CONTENT AREA READING PRACTICES IN THE DEAF EDUCATION SOCIAL
STUDIES CLASSROOM: A CASE STUDY OF FOUR TEACHERS
By
Michella Maiorana-Basas

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Special Education- Doctor of Philosophy
2015

ABSTRACT
CONTENT AREA READING PRACTICES IN THE DEAF EDUCATION SOCIAL
STUDIES CLASSROOM: A CASE STUDY OF FOUR TEACHERS
By
Michella Maiorana-Basas
Research clearly indicates that readers who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH)
struggle with comprehension of content area text (Moores, 2001) and lack the skills
associated with comprehension of these texts (e.g., connections to prior knowledge,
understanding text structure/organization, attention to text features, vocabulary
development, and inference) (Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Easterbrooks & Stephenson,
2006; Howell & Luckner, 2003; Marschark & Hauser, 2008; Strassman, 1997).
Additionally, theories regarding the education of marginalized students, as discussed by
Gee (2008), Morrell (2004), and Oakes (1985), suggest that there is a connection between
how teachers perceive their students as learners and the instructional choices they make
(Gee, 2008; Morrell, 2004; Oakes, 1985). The present study used instrumental case study
design (Stake, 2000) to investigate the frequency, duration, and intensity of content area
reading (CAR) integration in four, upper-grade deaf education social studies classrooms.
The study also investigated the frequency and duration of instructional approaches used
by teachers of the deaf when teaching content material.
Findings from this study revealed that the two middle school teachers dedicated a
larger percentage of instructional time to CAR skills than did the two participating high
school teachers, and that CAR skills were primarily addressed at low levels of intensity
across all four participating teachers. Background knowledge (activation of background

knowledge and building of background knowledge) and content-specific vocabulary were
the most commonly integrated CAR skills by all teachers. Inference and text structure
were the least integrated CAR skills. Only one teacher participant integrated text
structure during the study, however, it was addressed for less than 1% of instructional
time, and was categorized at the lowest level of intensity.
Findings also revealed that the instructional practices of three teachers favored
directive instructional approaches (e.g., lecture) when delivering content material. Only
one teacher used instructional practice that favored a social-constructivist approach to
delivering content material (e.g., discussion). Across all four teachers, questions were
categorized most frequently at the knowledge and comprehension levels. Few higherlevel questions (e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation) were asked by teachers during
instruction.
Interviews with teachers revealed that they did not view themselves as teachers of
reading, and that pressures from state mandates in addition to curriculum requirements
limited the types of activities used to teach content material. Teachers expressed concerns
regarding their students’ abilities to read and learn content material from text.
Additionally, they expressed concerns regarding their students’ abilities with expressive
and receptive language, specifically academic language.

Keywords: Content Area Reading, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Adolescent Literacy;
Expository Texts; Case Study; Social Studies; Teacher Preconceptions Influence on
Instructional Choice

Copyright by
MICHELLA MAIORANA-BASAS
2015

This opus is dedicated to my mother, Susan, my father, Phillip, and my husband, JC.
You all had a bigger part in this than you realize. Thank you for being a source of
inspiration and support through my journey.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A wise friend once told me that it takes a village to write a dissertation (thank
you, Jen, for this beautiful metaphor). This journey has been a long and arduous one, and
I would have never made it to the end without the help of my “village”. First, I would
like to thank Dr. Harold Johnson for recognizing the potential I did not realize I had, and
for encouraging me to begin my doctoral studies. Without you, Dr. Johnson, I don’t
believe I would have ever had the confidence to start my Ph.D. Your continuous faith in
me has been a source of strength and encouragement, and for that, I am profoundly
grateful.
I would also like to thank the National Leadership Consortium in Sensory
Disabilities for not only providing me with a unique and enriching doctoral experience,
but for providing the financial support needed to complete my degree. To all the
members of the leadership team (and to all the fellows!!!!), thank you for your guidance
and support over these past four years. Your knowledge and expertise has been integral
to my success.
Sergio, Kelly, Adam, and Gabby, thank you for providing a place for me to rest
my head during data collection and for all of the hugs and love on the “difficult” days. I
am so thankful for the time I was able to spend with you. This dissertation would have
been impossible without your love and generosity.
Daphne, Daphne, Daphne. There are not enough words in the English language
(or in ASL) to convey my appreciation for your friendship, your support, and your insight
in ALL aspects of this dissertation. You, Jeff, and Savvy have been, and continue to be,

vi

an incredible source of happiness, encouragement, and motivation. I can’t wait to help
Savvy when she is ready to write her “tation” (I still have all of the early drafts!). I love
you all to the moon and back, and much of this dissertation would not have existed
without you.
Dr. Jen Knight, you have been an amazing friend and mentor throughout this
whole process. I will forever treasure our many long hours at Grand River Coffee,
drinking beautifully decorated lattes and agonizing, together, over literature reviews, data
analyses, and impending deadlines. You are an amazing human being and I am so
grateful for you.
To those of you who provided financial support during the dissertation phase,
“DW”, “RL”, Mike Palmer, Tine Moe, The Boyan Family, Dad, and others who wish to
remain “anonymous”. Thank you for providing a way for me to pay for driving across
the country and back to collect data! You are all AMAZING!!!
Dr. Jessica Trussell, my fearless colleague and research hero. Thank you for all
your assistance in certain aspects of this dissertation and for always being available at the
drop of a hat. So glad to have you as part of my team!
To all of the teachers who participated in this research study, thank you for your
time, your openness, and your willingness to allow me to sit in your classrooms and ask
you so many questions. I have gained so much from this experience working with each of
you. Your generosity and enthusiasm about this study certainly kept me going!
Dr. Claudia Pagliaro, my dissertation chair and “best advisor ever”, thank you for
your guidance and patience throughout my entire doctoral program. You have been so

vii

much more than just a mentor. You are my role model and my friend. I could have
never, ever, ever, ever, gotten this far without you. Thank you for allowing me to
discover my own research path, for supporting and encouraging me through the whole
process, for being tough on me when I needed it, and for giving me time and space when
things got too overwhelming. Thank you for your incredibly detailed and thoughtful
feedback, even after (what seemed like) a million revisions. You are amazing, and I can
only hope that one day, I will be the same kind of mentor for one of my students.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my
husband, JC, for his unremitting support, encouragement, and love during this entire
process. You have been my biggest cheerleader and greatest source of motivation.
Thank you for your understanding and support during my late night writing marathons,
times of panic, breakdowns over data, and for listening to me read and re-read each
version of each chapter over, and over, and over… There are few people in this world
who have a partner in life like you. I am the luckiest girl in the world.
So, here I am. I have finally made it to the end. To every teacher, professor,
colleague, friend, and student I have ever had the good fortune of knowing, you all
helped shape me into the person I am today. Thank you. Now, I begin the next part of
my journey. I hope I serve you all, and the field of Deaf Education, well. Much love and
aloha.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................4
Rationale ..................................................................................................................4
Significance..............................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................8
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................................................8
The Skills of Content Area Reading ........................................................................9
Background knowledge ...............................................................................9
Activation of background knowledge ............................................10
Building of background knowledge ...............................................13
Text structure .............................................................................................16
Text features...............................................................................................19
Content-specific vocabulary ......................................................................23
Inference ....................................................................................................25
Content Area Reading Skills Are Interconnected ..................................................28
Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................29
Social-constructivist theories of learning support higher levels of
learning ......................................................................................................31
Teacher preconceptions influence the way they instruct ...........................32
Knowing how students think and learn is necessary for designing
effective instruction ...................................................................................35
Social Studies and Content Area Reading .............................................................36
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................44
METHODS ........................................................................................................................44
Study Design ..........................................................................................................45
Participant recruitment ...............................................................................46
Participant selection criteria .......................................................................46
Teacher Participants ...............................................................................................50
Teacher A ...............................................................................................................52
The school ..................................................................................................52
Personal and professional background.......................................................52
Participating class ......................................................................................53
Audiological information ...............................................................54
Language use and preferences .......................................................54

ix

Reading levels ................................................................................55
QRI-4 .............................................................................................56
Observed instruction ..................................................................................57
Teacher B ...............................................................................................................57
The school ..................................................................................................57
Personal and professional background.......................................................57
Participating class ......................................................................................58
Audiological information ...............................................................59
Language use and preferences .......................................................60
Reading levels ................................................................................60
QRI-4 .............................................................................................61
Observed instruction ..................................................................................61
Teacher C ...............................................................................................................61
The school ..................................................................................................61
Personal and professional background.......................................................61
Participating class ......................................................................................62
Audiological information ...............................................................63
Language use and preferences .......................................................63
Reading levels ................................................................................64
QRI-4 .............................................................................................64
Observed instruction ..................................................................................64
Teacher D ...............................................................................................................64
The school ..................................................................................................64
Personal and professional background.......................................................65
Participating class ......................................................................................66
Audiological information ...............................................................67
Language use and preferences .......................................................67
Reading levels ................................................................................68
QRI-4 .............................................................................................68
Observed instruction ..................................................................................68
Data Collection ......................................................................................................68
QRI-4 procedures .......................................................................................69
Vocabulary assessment procedures................................................69
Reading comprehension assessment procedures ...........................70
Class observation procedures .....................................................................71
Response-to-instruction meetings ..............................................................72
Teacher interviews .....................................................................................73
Software and Other Technology Used to Manage Data ........................................73
Wondershare ..............................................................................................73
Camtasia.....................................................................................................74
Screencast ..................................................................................................74
Data Coding and Analysis .....................................................................................75
Video recorded data ...................................................................................75
Coding system ............................................................................................75
Inter-rater agreement measures ..................................................................79
Procedures for inter-rater agreement .............................................79

