Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol.

3 (3)

Aligning Literacy Practices

2 in Secondary History
Classes with Research on
Learning

Jeffery D. Nokes
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

ABSTRACT

Literacy is a basic element of the discipline of history and of

traditional secondary history instruction. However neither the growing
body of research on learning with texts nor modern learning theories
support the traditional literacy practices that are taking place in many
secondary history classrooms. Nor are classroom literacy practices a
reflection of the type of reading in which historians engage. History
teachers should align the literacy practices in their classrooms with
literacy research and modern learning theories, particularly as they
apply to reading expository texts, documents, historical fiction, and
multiple texts. Students should be encouraged to think critically about
the variety of print and electronic expository texts that they encounter.
The inclusion of historical documents in history classes, coupled with
explicit instruction on historian’s heuristics of sourcing, corroboration,
and contextualization, helps students increase their content knowledge
and critical thinking skills. Historical fiction provides an additional
type of resource that may help students develop historical empathy, the
ability to engage in contextualization, and critical thinking skills.
Teachers are encouraged to provide opportunities for students to
synthesize information from, and think critically about, multiple types
of resources. Aligning literacy practices with research will result in
increased learning of historical content and improved literacy skills.
Suggestions for future research as well as implications for teacher
development are considered.

29
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

INTRODUCTION

Literacy, the ability to read and write, is essential in the study of

history. The work of historians primarily involves analyzing written
texts. Historians are unusually skillful readers (Wineburg, 1991).
Because of the connection between history and literacy, a key to
improving secondary students’ ability to engage in historical inquiry
and to learn history is to improve their literacy skills (Hynd, Holschuh,
& Hubbard, 2004). Thus, current theories of learning, particularly those
related to literacy, should be of interest to history teachers. Most
learning theories do not support the literacy practices that are currently
taking place in many history classrooms. This paper will use current
theories of learning with texts to evaluate literacy practices in
secondary history classrooms. It will suggest that aligning literacy
practices with theories and research on learning would increase both
historical content learning and the development of essential literacy
skills.
Currently, reading and writing in history classes are guided more
by tradition than by current research and modern theories of learning
(Borries, 2000; Weintraub, 2000). In keeping with tradition, many
history teachers rely heavily on textbooks to the exclusion of the types
of resources that would be used by historians to study the past (Nokes,
Dole, & Hacker, 2007; Stahl & Shanahan, 2004). History teachers are
resistant to changes in the types of texts used in their classes
(Weintraub, 2000). Traditional history instruction, which does not
reflect the growing body of research on learning with texts, does little
to address students’ literacy development (Nokes & Hansen, 2007a;
Snow, 2002) and there is some evidence that students’ do not
spontaneously develop literacy skills with traditional, textbook-focused
history instruction (Nokes, et al., 2007). At a time when literacy
advocates urge content area teachers, including history teachers, to
increase the variety and type of written materials that they use in the
classroom, increase the amount of reading they expect, and regularly
include reading strategy instruction (Allen, 2007; Snow, 2002; Vacca,
2002), history teachers should work to align literacy practices with
current literacy research and modern theories of learning.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

For almost 50 years, since the “cognitive revolution”,

psychologists and researchers have worked to identify the key
components of learning with texts (Anderson & Pearson, 1984;
Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977, Mandler & Johnson,
1977). Through these years the understanding of the reading process
has evolved. For example, researchers now acknowledge the influence
of background knowledge (Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Pearson,

30
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Hansen, & Gordon, 1979), motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Von

Secker, 2000), purpose (Anderson & Pichert, 1978), interest (Wade,
Schraw, Buxton, & Hayes, 1993), and social context (Bryant, 1984;
Dias, 1979; John-Steiner & Mann, 1996) on young people’s learning
with texts.
Modern theories of learning suggest that the mind takes a very
active role in learning. Rather than just absorbing information, the mind
frames experience, interacts with incoming information, and constructs
meaning (Spivey, 1997). With the development of schema theory,
researchers began to explain why different individuals comprehend the
same text in different ways (Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Pearson,
Hansen & Gordon, 1979). In addition, connecting the content of a text
with background knowledge has been found to be a key to
comprehending and remembering information (Anderson & Pearson,
1984; Piaget, 1985). The idea of making connections becomes
especially important in historical inquiry because the analysis of an
event often requires a historian to make numerous connections between
a variety of texts (Hartman, 1995; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995;
Wineberg, 1991).
Another relevant learning theory is constructivism, the idea that an
individual constructs meaning from stimuli, including texts, that are
encountered (Spivey, 1997). Today, literacy researchers view reading
as an active process, with meaning being built in the mind of the reader
as he or she interacts with the text, rather than residing on the printed
page. Literacy researchers discount old notions of reading as a matter
of transmitting information unchanged from the page to the reader, as
often appears to be the intent of history teachers who assign students to
read textbook passages. Moreover, research on learning suggests that
“hands-on” activities promote an active interaction with concepts,
which facilitates the construction of understandings (Bransford, Brown,
and Cocking, 2000).
Similarly, old notions of reading as an individual activity have
been replaced with the view that reading is a social process. Reading
involves the interaction between a reader and an author. Moreover, the
development of literacy skills is set in motion through social
interaction. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that learning any new task is
facilitated when a more skilled individual provides support or
scaffolding for a new learner. The scaffolding can be removed
gradually as the learner begins to develop the skill. Eventually the
scaffolding is removed completely when the learner can work
independently. Modern research on the teaching of reading strategies
rests on Vygotsky’s conception of learning through social interaction
(Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). In addition, researchers have
discovered the motivational effects of social interaction in relation to
reading. Students are more eager to read when they have the
opportunity to share their ideas relating to a text with their peers

31
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

(Oldfather & Wigfield, 1996). Meaningful reading is a social process

involving the reader, author, teacher, and peers. In sum, these theories,
schema theory, constructivism, and the social nature of reading provide
the lens through which literacy in history classes will be viewed.

THE MULTIPLE TEXTS OF HISTORY INSTRUCTION

For purposes of this paper “literacy” will be narrowly defined as

the ability to read and write traditional print texts that are made up of
words, sentences and paragraphs. This is not meant to discount the
value of artifacts and non-traditional resources in the work of historians
or history teachers, but to allow an in depth analysis of those print texts
that research suggests should be used. The terms literacy and reading
will be used interchangeably.
Traditionally, reading has been an important element of history
classes. History teachers have used, and continue to use, textbook
reading as a common component of instruction (American Textbook
Council, 1994-95; Nokes & Hansen, 2007a). But, in addition to the
textbook, the Internet has made available resources that would have
been extremely difficult to find just a few years ago. Like never before,
history teachers have access to government documents, historical
newspaper accounts, and other primary source and secondary source
materials. In addition, historical novels, children’s books, and even
picture books that are set in the past have been touted for their value in
teaching history (VanSledright, & Franks, 1998). A synthesis of
research from the fields of content area literacy, historiography,
children’s literature, and social studies methods suggests that history
teachers should use three categories of print materials in their
classroom: expository text, including the textbook; documents; and
historical fiction and literature. Each of these three types of text will be
considered individually followed by a discussion of the simultaneous
use of multiple types of texts.

