Exploring the Power and Possibility of Contextually Relevant Social Studies–Literacy Integration

Abstract

The authors of this article describe a study designed to support first-grade students’ social studies knowledge and literacy development through a teacher–researcher co-constructed and teacher implemented integrated unit within the context of a rural community. The goals of the study were to determine the extent to which a contextually relevant unit of study affected the development of students’ content knowledge of key terms from the domain of social studies and influenced students’ reading and social studies interest. The researchers used a combined multi-phase and convergent mixed methods design, implementing a matched pairs design for the quantitative, quasi-experimental component of the study. Results indicated that assignment to the treatment condition was a predictor of students’ post implementation vocabulary scores and social studies interest. In pairing these results with the qualitative analyses of students’ end-of-unit retellings, researchers found that vocabulary can be a powerful bridge to cultural and content knowledge when the focus of instruction and texts is on local and community knowledge, demonstrating that contextually relevant social studies–literacy integration is a promising practice for building content knowledge and interest in first grade classrooms. Directions for future research are discussed.

1. Introduction

Integrating content, such as social studies concepts, into elementary literacy instruction has gained substantial traction in recent years (Knowledge Matters Campaign, 2022), as many districts have adopted knowledge-building curricula in their elementary schools (e.g., Mathewson, 2019; Sun Prairie School District, n.d.). Knowledge-building curricula are defined as materials that systematically develop students’ content-area (e.g., science, social studies) knowledge and vocabulary during literacy instruction.

Further, researchers have taken a closer look at the influence of integrating content-area instruction with literacy strategies and skills (Kim et al., 2021). This approach to literacy instruction can improve students’ content knowledge, benefit their literacy abilities, and increase their interest and reading motivation (Guthrie et al., 2004; Hwang et al., 2021). Indeed, knowledge and text comprehension have a reciprocal relationship, acting as both a cause and consequence of reading (Hattan & Kendeou, 2024). Therefore, students with higher levels of prior topic knowledge often have higher comprehension outcomes (e.g., Baldwin et al., 1985; Johnston & Pearson, 1982). At the same time, students who comprehend texts well can build their knowledge and learn from texts (Hwang et al., 2022).

Students come to reading experiences with unique histories, including cultural, linguistic, strategic, and conceptual knowledge, that influence the ways they comprehend and interact with texts (Hattan & Lupo, 2020). However, students’ backgrounds and lived experiences are typically not reflected in disciplinary materials used in classes like social studies. The current study supported students’ social studies knowledge and literacy development through teacher–researcher co-construction and teacher implementation of a unit that integrates social studies content and literacy instruction within the context of a rural community. The unit is intentionally reflective of students’ contextual knowledge and lived experiences. Our overarching question was: how does a context-specific, social studies–literacy unit influence 1st grade students’ knowledge and vocabulary development, as well as their social studies and literacy interest?

2. Theoretical Grounding

2.1. The Active View of Reading

The Active View of Reading (AVR; Duke & Cartwright, 2021) posits that reading includes four overlapping and interdependent components, with embedded subcomponents to provide further conceptual clarity. The four components are word recognition (e.g., phonological awareness, decoding), language comprehension (e.g., reading-specific background knowledge, verbal reasoning), bridging processes (e.g., vocabulary, reading fluency, morphological awareness), and active self-regulation (e.g., motivation, executive function skills). Although the full model has not been empirically tested, it is grounded in causal research (Burns et al., 2023) and provides a more expansive, complex, and updated component model than previous work, such as the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; see Hattan & Kendeou, 2024, for an overview of component, process, and sociocultural theories of reading).

Given the complexity of AVR, as well as our partnership school’s priorities, it was not our intention to attend to each component and subcomponent of the AVR in the current study. Our partnership district had recently adopted a new foundational skills curriculum. Therefore, they asked that we prioritize other components of reading. Specifically, we focused on vocabulary knowledge as a bridge to word recognition and language comprehension. Knowledge of vocabulary words can lead to a deeper understanding of the larger concepts that those words represent (Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright, 2021), such as cultural and content knowledge, which are subcomponents of language comprehension. To support students’ language comprehension through vocabulary, we collaborated with our partner teachers to develop students’ social studies knowledge through explicit vocabulary instruction of conceptually coherent words with opportunities to use vocabulary words before, during, and after reading. Texts were purposefully selected to support vocabulary development with what the AVR categorizes as students’ active self-regulation, with a focus on students’ reading and social studies interest. Further, teachers learned evidence-based instructional techniques that support students in activating their background knowledge during reading, a critical reading strategy (Afflerbach et al., 2008).

Although AVR is more comprehensive than previous models of reading, Duke and Cartwright (2021) clarify that it functions as a reader model. Therefore, we also consider the RAND model, which posits that reading comprehension occurs at the intersection of the reader, text, and task within a particular sociocultural context (RAND, 2002). In addition to focusing on the reader components of vocabulary knowledge, cultural and content knowledge, interest, and strategy use, we also carefully examined the texts students engaged with, the tasks that they were asked to complete, and the sociocultural contexts in which they lived and learned.

