigsfeld and Dove (2010, 2012, 2015) discussed
the practice of an ESOL teacher and a grade-level or subject-specific
teacher working together to jointly deliver instruction to ELLs via co-
planning, co-instruction, co-assessment, and reflection, in the following
case studies, we will not take the co-teaching perspective. Instead, we will
discuss the findings of our investigation of how the way language and
content instruction were integrated using LACI as a frame of reference in
the co-taught classroom to enhance ELLs’ conceptual understanding.
Qualitative research methods were used to collect data through site
visits, classroom observations, interviews with teachers, and artifact col-
lection that included lesson plans, teacher-created instructional materi-
als, and student work samples. In order to fully capture the participating
teachers’ understanding of the LACI framework, we developed an inter-
view protocol (see Appendix 1) and a self-assessment tool (see Appendix
2). Both of these tools incorporated the key features highlighted in LACI
and expanded on them by asking teachers to reflect on specific examples
of how they design their instruction and support ELLs’ language and
content attainment by “providing access to the academic language that
constructs content knowledge” (de Oliveira, 2016, p. 219). We con-
ducted three class visits spread across the course of the 2016–2017 aca-
demic year and one joint or individual interview in person or over the
phone with each of the participating teachers. In addition, we asked them
to complete the LACI self-assessment tool individually midway through
the study with the pedagogical intent of deepening their own under-
standing of LACI through reflection. We selected specific lesson segments
from the class visits to illustrate how elements of the LACI framework (de
Oliveira, 2016) support social studies concept development and attain-
ment (Gallagher, 2012; Obenchain & Morris, 2015; Parker, 2015)
through language-based instructional activities. Relevant excerpts from
the interviews and the responses to the self-assessment tool are also woven
into the case studies to reveal the participating teachers’ metacognitive
processes behind their instruction. (All teachers, co-teaching teams, and
schools are referred to by pseudonyms.)
Forest Creek Team
Forest Creek High School is a large, suburban school with over 1600
students enrolled. The majority of the population is White at 87%, fol-
lowed by 6% Hispanic or Latino, 4% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% Black,
and 1% multiracial. The groups within these ethnicities include 1%
ELLs, 16% of students with disabilities, and 6% economically disadvan-
taged. The graduation rate in 2016 was 98% with a 2% dropout rate
(New York State School Report Card Data, 2015–2016).
The integrated social studies classes in this school were co-taught by a
certified social studies teacher (Mr. Coppersong) and a certified ESOL
teacher (Ms. Rosebreeze), who were in their first year of collaboration.
They co-taught two 10th grade Global Studies courses, the first of which
had 29 students, 23 were English speakers and not identified as ELLs.

The remaining 6, identified as entering and transitioning ELLs, came
from Honduras, El Salvador, and South Korea. The second class also had
29 students. The majority of the population, 22 students, were not iden-
tified as ELLs. The remaining 7 hailed from El Salvador, Mexico, China,
and Haiti. The English proficiency levels in this class ranged from enter-
ing through commanding.
Each of the three lessons we observed at Forest Creek included seg-
ments devoted to concept development. In one lesson, before Mr.
Coppersong explicitly stated the essential question for the day, “What is
Imperialism?,” he began with a Do Now activity by drawing the students’
attention to the quote of the day, a recurring feature of the class that helps
students read and process brief historical texts. The quote chosen for the
lesson was by Jules Ferry, French Prime Minister’s seminal Speech Before
the French National Assembly delivered in 1883: “In order for a country to
be great, she must show her influence throughout the world and carry
everywhere she can her language, her customs, her flag, her arms, and her
genius” (as cited in Andrea & Overfield, 2011, p. 297). Ms. Rosebreeze
reminded the students to focus on the phrase “carry everywhere she can”
and asked them to consider how, according to the quote, great countries
show their influence throughout the world: “What is the difference
between “sharing” or “pushing” one’s ideas on another? Do you think it
matters to Jules Ferry? Why?” Mr. Coppersong, the social studies teacher,
prompted the class to think about the target concept of the day induc-
tively by asking overarching questions such as “What makes a country
stronger?” while Ms. Rosebreeze continued probing the students to make
connections to previously taught material with scaffolding questions such
as “Why were the Europeans so strong at the end of the 19th century?
What was happening?” [CONNECTION].
Students were asked to reflect on these questions in small groups and
share their answers with each other before the class reconvened for whole
group instruction. As students began to offer their thoughts to each other,
the ESOL teacher strategically moved from table to table to work with
individual students, including ELLs to ensure they fully understand the
quote, to review key words (such as influence), make connections to prior
learning (with mass production due to the industrial revolution, a surplus
of goods was created and the need for new markets to sell those products
arose), and bridge the lesson to students’ knowledge and experiences
coming from countries that had a European influence [CONNECTION
and CLASSROOM INTERACTION].
Next, the teachers played a song entitled “Missionary” by Operation
Ivy (1989), and the students were asked to make connections between
key ideas in the song and the Jules Ferry quote.
The lyrics were shown on the board and highlighted as the music was
played. Mr. Coppersong played an air guitar to emphasize specific parts
of the song, some students played along, thus reveling a strong sense of
class culture with high levels of comfort in the room [COMMUNITY].
At the conclusion of the song, students worked in heterogeneous dyads
and triads to identify how the lyrics compared to the quote [CLASSROOM
INTERACTION]. Students were comparing key words and phrases in
the two documents and concluded that language in the quote refers to “a
brand new set of words” in the song. The word flag from the quote was
mentioned in the song several times such as in the line “Can you see the
flag? Rising up beyond the smoke.” The students also concluded that her
arms in the quote is connected to “blood stained hands” in the song and
her genius in the quote may be related to the idea in the refrain “Wanna
see my name on the map.” A comparative linguistic analysis of this sort
allowed language to come to the forefront, while students’ conceptual
understanding and concept development came as a result of concrete
experiences with authentic language in a quote and a song and engaged
conversations with peers about language and meaning [CODE-
BREAKING and CLASSROOM INTERACTION].
Later in the lesson, the students were invited to analyze two cartoons.
First they examined the iconic editorial cartoon by Edward Linley
Sambourne, entitled “The Rhodes Colossus,” first published in Punch
magazine in 1892. Students worked in pairs to describe the cartoon that
depicted British colonialist Cecil Rhodes as a giant standing over the
continent of Africa and then were invited to make sense of the cartoon by
making connections to the African saying, “When the whites came to our
country, we had the land and they had the Bible, now we have the Bible
and they have the land” (as cited in Noonan, 1999, p. 99) [CLASSROOM
INTERACTION].
The second picture the students examined was Victor Gillam’s (1899)
“The White Man’s Burden” referencing Kipling’s (1899) poem of the
same title. In this picture, two men—Britain’s John Bull and Uncle
Sam—are carrying baskets filled with indigenous people up a rugged hill
paved with stones that are engraved with words such as vice, ignorance,
superstitions, and brutality. By inviting students to compare these two
cartoons, both high levels of academic standards and content were main-
tained for ELLs while they were engaged in academic conversations
[CHALLENGE].
Using a quote, a song, and images, as well as ample small group, shared
reflection and discussion time allowed students, especially ELLs, to move
from experiencing concrete, more tangible examples to developing a
deeper understanding of abstract ideas. The concept of imperialism—the
domination by one country or people over another group of people—was
not simply given to the student as a prepackaged definition; instead,
through active engagement students co-constructed meaning with their
teachers and each other. The class further unpacked the concept of impe-
rialism through a jigsaw group activity in which students were given a
short passage to read and discuss in order to identify the critical attributes
of imperialism by pinpointing the economic, social, political and military
reasons why Western Europe pursued a policy of imperialism during the
late 1800s through the early 1900s. The frequent use of peer collabora-
tion helped the teachers to adjust the pacing of the lesson and to offer
more individualized interventions to students who needed them. Through
collaborative conversations, ELLs had to explain and justify their think-
ing as well as listen to how others were thinking and using the language
(Beck, 2008). Concept development and attainment was derived from a
range of student-centered activities rather than teacher-provided defini-
tion [COLLABORATION and CLASSROOM INTERACTION].
When we interviewed the Forest Creak Team to share how their les-
sons reflect the LACI elements, both teachers agreed that two of their
strongest points in their classes are nurturing collaboration and ensuring
classroom interaction that actively engages students. Mr. Coppersong
noted how well heterogeneous groups supported EL students to be able
to make sense of complex content:
Yes, the groups are definitely effective, mixing the ELLs with the main-
stream students, and, it worked out, Carlos and Steve, working together,
they came to some strong conclusions. [COLLABORATION and
CLASSROOM INTERACTION]
When the teachers shared with us their reflections on another lesson in

which Jomo Kenyatta and Gandhi were compared, Ms. Rosebreeze rec-
ognized that one of the students—who was originally from India—had a
unique perspective to offer and can serve as a cultural resource to the class
through his “funds of knowledge” [CULTURE].
Mr. Coppersong further elaborated on the impact of impact having
ELLs and English speakers in a challenging history class together and
why building a strong classroom culture is important:
I think [the English-speaking] students realize that, hey, there’s another

population of students in our building and you should welcome them,
embrace them as part of the Forest Creek family right now. And it gets
them to know each other a little bit and break out of their shell. Look,
there’s people out there that’s different from you and that’s not a bad thing.
And we need to do more of that. It’s just starting out but we’ve broken that
wall down, that barrier, at least there’s an opening. “Hey, hey come over
here, we’ll work with you”, you know. [COMMUNITY]
Ms. Rosebreeze recalled the challenge the teachers faced setting up such
cooperating partnerships at the beginning of the school year and com-
mented how their own collaboration and the frequent opportunities for
group work helped create a more inclusive learning environment:
I remember that first time we thought we cannot put those two together,
the two good students were getting their work done but they totally ignored
the ELL students. We thought, “What’s going on?” It does take a while to
develop the culture of collaboration and help and working with everyone
together. So it’s a process. I don’t think we’ve mastered it yet, but certainly
we’ve improved. It’s nice to see the kids utilizing all of these strategies that
we’re doing and it’s rewarding, it’s nice. [COLLABORATION and
CLASSROOM INTERACTION]
In addition, in their collaboratively written LACI self-assessment, the

two teachers agreed that their use of students’ native language as an asset
has a critical role in meaning making and it occupies a constant presence
in their classroom:
[…] students always have access to word-to-word dictionaries in their home

language or a chrome book to look up new words. Both classroom teachers
point out words in their native language whenever they can. During this
particular lesson, when the class was discussing the “White man’s burden,”
and how the Europeans felt they needed to “civilize” the people in their colo-
nies, Ms. Rosebreeze helped students recall the world “civilizar,” to remind
the Spanish-speaking students of what was happening. Additionally, students
who have a better understanding of what is being said, often re-explain it to
their peers in their native language. [CODE-BREAKING]
While the Forest Creek Team attended to all six Cs of the LACI framework
in support of helping their ELLs develop conceptual understanding in the
social studies classroom, some elements seemed to be more readily observable
and more intentionally implemented by the teachers. Those include class-
room interactions, community and collaboration, and challenge, in the order
of observed importance, indicating that the teachers are most committed to
creating a rigorous classroom environment in which ELLs and their English-
speaking peers work in collaboration to build a strong sense of belonging.
Harborside Team
Harborside High School is also a large building with more than 1600
students enrolled. The majority of the population is Black at 50%, fol-
lowed by approximately 25% Hispanic or Latino, 20% White, and 5%
Other. ELLs make up 4% of the population, students with disabilities
make up 17%, and 22% of the students are economically disadvantaged.
The graduation rate was 93% in 2016 with 7% of the students dropping
out (New York State School Report Card Data, 2015–2016).
The co-taught integrated class social studies/ENL class was taught by a
team consisting of a certified social studies teacher (Mr. Hawthorne) and
an ESOL teacher (Ms. Everdeen), who were in their second year of col-
laboration. The class was made up of 22 students. Unlike in Forest Creek,
the students in the class were all identified as ELLs and came from a
variety of countries and language backgrounds including the Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Pakistan, Haiti, Italy, and
Switzerland. Students also ranged from entering, emerging, transition-
ing, and expanding language proficiency levels.
In one of the lessons we visited, the key concept the students were
discussing was the Golden Age through the exploration of the Han
Dynasty. In one activity, students were presented with five related words
in a word box and were tasked with sorting the words as possible ways to
finish the sentence frame the teachers provided:
A Golden Age is a time of _ ___________________________________.
Three of the five words (war, peace, taxes, achievements, and prosperity)
were plausible ways to complete the sentence and two were not, cau-
tioned Ms. Everdeen. After the students gave single word answers and
identified the correct responses, Mr. Hawthorne reminded them that:
“You need all three parts to have a Golden Age—peace, achievements,
and prosperity, just as the Gupta Empire had in India,” thus making a
connection to a previous unit of study and students’ prior knowledge
gained in the class [CONNECTION].
When Mr. Hawthorne further probed the students to deepen their
thinking about what the concept of the Golden Age means, he wanted to
know whether or not the students thought we currently were living in a
golden age. One student immediately volunteered, “In this time, we have
so much problem with other countries,” while some students were
nodding.
When reflecting on how they make connections to students’ prior
knowledge and experiences, specifically when it comes to conceptual
understanding, Ms. Everdeen offered a few strategies they frequently use
in her LACI self-assessment tool:
Students are asked to recall events or concepts from previous lessons or

experiences to aide in their understanding of new subject matter. For
example, when discussing a “Golden Age” of classical civilizations, students
are asked to make connection to achievements we have made in more
recent time periods and then describe how they could help make these new
time periods “Golden Ages” of today. We also encourage the recall of prior
topics learned to make the connection to the current topic through ques-
tioning and teacher/student created graphic organizers. [CHALLENGE]
The graphic organizers help students keep key similar concepts of different
civilizations together to assist in making the connection between the con-
cepts. When teaching about “polytheism” and “monotheism,” we often use
the cross-curriculum concepts of “monomials” and “polynomials” in alge-
bra. We also use this to connect the idea of biology concepts such as
“monosaccharides” and “polysaccharides.” The connection being that
mono is always one and poly is always many. The teaching and showing the
prefix of these words helps the students to understand the subject matter a
little easier. (CONNECTION and CODE-BREAKING]
Just as indicated in this excerpt, in several other instances during the les-
sons we observed, Ms. Everdeen consistently made strong linguistic con-
nections, adjusted the pacing of the lesson to enhance understanding
through clarifying key words, paraphrasing directions, restating key
points, encouraging bilingual peer bridges to form and use their home
languages, and so on, thus evidencing a clear focus on language develop-
ment within the social studies classroom while also building upon stu-
dents’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [CULTURE].
In another lesson we observed, the students were exploring innova-
tions in River Valley Civilizations the teachers explicitly defined what
innovation means, and identified the main focus of the lesson to deter-
mine the characteristics of several key inventions. To accomplish this,
desks were organized in triads so previously formed student groups could
identify the invention their group was responsible for and complete the
collaborative activity. The groups assigned one of the following inven-
tions each: cuneiform, Mohenjo-Daro, social hierarchy of Egypt,
Egyptian book of the dead, Code of Hammurabi, Egyptian Shaduf, and
Oracle bones. During the activity, students were provided with a concept
map with the key concept placed in the center surrounded by guiding
questions to scaffold students’ concept development. These included
questions such as: “Where was the invention located in the river valley?
What was the purpose of the invention? How did the invention affect
civilization?”
Students were encouraged to use complete sentences as they completed

the activity through sentence frames and sentence starters made available
to them [CODE-BREAKING]. In addition, a model concept map was
also highlighted and shown on the board for students to refer to through-
out the activity. After about a 10-minute small group discussion, the stu-
dents were redirected to go more in depth with the activity by charting
their ideas on the concept maps in preparation for an extension activity
planned for next day [COLLABORATION and CLASSROOM
INTERACTION].
Students were directed to use their resources (personal notebook, texts,
each other, etc.) in preparing their concept maps in addition to creativity
in how to present the information [CULTURE and CODE-BREAKING].
In an interview with Ms. Everdeen, we learned that she and her co-teacher
“also allow the students to use their tablets or their phones or laptops to
go on and either translate or find examples that will help them under-
stand different concepts.” The goal of each summary chart was to identify
the impact and purpose of the invention assigned to the group. Each
student in the group had specific roles and responsibilities, such as being
the recorder, artist, or reader for individual accountability. In a follow-up
interview, Mr. Hawthorne explained that language and conceptual
understanding is always at the forefront in this classroom occupied by
ELLs only.
We use word walls where key vocabulary words are posted on the wall and
we ask students to refer back to that to help them answer questions. We
keep essential questions on hand on the wall so that we can refer back to
that particular question. Therefore they’re familiar with that particular
wording of a question. Throughout the year we continue to come back to
it. One of the examples we use is “How do empires gain, maintain, and
consolidate their power?” That is something we continue to come back to
and it can help them build a lot of language. [CONNECTION]
The Harborside Team also utilized all elements of the LACI framework;
however, some were more observable or evidenced in the data (such as
making connections, code-breaking, community and collaboration, and
classroom interactions) than others. It was less clear how teachers utilize
students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge and how they are able to main-
tain high-level ELLs of rigor and challenge in the course. Finally, it was
intriguing to see that the two teacher teams at Forest Creek and Harborside
chose to emphasize different principles of LACI in their practice.

Experienced and prospective social studies teachers are faced with the
challenges of instructing diverse communities of learners and are expected
to connect curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment practices to address
their needs. To do this, we focus on the integrated, comprehensive
approach of the CU-C3LACI framework. In the list below, we identify
how teachers focus on the planning process, appropriate instruction,
assessment, and reflection to meet the needs of all students, especially
ELLs in the social studies classroom.
• Planning: is a two-fold process which focuses on language through

content. Teachers should ask themselves: What are the goals and objec-
tives of the lesson or unit? Do I incorporate both a content and language
objective? What is my expectation of my students to meet the goals and
objectives? What is my role? What are my student’s roles? What are the indi-
vidual and collective needs of my students? How will I help students make
connections to the content through their funds of knowledge? How will I use
this information to implicitly teach my students? In what ways will I incor-
porate my students linguistic and cultural knowledge? How will I integrate
foundational knowledge for students to identify and create cohesive rela-
tionships to construct knowledge? In what ways will students collaborate
and co-construct knowledge? How will classroom activities help students use
higher-order thinking skills and processes to solve problems? What goals will
I set for students and how will I help my diverse learners meet these goals?
• Instruction: incorporates differentiation of the product, process, and
content and adaptations of learning to meet the needs of all students.
The goal here is to give ELLs the opportunity to work with the tools to
deconstruct rich, non-simplified content by accessing language.
Teachers should ask themselves: How do I get all students to work on
task? How do I encourage participatory learning? What are my expecta-
tions at the various intervals of class time? How do I engage students in

developing questions that are purposeful? How do I foster the connections
between what students know and are learning? In what ways do I help
students foster these connections on their own? How do I provide opportu-
nities for students to use language to decode information through investiga-
tion and questioning? How do students use their knowledge and language
skills to analyze, make claims, and think deeply about concepts? How do I
foster reciprocal teaching and learning opportunities? What opportunities
do I give students to communicate with peers, teachers, and others about
their learning and inquiries? How do I create a culture of taking action?
How do I act as a catalyst for meaning making as a bridge between lan-
guage and content?
• Assessment: are the ways we identify how well students meet intended
goals. These may be both formal and informal in nature. Teachers
should ask themselves: How do I know students met the intended goals
and objectives of the lesson? In what ways are students fulfilling their roles?
In what ways are my students making connections? How do I measure
students use of content and language knowledge from what they knew to
what they are learning? How do my students construct knowledge and
apply it to real-life situations or other learning outcomes? How effectively
do my students collaborate and co-construct knowledge? How effectively do
students use twenty-first-century skills to work within the content through
language? How will I assess students as they work?
• Reflection: is the daily practice teachers use to identify student impact.
There are broad demands of educators and to have a clear understand-
ing of how well students know the information, are able to process it,
apply it, and teach it to others, plays a significant role in what we do
in the classroom. Teachers should ask themselves: Did students meet the
intended goals and objectives? If they did not, what could I have done
differently to help them throughout the process? In what ways did I impact
my students’ learning and outcomes? In what ways were students able to
make connections and use both their cultural and linguistic knowledge
throughout the learning process? In what ways and to what extent did my
students learn both social studies and language? How did I foster collabo-
ration and learning communities? What were the outcomes? Were my stu-
dents able to use higher-order thinking skills to decode and process what
they were learning? How much time did I give students to collaborate and
make meaning? How effective was the time I gave and why?
As teacher educators, we consistently question what student learners

should know, how they should be prepared, and what the critical needs
of both the language and the content are for ELLs to be successful.
Moving through these steps of the implication process, teachers are pro-
vided with insights into the complexities of reaching ELLs. These ideas
begins to unpack the complexity of teaching by forging a path forward to
reach the needs of all students in diverse learning communities.