Expository Texts

Expository text is informational text. It comes in the form of

textbooks, scholarly essays, journal articles, encyclopedias, Internet
sites, and in numerous other forms. In today’s Information Age there is
a need for young people to be able to learn with the many forms of
informational text. Part of learning with informational text is realizing
that not everything that is printed is accurate or relevant. The Internet
has made it relatively simple to publish propaganda or outright
falsehoods in deceptively persuasive formats. With the increasing
availability of misinformation, there is a need for young people to be
able to think critically about the information that they are exposed to in
informational text. Because the work of historians is to critically

32
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

analyze evidence to construct meaning about events, it seems

appropriate for history teachers to teach students how to be critical
consumers of informational text. In this section we will consider a)
challenges of learning with expository texts, b) opportunities for
teaching critical thinking skills with expository texts, c) reasons for
reconsidering methods of teaching with expository texts, and d)
opportunities for research on teaching history with expository texts.

Challenges of Learning with Expository Texts

In history classes the most common form of expository text is the

history textbook (American Textbook Council, 1994-95; Nokes &
Hansen, 2007a; Paxton, 2002). Through the 1970s and 1980s there
were numerous studies on textbooks across content areas. Researchers
found that textbooks had become more sensitive to racial, religious, and
gender issues than textbooks of the 1950s and 1960s had been
(American Textbook Council, 1994-95). However, the style of
textbooks continued to be inconsiderate of students’ background
knowledge (Armbruster, 1984), incoherent to many students (Beck &
McKeown, 1989), intimidating (Luke, de Castell, & Luke, 1989),
voiceless (Paxton, 1997), uninspiring (Sewall, 1987), superficial
(American Textbook Council, 1994-95), and boring (Siler, 1989-1990).
In addition, textbooks were primarily being viewed as “catalogues of
factual material about the past” (American Textbook Council, 1994-95,
p. 12) and as such were being used to transmit information rather than
as a resource for students to use to construct an understanding of the
past. Students’ passive reading of textbook passages is not supported
by current theories of learning with text.
Based on literacy research of the 1970s and 1980s, suggestions
were made for improvement and in some cases researchers
demonstrated improved student learning with revised texts (Beck,
McKeown, Sinatra, & Loxterman, 1992; Britton, Van Dusen, Gulgoz,
& Glynn, 1989; Paxton, 2002). Today, publishing companies contend
that they have addressed researchers’ concerns in newer editions of
textbooks (for example, see Ogle & McBride, 2007). However, few
independent studies have been published to confirm or deny these
claims, and there is evidence that students continue to have trouble
learning with expository text (Gregg & Sekeres, 2006).
Explicit and implicit strategy instruction, based on Vygotsky’s
notions of social learning (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991), has been
shown to improve students’ comprehension of expository texts
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Gregg & Sekeres, 2006), and textbooks
have been restructured to facilitate reading strategy instruction (Ogle &
McBride, 2007). Research indicates that many students are not familiar
with strategies for learning with expository text and that they benefit
from strategy instruction even when working with revised texts (Gregg

33
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

& Sekeres, 2006). Moreover, research has shown that taking time from
history content instruction to teach students literacy strategies does not
reduce students’ learning of the history content, in fact it may facilitate
it (Nokes, et al., 2007). If textbooks continue to be the dominant text in
history classes, teachers must do more to ensure that students can learn
with textbooks. Providing reading strategy instruction is one way that
they can do so.
Other types of informational texts, such as newspaper or journal
articles, are seldom used in history classrooms (Nokes & Hansen,
2007a). Reading activities that make direct connections between
history, current events, and students’ lives can be built around
newspaper and journal articles (Mosborg, 2002). For example, a recent
newspaper article described a high school in Georgia that held its first
racially integrated senior prom dance in April, 2007 (Bluestein, 2007).
Reading this newspaper article could prepare students to participate in a
discussion, to write an entry in a reflective journal, or to read a primary
source document on the Civil Rights Movement. Research shows that
the direct connections between historical events and current events
made in newspapers make history meaningful and relevant and give
students an opportunity to apply their knowledge of history (Mosborg,
2002). Schema theory suggests that these types of connections are
essential in learning.

Opportunities for Teaching Critical Thinking Skills with Expository

Texts

In spite of some of the structural changes that have been made to

newer editions, history textbooks continue to present information in
third person voice with a tone that intimidates most young readers
(Paxton, 1999, 2002). Students often believe that textbooks do not
present interpretations of historical events, but just “the facts”. In the
minds of young readers, textbooks are above criticism (Luke, de
Castell, & Luke, 1989, Paxton, 2002) and the most reliable source of
historical information (Wineburg, 1991).
This tendency is best illustrated in a study conducted by Wineburg
(1991). He asked gifted high school students and historians to think
aloud as they analyzed multiple texts having to do with the battle of
Lexington. These texts included journal entries by participants, a
newspaper account, a historical novel, journal entries by non-
participants, and a textbook account of the battle. Several of the
historians in the study mocked the tone and content of the textbook
when comparing it to the other sources. Each of the historians
expressed a distrust of the textbook, some rating it even lower in
trustworthiness than the novel. However, the high school students rated
the textbook as one of the most trustworthy of documents, expressing
the sentiment that “it just contained the facts” unlike the other