2.2. Contextually Relevant Pedagogy

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP; Ladson-Billings, 1995) is a student-centered approach to teaching that seeks to ensure that students’ languages, backgrounds and cultural practices are valued in what is taught and considers how that instruction is delivered (Ladson-Billings, 2000). There are three core tenets that must be embedded and integrated for culturally relevant pedagogy to occur: (a) focusing on students’ academic achievement; (b) developing cultural competence; and (c) supporting students’ sociopolitical or critical consciousness.

Although white students benefit from CRP (Ladson-Billings & Dixson, 2021), research on implementing CRP with teachers and students rarely focuses on rural white communities, with some exceptions (e.g., Azano & Stewart, 2015). The context of rural communities poses unique challenges, especially for activating and building students’ knowledge. White, rural students maintain privileges but also lack access to educational and economic resources that are more readily available in urban and suburban areas. Rural communities have their own set of cultural values and ways of thinking, yet some of those values perpetuate prevalent, narrow views of the world. These views may “distort the realities of the other in an effort to maintain power relations that continue to disadvantage those who are locked out of the mainstream” (Ladson-Billings, 2000, p. 263). As a result, the tenet of critical consciousness may be particularly challenging to implement in rural communities as it “requires teachers and students to engage in real life problems and issues of living in a complex, democratic yet unequal society” (Ladson-Billings & Dixson, 2021, p. 123). Therefore, in an effort to not misrepresent, distort, or corrupt, the theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy as it applies to our research, we developed an alternative framework, Contextually Relevant Pedagogy, which is rooted in CRP, but also attends to place-based pedagogy (Azano, 2011) and the unique nuances of teaching and learning in conservative, white, rural contexts.

Our framework of Contextually Relevant Pedagogy incorporates three principles that guided our professional learning sessions with teachers. These principles were integrated into the ways we interacted with our teacher-partners, and in the ways we hoped teachers would interact with their elementary students.

2.2.1. Academic Achievement

First, similar to CRP (Ladson-Billings, 1995), Contextually Relevant Pedagogy prioritizes academic achievement. The purpose of co-constructing interdisciplinary units with teachers was to support students’ social studies and literacy development through the use of conceptually coherent texts that were read aloud to students. Rather than relying on standardized or high-stakes assessments, we relied on novel, unit-specific assessments to capture students’ quantitative and qualitative performance as it related to the focal unit. Teachers also implemented formative assessments that were not the focus of this study.

2.2.2. Origination Conception

Second, we drew on the origination conception, which speaks to the learning starting places for the teachers and students with whom we worked. Commonly known as modern interactionism (Magnusson & Stattin, 1998), this theory considers the bidirectional interplay of the person and their context or environment, and the “continuously ongoing process of reciprocal interaction among mental, biological and behavioral factors within the individual” (Magnusson & Stattin, 1998, p. 14). For teachers, we recognized their diverse experiences, which included variation in the number of years they had been teaching, their comfort level with developing and implementing a new curriculum, their relationships with students and the community, their experiences teaching social studies content (which was a neglected part of the school’s curriculum), their comfort in being observed, as well as their knowledge and experiences in interacting with and understanding other cultures and perspectives. This last point was particularly integral to our work. As we negotiated text selection and focal social studies topics, it became evident that some ideas pushed teachers too far beyond their boundaries. To support their agency, we negotiated and compromised with the teachers so that we could respect their boundaries as we challenged them to consider new ideas and supportive instructional techniques. Therefore, although we sought to enhance teachers’ cultural competence, we were not able to meaningfully integrate Ladson-Billings’s (2000) tenet of sociopolitical consciousness in order to continue professional learning with teachers.

Relatedly, researchers and teachers together also considered students’ starting points. We drew from Moll et al. (1992) work on funds of knowledge to encourage teachers to leverage students’ backgrounds, experiences, and resources they brought from home. Viewing students’ backgrounds as assets was critical in activating and building students’ social studies knowledge and literacy abilities. As researchers, we often pushed back against teachers’ comments such as, “these kids don’t know anything” or “they have no background knowledge.” Instead of confirming these perspectives, we engaged in conversations with teachers that led to them recognizing what students do know and then using students’ knowledge as a starting point for instruction.

2.2.3. Place-Based Understanding

The third principle of Contextually Relevant Pedagogy is place-based understanding. Teachers need a deep understanding of a sense of place—recognizing the assets and limitations of a rural, white community, as well as understanding how to work with and within the community to support students’ learning (Azano, 2011). In our current study, teachers were from the rural community or nearby areas in which we worked and therefore brought a wealth of community knowledge with them to this project. The co-constructed unit was specifically relevant to the place in which students lived and learned. Teachers drew on community resources, brought in pictures of their town, went on virtual and walking tours of their community, and centered unique aspects of their community in instruction (e.g., highlighting the murals around town). Therefore, to implement the co-constructed unit in a different community, changes would need to be made to make the unit applicable in a new context.

In addition to developing a strong sense of place, teachers and students also benefit from understanding other cultures and how to connect a small rural community to a global society. This can be accomplished by providing texts that offer both mirrors and windows for students (Bishop, 1990), and through instructional techniques that support students in recognizing similarities and discrepancies between their own experiences and those that are portrayed in texts (Hattan & Alexander, 2021). Here, it is important for teachers and students to consider that differences are not “bad,” but instead represent an alternative way of experiencing or seeing the world (Ballenger, 2004; Hattan, 2024). Teachers can then use their knowledge of their own unique context, as well as knowledge of the world, to develop or transform curricula that attend to the unique needs of the students within their community (Ladson-Billings, 2014).