Preservice and in-service teacher educators who use this chapter for
instructional purposes may do so in a variety of ways: the three major
themes that emerge from the chapter may be examined separately or in
conjunction with each other. We suggest some practical approaches here.
CU-C3LACI Framework
Using the theoretical framework we created for the chapter, we invite our
readers to deconstruct the CU-C3LACI model and subject it to a critical
analysis by further examining the interconnectedness between the C3 inquiry
arc, conceptual understanding (CU), and the six Cs of LACI. Preservice and
in-service teachers alike may also explore to what degree the elements of this
framework are present in their own philosophies of education.
L ACI Within the Context of Secondary Social Studies

and History Classes
Social studies and ESOL preservice and in-service teachers may also ben-
efit from considering the following questions aligned to the six Cs of
LACI during the planning, implementation, and reflection phases of
their lessons. By reflecting on the implications of the LACI principles
and the related reflection questions we offer here, the readers may clarify
the ways in which they are meeting the needs of all their students in their
classrooms.
1. Connection: Pedagogy and curriculum are connected to students’

backgrounds and experiences, making content explicit.
Preservice and in-service teachers: How do you establish connections

between the content you teach and the students’ backgrounds and experiences,
while making content explicit?
2. Culture: Cultural and linguistic resources, or “funds of knowledge,”

that ELLs already possess are used to support academic learning as
ELLs develop new resources to be able to participate in new situa-
tions, bridging home and school.
Preservice and in-service teachers: In what ways are students’ cultural

and linguistic backgrounds used as resources? How do your ELLs develop new
linguistic resources to actively participate in learning?
3. Code-breaking: Code-breaking integrates language and content as

instructional components and involves explicitly teaching ways of
doing school, academic literacy, and disciplinary, linguistic, and cul-
tural codes of content learning.
Preservice and in-service teachers: How do you integrate content and

language? How do you explicitly teach students ways of doing school, focusing
on academic literacy, and disciplinary, linguistic, and cultural codes of con-
tent learning?
4. Challenge: Classroom goals and activities explore disciplinary literacy

and higher-order thinking and reasoning. High challenge and high
academic standards and content are maintained for ELLs.
Preservice and in-service teachers: In what ways do the content goals and
activities explore literacy and language skills needed for social studies as well
as higher-order thinking and reasoning?
5. Community and collaboration: Collaboration is a key component

of practice as communities of learners socially co-construct
knowledge.
Preservice and in-service teachers: What are the key components of prac-
tice you use to develop communities of learners that are co-constructing
knowledge?
6. Classroom interactions: Classroom interactions focus on “interac-

tional scaffolding,” use of oral discourse to prompt elaboration, build
academic literacy, and move learning forward, through linking prior
and new experiences; appropriating and recasting students’ contribu-
tions; and using initiation, response, feedback (IRF) sequence.
Preservice and in-service teachers: How do you implement classroom

interactions (teacher to student and student to student) to focus on oral lan-
guage development?
Case Study Analysis
The two case studies we presented in the chapter are reflective of different
pedagogical decisions and instructional priorities the teachers chose to
focus on within the LACI framework. The two cases lend themselves to
in-depth analysis of all the strategies the case study teachers implemented
for concept development and attainment as well as a critical reflection of
what additional ways could history teachers take a language-based
approach to content instruction while making complex concepts acces-
sible to English language learners.
Conclusion
Students in history and social studies classes need to have the knowledge
base and ability to think and act more responsibly as a part of their civic
duty in a diverse and complex world often impacted by points of view
which differ by societal beliefs and influences depending on regions,
culture, religion, and many other factors. Parker (2015) described social
studies as a unique discipline as follows:
It is a concept, a social construct. It is human-made like a pyramid, not

natural like a tree; its meanings change with time and place, and with
political context. Social studies is contingent, buffeted by social forces, and
it reflects the anxieties, power dynamics, and “culture war” of the day.
(p. 5)
While it is important to keep these differences in mind when teaching

social studies to English language learners, in this chapter we argued that
taking a language-based approach and focusing on conceptual under-
standing for ELLs is a viable entry point.
Appendix 1
LACI Interview Protocol
CONNECTION: Pedagogy and curriculum are connected to students’

backgrounds and experiences, making content explicit.
• How do you as co-teachers make connections to students’ back-

grounds and experiences, making content explicit?
CULTURE: Cultural and linguistic resources, or “funds of knowledge,”

that ELLs already possess are used to support academic learning as
ELLs develop new resources to be able to participate in new situations,
bridging home and school.
• In what ways are students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds

used as resources?
• How do your ELs develop new linguistic resources to actively
participate in learning?
CODE-BREAKING: Code-breaking integrates language and content as

instructional components and involves explicitly teaching ways of
doing school, academic literacy, and disciplinary, linguistic, and cul-

tural codes of content learning.
• How do you integrate content and language?

• How do you explicitly teach students ways of doing school,
focusing on academic literacy, and disciplinary, linguistic, and
cultural codes of content learning?
CHALLENGE: Classroom goals and activities explore disciplinary liter-

acy and higher-order thinking and reasoning. High challenge and high
academic standards and content are maintained for ELLs.
• In what ways do the classroom goals and activities explore lit-

eracy and language skills needed for social studies as well as
higher-order thinking and reasoning?
COMMUNITY and COLLABORATION: Collaboration is a key com-

ponent of practice as communities of learners socially co-construct
knowledge.
• What are the key components of practice you use to develop

communities of learners that are co-constructing knowledge?
CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS: Classroom interactions focus on

“interactional scaffolding,” use of oral discourse to prompt elaboration,
build academic literacy, and move learning forward, through linking
prior and new experiences; appropriating and recasting students’ con-
tributions; and using initiation, response, feedback (IRF) sequence.
• How do you implement classroom interactions (teacher to student

and student to student) to focus on oral language development?
_______________
Based on de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). A language-based approach to
content instruction (LACI) for English language learners: Examples from
two elementary teachers. International Multilingual Research Journal,
10(3), 217–231. doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1185911
Appendix 2
Self-Assessment Based on the LACI Framework (6Cs)
CONNECTION: Pedagogy and curriculum are connected to stu-

dents’ backgrounds and experiences, making content explicit.
1. How do we establish and activate students’ background knowl-

edge to introduce and connect to the subject matter?
____ connect to earlier discussion/lesson

____ encouraging recall of prior learning
____ questioning to link self to text
Please describe:
CULTURE: Cultural and linguistic resources, or “funds of

knowledge,” that ELs already possess are used to support aca-
demic learning as ELs develop new resources to be able to partici-
pate in new situations, bridging home and school.
2. What strategies do we use to support academic learning by using

students’ cultural resources and “funds of knowledge?”
____ use of home language support

____ use of cognates
____ forging connections to the students’ cultural and familial
experiences
Please describe:
3. How do we use these strategies to connect to new resources and

situations?
CODE-BREAKING: Code-breaking integrates language and

content as instructional components and involves explicitly
teaching ways of doing school, academic literacy, and disciplin-
ary, linguistic, and cultural codes of content learning.
4. What instructional strategies do we employ to explicitly teach

language and content, and instill code-breaking skills in the
following areas:
(a) Presenting ideas:
____ verbal resources (i.e., shared language learning, peer

support)
____ visual resources
____ others (please explain)
(b) Enacting a relationship with the reader or listener: How do

we support students in identifying the nature of interaction
with the subject matter in the following aspects:
____ Formal vs. informal

____ Close vs. distant
____ Attitude or learning environment
(c) Constructing a cohesive message: How do we use verbal and

visual resources (texts and images) to organize information
in a meaningful and cohesive manner.
COMMUNITY and COLLABORATION: Collaboration is a

key component of practice as communities of learners socially co-
construct knowledge.
5. What type of student grouping(s) do we use to facilitate collab-

orative learning and understanding?
6. In what ways are students provided opportunities to choose and
change groupings within the unit of instruction (individual,
pair, group)?
7. How are tasks assigned to ensure equitable participation in our
co-taught classroom learning community?
8. What type of scaffolding is employed to support student co-
construction of knowledge?
CHALLENGE: Classroom goals and activities explore disci-

plinary literacy and higher-order thinking and reasoning. High
challenge and high academic standards and content are main-
tained for ELs.
9. How do our learning goals and activities challenge all students

to:
____ Remember
____ Understand
____ Apply
____ Analyze
____ Evaluate
____Create
CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS: Classroom interactions

focus on “interactional scaffolding,” use of oral discourse to
prompt elaboration, build academic literacy, and move learning
forward, through linking prior and new experiences; appropriat-
ing and recasting students’ contributions; and using initiation,
response, feedback (IRF) sequence.
10. How do we facilitate student interactions and oral discourse to
____ link learning to prior out-of-school, home, and school

experiences?
____ point to new knowledge?
____ recap learning experience?
11. What strategies do we use to recast student contributions and

engage students in subject-specific and context-appropriate
discourse?
12. How do we use verbal or gestural cues to incorporate the initia-
tion, response, feedback (IRF) sequence and to further student
participation and understanding in the following areas:
____ communicating expected responses?

____ seeking clarification of a concept?
____ probing a student’s response?
____ eliciting detailed explanations of particular points within
the lesson/discussion?
References
Andrea, A. J., & Overfield, J. H. (2011). The human record: Sources of global his-
tory, volume II: since 1500 (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
Beck, T. A. (2008). Behind the mask: Social studies concepts and English lan-
guage learners. Social Education, 72, 181–184.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of
learner. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2015). A language-based approach to content instruction
(LACI) for English language learners. Journal of Language and Literacy
Education. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/SSOODecember_FINAL.pdf
de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). A language-based approach to content instruction
(LACI) for English language learners: Examples from two elementary teach-
ers. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10, 217–231. doi:10.1080/1
9313152.2016.1185911.
Gallagher, S. (2012). Concept development: A Hilda Taba teaching strategy.
Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies
for English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (Eds.). (2012). Coteaching and other collaborative
practices in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and recom-
mendations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2015). Collaboration and co-teaching for English
learners: A leader’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kipling, R. (1899). The White man’s burden. McClure’s Magazine.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Misco, T., & Castañeda, M. (2009). “Now, what should I do for English lan-
guage learners?” Reconceptualizing social studies curriculum design for ELLs.
Educational Horizons, 87, 182–189. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/42923764
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). College, career, & civic
life (C3) framework for social studies standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor
of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Springs, MD: NCSS.
New York State School Report Card Data. (2015–2016). Retrieved from https://
data.nysed.gov/reportcard.php?year=2016
Noonan, T. C. (1999). Document-based assessment activities for global history

classes. Portland, ME: Walch Education.
Obenchain, K. M., & Morris, R. V. (2015). 50 social studies strategies for k-8
classrooms (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Operation Ivy (Musical Group). (1989). Missionary [Recorded by Operation
Ivy]. On Energy [CD]. Los Angeles: Hellcat Records. 2007.
Parker, W. C. (2015). Social studies education eC21. In W. C. Parker (Ed.),
Social studies today: Research and practice (pp. 1–13). New York: Routledge.
Rance-Rooney, J. (2009). Digital storytelling for language and culture learning.
Essential Teacher, 5(1), 29–31. Retrieved from https://www.nwp.org/cs/pub-
lic/print/resource/2812
Sambourne, E. L. (Artist). (1892). The Rhodes Colossus. [Cartoon]. London:
Punch. Retrieved from http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/
the-rhodes-colossus-1892-cecil-rhodes-english-born-south-news-
photo/463894227?#the-rhodes-colossus-1892-cecil-rhodes-englishborn-
south-african-and-picture-id463894227
Schleppegrell, M. J., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and
content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
5, 254–268.
Taba, H. (1967). Teacher handbook for elementary social studies. Palo Alto, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Taba, H., Durkin, M. C., Fraenkel, J. R., & McNaughton, A. R. (1971). A
teacher’s handbook to elementary social studies. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowl-
edge base for teaching academic content to English language learners:
Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(3). Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org/library. ID Number: 17361.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. – Mexican youth and the politics
of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Victor, G. F. (Creator). (1899). The White man’s burden (Apologies to Kipling).
[Chromolithograph] In the Ohio State University Billy Ireland Cartoon
library & Museum. Retrieved from https://library.osu.edu/dc/concern/
generic_works/g732tk384
Research and Practice, 11(1), 20–39. Retrieved from http://www.socstrpr.org/
wp-%20content/uploads/2016/04/MS06635_Yoder.pdf
Andrea Honigsfeld, Ed.D., is an associate dean and director of the doctoral

program (Educational Leadership for Diverse Learning Communities) at Molloy
College, Rockville Centre, New York. A Fulbright scholar and sought after
national presenter, Andrea is the coauthor or coeditor of over 17 books on edu-
cation and numerous chapters and research articles related to the diverse needs
of ELLs, with a focus on integrated, collaborative service delivery models.
Carrie L. McDermott, Ed.D., is an assistant professor in the Division of

Education at Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York, with concentrations
in action research, cultural and linguistic diversity, ESOL methodology, theory,
and language acquisition. Additionally, she trains/coaches teachers in integrated
and collaborative instruction and works with administrators to supervise and
evaluate these practices. She is currently involved in several research projects
involving the evolution of integrated reading comprehension applications for
ELLs, co-teaching practices, and graduate education program impact.
Kelley Cordeiro, is a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership for

Diverse Learning Communities program, at Molloy College, Rockville Centre,
New York, where she is an adjunct professor in the Division of Education
TESOL program. She is also an elementary English as a New Language instruc-
tor. Kelley earned her MS in education from Molloy and is certified in the areas
of childhood, early childhood, TESOL, and special education. She currently
serves as the Long Island co-chair of NYS TESOL.
7
Using Socratic Circles to Engage English
Language Learners in Historical Inquiry
and Discussion
Hayriye Kayi-Aydar, Jason L. Endacott,
and Christian Z. Goering
Historical inquiry and discussion are an essential part of the social studies
classrooms in the USA. Instead of teaching lessons reliant upon teacher-
centered lectures and recitation of a single-textual source by students,
historical inquiry oriented social studies classes invite and encourage stu-
dents to “develop perspectives, attributes, and critical thinking skills
required of informed citizens in a democratic society” (Foster & Padgett,
1999, p. 357) as they co-construct historical accounts. Historical inquiry
and discussion are incredibly useful for English language learners (ELLs)
as they become “intercultural speakers” whom Byram, Nichols, and
Stevens (2001) describe as individuals having “the ability to interact with
‘others’, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world, to
mediate between different perspectives, to be conscious of their evalua-
H. Kayi-Aydar (*)
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
J.L. Endacott • C.Z. Goering

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

160 H. Kayi-Aydar et al.
tions of difference” (p. 5). However, ELLs, who are learning language and
content simultaneously, may find it highly challenging to be part of dis-
cussions that involve historical inquiry as they will need to know not only
content knowledge but also have the linguistic and intercultural compe-
tencies. Providing pure linguistic scaffolding or language support may
not be always sufficient for ELLs’ active participation in such discussions.
Therefore, social studies teachers should be equipped with the knowledge
regarding cultural competencies of their ELLs, their cross-cultural posi-
tionalities, and the necessary pedagogical strategies. In this chapter, by
focusing on these aspects and drawing from our work on professional
development with teachers, we introduce Socratic circles as a tool that
teachers can use to better prepare ELLs for historical inquiry and discus-
sion in the culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) classrooms. We
conclude with implications for teacher educators who prepare teachers
for the CLD social studies classes.
ocial Studies Concepts and Cultural

S
Competency
Social studies can be an especially difficult content area for ELLs due to
its conceptually-dense content that draws from a number of associated
disciplines in the social sciences and humanities (Cruz & Thornton,
2013). In addition to be conceptually complex, social studies vocabulary
is often abstract and relies upon culturally embedded meaning (Chamot,
2009). Many concepts and ideas (e.g., democracy, liberty, responsibility,
justice) were developed over time and became culturally embedded,
attaining uniquely American meanings in the process. When teaching
these concepts to students, teachers can overestimate ELLs’ background
knowledge and ability to decode their culturally embedded meanings
(Chamot, 2009). It is important for social studies teachers to remember
that ELLs may have diverse understandings based on different contexts.
Indeed, as ELLs learn the language, they also develop intercultural com-
petence, which refers to the “knowledge, skills and attitudes, comple-
mented by the values one holds because of one’s belonging to a number
Using Socratic Circles to Engage English Language Learners… 161
of social groups, values which are part of one’s belonging to a given soci-
ety” (Byram et al., 2001, p. 5).
In addition to having uniquely American meanings for many concepts
in the social studies, the political and educational forces behind the cre-
ation of content standards, curricula, and textbooks have also created a
uniquely American idea of history as a concept. Since history is a tool for
developing national identity, the portrayal of American history has
become largely synonymous with the American values of freedom and
progress (Barton, 2009). These values are reflected in public representa-
tions and curricular materials, leading students to conceptualize US his-
tory as a steady march toward expanded rights and opportunities,
improved social relations, and rectified injustices (Barton & Levstik,
2004). Students who have immigrated from other countries have not
been steeped in this American perspective on the past and are likely to
have different understandings of history as a concept (Seixas, 1993).
Positionality and Understanding
Given their diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background and
unique experience, ELLs can provide perspective and knowledge that
most native-born students may not possess (Seixas, 1993). Developing
ELLs’ intercultural competency including American ideas and values is
important, but so are the different perspectives and lived experiences they
bring to the classroom. Americans do not hold a monopoly on ideas and
understandings, and the inclusion of other perspectives can diversify and
enrich discussion. We employ the term “positionality” when referring to
a person’s unique experiences, beliefs, values, ideologies, and perspectives.
Our positionalities are important reflections on our identities (Davies &
Harré, 1990; Kayi-Aydar, 2014), which is why it is important to encour-
age students to understand their own positionality and how it affects
their thinking.
Positionality is also an important aspect of historical study. History
educators want students to develop historical positionality—the manner
in which students’ worldviews and lived experiences shape their perspec-
tives and how they interpret historical evidence (VanSledright, 2001).

Historical positionality is an important aspect of critical historical study
because it helps students understand not just where they stand, but also
how their positions are situated within a broader context of other posi-
tions. In a sense, the culturally embedded understanding of concepts in
the USA is a product of an “American positionality” that has influenced
students’ thinking as a codified theme in curricula and textbooks. Critical
approaches to these concepts will take this into account and encourage
students to reflect on where their individual and culturally dominant
positionalities mesh and where they diverge. Such approaches that include
global perspectives also improve ELLs’ intercultural competency (Choi,
2013), but perhaps more importantly, the metacognitive nature of his-
torical positionality helps ELLs recognize and think critically about cul-
turally embedded ideas rather than just accept them (Salinas, Fránquiz,
& Guberman, 2006). This is the type of thinking we want ELLs to engage
in as they prepare for dialogue with others.
istorical Inquiry: Preparing for Conceptually