34
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

documents that expressed an individual’s point of view. Even those

students who used reading strategies to comprehend the textbook and
who had a significant level of background knowledge failed to think
critically about the textbook’s content. Students’ naive confidence in
textbooks shows that history teachers must do more than simply teach
students how to comprehend their textbook. They must help students
learn to think critically about its contents.
McKeown, Beck and Worthy (1993) developed an instructional
method that helped students think critically about the textbook and
realize its fallibility. They reported that when students had a difficult
time comprehending, they often blamed themselves rather than
inadequacies in the textbook. The researchers taught students to
develop a “reviser’s eye” by imagining that the author was present and
could be questioned about the content of the text. Students were
encouraged to think about what the author was trying to get across and
decide if the author had been successful in making the ideas clear.
Thus, part of the burden of making the text comprehensible was shifted
from the students to the author. Students were invited to criticize the
author when the text was confusing. As students reached for the
author’s ideas, they began to better understand those ideas. As modern
learning theories and literacy research suggest, as students became
more active in the reading process they were better able to comprehend
the text and the text had lost some of its infallibility in their eyes
(McKeown, Beck, & Worthy, 1993).
Typical middle school students, and even older students, not only
fail to think critically about textbook content, but they often place too
much confidence in the informational texts that they find on the
Internet. In a recent well-publicized incident a history instructor at
Vermont’s Middlebury College noticed a pattern of incorrect responses
on an exam. Upon investigation he discovered that the source of the
error was Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written and edited by
volunteers. Students were using an inaccurate entry on the site to cram
for their history test. Middlebury College’s history department
informed students that they could no longer cite Wikipedia in their
papers, nor could they “point to Wikipedia or any similar source … to
escape the consequences of errors.” (Cohen, 2007). History teachers
have a responsibility to help their students question the authority of
texts, whatever the source, so that they will be better prepared to be
critical consumers of informational text. This type of reading tends to
be active reading and as such is supported by constructivist theories of
learning.
As with other informational texts, students can be taught to think
critically about the information presented in newspapers and journals.
Students can be shown that these sources often present information
with a certain political slant or use language that sensationalizes or
exaggerates events (Pescatore, 2008). By carefully analyzing the

35
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

authors’ choice of words, students can begin to recognize the bias in

reports that initially seemed to include “just the facts”. Students begin
to read more like a historian when they carefully consider the source of
written material and ponder the context of its publication (Wineburg,
1991). The use of newspaper and journal articles presents an
opportunity for history teachers to teach students to be critical
consumers of informational texts while helping them make connections
between history, their lives, and the world. Literacy researchers have
found that these types of connections are essential for learning with text
(Harvey & Goudvis, 2000).

Reasons for Reconsidering Methods of Teaching with Expository Texts

Traditionally, reading in history classes involves students silently

reading from their textbook in class or at home and answering
questions at the end of the passage or on a worksheet the teacher or
textbook publisher has designed (Nokes & Hansen, 2007a).
Information is supposedly transmitted from the page to the reader. The
reader demonstrates that this transmission has occurred by regurgitating
the information onto the worksheet and onto subsequent quizzes and
exams.
Many teachers are aware that most students don’t gain an
understanding of the past from this type of reading. Some teachers
compensate by using a teaching approach that has been labeled “assign
and tell” (Vacca & Vacca, 2005). According to this model of
instruction, the teacher assigns students to read a textbook passage and
subsequently tells them the same content as the textbook passage
during a lecture. The students quickly learn that there is no need to do
the reading, because the teacher will provide them with the information
that they need in class (Wade & Moje, 2000). Vacca and Vacca
contend that, “assign-and-tell, more often than not, dampens active
involvement in learning and denies students ownership of and
responsibility for the acquisition of content” (2005, p. 5).
Traditional textbook assignments are problematic for several
reasons. First, they are based on outdated theories of learning that
ignore the need for a reader to actively construct an understanding of an
event rather than passively be exposed to information (Spivey, 1997;
Vacca & Vacca, 2005). Second, they assume that all students possess
the background knowledge necessary to comprehend the textbook,
which is often not the case (Armbruster, 1984). Third, they assume that
students will apply strategies that are needed to comprehend and learn
from a text when, in fact, many students are not aware of the strategies
that good readers use (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Fourth, they
reinforce students’ overconfidence in the textbook and typically do not
give them a chance to critically evaluate the text (Paxton, 1999, 2002;
Wineburg, 1991). Fifth, they leave out numerous other types of texts,

36
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

including other types of expository texts, that can help students build
memorable personal connections with the things about which they are
reading (Nokes & Hansen, 2007a). Sixth, they ignore the powerful
motivational effects of social interaction in connection with reading
(Oldfather & Wigfield, 1996). In short, they are not supported by
literacy research or modern theories of learning.
Instead, research suggests that history teachers should do several
things when using expository texts in their classrooms. First, they
should provide reading strategy instruction and expect students to use
strategies to comprehend the things they read. Strategic reading is hard
work and slows the reading process but it is motivational because it
increases students’ ability to comprehend what they read (Guthrie,
Wigfield, & Von Secker, 2000; Swan, 2003). With this in mind,
teachers should give shorter reading assignments that require students
to use strategies, read actively, make connections, make judgments, and
think deeply about the content. These types of assignments and
activities are supported by the research of Newmann (1991) who
reported that one of the main characteristics of thoughtful social studies
classrooms was a sustained focus on fewer topics. The “admit slip” is
an example of such an activity. Admit slips are writing assignments
often related to a short passage from the textbook or another source that
build background knowledge and increase interest before a class
discussion, simulation, or other instructional activity (Allen, 2004).
Second, teachers should tap into the motivational effects of social
interaction by structuring activities that allow students to interact with
their peers as they study expository texts. For example, some teachers
have developed ways for textbooks to be incorporated into cooperative
learning activities (Allen, 2007). Third, teachers can help students
understand how to use their textbook as a reference book for answering
questions as they arise spontaneously in classroom interaction. In
addition, textbooks are a particularly appropriate place to start when
researching a historical topic during an inquiry project (Bain, 2005). It
is as unreasonable to have middle school students read the textbook
from cover to cover as it would be to have them read an encyclopedia
set from A to Z. Instead, assigning the purposeful reading of carefully
selected passages that correlate with classroom activities makes more
sense, especially when combined with explicit reading strategy
instruction and opportunities for social interaction and critical analysis.
In this way textbook passages are transformed “from mere accounts of
events into supports that help students grapple with historical problems
as they learn historical content and construct historical meaning” (Bain,
2005, p. 181).

37
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Opportunities for Research on Teaching History with Expository Texts

There is a need for studies on the effects of using different types of

expository text in secondary history classrooms. Little has been done to
investigate whether changes in the structure of textbooks has led to
improved comprehension and learning, as studies suggested would be
the case (Beck, et al., 1992; Paxton, 2002). There have been studies
showing that strategy instruction helps students learn from expository
social studies texts in a language arts class (see Palincsar & Brown,
1984 for example), but there have not been studies published on the
effects of explicit strategy instruction on students’ learning from
textbooks within the context of history classes. There is little published
research on students’ learning from the Internet within the setting of
history classes, and very few studies on the use of newspaper and
journal articles to help students learn history. Needless to say, there is
the potential for numerous instructional studies on the use of various
kinds of informational texts in secondary history classrooms.