As we integrated Contextually Relevant Pedagogy into our work with teachers and students, we sought to find a balance between leveraging rural teachers’ and students’ knowledge and experiences, while simultaneously challenging them to consider perspectives that may seem quite different than their previous experiences. The framework can adapt to local needs, giving teachers and students the opportunity to consider what they value about their communities and ways of thinking, while also contemplating what they would change and how they might connect to a more global society (Azano et al., 2020).

3. Research on Knowledge Activation and Knowledge Building

Both theory (Kintsch, 1998) and research (Baldwin et al., 1985; Johnston & Pearson, 1982; Neuman, 2019) demonstrate the critical role that knowledge has in reading comprehension. When considering the importance of knowledge, it is critical to both activate and build students’ knowledge during instruction. Both processes should take place throughout a reader’s development (Alexander, 2005; Kim et al., 2023). The current study focused on supporting 1st grade students’ knowledge development and comprehension abilities through interactive read-alouds.

3.1. Knowledge Activation

Prior knowledge activation occurs when students enact their existing knowledge and experiences to make sense of texts. Students benefit from strategic knowledge activation and external prompts before, during, and after reading (Hattan et al., 2024), though spontaneous knowledge activation is possible (Hattan & Dinsmore, 2019).

In the current study, we integrated six evidence-based principles for knowledge activation (Hattan, 2024) into our professional learning (See

Table 1. Knowledge Activation Principles.

* Principle	Application in Current Study
Before, during and after reading	Teachers asked purposeful questions before, during, and after reading to support students in making connections to their knowledge, experiences, and previously read texts.
Collaborative activation	Students shared their knowledge through whole-group conversations and turn and talks.
Conceptual connections	At the end of each lesson, students and teachers co-constructed a concept map using explicitly taught vocabulary words.
Recognize discrepancies	Teachers prompted students to consider how the text content might be different from their own knowledge and experiences.
Address misunderstandings	Teachers were encouraged to address misunderstandings in the moment, rather than wait to address them later in the lesson.
Consider topic-specific knowledge	During planning, teachers considered their students’ prior knowledge about the to-be-learned topics and scaffolded accordingly.

* Adapted from (Hattan, 2024).

). Teachers were encouraged, but not required, to integrate these supports into their instruction as much as possible. However, we also encouraged teachers to incorporate other reading strategies as they saw fit and provided them with a list of potential instructional techniques that they could draw from during unit planning and implementation.

3.2. Knowledge Building

There are two common approaches to building knowledge during literacy instruction—sharing information before reading and building knowledge through text sets (Hattan, 2024). First, teachers can provide students with text-specific information before they read (Dole et al., 1991) through lectures, videos, or other modalities. The benefit of this instructional approach is that students gain an understanding about the text topic, which can support their comprehension. However, there is evidence that this approach to knowledge-building may not be as useful as activating knowledge (Lupo et al., 2019). Further, there are concerns about frontloading too much information before reading (Lapp et al., 2013). Frontloading information may set students up for success in reading a single text (Dole et al., 1991) but is unlikely to systematically develop students’ schemas for a particular concept. Instead, teachers can consider the balance between what information or context is essential for students to know before reading versus what they should learn from reading.

Alternatively, knowledge development can be supported via the use of conceptually coherent text sets (Wright et al., 2022). A recent systematic review (Hwang et al., 2023) found that embedding coherent science or social studies texts into literacy instruction led to statistically significant better results on researcher-created comprehension and vocabulary measures in comparison to students in control groups. This pattern holds true even for students in Kindergarten (Cabell & Hwang, 2020) and first grade (Kim et al., 2021, 2023). However, this line of research is still emerging.

To our knowledge, studies have not yet investigated the influence of co-constructing contextually relevant units, which incorporate conceptually coherent text sets, on students’ learning. Instead, previous research focused on researcher-created (e.g., Kim et al., 2023) or commercially available (Cabell & Hwang, 2020) curricula. Further, it is important to note that simply using text sets does not guarantee that students will automatically integrate information across sources (Barzilai et al., 2018; Hattan et al., 2023). Therefore, in the current study we introduced students to conceptually coherent texts, but also integrated instructional supports to help students activate their background knowledge and integrate information across texts through Contextually Relevant Pedagogy.

4. Current Study

The primary goal for this study was to determine the extent to which a contextually relevant unit, which integrated social studies and literacy content, affected the development of first grade students’ content knowledge of key terms from the domain of social studies. A secondary goal was to determine the extent to which the unit influenced students’ reading and social studies interest. For this study, content knowledge was operationalized as breadth and depth of students’ knowledge of key concepts from social studies.

The quantitative research questions were:

(1)

What are the effects of an integrated, context-specific unit on students’ breadth of conceptually related vocabulary words, as compared to students in a control group?

(2)

What are the effects of an integrated, context-specific unit on students’ reading and social studies interest, as compared to students in a control group?

The qualitative research question was:

(3)

What connections to deeper understandings and multiple perspectives do students demonstrate through informal, end-of-unit retellings?

