Making Challenging Social Studies Texts Accessible: An Intervention

Abstract

One major difference between more and less successful readers involves their access to complex texts and the conceptual knowledge and extensive vocabulary presented in them. The current research looks at four variations of scaffolded reading instruction on the reading achievement of struggling third-grade readers using informational texts. Social studies texts were selected using Lexile levels to determine the selections’ difficulty; Guided Reading levels were also used when available. Twenty-four students from three different classrooms at a Title One school in the Midwest participated in one of four groups (Wide Reading with instructional level texts, Wide Reading with grade level texts, Repeated Reading with instructional level texts, and Repeated Reading with grade level texts). An analysis of the pretest indicated that the initial ability levels of the four groups were equivalent. This research demonstrated overall gains for the third-grade readers in terms of reading ability while expanding their access to vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, two of the factors underlying the achievement gap.

1. Introduction

Over the past several years, there has been a renewed focus on the ways in which vocabulary and conceptual knowledge can impact reading development (Dreher & Kletzien, 2020; Wright et al., 2022). Fortunately, the reading of informational texts can provide students with better access to both. The importance of integrating these materials into the elementary curriculum as well as the ability of students to learn to read while reading to learn has been shown through research (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015; Duke et al., 2021; Pearson et al., 2020), provided the selections and instructional support are appropriate. This practice is bolstered by state and national standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) that recommend an increase in the amount of non-fiction texts across grades K-12.

However, the state and national standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Glossary of key terms) have also increased the difficulty level of reading material required for students starting in grade 2. This increase in text difficulty can be readily seen when comparing the current range of Lexile^® levels with those previously recommended for each grade band (see

Table 1. Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Glossary of key terms, p. 8 (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Glossary of key terms).

Text Complexity Grade Band in the Standards	Old Lexile Ranges	Lexile Ranges Aligned to CCR Expectations
K-1	N/A	N/A
2–3	450–725	450–790
4–5	645–845	770–980
6–8	860–1010	955–1155
9–10	960–1115	1080–1305
11-CCR	1070–1220	1215–1355

). While these criteria are meant to ensure today’s students are adequately prepared for college and 21st century careers, it has meant that some students who were considered grade level readers under the old standards are now seen as struggling. This is especially problematic given many students were already experiencing difficulty under the former (i.e., “easier”) text levels. If we expect students to succeed with these new standards, it is critical to identify approaches that support their reading at these higher levels (Kuhn, 2020; K. A. D. Stahl & Garcia, 2022). This article will discuss a research intervention that improved the reading achievement of a diverse group of third graders through the scaffolded reading of challenging social studies texts.

1.1. Scaffolding Reading Instruction

The suggestion that challenging texts be regularly used in the classroom (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Glossary of key terms) seems counter to the long-held belief that students learn best from “just right” or “instruction level” materials (Allington et al., 2015; Betts, 1946; Fountas & Pinnell, 2005). However, despite this commonly held conviction, there is a substantial amount of research that shows students can succeed with more difficult texts, or those at the upper end of their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978), if they are provided with appropriate amounts of support or scaffolding. Much of this research involves disfluent readers who were able to make significant progress using a variety of approaches (Kuhn & Levy, 2015; Chomsky, 1976; S. A. Stahl & Heubach, 2005).

The current study expands on an intervention designed for use with small groups of struggling second graders (five or six students per group) (Kuhn & Levy, 2015). The original implementation of this method used two scaffolded reading approaches: one based on Repeated Reading and the second based on Wide Reading. The students read trade books that were at the upper end of their ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978); all of the titles were fiction. Since the students were reading at the primer level at the beginning of the intervention, the texts being used ranged from a late first- to an early third-grade reading level according to Fountas and Pinnell’s Guided Reading system (Fountas & Pinnell, 2005). In addition to the intervention groups, there were two control groups: for the first, the students listened to, but did not read, the trade books, and for the second, the students did not have any additional instruction beyond that in their different classrooms.

