## Reading & Writing in the Disciplines

# About This Course Resources

### DISCIPLINARY LITERACY

**References**

Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). *Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction*. New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). *Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples.* New York: Guilford Press.

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). *Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating achievement.*Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chall, J. (1983). *Stages of reading development*. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987, January). *Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics *(Technical Report No. 403). Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories; University of Illinois: Center for the Study of Reading.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). *Handbook of research on new literacies*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duke, N., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S., & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), *What research has to say about reading instruction (*4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). *Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school.* Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Grant, M., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Johnson, K., & Frey, N. (2012). Purposeful instruction: Mixing up the “I,” “We,” and “You.” *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy*, *56,* 45–55.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Handbook of reading research: Volume III* (pp. 403–422). New York: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), *Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice*. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Langer, J. A. & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks.

R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), *Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice*. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Gonzalez, A. (2014). Students can purposefully create information, not just consume it. *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,* *58*, 182–188.

Lapp, D., Moss, B., Johnson, K., & Grant, M. (2012). Teaching students to closely read texts: How and when*? IRA E-ssentials.* Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,* *52*, 96–107.

Moss, B., Lapp, D., Grant, M., & Johnson, K. (2015). *A close look at close reading, 6–12.* Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). *Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects*. Washington, DC: NGA Center and CCSSO.

Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. *The Reading Teacher*, *39*(6), 564–570.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. *Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8*, 317–344.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), *What research has to say about reading instruction* (2nd ed., pp. 145–199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. *Harvard Educational Review*, *78*, 40–59.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? *Topics in Language Disorders, 32, *7–18.

Spires, H., Hervey, L., Morris, G., & Stelpflug, C. (2012). Energizing project-based inquiry: Middle-grade students read, write, and create videos. *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55*, 483–493.

Stahl, S. (2003). Vocabulary and readability in classroom and clinic. *Topics in Language Disorders, 23*, 241–247.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. *Language Arts, 60*, 568–580.

Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), *Handbook of reading research: Volume II*(pp. 246–280). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zwiers, J. (2014). *Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards across disciplines, Grades 5–12*(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

### MATHEMATICS

**References**

Anderson, M. A., & Little, D. M. (2004). On the write path: Improving communication in an elementary mathematics classroom. *Teaching Children Mathematics, 10*(9), 468–472.

Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., Olson, D., & Robyns, J. (2002). Blueprint for writing in middle school mathematics. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8*(1), 52–56.

Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. *FORUM, 55*(1).

Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sense-making and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29*(3), 275–305.

Bosse, M. J., & Faulconer, J. (2010, March). Learning and assessing mathematics through reading and writing. *School Science and Mathematics, 108*(1), 8–19.

Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40*(2), 119–156.

Briars, D. J., Asturias, H., Foster, D., Gale, Mardi A., & Kanold, T. D. (2012). *Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at work, grades 6–8*. NCTM: Reston, VA.

Burns, M. (2004). Writing in math. *Education Leadership, 62*(2), 30–33.

Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2013). *Classroom discussions in math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the Common Core and more* (3rd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) (2010). *Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.*Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org.

Countryman, J. (1992). *Writing to learn mathematics: Strategies that work*. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dweck, C. (2006). *Mindset: The new psychology of success*. New York: Ballentine Books.

Fernsten, L. A. (2007). A writing workshop in mathematics: Community practice of content discourse. *Mathematics Teacher, 101*(4), 273–278.

Horn, I. (2012). *Strength in numbers: Collaborative learning in secondary mathematics.* Reston, VA: NCTM.

Knight, J. (2014). *Focus on teaching: Using video for high-impact instruction.* Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Lawson, M. R., & Kanold, T. D. (2012). *Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at work, leader’s guide.* Reston, VA: NCTM.

Lynch, S. D., & Bolyard, J. J. (2012). Mathematical discourse in writing. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17*(8), 487–492.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2007). *Five “key strategies” for effective formative assessment.*Research brief. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). *Principals to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all*. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Siegel, M., Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (1998). Supporting students’ mathematical inquiries through reading. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29*(4), 378–413.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008, Spring). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. *Harvard Educational Review, 78*(1), 40–59.

Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully implementing high-level tasks. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle Grades*, *14*(3), 132–138.

Smith, M. S., Hughes, E. K., Engle, R. A., & Stein, M. K. (2009). Orchestrating discussions. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle Grades, 14*(9), 548–556.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. *American Educational Research Journal, 33*(2), 455–488.

Zimmermann, G., Carter, J. A., Toncheff, M., & Kanold, T. D. (2012). *Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at work, high school.* Reston, VA: NCTM.

**Websites**

Math Class Needs a Makeover

In this TED Talk, middle school mathematics teacher Dan Meyer makes a strong argument for mathematics lessons that engage students in solving the kinds of rigorous non-routine mathematics problems and tasks that require them to read, write, speak, and listen like mathematicians. He talks about what it takes to create these kinds of problem-centered mathematics lessons.

Why We Need Common Core Math

On this site, Jo Boaler of Stanford University discusses four ways to strengthen mathematics instruction, including 1) focusing on learning rather than performance, 2) emphasizing multidimensional approaches that support thinking and reasoning, 3) encouraging student engagement in rich tasks with “low floors and high ceilings” that students can take to different levels, and 4) focusing on depth rather than speed. She supports these recommendations with research and student performance data. She provides a number of examples of rich tasks throughout that can be used to support student learning.

The Teaching Channel: Common Core

This site provides video of teachers working with CCSS tools and resources including those available through Achieve the Core, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

Implementing the Mathematical Practice Standards

This site provides illustrations of the Standards for Mathematical Practice for Grades 5–10 that consist of a mathematics task, a student dialogue based on that task, a mathematical overview that addresses the mathematical thinking and reasoning that arises during the student dialogue, and student materials that can be used to support the use of these tasks in classrooms.

**Recommended Reading**

Thinking Through a Lesson: Successfully Implementing High-Level Tasks** **by Margaret S. Smith, Victoria Bill, and Elizabeth K. Hughes. This article identifies a *Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol *(TLLP) that can be used to plan task-centered mathematics lessons that place students’ mathematical thinking at the center of instruction. The protocol includes selecting and setting up a mathematical task, supporting students’ exploration of the task, and sharing and discussing the task. It includes a discussion of how to create questions that assess and advance student thinking as they work on these tasks.

Orchestrating Discussions** **by Margaret S. Smith, Elizabeth K. Hughes, Randi A. Engle, and Mary Kay Stein. This article identifies five practices that constitute a model for effectively using student responses to high-level mathematics tasks during whole class discussions. The five practices include 1) anticipating student responses to challenging mathematics tasks; 2) monitoring students’ work on and engagement with the task; 3) selecting particular students to present their mathematical work; 4) sequencing the student responses that will be displayed in a specific order; and 5) connecting different students’ responses and connecting the responses to key mathematical ideas.

*Classroom Discussions in Math: A Teacher’s Guide for Using Talk Moves to Support the Common Core and More*(3rd ed.)** **by Suzanne H. Chapin, Catherine O’Connor, and Nancy Canavan Anderson. This resource provides support for strengthening classroom discourse across Grades K–6 as a way to deepen the engagement of all students in the mathematics content they are learning. It identifies “talk moves,” provides guidelines as to how these might be used, and offers videos of teachers and students engaged in these talk moves together. While the focus is on the elementary grades, there are also implications for secondary grades; a version of this book is currently being developed to specifically address secondary mathematics classrooms.

*Strength in Numbers: Collaborative Learning in Secondary Mathematics* by Ilana Horn. This resource provides guidelines for organizing small-group collaborative work in secondary mathematics classrooms. In particular, it identifies guidelines for identifying “groupworthy” tasks, makes recommendations for fostering “positive interdependence” so all students are engaged and learning, discusses the teacher’s role while students are working, and addresses important questions about status and “equitable mathematics teaching.”

Five “Key Strategies” for Effective Formative Assessment. This resource discusses the research on effective formative assessment and makes recommendations regarding how these effective formative assessment strategies play an important ongoing role in mathematics instruction. These have important implications for how lessons are structured and planned.