5. Methods

5.1. Partnership Context and Participants

The context for this study was Bluestem (pseudonym), a Midwestern, low-income school district surrounded by rural, farming communities and located over 100 miles from any metropolitan area. Thus, while teachers were dedicated to their students and community, they lacked the resources common in more financially solvent districts. The town served by this district had a population of about 11,400 people. Most adults worked at either the local prison, at a farm equipment manufacturing plant, or in the service industry, and the community was conservative, with 71% voting for Trump in the 2020 election and 72% in the 2024 election. Approximately 79% of students in the district were below proficiency in reading, with a steady decline in scores since 2010 (Public School Review, 2021).

The current study is part of a four-year partnership with the aforementioned school district that was developed to support teachers’ reading instruction. The first year of the partnership (2020–2021) included an observational strengths and needs assessment for 1st through 3rd grades. At the request of the district, the observation study focused primarily on vocabulary instruction during English Language Arts blocks (Hattan et al., 2025). The current study took place during the second year of the partnership (2021–2022) and was informed by the initial observation study (see professional learning section). Results from the current study then subsequently informed work in years three and four of the partnership.

Participants were 92 first-grade students who were majority white (82.6%) with multiracial/ethnic (14.1%), Black (2.2%), and Asian (1.1%) races and ethnicities represented. Binary data on students’ gender were provided by the school district, with 58.7% boys and 41.3% girls, while no information was provided regarding other genders. Although this study focused on student data, first-grade teachers were heavily involved in the unit co-design and implementation. All six teachers were white; five identified as women and one as a man. Their teaching experience ranged from two to 28 years.

The first and fourth authors worked with teachers to co-construct the unit and observe unit implementation. Although we both lived about an hour from the community, we considered ourselves outsiders and therefore relied on the teachers’ and administrators’ community knowledge. Authors two and three were not heavily involved in unit implementation or data collection. However, they were involved in developing and evaluating our quantitative and qualitative assessments and analyzing our data.

5.2. Study Design

This study used a combined multiphase and convergent parallel mixed methods design (Figure 1). Multiphase designs are particularly appropriate for examining the design, implementation, and evaluation of a curriculum, while convergent parallel designs provide opportunities for researchers to merge quantitative and qualitative analyses of data that are collected separately (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2017). Further, we implemented a matched pairs design for the quantitative, quasi-experimental component of the study. Teachers with similar years of teaching experience were matched and then randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition, with three teachers in each condition. Teachers in the treatment condition engaged in four, three-hour professional learning sessions, with a full-day follow-up session to prepare for implementation. They then implemented a six-week integrated unit. Teachers in the control condition continued with typical ELA instruction but were provided with access to unit plans and student texts after data were collected. Although assignment occurred at the teacher level, students were the primary unit of analysis since the main goal was to determine the effectiveness of a contextually relevant and integrated social studies–literacy unit on students’ social studies knowledge development.

5.2.1. Professional Learning

Professional learning sessions were designed in response to findings from the initial observation study, which focused primarily on vocabulary instruction and included two to three observations of each teacher, as well as teacher interviews (Hattan et al., 2025). Results from the observation study revealed that vocabulary instruction occurred more frequently than expected, when compared to previous observation studies (Blanton & Moorman, 1990; Wanzek, 2014; Wright & Neuman, 2014). However, teachers prioritized words related to the standards, rather than words that came from texts or that were conceptually coherent. Further, teachers relied on in-the-moment instruction, rather than planning ahead, and relied on instructional supports that checked students’ knowledge of words, rather than providing definitions of words or using a variety of evidence-based supports. Additionally, we noted that teachers selected texts as they related to the standards, rather than selecting topically or thematically similar texts. For example, teachers might select several “compare and contrast” texts (e.g., different versions of a fairy tale). There was limited attention paid to the cultural context in which students lived and learned.

In response to the observation study findings, the professional learning sessions focused on (a) integrated social studies and literacy unit planning, (b) contextually relevant and thematically coherent text selection, (c) vocabulary instruction, and (d) knowledge development (Appendix A). Initially, the district requested support solely with vocabulary instruction. However, after sharing observation results with the curriculum director, she agreed that providing teachers with a more comprehensive approach to comprehension, vocabulary, and knowledge development would be beneficial. During the sessions, teachers worked collaboratively with each other and with the first and fourth authors to co-construct a six-week unit. Then, teachers implemented the unit with students and received weekly feedback from researchers as well as group reflection sessions.

5.2.2. Social Studies and Literacy Integration

Teachers selected the social studies topic of communities to integrate into their typical ELA instruction. The unit was broken into two sections: three weeks on their local community and three weeks on global communities. We used a template developed by Lupo et al. (2021) to guide the planning process. Specifically, we homed in on social studies and literacy standards that would be the focus of the unit and brainstormed potential culminating projects for both the local and global sub-units.

5.3. Texts

Together, teachers and researchers purposefully selected texts that provided students with opportunities to see themselves represented in the content, as well as introduce students to other cultures, perspectives, and ways of thinking (Bishop, 1990). Reading texts that reflect diverse experiences and ideologies is not only crucial for students of color, but also for white students who are often exposed to mainstream characters and ideas, rather than texts that celebrate the lived experiences of people from historically minoritized communities (Love, 2019). Therefore, thoughtful text selection can be one way that teachers can enhance students’ understandings of multiple perspectives and ways of seeing the world (Muhammad, 2020).