Documents

Historians’ work consists of constructing representations of past

events from evidence found in multiple, fragmentary, conflicting, and
agreeing written documents and artifacts. They use primary sources,
which are first hand accounts of events. Primary sources include diary
entries, letters, speeches, and numerous other types of written materials.
Historians also use other evidence in an effort to reconstruct the events,
values, and attitudes of the past. For example, the music, song lyrics,
novels, art work, poetry, architecture, political cartoons, speeches, radio
programs, movies, advertisements and other artifacts provide clues
about the past. Historians also use secondary sources, which are second
hand accounts of events. Secondary sources include historic newspaper
articles, the writing of historians, some diary entries, and many other
types of written materials. Thus, the work of historians involves
reading from multiple sources of information of various types
(Wineburg, 1991). In this section we will consider a) differences
between the way historians and students read historical documents, b)
research-supported methods of teaching students to read documents, c)
reasons for including documents in history classes, and d) opportunities
for research on the use of documents in history classes.

Differences between the Way Historians & Students Read Historical

Documents

Numerous studies have found that historians are unusually gifted

readers (Leinhardt & Young, 1996; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999;
Wineburg 1991; Wineburg, 1998). Research suggests that three

38
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

heuristics distinguish historians’ reading. First, through sourcing they

consider the source of a document as they read. They use source
information to comprehend and interpret its contents. Second, through
corroboration they compare and contrast information contained in
multiple documents, noting similarities and differences. Third, through
contextualization they attempt to place themselves in the physical and
social setting of an event, interpreting documents with this context in
mind (Winburg, 1991). In addition to these three heuristics, historians
maintain an open mind, recognizing that understandings are fluid and
likely to evolve as new evidence is encountered (Rouet, Favart, Britt, &
Perfetti, 1997). Moreover, historians view documents as evidence
rather than repositories of facts (Rouet et al., 1997). They recognize
that historical research is a constructive process with the researcher
actively building theories and understandings of the past (Perfetti, et al.,
1999). Their reading involves a sense of intimacy with those who left
the records and often requires collaboration with peers. Historian’s
work provides a model of research-supported reading and learning by
being hands-on, active, connection-driven, constructivist, and social.
The reading of historians stands in stark contrast to the reading of
most secondary history students. Most students have few opportunities
to engage in reading activities that involve primary source documents
(Nokes & Hansen, 2007a). When they do have a chance to read
documents they have a difficult time constructing understanding,
particularly when multiple documents are encountered that contain
contradictions (Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996). When
students are presented with primary sources they do not use sourcing,
corroboration, or contextualization (Stahl, et al., 1996: Wineburg,
1991). They tend to view reading as a process of gathering information
rather than constructing understanding (Wineburg, 1991). This may be
why they value the textbook above other types of resources: it appears
to lay out “the facts” in a straightforward manner.
In spite of the difficulties that students have in analyzing
documents, several researchers have found positive effects of their use
in the classroom. Stahl and his colleagues (1996) analyzed high school
students’ writing from documents. They found that although students
did not employ sophisticated reading strategies they were able to learn
historical content from documents. Improved content learning through
the use of multiple documents was also found in studies by Perfetti,
Britt, and Georgi (1995) and Nokes, Dole, and Hacker (2007).
Moreover, in a series of studies Wiley and Voss (1996, 1999) found
that high school and undergraduate students began to read more
critically when given primary sources rather than excerpts from
textbooks or other secondary sources. These studies suggest that in
spite of students’ inability to read as historians there are advantages of
using documents in history classes.

39
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Research-Supported Methods of Teaching Students to Read Documents

The advantages of using documents in history classes increase

when teachers help students adopt more sophisticated approaches to
reading. Several studies have considered the effects of various types of
instruction on students’ processing of documents in history classes.
One study analyzed the writing of advanced placement United States
History students through the course of a school year (Young &
Leinhardt, 1998). Researchers showed that gifted high school students
wrote more sophisticated analyses of historical documents after they
had been given feedback on each of four different document-based
essays that they wrote over the school year. Other studies have found
that explicit strategy instruction on historical methodology and/or the
historians’ heuristics of sourcing and corroboration, leads to the
increased use of these strategies. For example, researchers have shown
that using computer-aided instruction on the heuristics quickly led to
students’ independent use of sourcing (Britt & Aglinskas, 2002). In a
different study, ten hours of explicit instruction on the strategies
provided by history teachers led to high school students’ use of
sourcing and corroboration in their writing (Nokes, et al., 2007).
Twelve days of general instruction on historical methodology
combined with ten days of writing instruction led to more sophisticated
historical writing by eighth-grade students (De La Paz, 2005). Ferretti,
MacArthur, and Okolo (2001) found that even younger, fifth-grade,
students gained a better understanding of historical inquiry after a unit
that combined three multiple text activities with direct instruction on
bias in evidence and trustworthiness in historical documentation. The
key elements of successful instruction seem to be: a) providing several
opportunities to interact with multiple documents, and b) providing
direct or explicit instruction on strategies for analyzing documents.

Reasons for Including Documents in History Classes

Documents are not used very often in secondary history classes

(Stahl & Shanahan, 2004, Nokes & Hansen, 2007a). The research cited
above suggests that they should be for a number of reasons. The use of
documents can give students a sense of what it means to engage in
historical inquiry. Just as science labs are used in science classrooms to
expose students to the work of scientists, history labs can be used in
history classrooms to expose students to the work of historians (Stahl &
Shanahan, 2004). In addition, thoughtfully selected documents can
expose students to diverse points of view. History is often presented
from a white, male perspective. The voices of minority groups and
women are silenced in traditional instruction that relies solely on the
textbook and the teacher for information. Bringing in documents that
represent diverse perspectives can help students see alternative points

40
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

of view and can invite those students who feel marginalized by the
traditional curriculum to enter into the conversation (Delpit, 2006).
Teachers miss an opportunity to have students actively engage in
historical analysis when they fail to bring documents into the classroom
(Hynd, 1999).
One structured way to include documents is through “layering”.
When layering, the teacher first provides students with an artifact to
analyze. Students are subsequently given a related photograph to
analyze and compare with the artifact. Students then receive a primary
source document followed by other primary and secondary texts. Each
text is analyzed both independently and in connection with the other
related texts and resources (Weintraub, 2000). Other similar
instructional techniques have been found to significantly improve high
school students’ use of sourcing and corroboration to support written
descriptions of historical eras (Manderino, 2007).
The use of documents is supported by modern theories of learning.
When working with documents students must actively construct their
understanding rather than passively receive information as they
typically do with traditional textbook passages. There is evidence that
active engagement with documents promotes content learning better
than textbook study (Nokes, et al., 2007). In addition, document
analysis, done in groups, can expose students to competing
interpretations of events and can help them gain a better sense of the
tentative nature of historical understanding (Stahl & Shanahan, 2004).
The analysis of multiple documents requires students to make
numerous connections (Hartman, 1995). These types of connections
support comprehension and retention according to current theories of
learning.