x

Inter-rater agreement scores ...........................................................87
Use of inter-rater agreement in qualitative research ......................89
Minimum standards for inter-rater agreement in qualitative
research .........................................................................................90
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................92
RESULTS .........................................................................................................................92
Overall Comparison Results ..................................................................................94
Instructional approaches and content area reading integration of all
teachers ......................................................................................................94
Instructional approaches duration ..............................................................94
Instructional approaches frequency ...........................................................96
Duration of content area reading integration .............................................98
Duration of background knowledge.........................................................100
Frequency and intensity of background knowledge ................................102
Duration and intensity of background knowledge ...................................104
Duration and intensity of text structure ...................................................106
Duration of text features ..........................................................................108
Frequency and intensity of text features ..................................................110
Duration and intensity of text features .....................................................112
Duration of content-specific vocabulary..................................................114
Frequency and intensity of content-specific vocabulary .........................116
Duration and intensity of content-specific vocabulary ............................118
Duration of inference ...............................................................................120
Frequency and intensity of inference .......................................................122
Duration and intensity of inference..........................................................124
Frequency and complexity of questioning ...............................................126
Summary of overall comparison results ..................................................128
Within Teacher Results ........................................................................................128
Teacher A .............................................................................................................128
Instructional approaches .........................................................................128
Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills .....................................134
Background knowledge ...............................................................134
Text structure ...............................................................................135
Text features.................................................................................135
Content-specific vocabulary ........................................................136
Inference ......................................................................................136
Complexity of questioning ...........................................................137
Summary .................................................................................................138
Teacher B .............................................................................................................138
Instructional approaches .........................................................................139
Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills .....................................147
Background knowledge ...............................................................147
Text structure ...............................................................................148
Text features.................................................................................148
Content-specific vocabulary ........................................................149

xi

Inference ......................................................................................150
Complexity of questioning ...........................................................150
Summary .................................................................................................151
Teacher C .............................................................................................................151
Instructional approaches .........................................................................151
Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills .....................................157
Background knowledge ...............................................................157
Text structure ...............................................................................158
Text features.................................................................................158
Content-specific vocabulary ........................................................159
Inference ......................................................................................159
Complexity of questioning ...........................................................160
Summary .................................................................................................160
Teacher D .............................................................................................................161
Instructional approaches .........................................................................161
Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills .....................................167
Background knowledge ...............................................................167
Text structure ...............................................................................168
Text features.................................................................................168
Content-specific vocabulary ........................................................169
Inference ......................................................................................170
Complexity of questioning ...........................................................171
Summary .................................................................................................171
Across Teacher Results ........................................................................................172
Summary of across teacher results ...........................................................174
Insights From Semi-Structured Interviews ..........................................................174
Instructional preferences ..........................................................................175
Preconceptions/views about students as readers and learners .................176
Reading versus content knowledge ..........................................................178
Frustrations about curriculum and policy ................................................181
Frustrations about support at the district, school, and/or family levels ...183
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................187
INTERPRETATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................187
Instructional Approaches .....................................................................................187
In what ways do teachers of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR)
during instruction? ...................................................................................187
What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in the
upper-grade, social studies classroom? ....................................................189
Student independent work/activities ........................................................191
Content Area Reading Integration .......................................................................193
What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration in the
upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom? ...........................193
Co-occurrences ........................................................................................194
Teacher Preconceptions .......................................................................................194

xii

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf
have regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and
understand content area text in the social studies? ..................................195
Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how teachers of
the deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies instruction in the uppergrade, deaf education classroom? ............................................................196
Is there a relationship between teacher preconceptions about students’
ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches used by these
teachers in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom? ...197
Suggestions for Teacher Preparation Programs and Professional Development .198
Preparation in instructional practices and CAR .......................................198
Preparation in language and communication ...........................................200
Preparation that fosters the belief that all teachers are teachers of
reading......................................................................................................201
Limitations ...........................................................................................................201
Researcher bias ........................................................................................202
Researcher presence .................................................................................203
Sample......................................................................................................203
Observations ............................................................................................204
Data analysis ............................................................................................204
Directions for Future Research ............................................................................205
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................207
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................209
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................210
APPENDIX B .....................................................................................................211
APPENDIX C .....................................................................................................212
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................214
APPENDIX E ......................................................................................................215
APPENDIX F.......................................................................................................216
APPENDIX G ......................................................................................................217
APPENDIX H ......................................................................................................219
APPENDIX I .......................................................................................................233
APPENDIX J .......................................................................................................234
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................237

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic Data of Teachers ...........................................................................51
Table 2: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Activation and Building of Background Knowledge.......................................................105
Table 3: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Text Structure...................................................................................................................107
Table 4: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Text Features ....................................................................................................................113
Table 5: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Content-Specific Vocabulary ...........................................................................................119
Table 6: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Inference ..........................................................................................................................125
Table 7: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher A ..................................................133
Table 8: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Analyzed Sessions*) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher B .......................................146
Table 9: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher C ..................................................156
Table 10: Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher D ..................................................166
Table 11: Co-Occurrences of CAR Skills........................................................................173
Table 12: Questioning Codes Contextualized Within Bloom’s Taxonomy ....................229
Table 13: Example of Inter-rater Agreement Documentation Form ...............................233
Table 14: Overall Results of Duration of Instructional Practices ....................................234
Table 15: Overall Results of Duration of CAR Integration .............................................235

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical framework .......................................................................................30
Figure 2: Visual approximation of code applications determined to be in agreement via
visual inspection in Dedoose .............................................................................................82
Figure 3: Visual approximation of code applications determined to be in partial
agreement via visual inspection in Dedoose ......................................................................84
Figure 4: Visual approximation of code applications determined not to be in agreement
via visual inspection in Dedoose........................................................................................86
Figure 5: Total duration of instructional approaches (expressed as percentage of
instructional time) ..............................................................................................................95
Figure 6: Frequency of instructional approaches .............................................................97
Figure 7: Total duration of CAR integration (expressed as percentage of total
instructional time) ..............................................................................................................99
Figure 8: Total duration of activation and building of background knowledge (expressed
as percentage of total instructional time) .........................................................................101
Figure 9: Frequency and intensity of activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge ....................................................................................................103
Figure 10: Total duration of text features (expressed as percentage of total instructional
time) .................................................................................................................................109
Figure 11: Frequency and intensity of text features ........................................................111
Figure 12: Total duration of content-specific vocabulary (expressed as percentage of total
instructional time) ............................................................................................................115
Figure 13: Frequency and intensity of content-specific vocabulary ...............................117
Figure 14: Total duration of inference (expressed as percentage of total instructional
time) ................................................................................................................................121
Figure 15: Frequency and intensity of inference .............................................................123
Figure 16: Frequency and complexity of questioning .....................................................127

xv

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

ABGK ...................................................................... Activation of Background Knowledge
AEBPD ................................................. ASL/English Bilingual Professional Development
ALD ........................................................................................... Assistive Listening Device
ASL ............................................................................................... American Sign Language
BBGK ......................................................................... Building of Background Knowledge
CAR ................................................................................................... Content Area Reading
CI................................................................................................................ Cochlear Implant
CSV ......................................................................................... Content-Specific Vocabulary
DHH ................................................................................................... Deaf/Hard of Hearing
DIR .......................................................................... Teacher Giving Directions/Instructions
HA ...................................................................................................................... Hearing Aid
HO .......................................................................................................... Hands-On Learning
IND ............................................................................ Student Independent Work/Activities
INF ......................................................................................................................... Inference
LVL .............................................................................................................................. Level
NCLB ..................................................................................................No Child Left Behind
NI .............................................................................................................. Non-Instructional
O................................................................... Other (in reference to instructional behaviors)
P2P .....................................................................................................................Peer-to-Peer
PSE..................................................................................................... Pidgin Signed English
SimCom ................................................................................ Simultaneous Communication
TC ...................................................................................................... Total Communication

xvi

TDL ............................................................................................ Teacher-Directed Learning
TF ..................................................................................................................... Text Features
TFL ......................................................................................... Teacher-Facilitated Learning
TS ....................................................................................................................Text Structure
ZPD ..................................................................................... Zone of Proximal Development

xvii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Advanced literacy skills are an important component of achieving personal and
professional success (Vacca & Vacca, 2010). Failure to develop these skills may result in
higher rates of high school drop out, unemployment, underemployment, limited access to
higher education, failure to obtain a high school diploma, and difficulty in managing
one’s personal and professional life (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Peterson, Caverly,
Nicholson, O’Neal, & Cusenbary, 2000). While advanced literacy development is an
obstacle for many students in general education, it is an even greater obstacle for students
who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). Currently, only 5% of high school seniors who
are DHH demonstrate literacy achievement rates at or above those of their hearing
counterparts (Kelly & Barac-Cikoja, 2007), and over half struggle to develop reading
comprehension levels commensurate with those of a typical 4th grader (Easterbrooks &
Beal-Alvarez, 2012; Traxler, 2000).
One piece of the advanced literacy puzzle is the ability to read and comprehend
content area texts (e.g., content area reading). Content area reading (CAR) skills include
the skills and strategies needed to mediate and comprehend content area texts, which
include: text-books, leveled readers specifically related to content topics, content-related
magazines and articles, content-related graphic novels, and content-related learning
materials that are presented through the use of presentation software (i.e., Microsoft
PowerPoint) or online.
It is important to understand that CAR is not the same as narrative text reading
(Vacca & Vacca, 2010). First, content area texts differ from narrative texts in their

1

structure and accessibility in relation to concepts, vocabulary, and discourse (Sanacore &
Palumbo, 2009). This means that strategies commonly used to help students mediate and
comprehend narrative texts such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
and text comprehension, (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
2000) may not be enough to support students in mediating and comprehending content
area texts. Second, CAR requires additional skills (Vacca & Vacca, 2010). These
additional skills include: background knowledge (activation of background knowledge
and building of background knowledge), text structure, text features, content-specific
vocabulary, and inference. These skills are important components for supporting readers
in making sense of content texts, aiding in the transition from “learning to read” to
“reading to learn” (Chall, 1996).
Third, once a text requires the reader to “read to learn” (Chall, 1996), such as is
the case with content area text, reading and comprehending becomes a more complex
task. For example, when reading a content area text, a reader must activate background
knowledge in order to make connections between what they know and what they are
learning while reading (building background knowledge). The reader must also identify
the structure of the text in order to understand how that information is organized within
and across the text, pay attention to and interpret text features that support information
presented in the text, identify and understand new and/or specialized vocabulary
presented in the text, and make inferences, specifically those that help the reader “fill in
the gaps” (e.g., elaborative inferences) and support the reader in making connections
across a text (e.g., global inferences). Vacca and Vacca (2010) point out that even readers
who are proficient with narrative texts may struggle with complex texts such as those