As teachers selected texts, they were guided to consider how texts may build on students’ assets and vast background knowledge, center historically minoritized perspectives, and introduce students to new ideas. Although all of these goals were not accomplished in every text that was chosen, the purpose was to expose students to a variety of perspectives that focus on similar concepts. To that end, teachers also considered how the texts were conceptually related to one another. Ensuring conceptual coherence provides opportunities for in-depth explorations of vocabulary words and the larger concepts those words represent, while simultaneously teaching required reading strategies. To that end, we used the quad text set framework (Lupo et al., 2020) to encourage teachers to select hook, visual, informational, and focal texts related to the overarching concepts of local and global communities.

During the text selection process, there was frequent negotiation and compromise between teacher and researcher co-developers. As researchers, we aimed to support teacher agency and recognize their contextual knowledge, while also encouraging them to seek out perspectives that were different from their own, or content that might be less familiar. The final text set (Appendix B) included some texts with which researchers were enthusiastic, and others where enthusiasm waned. For example, the book Last Stop on Market Street (de la Peña, 2015) was an excellent window text that provided our rural students with insights into what it might be like to live in a city. Further, teachers selected the text Diego Rivera: His World and Ours (Tonatiuh, 2011), which tells the story of a Mexican muralist. The text was chosen due to teachers’ thoughtful considerations of the fact that their small town is filled with beautiful murals. During instruction, teachers provided rich opportunities to connect to murals located around their town, recognize different locations within their own community, and simultaneously highlight differences between their rural Midwestern community and Diego Rivera’s community in Mexico. On the other hand, the book Same, Same But Different (Kostecki-Shaw, 2011) provides an overly simplistic depiction of cultural differences between a boy who lives in the U.S. and one who lives in India.

5.4. Word Knowledge and Vocabulary

With researcher support, teachers identified “fast” and “focal” words to teach (Wexler et al., 2017). Fast words are those that might impede students’ understanding of the text, but that are unrelated to the central social studies content. For fast words, teachers developed student-friendly definitions that were quickly shared during reading.

Focal, or target, words were those that required more substantial instruction, and, like the fast words, came from the identified texts. Through in-depth discussions, teachers and researchers negotiated word selection in two ways: (a) by ensuring conceptual coherence across the words and (b) by using Beck et al.’s (2013) three-tier model. (Appendix B). The tier model posits that tier-one words are basic words learned through daily conversation, tier-two words are domain-general and can be found in a variety of texts, while tier-three words are specific to a subject area. Although tier-two words often have the highest utility, we encouraged teachers to consider words that they might categorize in the other tiers, but that were essential to the unit. For example, the word farm could be categorized as a tier-one word. However, there are contextually relevant nuances to the word that were important for students to understand, elevating it to a tier-two word. Many children’s books portray farms simplistically, with a family that cares for farm animals. However, farms also include corn or soybean farms, such as those run by large corporations and that surround their community.

During professional learning, researchers shared an instructional procedure for introducing focal vocabulary words, based on previous research (e.g., Swanson et al., 2017). Before reading, each new word was introduced with a student-friendly definition, visual, use of the word in context, and examples/nonexamples. Focal words were highlighted during reading. After reading, the teacher and students engaged in in-depth discussions during which they developed a concept map. Collaboratively, teachers and students considered how the newly learned words related to other conceptually coherent focal words that were introduced throughout the unit.

5.5. Knowledge Activation, Integration, and Revision

Teachers implemented instructional techniques that supported knowledge activation, integration, and revision (Hattan & Lupo, 2020; Kendeou et al., 2017), with an explicit focus on helping students identify how their background knowledge is similar to, unusual, in conflict with, or opposite of what was presented in texts (Hattan & Alexander, 2021). In this way, students were provided with opportunities before, during, and after reading to understand how the text did or did not fit with their existing schema, including both content knowledge and students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences, and then either reject newly presented information or revise their schemas based on their reading experiences. These instructional techniques simultaneously honored the vast backgrounds that students brought with them to the classroom, while also supporting students in developing their knowledge structures.

6. Unit Implementation and Fidelity

The contextually relevant community unit was implemented during the spring of 2022. For treatment teachers, the six-week unit replaced the first-grade’s “nonfiction” unit, while control teachers continued with regular ELA instruction. Lessons from all teachers in both the treatment and control conditions were observed and recorded once per week by the first and fourth authors, for a total of 36 observations. Observations were conducted to ensure fidelity to the evidence-based practices related to integrating social studies knowledge and reading strategies, text and vocabulary selection, vocabulary instructional techniques, and making connections and disconnections to content and vocabulary knowledge for the treatment teachers, and lack of fidelity for the control teachers (Appendix C). Specific evidence to justify scores was noted on the fidelity rubric. For each observed lesson, scores on the fidelity rubric were documented, and means and percentages were calculated. Scores of one and two on rubric items did not meet fidelity, while scores of three or four did meet fidelity (See https://osf.io/s78rc/?view_only=d7e14a5729d14b5fa99ca28230a1b52c for fidelity scores, accessed on 6 September 2025.). Overall, treatment teachers earned scores of three or four on 87.78% of fidelity rubric items across all lessons, while control teachers earned scores of three or four on 3.33% of the fidelity rubric items across all lessons. These scores demonstrate a clear difference in the instruction provided to students in the two conditions.