Opportunities for Research on the Use of Documents in History

Classes

In sum, there is a growing body of research on the use of

documents in teaching secondary history students. Researchers have
explored the reading of historians and have identified heuristics that
they use (Wineburg, 1991; Wineburg, 1998). Researchers have found
that some of these heuristics can be taught to students (Britt &
Aglinskas, 2002; De La Paz, 2005; Ferretti, et al., 2001; Nokes, et al.,
2007; Young & Leinhardt, 1998). In addition, researchers have found
that the use of multiple historical documents helps students learn
historical content (Nokes, et al., 2007; Perfetti, et al., 1995; Stahl, et al.,
1996) and develop critical thinking skills (Wiley & Voss, 1996, 1999).
However researchers have yet to publish studies on the affective
elements of using documents in history classes. For example, are
students more motivated to read documents than they are to study
textbook passages? Nor have researchers investigated the reaction of

41
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

diverse students to activities that include the historical perspective of

members of minority groups. In addition, more research should be
conducted on the development of analytical reading abilities in students
through document-based activities. No instructional strategies have
been shown to help students use contextualization, one of the
historians’ most basic heuristics. Research should investigate the use of
authentic inquiry activities that require students to use multiple
documents. As with expository texts, there is the potential for
numerous studies on the use of documents in history classes.

Historical Fiction

Historical fiction includes novels and short stories that are set in
authentic historical times and places but contain fictional characters
and/or plot lines. Some well-researched historical fiction accurately
portrays the characters, values, conditions, and events of historical
settings. Other historical fiction is less accurate. In addition, children’s
books and picture books contain stories that history teachers can use to
illustrate important concepts or to connect historical content to
students’ lives. Historical fiction, children’s books, and picture books
may add emotion to history classes in a way that cannot be done
through textbooks or even many historical documents (VanSledright &
Franks, 1998). As such, they might hold the solution for several
problems that secondary students face in their struggle to learn history.
In this section we will consider a) ways that historical fiction may
promote contextualization, b) cautions for using historical fiction, c)
reasons for including historical fiction in history classes, and d)
opportunities for research on the use of historical fiction.

Ways that Historical Fiction May Promote Contextualization

One of the problems secondary students have in learning history is

their tendency to project their present social and physical context onto
distant times and places. Wineburg (2001) labeled this phenomena
presentism. Secondary students appear to have a difficult time setting
aside current knowledge and values in considering the actions of people
in different times. Historians on the other hand, through
contextualization, attempt to place themselves in the physical, social,
political and emotional context of the event that they study (Wineburg,
1991). Nokes, Dole, and Hacker (2007) found that high school students
did not use the heuristic of contextualization to analyze documents,
even after explicit instruction. In fact, since Wineburg (1991) opened a
discussion on contextualization, no published research has found
teaching methods that increase students’ use of this heuristic. Students’
inability to use contextualization is troubling because, as Wineburg

42
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

(1991) found, it is a basic heuristic that is fundamental in understanding

historical documents and, by extension, historical events.
A concept similar to contextualization, the ability to comprehend
the specific actions of individuals in the past, has been labeled
historical empathy or perspective taking (Davis, 2001; Foster, 2001).
Individuals who engage in historical empathy make an effort to
understand the behaviors of individuals in the past based on their
context. As with contextualization, the development of historical
empathy requires rich background knowledge about the details of
everyday life in historical times. These details are not contained in most
textbooks, nor are students able to comprehend a context through
documents (Nokes, et al., 2007), as historians are (Wineburg, 1998).
Historical fiction, on the other hand, presents a resource secondary
history teachers can use to allow their students to immerse themselves
in historical contexts. Indeed, the use of historical fiction has great
potential to help students develop historical empathy (Tomlinson,
Tunnell, & Richgels, 1993; Tunnell & Ammon, 1996). Consider, for
example, the following quote from the historical novel Johnny Tremain
(Forbes, 1943).
Already the day’s bustle had begun up and down the wharf: A man
was crying fish. Sailors were heave-hoing at their ropes. A woman
was yelling that her son had fallen into the water. A parrot said
distinctly, “King Hancock.”
Johnny could smell hemp and spices, tar and salt water, the sun
drying fish. He liked his wharf. (p. 7)
This and numerous other similar excerpts from this novel paint a
picture of Boston Harbor that is richer in detail than can be found in
textbooks. Historical novels, with their detailed descriptions, may help
students develop historical empathy and contextualization beyond what
documents and textbooks can do. Unfortunately, little research has been
published to assess this claim.
Although little research has been published on the effects of the
use of historical fiction in secondary history classrooms, much has been
hypothesized about it. VanSledright and Franks (1998) viewed the use
of literature in science and history classes as a “means of shifting
emphasis away from the traditional accumulation of static, factual
knowledge … toward understanding the nature of inquiry, the
importance of evidence-based claims, and other habits of mind specific
to each discipline” (p. 122). They argue that through fiction, students
can vicariously experience events that occurred in distant times and
places. Beyond this, they suggest that historical fiction has the potential
to create more engaged and motivated readers. Again, little research
has been published to substantiate these claims with secondary history
students.

43
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Cautions for Using Historical Fiction

History teachers should be warned that the use of historical fiction

presents some challenges for young readers. Researchers have often
included excerpts from historical novels in studies of students’ analysis
of multiple texts. They have found that students do not understand the
nature of historical fiction. In many instances, students cited fiction as
evidence in the same manner that they cited eyewitness accounts
(Nokes, et al., 2007; Wineburg, 1991). In other words, most students
take information at face value, regardless of the source. This is
particularly troubling in the case of historical fiction because the source
admittedly mingles facts with fiction and makes no claim to be accurate
or truthful.