The students who participated in the groups read with the researcher three days a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for approximately 15–20 min per session. The sessions took place over six weeks. The students in the Repeated Reading group read a single trade book three times over the course of each week: first an echo reading, then a choral reading, and finally a partner reading. Alternatively, the students in the Wide Reading group echo read a different book during each of their sessions. Discussion of the material and vocabulary occurred naturally as part of the lessons, with the emphasis on encouraging conversations among the participants (Pan et al., 2020) and enjoyment of the text.

The students in both the Repeated Reading and the Wide Reading groups made significant gains in terms of word recognition in isolation, prosody, and correct words per minute on the Qualitative Reading Inventory-II (QRI-II) (Leslie & Caldwell, 1995) when compared to two control groups (Kuhn & Levy, 2015). Furthermore, the students in the Wide Reading group made greater progress in comprehension than any of their peers. Given the success of these and similar approaches (S. A. Stahl & Heubach, 2005), we wanted to see if this type of intervention would be effective with struggling third graders reading social studies texts.

1.2. Scaffolding Social Studies Texts—An Intervention

Since there is the lack of focus on social studies in many schools and this intervention had never been used with such texts (Taboada-Barber et al., 2015), we considered it important to explore two aspects of the instruction. First, we wanted to determine whether repeatedly reading a single text (Repeated Reading) or reading multiple selections (Wide Reading) would be more effective with our students. Second, we wanted to examine whether “challenging” or “reading-level” social studies selections would better aid students’ reading development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

As there was no preset target number, the participating students were initially identified as below-average readers by their teachers. The teachers’ evaluations were confirmed using two assessments: one standardized (Torgesen et al., 2012) and one informal (Leslie & Caldwell, 2016); these tests are described below. Some of the students were identified as having word recognition difficulties, others had comprehension difficulties, and several were experiencing both. Third grade was selected because it is traditionally seen as the final grade in which there is an extensive focus on learning to read (Chall, 1995). Social studies books were chosen not only because they often follow a narrative format, one that is more likely to be familiar to young readers, but also because they tend to be an underused resource in the elementary school curriculum (Taboada-Barber et al., 2015).

Twenty-four third graders (nine girls and 15 boys) took part in the instruction. The students were in a Title One school in a district with a 21% poverty rate. Of the students who participated, nine were African American, nine were European American, five were Hispanic American, and one was Caribbean American. Of these students, six were ELs, but all were participating in the classroom’s primary literacy instruction. In terms of the data collection, one student’s material was excluded due to a multiweek absence, and a second student did not complete all of the final assessments and, as such, is missing partial data. The full analysis is therefore based on 23 students rather than 24, and two additional components have complete data for 22 students rather than 23. The instruction took place over an eight-week period in the first half of the school year.

2.2. Assessments

The children’s reading was evaluated using a standardized and an informal assessment prior to and after the instruction. To minimize confounding variables, the order of the two measures was counterbalanced across students. Post-intervention data also include a modified version of the Garfield Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) and an open-ended interview regarding their experiences.

The Test of Word Reading Efficiency II (TOWRE-II) (Torgesen et al., 2012) served as the standardized reading measure (reliability = 0.87 alternative form test-retest). The TOWRE-II provides a list of sight-word reading and a list of phonemic decoding items ordered by difficulty. The sight-word reading subtest, which measures the number of items a child can read correctly in 45 s, was used for this intervention.

The informal reading measure was the Qualitative Reading Inventory-6 (QRI-6) (Leslie & Caldwell, 2016). The QRI-6 consists of a series of word lists along with narrative and informational passages that increase in complexity (reliabilities > 0.80). Children are asked questions after reading each passage and answer in their own words. The QRI-6 is discontinued once the child reaches frustration on either their word reading or their comprehension. The number of questions answered correctly serves as an indicator of reading comprehension. We used the results from the word lists in isolation and the expository passages (word reading in context and comprehension) for our analysis.

In addition to the reading assessments, the classroom teachers supervised the four groups of students as they completed a modified version of the Garfield Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The evaluation was designed to determine how the students felt about their reading experience. One of the researchers also interviewed the students individually to determine their feelings regarding the process. This involved a short schedule of questions after the reading assessments were completed. They were asked which topic was their favorite and least favorite and what was their favorite and least favorite part of reading in small groups. The students were also given the opportunity to share any other thoughts they may have had about the intervention.