H
Complex Conversations
The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS, 2013) describes his-
torical inquiry as including four interrelated and mutually reinforcing
dimensions: (1) Developing questions and planning inquiries; (2)
Applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) Evaluating sources and
using evidence; and (4) Communicating conclusions and taking informed
action. In this section we provide a brief description of how these dimen-
sions can be used to engage ELLs in historical inquiry that is mindful of
positionality as they prepare to communicate their ideas through Socratic
dialogue, which is a student-centered discussion strategy. Below we pro-
vide a more comprehensive definition and detailed description of Socratic
circles.
Historical inquiry begins by posing compelling questions on enduring
issues that spark student interest. Compelling questions are the heart of
the first dimension of the inquiry process because they “deal with curiosi-
ties about how things work; interpretations and applications of
isciplinary concepts; and unresolved issues that require students to con-

d
struct arguments in response” (NCSS, 2013, p. 23). Compelling ques-
tions are well suited for use with Socratic dialog because they are thought
provoking and encourage students to use evidence in conjunction with
their individual positionalities to develop arguments that can be shared
with others. Compelling questions are drawn from the second dimension
of the inquiry process, the disciplinary concepts and specific content
found in state social studies standards. The examples below (Figs. 7.1 and
7.2) demonstrate how this could be approached using the concepts of
globalization and civil rights.
The examples below share two very important characteristics. First,
they are open-ended and require the use of evidence to properly answer.
Second, they are specifically designed to be interpreted in different ways
by the students with different perspectives. The first compelling question
Concept Globalization
C3 Dimension 2: D2.Eco.15.9–12. Explain how current globalization trends and policies
Disciplinary affect economic growth, labor markets, rights of citizens, the environment,
Tools & Concepts and resource and income distribution in different nations.
State Content Arkansas Strand: Era 10: Contemporary United States 1968 to Present
Standard Content Standard 8: Students will analyze social and economic
trends of the United States since 1968.
Era10.8.USH.1: Examine the effects of globalization on the
United States (e.g., regional trade blocks, European Union [EU],
NAFTA, international organizations, multinational corporations)
Potential How has globalization affected the United States in comparison to the rest
Compelling of the world?
Question
Fig. 7.1 Example of compelling question for the concept of globalization that is
connected to disciplinary and content standards
Concept Civil Rights
C3 Dimension 2: D2.Civ.10.9–12. Analyze the impact and the appropriate roles of personal
Disciplinary interests and perspectives on the application of civic virtues, democratic
Tools & principles, constitutional rights, and human rights.
Concepts
State Content Arkansas Strand: Era 9: Post-war United States 1945 to Early 1970s
Standard Content Standard 6: Students will analyze social, economic, and
political changes in the United States between 1945 and 1970.
Era9.6.USH.1: Analyze the roles of individuals, groups, and the
government in securing civil rights during the mid-20th century
using a variety of primary and secondary sources (e.g., minorities,
women, NAACP, federal court cases, legislation, Twenty-fourth
Amendment)
Potential
Compelling Who controls the civil rights of Americans?
Question
Fig. 7.2 Example of compelling question for the concept of civil rights that is
connected to disciplinary and content standards
broadens the inquiry into globalization to include global perspectives and

encourages a comparative approach rather than an American-centric one.
The second compelling question uses the word “who” to promote stu-
dents’ understanding that while rights might be conferred by government
documents, they are controlled by the people with power over the cre-
ation and enforcement of those documents. The experiences of students
from different backgrounds can weigh heavily in how they view the
answers to these questions. We want to encourage our students to use
their positionalities and recognize the varying positionalities of others
when they tackle the answers to these questions.
But answers to compelling questions cannot be adequately answered

with experience and positionality alone. The third dimension of the
inquiry process includes the identification and analysis of evidence from
multiple sources in order to develop claims and recognize potential coun-
terclaims while also understanding the limitations of both. Students
should be encouraged to locate their own evidence whenever possible,
and it is the task of the teacher to make sure that students remain mindful
of the origin, veracity, relevance, and corroborative value of the evidence
they select. The evidence students choose should support their claims and
prepare them to counter the claims made by others. The use of contrast-
ing primary sources is important because they promote metacognition
and understanding of the interpretive nature of history (Salinas et al.,
2006). Students’ positionality plays a key role in the selection and inter-
pretation of evidence, so teachers should encourage their students to con-
sider how their own perspectives and experiences have an influence on
their reasoning. Individual positionalities should be recognized and
respected to the extent that they represent a student’s thoughtful approach
to the question at hand.
As students compile the evidence to support their claims, the teacher
should encourage the class to consider how our culturally embedded
understandings influence their thinking. This can be achieved by asking
questions such as “Is this a widely held American perspective?” followed
by “Why do you think many Americans share this viewpoint?” This can
be contrasted by encouraging students who have recently immigrated
from other nations to share the ways in which people from other parts of
the world see similar issues. Most importantly, the students should come
to recognize that the incredibly diverse mix of cultural backgrounds in
the USA means that a truly “American” perspective does not exist, and
that much of what they encounter is instead reflective of a “dominant”
perspective in American society.
The final dimension of the inquiry process includes students’ commu-
nicating their conclusions and taking informed action. Emphasis should
be placed on clarity, use of evidence as support and acknowledgement of
counterclaims made by others. Fortunately, inquiry activities that foster
ELLs’ historical thinking lead to a greater willingness to share positions
with others (Fránquiz & Salinas, 2011), and the consistent emphasis on
recognizing various cultures through the first three phases of the inquiry
should promote a safe space for sharing to occur. Socratic circles provide
an ideal dialogic opportunity for students to communicate their
conclusions.
Socratic Circles
Socratic circles are a student-centered discussion strategy that allows stu-
dents to engage in a productive and civil collaborative conversation in an
effort to dig more deeply into a text, usually provided by the teacher. In
digging more deeply, students are encouraged to ask questions in an effort
to not only understand the text but to connect it to each of their lives for
a deeper, more nuanced discussion that attempts to account for all of the
voices in any given classroom. The method itself places students in two
concentric circles, one given the task of discussing while the other watches
for “how” the first group discusses, providing immediate feedback on
how the inner circle interacts with one another. Once a time period
elapses, the outer circle provides their feedback to the inner circle and
then students switch roles and continue the conversation.
Socratic circles engender a student-centered discussion that, in the best
of situations, is also a form of dialogue, or talking to learn. In terms of
research on dialogue, Socratic circles (also called seminars) are situated as
a dialogic tool, something that a teacher can use to enhance, improve,
and elicit dialogue from her students (Caughlan, Juzwik, Borsheim-
Black, Kelly, & Fine, 2013). “A dialogic tool is an activity, heuristic,
assemblage, guide or other mechanism a teacher uses in planning and
practice that helps scaffold students into talking to learn” (Juzwik,
Borsheim-Black, Caughlan, & Heintz, 2013, p. 35). Something as sim-
ple and obvious as asking students to turn their desks to face one another
provides an example of a dialogic tool while many others require teachers
and students to prepare questions or prepare for an all-out discussion like
a Socratic circle (Caughlan et al., 2013). To broaden the understanding
of how dialogue, or talking to learn, works in the nature of a classroom,
a brief review of the research literature provides a picture fraught with
opportunity for further improvement. Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, and
Prendergast (1997) point out the general lack of authentic dialogue, or

learning talk, in the nature of school, revealing that only 45–70 seconds
of each 40 minutes of class time is spent with students engaged in dia-
logue with one another and/or with the instructor. Applebee, Langer,
Nystrand, and Gamoran (2003) studied over 200 English classrooms,
accounting for the talk in 1151 classroom discussions, which revealed
that 93% of all discussions were monologic or teacher centered in nature.
And just as clear as the research is on the lack of learning talk in class-
rooms, it’s equally clear on how important this kind of talk is with direct
ties to increased student achievement when it happens more frequently
(Alexander, 2008; Applebee et al., 2003; Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter,
Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Nystrand et al., 1997) and that students
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds both benefit from it more and
experience it less (Alexander, 2008; Applebee et al., 2003).
Socratic circles are a promising tool for ELLs to improve their language
and content knowledge as active engagement in dialogue with multiple
speakers provide opportunities for comprehensible input (Krashen,
1985), negotiation for meaning (e.g., Long, 1996), scaffolding (Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976), and social interaction (see Lantolf, 2000), which
are all known to be essential and necessary for second language acquisi-
tion. In a CLD history classroom, elements of democratic participation,
equity, and empathy are common goals held by teachers seeking to open
lines of learning conversations and ultimately increase dialogue. In a
national learning context for talking to learn that is often unidirectional,
from teacher to student, there’s an urgency to enliven classrooms with
dialogic tools to facilitate language development for ELLs.
ocratic Circles in CLD Social Studies

S
Classrooms: Evidence from Practice
Chris has worked with K-12 teachers in all disciplines for the past 15 years
in efforts to help them implement Socratic circles in their own class-
rooms. This work has ranged from formal presentations to demonstra-
tion lessons to year-long in-service series. In an ideal situation, teachers
seeking to add this strategy approach to their instructional approach will
experience a combination of multiple classroom demonstrations, obser-

vations, opportunities for question and answer, and follow-up sessions
over an extended period of time. In a recent professional development of
Social Studies Teachers in CLD Classrooms, Chris spent one semester in
a school district working to help teachers implement Socratic circles in
their classrooms. This learning opportunity was delivered in four half-day
sessions, through an observation of each teacher’s use of the strategy, a
book study of Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking and
middle and high school, and ongoing consulting or coaching between par-
ticipating teachers and Chris. Once Socratic circles are adopted, and both
students and instructors feel comfortable discussing in this way, teachers
begin to see the discipline-specific goals that can be met through these
conversations. Based on his observations of the teachers’ implementa-
tions of Socratic circles in CLD social studies classrooms, Chris has iden-
tified three areas that need particular attention in order to effectively
involve ELLs in Socratic seminars. We describe each below and offer
effective strategies and suggestions in light of the feedback given by the
social studies teachers that Chris has worked with.
Dense Vocabulary in the Socratic Circles
Previous research in K-12 contexts indicates that ELLs know not only
fewer English words than their native English-speaking peers but also less
about the meanings of words (e.g., Silverman & Hines, 2009). Learning
both depth and breadth of word knowledge that is necessary in social
studies classrooms can be overwhelming for ELLs. ELLs can develop
vocabulary successfully only when they receive the assistance and support
they need from their teachers and peers. In order to effectively take part
in Socratic seminars, ELLs should be able to use vocabulary smoothly.
Even though they may know the words, it may be difficult to recall and
use them during actual conversations. It is therefore important for teach-
ers to provide ELLs with multiple opportunities to recycle vocabulary
across contexts inside and outside the classroom so that they can recall
and use learned vocabulary when needed. Multiple exposures to the same
word are extremely crucial so that ELLs can internalize, remember, and
actively use the word. Through the use of graphic organizers, ELLs can
learn how to organize words in the mind and link to existing knowledge,
which also helps them easily remember the words to use. Recalling words
is more challenging for lower level ELLs as they may not have developed
a knowledge base to make connections among the words.
One strategy that is helpful in scaffolding vocabulary learning and use
during Socratic circles is giving ELLs a short list of the relevant words
that have been recently taught and encouraging ELLs to use those during
the dialogue. This vocabulary front-load helps scaffold ELLs’ talk through
brainstorming ideas, making connections among them, and using words
effectively. For example, for a Socratic seminar designed around the ques-
tion, “How has globalization affected the United States in comparison to
the rest of the world?”, a short list of words might include “global, trade,
progress, interdependence, standard of living, income distribution”. Lists
can be modified and different lists can be provided for different groups of
ELLs depending on their English proficiency levels (see PreK-12 TESOL
English Language Proficiency Standards for proficiency level descrip-
tions, 2006).
Vocabulary instruction or scaffolding that is necessary for ELLs’ active
engagement and participation in Socratic circles should also focus on
cultural meanings and connotations of the words. Haynes (2007) argues
that “some concepts such as privacy, democracy, citizens’ rights, free will,
and freedom are not directly translatable into other languages, may have
different meanings, or may not even exist in other cultures” (p. 70). This
is an important observation to keep in mind when introducing new social
studies vocabulary to ELLs before a Socratic circle dialogue.
It is also important to provide modeling and guidance in educating
both ELLs and non-ELLs students to deal with unknown vocabulary
during Socratic circles. If other strategies to infer meaning from context
or discussion is not being helpful and unknown vocabulary is preventing
ELLs from successfully taking part in the Socratic circle, ELLs should feel
comfortable asking their peers about the meaning of an unknown word
during the discussion. Such a collaborative learning atmosphere posi-
tively affects the social dynamics of the group, raises non-ELLs’ awareness
toward the language, builds empathy, and creates a stronger learning
community.
Turn Taking
Even for highly proficient ELLs, engaging in conversations on academic

topics with native English-speaking peers can be intimidating and tough.
Turn taking, “an A-B-A-B speaker exchange in which one speaker takes
over from another at an appropriate point” (Hughes, 2006, p. 215), can
be particularly difficult for ELLs in a Socratic circle as it includes mul-
tiple speakers. Not knowing when to join the conversation, how to take
a turn, or for how long to maintain the floor can put ELLs at a disadvan-
tage during ongoing dialogues. Reasons for difficulties in turn taking
may vary from learner to learner. For example, if ELLs are often given
language exercises or activities that include close tasks, drills, or fill-in-
the gaps, they learn sentences in isolation. The shift from such “language
in isolation” to the “naturally occurring conversation” is not easy for
ELLs as the latter is quite different. In other words, moving from static
“sentence” to dynamic conversational “turn” is not a smooth transition
(Hughes, 2006). Other possible reasons for having trouble with turn
taking might include being unable to predict grammatical completions,
lacking active listening strategies that take into account prosody, power
differentials among speakers, and cultural differences (Hughes, 2006;
Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). Identifying the sources of difficulty and
equipping the learner with the right strategies to overcome them is
important.
Mini-discussion activities in which ELLs are paired with a native
English-speaking peer or peers to pre-discuss the Socratic circle topic are
useful for ELLs. This enables ELLs not only to practice vocabulary but
also extend their understanding of the content and social studies con-
cepts, which eventually better prepares them to speak up during the
actual Socratic circle dialogues. Practicing turn-taking strategies in small
groups first increases ELLs’ fluency, which is important for turn taking,
and confidence to participate in larger groups.
Another effective strategy is to train non-ELL students in communi-
cating with EL students by introducing a wide variety of turn-taking
strategies. Research shows that even when ELLs are proficient, native
English-speaking students still tend to dominate classroom talk (e.g.,
Miller, 2000). It is important to raise awareness toward the equal rights
of participation. When non-ELL students are taught the appropriate

ways of inviting their ELL friends to conversations without putting them
on the spot, scaffolding their talk, being patient when ELLs formulate
ideas and sentences at a slower pace, ELLs can participate in Socratic
circles more effectively. The format of the Socratic circles gives the teacher
and students an opportunity to explicitly learn about and practice with
turn-taking strategies as the outer circle watches for “how” the first group
discusses and provides immediate feedback on how the inner circle inter-
acts with one another.
Negotiating Positionalities
Understanding the concept of positionality and learning how to negoti-

ate it may be difficult for ELLs due to cultural differences or their unique
backgrounds. Both teachers and peers may expect ELLs who come from
different ethnic family backgrounds to have built different positionali-
ties than those of the domestic students. For example, Mexican-
Americans are not sometimes positioned as American by their American
peers as they are perceived “more” or only Hispanic despite the fact that
they were born and raised in the USA (Kayi-Aydar, in press).
Consequently, those Mexican-American students are sometimes
expected to know more about Mexico, its history, current events, as well
as its cultural norms. They are expected to have different historical per-
spectives or positionalities than those held by a typical domestic/
American student. For a Mexican-American who was born and raised in
the USA but never lived in or have been to Mexico or become familiar
with its history and culture, meeting such expectations is almost utopic
or impossible. These ELLs struggle to know what their positionalities are
or should be like.
On the other hand, recently arrived immigrant students or students
educated in other countries might already have built positionality(ies),
perspective, and perceptions about histories, world events, or current
issues. If history is defined and taught differently in their home coun-
tries, it may be difficult for these students to negotiate their positionali-
ties. For example, in many Middle Eastern cultures, teachers are
perceived as the authority and source of knowledge (Arden-Close,

1999). Teachers are therefore expected to always have answers to stu-
dents’ questions in class. Oxford and Anderson (1995) state that in
classrooms in Arabic-speaking cultures, students see things in black/
white or right/wrong terms and expect concrete answers from teachers.
Accepting multiple responses from students is a sign of teacher’s weak-
ness or ignorance (Oxford & Anderson, 1995). Similar to Chinese EFL
students in traditional classrooms who want to understand every new
word, discrete grammar points, and specific structures (Rao, 1996),
many Middle Eastern students enter into classrooms with similar
demands and a low tolerance for ambiguity, which results in the teach-
er’s elaborate explanations and learners’ passive listening and extensive
note-taking (Rao, 1996). For such students, negotiating positionalities
during Socratic seminars to discuss concepts rather than facts can be very
challenging. Another related challenge for these students is to carry out
those conversations with peers instead of receiving the information
directly from the teacher. The social studies teachers in CLD classrooms
should be prepared for such challenges and provide extensive modeling
and guidance so that students can adapt and learn how to negotiate their
positionalities.
Beyond the Classroom
The final dimension of the C3 involves students communicating conclu-
sions and taking informed action. When it comes to historical thinking,
it is often difficult for students to see how their conclusions and position-
alities can translate into real-life civic actions. However, without taking
informed action, the promise of the knowledge and skills that students
have developed in the history classroom is not nearly fulfilled. That said,
it is not always feasible for teachers to involve their students in some form
of civic action with every topic that they study. This can discourage teach-
ers from broaching the subject of civic action, though that need not be
the case. The social studies classroom can also be used as a laboratory for
planting the seeds of informed civic action that happens outside of school.
Consider the following indicator of C3 Dimension 4:
D4.7.9-12. Assess options for individual and collective action to address

local, regional, and global problems by engaging in self-reflection, strategy
identification, and complex causal reasoning.
Once students have used inquiry to develop conclusions and have shared
their ideas in a Socratic circle, there is a natural opportunity to transition
into a dialogue in which students identify strategies for taking individual
or collective action. The notion of civic agency is important to promote
as students consider the power that they have to take informed action or
use their newfound knowledge to encourage others to do the same. Civic
engagement is also an excellent opportunity to work with others and
develop an even deeper understanding of culturally embedded ideas. The
learning process can be reinforced with social experiences that help con-
textualize concepts and ideas learned in the classroom.

It is important to engage ELLs in rigorous historical thinking through
inquiry and discussion. Socratic circles is a strategy that promotes pro-
ductive and civil collaborative conversation around a text, which helps
enhance collective historical thinking. Given the student centered nature
of it, Socratic circles offer numerous benefits to ELLs in social studies
classrooms as we discussed in this chapter. However, active engagement
and participation of ELLs with minimal teacher support during the
Socratic circles can be a daunting task for social studies teachers especially
if they do not have a strong background in second language acquisition
theories and language teaching methodologies. It is therefore important
for teacher educators who prepare social studies teachers to provide the
necessary background in the areas of active listening, turn taking, and
vocabulary learning, use and comprehension, which all play a significant
role in building effective Socratic circles. Designing a series of workshops
in which teachers focus on and learn about a different aspect of Socratic
circles and practice ESL conversation/comprehension strategies can be
very helpful. By doing and reflecting on the experience, teachers can realize
challenges, which would then inform their practice. Our experience with
Socratic circles in CLD social studies classrooms has been rewarding. We

hope that the strategies we shared in this chapter will be useful to in-
service and preservice teachers as they gain similar positive experience in
their diverse social studies classrooms.

The series of professional workshops that Chris conducted for high school
teachers enabled them to see that active participation in a dialogue is a
complex, multifaceted, and socially risky endeavor. From content knowl-
edge to social relationships, numerous factors affect a student’s participa-
tion in classroom talk and the same is true for teachers. Those in Chris’
workshops could see the different dimensions of participation through
hands-on experience. Only this way could they put themselves into the
shoes of ELLs and better understand their challenges, feelings, and nego-
tiations of positionalities.
We therefore suggest that teacher educators in TESOL programs offer
a series of workshops in which classroom teachers from different fields of
education come together and practice with Socratic circles around differ-
ent “powerful texts,” which Parker (2003) describes as “insightful printed
documents, such as some primary and secondary sources in history and
social science, some works of historical fiction, and some transcribed
speeches” (p. 127). Parker argues that “a text worthy of a seminar is poten-
tially mind-altering: one that gives rise to powerful issues, ideas, and val-
ues” (p. 127). Such workshops would not only show in-service or
preservice teachers the powerful role of discourse in achieving certain
goals but also teach how to interact with texts and enlarge understandings
of them through Socratic circles. This practice would also demonstrate
the important role of “powerful texts” in Socratic circles to the teachers.
We recommend starting groups of teachers with a powerful text, one
they are familiar with but have likely not delved into as deeply as is possible:
“The Pledge of Allegiance.” Forty-three words in length, we’ve found that
everyone leading or hoping to lead American classrooms is familiar with it,
can likely say it by memory, and yet few really understand the history or
deep meaning of those few words. Starting a Socratic circle with the ques-
tion “What does the Pledge mean?” allows for participants to build on one
another’s knowledge and ultimately understand the text on a nuanced level.
For example, the punctuation of the document is incredibly important, not
off-setting with pauses the “under God” phrase as it most frequently spo-
ken aloud in public. By adding commas to that particular phrase, emphasis
is added to the phrase which has easily become the most controversial part
of “The Pledge of Allegiance.” The capitalization of “God” is another
nuanced element of looking again at this document, signifying a Christian
denotation to the word. Follow-up questions are often solicited from par-
ticipants but can include “Why was the phrase ‘under God’ added in 1954,
the final edit to the Pledge?” or “What is the dictionary definition of words
like ‘pledge,’ ‘allegiance,’ and ‘indivisible?’” This particular text works well
for an early discussion with a group also because it is short and accessible.
Chris has conducted conversations of it with fourth grade students all the
way through graduate school/adult learners, and while the depth of the
conversations increases as participants get older, he’s often surprised by
the interpretations that younger students make as well.
Teacher educators can also integrate Socratic circles into their TESOL
methods courses in ESL certificate or endorsement programs that involve
social studies teachers. Socratic circles can be videotaped for a critical
analysis later on, as we mentioned above. Analyzing their own participa-
tion style, discourse moves, turn taking, and positionalities, social studies
teachers can learn talk or discourse strategies that they can transfer to or
implement in their own teaching contexts.
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). North Yorkshire, UK:
Dialogos.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-
based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and
student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
Arden-Close, C. (1999). Conflict of learning styles: University science lectures
in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4),
323–332.
Barton, K. C. (2009). The denial of desire: How to make history education
meaningless. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history standards:
The problem of the canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 265–282).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Developing intercultural compe-
tence in practice. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M., Borsheim-Black, C., Kelly, S. P., & Fine, J. G. (2013).
English teacher candidates developing dialogically organized instructional
practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 212–246.
Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive aca-
demic language learning approach. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Choi, Y. (2013). Teaching social studies for newcomer English language learners:
Toward culturally relevant pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 12–18.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.
Foster, S. J., & Padgett, C. S. (1999). Authentic historical inquiry in the social
studies classroom. The Clearing House, 72(6), 357–363.
Fránquiz, M. E., & Salinas, C. S. (2011). Newcomers developing English liter-
acy through historical thinking and digitized primary sources. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 20(3), 196–210.
Haynes, J. (2007). Getting started with English language learners: How educators
can meet the challenge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.
Hughes, R. (2006). Turn-taking awareness: Benefits for teaching speaking skills
in academic and other contexts. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.),
Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills
(pp. 215–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., & Heintz, A. (2013).
Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2014). Social positioning, participation, and second language
learning: Talkative students in an academic ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
48(4), 686–714.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (Forthcoming). “If Carmen can analyze Shakespeare, everybody
can”: Positions, conflicts, and negotiations in the narratives of Latina pre-
service teachers. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London/
New York: Longman Ltd.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Miller, J. M. (2000). Language use, identity, and social interaction: Migrant
students in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1),
69–100.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander,
J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ com-
prehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3),
740–764.
(C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the
rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD:
National Council for the Social Studies.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening
dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Oxford, R. L., & Anderson, N. J. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles.
Language Teaching, 28(04), 201–215.
Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of
English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English,
30, 458–471.
Salinas, C., Fránquiz, M. E., & Guberman, S. (2006). Introducing historical
thinking to second language learners: Exploring what students know and
what they want to know. The Social Studies, 97(5), 203–207.
Seixas, P. (1993). Historical understanding among adolescents in a multicultural
setting. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(3), 301–327.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruc-
tion on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-
language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305.
VanSledright, B. (2001). From empathetic regard to self-understanding: Im/
positionality, empathy, and historical contextualization. In O. Davis,
E. Yeager, & S. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the
social studies (pp. 51–68). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Hayriye Kayi-Aydar is an assistant professor of English Applied Linguistics/

