LITERACY STRATEGIES IMPROVE CONTENT AREA LEARNING

LITERACY STRATEGIES IMPROVE
CONTENT AREA LEARNING
Linda McCorkel Clinard, Ph.D.
Department of Education
2001 Berkeley Place
University of California-Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697
Phone: (949) 824-5117
FAX: (949) 824-2965
e-mail: lclinard@uci.edu
11/99 DRAFT:
Claremont Reading Conference Yearbook, Claremont Graduate University, (To
be published in April, 2000)
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook1

---

LITERACY STRATEGIES IMPROVE CONTENT AREA LEARNING
Linda McCorkel Clinard
Middle and high school teachers today still ask questions similar to those I asked as a
7th grade student teacher in Science during the mid-1960’s, i.e., “Why can’t these students read
and write by now? Why am I hearing that I still need to teach reading? How can I fit teaching
reading into an already full curriculum?” Little research and instructional support were available
to help teachers explore answers to these questions in the 1960’s
This paper will provide (1) a summary of the emergence of content area literacy as a
focus for effective learning across the curriculum and (2) highlights from a content area literacy
staff development experience which included student teachers, middle and high school
classroom teachers, teacher educators and K-12 curriculum leaders in Orange County,
California in Spring, 1999.
CONTENT AREA LITERACY EMERGES
Policies and statements about content area reading instruction can be found as early as
the 1920’s.
…the U.S. Bureau of Education acknowledged that each subject matter area contributes
directly to the development of reading competency (Gray, 1925). Accordingly, educators
popularized the slogan “Every teacher should be, to a certain extent, a teacher of reading”
(Whipple, 1925, p. 6). Although reading educators recognized the importance of providing
instruction that would aid students’ understanding of subject matter textbooks, an
examination of classroom practice between the 1930’s and 1960’s failed to provide
evidence that this sort of instruction was widespread (Austin & Morrison, 1963). The
limited use of reading strategies in the subject matter classroom appears to be a result of
the lack of teacher training in reading methods (Early, 1957)… (Ryder & Graves, 1994,
pp. 2-3)
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook2

---

Many instructional theories and practices about content area learning have emerged over
the past 50 years (Bond, 1941; Gray, 1948; Moore, et al., 1992) with a significant increase in
research and related policies since the 1970’s. Some states began to require coursework in
content area reading instruction for secondary teachers in the 1970’s. Many other states joined
in making this a requirement for a credential by the early 1980’s (Estes & Piercey, 1973;
Farrell & Cirrincione, 1984). Content area teachers began integrating strategies in more
organized and effective ways in the 1980’s yielding evidence which demonstrated that they were
more confident, and student learning improved (Pearce & Bader, 1986; Conley, 1986;
Alvermann & Swafford, 1989; Bean, Singer, & Frazee, 1986).
Currently, professional resources provide a wide-range of support for implementing
content literacy strategies at all grade levels. (Moore, et al., 1998). Some researchers have
focused upon the middle school learner, (Atwell, 1987; Duffy, 1990; Beers & Samuels, 1998;
Combs, 1997; Irvin, 1998) while others suggest strategies for middle and high schoolers
(Lenski, et al., 1999; Cochran, 1993; Silver, 1998; Dupuis, et al., 1989; Tierney, Readence, &
Dishner, 1990; Conley, 1995; Roe, Stoodt, & Burns, 1995). Still others offer suggestions for
high school and college students (Olson, 1997; Chapman, 1993).
More recently, content area literacy, rather than content area reading, has been the
focus of teacher training resources (McKenna & Robinson, 1993; Alvermann & Phelps, 1994;
Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998; Vacca & Vacca, 1999). Emphasis on the integrated nature
of the language processes of listening, speaking, thinking, reading, and writing within the
context of content-specific classrooms has emerged as a key element for training preservice and
practicing secondary teachers (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998; Postman, 1979; Tierney &
Shanahan, 1991).
CONTENT LITERACY EXPECTATIONS IN CALIFORNIA
Policy-makers, legislators, and curriculum leaders in California have been influenced by
the need to improve learning for all students by applying literacy skills across the curriculum.
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) adopted the following
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook3