2

used in the content area classroom. Proficient readers, while not burdened with the task of
decoding when reading to learn from text, may have a better foundation for reading and
decoding text, but may not have the strategies necessary for successfully navigating
content area texts. For other readers who are still struggling with basic strategies such as
decoding and comprehending, these types of texts becomes even more difficult (FaggellaLuby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012; Vacca & Vacca, 2010). As such, it is
recommended that teachers build in specific strategy instruction during content area
instruction to support their student’s comprehension of content area texts. (FaggellaLuby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012; Fisher & Frey, 2014).
This is especially critical for students who are DHH, as texts used in the content
area classroom are often too difficult for these students to navigate (Moores, 2001). Many
students who are DHH may require additional instructional strategies when approaching
content area texts (Moores, 2001). For example, students who are DHH may not have
enough proficiency with the English language to fully grasp complex texts (Marschark,
Lang, & Albertini, 2002; Moores, 2001) such as those used in the content area classroom.
These students often approach content area and expository texts with limited contentspecific vocabulary (and English vocabulary in general) and limited knowledge of
English grammar and text structures (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002; Moores, 2001;
Strassman, 1997). Some ways that teachers of the deaf have tried to circumvent these
additional obstacles faced by their students is by avoiding the use of text books altogether
(Moores, 2001), or through the re-writing of content area text into simplified formats.
Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2006) point out that while there are identified “best
practices” for supporting advanced literacy with students who are DHH, there are none

3

that support the re-writing of texts as a strategy to deliver content related information.
Problem Statement
Despite the recognition of CAR as a component of advanced literacy development
and the understanding of the differences between narrative text reading and CAR, recent
studies have revealed that CAR skills are not being incorporated into content area
instruction (Chall, 1996; Neufeld, 2005; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Many content
area teachers, including those in the deaf education classroom (Moores, 2001) avoid
teaching CAR skills, which may be a result of the lack of research that addresses specific
strategies necessary for teaching these skills (Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006;
Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009). Further, previous research concerned with the reading
comprehension abilities of students who are DHH has focused primarily on narrative
texts (e.g., Ewolt, Israelite, & Dodds, 1992; Jackson, Paul, & Smith, 1997; Schirmer,
2003; Strassman, 1997; among others), leaving out an entire genre of texts that
adolescent students encounter on a daily basis.
Rationale
Few studies address CAR in the deaf education classroom, and even fewer
address the needs of adolescent readers who are DHH. Studies that do address CAR with
readers who are DHH (Boyd & George, 1973; Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Diebold &
Waldron, 1998; Howell & Luckner, 2003; Hyde, Zevenbergen, & Power, 2003) do not
follow a particular line of inquiry, making it difficult to come to valid, evidence-based
conclusions regarding best practices that support advanced literacy development needed
in the content area classroom.
Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2006) point out that few of the commonly used and

4

accepted strategies for literacy development used in the deaf education classroom have a
solid research base, and that more investigation is needed in this area. They go on to
mention that while there is not an evidence base to show that many of the identified “best
practices” are beneficial to students who are DHH, there also does not exist evidence that
demonstrates the contrary (Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006). This finding by
Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2006) along with the scant research that addresses CAR in
the deaf education classroom supports the need for investigation into evidence-based
strategies that foster advanced literacy development.
Currently, there are no studies that adequately describe CAR integration in the
deaf education classroom. As such, we do not know how teachers in the deaf education
classroom integrate CAR skills during instruction, if at all, and at what levels of intensity
or complexity. Before effective interventions can be examined, it is necessary to first
identify what teachers are currently doing in order to establish a starting point for
identifying potential instructional strategies that may support CAR development during
content instruction.
Significance
To address the lack of research (both qualitative and quantitative) regarding CAR
in the deaf education classroom, the present study describes the instructional and CAR
integration of four, upper-grade social studies teachers in self-contained deaf education
classrooms, specifically the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration over
the course of an instructional unit. Having an understanding of how teachers of the deaf
integrate these skills during instruction will inform the field about areas of strength and
areas of need as they relate to CAR.

5

This study is the first to comprehensively measure instructional approaches, CAR
integration, and rigor (intensity of instruction) across an entire instructional unit in the
upper-grade, content area deaf education classroom. Findings from this study will
provide a starting point for researchers in investigating the effectiveness of instructional
and CAR strategies commonly accepted by teachers of the deaf, as recommended by
Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2006). In addition to instructional and CAR practices used
by teachers of the deaf, this study investigates teachers’ preconceptions about their
students as readers and learners and how those preconceptions influence their
instructional practices and choices. As such, this study will also provide a glimpse into
the related attitudes and beliefs held by teachers of the deaf, and will open the
conversation for understanding how preconceptions about unique learners (such as those
who are DHH) influence instruction.
The following research questions guided the present study:
•

In what ways do teacher of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR)
during instruction?
o What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in
the upper-grade, social studies classroom?
o What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration
in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom?

•

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf
have regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and
understand content area text in the social studies?

6

o Is there a relationship between these teacher preconceptions about
students’ ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches
used by these teachers in the upper-grade, deaf education social
studies classroom?
o Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how
teachers of the deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies
instruction in the upper-grade, deaf education classroom?

7

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Content area reading (CAR) skills are the skills that help students understand and
remember what they have read in content areas such as mathematics, science, social
studies, etc. (Howell & Luckner, 2003; Shanahan, 2012). Examples of CAR skills
include: 1) activating and building of background knowledge to make meaningful
connections to text; 2) understanding text structures/text organization typically used in
expository and content area texts (e.g., problem/solution, description, cause/effect,
categorizing, sequence, and comparison); 3) recognizing and understanding text features
(e.g., bold words, titles, captions, headings, charts, graphs, etc.); 4) understanding
specialized vocabulary (e.g., content/topic specific vocabulary); and 5) inferring (e.g.,
“reading between the lines”) as a way to make sense of and understand what is meant by
text that is not written explicitly or in a straightforward manner.
These five CAR skills parallel the areas in which students who are DHH struggle
with regards to literacy achievement. Findings indicate that many of these students
struggle with: 1) making connections to background knowledge (Andrews & Mason,
1991; Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Boyd & George, 1971; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010;
Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Schirmer, 1997); 2) understanding text
structure/organization (Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Diebold & Waldron, 1998;
Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Marschark & Hauser, 2008; Negin, 1987; Schirmer,
1997); 3) paying attention to and appropriately using text features (Diebold & Waldron,
1998; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Howell &
Luckner, 2003); 4) knowing and using specialized vocabulary (Strassman, 1997); and 5)
making inferences (Marschark & Hauser, 2008). Additionally, many readers who are

8

DHH also struggle (both receptively and expressively) with the English language when
reading text-based materials, writing, and speaking (Boyd & George, 1971; Hyde,
Zevenbergen, & Power, 2003; Marschark, et al., 2002; Serrano Pau, 1995; SkutnabbKangus, 1990), further obstructing comprehension of content area texts.
In this chapter, each CAR skill will be defined and summarized based on the
current literature base. This chapter will also include a critical review of studies that
address these five CAR skills and their relationship to the comprehension of content area
texts with students who are DHH, leading to the presentation of research questions for the
current study.
The Skills of Content Area Reading
The skills of content area reading (CAR) are activating and building background
knowledge, understanding text structures, recognizing and understanding text features,
understanding content-specific vocabulary, and inferring.
Background knowledge. Background knowledge (also referred to as prior
knowledge) is essentially what an individual knows about any given topic (Dochy, 1994;
Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) and is an important component of reading and
understanding texts. Making connections to background knowledge helps readers with
comprehension (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Fisher & Frey,
2009; Pressley, 2002) and supports readers with learning new information by helping
them make connections to what they know and to build on what they know (Kintsch,
2004; Fisher & Frey, 2009; Stahl, 2008). Thus, there are two skills under the umbrella of
background knowledge: activating background knowledge and building background
knowledge. In this section, explanations of these skills will be provided and relevant

9

studies that address how activation of background knowledge and building of background
knowledge affect comprehension of content area texts by readers who are DHH.
Activation of background knowledge. Activation of background knowledge
supports reading comprehension (Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Fisher & Frey, 2009;
Pressley, 2002) by providing a starting point for students to approach text, aiding in
comprehension (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Fisher & Frey,
2009; Pressley, 2002). Typically done at the beginning of a lesson or before a new topic
or sub-topic is introduced, activation of background knowledge can be used to capture the
attention of students and prepare them for learning new information (Fisher & Frey,
2009). Fisher and Frey (2009) emphasize that comprehension of content area text is
especially dependent on the activation of background knowledge as it provides a tool for
students to navigate information in a way that is personally meaningful to them while
also supporting comprehension. Some activities for activation of background knowledge
include brainstorming, using images, having discussions about what students know, or
using graphic organizers to determine what students know, what they do not know, and
what gaps are present in their understanding of a particular topic (Fisher & Frey, 2009).
Key studies identified by Strangman and Hall (2004) (e.g., Davis & Winek, 1989; Squire,
1983; Weisberg, 1988) suggest that approaching texts with a lack of background
knowledge, or the inability to activate background knowledge, may have a direct impact
on a students’ ability to access the general curriculum.
Activation of background knowledge is essential for mediating and
comprehending complex texts (Afflerbach, 1990; Bartlett, 1932; Fisher & Frey, 2008;
Gee, 2008; Rumelhart, 1980; Stangman & Hall, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978). In order to

10

understand complex texts (such as those used in the content areas), readers must develop
ways of knowing and interpreting information (Fisher & Frey, 2009; Gee; 2008;
Stangman & Hall, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978). These ways of knowing are often referred to
as “schemata” (Afflerbach, 1990; Bartlett, 1932; Rumelhart, 1980; Vygotsky, 1978).
Essentially, schemata are units of understanding (Afflerbach, 1990; Bartlett, 1932;
Rumelhart, 1980). As an individual interacts with his/her environment, each experience
becomes part of a larger framework of understanding, which helps the individual
understand and interpret the world around them (Afflerbach, 1990; Bartlett, 1932; Gee,
2008; Rumelhart, 1980; Vygotsky, 1978). Activation of background knowledge is one
way of guiding students in the recall of their “frameworks of understanding” (i.e.,
schemata) (Afflerbach, 1990; Bartlett, 1932; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Gee, 2008; Rumelhart,
1980; Stangman & Hall, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978).
Andrews and Mason (1991) described how readers who are DHH relied on
activation of background knowledge when determining replacements for words during a
CLOZE activity. In their study, Andrews and Mason (1991) compared readers who were
DHH to readers who were hearing, specifically in their ability to determine missing
words and phrases. Participants in the study were limited to white males, and linguistic
preferences among the group ranged from users of manual languages/communication
systems (e.g., American Sign Language; Manually Coded English) to a combination of
communication methods (e.g., spoken English with sign support; speech with lip reading,
etc.). They found that during the CLOZE tasks, readers who were DHH relied more on
activation of background knowledge than text dependent strategies (e.g., using context
clues, using the title, etc.) when compared to hearing readers with similar reading levels.