TESL at the University of Arizona where she teaches in the MA ESL and PhD
SLAT programs. Her research focuses on the ESL learner/teacher identities,
positioning, and agency in classroom talk and learner/teacher narratives. She has
published in journals such as TESOL Quarterly, ELT Journal, Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies, Classroom Discourse, Teaching and Teacher Education, and
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education.
Jason L. Endacott is an associate professor of secondary social studies educa-

tion at the University of Arkansas. He teaches graduate courses in the MAT,
MEd, and PhD programs in Curriculum and Instruction. His research focuses
on critical applications of historical inquiry with an emphasis on historical
empathy in classrooms and teacher preparation. He has published in journals
such as Theory and Research in Social Education, The Journal of Social Studies
Research, Social Studies Research and Practice, and The Social Studies.
Christian Z. Goering is an associate professor of English education at the

University of Arkansas where he directs the Northwest Arkansas Writing Project
and licensure programs in English teacher preparation. His recent research
focuses on the uses of dialogue in teacher professional development. 2016
marked the publication of his first two books as coeditor of Recontextualized: A
Framework for Teaching English with Music and coauthor of The Arkansas Delta
Oral History Project: Culture, Place, and Authenticity.
8
Bitter Challenge; Swede Success:
Simulating Language Learning
Experiences in Social Studies Classrooms
Cory Wright-Maley and Jennifer D. Green
The call to action for social studies teachers to become proficient in sup-
porting language development for English language learners (ELLs) is
not new. Cruz, Nutta, O’Brien, Feyten, and Govoni (2003) articulated in
their NCSS Bulletin on the topic that “social studies teachers in particu-
lar play a very crucial role in educating ELL students [sic] since most
program models mainstream these students into social studies classes
from the moment they enroll in school” (p. 9). Since the publication of
this work near the turn of this century, the burden of supporting ELLs
that is placed upon social studies teachers has only increased as linguisti-
cally diverse youth make up a larger proportion of our student popula-
tion (Levine, Howard, & Moss, 2014; Yoder, Kibler, & van Hover, 2016).
C. Wright-Maley (*)
St. Mary’s University, Calgary, AB, Canada
J.D. Green
Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA

180 C. Wright-Maley and J.D. Green
Furthermore, the nascent status of language learning as a competency

within social studies poses difficulties for teacher educators who are
themselves learning how best to support P/ISTs (Yoder et al., 2016; see
also Levine et al., 2014).
To be sure, increasing the capacity of social studies teachers requires
improvements on multiple fronts. Teacher training and professional
development need to focus on developing the skills necessary for
teachers to become successful mediators of language and content
learning in the social studies (e.g., Cruz & Thornton, 2009a, 2009b;
Schleppegrell & Achugar, 2003). At the same time, social studies
teachers require support that helps lead to shifts in attitudes about the
process and purposes of teaching ELLs (Wright-Maley & Green,
2015; Yoder et al., 2016), and in at least one study, preservice teachers
expressed the desire for experiences that help them to be more under-
standing of the struggles of ELLs (Wright-Maley, Levine, & Gonzalez,
2014).
In this chapter, we work from the dual premises that “there are
political, economic, and moral imperatives for helping each nation’s
emergent bilinguals discover and realize their potential” (Levine et al.,
2014, p. 14); and that teaching of this kind is not only necessary but
eminently possible (Cruz & Thornton, 2009a). We can and we must
become more effective at teaching language learning within the social
studies. And from our perspective it is essential that we begin to build
this capacity by integrating lived experience with pedagogy. Toward
this end, we have been using a language immersion simulation to pro-
vide teachers with glimpses into both the challenges facing ELLs and
what learning is possible within the context of an effective pedagogi-
cal framework for learning language and content in concert. The use
of simulations of this kind offer the potential for social studies teacher
educators to link experience and cognition in ways that can provide
the foundations for pedagogical and attitudinal changes. We propose
that using activities such as this may motivate social studies teachers
to value and pursue greater understanding about the experiences and
learning needs of a growing body of language learners in social studies
classrooms.
8 Bitter Challenge; Swede Success: Simulating Language... 181
hy Simulated Experiences of Language

W
Learning with Social Studies Content?
Because we know that teachers typically have little experience as English
language learners, and that those teachers have difficulty recognizing and
adapting to needs they do not understand (see Levine et al., 2014), we
believe that the use of simulation as a means of evoking emotional experi-
ences, linked with intellectual ones, has the potential to penetrate this
psycho-pedagogical barrier. Our presupposition is drawn from the work
of social studies scholars whose research on simulations revealed connec-
tions between these activities and empathy or perspective recognition. A
number of scholars found that simulations do impact students’ ability to
empathize with historical or contemporary others (Byrnes & Kiger, 1990;
Else, 2006; Maitles & McKelvie, 2010; Schweber, 2004) or demonstrate
a willingness to change their perspectives about an othered person
(Ganzler, 2010; Lay & Smaric, 2006).
At the same time, social studies scholars, as well as those in other
domains, who research simulations also find that these activities may alter
students’ sense of efficacy (e.g., Aper, Reniers, Koole, Valcke, & Derese,
2012; Goldenberg, Andrusyszyn, & Iwaslw, 2005; Kameg, Howard,
Clochesy, Mitchell, & Suresky, 2010; Miller, Self, Garven, & Allen,
2011; Tompson & Dass, 2000). Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as
“the judgments of one’s capability to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Gehlbach et al.
(2008) and Johnson, Boyer, and Brown (2011) found that efficacy in
simulations can change in either direction. The latter observed that the
declines existed only among middle school boys in their study and sug-
gested that simulation may regulate self-efficacy by bringing it into line
with the participants’ actual level of competency.
In designing this simulation, we looked to model for preservice and
in-service teachers (P/ISTs) ineffective followed by effective language
instruction practices in order to provide opportunities to empathize with
ELLs and also to recognize both areas where P/ISTs may be supporting
ELLs effectively as well as areas where they currently are not.
Modeling Effective Practices

A challenge for P/ISTs is to understand that effective support of ELLs
constitutes a constellation of specific strategies implemented to further
language development. Although the individual strategies buoy most
learners, they are designed to be used in concert to provide targeted sup-
port for language acquisition through the teaching of content (see also
De Jong & Harper, 2005; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2017). Used
together, these strategies are more than simply good everyday teaching
practices. Teachers must be able to employ multiple strategies and
approaches throughout and across lessons, but our experience has shown
us that teachers are skeptical of this claim. To combat this perception, we
have developed an effective means by which to model both why and how
a coordinated implementation of strategies is effective for ELLs.
Modeling in Teacher Training
In their study of Dutch teacher educators, Lunenberg, Korthagen, and

Swennen (2007) defined modeling by teacher educators “as the practice
of intentionally displaying certain teaching behavior with the aim of pro-
moting student teachers’ professional learning” (p. 589). They pointed
out that in addition to experiencing effective teaching through modeling,
it is critical that PSTs be given opportunities to reflect on the modeling
and consider how it might inform their own teaching, as well as to dis-
cuss the linkages between theory and practice. Other teacher educators
have reported on a variety of ways in which they have modeled specific
strategies as a way of demonstrating sound pedagogical skills and helping
their PSTs connect these experiences to future teaching opportunities
(Ritter, 2012; Sullivan, 2011; Watson & Bradley, 2009).
Ritter (2012), for example, argued that “modeling rests on a perspec-
tive of teaching that emphasizes preservice teachers critically engaging
with, and reflecting on, the process of being taught—both in the past, and
equally importantly, in the present as students of teaching” (p. 118). To
that end, he asked PSTs in his study to take on two roles: that of an ele-
mentary student and that of a teacher. While he found that modeling
effectively was more difficult than one might assume, his conclusion was
that the most effective modeling was done explicitly and in conjunction
with helping PSTs connect the model lessons to their own teaching and
to theory.
Sullivan’s (2011) study examined modeling as a way to teach construc-
tivist pedagogy. The instructor’s questions helped students think more
critically about their choices as teachers—thinking beyond the appren-
ticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975). Helping PSTs think beyond their
particular elementary or secondary experiences is important because they
need to incorporate a variety of strategies in their teaching repertoire.
ISTs, too, benefit from modeling as a core part of an approach to profes-
sional development (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Although findings within
the professional development literature are scant, some researchers have
argued that the incorporation of modeled practices may reflect more
closely the way in which teachers learn most effectively (Birman,
Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000).
Modeling as a Resource
Mathematics teacher educator and researcher Alan Schoenfeld (2011)

identified orientations, goals, and resources—and the interactions
between them—as the three domains through which teachers’ practices
are revealed to be both predictable and rational. Teachers’ orientations, a
category into which Schoenfeld places beliefs, dispositions, values, and so
on into, help to reveal the facets of their practices that teachers assign
value to. Goals speak to the areas of their practices they seek to or will
seek to improve. And resources are the means through which to achieve
their pedagogical goals; sometimes these resources are physical or finan-
cial, but are more often knowledge resources, or knowing how to achieve
those goals.
Teacher education and development must support all three areas, but
our focus, modeling teaching strategies, typically falls under resources.
Resources help enable teachers to enact their goals and orientations.
Knowledge about why, how, and when to use particular strategies can
direct teachers’ efforts away from haphazard trial-and-error approaches
toward ones in which learned skills need only to be refined. Without the
right resources, teachers can flounder and may abandon their original
goals, believing them to be unattainable.
According to Marino and Jacobs (2009), modeling allows PSTs to
understand various strategies from the point of view of both teacher and
student, enabling them to empathize with how students may feel about
particular strategies. They are also able to consider how and why they
might use/modify strategies in their own classrooms. Our own research
reflected this conclusion. We found that PSTs who took part in this sim-
ulation were significantly more likely to articulate that they better under-
stood how challenging activities would be as English language learners,
and that they would be more likely to use the modeled tools in their own
practice as teachers (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015).
Modeling Typologies
Lunenberg et al. (2007) identified four types of modeling in the teacher

education classroom: implicit modeling, explicit modeling, explicit mod-
eling with connections to the PSTs’ own practices, and connecting spe-
cific strategies and behavior with theory. Implicit modeling consists of
strong teaching on the part of the teacher educator, but without discus-
sions about the what or why of their pedagogical choices. Explicit model-
ing usually includes a brief think-aloud by the teacher educator, but
without any discussion by the PSTs. The third form of modeling, explicit
with connections, is often conducted through whole class discussions
designed to provide PSTs an opportunity to connect their experience to
how they might use the strategies in their own teaching. There is at times
a reflective assignment that follows the lesson. Finally, there is modeling
that goes a step further by explicitly connecting the modeled strategies
with educational theory.
Another view of modeling comes from Marino and Jacobs (2009).
They listed five types of pedagogical models:
1. Bad lessons—PSTs are instructed to identify mistakes that the teacher edu-
cator makes in pacing, instruction, classroom management, and so on.
2. Lesson plan sharing—the teacher educator shares his/her lesson plan

each day to model the thinking behind teaching, how to transition
within a lesson, and to model the importance of lesson planning.
3. The “do-now” model—short activities at the beginning of class that
PSTs could mimic in their own classrooms to motivate students and
connect to the main topic of the lesson.
4. Simulations/experiential learning—these experiences allow students
(PSTs) to take on roles of historical figures and be more involved in
the lesson. It is important for the teacher educator to lead a discussion
after the simulation to discuss the benefits and challenges.
5. Bad/good assessments—teacher educators should give PSTs both poor
examples of assessments, such as a poorly written multiple-choice test,
and good examples of assessments, such as having groups produce a
visual display of the content.
As in the other forms of modeling, a discussion should follow about the

value and challenges of these types of assessments.
These two typologies of modeling address different approaches to
modeling in teacher education. While Lunenberg et al. (2007) focus on
the implicit vs. explicit aspects of modeling, Marino and Jacobs (2009)
attend more to the kinds of modeling that teacher educators might inte-
grate into their teaching practices as points of inquiry.
We draw upon both typologies within our simulation. Functionally,
this activity incorporates both a bad lesson and simulated learning mod-
els described by Marino and Jacobs, and explicit, connections-to-self, and
practice-theory modeling described by Lunenberg and colleagues. Taken
together, we believe the lesson represents a robust, enacted process by
which to approach pedagogical modeling for P/ISTs as they begin learn-
ing how to support language learners.
Modeling the ELL Experience as an Enacted Process
Enactivism is a theoretical construct presupposing that our ability to under-

stand and make sense of phenomena is not solely a cognitive process but
rather one that is informed by the physiological processes that link the
brain, body, and environment. These processes are nonlinear, complex, and
governed and shaped by the individuals’ unique experience with the phe-
nomena (Colombetti, 2014; Hutto & Myin, 2013). Enactivism reveals
that one’s internal life and their experiences of the external world that can-
not be separated are interwoven—not interacting—concepts.
Our understanding of a particular phenomenon, in this case, learning
English as an additional language, is not only framed by, but limited by
our enacted experience with the phenomenon in question. Teachers who
grew up as English-only speakers—the majority of teachers (Pettit,
2011)—have little experience with this process from the point of view of
the learner, which necessarily makes the process of serving and supporting
them more challenging for both teachers and for students. Enactivism rec-
ognizes that the context in which learning is meant to be fostered should
be conducive to reconciling cognition with embodied experience.
What enactivism implies is that learning must occur within a context
in which the internal and external interactions of mentality and physical-
ity can work in concert, a concept that Merleau-Ponty (1996 [1962]) and
Miller-Lane (2006) hold to be true of the process of understanding
worldly phenomena. We speculate that this is not only true of the learn-
ing task—Dewey (1938) argued decades ago that learning should look
more like life itself—but also of the relative distance between the teacher’s
and students’ phenomenological experience of being an ELL. To fully
understand this experiential phenomenon requires that one must have
experienced it themselves (Miller-Lane, 2006); however, providing such
fully embodied experiences for all teachers is not a practical solution.
Simulations provide approximations of real-life situations that ideally
highlight the core elements or experiences of real-world phenomena in a
concentrated way that provides efficient and enacted learning (see
Wright-Maley, 2015). To achieve our goal of providing our audience
(preservice and in-service teachers) with an enacted experience of ELL-
ness, we designed the simulation to highlight both the strain and frustra-
tion commonly experienced by ELLs and the degree to which employing
a system of strategies including those within the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol(SIOP) (Echevarria et al., 2017)1 to teach social
studies content can impact understanding and efficacy dramatically, in as
little time as a single class period.
Swedish Language Learning Experience

Design
When we designed our simulation, we looked to develop an experience

that would be challenging for preservice (and ultimately in-service)
teachers, but also attainable. We wanted to provide them with a glimpse
into the lives of ELLs, and in order to do so, we took several ideas into
consideration. First, we had to confront preservice teachers with the
dual challenge of grappling with new, unfamiliar content at the same
time that they were learning a new language. We had observed similar
kinds of approaches where the language of choice was Spanish. This was
problematic insofar as some of the students in the class were fluent, and
most had at least been exposed to the Spanish language, which might
not reflect the bewildering sense of confusion that ELLs can feel. We
have also seen and read about examples that confronted teachers with
either new language (Washburn, 2008) or new content but not both.
We believed that something was missing in such an approach, given
that language is not just a medium for learning content, but the stu-
dents are also learning the language as content (Coady et al., 2011).
One criticism of the new-language demonstrations is that they fre-
quently use cognitively undemanding tasks to demonstrate the intended
effects, covering known topics such as the solar system or how to count.
In these instances, learners simply need to figure out the vocabulary
and grammatical structures. They are basically translating from one lan-
guage into English; there is little or no need to focus on learning the
content because they already know it.
Likewise, modeling using new strategies with social studies content,
such as using sentence stems or visual aids, such as pictures, diagrams, or
graphs, as a way to discuss the P/ISTs’ college-level text in English, P/ISTs
are able to use their language skills (e.g., they can recognize common
roots of words they may be unfamiliar with, the tense that the author is
using, or the structure of the writing) to support their learning. These
academic affordances in the language of instruction mask the language
difficulties that make accomplishing classroom tasks so difficult and frus-
trating for ELLs.
Because neither the modeling of new concepts in English nor the short
language shock lessons incorporate what we would conceptualize as the
three key challenges facing ELLs—emotional frustrations, language bar-
riers, and content knowledge acquisition—they fail to allow P/ISTs to
glimpse the true scope of the challenge for language learners.
The literature on simulations calls for simulations that express clear
verisimilitude to the real-life phenomena being represented by the activ-
ity (Wright-Maley, 2015). The challenge, therefore, is to create situations
where students need to learn new content while also learning in a new
language, since this is what ELLs do (Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2011).
We insisted that experience ought to be long enough to challenge PSTs’
ability to stay focused in order to mirror more closely the lengths of time
ELLs spend on a task in a classroom; and that the content should be chal-
lenging enough to illustrate the frustrations ELLs feel, without causing
the P/ISTs to give up before completing the task during the modeling
portion of the simulation.
To address this consideration, we chose a social studies lesson that
would incorporate student background knowledge, but would also press
them to think about new content. In this case, that content was the struc-
ture of the Swedish parliamentary system. We also chose Swedish as the
language of instruction, because it was unlikely that any of our students
would speak Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian. It was also convenient that
one of us—now both—spoke sufficient Swedish to teach this lesson.
The Lesson Enacted
Beginning with the Shocking Truth About the ELL Experience This

phase of the lesson—which we refer to as the shock (Wright-Maley &
Green, 2015)—is intended to give preservice teachers pause to think
about the challenges facing ELLs on a day-to-day, moment-by-moment
basis. We tell2 the PSTs that we are going to learn about the differences and
similarities between the governmental structures of three countries: the USA,
Great Britain (or Canada), and Sweden. The first thing we instruct them
to do is to read a short article on the topic and answer four questions at the
bottom of the page. If P/ISTs attempt to talk to each other, we quickly let
them know they must work alone, and any talking must be in Swedish
anyway. We also point out that there is a vocabulary list on the backside of
the paper to help them.
We give P/ISTs five to seven minutes to work on this reading and to

find the answers to the summary questions. It is enough time for some
students to identify cognates—words that share commonalities to
English—or to use their knowledge of other Germanic languages to help
them. It is also enough time for others to try, to feel that they have been
given an impossible task, and to give up. In this time, only a few remain-
ing P/ISTs challenge themselves to persist. Some never even attempt the
work.
Debriefing #1 At this point, we switch back to English for a quick

debriefing about what the students experienced during the last few min-
utes. After asking students to identify the academic affordances that
helped them (cognates, background knowledge, knowledge of how sen-
tences are structured, etc.), we help them to recognize that these are all
tools that they have honed over years of academic training at schools,
ones that many of their students have yet to develop. When asked what
hindered them and why they gave up, not surprisingly they most fre-
quently state, not knowing Swedish. At this point, it is helpful to prompt
them to think about why we expect our students to keep trying, even
while university-educated adults give up almost immediately.
Importantly, we also prompt them to discuss how they felt during this
process (physically, emotionally, academically). Some students articulate
that they relished the challenge of trying to figure the problem (i.e., not
understanding the Swedish handout) by using the tools at their disposal.
This, however, is a minority view among P/ISTs. Most discuss how frus-
trated they feel about the hopelessness of the task, or say that they gave
up without trying because they knew by the end of the first few sentences
that they weren’t going to be able to complete the task. This discussion is
revealing not only of mind-sets of our own students but is reflective of the
variety of mind-sets our ELLs possess. It is also revealing insofar as our
students are forced to name many of the same feelings of frustration,
helplessness, confusion, insecurity, that led them (and lead our ELLs) to
give up, or protect themselves from failure by refusing to try in the first
place. After students have shared, we move back into the second phase of
the simulation, what we call the show (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015).
Interactive Lecture: Showing the Model In this phase we demonstrate

how we can teach the same social studies content, with the same reading-
writing task in ways that make it possible for most of them to succeed in
the course of a single period (roughly 40 minutes) by integrating all 30
elements of the SIOP framework (see Echevarria et al., 2017). What is
more, we do so entirely in Swedish.
We again explain that we are going to learn about the differences and
similarities between the government structures of three countries: the USA,
Great Britain (or Canada), and Sweden. However, as we say this, we hold
up three fingers. Then we return say the word USA again as we place the
word USA, a map of the USA, and the flag of the USA on the white
board (see Image 8.1). We do the same for the other countries as well.
These national images are spaced apart so we can create three distinct
columns on the board. Next, we pass out laminated photos and terms in
Swedish related to each image (the images and their respective terms are
passed to different students). Each student receives 1–3 images or terms
(depending on the size of the class).
We then start in on the lecture: The USA has a president. President. My
name is [Instructor’s name] (point self ). What is the name of the president?
(Someone holds up either the name or the picture of Donald Trump).
Yes, the president is named Donald Trump. The USA has a president. At this
point, we go to a sentence frame (Wright, 2015) to support the structure
________has ________. We repeat, the USA has a president. Then, we
point to Great Britain. Great Britain does not have a president (we shake
our heads “no”). Great Britain has a prime minister. Who has the card,
“prime minister?” Please come forward. The student who is holding the
card with “prime minister” written on it brings it to the front and affixes
it to the board underneath the British flag and map. We reinforce that the
student is correct and did a good job.
Fig. 8.1 Completed visual display from Oct. 2015
It is at this point that we switch to content knowledge. We say the

president of the USA (point to picture) is named Donald Trump. What is
the name of the prime minister of Great Britain? Many P/ISTs do not know
this. They may hold up pictures of the King of Sweden or the name of the
Swedish prime minister. Eventually, they figure out the correct answer,
and the students who have the image and the name of the British prime
minister come up to place them under Great Britain. We can now make
the statement The USA has a president, but Great Britain has a prime min-
ister. To do this, we point to pictures, words, and the sentence frame. This
is the language objective (Wright, 2015), to use and/but to make compari-
sons. Next, we point to Sweden. Does Sweden have a president (point to the
word “president” under USA) or a prime minister (point to the term
“prime minister” under Great Britain)? After completing this section, we
can make the sentence The USA has a president, but Great Britain has a
prime minister. Great Britain and Sweden have a prime minister.
We illustrate the same basic structure for Congress, the British parlia-
ment, and the Swedish parliament. Doing so involves discussing the
number of chambers and their names, the number of representatives, and
so on. The final category is the presence or absence of a monarchy. With
each category, we use the frames that
Compare: (_______ and _________ have ________), and