Reasons for Including Historical Fiction in History Classes

Because of the paucity of research on the use of historical fiction in

secondary history classes, most of what has been written is theoretical
rather than empirical. Research has shown that, as is the case with
documents, historical fiction is not used very often in most history
classes (Nokes & Hansen, 2007a), and that students treat fiction like
they treat other types of sources: they accept it at face value (Nokes, et
al., 2007; Wineburg, 1991). Beyond that, the advantages and
disadvantages of using historical fiction are speculative. It has been
theorized that history teachers can easily convert the liabilities of
historical fiction into assets in their classrooms.
With direct instruction students may develop an understanding of
the nature of historical fiction as one type of source. Through explicit
strategy instruction students may learn to think critically about fiction,
as they have been taught to do with other types of texts (see for
example McKeown, et al., 1993). Explicit instruction on the critical
analysis of historical fiction could be one element of broader
instruction on the historians’ strategies of sourcing, corroboration, and
contextualization, which has been done with some success (Nokes, et
al., 2007). Indeed, students can be shown that as they find evidence in
eye-witness accounts or informational texts to corroborate the contents
of fiction, they can be more sure of the accuracy of the novel and the
research in which the author engaged as the novel was written (Soalt,
2005). The strategies of sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization
may become fundamental to their comprehension of every written text
that they read, including fiction.

Opportunities for Research on the Use of Historical Fiction

Little research has been published on the use of historical fiction in

secondary history classrooms. Researchers should investigate how the

44
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

use of fiction might be linked to current theories of learning. For

example, are social interactions richer when students discuss historical
fiction than those discussions that surround textbooks or documents?
Are students more motivated to read historical novels than they are to
read textbooks? Does the reading of novels give students a broad
enough understanding of historical content to satisfy core curriculum
requirements? Does the reading of historical fiction lead to an
improved ability to use contextualization? Are students able to
distinguish fact from fiction as they construct an understanding of the
past based on historical fiction? Future research should attempt to shed
light on these and numerous other issues.

Reading Multiple Texts

In recent years there has been a call for history and other content
area teachers to provide opportunities for students to engage with
multiple texts of various types (Snow, 2002, Stahl & Shanahan, 2004).
History classes seem to be particularly appropriate for such activities
because the nature of authentic historical inquiry requires historians to
construct meaning from multiple sources. The analysis of multiple texts
is supported by theories of learning and literacy research which show
that skillful readers of multiple texts often make connections between
texts (Hartman, 1995), tend to build meaning as they read (Perfetti, et
al., 1999; Wineburg, 1991), and tend to be more active in their reading
(Wineburg, 1991). In this section we will review a) reasons for using
multiple texts in history classes, b) research-based suggestions for
multiple-text use, and c) opportunities for research in the use of
multiple texts in history classes.

Reasons for Using Multiple Texts in History Classes

Stahl and Shanahan (2004) suggest that history instruction should

be reformed to more accurately reflect the nature of historical inquiry.
They point out that traditional history instruction focuses on the
narrative of history to the exclusion of the skills associated with
historical inquiry. They argue that instead teachers should dedicate
some class time to instruction in the disciplinary knowledge associated
with history. Such instruction should include opportunities to construct
understanding of events from multiple texts. They propose that teachers
should regularly give students opportunities to read multiple documents
relating to a single topic. These types of activities combine the hands-
on, active engagement that researchers suggest is necessary for learning
(Bransford, et al., 2000) with the reading instruction that literacy
advocates encourage in secondary classrooms (Snow, 2002).
Secondary history teachers can learn from elementary teachers
who have long been familiar with “text sets”, or collections of texts

45
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

related to the same topic (Guthrie, et al., 2000; Swan, 2003). Text sets
include a variety of types of texts dealing with a single topic from
multiple perspectives. Text sets often including fiction, textbook
accounts, primary source accounts, and secondary source accounts as
well as non-print items such as artifacts, photographs, music, and art. In
order to accommodate learners with varying abilities, texts represent a
wide range of reading levels. In history classes text sets could include
contradictory accounts from diverse perspectives so that students have
an opportunity to engage in sourcing, corroboration, and
contextualization as they sort through the discrepancies. Research on
the use of text sets has found that students are more motivated to read
when engaged with multiple texts and that content learning is improved
(Guthrie, et al., 2000; Swan, 2003).
Multiple text activities serve as hands-on labs through which
students construct their own understandings of an event or era. Soalt
(2005) hypothesizes what may happen when teachers employ multiple
texts of different types:
Fiction has been celebrated for its capacity to illuminate human
identity and feelings, while informational texts have been
recognized for their ability to provide knowledge of the natural and
social world. When teachers focus these two very different lenses
on the same topic, they offer a more holistic view of a given
subject and provide a wider range of potential hooks or entry
points for student engagement. (p. 682)
Theories of learning suggest that hands-on, constructivist-based
learning activities, such as those involving multiple texts, promote
student learning.

Research-based Suggestions for Multiple Text Use

Research suggests that multiple-text activities help students

understand the nature of historical inquiry (Bain, 2005; Stahl, &
Shanahan, 2004) and learn historical content (Nokes, et al., 2007; Stahl,
et al. 1996). However, research also indicates that students have few
opportunities to engage with multiple texts. In a recent study, Nokes
and Hansen (2007a) spent 72 hours in eight history teachers’
classrooms observing the types of print materials and media that they
used, the types of reading instruction that they provided, and the
frequency that students participated in activities that required them to
engage with multiple sources of information. On only two occasions
were students expected to use more than a single source to study an
event. Six teachers did not ask their students to engage in any activities
that required them to compare, contrast and/or synthesize information
from more than a single source during the three-week observation. In
no instance were students asked to synthesize information from
different types of texts, (i.e. a speech, a diary, and the textbook). This

46
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

study suggests that teachers should consider increasing the frequency of

activities that involve multiple texts.
As described earlier, there is a large body of research that shows
that students have a difficult time working with multiple texts in history
classes. Research would suggest that teachers provide scaffolding to
support their students as they begin to learn how to construct meaning
from multiple texts (Vygotsky, 1978). There are several ways that
teachers can do so. Teachers can initially select texts that are below the
students’ reading levels. This allows students to focus their limited
working memory on using historians’ strategies and on the content of
the text, rather than on comprehending the literal meaning of the words
in the text (Sinatra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002). Second, teachers can
construct graphic organizers that help students compare and contrast
information across texts.
For example, an Inquiry Chart (I-Chart) is a matrix that allows
readers to keep a record of the sources of several documents and to
make direct comparisons between their sources and content (Hoffman,
1992). Third, as described earlier, teachers can provide explicit strategy
instruction on the use of the strategies. Fourth, teachers can allow
students to work in cooperative learning groups on multiple text
activities. By carefully grouping more proficient students with their less
proficient peers, teachers can create a setting where both high ability
and low ability students will practice at a level that will help them
improve their skills. Fifth, teachers can provide students with
procedural prompts that will help remind them of how to engage in the
strategies.
For example, a teacher might hang a poster or create a bookmark
that reminds students about the elements of sourcing such as thinking
about the author of the document, thinking about the audience,
considering when the document was prepared in relation to the incident
that it describes, thinking about the author’s purpose in preparing the
document, and identifying what type of document it is. When a student
forgets the process of sourcing he or she can glance at the poster or
bookmark for a reminder. Over the course of a school year, as students
become more proficient at analyzing the documents, teachers can
remove the scaffolding, which was intended to be a temporary support,
and students should be allowed to engage in analyses increasingly
independently.
In addition to structured multiple text activities, history teachers
can provide opportunities for students to engage in authentic inquiry
activities and to gather their own multiple sources of information.
According to the inquiry model of instruction, students select a topic
about which they are curious, gather resources, construct an
understanding of the topic, and share that understanding with their
peers in formal and informal presentations (Gunter, Estes & Mintz,
2007). Inquiry assignments present a challenge for many students.