11

Although activation of background knowledge was a strong predictor of success
in the CLOZE activity for both readers who were DHH and readers who were hearing,
the participants who were DHH did far worse on matching the exact text and had more
than triple the amount of errors on the CLOZE passages than did the readers who were
hearing. Andrews and Mason (1991) concluded that disparity between groups was due to
a number of factors: participants who were DHH demonstrated less background
knowledge on the topics presented in the CLOZE passages than did the participants who
were hearing; participants who were DHH did not utilize text-dependent strategies (e.g.,
context clues, passage titles, etc.) as often as participants who were hearing; and
participants who were DHH did not have the same amount of vocabulary knowledge as
the participants who were hearing. Based on their findings, Andrews and Mason (1991)
suggested that instructional strategies include skills for using context clues and
understanding vocabulary in addition to activating background knowledge when reading
texts.
Andrews and Mason (1991) did not investigate specific strategies for improving
performance on the CLOZE activities, but noted that mediation of passages through
dialogue and scaffolding was helpful for some of the participants who were DHH. For
example, in their observations, they noted that the experimenter often acted as an
“explainer of English” when working with the participants who were DHH, and that the
experimenters spent a lot of time explaining vocabulary, phrases, and idiomatic language
to the participants who were DHH. Based on their observations, Andrews and Mason
(1991) concluded that strategies that include continuous, interactive dialogue with
students who are DHH, may be an important component of helping these students in the

12

comprehension of complex texts. Although these findings from Andrews and Mason’s
(1991) study provide support for activation of background knowledge as one important
strategy for comprehension of complex texts, more information is needed on what
specific strategies teachers in the deaf education classroom should use to activate
background knowledge during instruction.
Building of background knowledge. Building of background knowledge is
inherently connected to activation of background knowledge. Activation of background
knowledge is the recall of information that is already known, whereas building of
background knowledge helps to fill in the gaps and strengthens a person’s schema about a
specific topic. For example, when teachers build background knowledge, they must first
start with what the students know (through the activation of background knowledge) and
then determine what information is needed to build students’ schema about that topic
(Marzano, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2009). This could be accomplished through a
brainstorming activity, such as think-pair-share, or through questioning. Once a teacher is
able to determine what information students are missing regarding a particular topic, s/he
can then begin to fill in the gaps of knowledge through the building of background
knowledge.
There are a variety of ways in which teachers can build on background
knowledge. Marzano (2004) identifies two distinct methods of building background
knowledge, direct methods and indirect methods. Direct methods of building background
knowledge are hands-on and/or project-based learning experiences and include socially
mediated activities such as: going on field trips, field experiences, doing science labs,
participating in a simulation, and/or role-play. Indirect methods of building background

13

knowledge are more cognitive in nature, and also include socially mediated activities
such as: group work, discussions, classroom debates on critical issues, and/or modeling
by the teacher (Marzano, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2009). Both direct and indirect methods of
building background knowledge rely on social-constructivist instructional practices, and
help students build schemata through social interaction. It is suggested that they include
strategies that are meaningful and authentic (Marzano, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2009;
Vygotsky, 1978).
Bringham and Hartman (2010) observed that building background knowledge by
making comparisons between historical events and students’ experiences in a 6th-7th grade
deaf education social studies classroom helped students make sense of content area text.
The authors concluded that comparing historical events to students’ life experiences
helped students understand cause and effect relationships when engaging in the text as
“active” readers. In this action research study, the researchers and classroom teacher
used timelines, prediction, activation of background knowledge, and indirect methods of
building background knowledge such as modeling, group learning, discussion, and
presentation of content information within multiple contexts to assist students in the
mediation and comprehension of their social studies textbooks. Bringham and Hartman
(2010) found that using these skills to build students’ background knowledge about social
studies concepts helped them understand cause and effect relationships in history, make
inferences about historical events, and retain new information.
Fisher and Frey (2009) argue that activation of background knowledge and
building of background knowledge are the two most important things that teachers can do
to improve student learning and understanding, and suggest a direct relationship between

14

the skills of background knowledge (activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge) and reading comprehension (Marzano, 2004; Marmolejo-Ramos,
de Juan, Gygax, Madden, & Roa, 2009; Fisher & Frey, 2009). Marmolejo-Ramos and
colleagues (2009) state that the printed word acts only as a scaffold for the meaning of
text, and that actual comprehension of the printed word requires background knowledge.
They go on to report that without background knowledge, printed words would have
virtually no meaning, as the reader would not be able to form a mental representation of
what they are reading about, thereby compromising comprehension (Marmolejo-Ramos,
et al., 2009).
The importance of activating and building background knowledge is especially
true for readers who are DHH (Schirmer & Williams, 2011). Many readers who are
DHH have limited background knowledge (Trezek, Wang, & Paul, 2011). One reason
that readers who are DHH have limited background knowledge could be a result of
language delays as discussed by Marschark, Lang, & Albertini (2002). Another possible
reason could be due to the lack of opportunities for incidental learning (Furth, 1996;
Marschark & Hauser, 2008; Nunes & Moreno, 2002; Rapin, 1986). For example,
students who are DHH may lack or have limited access to a variety of information
sources such as overhearing conversations and/or listening to information presented over
the television, radio, or other auditory channels. This dearth of access to auditory
information sources might cause what Furth (1996) describes as “information
deprivation.” Therefore, concepts often learned through incidental learning may need to
be explicitly taught (Nunes & Moreno, 1998) to DHH learners thereby establishing or
strengthening background knowledge on which further learning can be built.

15

Still, while Andrews and Mason (1991) and Bringham and Hartman (2010)
address activation of background knowledge and building of background knowledge with
students who are DHH, more information is needed regarding specific, evidence-based
strategies for mediation of textual information, and how the role of language and socially
mediated instruction (e.g., discussion, cooperative learning, role play, field experiences,
and inquiry-based instructional models) support the skills of background knowledge in
the deaf education content area classroom, as these were not measured in their studies.
Text structure. Understanding text structure is defined in the literature as an
awareness of how texts are organized for specific and meaningful purposes (Meyer &
Rey, 2011; Vacca & Vacca, 2010). When readers understand how texts are structured,
they are able to think more critically about what they are reading and make stronger
connections between the concepts presented in the text (Akhandi, Malayeri, & Samad,
2011; Vacca & Vacca, 2010). Meyer and Rey (2011) identified six categories of text
structure found specifically in content area texts. These categories are: comparison,
problem/solution, causation, sequence, collection, and description. Several studies have
addressed text structure of narrative texts with students who are DHH (Akamatsu, 1988;
Donin, Doehring, & Browns, 1991; Luetke-Stahlman, Griffiths, & Montgomery, 1998;
Schirmer, 1993; Schirmer & Bond, 1990), but only two studies addressed how
understanding text structures affects comprehension of expository and content area texts
(Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Negin, 1987).
Although not specifically addressing one of the text structures described by
Meyer and Rey (2011), Negin (1987) investigated text structure at the sentence level. In
his study, sentences were segmented into larger units of meaning (e.g., subject and

16

predicate) and presented to twenty students who were DHH using a total communication
philosophy. Chronological ages of students were not reported, but participants were
described as having instructional reading levels equivalent to the second grade level.
Prior to participating in the study, students were pre-tested for vocabulary knowledge and
were required to demonstrate a proficiency level of at least 95% with regards to specific
vocabulary presented in the passages used to evaluate them.
In Negin’s study, student participants were asked to read one narrative and one
expository reading passage, both approximately 500 words in length and developed by
the researcher. Ten of the student participants were randomly assigned to a control group
(no text segmentation), and ten participants were randomly assigned to an experimental
group (with text segmentation). Comprehension was measured by a multiple-choice test
that included eight literal and two inferential questions. Negin’s (1987) findings indicated
that segmenting text significantly improved reading comprehension for both narrative and
expository reading passages (p < .01). Negin (1987) reported that segmenting text at the
sentence level provided meaningful visual cues for student participants (with regards to
English text structures) and chunked information in a way that helped focus the reader’s
attention on phrases rather than words, aiding comprehension.
Negin (1987) mentioned that in addition to segmenting texts, it was necessary to
provide some instructional scaffolds. For example, before providing reading passages to
students, it was recommended that teachers introduce key vocabulary, and prompt
students to mentally recognize phrases when reading. This suggests that although
segmenting text into larger units of meaning is beneficial in supporting reading
comprehension, it may not be the sole contributing factor to success and that other

17

elements (e.g., vocabulary instruction) must be considered when implementing this
strategy. Additionally, although Negin’s (1987) study does provide valuable information
regarding the use of this strategy, the study only addressed texts at the second grade level.
More investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of this particular intervention with
more complex texts, such as content area texts and with older students, such as those in
the upper-grades.
An action research study by Bringham and Hartman (2010) investigated four
strategies for supporting the understanding of social studies concepts with five middle
school students who were DHH. The four strategies investigated by Bringham and
Hartman (2010) were: using a time line, teaching the meaning of prediction in a
“constructivist” manner, repeatedly reviewing the concept of prediction in multiple
contexts, and having students compare situations in their own lives with the ones in the
historical events they were learning about. Bringham and Hartman (2010) found that
using a time line in combination with comparing historical events to students’ life
experiences were beneficial for helping students understand cause-and-effect
relationships (a text structure identified by Meyer and Rey, 2011) and helped students
engage in the text as “active” readers.
Although the study did address one of the text structures described by Meyer and
Rey (2011) (i.e., cause and effect), Bringham and Hartman (2010) did not measure the
impact of the prediction strategy on reading comprehension. Additionally, the prediction
strategy was implemented by a student teacher (under the supervision of a mentor
teacher) and findings were based on her anecdotal observations of student progress, and
not based on precise measures. The perspectives and insights of student teachers can