2.3. Instructional Materials

While the notion of instructional and challenging material is a complex one (Hiebert et al., 2019; Reutzel & Fawson, 2022), for the purposes of this study, we chose to use material identified at the second-grade level, or a year below the students’ current grade placements, for our “instructional texts” and third-grade level material, or at their current grade placement, for our “challenging texts”. Levels of text difficulty (second- and third-grade texts) were identified for the instructional groups using Lexiles^® (MetaMetrics, 2019). Guided Reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 2005) levels were used to confirm the appropriateness of the books when available; however, Guided Reading levels were unavailable for 21 of the 47 books, causing the researchers to rely exclusively on the Lexile measures for approximately 44% of the selections.

Leaving out the Guiding Reading levels entirely was considered, but given the wide-spread use of this system in the primary grades at the time, we felt it provided useful insight into book choice, especially since the two systems were often quite disparate. In fact, a number of books—and potential topics (e.g., women’s suffrage)—were eliminated as the result of the mismatch in grade appropriateness. Qualitative evaluations of the selections were also undertaken (e.g., knowledge demands, length, etc.).

After completing this process and consulting with the third-grade teachers, we chose to read about seven topics (e.g., Pyramids, The Statue of Liberty) and one historical figure (George Washington Carver). Three books were then identified at each difficulty level for each week for a total of 47 books (one book being read over two days). The Lexile range was 450–620 for the second-grade material and 620–790 for the third-grade selections (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015); when available, the Guided Reading levels for second grade fell in the J-M range and in the N-P range for third grade (see Figure 1). One goal of this study was to ensure that the texts were accessible for the participating students; in this case, accessibility meant that the students could make use of, or access, the text and the information provided in the reading material. Their success was indicated through their ability to read and discuss books that would otherwise be too difficult for them.

Procedures. Although the approaches could easily be used for small group instruction in the literacy or social studies block, the current intervention was designed to fit within the conceptual framework of a Tier 2 Response to Intervention (RTI) (Jenkins et al., 2013). The RTI framework provides increasingly intensive, research-based instruction to accelerate student learning and is guided by student outcome data. In this case, the instruction varied in terms of both the text difficulty and the number of texts for a total of four reading groups (six students per group). Students met with the teachers for 30 min sessions, three times per week, over eight weeks. Each of the two instructors worked with two of the groups per week; they alternated groups weekly to ensure each instructor worked with all four groups for a total of four weeks.

As was noted above, the groups’ reading material differed in two ways. First, two groups read a single text repeatedly (three times over the course of the week) while two groups read multiple selections (three different titles) each week. In addition, two of the groups read challenging, or grade level, texts each week while the other two groups read instructional, or below-grade level, material (see

Table 2. Lesson plans for the four intervention groups.

	Monday	Wednesday	Friday
Wide Reading “Instructional level” texts *	Text #1 Echo reading	Text #2 Echo reading	Text #3 Echo reading
Repeated Reading “Instructional level” text	Text #1 Echo reading	Text #1 Choral reading	Text #1 Partner reading
Wide Reading “Challenging” texts **	Text #1 Echo reading	Text #2 Echo reading	Text #3 Echo reading
Repeated Reading “Challenging” texts	Text #1 Echo reading	Text #1 Choral reading	Text #1 Partner reading

* “Instructional level” texts fell within the second-grade band for Lexile (450–620) and Guided Reading levels (J–M). ** “Challenging” texts fell within the third-grade band for Lexile (620–790) and Guided Reading levels (N–P).

). The lessons took place in two spaces outside of the third-grade classrooms: one was a large, shared classroom and the other a private space created specifically for small-group instruction. The groups also alternated instructional spaces to further ensure students’ experiences were as similar as possible.

Students in the two Repeated Reading groups engaged in common fluency practices: an echo, a choral, and a partner reading of a single text weekly, for a total of eight books across the intervention. Students in the two Wide Reading groups also engaged in reading fluency practice: an echo or choral reading of different material on each of the three instructional days. Since one of the challenging books was too long to complete in a single session, it was read over the course of two days. As a result, the wide-instructional texts group read 24 books, whereas the wide-challenging texts group read 23 books. Other aspects of instruction were consistent across conditions; discussion and vocabulary development were dealt with as part of a naturalistic dialog (Pan et al., 2020) in which questions and comments raised by students were responded to by the instructor and their peers.