Contrast: (_______ has________, but __________ has __________).
As a class, we have created a giant graphic organizer (Fortune & Menke,

2010) on the board that students can refer to throughout the remainder
of the lesson. Each country has its own column, and in each row that cuts
across all three columns, each domain of similarity or difference is dis-
played for ready access (see Image 8.1). Students’ next task is to work in
pairs to complete a worksheet where they must fill-in three sentence
frames describing similarities between countries and three sentence
frames describing differences between countries. We ask students to vol-
unteer to read their sentences aloud in Swedish. Then we repeat their
sentences while pointing to the appropriate photos and words on the
board to make sure everyone heard the sentences.
Returning to the original task—reading the Swedish text and answer-
ing summary questions—we ask students again to make use of the graphic
organizer to answer the questions. Students work in pairs—as opposed to
alone—to complete a modified version of the original reading and ques-
tions. They are also allowed to talk to each other in the language of their
choice (generally English) (Echevarria et al., 2017).
The content of this article is the same as the one that we gave to them
in the “shock” lesson. This time, however, we have formatted in ways
known to be helpful for ELL comprehension. For example, the four
questions are no longer all at the end of the text; now they follow the
specific paragraphs containing their respective answers (Fortune &
Menke, 2010). The vocabulary list on the back was also modified and
includes photographs and pictographs (symbols), examples of the word
used in context, and other helpful clues in addition to the definition.
Finally, the words available for reference on the vocabulary list are high-
lighted with bold print in the reading. The task, like the first one, asks
students to answer the four questions and to make comparisons using the
and/but sentence frames.
Even with all of these scaffolds, students sometimes need extra clarifi-
cation or prompting. Before they begin writing, we go through the ques-
tions to make sure that they understand what each one is asking. One of
the questions asks them: how many representatives are there in the
U.S. Congress? The students have to understand that it is asking them how
many representatives are in both the House and Senate. We demonstrate
using the word wall, gestures, and words to show that Congress consists of
both bodies together. While students work on their readings and subse-
quent questions, we circulate to make sure students do not become stuck
or frustrated. We offer help without providing the answers, and we pro-
vide lots of positive feedback and encouragement—always in Swedish—
to keep students moving forward in their progress.
Inevitably some students do not complete the activity successfully.
This is not surprising given the difficulty of the task. What is more sur-
prising is that in 40 minutes, a healthy majority of students do, in fact,
complete the task and do so correctly. Some even answer the questions in
full—and correct—Swedish sentences, which we do not ask of them.
Debriefing #2 A key piece of quality modeling is allowing time for P/

ISTs to reflect on the experience and make connections to their own
teaching (Lunenberg et al., 2007). Therefore, we conclude this experi-
ence with approximately 15–30 minutes of reflection. The reflection
starts with students in small groups discussing how they feel now and
during the simulation, what helped them, what additional support they
needed, and what the most salient part of the experience was for them.
When they share their thoughts with the whole class, we are then able to
connect their experiences both to the theory and practical strategies,
explicate how the strategies connect to each other, prompt them to think
about how this might look in other contexts, highlight how ELLs might
feel by the end of a class period or day (i.e., very, very tired), and demon-
strate the amount of work it takes to teach ELLs effectively.
Frequently students remark that they are surprised by how effective the
scaffolds were in helping them overcome a challenge that seemed impos-
sible for them only an hour earlier when they attempted it the first time
without the scaffolding we provided. They are particularly taken with the
visuals, and the repetitious nature of the activity to reinforce concepts.
They don’t always think about the importance of having the visuals
remain visible to learners throughout the whole lesson. Therefore, it is
important that we as teacher educators ask questions that lead them to
this observation. They also note that it is helpful to be able to work with
other people, but usually we have to ask them to think about how allow-
ing them to use their first language (English) to communicate may have
helped them. Although they don’t often identify this affordance on their
own, they are quick to recognize its value when we bring it to their atten-
tion. Teachers are often uncomfortable with allowing students to speak in
other languages for fear that they may be off topic or worse, deriding
their teaching. ELLs require the use of their first language skills to put
newly acquire language and content to work. It is not until later in the
language acquisition process that they begin to drop the translation scaf-
fold for processing in the language of instruction (Echevarria et al., 2017).
Following the show phase, we debrief with our P/ISTs again. Like the
first debriefing, we ask our students to comment about their feelings,
identify how the second phase differed from the first (in terms of their
ability to make use of the content), and to think metacognitively about
why the scaffolds we used may have helped them to understand the mate-
rial more effectively. One of the key insights that preservice teachers take
away from this experience is how challenging it must be to have to learn
content and language at the same time (Zwiers, 2014). Invariably, they
express how tired they feel after an hour of working in Swedish. We are
quick to point out, that they have to sit through six or seven hours; and
they realize in that moment—in part because we draw their attention
back to it, and also that they feel the exhaustion in their bones, that ELLs
are not lazy, and really do care about their learning, but are quickly
drained by the cognitive demands of schooling in an unfamiliar
language.
In one hour, we are able to teach in powerful fashion what traditional
ELL instruction often fails to: that learning is a challenging and demand-
ing process for ELLs, and that how we teach makes a big difference in
their ability to be successful. P/ISTs cannot easily disregard their own
experiences and would not wish the frustrations they faced upon their
own students. Therefore, the strategies for which we advocate carry not
only pedagogical meaning but enacted meaning that is often more pow-
erful than the former when taught in isolation.

The Swedish Language Learning Simulation activity is not simply a simu-
lation experience for P/ISTs to learn new teaching strategies. On the con-
trary, it serves trifold purposes that reflect Schoenfeld’s (2011) three
domains. First, the simulation elicits perspective recognition on the part
of P/ISTs that are likely to reorient teachers’ beliefs about multiple aspects
of their language learning students such as their level of effort, intelli-
gence, achievement, and so on. In other words, it addresses some issues
around dispositions and allows P/ISTs to consider attitudes and issues
they may have not thought about explicitly before; second, it provides a
clear vision for what is possible should teachers choose a trajectory toward
becoming more effective facilitators of content learning for their ELLs;
finally, the lesson provides resources in the form of specific strategies that
are modeled for students in ways that ask them to embody the process of
using those strategies as their own students would. Our modeling of this
practical knowledge is itself multifaceted, making use of explicit model-
ing and reflection in particular (Lunenberg et al., 2007; Marino & Jacobs,
2009).
To be sure, this activity should not stand as the only form of modeling
TEs provide in a methods course to support ELLs. Nevertheless, we have
found this lesson to be useful in the early part of the term because it
serves as a touchstone to refer and inform continued exploration of strat-
egies for, and the struggles of, ELLs. We are encouraged by our experi-
ences with this lesson, the impact we perceive it has upon our students,
and the short-term gains our own research has revealed about using this
approach (Wright-Maley & Green, 2015).
We also recognize that the field needs more empirical research to deter-
mine whether this kind of activity has a lasting impact for improving
teaching practices that support ELL learning over time, as we speculate it
might. Nevertheless, we posit that activities such as the one described in

this chapter may serve to initiate further learning about how best to sup-
port ELLs in social studies classrooms.
Application in Teacher Education

We hope that this chapter gives teacher educators a concrete example of
what a language simulation could look like in their own classroom. While
TEs might choose to talk about the economic development model in Sri
Lanka using Japanese rather than government structures in Swedish, the
considerations in planning such a simulation are similar.
Simulations of this kind, when used in social studies methods classrooms
and professional development sessions, provide a valuable learning tool for
P/ISTs because this activity not only empowers them with content knowl-
edge and skills but also embodied knowledge that can help promote empa-
thy and perspective recognition and other soft skills that are more difficult
to impart with explicit instruction (see Wright-Maley, 2015).
Using simulations in teacher education programs and professional
development that place P/ISTs in the role of a language learner encourage
teacher candidates themselves to think critically as they consider aca-
demic language, communication, and specific pedagogical decisions.
Therefore, if teacher educators simply complete a lesson such as the
Swedish immersion experience and then never return to it or extend
upon it during the quarter or semester, valuable teaching moments are
lost and candidates miss important connections to their own future
classrooms.
In the context of a university course, we recommend using the Swedish
language immersion simulation early on because it can be used as a com-
mon touchstone for the rest of the course. This means TEs can refer back
to it in multiple ways. For example, as a TE works through a social stud-
ies methods textbook, it is beneficial to have candidates make connec-
tions between their immersion experience and what they are reading.
Some connections will be more obvious, such as “use visuals,” but others
may be less transparent, such as identifying keywords and concepts, mak-
ing connections to previous content, or making comparisons.
In Jennifer’s methods courses on supporting English language learners

in academic language, she uses this simulation to help candidates deepen
their understanding of SIOP (Echevarria et al., 2017) and other meth-
ods/strategies to support ELLs (Gibbons, 2015; Wright, 2015; Zwiers,
2014).
We also note that this particular lesson was designed specifically for
newcomers to Swedish. Our recommendation to TEs is to model another
social studies language simulation lesson, but in a language such as
Spanish where some candidates might be fully bilingual while others will
probably understand quite a bit of the oral language, but struggle to read
and/or write, and other candidates will likely be as lost as they were ini-
tially in the Swedish lesson. If there are no fluent Spanish speakers in your
class, you might ask for some volunteers from outside the class to come
in so that other candidates learn what it might feel like when others are
fully engaged and they themselves are barely hanging on. As the TE (or
someone who speaks Spanish) teaches the lesson, be sure to include tasks
that are more typical of a high school setting including some that are dif-
ferentiated and some that are not. After it is all over, ask candidates about
how the experience made them feel? This can lead to discussions on how
this experience is more similar to a “mainstream” classroom—with a vari-
ety of levels—and how to think about differentiation, including small
group pre- or post-teaching.
In addition to modeling a strong, scaffolded lesson and referring back
to it throughout the course, we also need to create space for candidates to
create their own lessons, using the simulation as a model for planning.
One area to practice is in making the abstract more concrete. For exam-
ple, according to the 8th grade social studies standards in Washington
State, students should understand EALR 1.1.1 “key ideals and principles
outlined… in the Bill of Rights, including due process and freedom of
expression” (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2013, p. 77).
Candidates can work in small groups to think about standards such as
this one. They can brainstorm together how to bridge what some 8th
grade students know or have experienced and build background for other
students. They can also look online for images and thinking of key terms
students should be able to know and use.
In order to help PSTs become more fluent in the skill of using student’s
prior knowledge to connect to content, we suggest posting a social stud-
ies standard at the start of class and having candidates do some quick
brainstorming about ways to do this. Eventually, this task can be expanded
to have candidates find, print, and display their visuals for the class.
When PSTs bring some visuals to class that align with a particular unit
or standard, they should start to think about the language they would
want students to use and the language they as teachers should use. Rather
than overwhelming candidates by having them plan an entire lesson to fit
the needs of ELLs, we suggest starting by focusing on these opening
10 minutes of a lesson. We want them to think about how they display
initial information and explain those opening tasks. In doing this, PSTs
will need to consider what they expect their students to say, read, write,
or listen to during that time. Of course, some candidates will be ready to
consider the needs of ELLs through their entire lesson, and we want all
P/ISTs to get there eventually. However, by starting with just 10 minutes
of thoughtful instruction, you may get more “by-in” from PSTs who are
less enthusiastic to work with ELLs.
Let’s return to the Bill of Rights example for more ways to connect an
immersion simulation to the PSTs role as teacher. Some candidates might
suggest a small whole-class picture sort of freedom of speech that is pro-
tected under the Bill of Rights (e.g., protests) and speech that is not (e.g.,
yelling fire in a crowded theater) before having small groups of students
sort images of people saying things in speech bubbles that should or should
not be protected. Other candidates might create a large graphic organizer
that divides the First Amendment into freedom of religion, speech, the
press, assembly, and petition. There could be images that help make these
concepts clearer. Some images might be just pictures, but others could have
simple speech bubbles. Other candidates still might bring in newspaper
articles with photos and text that give current instances where people are
claiming First Amendment rights. The candidates might have simplified
texts or summaries to help students access the content with the purpose of
having small group of students read a story and determine what the issue is.
There is no one way to link to prior knowledge or build background. There
is no one way to support language learners. However, there are strategies
that are more successful than others. PSTs need time to experiment with
different strategies to see what works for them and their P-12 students.
They also need to time share, discuss, and reflect on the process. During
this process, it is important to have PSTs make connections between their
choices of strategies, what they are learning from textbooks and lecture, and
the immersion simulation experience.
Creating an effective simulation such as the Swedish example is not
easy. And, remembering to circle back to that experience throughout a
course or program takes some practice. However, if we want P/ISTs to
empathize with and understand the needs of ELLs that will be in their
classrooms so that they can support their students, it is worth the
effort.
Notes
1. While there is little question that the use of the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol has been demonstrated as an effective interven-
tion for improving student’s language learning, there is some contention
regarding the degree to which this model is empirically validated
(Krashen, 2013) and whether the protocol has sufficient factorial valid-
ity (Polat & Cepik, 2016). Nevertheless, it is, to our knowledge, most
effective and widely disseminated model of language learning currently
in use.
2. Please note that the italicized text is spoken in Swedish during the course
of the lesson.
References
Aper, L., Reniers, J., Koole, S., Valcke, M., & Derese, A. (2012). Impact of three
alternative consultation training formats on self-efficacy and consultation
skills of medical students. Medical Teacher, 34(7), 500–507.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1990). The effect of a prejudice-reduction simula-
tion on attitude change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 341–356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00415.x.
Coady, M., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2011). From preservice to practice:
Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with
English language learners in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal,
34(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597823.
Colombetti, G. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cruz, B. C., Nutta, J. W., O’Brien, J., Feyten, C. M., & Govoni, J. M. (2003).
Passport to learning. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009a). Social studies for English language
learners: Teaching social studies that matters. Social Education, 73(6),
271–274.
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009b). Teaching social studies to English lan-
guage learners. New York: Routledge.
De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for
English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher
Education Quarterly, 30(2), 101–124.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible
for English learners: The SIOP model (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Else, L. (2006). An unforgettable lesson. New Scientist, 192(2581), 52.
Fortune, T. W., & Menke, M. (2010). Struggling learners and language immer-
sion education: Research-based, practitioner-informed responses to educators’ top
questions. (CARLA publication series). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Ganzler, L. M. (2010). Simulated citizen: How students experienced a semester
length legislative simulation (Doctoral dissertation). Accession order no.
3448866.
Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-
Solomon, A., et al. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspec-
tive taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33(4), 894–914. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002.
Gibbon, P. (2015). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching English lan-
guage learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Goldenberg, D., Andrusyszyn, M., & Iwaslw, C. (2005). The effect of classroom
simulation on nursing students’ self-efficacy related to health teaching.
Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 310–314.
Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without
content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, P. R., Boyer, M. A., & Brown, S. W. (2011). Vital interests: Cultivating
global competence in the international studies classroom. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 503–519.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our
need for learning. In B. Joyce & B. Showers (Eds.), Student achievement
through staff development (pp. 69–94). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kameg, K., Howard, V. M., Clochesy, J., Mitchell, A. M., & Suresky, J. M.
(2010). The impact of high fidelity human simulation on self-efficacy of
communication skills. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(5), 315–323.
Krashen, S. (2013). Does SIOP research support SIOP claims? Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 8(1), 11–24.
Lay, J. C., & Smarick, K. J. (2006). Simulating a senate office: The impact on
student knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(2),
131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160600668967.
Levine, T., Howard, E., & Moss, D. (2014). Preparing classroom teachers to suc-
ceed with second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community.
New York: Routledge.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological perspective. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as
a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001.
Maitles, H., & McKelvie, E. (2010). “Why does wearing a yellow bib make us
different?”: A case study of explaining discrimination in a west of Scotland
secondary (high) school. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1),
245–261.
Marino, M. P., & Jacobs, B. M. (2009). The modeling approach to social studies
teacher education. In E. E. Heilman, R. Fruja, & M. T. Missias (Eds.), Social
studies and diversity education: What we do and why we do it (pp. 320–323).
New York: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith, C.).
Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [Original publication, 1962].
Miller, C., Self, N., Garven, S., & Allen, N. (2011). Leader challenge: What
would you do? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 21–36.
Miller-Lane, J. (2006). Constructive disagreement, the body, and education for
democracy. The Social Studies, 97(1), 16–20.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013). Washington State K-12
Social Studies Learning Standards, (version 2.1). Olympia, WA.
Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the

mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual
Research Journal, 5, 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594
357.
Polat, N., & Cepik, S. (2016). An exploratory factor analysis of the sheltered
instruction observation protocol as an evaluation tool to measure teaching
effectiveness. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 817–843.
Ritter, J. K. (2012). Modeling powerful social studies: Bridging theory and prac-
tice with preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 103(3),
117–124.
Schleppegrell, M., & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning his-
tory: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 21–27.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision mak-
ing and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schweber, S. A. (2004). Making sense of the Holocaust: Lessons from classroom
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sullivan, C. C. (2011). Modeling the model: The use of classroom talk in teach-
ing socioconstructivist pedagogy in a social studies teacher education setting.
The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46(2), 24–32.
Tompson, G. H., & Dass, P. (2000). Improving students’ self-efficacy in strate-
gic management: The relative impact of cases and simulations. Simulation &
Gaming, 31(1), 22–41.
Washburn, G. N. (2008). Alone, confused, and frustrated: Developing empathy
and strategies for working with English language learners. The Clearing House,
81(6), 247–250.
Watson, S. W., & Bradley, J. F. (2009). Modeling secondary instructional strate-
gies in a teacher education class. Education, 130(1), 3–15.
Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research,
theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.
Wright-Maley, C. (2015). What every social studies teacher should know about
simulations. Canadian Social Studies, 48(1), 8–23. Accessible from http://
www.educ.ualberta.ca/css/481/2WhatEveryTeacherFINAL.pdf
Wright-Maley, C., & Green, J. D. (2015). Experiencing the needs and chal-
lenges of ELLs: Improving knowledge and efficacy of preservice teachers
through the use of a language immersion simulation. Cogent Education, 2(1),
1–17. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1030176.
Wright-Maley, C., Levine, T., & Gonzalez, E. (2014). Instruction in progress: In
search of effective practices for emergent bilinguals. In T. Levine, L. Howard,
& D. Moss (Eds.), Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with second language
learners (pp. 154–173). New York: Routledge.
Research & Practice, 11(1), 20–39.
Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Essential practices for content class-
rooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cory Wright-Maley is an associate professor of education at St. Mary’s