---

"Standard for the Preparation of Single Subject Teaching Credential Candidates for Reading,
Writing and Related Language Instruction in English" in January, 1997. Single Subject
(secondary) preservice teacher education programs will be held accountable to show evidence
that...:
The professional preparation program provides substantive, research-based instruction
that effectively prepares each candidate for a Single Subject (SS) Teaching Credential to
provide instruction in content-based reading and writing skills for all students, including
students with varied reading levels and language backgrounds. The SS Credential
Program includes a significant practical experience component in reading that is
connected to the content of coursework and that takes place during each candidate's field
experience(s) or student teaching assignment(s). The program places all candidates for SS
Credentials in linguistically and/or culturally diverse field experience sites and student
teaching assignments with teachers whose instructional approaches and methods in
reading are consistent with a balanced, comprehensive program and who cooperate with
institutional supervisors and instructors. (California Department of Education, 1997)
California Assembly Bill 1086 in 1997 identified the following specific skills which
current, practicing upper grade teachers (Grades 4-8) are expected to understand and be
prepared to apply:
• Word attack skills
• Spelling and vocabulary
• Comprehension skills
• Research on how reading skills are acquired
• Strategic Reading strategies across curriculum (text-handling)
• Independent, self-selected reading
• Integration of listening, speaking, reading, and writing
• Intervention for, and integration of, low performing readers
• Effective ELL (English Language Learner) reading instruction
• Planning and delivery of appropriate reading instruction based on assessment and
evaluation
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook4

---

The California Reading and Writing Content Standards for Kindergarten through 12th
Grade (California Department of Education, 1998) include expectations that all students will be
engaged in strategies across the curriculum to develop competency in word analysis, vocabulary,
literacy response and analysis, reading comprehension, writing, listening, speaking and other
related literacy skills. The Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools
Grades Kindergarten through Grade Twelve provides teachers with the blueprint for
addressing the standards with all students. (California Department of Education, 1999)
CONTENT AREA LITERACY COLLABORATION
Secondary student teachers, classroom teachers, curriculum leaders, and teacher
education faculty representing the UCI Department of Education Professional Development
Schools program (10 districts and 23 secondary schools), eight Orange County teacher
education institutions, and the Orange County Department of Education participated in a
“Content Area Literacy” preservice collaborative experience in March, 1999. This experience
was a first-step in developing on-going communication among partners for identifying “best
practices” in the content area classrooms in which we participate.
Four content area literacy professional resources were introduced to provide the basis
for future communication, i.e., Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process at the High
School and College Levels (Olson, 1997); Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach
(Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998); Reading & Learning Strategies for Middle & High School
Students (Lenski, Wham & Johns, 1999); Into Focus: Understanding and Creating Middle
School Readers (Beers & Samuels, 1998)
LITERACY STRATEGIES IN CONTENT CLASSROOMS
Funds provided through a Goals 2000 Preservice Reading Grant made it possible to
offer copies of each resource to student teachers and/or classroom teachers who signed a
commitment to (a) implement a minimum of one “new” strategy and (b) offer feedback:
Please write/type a half-page journal reflecting upon your experience in planning and
implementing this strategy. Journal content may include your reflections about (1)
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook5