7. Data Sources

Research questions and data sources were developed by researchers, treatment teachers, and the curriculum director. We used past research (e.g., Stahl & Bravo, 2010) to provide options for teachers to consider how they wanted to capture student learning. We landed on two quantitative measures (i.e., vocabulary recognition task, interest), which were initially drafted by researchers. Teachers provided feedback to ensure the measures and questions were appropriate for their students and context.

7.1. Vocabulary Recognition Task

The first research question examined students’ breadth of social studies word knowledge (Appendix D). Before and after unit implementation, students in both conditions were administered the Vocabulary Recognition Task (VRT), which is a valid and reliable measure of students’ breadth of word knowledge around a concept (Stahl & Bravo, 2010). Following recommendations by Stahl et al. (2020), teachers and researchers collaboratively identified 17 words related to the overarching concept of community, and that were focal words during instruction. Further, we also identified seven unrelated words (Stahl et al., 2020). Students circled the words that they thought were related to the to-be-learned or previously learned concept (i.e., community). Scores were calculated by identifying the number of correctly chosen target words, subtracted by the number of incorrectly chosen foils. VRT had good reliability at pretest (a = 0.83) and posttest (a = 0.82).

7.2. Reading and Social Studies Interest

The second research question examined students’ interest in reading and social studies. It can be challenging to gather reliable data for young students, especially using traditional Likert scales. Therefore, we adapted Wu et al.’s (2022) scale for measuring young students’ interest, which uses circles of varying sizes rather than numbers or cartoons (Appendix E). Reading interest had excellent reliability (a = 0.92) as did social studies interest (a = 0.91).

7.3. Student Retellings

The third research question qualitatively addressed students’ deeper understandings of focal words, conceptual knowledge, and multiple perspectives, which were investigated via recorded, one-on-one conversations with all first-grade students in the treatment condition. See Appendix F for the student retelling protocol. This unique, qualitative assessment provided opportunities for students to authentically demonstrate their knowledge about the focal social studies content and texts read and also allowed students to make meaningful connections to their lived experiences and other forms of knowledge.

7.4. Mixed Methods Approach

The inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative data sources provided researchers with a more thorough understanding of students’ outcomes as they related to the community unit. For example, the quantitative VRT provides researchers with information regarding the vocabulary words that could be recognized by students across conditions, but the retellings from the experimental condition provided opportunities for students to elaborate on their vocabulary and content understandings. Therefore, the mixed methods approach allowed for the examination of both the breadth and depth of students’ vocabulary development.

8. Results

8.1. Quantitative

To explain the effect of assignment to the experimental condition on students’ vocabulary knowledge, a multiple regression was conducted using R software version 5.1 (RStudio Team, 2025). Vocabulary pretest was included because prior knowledge was expected to relate to posttest knowledge (Cervetti et al., 2016). And assignment was included in the model to determine if being in the experimental group was related to higher posttest scores.

All missing data were found to be missing completely at random using the RBtest and mice packages. In examining the patterns of missing data, reading interest had the highest rate of missing data at 10.87%. Since a relatively small amount of data were missing completely at random it was deemed appropriate to use multiple imputation to estimate the missing values (Kelley & Maxwell, 2019).

Assignment to the experimental condition and vocabulary pretest accounted for 27% of the variance in vocabulary posttest scores (

Table 2. Regression results using vocabulary posttest as the criterion.

Predictor	b	b 95% CI [LL, UL]	beta	beta 95% CI [LL, UL]	SE	Fit
(Intercept)	5.88 **	[3.85, 7.91]			1.02
Assignment	3.62 **	[2.21, 5.04]	0.47	[0.29, 0.65]	0.71
VRT_pre	0.37 **	[0.16, 0.58]	0.32	[0.13, 0.50]	0.11
						R2 = 0.268 **
						95% CI [0.11, 0.40]

Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. SE represents standard error. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively. ** indicates p < 0.01.

). Assignment to the experimental condition was found to be a somewhat stronger predictor than the vocabulary pretest.

To explain the effect of assignment to the experimental condition on students’ reading interest and social studies interest a multivariate multiple regression was conducted using the same R software. Vocabulary pretest was again included because prior knowledge was expected to relate to interest (Baldwin et al., 1985).

Assignment to the experimental condition and vocabulary pretest did not predict reading interest (

Table 3. Regression results using reading interest as the criterion.

Predictor	b	beta	SE	Fit
(Intercept)	3.50 **		0.46
Assignment	−0.02	−0.01	0.32
VRT_pre	−0.02	−0.04	0.05
				R2 = 0.00

Note. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. SE represents standard error. ** indicates p < 0.01.

). Assignment and vocabulary pretest accounted for 8% of the variance in social studies interest with assignment being the only significant predictor (

Table 4. Regression results using social studies interest as the criterion.

Predictor	b	beta	SE	Fit
(Intercept)	3.22 **		0.42
Assignment	0.78 **	0.03	0.29
VRT_pre	0.01	0.02	0.04
				R2 = 0.08 *

Note. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. SE represents standard error. * indicates p < 0.05. ** indicates p < 0.01.