University in Calgary, Canada. His research focus includes simulations, social
studies education, and pre-service teacher education that support ELL instruc-
tion in mainstream classrooms. He is interested in the development of teaching
practices in teacher preparation that support pre-service teachers through expe-
riential learning to approximate their professional practices and the experiences
of their future students. He has several publications related to simulations and
pre-service teachers’ experiences teaching ELLs.
Jennifer D. Green is an associate professor and the director of the ELL endorse-
ment program at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington.
Her professional interests include pre-service and in-service teacher training as it
relates to supporting English language learners. More specifically, she is inter-
ested in helping teachers find ways to support academic language across the
content areas. She has published on professional development for teachers,
teaching suffixes, and English-Spanish bilingual language development.
9
Apprenticing Students and Teachers
into Historical Content, Language,
and Thinking Through Genre Pedagogy
Laura Schall-Leckrone and Debra Barron
History classrooms have great potential to equip emergent bilingual

learners (BLs) with content, language, and thinking skills associated with
academic achievement and civic engagement, such as explaining signifi-
cant phenomena or advancing an argument (Coffin, 1997; Schall-
Leckrone & McQuillan, 2012). Indeed, the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) declare all stu-
dents should analyze complex texts and justify their viewpoints with evi-
dence from texts for college and career readiness. Nonetheless, these new
content standards and the language of history also pose significant chal-
lenges for BLs and their teachers that should be addressed through coher-
ent and sustained teacher education efforts (Santos, Darling-Hammond,
& Cheuk, 2012). Teachers and teacher educators can work in collabora-
L. Schall-Leckrone (*)
Lesley University, Cambridge, MA, USA
D. Barron
Boston, MA, USA

206 L. Schall-Leckrone and D. Barron
tion across traditional institutional boundaries to provide integrated con-

tent and language learning opportunities that engage bilingual youth in
historical thinking and study their efforts (Nagle, 2014). Accordingly,
this chapter presents a case study of teacher learning in which a teacher
educator, teacher, and student teacher used genre pedagogy with ninth-
grade world history students resulting in dramatic improvements in bilin-
gual learners’ comprehension and production of historical explanations.
Drawing from observations, interviews, and document analysis, the
chapter demonstrates how history teachers can be apprenticed into teach-
ing disciplinary literacy skills within a classroom setting.
History educators need sustained opportunities to develop pedagogi-
cal content knowledge and language knowledge to address the increased
rigor new standards pose for BLs and students who speak nonstandard
variations of English (Bunch, 2013; Santos et al., 2012). Current research
suggests that it is not customary for history teachers to adopt innovative
pedagogies (Barton & Levstik, 2004) or teach language without signifi-
cant support (Rose & Martin, 2012; Schall-Leckrone, 2017; Schall-
Leckrone & McQuillan, 2012, 2014; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006).
After the infusion of language-based strategies into a history methods
course, preservice history teachers developed awareness of their role as
language teachers and some scaffolding techniques but struggled to inte-
grate language strategies with content instruction to promote historical
thinking (Schall-Leckrone & McQuillan 2012, 2014). Laura followed
novice history teachers, who had experienced preservice coursework
aimed at equipping them to teach BLs history, into secondary classroom
settings. Although relatively new teachers effectively scaffolded content
instruction as they gained classroom experience and supported academic
language development by providing vocabulary instruction, graphic
organizers, and structured group work, they did not explicitly teach lan-
guage demands of content texts and tasks (see Schall-Leckrone, 2017, in
press). Schleppegrell and de Oliveira (2006) found that history teachers
are motivated to engage in language analysis with students because con-
tent comprehension improves, but it takes time for teachers to develop
facility with strategies that integrate content and language. Similarly,
history-teaching manuals that integrated language instruction were never
9 Apprenticing Students and Teachers into Historical Content... 207
widely used in secondary schools in Sydney, Australia, because successful

implementation required linguists to work alongside teachers (Rose &
Martin, 2012). In sum, coherent and sustained guidance and support
seem necessary for history teachers to integrate standards-based disciplin-
ary language and literacy skills into instruction for BLs.
This case study builds on prior research by demonstrating how history
teachers can be apprenticed into teaching content, language, and analyti-
cal skills through a collaborative model that includes mentoring and
classroom coaching, an instructional framework based on genre peda-
gogy, and inquiry into practice. Therefore, it may be relevant to a broad
group of researchers, applied linguists, teacher educators, and teachers
who seek to improve disciplinary literacy instruction, in general, and his-
tory teachers and history teacher educators, in particular.
pprenticing Students and Teachers

A
into Historical Content, Language,
and Thinking
Apprenticeship offers the opportunity to put learning into action in a
relevant context with guidance and support (Collins, Brown, & Holum,
1991). Essentially, learners are guided to do what experts do because
expertise is made explicit. Models such as “cognitive apprenticeship,” rep-
resent learning as “an incrementally staged process” (Collins et al., 1991,
p. 2) with these phases: modeling, scaffolding, fading (release of respon-
sibility to the learner), and coaching throughout, all of which promote
independent expert practice (Collins et al., 1991; Fisher & Frey, 2013).
While Collins et al. (1991) present scaffolding as a phase of cognitive
apprenticeship, it is also described as a stand-alone concept in a growing
body of research on learning, including a special issue of the journal,
Learning Sciences (2004). Scaffolding is generally considered to be how an
expert learner (often a teacher) guides a learner through interaction to
complete a task independently (Davis & Miyake, 2004; Gibbons, 2015;
Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Athanases and de Oliveira (2014) added
to this research literature by suggesting any discussion of scaffolding
should consider “scaffolding for whom, for what purposes, and how?”(p.
265). Originally conceived of a construct to support student learning, a
specialized notion of scaffolding can apply to teacher learning as well (de
Oliveira, 2011b). Davis and Miyake (2004) explain, “Scaffolding implies
that given appropriate assistance, a learner can … engage in a practice
otherwise out of reach” (p. 266). Specifically, teachers can be apprenticed
into pedagogical innovations when their learning takes place within a
supportive classroom context that includes collaboration and coaching
(Glazer, Hannafin, & Song, 2005).
The Teaching Learning Cycle (TLC) represents an apprenticeship
model that can support both student and teacher learning; scaffolding
occurs throughout all phases of the model, which is based on the notion
of teaching and learning genres (Derewianka, 1990; Derewianka &
Jones, 2012; Rothery, 1994). Genres are purposeful uses of language in
a social or academic context with particular organizational and linguistic
features that distinguish them (Gibbons, 2015). Similar to cognitive
apprenticeship, the TLC also includes sequenced phases: building
knowledge of the field, modeling the genre, co-construction of the
genre, and finally, independent writing (see Derewianka & Jones, 2012).
While building knowledge of the field, students develop a deep under-
standing of context and content. The next phase of the TLC, modeling
the genre, is concerned with how language is used for particular pur-
poses within the genre, so organization and language structures are the
focus. During joint or co-construction, the teacher supports student
development of the language needed to express content thinking by
engaging students in collaborative writing activities. All of this occurs
before students write independently to prepare them to demonstrate
command of content-specific knowledge and disciplinary literacy skills.
Initially conceived of as a framework to improve literacy pedagogy for
underserved BLs in Australia (Derewianka & Jones, 2012), the TLC also
can be considered a guide to support teacher learning because it offers a
template for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of content
pedagogy, language knowledge, and analytical skills specific to history
(see de Oliveira, 2011b for an example in an elementary science
context).
Thinking Like Historians

History teachers are tasked with creating a learning environment in
which students mirror historians’ actions. Rather than memorizing dates,
events, and people, history students should learn to think and investigate
like a professional in the field (Lesh, 2011). To prompt students to think
historically, teachers must stress that history involves “evidence and
debate” not essential truths or uncontested facts (Lesh, 2011, p. 8). When
students examine concepts like multiple causality, diverse perspectives,
and significance/impact in varied historical sources, “content and process
are married” (Lesh, 2011, p. 18).
The first step in doing the discipline of history is analysis of primary
and secondary sources (Wineburg & Schneider, 2009). This sort of criti-
cal thinking is more than simply uncovering the meaning of historical
documents and textbook content. Rather, it involves understanding the
purpose and historical context of texts. Indeed, teachers and students
play compatible roles when doing history; ideally, teachers curate sources
by selecting, reading, and editing them, while students read and analyze
curated texts in order to assemble critical interpretations of the past
(Seixas, 1999). When they follow the model of the professional, students
begin to perceive history “as a constructed account of the past” (Seixas,
1999, p. 330).
If doing the discipline is the cornerstone of history instruction, reading
and writing should be its foundation (Wineburg & Martin, 2004). As
Monte-Sano (2015) adds: “learning a discipline involves learning the oral
and written language of the discipline” (2015, p. 213). In a study focused
on teaching historical thinking and writing, Monte-Sano (2015) found
that “explicit modeling, active student engagement, practice…and feed-
back all support the development of adolescent literacy” (p. 217). Indeed,
writing practice allows students more opportunities to improve their ana-
lytical thinking in a history classroom (Monte-Sano & De La Paz, 2012).
Nonetheless, many history teachers do not have adequate opportunities
to develop sufficient linguistic expertise to provide instruction that
enables students to showcase historical thinking in their writing (De
Oliveira, 2011a; Schleppegrell, 2005).
eaching the Language of Historical

T
Explanations with Genre Pedagogy
Genre pedagogy offers a framework to guide teachers in teaching and
students in learning language, content, and thinking skills of history
(Schall-Leckrone, 2017). The aim of genre study is to boost reading and
writing skills through attention to characteristics of different text types
(Fountas & Pinnell, 2012). Australian linguists introduced genre study
informed by systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to teach academic
English and literacy skills to underserved student populations
(Derewianka, 1990; Gibbons, 2015; Halliday, 1993; Martin & Rose,
2008). SFL is a sociocultural theory of language; the idea is that context,
the relationship between interlocutors, and social or academic purpose
influence how language is used (Hyland, 2009). SFL genre pedagogy can
be used to guide students in the development of historical thinking, con-
tent, and language skills because it demonstrates how language constructs
content knowledge in the complex texts encountered in secondary school
(Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008).
Ways of knowing shape how language is used in history. Story, expla-
nation, and arguing genres represent three characteristic ways historical
content is presented: to retell, explain, or interpret the past (Coffin,
2006). Understanding how cause and effect relationships are expressed in
historical explanations is a central feature of content knowledge and
discipline-specific literacy skills in secondary classrooms (Achugar &
Schleppegrell, 2005; de Oliveira, 2016). Two distinct types of historical
explanations demonstrate causal reasoning: factorial and consequential
explanations (Coffin, 2006). As the names imply, factorial explanations
showcase factors that precipitate significant events whereas consequential
explanations demonstrate the consequences of them (Coffin, 2006).
Understanding how to analyze and produce historical explanations can
play a pivotal role in student development from recounting events in
elementary school to secondary school when students must entertain
multiple viewpoints in an argument, because historical explanations
move beyond a simple chain of events to consider how a series of inter-
related factors trigger or result from phenomena (Coffin, 1997, 2006). As
part of genre pedagogy, students can be taught to use graphic organizers

such as concept webs and linguistic features like causal connecting words
(“due to” “as a result of ”) and processes (“led to,” “resulted in,” “caused”)
to interpret and construct historical explanations (Schall-Leckrone,
2017). Teaching adolescents to craft historical explanations equips them
with linguistic resources and content knowledge to present critical inter-
pretations of the past (Schall-Leckrone & Barron, 2016).
In summary, teachers and students can be apprenticed into the lan-
guage, content, and thinking skills of history through genre pedagogy
and the TLC. Secondary history students should be taught to read, write,
and think like historians (Lesh, 2011; Monte-Sano, 2015; Monte-Sano
& De La Paz, 2012; Seixas, 1999; Wineburg & Martin, 2004; Wineburg
& Schneider, 2009). SFL has been used as an analytical tool to describe
teacher expectations and student writing in secondary history (de
Oliveira, 2011a; Schleppegrell, 2005), and genre pedagogy has been used
to support the development of content, language, and thinking skills for
emergent BLs (Brisk, 2015; Derewianka, 1990; Derewianka & Jones,
2012; Gibbons, 2009). We build on prior research to demonstrate that
apprenticeship through classroom-based coaching, genre pedagogy, and
involvement in collaborative research can support teachers in teaching
emergent BLs content, language, and thinking skills of history.
Research Design
This chapter presents a case study of teacher learning when a teacher
educator, teacher, and student teacher worked together to implement
SFL genre pedagogy with ninth-grade world history classes. The collab-
orative classroom-based research took place at Midland High School
from the fall of 2014 through the spring of 2016 in a small low-income
city in an urban area of the northeastern United States. We examine the
influence of our collaboration on teacher and student learning the first
year of the study. While we assess student development of historical con-
tent, thinking, and language skills here, a companion study provides a
more focused analysis of student writing as a result of these efforts (see
Schall-Leckrone & Barron, 2016).1 Because a social theory of learning
(Hammond, 2006) guided our research and its focus on scaffolding

through an apprenticeship model, we examined teacher and student
learning that occurred during interactions documented in classroom
observations, interviews, student work, and teacher journals.
Laura, a teacher educator and researcher, and Debbie, an experienced
history teacher, first met when Debbie participated in a research study on
the infusion of language strategies into a history methods course Laura
conducted in collaboration with Debbie’s course instructor (see Schall-
Leckrone & McQuillan, 2012, 2014). Then, as part of her dissertation
research, Laura followed Debbie into the classroom during her early years
as a history teacher to observe how she implemented strategies for work-
ing with BLs to which she had been exposed during graduate coursework
(see Schall-Leckrone, in press). Afterward, Laura invited Debbie to par-
ticipate in this collaborative classroom-based study drawing on a frame-
work for teaching history genres (see Schall-Leckrone, 2017). In the
summer of 2014, Debbie began reading resources Laura compiled on
genre pedagogy (see Derewianka, 1990; Gibbons, 2009, 2015), history
genres, and the language of history (see Coffin, 1997, 2006). Together,
we chose to focus on reading and writing historical explanations given
the developmental needs of Debbie’s ninth-grade students as early adoles-
cents transitioning from middle to high school. So, we created a genre-
based unit on ancient Rome aimed at apprenticing students into content,
thinking, and language skills associated with historical explanations. In
the fall of 2014, Debbie taught the unit while Laura coached, video-
taped, and assisted students in the classroom. In the spring of 2015, Joan
Konuk joined the research team as Debbie’s student teacher.2 Together,
we developed and Joan taught a second genre-based unit on the Crusades,
while Debbie assumed the role of coach and classroom mentor, and Laura
videotaped and assisted students in the classroom. Overall, mentoring
played a key role in all facets of teacher learning from defining the research
focus on improving student writing, reviewing relevant literature, design-
ing then implementing genre-based units, and studying the results. Since
the role of mentor was passed from Laura to Debbie when a student
teacher joined the research team, Debbie assessed her growth through
increased opportunities for reflection that both having and serving as
mentor afforded her.
The Intervention
Genre-based instructional units were developed based on the notion of

apprenticing students into the content, logic, and language of histori-
cal explanations through the TLC (see Derewianka, 1990; Derewianka
& Jones, 2012; Gibbons, 2009, 2015; Rothery, 1994). TLC phases
guided instruction: building background content knowledge; model-
ing the genre; co-construction of the genre; then independent con-
struction (see Derewianka, 1990; Derewianka & Jones, 2012; Rothery,
1994). During units on ancient Rome and the Crusades, students
deconstructed then reconstructed historical explanations as outlined in
Tables 9.1 and 9.2.
During the deconstruction phase, students analyzed a teacher-written
exemplar explaining causes of Roman expansion. In structured group
activities and with graphic organizers, they examined the logic, organiza-
tion, and language used to explain interconnected causes and conse-
quences of historical events. Students added to a word wall of cause/effect
words and phrases later used as a writing resource when they explained
the fall of Rome.
Table 9.1 Modeling the genre: what contributed to the expansion of Rome?
Instructional activity
and resources Procedure
Dictogloss (see Individually, then in small groups, students recreate a
Gibbons, 2015, p. 143) paragraph from the exemplar read aloud by the
teacher
Exemplar outline part 1 Students create a skeleton outline of the exemplar,
Skeleton outline identifying key elements such as the thesis
graphic organizer statement and topic sentences
Exemplar analysis Students answer comprehension questions on
Question set vocabulary, organization, content, and author’s
intention
Cause/effect language Student groups identify examples of cause and effect
Cause/effect and cause/effect language in the exemplar
language graphic
organizer
Exemplar outline part 2 Students outline body paragraphs in bullet point
Outline graphic form
organizer
Table 9.2 Constructing an historical explanation: what caused the fall of Rome?
Instructional activity
and resources Procedure
Brainstorm all possible Students brainstorm answers to the posed question in
historical a concept web/map
explanations
Concept web
Categorize Student groups categorize causes and consider how
Categorization categories are interrelated
graphic organizer
Thesis creation Students work together to write a sample thesis with
Sample thesis categories of factors
Outline Students use their thesis and categories of factors to
Outline graphic create an outline of the body paragraphs in bullet
organizer (same as in point form (using the same graphic organizer from
phase 1) the deconstruction phase and cause/effect word
bank)
Central to the deconstruction phase is promoting student understand-

ing of the concept of multiple causes. By examining the organization of
an exemplary historical explanation and deconstructing it into constituent
parts, students parse out the varied causes of Roman expansion. Through
activities based on the exemplar, students are guided toward understand-
ing that interrelated factors in historical explanations (unlike scientific
ones) are nonlinear. For example, in a teacher-led discussion, students
examine why the author chose to present the factors in a certain way. This
scaffolded activity is intended to prompt students to think critically about
how causes impact one another and, over time, contribute to a larger
phenomenon. In sum, analysis of the writing used to construct and pres-
ent causation allows for deeper historical thinking.
After building background knowledge, student groups used the exem-
plar as an organizational model, graphic organizers to consider the logic
behind a series of interrelated factors, and the cause/effect word bank to
scaffold their language use. Throughout the construction phase outlined
in Table 9.2, students were guided toward writing explanations indepen-
dently. After students investigated factors that contributed to the fall of
Rome, they worked to construct an historical explanation, mirroring the
work of historians. The goal is for students to recognize that content and
language choices they make as authors leave an imprint on their
e xplanation of the event. What they include or not and how they empha-
size certain factors contribute to how a reader understands what caused
the fall of the Roman Empire. For example, in organizing the explana-
tion, students often start with a temporal sequence, but because of the
intervention, they also decide how to organize factors in a way that reveals
interrelationships and their overall significance. Moreover, thoughtful
choices about how to employ cause/effect language demonstrate a
nuanced understanding of historical content and, more specifically, inter-
related events. For instance, there is a difference in saying that something
enabled an event and something sparked an event. Thus, while the writ-
ing process allows the students to engage in a summative assessment of
historical content, the finished product is not simply a regurgitation of
factors, but rather a judicious explanation of a student’s understanding of
a significant phenomenon in history that is showcased in their language
choices.
Data Sources and Analysis

To understand the role apprenticeship played in teacher and student
learning during the implementation of genre-based units, we collected
data sources that enabled us to analyze interactions: observation video-
tapes, semi-structured interviews, digital recordings of student conversa-
tions and written materials during group work, and teacher journals. In a
companion study, we found significant growth in student writing from
uncoached to post unit essays represented in 135 historical explanations
written by 45 students (ages 14–15) using an analytical tool adapted
from Brisk (2015), who conducted elementary classroom research using
SFL genre pedagogy (Schall-Leckrone & Barron, 2016). Data sources,
how we analyzed them, and participants are listed in Table 9.3.
In the fall of 2014, Laura videotaped classes when Debbie taught the
unit on ancient Rome and in spring of 2015, when Joan taught the
Crusades unit. We used a three-step process to analyze observation video-
tapes: first, we recorded what the teacher and students said and did in
10-minute increments to get a general sense of the lesson; next, we iden-
tified which phase of the TLC (building knowledge of the field, modeling
Table 9.3 Data sources, analytical strategies, and participants