**Recommended Resources for Rich Mathematics Problems and Tasks**

Dan Meyer’s Three-Act Math Tasks

Dan Meyer provides a collection of “Three-Act Math Tasks” that he describes as “the three acts of a mathematical story.” The first act introduces a mathematical challenge in the form of a central conflict; the second act engages students in overcoming obstacles, looking for resources, and developing new tools as they address the conflict; and the third act involves resolving the conflict and setting up a sequel or extension.

Mathematics Assessment Resource Service (MARS)

The Mathematics Assessment Program (MAP) is a collection of rich non-routine assessment problems and tasks that align with the expectations of the CCSS. It reflects a collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley, and the Shell Center team at the University of Nottingham, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The team works with the Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative and school systems across the US and UK to develop improved assessments.

SERP Poster Problems

This site provides a number of “Poster Problems” addressing grades 6 and 7 mathematics content that are designed to engage students in thinking and reasoning. Included are suggestions for designing mathematics lessons around these kinds of problems, explanations of the rationale for these kinds of approaches, and discussions about how these kinds of problems can be used for “diagnostic teaching” that supports student learning.

Mathalicious

This site contains “real-world” lessons designed to help middle school and high school mathematics teachers address the CCSSM while challenging their students to think critically about the world.

PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

This site contains descriptions of the PARCC assessment system, including professional development modules about the PARCC Performance-Based Assessments and End-of-Year Assessments, sample items, practice tests, and links to videos on the Teaching Channel that address how teachers can use these assessments to strengthen their instruction.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

This site contains a description of the Smarter Balanced Assessment system, including sample items, practice and training tests, and resources such as a digital library on formative assessment available to teachers from member states.

**Recommended Tools and Other Resources**

The Illustrative Mathematics Project

This site provides instructional and assessment tasks aligned to CCSS content and practice standards by grade level, course blueprints and lesson plans, and other print and video resources for mathematics teachers. There are also opportunities for virtual conversations for teachers and teacher leaders around a specific task, called “Task Talks,” as well as a virtual lecture series with monthly presentations addressing such topics as “Incorporating the Mathematical Practices into the Middle and High School Classroom.”

Achieve the Core

This site is full of materials designed to help mathematics teachers understand and implement the CCSS in mathematics and ELA. The site includes rich tasks and assessments with explanations and supporting commentary, sample lessons with annotations, an instructional practice guide intended to support lesson planning and reflection, and resources designed to support reflection on the expectations of the CCSS including readings and a discussion forum.

Inside Mathematics

This site is designed to be a professional resource for mathematics teachers. The site includes CCSS resources that focus on content and practice standards, classroom videos that address these standards, problems of the month, performance assessment tasks, and tools for leadership.

G’Day Math!

This link contains resources collected and created by James Tanton of the St. Mark’s Institute of Mathematics, an outreach program promoting joyful and effective mathematics education. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Mathematical Association of America (MAA).

*Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All* by NCTM. This resource lays out a set of strongly recommended research-informed principles and actions that are essential to strengthen mathematics teaching and learning for all students. These include planning and implementing effective instruction as described by the eight Mathematics Teaching Practices; developing socially, emotionally, and academically safe environments in which all students feel secure and confident as they engage in mathematics learning; identifying and accessing resources that are aligned with the CCSS; incorporating tools and technology as an everyday part of the mathematics classroom; providing students with descriptive, accurate, and timely feedback including strengths, weaknesses, and next steps; and working collaboratively with colleagues to plan instruction, solve common challenges, and provide mutual support through which collective responsibility for student learning is addressed.

*Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at Work, Grades 6–8* by Diane Briars, Harold Asturias, David Foster, and Mardi Gale. This teacher’s guide illustrates how to sustain successful implementation of the CCSSM for grades 6–8. Discover what students should learn and how they should learn it at each grade level. Acquire strategies for addressing the rigor of the grades 6–8 standards, including the unique content around ratios, proportions, and relationships at grades 6 and 7. Get insight into the new expectations for grades 6–8 assessment as well as the readiness required for the high school standards. There is attention to important supports for student engagement in disciplinary literacy practices throughout.

*Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at Work, High School* by Gwen Zimmerman, John Carter, Timothy Kanold, and Mona Toncheff. How do you help your students demonstrate mathematical proficiency, reflecting the learning expectations of the Common Core State Standards (CCSSM)? This teacher’s guide illustrates how to sustain successful implementation of the CCSSM for high school. Discover what students should learn and how they should learn it, including deep support for the mathematical modeling conceptual category of the CCSSM. Comprehensive and research-affirmed analysis tools and strategies will help you and your collaborative team develop and assess student demonstrations of deep conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. You’ll also learn how fundamental shifts in collaboration, instruction, curriculum, assessment, and intervention can increase college and career readiness in every one of your students. Extensive tools to implement a successful and coherent formative assessment and RTI response are included. There is attention to important supports for student engagement in disciplinary literacy practices throughout.

*Common Core Mathematics in a PLC at Work, Leader’s Guide* by Timothy Kanold and Matthew Larson. How do you help your students demonstrate mathematical proficiency reflecting the learning expectations of the Common Core State Standards (CCSSM)? This leader companion to the grade-level teacher’s guides illustrates how to sustain successful implementation of the CCSSM for mathematics. School leaders will discover how to support and focus the work of their collaborative mathematics teams for significant student achievement and improvement. Readers will receive explicit guidance and resources on how to lead and exceed the assessment expectations of the common core. There is attention to important supports for student engagement in disciplinary literacy practices throughout.

### SCIENCE

**References**

Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Greenleaf, C., & Moje, E. (2013). Science! Literacy! Synergy! In W. Banko, M. L. Grant, M. E. Jabot, A. J. McCormack, & T. O’Brien (Eds.), *Science literacy and our nation’s future* (pp. 99–124). Washington, DC: NSTA & STANYS.

Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), *Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom* (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Cervetti, G. N., & Pearson, P. D. (2012). Reading, writing, and thinking like a scientist. *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55*(7), 580–586.

Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2010). *Factors that influence the difficulty of science words*. Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject, Inc.

Moje, E. B., & Speyer, J. (2008). The reality of challenging texts in high school social studies and science: How teachers can mediate comprehension. In K. Hinchman & H. Thomas (Eds.), *Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction* (pp. 185–211). New York: Guilford.

Ossola, A. (2014, Dec. 12). How scientists are learning to write. *The Atlantic.*

Pearson, P.D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Science and literacy: Each in the service of the other. *Science, 328,*459-463.

Pechenik, J. (2015). *A short guide to writing about biology* (9th ed.). London: Longman.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008, Spring). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. *Harvard Educational Review, 78*(1).

Solomon, T. C., Van der Kerkhof, M. H., & Moje, E. B. (2010). When is a detail seductive? On the challenges of constructing and teaching from engaging science texts. In A. J. Rodriguez (Ed.), *Science education as a pathway to teaching language literacy.* Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

White, H. (2011, Winter). Problem-based learning. Speaking of teaching. *Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching**, 11*(1).

### ENGLISH

**References**

Beach, R. & Myers, J. (2002) *Inquiry-based English instruction: engaging students in life and literature. *New York: Teachers College Press.

Beck, I., Hamilton R., & McKeown, M. (1997). *Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. *Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). *Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. *New York: Routledge.

Daniels, H. (2002). *Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups.* (2nd ed.). Ontario: Stenhouse.

Filmore, L.W., & Snow, C. (2000). *What teachers need to know about language.* Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Fischer, D., & Frey, N. (2013). *Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility*. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). *Literacy: Reading the word and the world.* Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Freire, P. (2000). *Pedagogy of the oppressed* (30th anniversary edition). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Galda, L., & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. *Reading Research Quarterly, 36*(1), International Reading Association, 64–73.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching.
*Journal of Teacher Education**, 53,* 106.

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? *Journal of Education, 171*(1), 18–25.