Prior to the intervention, students were purposefully placed into the four groups based on two criteria. The first involved ensuring third graders from each of the three classrooms were represented in all four of the reading groups. The second involved using the individual learner’s TOWRE-II score (Torgesen et al., 2012) to create equivalent groups; a non-parametric test, the Kruskal–Wallis H test, was used to confirm this (Kruskal–Wallis H = 0.995, df = 3, p = 0.802).

3. Results

We undertook several analyses after the intervention to answer our research questions. The first, a Kruskal–Wallis post-test on the TOWRE-II, showed that none of the interventions led to significant differences between the four groups (H = 2.179, df = 3 p = 0.536); in other words, whether the students read one book repeatedly or three different books and whether the books were identified as the second- or third-grade material, the groups showed similar growth.

However, we also noticed that several of the students who had the lowest TOWRE-II pre-test scores made substantial gains when compared to their more skilled peers, and our initial analysis of the QRI-6 confirmed these results. While the nonparametric tests prevent us from regrouping the students based on quartiles, the initial differences between many of the lowest readers and their higher scoring peers disappeared after the eight-week intervention. In fact, all of our students whose initial scores were below the 20th percentile made gains on the TOWRE, some of which were substantial, with the greatest gains coming from the Repeated and Wide Reading groups using the less challenging material.

Next, none of the QRI-6 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2016) measures showed significance; this again indicates that the four approaches led to similar gains between groups. However, it is also worth noting that over the eight-week intervention, 16 out of 23 students made gains in word recognition in isolation, 18 out of 23 made gains in word recognition in context, and 19 made gains in expository comprehension. Only one student demonstrated losses. This child had initial comprehension scores that were closer to the third-grade average than many of the other participants but was placed in the Repeated Reading group with instructional level text. It seems plausible that the reading simply did not present enough of a challenge for them to benefit from the intervention (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; O’Shea et al., 1985).

The responses to the Garfield Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) indicated that students enjoyed both the process and the time they spent reading about the various topics. These responses were confirmed during the students’ interviews. This finding is important since there is some worry that children do not enjoy topics that extend beyond their own experiences (Dreher & Kletzien, 2020). Similarly, some have expressed concern that students will be overwhelmed or discouraged by the use of challenging reading material (Shanahan, 2020).

4. Discussion

These interventions were designed to look at the ways in which two forms of fluency instruction (repetition and Wide Reading) as well as two levels of text difficulty (instructional and challenging) affect the reading of striving third grade readers. The results indicate that, no matter which group they were placed in, the students with the lowest initial scores (i.e., scoring at a primer level) made greater gains than their peers in terms of word recognition on the TOWRE-II (Torgesen et al., 2012). Students who were closer to a third-grade reading level, on the other hand, made smaller gains or, in certain cases, demonstrated losses on this measure.

The lower TOWRE-II score for some students may have resulted from trading a portion of their initial rate for a greater focus on pacing, an aspect of reading that was emphasized in the instruction. While rare compared to other reading difficulties, some students who participated were competent decoders with limited or no comprehension (Applegate et al., 2009; Kuhn et al., 2010). To counter this, instruction needs to focus on prosody, pacing, and comprehension over rate. In contrast, several of the students in the intervention groups had been identified as having difficulties in comprehension rather than word recognition. The intervention approaches may have benefitted them in this area, a possibility that is supported by the fact that their QRI comprehension measure did not show losses similar to those seen on the TOWRE.

Overall, the students’ results on the QRI-6 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2016) were more consistent, with all of the students’ making gains or holding constant for word recognition in isolation and for word recognition in context (i.e., when reading the expository selections). Furthermore, 22 of 23 students made gains on the QRI-6’s expository comprehension, with one student making a small loss. This loss is, perhaps, a result of the materials and procedure used in their instruction (placement in the Repeated Reading group with the less-challenging material). Their initial scores had been closer to average on the comprehension and word recognition assessments than were some of their peers. It may simply be that this approach was not a good match with the child’s developmental learning needs and they would have benefitted from greater challenge.