Data sources Analytical strategies Participants
Observation Recording what teachers and students Students
videotapes said and did in 10-minute increments Student teacher
Noting phases of the TLC and Teacher
communicative domains Teacher educator
Identifying “mentoring moments”
Digital recordings Coding of transcripts Students
of Student teacher
Student group Teacher
work
Semi-structured Coding of transcripts Student teacher
interviews Teacher
Teacher educator
Teacher journals Open coding Teacher
Teacher educator
the genre, and so on) took place during the lesson and in which modali-
ties teachers and students were communicating: listening, speaking,
reading, and writing. Finally, we noted what we called “mentoring”
moments, when coaching seemed to be taking place during the classroom
interaction. That is, we noted aspects of guidance, interaction, and sup-
port that occurred during the shared experiences inherent in the TLC
framework (de Oliveira, 2011b). In addition, recordings of semi-struc-
tured interviews and conversations during student group work were tran-
scribed in their entirety and coded, and student work during these
activities was collected and analyzed. Finally, Laura and Debbie both kept
journals throughout the study, which were analyzed to better understand
the learning of all involved.
Results
Apprenticeship implemented through genre pedagogy and the TLC sup-
ported both teacher and student learning. Specifically, classroom coach-
ing in a genre-based framework for teaching and learning enabled teachers
to simultaneously teach content, language, and historical thinking. The
scaffolding inherent in phases of the teaching and learning cycle of genre
pedagogy facilitated student development of content, language, and

thinking skills specific to history. Student and teacher learning through
apprenticeship are discussed in separate sections below.
Teacher Learning Through an Apprenticeship Model
Teachers benefitted from learning how to integrate content, language,

and thinking skills in secondary history with coaching in a classroom
context rather than as preservice coursework or in-service professional
development. In addition, genre pedagogy and the TLC provide a tem-
plate to scaffold the development of any history unit. Further, mentoring
played a key role in teacher learning, especially as the mentor role was
passed from Laura to Debbie when Joan joined the research team as
Debbie’s student teacher.
Classroom-based coaching enabled Debbie to integrate language and
content instruction. Immediately following the first lesson in the genre-
based unit on ancient Rome, Debbie commented, “Teaching language
wasn’t as hard as I thought.” During an interview, she elaborated:
That first time, we were doing the … language based lessons and going
through the cause and effect … I was nervous … the kids were going to
stump me on something with language, [but] I realized … it is the same as
teaching every other lesson. That happens, that’s okay. [I]f you don’t know
the answer you can say that is a great question … let’s look at it, let’s figure
it out.
Although Debbie had been exposed to language-based strategies for

teaching the content and thinking skills of history during preservice
coursework, they had not resonated with her. Specifically, the theory of
language, SFL, upon which genre pedagogy is based, seemed too abstract.
As she said:
[W]hen you were teaching us about SFL [in the history methods course],
I was like, “What are we talking about?” I kept … hearing it and … still
[didn’t] get it.
Laura: Yeah, when we first started talking about this, you were not so
sure.
Debbie: I couldn’t access it … Then, when I was teaching this, I [under-
stood] I am … teaching how we write and … just … giving a
more focused understanding of the ways that we put sentences
together. [I]t wasn’t like I was latching on to something that you
thought was important. I think it is important. And, … once I
was doing it, I was like … “Okay, I get this. I see why I am
doing it.”
In order to integrate language-based strategies into history instruction,

Debbie’s learning needed to be situated within the context of her own
classroom. She also found it beneficial to build knowledge of the field the
summer prior to implementation of the first genre-based unit.
One of the readings … that you gave me … put it into context for me. And
I was thinking of my kids and … and it made me see the value of teaching
[language]. It was … going through the [history] genres and they just
made… sense… and I [understood] this needs to be taught. It needs to not
just be assigned. [I]n the past, I … assigned it and even said come up with
an outline and then I would look at the outline and then pass it back and
they would write something and then I would write notes but it was never
good. [T]he kids that write well are going to write well. [With] a larger
percent of students, there was … no movement, no improvement. [I]n the
past with a student who comes for help, I ended up writing the thesis. I
think [writing] is one of the hardest things to teach. I can teach content …
in really creative ways and analyze and talk about it but when I am asking
a student to independently produce a more formal essay, it just never was
what we wanted.
Debbie had been teaching for several years, felt confident teaching his-
torical content, but saw a need to improve writing instruction. As she
expressed:
Many high school teachers feel confident in the content they teach. Their
passion for the subject makes them an effective teacher, but teachers can be
hesitant when it comes to teaching something outside their realm of
experience.
Genre pedagogy and the TLC provide a framework for the development
of any history unit to integrate content, language, and thinking skills. As
Debbie explained, “[T]he cool thing about what we came up with is that
it you can apply it to lots of different units … of study.” In fact, Debbie
found that students benefitted from the experience of a second genre-
based unit on historical explanations:
When … we were doing any of the steps, we [remembered] we did this

before. [I]t’s always … better to do something a second time … [we] are
going to be using our cause and effect language again … [S]o there wasn’t
that element of it all being new, which is of course helpful.
Repetition of the TLC through a second instructional unit provided sup-

portive practice for both teacher and student learning related to integrat-
ing content, language, and thinking skills in an historical explanation.
Mentoring facilitated teacher and teacher educator learning. More spe-
cifically, reciprocal interactions that featured coaching and collaboration
(Glazer et al., 2005) and both having and serving as a mentor facilitated
teacher and teacher educator learning. As Debbie explained:
[I]t’s nice to have a mentor that I trust … who gets teaching and … the
realities of the classroom. [Y]ou are not just expecting me to do some …
fancy thing from a book.
As Debbie further explained:
When I first taught the intervention, it brought me comfort to know that I

could talk to Laura. Lessons change and must be adaptable, so if something did
not go as planned, I would reach out … and ask advice for the next lesson.
As a result, she felt supported in teaching content and language simulta-

neously, which was a different model of in-service teacher learning than
she had previously experienced: hearing something new at a professional
development day and then going back to the classroom to implement it
on her own. Mentoring afforded the opportunity to apply research on
teaching the language of history to the realities of Debbie’s classroom
practice in an urban context.
[A]s a teacher, it’s hard to [select] from the vast ocean of research. You …
boiled that down for me … so I could [have] a background in the research.
[S]o it was really helpful for you to say, “This is a thoughtful chapter. You
… might like to read the whole book, but why don’t you try this chapter
first because I know you are doing this and that.” [I]t would have over-
whelmed me to just do that alone.
Laura curated readings “from the vast ocean of research” that seemed
applicable to Debbie’s practice to build her knowledge of the field. This
mentoring provided support to Debbie and the opportunity for Laura to
engage in classroom-based research. As Debbie explains:
Everyone always says that they want teachers to be doing research. [T]hat
would be the most natural place for research to emerge … from questions
in the classroom that you have about your teaching and your students and
everyone’s learning. But, then there’s a divide between the world of doctor-
ate students who are writing all of this stuff and teachers, [who] want to
feel like they are contributing to what’s being researched and want to add,
as opposed to … do[ing] the same thing over and over again. But, often …
teachers don’t … have access into what’s been done. [Without] a mentor, I
wouldn’t have known where to begin. So, … it was like the catalyst. [H]
aving mentorships between teachers and people at the university level [is]
really important … Having you as the expert on the topic made it … just
made it doable.
Debbie highlights the divide between “doctoral students writing all this
stuff and teachers.” She would not have engaged in research integrating
history, content, and language instruction for emerging BLs without a
mentor, because she would not have known where to begin. At the same
time, Laura would not have been able to implement the genre-based
framework for teaching historical explanations that was part of her
doctoral work without an experienced history teacher like Debbie,

knowledgeable about her context and the needs of adolescent learners.
In spring of 2015, the role of mentor was passed from Laura to Debbie
when a student teacher joined the research team.
When I took on a student teacher, … support grew. Joan [could] watch me

teach lessons before teaching it with her classes. This was perhaps an ideal
set up. Joan [could] watch it in action and then discuss her questions, ideas,
and suggestions before teaching it herself. This type of intervention works
well if the mentor can respond, in real-time, to the needs of the teacher.
Flexibility and adaptability must coincide with this intervention. In this
way, history teachers will grow to be confident teachers of literacy skills as
well.
Debbie modeled how to provide genre pedagogy for her student teacher,
Joan, and fielded her questions. In the process, Debbie assessed her own
growth through the increased opportunities for reflection that serving as
mentor afforded her. Along similar lines, Laura would not have had a
context in which to implement a genre-based framework for teaching
historical explanations (from her doctoral studies) without collaboration
with a classroom teacher and her student teacher. Trusting relationships
between teachers and teacher educators engaged in collaborative
classroom-based research can build bridges between K-12 and university
settings to support the learning of all involved (Nagle, 2014).
Student Learning Through an Apprenticeship Model
The apprenticeship model also supported student learning. Specifically,

the implementation of genre pedagogy through the TLC enabled stu-
dents to develop thinking, content, and language skills associated with
historical explanations. Because we studied student learning in the con-
text of interactions, results here are presented from one student group
that included an African-American student (Keith), an emergent BL
(Frida), and two white, monolingual students (Elizabeth and Salvatore).3
had viewed a videotape of Debbie teaching in a graduate class (see
Gibbons, 2015, pp. 192–3), Keith, Frida, Elizabeth, and Sal first listened
to a passage Joan read aloud on the causes of the Crusades, individually
recorded big ideas, then worked together to recreate it into the following
paragraph (which was later compared with the original):
The promise of social mobility drew the lower classes, while political moti-
vation drew the nobles to fight. Crusades were a way for ambitious nobles
to prove themselves as leaders. The crusades encouraged French, British,
and German monarchs to pledge allegiance to the Pope. These monarchs
helped to guide and train knights. Many zealous peasants went to battle
without having a leader and perished quickly. There were many ambitious
leaders motivated by political gain, and their leadership and financial sup-
port formed armies capable of battle and carrying out the Pope’s orders.
This passage, in which the students together recreated a paragraph from

the model, showcases how they integrated the content and language of an
historical explanation. Specifically, through the scaffolding provided by
hearing an exemplar, taking notes, and then discussing it within their
group, they successfully link causes and consequences using language of
causation. For instance, they recognize that social factors: “The promise
of social mobility” prompted both “lower classes” and “nobles” to fight in
the Crusades. In addition, the students use causal processes: “drew,”
“encouraged,” “motivated” in the verb phrases that express the action of
the explanation. Students echo the language of causation in their recon-
struction, which provides a scaffolded opportunity to use language to
showcase the logic of an historical explanation with an authentic context
and purpose.
In a subsequent activity, small groups mined the same exemplar to
identify instances of cause and effect and record them on a graphic orga-
nizer. As demonstrated in the following dialogue, peer interaction enabled
Frida, Sal, and Keith to support one another in text analysis, cause/effect
thinking, and writing craft.
Frida: [H]ow about in the fourth paragraph, where it says [reading],

“Without the leadership of these monarchs and lords, the
Crusaders would have been a measley …”
Keith: We could word it differently, so the cause … could be …
Monarchs
Frida: [interrupting Keith] But like the next …
Keith: [continuing] … the monarchs, led improvised support to soldiers
and the effect was that they could … be a successful army that
could follow the Pope’s orders. Or something like that …
Frida: We could also use the next sentence that says [reading and para-
phrasing], “In fact, there were many zealous peasants, who did
not wait for more experienced leadership … set on their own and
perished quickly.”
Sal: So like, peasants who did not wait for more experienced leader-
ship …
Frida: Perished
Sal: Yeah
Frida: Yeah
Sal: How about … Monarchs, leadership and financial support … is
the cause, and the effect is the formation of armies capable of fol-
lowing the Pope’s command.
Frida: All right.
Together, Keith, Frida, and Sal identify an example of cause/effect

logic from the exemplar on the causes of the Crusades, decide how to
rephrase it, and record it onto a graphic organizer. Repetition of both the
content and language of causation through dialogue provides what
Gibbons (2015) calls message abundancy, which supports content com-
prehension. Similar to Bunch (2006), we found that group work sup-
ported conceptual and academic language development. These
conversations served as a scaffold for written work, as Keith, already a
strong writer, developed skills specific to crafting historical explanations
during the genre-based units. Among this small group, Frida, a BL,
showed the most growth in her command of the language, logic, and
content of historical explanations as demonstrated in the following
excerpt from her written explanation of the consequences of the Crusades.
The Crusades also contributed to social changes, which changed how peo-
ple lived. Due to the weakening of the Feudal system serfs were able to have
social mobility. The lack of people who were able to work made the serfs
more valuable. They were able to buy themselves freedom or charge for
their work. Also, the Pope had promised those who went and fought in the
Crusades that they were not only guaranteed salvation but also knight-
hood. The men did not have to be born into a noble family to become a
knight anymore.
Frida explains how the Crusades led to social changes using causal pro-
cesses, such as “contributed to” or “made” and causal connecting words
like “due to” and nominalized phrases such as “the lack of people who
were able to work,” characteristic of this genre. She crafted this essay after
two units of instruction based on the TLC: building background, decon-

structing and reconstructing models (as seen in the group-work activi-
ties), and then writing independently. In it, she demonstrates mastery of
language, content, and thinking skills of historical explanations.

This chapter showcases how preservice and in-service history teachers can
be prepared to teach BLs disciplinary literacy skills within a classroom
setting. It details student and teacher learning that resulted when a stu-
dent teacher, teacher, and teacher educator together implemented instruc-
tional units based on genre pedagogy. While preservice coursework and
in-service professional development raise awareness of dispositions,
knowledge, and skills needed for working with BLs in a content class-
room, our study demonstrates that both novice and experienced teachers
benefit from coaching in a classroom setting to actually implement peda-
gogical content and language knowledge. In addition, teacher candidates
and experienced teachers can be involved in classroom-based research
that supports instructional innovations and enhances student learning.
Our experience also suggests mentoring plays a key role in all facets of
teacher learning from defining a research focus: in our case on improving
student writing, reviewing relevant literature, and designing then imple-
menting genre-based units and studying the results. Apprenticing history
teachers into the use of a recommended instructional practice within a
classroom setting, genre pedagogy, resulted in dramatic improvement in
bilingual student writing of historical explanations. When teacher knowl-
edge was valued and mentoring was provided for a heightened focus on
language learning, BLs’ content, thinking, and literacy skills improved
within history classes.
Similar to Glazer, Hannafin, and Song (2005), we found that teacher
learning transfers to instructional practice when learning is situated and
supported within a classroom context through an apprenticeship model.
This collaborative classroom-based study was small by design, since it
depended upon reciprocal teaching and learning relationships. While we
recommend that teacher educators, teachers, and student teachers work
in collaboration across higher education and K-12 contexts to enhance

learning opportunities for BLs in history classrooms, it can be challeng-
ing to do so. Time is a major factor for all involved. Because students do
not face a state standardized history test in Debbie’s context, she had lati-
tude to devote additional instructional time to integrate content, think-
ing, and literacy skills into lengthier units of instruction on ancient Rome
and the Crusades. Accordingly, she could prioritize teaching writing to
BLs in her history classroom over pressures for content coverage other
history teachers may face. We therefore suggest that history teachers who
seek to enhance literacy skills for BLs start small and pilot implementa-
tion of the TLC as we outline here in one instructional unit and build
from there.
In addition, having a student teacher afforded Debbie the time and
opportunity to play a different role in her classroom as both coach and
researcher. Joan joined the team having studied with Laura, so she was
already familiar with methods intended to increase BLs’ access to history
content, language, and literacy skills. Joan could build on this course-
work experience in a classroom setting with support from a mentor with
compatible knowledge and understandings. This provided coherent
teacher preparation for Joan whose learning was reinforced from her
coursework to early classroom teaching experiences. We suggest that
teacher educators and experienced teachers work in close collaboration to
support teacher candidates. Nonetheless, time was a factor for Laura as
well. Although she had been teaching courses aimed at preparing history
teachers to work with BLs since 2009 when she first met Debbie, and
continues to do so, due to time constraints, she has observed and coached
only a small subset of these teachers in K-12 contexts.
History educators benefit from sustained opportunities to develop
pedagogical content knowledge and language knowledge that enhance
learning for BLs in history classrooms. Therefore, we hope our collabora-
tion inspires more teacher educators, teachers, and student teachers to
work across traditional institutional boundaries to support improved
instructional opportunities for emergent bilingual learners in content
classrooms and study their efforts (Nagle, 2014). Relationships between
teacher educators, teacher candidates, and experienced teachers must
extend beyond graduate coursework into classroom settings to support
the integration of content pedagogy with knowledge of language for

emergent BLs (de Oliveira, 2011b). Teacher educators must work in
K-12 contexts to support student and teacher learning. Teacher candi-
dates must be provided with coherent and supported opportunities to
apply coursework learning in K-12 contexts, and experienced teachers
must be afforded opportunities as coaches and researchers to extend their
own learning throughout their careers, and the learning of their students,
and student teachers. When teacher knowledge is valued at all stages of
the teacher development continuum and mentoring is provided for a
heightened focus on language learning, BLs’ disciplinary literacy skills
can improve within content classes.

Our collaboration suggests applications in teacher education. That is,
elements from this chapter can be utilized in a history methods course
to prepare history teachers to work with emergent bilingual learners like
Frida. First, preservice history teachers can explore their beliefs regard-
ing the role of writing and teaching writing in the history classroom.
More specifically, before reading this chapter, preservice teachers can
discuss the types of writing tasks they would assign in their classrooms
and how they would teach students to accomplish these tasks. For exam-
ple, some preservice teachers may say that they would assign an essay
and require their students to provide an outline. Others might say they
would assign a creative first person recount from an historical time
period and students would engage in a think aloud in pairs to share
ideas. If they are student teachers, they could also discuss how their
cooperating teachers approach writing instruction. After reading the
chapter, preservice teachers can consider what type of writing was
assigned, and why, as well as how Debbie and Joan apprenticed students
into this type of writing. The methods course instructor could also guide
the preservice teachers to discuss how teaching language also helps stu-
dents to think historically. Hopefully, in the process, preservice teachers
will become more keenly aware of the specific language demands of his-
tory texts and writing tasks.
Another suggestion would be for history methods students to experi-

ence components of the TLC in a history methods class. For instance,
they might participate in a dictogloss. The course instructor would read a
preselected paragraph several times and instruct students to simply listen
for big ideas, and after the third reading, they would record key informa-
tion in words, fragments, or bullet points. Afterward, students would get
into pairs, and then groups of three or four to jointly reconstruct the
paragraph. Each group can present their paragraph, and the course
instructor can guide the class to compare the language choices and com-
mon linguistic features among their written explanations. This activity
allows students both to experience the co-construction phase of the TLC
and to simultaneously develop awareness of how language of causation is
used to construct an historical explanation.
The course instructor could also ask preservice teachers to bring in a
text from a content unit they plan to teach. In pairs or small groups, stu-
dents can determine how the text is organized, and whether it is an exam-
ple of a story genre, historical explanation, or argument. Then, they could
do a close reading of the text to identify specific language features associ-
ated with that genre. Alternatively, the methods teacher could preselect a
text from the explanation genre and have the preservice teachers practice
identifying instances of cause/effect logic as Debbie’s students did in this
chapter. Similarly, preservice teachers in the methods course could com-
pose a list of helpful cause/effect words and phrases (enable, cause, led to,
brought about) from a sample text. Raising awareness of the linguistic
features of historical genres is essential in history methods classes, because
often history textbooks emphasize only content-specific vocabulary
words. These are some examples of how history methods instructors and
preservice teachers can use content from the chapter to explore how to
integrate content, language, and thinking skills in history classes.
Notes
1. We presented a paper in which we found significant growth in student
writing, particularly among bilingual learners at the Literacy Research
Association Convention in Nashville, TN on November 30, 2016.
2. Joan had viewed a videotape of Debbie teaching in a graduate class Laura

taught on how to scaffold content instruction for BLs the previous sum-
mer and requested a practicum placement with Debbie.
3. Pseudonyms.
References
Achugar, M., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Beyond connectors: The construc-
tion of cause in history textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 16, 298–318.
Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2014). Scaffolding versus routine support
for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplin-
ary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 263–299.
(Chapter 13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based peda-
gogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Bunch, G. (2006). “Academic English” in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens,
expanding access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 284–301.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream
teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in
Education, 37, 298–341.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation
into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and
institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 196–230). London:
Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, and evalua-
tion. London: Continuum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Making thinking visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the
American Federation of Teachers, 15(3), 1–18.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Introduction: Explorations of scaffolding in
complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2011a). Knowing and writing school history: The language of
students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2011b). A linguistic approach in culturally and linguistically
diverse classrooms: A focus on teacher education. Linguistics and the Human
Sciences, 4(2), 101–159.
de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). Chapter 2: Examining cause and effect in historical texts:
An integration of language and content. In L. C. De Oliveira (Ed.), The Common
Core State Standards for literacy in history/social studies, science, and technology
subjects for English language learners grades 6–12. Annapolis, MD: TESOL Press.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, NSW: Primary
English Teaching Association.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching language in context. South
Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A
language-based pedagogy (pp. 39–63). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A
framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (2012). Genre study: Teaching with fiction and non-
fiction books. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in
the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English
language leaners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. T., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integra-
tion through collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 53(4), 57–67.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Toward a language-based theory of learning.
Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and
content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 269–283.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
Lesh, B. (2011). Why won’t you just tell us the answer? In Teaching historical
thinking in grades 7–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations (pp. 99–140). London:
Equinox Publishing, Ltd.
Monte-Sano, C. (2015). Beyond reading comprehension and summary:
Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective,
and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212–249.
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adoles-
cents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299.
Nagle, J. (2014). Creating collaborative learning communities to improve English

learner instruction: College faculty, school teachers, and preservice teachers learn-
ing together in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing,
Inc.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English lan-
guage arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
ELA-Literacy/
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write: Reading to learn: genre,
knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield, UK: Equinox
Publishing Ltd.
Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring literacy in school English. Write it right: Resources for
literacy and learning. Sydney, NSW: Disadvantaged Schools Program,
Department of School Education.
Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teaching develop-
ment to support English language learners in the context of the Common
Core State Standards. Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learn-
ing in the content areas, Stanford University working papers.
Schall-Leckrone, L. (2017). Genre pedagogy: A framework to prepare history
teachers to teach language. TESOL Quarterly. 51, 2, 358–382. http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxyles.flo.org/doi/10.1002/tesq.322/full
Schall-Leckrone, L. (in press). Coursework to classroom: Learning to scaffold
instruction for emerging bilingual learners. Teacher Education Quarterly.
(Accepted for publication but not yet assigned to an issue.)
Schall-Leckrone, L., & Barron, D. (2016). Leveraging literacy for social transfor-
mation: Using genre pedagogy to equip culturally and linguistically-diverse
(CLD) adolescents to write historical explanations. Paper presented at the
Literacy Research Association conference on November 30th, Nashville, TN.
Schall-Leckrone, L., & McQuillan, P. J. (2012). Preparing History Teachers to
Work with English Learners through a Focus on the Academic Language of
Historical Analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 246–266.
Schall-Leckrone, L., & McQuillan, P. J. (2014). Collaboration within a teacher
education program: Preparing history teachers to teach English learners. In
J. Nagle (Ed.), Creating collaborative learning communities to improve English
learner instruction: College faculty, school teachers, and preservice teachers learn-
ing together in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing,
Inc.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Helping content area teachers work with academic
language: Promoting English language learners’ literacy in history, Final report:
Individual research grant award. Santa Barbara: University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & De Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and
content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
5, 254–268.
Seixas, P. (1999). Beyond ‘content’ and ‘pedagogy’: In search of a way to talk
about history education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 317–337.
Wineburg, S., & Martin, D. (2004). Reading and rewriting history. Educational
Leadership, 62, 42–45.
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2009). Inverting Bloom’s taxonomy. Education
Week, 29(6), 28–29. 31.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Laura Schall-Leckrone is an associate professor and program director for