).

8.2. Qualitative

Student retellings were analyzed to answer the third research question: What connections to deeper understandings and multiple perspectives do students demonstrate through informal, end-of-unit retellings? In the analyses, two themes were prevalent: (a) more abstract concepts presented a challenge to their meaning-making with focus vocabulary words, showing a limited or developing understanding of their connections to the content and application to their learning; namely in that (b) students made more connections to their local community than the global community, showing a limited understanding of their part in the greater world and surface-level interaction with the content.

We observed that there was still some confusion about abstract vocabulary presented within the unit. For example, many students confused the terms “state” and “country” (such as Peru or Switzerland), “the country” (as in rural farmland like what surrounded Bluestem), and country music. Students also needed assistance distinguishing between “rural” and “urban.” For example, when CEJ was asked what a rural community was, she responded, “that means country.” When prompted for further information, CEJ said “it’s a country, and country is a place where everyone can go farming or something like that.” She also stated that she “kind of” thought Bluestem was rural, comparing it to a big “city” she knew: Texas. EG shared similar thinking, stating that they did not believe Bluestem was rural because it was “a big city, because it had a couple big buildings.” CEJ connected her concept of “a country” to “the country” in that rural places may be their own separate entity, and EG’s conceptualization of “urban” and CEJ’s misconception of states, cities, and rurality may have been supported more by their prior experience rather than the content learned within the unit. As both students’ contributions center their lived experiences, more time to delve into and contextualize the ideas at a basic level first would promote more abstract thinking and use of multiple perspectives at later points.

Fittingly, a second common theme throughout the retellings was a strong connection to students’ local community rather than the global community. Students in this study seemed to enjoy learning about their local and global community, often referencing their lives and families in relation to the content. For example, when asked what it meant to be responsible, LB said,

We have garbage cans, we bring those down, dump it in the trash. … Well, you gotta take out your trash or you’re going to end up with it being a million feet tall, and it falls and you can’t take out your trash and your house will be a whole dump. You also have to commit and do stuff that helps the community.

LB connected his responsibilities at home to that of his local community, and how everyone was responsible to “help the community.” Similarly, MW shared, “We clean. We help the community grow. We help all of the living things in our community, we grow more flowers for the community, we clean up litter. That’s a lot of stuff we do.” His use of the word “we” implies the shared responsibility to make the community better.

All students were able to identify businesses and employment within Bluestem. Some shared national chains such as Walmart, Burger King, and McDonalds. Others named more local places such as Little Ram’s Diner (CEJ) and Local Grocery (MR). Some were able to identify family members’ places of employment such as the prison (MR) and the police station (RYB). Still others referred to the collection of murals painted in downtown Bluestem. For example, LM’s class went on a mural walk to investigate the community’s art. He shared that murals are where “we remember someone who did something important for the community. [My favorite mural is] probably the Holstein one. I’m grateful I learned about her.” These are parts of students’ funds of knowledge and were used to help them connect to the content in the unit. Students also shared how community helpers contributed to Bluestem’s livelihood. IW referred to firefighters who “connect their hoses to the red hose thingies and splash water on our house because fire,” CJ’s mom taught children, and LF referred to zookeepers and police officers’ contributions as keeping animals and people safe. These connections were often facilitated through texts from the unit shared during the retellings to provoke their thinking.

Data also indicated that some students were able to think more abstractly. When asked about leaders in Bluestem, KP shared, “You know how like a long time ago when people had different skin colors and they couldn’t do the things without a mayor or a president…that might keep going on. And then that would make our planet a very bad place.” Their reference to discrimination demonstrated broader thinking in relation to how people treat each other. Another student, AK, recognized that “we have one giant world we can live in anywhere we want.” While this may seem apparent to adults, acknowledging there is more outside of Bluestem is a significant demonstration of abstract thinking for a first-grade student. Statements such as these showed beginning development of multiple perspectives and abstract thinking. Though the unit texts provided complex schema on which students could add to and revise their knowledge, more students stayed at the surface level. The listing of, rather than connecting to and between, texts and other experiences, demonstrates a limited understanding of their role in Bluestem and the greater world.

Regarding knowledge of the global community, many students needed assistance from Courtney and Deborah to engage with the concept. As such, their thinking about the global community referenced common elements, such as food, transportation, or languages in relation to their understanding. For example, KP shared,

We learned that in Japan, people usually eat with chopsticks, but usually how we eat, we eat with forks, spoons, knives, and stuff. And we drive different. Some people use horses to get to school, some people walk, some people drive, and some people ride a bike.

In his retelling, RH referred to learning different languages and alphabets in global communities upon use of prompting and clarifying questions from Courtney. He specifically refers to children speaking Spanish, to which Courtney clarified is also spoken in the United States, and redirected his notion about speaking “urban” as a different language by saying “People in cities might speak a little bit differently than here.” Both KP and RH spoke about the differences in global communities as compared to their own cultural and linguistic knowledge, which shows a limited understanding in relation to the greater world. This aligns with their schema and present knowledge base.

Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate both students’ recognition of key vocabulary words and their knowledge integration of the concepts with their own knowledge and experiences. At the same time, although the collected retellings reflect the unit’s contextual relevance for the local community, most of the students showed a limited or developing understanding of critical thinking and consideration of multiple perspectives for the global community. Identifying opportunities for more explicit instruction of abstract and/or polysemic words (e.g., state, country), and scaffolding students in how to connect local experiences to more complex, global concepts should be explored for further research. Our mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis allowed for an examination of the incremental nature of vocabulary learning.

9. Discussion

Integrating social studies into literacy instruction is emerging as a popular curricular decision (Knowledge Matters Campaign, 2022). Yet it is crucial that students’ background knowledge and experiences are viewed as assets during this type of instruction, rather than assuming students are blank slates that need to be filled. Therefore, the current study builds on previous work by acknowledging the usefulness of content–literacy integration, while emphasizing the importance of context.

9.1. Connections to Theoretical Perspectives

The results of this study extend our collective understanding of theories of reading (e.g., Active View of Reading; Duke & Cartwright, 2021) and contextually relevant pedagogy. We investigated the reader-specific components (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) of language comprehension (i.e., cultural and content knowledge), bridging processes (i.e., vocabulary knowledge) and active self-regulation (i.e., interest) as students interacted with conceptually coherent texts. These reader-specific components align with the principle of academic achievement in our conceptualization of contextually relevant pedagogy, which is grounded in Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Because the three tenets of contextually relevant pedagogy include academic achievement, origination conception, and place-based understanding, exploring the connection between students’ experiences and complex content supported their learning to a degree. Contextually relevant pedagogy was reflected in the texts used in this study, co-selected by researchers and teachers based on the sociocultural context in which students lived and learned (e.g., origination conception and place-based understanding). These texts supported students as they made meaningful connections between the learned content and their local community, benefiting from the amplification of their own rural context with academic achievement. Yet, authentic, relevant, and deep connections to global communities—or those that might challenge students’ own ways of seeing and experiencing the world—were limited. Future research could build on this work by making connections between local and global communities more explicit for students, and by scaffolding instruction to support students in connecting concrete concepts and vocabulary words to those that are more abstract.

Specifically, quantitative results indicated that assignment to the treatment condition, which emphasized integration between social studies and literacy instruction was a predictor of students’ post implementation vocabulary scores, reflecting academic achievement. Further, assignment to treatment predicted students’ social studies interest, although not their reading interest. Yet, when considered alongside qualitative analyses, the results provide a more nuanced understanding of how these various components of literacy interact with each other. For example, we found that vocabulary is a powerful bridge to cultural and content knowledge when the focus of instruction and texts was on local and community knowledge. However, this was more challenging when discussing global communities and how students’ local contexts meaningfully relate to communities around the world. This tension reflected the negotiation between the origination conception and place-based understanding components of our framework. Because these two principles emphasize the interaction between people and their contexts, beginning with their prior knowledge and experiences, while also adjusting instruction to amplify and challenge students’ contextual understandings, emphasizing a global connection within contextually relevant pedagogy can be difficult but not impossible.

9.2. Limitations and Future Directions

The current study was not without its limitations. We investigated the possibility of a contextually relevant unit that integrated social studies and literacy content. However, the study was conducted in one small rural school, with predominantly white participants. This begs the question of how context-specific instruction could be adapted for multiple schools or more diverse and larger districts. Although it may not be feasible to develop context-specific units across the school year, future research could support teachers in making context-specific adaptations to scripted curricula. Instead of following these curricula with fidelity, teachers could be empowered to use their agency and contextual knowledge to adjust content and instruction for their students and communities.

Further, as researchers and educators co-constructed the unit, there were several compromises that were made given teachers’ comfort and knowledge. For example, we wondered if spending more time developing teachers’ knowledge of the global communities included in the unit would lead to deeper understandings for students. In other words, it is possible that treatment students’ connections to global communities during their unit retellings were limited due to teachers’ presentation and deep knowledge about those communities.

Another limitation is that the current study relied on unit-specific vocabulary measures and did not include quantitative comprehension measures. This decision was made to ensure that first-grade students’ decoding skills would not impede their understanding of the unit content. Instead, we opted to conduct unit-retellings via interviews, yet passage-specific comprehension questions could have provided additional information about students’ abilities to apply what they learned to new reading situations. Further, the current study compared social studies–literacy integration to literacy-only business as usual instruction. It would be interesting to compare social studies integration to social studies-specific instruction that implemented similar social studies content but did not use conceptually coherent and contextually relevant texts, such as through textbooks or lecture.

10. Conclusions

Students who come from low-income, rural communities deserve to have their cultures, backgrounds, and experiences uplifted during literacy instruction. Yet, it is also important for students to engage with multiple perspectives. Doing so can empower students to recognize the aspects of their culture that they want to celebrate, shift ideas that marginalize others, and simultaneously build knowledge and become stronger readers. This study demonstrates that contextually relevant social studies–literacy integration is promising. Yet successful implementation requires substantial effort and commitment from educators and administrators. Therefore, future studies could consider how to expand this work in larger, more diverse districts or varied contexts. Given the contextual nature of the units and their implementation, it would be important to see how a co-constructed, contextual approach would influence students’ learnings in other settings and with other grade levels.