At the same time, it is necessary to acknowledge these approaches did not provide consistent gains for all of the students. Those who had the lowest initial scores on the standardized measure of automatic word recognition (TOWRE-II) (Torgesen et al., 2012) made gains, but those gains were the greatest for the students who read books at second-grade reading levels. Given these students were initially reading at a primer level, it seems likely that this material was at the upper end of their ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). The students whose initial word recognition and comprehension were higher, on the other hand, tended to do better when reading the third-grade material, but their gains were not as substantial.

Finally, our numbers were small and, while similar to earlier findings, it is important not to overgeneralize from them. Despite the number of students being low (24 students), it is worth emphasizing that none of them indicated that the reading was problematic in any way, and, in fact, they all stated that they enjoyed it. This echoes previous research that used challenging fiction (S. A. Stahl & Heubach, 2005) but expands the findings to social studies selections.

Limitations. Overall, while the students made gains on the assessments, the number of participants was small. Therefore, while this approach demonstrates potential, it requires additional research to confirm our findings. Next, including an evaluation of students’ topic knowledge and targeted vocabulary prior to and immediately after the week’s reading, along with a delayed post-test, would aid in determining the interventions’ effectiveness. Finally, a more in-depth qualitative analysis of the students’ attitudes about the process and the topics would also expand our understanding of the procedures’ usefulness in the classroom.

We also want to acknowledge that text difficulty is not a static concept; instead, it depends on both the learner and the text (Recht & Leslie, 1988). While previous research has shown that students can benefit from challenging texts if their reading is scaffolded (Kuhn & Levy, 2015; S. A. Stahl & Heubach, 2005; Wexler et al., 2010), the effectiveness of that scaffolding depends on the amount of support provided, the student’s reading development, and the student’s knowledge of the content (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Glossary of key terms; Kuhn & Levy, 2015; Recht & Leslie, 1988). Fuller analysis of the texts being used could provide additional insights into the best range of difficulty for participating students.

Suggestions for the future. When considering the complexities of reading development, it is easy to look at the pieces of the process in isolation (e.g., Kuhn, 2020). It is true that many of our students who are not as successful at reading grade level texts as their peers would benefit from word recognition activities, comprehension instruction, and vocabulary and fluency development. However, it may be possible to address many of these components, to some extent, through instructional approaches such as the ones outlined here.

While no one study should be used to promote substantial change in reading instruction, the research presented here led to overall gains for the reading of most of the third graders who participated. It also expanded their access to vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, two of the factors underlying the achievement gap. Similar results have been found for second graders who read fiction (Kuhn & Levy, 2015). As such, we suggest further research into these approaches be undertaken. While replication of the intervention presented here would help to ensure that it is, indeed, effective, similar studies could be implemented with students in various grades, at differing reading abilities, or with different content.

5. Conclusions

If we want to expand struggling readers’ vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, as well as improve their word recognition, it is essential that we provide literacy instruction that supports their reading of the complex materials and the broad range of topics that are emphasized in today’s classrooms (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2015; Duke et al., 2021). The careful text selection and scaffolding undertaken in this research allowed us to better facilitate struggling third graders’ overall reading in the social studies content area. Such instruction also has the potential to reduce the difficulties many readers experience when they encounter content area texts in upper elementary grades (Dreher & Kletzien, 2020; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), as well as to decrease the gap that exists between struggling readers and their more skilled peers.

Although additional research needs to be undertaken before making definitive conclusions, these interventions were easy to implement and led to gains in word recognition, comprehension, or both, for most of the students. The question of how challenging the texts should be depends on the needs of the individual learners, with approximately a grade level difference seeming to have the greatest benefit. The approaches allow for differentiation while ensuring students have the opportunity to read the kinds of texts that have the potential to expand their conceptual and vocabulary knowledge. Overall, we see this intervention as providing additional evidence for implementing these instructional approaches and expands their viability to social studies texts. Finally, they are straightforward and easy to use, and their flexibility allows them to be included as part of the social studies or reading curriculum or as a Tier 2 intervention.