47
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Palmer and Stuart (1997) observed older elementary school students as

they were given the opportunity to use multiple texts to complete
assignments throughout a school year. They found that students
typically searched for one source and then used it with relatively little
restructuring of the information it contained. They did not instinctively
search for additional sources of information to corroborate what was
found in that first source. The researchers concluded that teachers
should require students to use multiple sources of various types, and
provide scaffolding to help them be strategic (Palmer & Stuart, 1997).
These types of assignments help students learn about the nature of
history as a discipline and become active in historical inquiry. As
Stearns, Siexas and Wineburg (2000) contend, the inclusion of multiple
texts may act “as the best insurance against the dogmatic transmission
of a single version of the past, a practice that violates the core tenets of
the discipline” (p. 12). In addition, the use of multiple texts seems to
promote constructivist thinking, making connections, and active
reading, all essential activities in the learning process.

Opportunities for Research on the Use of Multiple Texts in History

Classes

There is a growing body of research on the processes involved in

analyzing multiple texts. However there remain numerous avenues of
research that could be explored. For instance, how does an individual’s
conception of an event evolve as they move through numerous texts. Is
there an optimal sequence of texts that students should be exposed to
promote historical thinking rather than a focus on remembering?
Additional studies should be conducted on the effect of studying
multiple texts on students’ content learning. These studies might
alleviate the fears of some teachers who avoid time-consuming multiple
text activities because of pressure to cover the content. Studies should
be conducted on students’ development of disciplinary knowledge.
What level of disciplinary knowledge is reasonable to expect from
young and older students under a variety of classroom contexts? These
questions are a sample of the issues that should be considered in future
research.

DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS

Reconsidering literacy practices in secondary history classrooms

calls into question traditional teaching methods. This leads to questions
about the preparation of preservice and inservice teachers to engage
students in research-supported literacy practices. Do they have the
necessary background and training to do so?
With preservice history teachers historical content knowledge is
insufficient. It is essential that they have a solid background in

48
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

historical methodology and historiography. They must be aware of the

heuristics that historians use to analyze documents. In addition,
preservice history teachers need to have a solid background in content
area literacy. Since the concepts of text, literacy, reading, and writing
carry different meanings within history than they do in other content
areas, perhaps preservice history teachers should receive instruction on
content area literacy that is particularly suited to the unique demands of
history instruction (Draper, et al., 2006; Nokes & Hansen, 2007b).
Professional development in literacy must also be provided for
inservice history teachers. For many history teachers a love of both the
historical content and the processes of historical inquiry attracted them
to the profession. However, tradition, curriculum guidelines, and
practical classroom demands often compel them to focus on content to
the exclusion of processes (Stahl & Shanahan, 2004). It stands to
reason that history teachers, if given the time, resources, and direction
could engage in professional development programs that refocus their
attention on historical processes.
A second implication of the proposed changes has to do with
assessment. As teachers and policy-makers begin to reconsider the
literacy practices in history classes they must also begin to reconsider
the methods used to assess student learning. Traditional history
assessments, both those used to assess individual students and those
used to evaluate teachers or programs, typically measure students’
ability to remember facts (Libresco, 2007). As a result, history teachers
feel pressure to cover all of the facts.
Although there is evidence that increasing the use of documents
helps students learn historical content better (Libresco, 2007; Nokes, et
al., 2007; Stahl et al., 1996), some history teachers may feel like they
do not have time to stray from the historical narrative to teach methods
of historical inquiry or reading strategies. Assessments for history
classes should be changed to evaluate not just historical content
knowledge, but to evaluate students’ understanding of the process of
historical inquiry, which includes several reading strategies such as
sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization. The development and
use of such instruments might encourage history teachers to reconsider
the types of texts and activities that they use in their classrooms, and
align instructional practices with literacy research (Libresco, 2007).
Many of the traditional literacy practices in history classes are not
supported by literacy research or modern theories of learning.
Reconsidering the way teachers use expository texts, particularly the
textbook, and making appropriate changes to practice may help
students learn content and improve their literacy skills. Including more
documents and historical fiction in history classes may help students
learn and understand content better while developing analytical
thinking skills and a better understanding of historical contexts.
Explicitly teaching students to actively construct meaning from

49
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

multiple texts is supported by years of literacy research and by

constructivist theories and theories on the role of social interaction in
learning. Research suggests that this instruction will result in improved
content learning and deeper disciplinary knowledge. A natural by-
product of such instruction is likely to be improved literacy, and an
increase in students’ ability to deal with the multiple, varied,
conflicting, and fragmentary written texts that they will be exposed to
as adults in this Information Age.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. A. (2004). Tools for teaching content literacy. Portland, ME:

Stenhouse.
Allen, J. A. (2007). Beating the odds: Curriculum, instruction and
assessment that make a difference. Paper presented at Instructional
Leadership in the 21st Century Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah,
March 9.
American Textbook Council (1994-95). History textbooks: A standard
and guide. New York: American Textbook Council.
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of
basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research: Volume I (pp. 255-291). New
York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously
unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 17, 1-12.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T.
(1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American
Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.
Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of inconsiderate text. In G.
Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202-217). New York:
Longman.
Bain, R. B. (2005). “They thought the world was flat?” Applying the
principles of How People Learn in teaching high school history. In
M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn:
History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179-213).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1989). Expository text for young
readers: The issue of coherence. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.
47-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A.
(1992). Revising social studies text from a text-processing
perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading
Research Quarterly, 27, 251-275.

50
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Bluestein, G. (2007, April 22). School holds first integrated prom.