---

planning experiences; (2) observations of students’ responses to the strategy; (3) use of
strategy with different classes; (4) evidence you saw of various levels of student
performance (independent, instructional, frustration/challenging) AND/OR (5) future
goals for use of the strategy.
The journals submitted represented middle and high school teachers from Social Science,
Language Arts, Math, Science, and World Languages. Each journal provides insights into the
ways in which the teacher matched the strategy to curriculum expectations and the students.
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Middle and high school teachers in Irvine, California, explored “new” strategies for
Social Studies classrooms.
“Content Reading Inventories” (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998, pp. 66-70) were
developed as assessments by a committee of Irvine Unified School District teachers after being
introduced to a sample inventory created by Kathy Wanchek (a middle school Language Arts
teacher) and Anne Rubin (a middle school Resource Teacher). An excerpt from Kathy’s journal
states:
This idea/template was presented to the committee of teachers who will teach the Summer
“I’M RAD” (Irvine Model Reading Advancement Development) program. The teachers
saw the many possibilities presented by the use of this tool and wanted to create a
collection of CRIs for use in our summer school programs.
The “People Search” (Lenski, Wham, & Johns, 1999, pp. 13-14) served to generate
interest in a reading selection that would begin a unit studying China in Candy Peleaux’s
diverse freshmen Global Perspectives class at University High School in Irvine.
…Traditionally, we begin a unit with background reading from a textbook. To begin the
China unit, I introduced the reading with the “Get the signature of…” activity, hoping to
simultaneously access students’ prior knowledge and to get the class excited about the unit.
The activity itself was incredibly easy to construct and to integrate. I figured that the
response would be positive, but it was better even than I anticipated. Students enjoyed
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook6

---

getting out of their seats, and they enjoyed the “social” aspect of the activity; also, those
who already knew about China were proud to share their expertise. …Comments such as,
“This is fun.” and “I like this.” were often heard, and the competitive and cooperative mix
in the atmosphere was refreshing. Next time I incorporate this activity, I will make it a bit
longer and more complex. I plan to use this activity to introduce each reading assignment
throughout the year.
LANGUAGE ARTS
Four Language Arts teachers described strategies implemented in their classrooms.
Two who used Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process at the High School and
College Levels (Olson, 1997) were an adjunct English professor and a high school English
teacher. A UCI student teacher and a high school teacher found strategies which are described
in Reading & Learning Strategies for Middle & High School Students (Lenski, Wham, &
Johns, 1999) and Content Area Literacy (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998).
April Moore (Vanguard University, Costa Mesa) used the "Showing, Not
Telling"(Olson, 1997) strategy with a freshman college class.
I used the "Showing, Not Tell" strategy, pp. 39-45 in PRACTICAL IDEAS after I noticed
that my students were not using enough examples in their writing. I presented "good"
examples of 'showing' paragraphs and "bad" examples (taken from the textbook) and
explained that this writing activity would help them use more examples and be able to
support their writing points. ....As they continued to use this strategy until the end of the
semester, all of the students continued to improve in their writing....
Christine King's sophomore English class at University High in Irvine used
“clustering” and a “sharing/revising process” to scaffold instruction and improve their essay
writing skills.
I used a prompt from an old AP exam and modified some of the ideas for pre-writing and
sharing/revising in Carol Booth Olson's "Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook7

---

Process (Olson, 1997). I was able to do the modifications and have all the materials ready
after one evening of work - a very quick and easy strategy....
Students in two of my American Lit. classes were very accepting of the pre-writing and
revision strategies...I had all but four students hand in each step of the process - the
clustering, the introductory paragraph, the rough draft, the revision, and the final copy.
They were actively engaged in the pre-writing with 100 percent of students on-task the first
day...I would certainly use the strategies again. I did learn that my typical revision/editing
cover sheet was far to demanding. I usually have students looking for correctness, as well
as ideas and support. This new revision/editing sheet was much easier for students and
less intimidating…
Keri Kemble, a UCI student teacher at Los Alamitos High School, used a “Knowledge
Rating Scale” (Lenski, Wham, & Johns, 1999, pp. 37-38; Readence, Bean, and Baldwin, 1998,
pp. 73-74). The scale was used to activate her English III students' prior knowledge of
vocabulary words in Zora Neale Hurston's "How I Got to be Colored Me."
I asked for a show of hands to see if any students had used a rating scale like this before.
None had. I instructed students to look at the five vocabulary words listed on the scale and
rate them according to their level of understanding: "Know It Well," "Have Heard It/Seen
It," and "No Clue." Students needed no other direction to complete the scale and even
seemed to carefully deliberate prior to their choices. I then directed the students' attention
to fill-in-the-blank sentences taken directly from the story...We completed the cloze activity
as a class, going back and forth between sentences to find the right matches...
I used the Knowledge Rating Scale strategy with two classes and the results were clear.
Students finished the introduction with an understanding of the vocabulary words and
intrigued to begin the essay. I will definitely use this strategy again, but perhaps next time
I might adapt it to include a brief response space so that students will have to record their
pre-lesson answers to check post-lesson (knowledge). What a great (and quick)
assessment!
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook8