Hyerle, D. (2009). *Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge.* (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jackson, Y. (2012). *The pedagogy of confidence.* New York: Teachers College Press

Jenson, E. (2005). *Teaching with the brain in mind.* (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Krashen, S. (2004). *The power of reading.* (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Co. and Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Krashen, S. (1989, Winter). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis*. The Modern Language Journal, 73*(4), 440–464.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995, September 21). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.* American Educational Research Journal, 32,* 465–491.

Lapp, D. & Fisher, D. (2011). *Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts.* London: Routledge.

Nystrand, M. (May, 2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. *Research in the Teaching of English,** (40)*4, 392–412.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). *The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. *Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rothstein, A. S., Rothstein, E., & Lauber, G. (2007). *Writing as learning: A content- based approach *(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Taff, S. W., Blachowijcz, C., & Fisher, P. (2009). Vocabulary instruction for diverse learners. In Morrow, L. M., Rueda, R., & Lapp, D. (Eds.). *Handbook of research on literacy and diversity.* New York: The Guilford Press, 320–336.

Zwiers, J. (2014). *Building academic language.* (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Professional organizations such as the National Center for Literacy Education, National Council of Teachers of English, the National Writing Project, and the International Literacy Association are important resources for learning how to teach reading and writing in English studies.

**Resource for student writing:**

A Collection of Online Publishing Opportunities for Student Writing

### HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES

**References**

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2006). *Questioning the author*. New York: Scholastic.

Caron, E. J. (2005). What leads to the fall of a great empire? Using central questions to design issues-based history units. *The Social Studies, 96*(2), 51–60.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. *American Educator*, *15*(3), 6–11.

Counsell, C. (1997). *Analytical and discursive writing*. London: Historical Association.

Historical Thinking Matters. http://www.historicalthinkingmatters.org.

Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, *101*(1), 136.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2013). *Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding*. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). *Accountable Talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works.* Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning, 1–4.

Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Reading, writing, and thinking about history: Teaching argument writing to diverse learners in the Common Core classroom, grades 6–12. New York: Teachers College Press.

Monte-Sano, C. (2012). What makes a good history essay? Assessing historical aspects of argumentative writing. *Social Education, 76*(6), 294–298.

Monte-Sano, C. (2012). Build skills by doing history. *Phi Delta Kappan, 94*(3), 62–65.

National History Education Clearinghouse. http://www.teachinghistory.org.

Paxton, R. J. (1997). “Someone with like a life wrote it”: The effects of a visible author on high school history students. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, *89*, 235–250.

Reisman, A. 2011. The “document-based lesson”: Bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling readers. *Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44*(2), 233–264.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). *Understanding by design. *Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 83*, 73–87.

Wineburg, S. S. (2001). *Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past.*Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wineburg, S., & Martin, D. (2009). Tampering with history: Adapting primary sources for struggling readers. *Social Education*, *73*, 212–216.

Wineburg, S. S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2012). *Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school history classrooms*. New York: Teachers College Press.

**Additional Resources**

Sources for locating primary sources:

- National Archives’
*Docs Teach* - Library of Congress’s classroom materials
- Fordham University’s Internet Modern History Sourcebook
- George Mason University’s History Matters

For an example of students “doing” history: Foderado, L. South Bronx students may have found site of slave burial ground. *New York Times*, January 25, 2014.

The 2014 book *Reading, Thinking, and Writing About History: Teaching Argument Writing to Diverse Learners in the Common Core Classroom, Grades 6–12 (Common Core State Standards for Literacy) *by Chauncey Monte-Sano, Susan De La Paz, and Mark Felton provides examples of two 8th-grade students’ argument writing in history over the course of a year.

Library of Congress’s Supporting Inquiry with Primary Sources.

Lessons from the National History Education Clearinghouse that use the textbook and primary sources.

A lesson from Stanford’s Reading Like a Historian website that includes both primary and secondary sources.

The video *Why Historical Thinking Matters* provides an overview of *sourcing.*

The Beyond the Bubble website, sponsored by the Stanford History Education Group, provides a variety of assessments linked to the study of sources.

Stanford’s Reading Like a Historian website includes numerous curricular examples of document-based lessons.