18

provide a valuable perspective, however, they still require mentorship and guidance in
understanding and executing instructional practices as well as in the assessment and
progress monitoring of students. Bringham and Hartman (2010) did not report measures
of fidelity of implementation or fidelity in documentation of data; a limitation of their
study, which could have had an impact on findings.
In addition to using the prediction strategy, other strategies such as: facilitative
instruction (discussion); activation of background knowledge (having students connect
concepts to their own lives and daily reviews); and use of text features (timelines), were
also used in the study. As such, it is difficult to determine which of these strategies had
the greatest contribution to overall improvement in student performance as observed by
the student teacher. Although the strategy of prediction may have some promise in
helping students who are DHH better understand text structures, more investigation is
needed to determine the impact of this strategy on reading comprehension.
Text features. Text features assist readers in understanding expository/content
area texts by bringing attention to important information and details through the use of a
wide range of visual cues (Bluestein, 2010; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Moss, 2005).
Text features also help students navigate content area texts and provide supporting or
additional information that aids in comprehension (Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Moss,
2005). Some examples of text features include: table of contents; index; glossary; bold
words; italicized words; bullet points; titles; headings; graphs; charts; maps; labeled
diagrams; and timelines (Bluestein, 2010; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Moss, 2005;
Nolan, 1991). Teaching students how to use and interpret these features is an important
component for developing CAR proficiency (Bluestein, 2010; Kelley & Clausen-Grace,

19

2010; Moss, 2005). Two studies that addressed how text features specifically support
comprehension of content area texts among readers who are DHH were identified
(Diebold & Waldron, 1998; Howell & Luckner, 2003).
Diebold and Waldron (1998) investigated the impact of various text formats on
the reading comprehension of a 6th grade level science textbook with adolescents and
adults (ranging in age from 12 years to 22 years) identified as pre-lingually deaf.
Participants in the study had reading levels ranging from a 2.95 grade level (reading at
the level of a second grade student in their 9th month of schooling) to a 3.94 grade level
(reading at the level of a third grade student in their 9th month of schooling). Participants’
understanding of science concepts presented in text were compared across several
conditions which were categorized by the researchers as: standard text format, simplified
text format, simplified text and labeled diagram format, and labeled diagram format.
Diebold and Waldron (1998) measured participants’ gain scores (improvement
between pre-test and post-test conditions) and found that including visual-spatial
information through the use of text-features (e.g., pictorial representations of concepts) in
combination with English text (i.e., simplified text and labeled diagram format) supported
comprehension more effectively than text alone (p = .05). Diebold and Waldron (1998)
emphasized the importance of how information should be presented textually, pointing
out that certain text features may play an important role in how readers who are DHH
comprehend complex texts. Diebold and Waldron (1998) concluded that using texts that
rely heavily on complex English structures with limited visual supports is not beneficial
to learners who are DHH, and that instructional materials used in the deaf education

20

classroom should be designed to meet the specific linguistic and reading comprehension
(processing) needs of those students.
Although these findings are helpful in understanding the learning needs of
students who are DHH, simplification and/or modification of texts is not considered an
acceptable educational practice for developing reading comprehension among students
who are DHH (Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Moores, 2001; Schirmer, 1997). It is
not a realistic assumption that all texts can be designed in the manner suggested by
Diebold and Waldron (1998), and students who are DHH require strategies for
understanding and using text features commonly found in unmodified content area texts
(Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Moores, 2001; Schirmer, 1997).
A second research study on text features was investigated. Howell and Luckner
(2003) conducted an action research study with a student who was DHH, enrolled in an
8th grade science class, who had a reading level of 3.4 (reading at the level of a third
grade student in their 4th month of schooling). It was reported that the student’s reading
level interfered with her ability to navigate the general education curriculum, resulting in
her being placed in a resource room. To help the student access the textbook used in the
regular education 8th grade science class at her school, Howell and Lucker (2003)
introduced several learning strategies to the student through the use of mini-lessons.
These mini-lessons included instruction in the following skills: knowledge and use of text
features, explicit instruction of content-specific vocabulary, use of mental imagery when
reading, and summarization. The researchers found that using mini-lessons to explicitly
teach how to use specific text features (e.g., headings, bold words, captions, etc.), with an
explanation of the purpose of each text feature, helped the student navigate information

21

presented in her grade level textbook. The student reported that using text features was
the most helpful for identifying where specific information could be found, eliminating
the need to re-read the entire chapter to find salient information, and reducing the time
needed to answer questions and complete assignments. This finding is particularly
noteworthy as the student’s documented reading level was well below that of the text,
suggesting that use and knowledge of text features may be a powerful tool in helping
readers who are DHH access content information through text.
Howell and Luckner (2003) also used text features (images and captions) to help
the student learn content-specific vocabulary. Meanings of content-specific vocabulary
and phrases were recorded on note cards along with text features (e.g., drawings and
photos), printed English text, and pictorial representations of corresponding ASL signs.
The student was also taught summarization strategies to assist in developing a schema for
the identification of main information, deletion of redundant and trivial information, and
identification of main ideas and supporting information in her science textbook.
Howell and Luckner (2003) found that by introducing these strategies to the
student, she was able to develop confidence in reading content material in science, and
independently applied the strategies she learned in her other content area courses. By the
end of the school year, the student made almost one full year of progress on her reading
comprehension skills, raising her reading level from 3.4 (reading at the level of a third
grade student in their 4th month of schooling) to 4.2 (reading at the level of a fourth grade
student in their 2nd month of schooling) as measured by the Woodcock Reading Mastery
Test; Passage Comprehension. As a result of her progress, the student stated that she “felt

22

confident enough to enroll in general education” for all of her content area classes the
following school year.
Both the Diebold and Waldron (1998) and the Howell and Luckner (2003) studies
demonstrate the effectiveness of using text features in aiding comprehension with regards
to content area texts. In addition, Howell and Luckner’s (2003) findings are directly in
line with the recommendations of Bluestein (2010) which indicate that simply identifying
and using text features is not enough, and explicit instruction in how to use text features
along with an explanation of their purpose is necessary to foster independence in reading
and comprehending complex text.
Content-specific vocabulary. Content-specific vocabulary refers to the technical
terms and phrases particular to certain disciplines such as democracy, election, and
globalization in social studies; molecule, nucleus, and covalent bond in science; and
radius, diameter, and circumference in mathematics (Yopp, et al., 2009). Understanding
of content-specific vocabulary plays a critical role in both reading comprehension and
academic success (Vacca & Vacca, 2008). Content-specific vocabulary words are
complex (Vacca & Vacca, 2008) and learning them occurs gradually, often taking
multiple exposures (Nagy & Scott, 2008).
In a review on academic vocabulary research, Nagy and Townsend (2012)
concluded that content-specific vocabulary development is strongly tied to academic
language development, and that one cannot be learned apart from the other. As such,
there is a distinct relationship between content-specific vocabulary knowledge, linguistic
access, language development, and literacy achievement (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Stahl
& Nagy, 2006). This relationship between academic language development and content-

23

specific vocabulary development becomes especially problematic for readers who are
DHH, as the lack of linguistic access common to many students who are DHH (Hyde, et
al., 2003; Marschark, et al., 2002; Skutnabb-Kangus, 1990; Serrano Pau, 1995; Williams,
2012) (regardless of communication modality) can be a barrier to vocabulary
development, and, in turn, have an effect on literacy achievement.
Incidental learning, in addition to developing a person’s schema (Furth, 1996;
Marschark & Hauser, 2008; Nunes & Moreno, 2002; Rapin, 1986), is also an important
component for learning vocabulary. One of the conclusions from a study conducted by
Fagan and Pisoni (2010) found that limited access to incidental learning from orallypresented information was a factor in the vocabulary delays of students between 3-14
years of age who used cochlear implants and listening and spoken language as their
primary method of communication. Similar conclusions regarding the impact of limited
access to incidental learning with children who are DHH and use signed communication
have also been discussed in the literature (Marschark, et al., 2002).
Content-specific vocabulary plays an important role in understanding and
comprehending content area texts, yet no studies were identified that addressed strategies
for fostering content-specific vocabulary with readers who are DHH. Much of the
research on vocabulary development with students who are DHH is comparative in
design, measuring the vocabulary proficiency of students who are DHH against those
who are hearing (Trezek, et al., 2010), and is focused primarily on young DHH childrens’
expressive and receptive vocabulary skills (e.g., Easterbrooks, Leadersberg, Miller,
Bergeron, & Connor, 2008; Leaderberg & Beal-Alvarez, 2011; Leaderberg & Spencer,
2001; Pittman, 2008; Williams, 2012, among others). As such, it is important to

24

understand how teachers of the deaf teach content-specific vocabulary and to also
investigate evidence-based strategies that support learning and understanding of contentspecific vocabulary words with students who are DHH in the upper-grade, content area
classroom.
Inference. Making an inference in reading is defined as using two or more pieces
of textual information to uncover details implied by the author (Graesser, Singer, and
Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008). The literature identifies many different skills within
inference, which scholars have grouped into three main categories; coherence (or textconnecting) inferences, elaborative (or gap-filling) inferences, and global inferences
(Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008; McMackin & Lawrence, 2001).
Coherence inferences are meaningful connections that are found within textual
information (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008; McMackin & Lawrence,
2001). For example, given the following two statements, “Sandra is my best friend. She is
in my math class,” one could infer that the word “she” in the second sentence refers to
Sandra. Elaborative inferences, on the other hand, are connections made between textual
information. Elaborative inferences require the reader to activate background knowledge
in order to understand connections that are not explicitly stated within text (Cain, Oakhill,
& Bryant, 2004; Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kintch, 1998). For example, in the
following two statements, “The bike was gone. Sue saw the broken lock in the grass and
started to cry,” the reader must activate background knowledge in order to infer that the
bike was stolen as it is not explicitly stated in the text (Kispal, 2008).
Global inferences are those that create coherent connections and representations
across a text (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008). When making global

25

inferences, the reader must look for meaning that is implied rather than explicitly stated,
in order to identify themes, main ideas, and morals across a text. According to the
descriptions provided in the literature, global inferences take the elaborative inference to
the next level by examining the text as a whole instead of being limited to implied
information between sentences or paragraphs. This would mean that the reader would
have to take all of the information presented in a text (e.g., factual information, author’s
voice, main ideas, reoccurring themes, etc.) and use both coherence and elaborative
inferences, in addition to activation of background knowledge, in order to make broad
generalizations about the message the text is trying to convey. For example, in a text
discussing the perspectives of the British Soldiers and the American Colonists during The
Revolutionary War, the reader would have to recognize the author’s position on the topic,
take into consideration all of the information presented, activate background knowledge,
and draw on previous experiences in order to gain a more global understanding of the
message the author is trying to convey. The message may be a moral one or a political
one. It is up to the reader to use the information at hand, in addition to what they already
know about similar topics, to understand the true meaning and intentions of the text.
In order to measure a student’s ability to make inferences from a particular text,
Cain and colleagues (2004) suggest using questioning. Questioning that examines the
recollection of literal information measures a reader’s ability to make coherence
inferences. For example, given the following statement: “Suzie is five years old, she is in
kindergarten,” the following question could be asked: “Is Suzie a boy or a girl?” Using
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), this type of question would be classified as a
comprehension level question.