---

Jennifer Davis used an “Anticipation Guide” (Lenski, Wham, & Johns, 1999, p. 143;
Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998, pp. 159-61) with English 1 students at University High
School, Irvine, to introduce the issues in Romeo and Juliet.
The Anticipation Guide was a nice opportunity for students to examine their beliefs prior to
beginning the play Romeo and Juliet. In a non-threatening way, it also presented the issues
the students discuss while reading the play. Often, especially with the classic love story,
students "buy into" what they are presented without thinking for themselves first. I
personally liked the fact that the students were forced to decide how they think/feel about an
issue which they never encountered prior to reading about it in the play.
Creating the questions was easy because there were only five…We spent approximately
thirty minutes sharing and discussing the various beliefs in the room…students willingly
participated….
This strategy seemed easy for all levels of students. The only complaint I received was
from some of my special education students. They had no problem circling an answer, but
some had problems trying to justify their answers…
MATHEMATICS
Three high school and middle school Mathematics teachers chose strategies from three
different resources (Olson, 1997; Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998; Lenski, Wham, & Johns,
1999).
Freshmen in Ryan Dahlem’s Math A class at University High School, Irvine reviewed
vocabulary through competition on a day prior to taking a test.
…The unit I was teaching was full of vocabulary terms that are similar and often
confusing to students, e.g., “area, surface area, square, square units, cube, cubic units…”
I used “Teaching Vocabulary through Competition” (Olson, 1997, p. 276) as a review the
day before a test. I have used competition strategies before and knew the students would
enjoy this type of activity. The most successful part of the lesson was “Vocabulary
Charades,” which was new for both the students and me. Seeing a student “gesture” a
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook9

---

math term really showed whether s/he understood it or not….I will use this strategy again
in Math A, and perhaps try it in my functions, statistics, and trigonometry courses.
Jo Ann Byars demonstrated the importance of the communication skills of listening and
writing in her math lessons at University High.
The idea of having students record their thoughts was based on the rationale that writing
is a powerful tool for learning and questioning across the content areas. The students
wrote about their reflections, reacting to what they observed and learned from going
through the class activity. Information about writing as a tool for learning can be found in
Content Area Literacy (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998, pp. 183-203.)…
The students seemed to enjoy the activity that made them aware of the importance of
literacy development in the study of mathematics and in life in general….Students had
some very interesting insights. One stated, “I am a better listener than a speaker.”
Another student wrote, “I also realized how I could be hearing something my friend or
someone is saying to me in a different perspective.”
Lois Hoshijo, a middle school math teacher at Spring View Middle School in
Huntington Beach, used the “Magic Square” strategy.
I used the Magic Square example from Art Scholastic (1993) that was found in Reading &
Learning Strategies for Middle & High School Students (Lenski, et al, 1999, pp. 43-45) to
assess students’ knowledge of mathematical terms….The students found this review
challenging and interesting. It took just a few minutes for students to complete the
activity…There are many uses for Magic Square in math literacy. Magic Square can be
used as a warm-up to review previously-learned content, as a pre-test for future lessons,
or as a post-test…Students’ responses to this activity were favorable …(1) “It was fun
studying definitions with the Magic Square;” (2) “This was a different activity. I think I’ll
remember the definitions of the terms that were difficult for me to learn;” (3) “I like this.
It was more challenging than just writing the definitions for each vocabulary word.”
SCIENCE
L. Clinard, UCI Dept. of Education (11/99)
DRAFT: Claremont Reading Conference 1999 Yearbook10

---