Deseret Morning News, p. A8.
Boories, B. v. (2000). Methods and aims of teaching history in Europe:
A report on youth and history. In P. N. Stearns, P. Siexas, & S.
Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and learning history:
National and international perspectives (pp. 246-261). New York:
New York University Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to
identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20,
485-522.
Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Gulgoz, S., & Glynn, S. M. (1989).
Instructional texts rewritten by five expert teams: Revisions and
retention improvements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
226-239.
Bryant, C. (1984). Teaching students to read poetry independently: An
experiment in bringing together research and the teacher. English
Quarterly, 17, 48-57.
Cohen, N. (2007, February 24). New front in attack on Wikipedia.
Deseret Morning News, p. A7.
Davis, O. L. (2001). In pursuit of historical empathy. In O. L. Davis, E.
A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and
perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 1-12). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and
writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse
middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,
139-156.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: New Press.
Dias, P. (1979). Developing independent readers of poetry: An
approach in the high school. McGill Journal of Education, 14, 199-
214.
Draper, R. J., Wentworth, N., Adair, M., Asay, D., Broomhead, P.,
Hansen, M., et al. (2006, November). Every teacher educator a
literacy teacher educator: Seeking ways to promote content-area
literacy across teacher education and development. Paper presented
at the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, California.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for
historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 59-71.

51
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Forbes, E. (1943). Johnny Tremain. New York: Bantam Doubleday

Bell.
Foster, S. J. (2001). Historical empathy in theory and practice: Some
final thoughts. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.),
Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp.
167-181). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gregg, M., & Sekeres, D. C. (2006). Supporting children’s reading of
expository text in the geography classroom. Reading Teacher,
60(1), 102-110.
Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Mintz, S. L. (2007). Instruction: A
models approach, 5th edition. New York: Pearson.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of
integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of
proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching
comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Hoffman, J. V. (1992). Critical reading/thinking across the curriculum:
Using I-Charts to support learning. Language Arts, 69(2), 121-127.
Hynd, C. (1999). Teaching students to think critically using multiple
texts in history. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 428-
437.
Hynd, C., Holschuh, J., & Hubbard, B. (2004). Thinking like a
historian: College students’ reading of multiple historical
documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 2, 141-176.
John-Steiner, V., & Mann, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to
learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational
Psychologist, 31, 191-206.
Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance
and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 441-
486.
Libresco, A. S. (2007). A test for higher order thinking. Social Studies and
the Young Learner, 20, 14-17.
Luke, C., de Castell, S. C., & Luke, A. (1989). Beyond criticism: The
authority of the school textbook. In S. C. de Castell, A. Luke, & C.
Luke (Eds.), Language, authority, and criticism (pp. 245-260).
London: Falmer.
Manderino, M. (2007, November). Integrating the visual: Student strategies
for multiple text synthesis. Paper presented at National Reading
Conference, Austin, TX.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed:
Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.

52
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Worthy, M. J. (1993). Grappling with

text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading Teacher, 4, 560-566.
Mosborg, S. (2002). Speaking of history: How do adolescents use their
knowledge of history in reading the daily news? Cognition and
Instruction, 20, 323-358.
Newmann, F. (1991). Promoting higher order thinking in social studies:
Overview of a study of 16 high school departments. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 19(4), 324-340.
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school
students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 492-504.
Nokes, J. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2007a, June). Rethinking literacy in the
social studies curriculum? Paper presented at the Secondary Literacy
across the Content Conference, Lehi, UT.
Nokes, J. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2007b, October). Prospective social
studies teachers consider literacy in a teaching methods and
practicum course. Paper presented at the College Reading
Association Annual Convention, Salt Lake City, UT.
Ogle, D. M., & McBride, W. L. (2007). Reading toolkit for social
studies: Creating America. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
Oldfather, P., & Wigfield, A. (1996). Children’s motivations for
literacy learning. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.),
Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp.
89-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.
Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. A. (1997). Nonfiction tradebooks in content
area instruction: Realities and potential. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 40, 630-641.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of
strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume II (pp.
609-640). New York: Longman.
Paxton, R. J. (1997). “Someone with like a life wrote it”: The effects of a
visible author on high school history students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 235-250.
Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the
students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69, 315-337.
Paxton, R. J. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school
students solving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction 20(2),
197-248.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background
knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit
information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.

53
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Perfetti, C.A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning

and reasoning: Studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of
documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman
(Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp.
99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pescatore, C. (2008). Current events as empowering literacy: For English
and social studies teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
51, 326-339.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and
using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise.
Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
Sewall, G. T. (1987). American history textbooks: An assessment of quality.
New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.
Siler, C. R. (1989-1990). United States history textbooks: Cloned
mediocrity. International Journal of Social Education, 4, 10-31.
Sinatra, G. M., Brown, K. J., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002). Implications of
cognitive resource allocation for comprehension strategies instruction.
In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 62-76). New York: Guilford.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program
in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Reading Study
Group.
Soalt, J. (2005). Bringing together fictional and informational texts to
improve comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58(7), 680-683.
Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and
the making of meaning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D.
(1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents
in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
Stahl, S. A., & Shanahan, C. H. (2004). Learning to think like a historian:
Disciplinary knowledge through critical analysis of multiple
documents. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy
research and practice (pp. 94-115). New York: Guilford.
Stearns, P. N., Siexas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing,
teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives.
New York: New York University Press.
Swan, E. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction: engaging
classrooms, lifelong learners. New York: Guilford Press.
Tomlinson, C. M., Tunnell, M. O., & Richgels, D. J. (1993). The content
and writing of history in textbooks and trade books. In M. O. Tunnell,
& R. Ammon (Eds.), The story of ourselves: Teaching history through
children’s literature (pp. 51-62). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

54
Literacy Practices in History MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)

Tunnell, M. O., & Ammon, R. (1996). The story of ourselves: Fostering

multiple historical perspectives. Social Education, 60(4), 212-215.
Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives:
Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E.
Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about
reading instruction (pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy
and learning across the curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
VanSledright, B. A., & Frankes, L. (1998). Literature’s place in learning
history and science. In C. R. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across
conceptual domains (pp. 117-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates\
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning.
In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research: Volume III (pp. 609-627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W., & Hayes, M. T. (1993).
Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies
and recall. Reading Research Quarterly 28(2), 93-114.
Weintraub, S. (2000). “What’s this new crap? What’s wrong with the old
crap? Changing history teaching in Oakland California. In P. N.
Stearns, P. Siexas, & S. Wineburg, (Eds.), Knowing, teaching, and
learning history: National and international perspectives. New York:
New York University Press.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of ‘playing historian’ on
learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63-72.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple
sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for
text. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 301-311.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the
breach between school and academy. American Educational Research
Journal, 28, 495-519.
Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert /expert study
in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319-346.
Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts:
Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary
documents. Written Communication, 15, 25-68.

55
Copyright of Middle Grades Research Journal is the property of Missouri State University, Institute for School
Improvement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.