26

Questioning that measures a reader’s understanding of relationships between
information presented over more than one sentence would be used to determine a reader’s
ability to make elaborative inferences. For example, in the statements: “The jar fell off
the shelf. Tony grabbed a broom from the back to sweep up the pieces,” a question to
measure the ability to make an elaborative inference might be, “What happened to the
jar?” Using Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), this type of question would be classified
as an analysis level question.
For global inferences, questioning that requires the reader to use the information
presented in the full text while also activating background knowledge is necessary. For
example, some questions that could be asked to measure a reader’s ability to make global
inferences in a text about the experiences of the British soldiers during the American
Revolution are: “If you were a British soldier, what would you have done in this
situation?” or “Taking the perspective of the Bostonians, how would you have solved the
problem of your fellow Bostonians being angry with the British soldiers?” Using
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), these types of questions would most likely be
classified as synthesis or evaluation level questions.
Comparative and exploratory studies (e.g., Brown & Brewer, 1996; Davey,
LaSasso, & MacReady 1983; Sarachan-Diely, 1985) have reported that although students
who are DHH do make inferences when reading, there are differences when compared
with hearing readers of the same reading abilities. Essentially, the main difference
between readers who are hearing and readers who are DHH is that readers who are DHH
tend to make more errors when drawing inferences (Brown & Brewer, 1996; Davey,
LaSasso, & MacReady, 1983; Sarachan-Diely, 1985), and that readers who are DHH tend

27

to draw inferences from text at a slower pace than did their hearing counterparts. These
findings could be due to inadequate background knowledge (as discussed by Trezek, et
al., 2011) or delays in language (as discussed by Marschark & Hauser, 2008). No studies,
however, were found that specifically addressed why students who are DHH make more
errors when drawing inferences, or why readers who are DHH draw inferences slower
than their hearing counterparts. Further, no studies were found that investigated strategies
for developing the skill of inference among readers who are DHH and reading content
area texts.
Inference and background knowledge are important skills for reading
comprehension (Cain, et al., 2004; Chall, 1996; Kintch, 1998), and reading ability and
experiential knowledge directly affect inference skills (Brown & Brewer, 1996; Davey,
LaSasso & MacReady, 1983; Sarachan-Diely, 1985). The more skilled a reader is, the
more accurately s/he will be able to draw inferences from a text (Brown & Brewer, 1996;
Davey, LaSasso & MacReady, 1983; Sarachan-Diely, 1985). Because children who are
DHH often approach text with limited reading proficiency (Easterbrooks & Beal-Alvarez,
2012; Traxler, 2000) and less background knowledge than their hearing peers (Andrews
& Mason, 1991; Boyd & George, 1971; Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Dymock &
Nicholson, 2010; Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006; Schirmer, 1997), the ability to make
elaborative and global inferences becomes an even greater challenge (Marschark &
Hauser, 2008).
Content Area Reading Skills Are Interconnected
The research reviewed in this chapter demonstrates that the five skills of CAR are
interconnected. For example, making inferences, interpreting text features, and learning

28

content-specific vocabulary requires the reader to activate background knowledge.
(Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Cain, et al., 2004; Chall, 1996; Kintch, 1998; Luckner, et
al., 2006; Trezek, et al., 2010; Williams, 2012). In addition, text features and knowledge
of content-specific vocabulary help readers who are DHH understand text structure
(Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Diebold & Waldron, 1998; Howell & Luckner, 2003;
Negin, 1987). Knowledge of text structure, text features, and content-specific vocabulary
assists readers who are DHH in making inferences (Bringham & Hartman, 2010;
Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Negin, 1987; Williams, 2012). Thus, these five skills work
together to foster comprehension of content area texts. Instructional strategies for
addressing CAR development should be designed in a way that integrates all five skills
instead of using them in isolation.
Theoretical Framework
The present study is framed by three theoretical constructs (see Figure 1)
introduced here and explained below. The first construct is that social-constructivist
instructional approaches (e.g., socially-mediated instruction) support higher levels of
learning. The second construct is that a teachers’ preconceptions about their students as
readers and learners influences their instructional choices. These preconceptions
influence the extent that certain skills (e.g., CAR skills) are integrated during instruction
as well as what types of instructional approaches are used (e.g., socially-mediated versus
didactic instructional approaches). The third construct is that knowing how students think
and learn is necessary for designing effective instruction. Figure 1 shows how these three
theoretical constructs are related to the skills of CAR and to one another. Each construct
is explained in greater detail in the sections below.

29

Figure 1: Theoretical framework.

30

Social-constructivist theories of learning support higher levels of learning.
Social-constructivist instructional practices that include socially-mediated instruction
such as teacher-facilitated learning, peer-to-peer learning activities, experiential learning
activities (such as field trips and field experiences) and interactive learning experiences
(such as discussion, role play, and simulations) support higher levels of thinking and
learning, and build schema (Gee, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978; among others). These
instructional practices support academic language development (Gee, 2008), higher
proficiency in critical reasoning (Gee, 2008; Morrell, 2004), and text comprehension
(Stahl, 1994; Stewart & Kluwin, 2001). Academic language development, critical
reasoning, and text comprehension have all been identified as skills that many readers
who are DHH need support in developing (Krashen, 1982; Marschark & Hauser, 2008;
Meath-Lang & Albertini, 1984, among others).
In order to read content area texts, the teacher must provide the reader with a
schema for understanding these texts (Gee, 2008). This means that the readers must learn
how to interact with, think about, believe in, and communicate with text through sociallymediated instruction such as discussions. For example, Brown (1997) stressed the
importance of collaboration among learners in the K-12 setting. In a social-constructivist
learning environment, collaboration contributes to knowledge building and sharing
among learners (Jonassen, Davidson, Collings, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). In the deaf
education classroom, the language barriers often faced by students who are DHH
(Marschark, et al., 2002) may have an impact on the development of their schema for
understanding content area texts.

31

Despite the support for instructional approaches that are social-constructivist in
nature, there still seems to be a disconnection between theory and pedagogy. Gee (2008)
points out a paradox between research and practice, and contradictions found in the
National Reading Report from the National Institute of Child Health and Development
(2000). He identifies one of the instances with the following quote:
“Note the paradox here: The report acknowledges Cain’s claim that we
know too little about comprehension difficulties because research has
concentrated on word recognition, but then the report goes on to blithely
concentrate on decoding and word recognition, as if we can safely ignore
our ignorance about the difficulties in comprehension and make recommendations
about reading instruction in the absence of such knowledge.” (p.37)
In this quote, Gee (2008) illustrates a very clear need for investigation into alternative
methods for developing advanced literacy skills that are necessary for all readers. His
insights suggest that the poor literacy achievement among readers (such as readers who
are DHH) may be connected to their difficulties in using language to mediate texts of
specific genres, such as content area texts.
Teacher preconceptions influence the way they instruct. The second
theoretical construct that guides this research considers the relationship between teachers’
perceptions of their students and the way they teach. That is, if a teacher believes that
his/her students are capable of having deep and thoughtful conversations about a specific
topic, their instruction might include more opportunities for teacher-facilitated learning
(e.g., discussions/debates) or peer-to-peer learning. Conversely, if a teacher does not
believe that students are capable of constructing knowledge through discussions or
cooperative learning opportunities, their instruction might favor more teacher-directed
learning (e.g., didacticism or “banking” as discussed by Freire, 1993) resulting in
instruction that relies on skills-based instruction and lecture. Freire (1993) argues that this

32

type of instructional approach (didacticism) diminishes opportunities for critical thinking,
understanding, and comprehension.
It stands to reason that if a teacher believes that a particular group of students
does not have the language skills needed to mediate learning though discussion or
collaborative learning, instruction that includes social-constructivist learning activities
would be abandoned for more skills/lecture-based pedagogical methods, which further
impede growth of academic language and advanced literacy development (Freire, 1992;
Gee, 2008; Morrell, 2004; Oakes, 1985; among others). Gee (2008) argues that teachers
who perceive their students as being low-achieving tend to avoid instruction that
incorporates higher-level skills such as those needed for acquiring advanced literacy
skills. Gee (2008) supports this theory with data from interviews of hearing, junior high
school students placed in low-track and high-track English classes, as cited in Jeannie
Oakes’ (1985) work. When asked about what skills they thought were valued by their
English teachers, “low-track” students reported the following behaviors: obeying
directions, raising their hand, and having good attendance. Conversely, students placed in
“high-track” English classes reported that participating in discussions, asking questions,
and thinking broadly about concepts while making connections to their lives were skills
valued by their teachers and important for being successful in class. Gee (2008) and
Oakes (1985) attribute this drastic difference to what teachers believe about their
students’ abilities as learners.
This phenomenon is also discussed in Ernest Morrell’s (2004) work, which
investigated the marginalization of low-performing urban students in what was described
as a “two school system.” Morrell (2004) revealed vast differences in how students,

33

identified as “underachievers” were educated compared to those identified as being
“high-achieving”. Morrell (2004) found that the underachievers were given consistently
fewer opportunities for developing critical thinking skills when compared with the
opportunities available to their high-achieving counterparts. The “underachievers” were
often placed into educational tracks that focused on basic skills instruction such as filling
out job applications, behaving in class, and maintaining good attendance, whereas “high
achievers” were placed into educational tracks that encouraged critical literacy practices,
and research-based learning with a focus on college preparation.
Morrell (2004) found that when underachieving students were given the same
educational opportunities as their high-achieving counterparts, not only did the students’
perceptions of themselves change, but so did the preconceptions that teachers and
administrators had of them. As these students gained more confidence in what was
actually possible, the “underachievers” began to perform as well as, and in some cases
better than, their “high-achieving” counterparts. Morrell’s (2004) findings indicate that
raising expectations and providing educational opportunities that are focused on college
preparation may have a profound effect on how they are perceived as learners.
It is important to understand what preconceptions teachers of the deaf have in
regards to their students in order to better understand their instructional choices. Over the
past century, the reported reading achievement outcomes for students who are DHH have
not improved (Allen, 1986; Easterbrooks & Beal-Alvarez, 2012; Furth, 1966; Paul &
Jackson, 1993; Pintner & Patterson, 1916; Traxler, 2000; Trybus & Karchmer, 1977). It
could be argued that a social categorization, which is the mental process of categorizing
individuals based on preconceptions and/or previous experiences with individuals who