TESOL and bilingual education at the Graduate School of Education at Lesley
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Laura worked for 17 years as a bilin-
gual educator and K-12 curriculum director in urban and suburban public
schools. Her teaching and research focus on preparing teachers to teach linguis-
tically diverse youth and pedagogy that promotes disciplinary and critical litera-
cies. She is engaged in collaborative classroom-based research with high school
history teachers aimed at teaching adolescent bilingual learners literacy skills of
civic engagement, such as telling a compelling story, explaining events, and
advancing an argument.
Debra Barron is an experienced history teacher, who teaches history in a high

school with a diverse student population outside of Boston. Debra earned her
B.A. from Emory University in Spanish and political science. She later com-
pleted a masters in secondary education from Boston College with a TELL
certificate (Teaching English Language Learners), as she was always passionate
about working with diverse students. When she began teaching, Debra realized
she needed to be more explicit in her writing instruction. Working with Laura
allows her to explore exciting ways to teach students the tools needed to develop
as writers and thinkers.
Index1
A Ambitious teaching, 41, 43, 45, 58,

Abstract 60, 61
concepts, 2, 111, 121 Apprenticeship
vocabulary, 2 cognitive, 207, 208
Academic model, 208, 212, 217–224
discourse, 97 observational, 71–73
excellence, 9, 20 Artifacts, 13, 17, 68, 69, 71, 73,
language skills, 15, 96 78–80, 135
learning, 100, 131, 133, 148, Assessment, 96, 104, 118, 122, 145,
150, 152 146, 185, 215
literacy, 99, 148, 149, 151, 153, ongoing, 14
155 Authentic
success, 9, 70, 97, 98, 118 activities, 133
training, 189 document, 16
Advancement via Individual
Determination (AVID),
111 B
Agency, 4, 173 Barton, K. C., 2, 8, 9, 11, 30, 32,
Amanti, C., 69 41, 42, 58, 59, 161, 206
Note: Page number followed by ‘n’ refers to notes.

1

English Language Learners, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63736-5
234 Index
Bilingual Collaboration, 41, 55, 95, 122,

classrooms, 9, 10 130–134, 136, 139–141, 144,
emergent, 72, 96, 97, 180, 205, 146, 149, 151, 154, 208, 211,
225, 226 212, 219, 221, 225, 226
practices, 9, 10 College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
transitional, 20 Framework for Social Studies
youth, 5, 206 State Standards, 2
Bilingual learners (BLs), 205–208, Common Core State Standards
211, 212, 220, 224–226, (CCSS), 58, 94, 98, 99, 118,
227n1, 228n2 119, 205
Bruner, J. S., 72, 167, 207 Conceptual understanding (CU), 4,
Bunch, G. C., 7, 206, 223 129–135, 138, 141, 142, 144,
145, 147, 150
Consciousness
C critical, 9
Case study, 3–5, 8, 13–34, 40, 43, cultural, 9, 10
60, 61, 128, 134–145, 149, linguistic, 10
206, 207, 211 social, 10
Cho, S., 7, 40, 97 Construction
Choi, Y., 42, 59, 105, 162 co, 154, 208, 213, 227
Classroom joint, 208
based coaching, 211, 217 Constructivism, 94, 183
based research, 32, 211, 220, 221, Content
224 academic, 50, 132
culture, 102, 140 based curricula, 4
discourse, 9 core, 4, 127, 128, 134
expectations, 102 meaningful, 73, 82
interactions, 131, 133, 134, objectives, 45
138–141, 144, 149, 151, 155, planning, 45
216 specific vocabulary, 97, 227
mainstream, 134, 197 Contextualization, 11, 12, 24
mentor, 212 Cooperative learning, 14
tasks, 187 Corroboration, 11, 12, 24
Coaching, 168, 207, 208, 211, 216, Cruz, B., 7, 10, 20, 60, 93, 97, 111,
217, 219 112, 160, 179, 180
Code-breaking, 131–134, 138, Culturally
141, 143, 144, 148, 150, contextualized, 2
151, 153 diverse, 2, 97, 99
Index
235
dominant positionalities, 162 E

embedded, 2, 97, 160, 162, 165, Echevarría, J., 10, 60, 182, 186, 190,
173 192, 194, 197
relevant historical thinking, 3, edTPA, 120, 122
7–35 portfolios, 4, 94–96, 117, 118
responsive instruction, 42, 93, 128 Efficacy, 49, 186
responsive pedagogy, 7, 72, 94, self-, 181
101, 105, 118–120 Enactivism, 185, 186
Culturally and linguistically diverse English as a New Language (ENL),
(CLD), 10, 40, 59, 86, 160, 135, 141
167–172, 174 English as a second language (ESL),
Culturally and linguistically relevant 43, 57, 84, 127, 173, 175
historical thinking (CLRHT), English for Speakers of Other
3, 7–35 Languages (ESOL), 4, 94–96,
Culturally and linguistically relevant 118, 119, 127–155
teaching (CLRT), 8–12, 32 English Language Arts (ELA), 98, 135
Culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), English language learners (ELLs), 1,
9, 10 2, 4, 5, 39–61, 67–88,
93–122, 127–155, 159–175,
179–182, 184–190, 192–199
D newcomer, 3, 7–35
de Jong, E. J., 188 English learners (ELs), 102, 105,
De La Paz, S., 81, 209, 211 121, 122, 127, 139, 150, 152,
de Oliveira, L.C., 1–5, 94, 128, 129, 154, 170
131, 132, 134–136, 206–208, Evidence-based
210, 211, 216, 226 examples, 4
Deconstruction, 15, 213, 214 strategies, 4
Differentiation, 53, 55, 56, 60, 145,
197
Discipline-specific terms, 2 F
Discussion, 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, Fading, 207
28, 33, 34, 45, 51, 53–55, 58, Franquiz, M. E., 3, 7, 162, 165
60, 68, 100, 101, 112, 118, Freire, P., 75, 80
139, 144, 152, 155, 159–175,
184, 185, 189, 197, 207, 214
Diversity G
cultural, 10, 70, 119 García, O., 10, 32
linguistic, 9, 10, 100 Gay, G., 42, 105
236 Index
Genre pedagogy, 5, 205–228 practices, 10

Gonzalez, N., 69 Initiation, response, feedback (IRF),
Grant, S. G., 39, 41–43, 45, 58–61 149, 151, 155
Graphic organizers, 19, 22, 23, 27, Inquiry
31, 60, 100, 101, 106, critical, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 80,
111–113, 117, 118, 120, 121, 82
143, 169, 192, 198, 206, 211, guided, 83–86
213, 214, 222, 223 historical, 4, 11, 12, 18, 30, 98,
Grouping, 45, 55, 59, 61, 106, 154 159–175
methods, 4
Interactive student notebooks
H (ISNs), 111
Halliday, M. A. K., 210 Intertectonality, 84, 85
Hernandez, N.J., 40, 93
Hinde, E., 40, 93
Historical J
content, 7, 11, 13, 15, 24, 31–33, Jigsaw, 15, 34, 120, 139
68, 205–228 Jimenez-Silva, M., 40, 93, 100, 101
documents, 18, 23, 24, 209
events, 11, 105, 213
evidence, 42, 75, 83, 162 K
inquiry, 4, 11, 12, 18, 30, 98, Kibler, A., 7, 40, 128, 179
159–175 Knowledge
investigators, 10 background, 80, 109, 152, 160,
perspectives, 42, 57, 59, 171 188, 189, 214
thinking, 3, 8–12, 14, 18, 19, 24, bicultural, 3
32, 67–88, 165, 172, 173, civic, 3, 8, 149
206, 209, 210, 214, 216 co-construct, 16, 145, 149, 151,
vocabulary, 25, 31 154
History content, 10, 31, 42, 58, 60, 61,
disciplinary practice, 3, 42 68, 94, 118, 121, 133, 136,
instruction, 28, 40, 42, 58, 59, 160, 167, 174, 188, 191, 196,
128, 209, 218 206, 210, 211, 213, 225
cultural, 2, 9, 10, 131, 145
essential, 39, 46, 56
I funds of, 69, 72, 75, 131, 140,
Image analysis, 15 145, 148, 150, 152
Inclusive, 102, 105, 140 historical, 3, 8, 28, 73
Index
237
linguistic, 96, 97, 99–101, 144, M

146 Martin, D., 8, 9, 11, 32, 209, 211
prior, 10, 16, 18, 32, 51, 52, 61, Martin, J. R., 35n1, 206, 207,
69, 70, 78, 99, 100, 121, 130, 210
142, 198 Mentoring, 5, 207, 212, 216, 217,
source of, 172 219, 220, 224, 226
subject, 41, 42, 45–58 Modeling, 72, 113, 121, 169, 172,
transmitters, 102 182–188, 193, 195, 197,
transnational, 73, 76, 85, 87 207–209, 213, 215
Krashen, S., 167, 199n1 Moll, L. C., 69
Monte-Sano, C., 8, 70, 209, 211
Morris, R. V., 113, 128, 134, 136
L Multilingual learners (MLLs),
Language 135
backgrounds, 9, 142
demands, 9, 10, 96–98, 206, 226
experiences, 9, 68, 82, 84, 100, N
138, 179–199, 219 National Center for Education
proficiencies, 27, 42, 51, 127, Statistics (NCES), 1
142, 169 National Council for the Social
Language-Based Approaches to Studies (NCSS), 4, 30, 42, 58,
Content Instruction (LACI), 4, 99, 128, 129, 131, 162, 163,
128–136, 139, 141, 142, 144, 179
145, 147–155 National Curriculum Standards for
Lee, O., 96, 102, 128 Social Studies, 2
Levstik, L. S., 2, 8, 9, 11, 30, 32, 41, National Education Association
42, 59, 161, 206 (NEA), 1
Linguistically Native
diverse students, 9, 59, 79 born speaker, 2
heterogeneous groups, 20 English speaker, 2, 51
relevant historical thinking, 3, Needs
7–35 academic, 1, 93, 127
responsive practice, 94, 95 content, 26, 94
Linguistically responsive teaching critical, 147
(LRT), 9, 10 cultural, 3
Lortie, D., 71, 183 linguistic, 3, 18, 25, 52, 127,
Lucas, T., 8, 9, 32, 42, 93, 133
100–102 sociocultural, 127
238 Index
O R
Obenchain, K., 1–5, 113, 128, 134, Reader’s theater, 53, 57
136 Reading comprehension, 49, 80,
Origination, 84–86 101, 109, 110, 119–121, 158
Reasoning, 98, 113, 130, 133, 148,
151, 154, 165, 173, 210
P Reflection, 34, 35, 60, 61, 76–78,
Pacing, 45, 53, 55, 59, 139, 143, 85–87, 95, 121, 135, 136,
184 139, 140, 145–149, 161, 193,
Paraphrasing, 13, 15, 17, 18, 143, 195, 212, 221
222 Reich, G. A., 7, 40, 97
Parker, W. C., 136, 150, 174 Rose, D., 206, 207, 210
Pedagogical Ross, G., 167, 207
strategies, 14, 15, 19, 31, 71,
160
themes, 8, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 30, S
31, 34 Salinas, C. S., 3, 7, 39, 41, 162, 165
Perspectives, 8, 11, 42, 49, 57, Scaffolding
59–61, 78, 99, 105, 110, 120, instruction, 9
135, 140, 159, 161–165, 171, linguistic, 160
180–182, 195, 196, 209 Schema, 18, 97
multiple, 13, 68, 80 Schleppegrell, M. J., 40, 135, 180,
Phelps, G., 96, 128 206, 209–211
Positionality School
American, 162 mainstream, 128
historical, 42, 161, 162 mission statements, 13
individual, 163, 165 visions, 13
Practices Second language
assessment, 145 acquisition, 101, 167, 173
cultural, 4, 87 learning, 9, 101
evaluative, 130 Seixas, P., 161, 209, 211
linguistic, 4 Semiotic resources, 68, 71, 81
literacy, 4, 18, 131 Sheltered Instruction Observation
Primary sources, 2, 17, 98, 105, 121, Protocol (SIOP), 10, 186, 190,
165 197, 199n1
Process Simulations, 4, 5, 117, 122, 180,
decision-making, 43 181, 184–188, 190, 193,
meaning-making, 3, 40 195–199
Index
239
Skills Stanford Center for Assessment,

academic, 40, 101 Learning and Equity (SCALE),
analytical, 70, 207, 208 96, 98
based goals, 14 Stratification, 83, 84
based instruction, 27 Supposition, 82, 85, 181
building analysis, 67–88 Systemic functional linguistics (SFL),
civic, 3, 8, 205 210, 211, 215, 217
cognitive, 14
complex, 80
content, 12, 24, 119 T
cultural, 14 Teacher
essential, 46, 56, 58, 106 in-service, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 32–35,
higher-order thinking, 100, 145, 57, 59–61, 88, 128, 135,
146 147–149, 181, 186, 187, 219
historical thinking, 3, 7–35, journals, 212, 215, 216
67–88 pre-service, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 59,
linguistic, 131 70–72, 75–83, 85–88, 93–96,
literacy, 5, 14, 18, 71, 80, 97, 99–102, 105, 106, 109, 111,
118, 119, 127, 128, 131, 112, 117–122
134, 206–208, 210, 221, student, 5, 182, 206, 211, 212,
224–226 216, 217, 220, 221, 224–226
oral, 98 Teacher educators (TEs), 3–5, 7, 9,
pedagogical, 135, 182 11, 13, 32–35, 39–61, 94–96,
problem-solving, 133 118–122, 147, 160, 173–175,
productive, 97, 134 180, 182–185, 194–197,
Social, 2, 7, 40, 67, 93–122, 205–207, 211, 212, 216, 219,
127–155, 159, 179–199, 208 221, 224–226
inequities, 12 Teaching English to Speakers of
Sociolinguistic consciousness, 9 Other Languages (TESOL), 3,
Socratic 31, 32, 169, 174, 175
circles, 4, 159–175 Teaching Learning Cycle (TLC),
dialog, 162, 163 208, 211, 213, 215–217, 219,
seminars, 168, 169, 172 221, 224, 225, 227
Sourcing, 11, 24 Test
Standards high-stakes, 39, 41, 43, 45
academic, 139, 148, 151, 154 standardized, 14, 45
Standards of Learning (SOLs), 43, Thornton, S., 7, 10, 20, 43, 59, 60,
45–50, 52, 56, 58, 59 93, 97, 111, 112, 160, 180
240 Index
Translanguaging instruction, 24, 28, 32, 101, 106,

pedagogies, 10 120, 169, 206
Turkan, S., 96, 97, 100, 128 key, 106, 144
target, 55, 107, 112
two-tier, 13, 29–31
V
van Hover, S., 3, 7, 39–61, 128,
179 W
Vansledright, B. A., 42, 59, 70, 162 Wineburg, S., 8, 9, 11, 32, 69, 70,
Villegas, A. M., 8, 9, 32, 42, 93, 209, 211
100 Wood, D., 167, 207
Visual, 27, 31, 71, 73, 80, 81, 111,
112, 153, 185, 187, 191
Vocabulary Y
development, 101, 106–108, 119, Yeager, E. A., 7–9, 11, 32, 39, 41
120 Yoder, P., 3, 7, 39–61, 128, 179, 180

Luciana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luciana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching History and Social Studies

to English Language Learners

Edited by Luciana C. de Oliveira

Teaching History and

ISBN 978-3-319-63735-8 ISBN 978-3-319-63736-5 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959572

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover image © Georgy Dorofeev / EyeEm / Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

2 Developing Culturally and Linguistically Relevant

3 Teaching History to ELLs in Standards-­Based Settings:

4 Using Historical Building Analysis to Support English

5 Preparing Secondary Social Studies Teachers to Help

6 Preparing Social Studies and ESOL Teachers for

7 Using Socratic Circles to Engage English Language

8 Bitter Challenge; Swede Success: Simulating Language

9 Apprenticing Students and Teachers into Historical

Fig. 3.1 Grant’s (2003) framework for ambitious teaching and

Table 3.1 Data collection plan 44

The English language learner (ELL) enrollment in public schools continues

L.C. de Oliveira (*)

© The Author(s) 2018 1

In particular, history and social studies occupy an important academic

This chapter presents a framework for engaging in historical building

Luciana C. de Oliveira, Ph.D., is a professor and department chair in the

Kathryn M. Obenchain, Ph.D., is an associate professor of social studies edu-

Teaching historical content that is relevant, engaging, and accessible for

A.T. Jaffee (*)

© The Author(s) 2018 7

The goal of this chapter is to provide three examples of high school

 heoretical Framework: Culturally

Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Teaching

Culturally and linguistically relevant teaching draws from culturally rel-

classrooms as well as English-only classroom settings (Cummins, 2000).

Thinking historically is the process whereby teachers and students become

to use their knowledge and skills of history to evaluate historical content,

think about a document’s author and its creation. Questions students

 ulturally and Linguistically Relevant Historical

Culturally and linguistically relevant historical thinking (CLRHT) blends

delivery of historical content in their social studies classrooms.

 ase Studies: Three U.S. History Teachers

Ms. Lisa Scott

Ms. Scott, a white woman in her mid-30s from Massachusetts, gradu-

Eastern International High School

EIHS is located in New York and sought to provide quality education for

U.S. History class represented the demographic and linguistic makeup of

U.S. History Curriculum Goals

Ms. Scott’s course was centered on three themes/essential questions: (a)

Lesson Vignette: The Declaration of Independence

what teachers might consider doing in their classrooms to support his-

Mr. Cooper Green

Northeast International High School

demic program geared to achieve excellence by responding to their unique

U.S. History Curriculum Goals

Mr. Green’s U.S. History course focused on developing an understanding

it would be a disservice for me, it will be selfish of me to say, ‘I’m going to

Mr. Green struggled with depth versus breadth of U.S. History content

Lesson Vignette: Introducing the U.S. Constitution

At the beginning of the lesson, Mr. Green prompted students to write

the organization of the U.S. Constitution prove to us the intentions of

wall was a large “authentic” Constitution. He took it down and walked

Ms. Jennifer Edwards

Hilton High School

2 Developing Culturally and Linguistically Relevant

3 Teaching History to ELLs in Standards-Based Settings:

4 Using Historical Building Analysis to Support English

5 Preparing Secondary Social Studies Teachers to Help

6 Preparing Social Studies and ESOL Teachers for

7 Using Socratic Circles to Engage English Language

8 Bitter Challenge; Swede Success: Simulating Language

9 Apprenticing Students and Teachers into Historical

Table 3.1 Data collection plan 44

heoretical Framework: Culturally

Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Teaching

ulturally and Linguistically Relevant Historical

ase Studies: Three U.S. History Teachers

Ms. Lisa Scott

Eastern International High School

U.S. History Curriculum Goals

Lesson Vignette: The Declaration of Independence

Mr. Cooper Green

Northeast International High School

U.S. History Curriculum Goals

Lesson Vignette: Introducing the U.S. Constitution

Ms. Jennifer Edwards

Hilton High School

U.S. History Curriculum Goals

L esson Vignette: Popular Culture in the 1920s

Implications for Teacher Education

Applications in Teacher Education

Creang Space for Understanding

ubject Knowledge: The “Fragmented” Standards

nderstanding Students: ELLs Bring Unique Academic

reating Space for Learning: Differentiating

Implications for Teacher Education

Applications in Teacher Education

What Counts as Historical Text?

oving Beyond the Observational

use historical building analysis in their classrooms, they need to experience

onnecting to Community Histories: New York

How to Conduct Historical Building Analysis

Reflection Prior to Conducting Analysis