34

share similar traits (see: Bruner, 1957; and Robinson & Taifel, 1996 for more on social
categorization), of readers who are DHH has primed teachers to believe that excellent
readers who are DHH are the exception, rather than the norm, thereby influencing their
beliefs of what their current and future students may actually be capable of. These beliefs
would subsequently influence the type of instructional approaches used by the teacher.
For example, instructional approaches favoring low-level and skills-based instructional
practices over critical thinking and collaborative practices as reported and described by
Gee (2008), Morrell (2004), and Oakes (1985), among others.
Knowing how students think and learn is necessary for designing effective
instruction. The third theoretical construct to guide this research considers that in order
to design effective instruction, teachers must understand how students think and learn.
For example, when teachers understand the processes behind how students think in
different disciplines (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies, etc.), they are better able
to transform their instructional practices in ways that directly promote higher levels of
student achievement. Simply knowing the thinking processes that support CAR can have
an effect on student achievement with regards to reading and comprehending content area
texts. These three constructs are important for understanding and framing a teacher’s
pedagogical choices when it comes to CAR integration during content instruction.
In a study investigating teachers’ knowledge and preconceptions about children’s
thinking, Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, and Carey (1998), found that in classrooms
where teachers had a good deal of knowledge about their students’ thinking processes,
the students demonstrated higher levels of achievement than did those placed in
classrooms where the teachers had little or no knowledge regarding students’ thinking

35

processes. The researchers argue that in order to understand the educational choices made
by a teacher, it is crucial to understand first, how they perceive their students as learners,
and second, how much they understand about their students’ thinking processes with
regards to learning. Once teacher preconceptions about student performance can be
identified and linked to their current instructional practices, a framework can be
implemented to help support teachers in transforming their educational practices to
promote higher student achievement.
Carpenter and colleagues (2000) highlight several studies (Carpenter, Fennema,
Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989; Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, & Carey, 1993; Fennema,
Carpenter, Franke, Levi, Jacobs, & Empson, 1996) showing that teachers’ understanding
of the development of students’ mathematical thinking leads to fundamental changes in
instructional approaches, which are also reflected in student achievement. Given such
support, it makes sense to infer that if teachers are given a framework for understanding
how advanced literacy skills are developed in other content areas, it would have the same
impact on literacy achievement.
Social Studies and Content Area Reading
Social studies curricula in the United States are designed in such a way that
success is directly tied to reading proficiency (Stewart & Kluwin, 2001). For example,
the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) position statement (2014) for
developing state and local standards emphasizes that social studies education should have
“direct and explicit connections to the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies” (NCSS, 2014, p. 199). Further,
the standards applied to social studies through the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

36

guidelines pertain specifically to literacy skills, supporting the idea that social studies is
one conduit for fostering literacy in the k-12 setting. For example, the CCSS.ELALITERACY.RH.6-8.10 states that, “By the end of grade 8, read and comprehend
history/social studies texts in the grades 6-8 text complexity band independently and
proficiently.” (CCSS, 2010). Additionally, when examining the CCSS related to social
studies, the skills of CAR begin to emerge. See below for some examples.
CAR Skill: Text Features- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.7 “Integrate visual
information (e.g., in charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or maps) with other
information in print and digital texts.”
CAR Skill: Text structure- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.5 “Describe how a
text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally).”
CAR Skill: Content Specific Vocabulary- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.4
“Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including
vocabulary specific to domains related to history/social studies.”
CAR Skill: Inference- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.6 “Identify aspects of a
text that reveal an author's point of view or purpose (e.g., loaded language,
inclusion or avoidance of particular facts).”
Despite these explicit connections between social studies and literacy highlighted
by NCSS and the CCSS, general strategy instruction (e.g., CAR skills) for reading
content area text is not often included during content area instruction (Early, 1957;
Faggella-Luby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012; Ryder & Graves, 1994; Sanacore &
Palumbo, 2009). One reason for the lack of strategy instruction that focuses specifically
on CAR could be that literacy skills are not as universal as previously thought (e.g., what

37

works for narrative text may not work or even make sense with content area/expository
texts) and that there is a need to make the shift from theory-based instructional strategies
to research-based strategies with regards to reading in the content areas (Shanahan,
2012). Others argue that too much focus has been placed on disciplinary literacy in the
content area classroom, which has been represented as a replacement for general strategy
instruction (e.g., CAR) (Faggella-Luby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012; Fang, 2012;
Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).
Shanahan (2012) points out that more attention has been given to disciplinary
literacy in recent years as a result of the Common Core Standards movement in the
United States. The Common Core Standards include expectations for students to
independently read informational texts, to integrate, analyze, and evaluate informational
texts, to interpret and analyze author intent, and to identify the main arguments and key
details presented in informational texts through “close reading” (CCSS, 2010). However,
disciplinary literacy is different than general strategy instruction, as the focus of
disciplinary literacy is aimed more at what is taught and not how it is taught (Shanahan,
2012). General strategy instruction (e.g., CAR) is different in that the focus is aimed on
the skills needed to understand what is being taught. For example, disciplinary literacy
focuses on the concepts, skills, vocabulary, and thought processes that are necessary for
thinking like a scientist, mathematician, or historian (Shanahan, 2012), but may not
include specific strategies or skills for reading content area texts. CAR strategies,
however, include specific skills (e.g., activation of background knowledge, building of
background knowledge, understanding text structure, knowledge and use of text features,

38

content-specific vocabulary knowledge, and inference) needed to navigate and
understand content area texts (Vacca & Vacca, 2010).
Faggella-Luby, Graner, Deschler, and Drew (2012), among others, argue that
while the concept of disciplinary literacy instruction is a potentially powerful component
for improving the literacy outcomes of adolescent readers, it should not be looked at as a
replacement for general strategy instruction (e.g., CAR), especially for struggling
adolescent learners, as these learners require additional support to build and develop the
foundational skills for reading and learning in the content areas. Because disciplinary
literacy addresses the specific skills, strategies, and practices that are fundamental to a
particular discipline, these highly specific skills are not universally applied to other
disciplines and content areas, and instructional frameworks. Further, disciplinary literacy
instruction is designed in a way that assumes students have foundational reading skills.
For struggling students, Faggella-Luby and colleagues (2012) recommend a shift in focus
to general strategy instruction as a means to build a strong foundation on which the skills
of disciplinary literacy can stand.
To date, few studies have addressed discipline-specific strategies for
comprehension of content area texts, none of which have focused on strategies for
comprehension of social studies texts (Faggella-Luby, Graner, Deschler, & Drew, 2012;
Thornton, 2001). Faggella-Luby and colleagues (2012) found that research-based
strategies addressing comprehension of content texts in the upper grades has focused
solely on English Language Arts (i.e., story structure and narrative theme identification),
and that few of these studies have focused on strategies targeting grade-level and/or
disciplinary reading materials (Faggella-Luby, et al., 2012), and few studies address

39

social studies instruction in the deaf education classroom. A literature search for social
studies and deaf education revealed just two research studies (Bringham & Hartman,
2010; Woolsey, Herring, & Satterfield, 2009).
Woolsey and colleagues (2009) investigated how teachers of the deaf allocate
instructional time for social studies in grades 3-5. Seventeen teachers in seven residential
schools for the deaf were observed during academic instructional blocks, each for four
consecutive school days. Results revealed that social studies was not given the same
amount of instructional time as other subjects such as mathematics and language arts.
Woolsey and colleagues (2009) cited several reasons that may explain why social studies
was not given the same amount of time as other subjects in their study. First, they cited
the National Council for the Social Studies (2007) report that blames policy mandates,
such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), for creating pressure for teachers and
schools to dedicate more instructional time to mathematics and language arts. Second,
Woolsey and colleagues (2009) reference the lack of evidence-based strategies that
support learning in social studies as discussed by Thornton (2001), and third, insufficient
teacher preparation in social studies methodology, as discussed in a report by the Bayer
Cooperation (2004).
The Woolsey and colleagues study did suggest some natural connections between
social studies and reading instruction. For example, teacher participants who dedicated
the most instructional time to social studies did so by incorporating social studies
instruction within their language arts block, suggesting that there may be a natural fit
between these subjects. The authors did not specifically indicate how language arts and
social studies were integrated (e.g., text-based learning, read aloud, writing, etc.), but did

40

mention that reading social studies trade books during the English/Language Arts block
was how one teacher was able to integrate the two subjects. Woolsey and colleagues
(2009) also found that the majority (72%, averaged across grades) of observed social
studies lessons across teacher participants was delivered through interactive learning
activities (e.g., hands-on activities such as building the pyramids and painting a state
mural), and that 12% (average across grades) of observed instructional time was
dedicated to socially-mediated instruction that included class discussion, further
supporting the importance of social-constructivist instructional approaches in the social
studies classroom.
Bringham and Hartman (2010) found that using social-constructivist instructional
approaches such as discussion and questioning to teach the concept of prediction as it
related to social studies helped students better understand the concepts they were learning
in their social studies class. The authors indicated that social studies concepts were taught
“as a story” through read alouds, although text-based learning did not appear to be used
as part of their intervention. Bringham and Hartman’s (2010) study emphasized the
importance of building background knowledge (as discussed earlier) as well as the
importance of using social-constructivist instructional approaches during social studies
instruction in the upper grades. They did not however report on the frequency or duration
of socially-mediated instruction used by the teacher in their study, nor did they report the
level of intensity at which each skill was addressed, thus making it difficult to determine
how the teacher implemented these strategies during instruction.
Although the research of Bringham and Hartman (2010) and of Woolsey et al.
(2009) are positive first steps in the investigation of social studies instruction in the deaf

41

education classroom, and in the identification of potentially important strategies for
developing CAR proficiency among students who are DHH, there is much to be done in
terms of building a framework of understanding of how reading instruction is
incorporated in the social studies classroom as neither study investigated CAR strategies
or instructional approaches.
The studies reviewed in this chapter describe some of the challenges faced by
students who are DHH as well as some insights into potential learning strategies that may
support CAR development; however, none of them provide an in-depth understanding of
how teachers of the deaf in upper-grade content classrooms (e.g., social studies) make use
of their instructional time in relation to content area reading. It is not known which CAR
skills teachers of the deaf integrate during a typical instructional unit, nor is it known how
often they integrate these skills, or at what levels of complexity if they are integrated.
Further, little is known about how secondary content area teachers of the deaf perceive
their students as readers and learners, and whether or not these preconceptions influence
instructional practices. It is important to have an understanding of what instruction looks
like in the upper-grade, deaf education content classroom so that educational
interventions that support the development of CAR skills with students who are DHH can
be developed and investigated in ways that meet the strengths, needs, and constraints of
these classrooms. As such, the following research questions were used to guide the
present study and thus provide context regarding the instructional practices used by
upper-grade level teachers in the deaf education social studies classroom and how these
teachers integrated CAR during social studies instruction:

42

•

In what ways do teacher of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR)
during instruction?
o What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in
the upper-grade, social studies classroom?
o What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration
in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom?

•

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf
have regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and
understand content area text in the social studies?
o Is there a relationship between these teacher preconceptions about
students’ ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches
used by these teachers in the upper-grade, deaf education social
studies classroom?
o Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how
teachers of the deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies
instruction in the upper-grade, deaf education classroom?

43

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The reading outcomes for students who are DHH have stagnated over the last half
century (see Furth, 1966; Moores, 2001; Robertson, 2009). One reason for this stagnation
could be that advanced literacy skills are not being taught when students enter the upper
grades (e.g., middle school and high school) (Chall, 1996; Neufeld, 2005; Shanahan &
Shanahan, 2008), especially in the deaf education classroom (Moores, 2001). To date, no
studies have been conducted that evaluate or describe how teachers of the deaf
incorporate content area reading (CAR) skills during instruction, or even which
instructional approaches are typically used by these teachers. As such, not much is known
about the instructional and CAR practices of upper-grade teachers in the deaf education
content classroom. In an attempt to fill the gap in the research, the present study used the
following research questions as a guide to investigate the instructional and CAR practices
of four teachers of the deaf in two middle school and two high school social studies
classrooms.
•

In what ways do teacher of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR)
during instruction?
o What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in
the upper-grade, social studies classroom?
o What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration
in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom?

44

•

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf
have regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and
understand content area text in the social studies?
o Is there a relationship between these teacher preconceptions about
students’ ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches
used by these teachers in the upper-grade, deaf education social
studies classroom?
o Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how
teachers of the deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies
instruction in the upper-grade, deaf education classroom?

Study Design
Instrumental case study design (Stake, 2000) was used to answer the research
questions. This design is used to gain insight into a specific problem (e.g., content area
reading practices in the deaf education content area classroom) in order to understand a
generalized problem (e.g., the poor literacy rates among high school graduates who are
DHH) (Stake, 2000) across multiple cases. According to Stake (2000), instrumental case
study design is different from a traditional case study in that its focus is known prior to
the collection of data, and is designed around established theory. An instrumental case
study investigates the larger issue at hand, and each case is used to support the
understanding of the larger issue, instead of looking at each case as a single phenomenon.
In the present study, multiple cases were selected. Stake (2000) states that multiple cases
are included in an instrumental case study design when the investigator is looking to
understand the larger collection of cases.

45

Participant recruitment. Before participants were recruited, the study was
proposed to and approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board
(IRB). Once approval was granted, a “call to participate” notice was posted on social
media (Facebook) and sent via email and SMS text message to personal contacts who had
connections with administrators at various residential schools for the deaf and deaf
education programs located in general education settings. In addition, fourteen other
schools and deaf education programs located in general education settings that were
located in areas that were logistically feasible and targeted the population of the study
were contacted directly by the researcher via email and telephone.
Recruitment was targeted towards upper grade (middle school and high school)
social studies teachers in schools using sign-based communication (e.g., ASL,
Simultaneous Communication) as the primary mode of instruction. For the purposes of
the present study, social studies was defined as any course that would satisfy the social
studies requirement for the participating school or school district. All teachers that
participated in the study were assigned to United States History courses for the 20132014 school year. Recruitment was targeted in this way as a means to strengthen the
generalizability of findings across teachers in similar settings. The participant recruitment
process took approximately four months with recruitment overlapping data collection for
Teacher A.
Participant selection criteria. Selection priority was given to teachers identified
as “highly qualified” to teach social studies based on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as
well as teachers who held a state recognized social studies endorsement. To be “highly
qualified”, the United States Department of Education states that a teacher must have a

46

baccalaureate degree, be licensed to teach in the state in which they work, and prove that
they know the subject matter they are teaching (U.S. Department of Education 2005). To
prove that they know the subject matter, the United States Department of Education
provides several options. Teachers can either have a college major in the subject matter
they are teaching, pass a state-developed test to measure their level of competency in that
subject area, have college credits equivalent to that needed to major in the subject area
they are teaching, obtain an advanced certification from the state, or obtain a graduate
degree (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Teachers who are currently employed also
have the option to demonstrate competency through the High, Objective, Uniform, State
Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), which may include years of teaching experience,
professional development, and/or demonstration of knowledge acquired over several
years of being in the profession (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Preference was given to participants with at least three years of teaching
experience in the deaf education classroom. Three years teaching experience was
included as a selection criterion because teachers with at least three years of experience
are eligible for tenure in their position and are able to supervise a student teacher. They
are thus no longer considered a novice teacher.
Once teacher participants were identified by the school’s administration, an
informal request was sent to each potential teacher participant to determine if there was
an initial interest. A formal inquiry was then made with the school administrator
responsible for addressing research inquiries at the school. Each administrator was asked
if there was a requirement for additional external review or research approval in order to
conduct the study. None of the participating schools indicated that additional permission

47

was required. A research approval letter (Appendix A) was then sent to each of the
participating schools and signed by the individual responsible for making executive
decisions regarding research at the school.
As a result of the recruitment process, four social studies teachers of the deaf (two
middle school teachers and two high school teachers) from three residential schools for
the deaf located in three states, one in the Midwest, one in the East, and one in the
Southeast regions of the United States participated in the study. The teachers and
administrators were then informed about the role of the researcher in their classroom and
the school, procedures for maintaining confidentiality of data, and their roles as
participants in the study. The teachers were informed that upon the completion of data
collection, each would be compensated with a gift card from a national chain bookstore
in the amount of $25. The administrative team at each of the participating schools were
informed that the school would also receive professional development in content area
reading (CAR) conducted by the researcher upon the completion of the study.
Once teachers provided formal consent (see Appendix B), they were each given
parental consent forms (see Appendix C) to distribute to all families of students enrolled
their social studies classes. Two schools (school 2 and school 3) requested to have
parental consent forms drafted in Spanish (see Appendix D). A native Spanish speaker
was contacted to translate the parental consent form into Spanish. After parental consent
forms were returned to the schools, the participating class was chosen. The class with the
highest number of parental consent forms returned was selected as the participating class
for each teacher. The reason for this purposeful selection was to reduce complications
that might arise from potentially capturing non-participants on video (data were collected

48

via video recording of lessons) and thus having to edit out footage and potentially
complicating the data analysis process.
After each participating class was identified, the researcher was formally
introduced to the students. During this time, the researcher explained the role of a
researcher in their classroom and provided a brief overview of the information outlined in
the student assent form (see Appendix E). Students were also given the opportunity to
ask the researcher questions about the study, the role of the researcher in their classroom,
their roles as students in the participating classroom, and other personal questions about
the researcher’s role in the Deaf community. This is an important step in establishing
trust within Deaf culture and reducing anxiety as well as the potential for unnatural
behavior.
Student assent forms were presented to each student from each participating class,
one-on-one, in their preferred mode of communication (e.g., American Sign Language,
Spoken English, Simultaneous Communication, or a combination of these). During the
assent process, all students appeared to clearly understand the information as it was
presented to them. The majority of students asked to have the assent form explained in
American Sign Language (ASL). Two students asked to have the information explained
to them using spoken English without sign support, and three asked to have the
information explained to them using sign-supported speech.
During the assent process, the researcher emphasized that they could chose to opt
out of the study, even if their parents signed the consent form, and that there would be no
consequence for choosing not to participate. All students in Teacher A’s and Teacher B’s
classrooms provided assent to participate in the study. Two students from Teacher C’s

49

class, who had obtained parental consent, chose to opt out of participating because they
did not want to take part in the assessment process. Two students from Teacher D’s class
did not receive parental consent and as such, did not participate in the assent process. No
personal or educational data were collected for the four non-participating students.
Teacher Participants
Demographic data for each of the participating teachers were collected during a
semi-structured interview. Some information was clarified through email
communications with the teacher participants. Information about school settings,
educational philosophies of the schools, and other pertinent information was collected
from the teachers, school administration, and information posted on each school’s
website. Table 1 summarizes the demographic information of each teacher participants.
Specific details for each of the participating schools and teachers are described in the
narrative below.

50

Table 1:
Demographic Data of Teachers
Participant

Grade level(s)/
educational
philosophy
of the school

Audiological
status

Native
language

Teacher A

8th/ Bilingual
Residential
School for the
Deaf

Deaf
(pre-lingual)

Reported:
“no language”
/Learned
ASL around
4-5years old
from sign
class

Years teaching/
years teaching
Social Studies

17/14

Educational
background/
certifications

BA Elementary Education
MA Special Education
(focus in deaf education)
Certification in Educational
Leadership
HQ in Social Studies

Teacher B

8th/ TC
Residential
School for the
Deaf

Hearing

Spoken
English/
Learned ASL
in college

8/6

BA Deaf Education k12/Middle Grades Integrated
Curriculum (grades 5-9)
ESOL endorsement
State Reading Initiative
Certification

Teacher C

Teacher D

9-12 mix/ TC
Residential
School for the
Deaf

Deaf
(pre-lingual)

9-10 mix/
Bilingual
Residential
School for the
Deaf

Deaf
(postlingual,
as adult)

Spoken
English/
Learned ASL
at age 9 at the
school for the
deaf

9/3

Spoken
English/
Around age
30 by taking
some classes,
visiting
Gallaudet and
interacting
with the Deaf
Community

18/14

51

BA Government/ General
Education
MA Deaf Education/ Social
Studies

BA History/ Political
Science
MA Soviet and European
Economic and Social History
MA Deaf Education
ABD -- Soviet Military
History

Teacher A
The school. Teacher A taught in a residential school for the deaf in a Midwestern
state in the United States. Based on information published on the school’s official
website, the school is a bilingual educational environment that “recognizes and values
both the native language (ASL) of the Deaf community and the majority language
(English).” During the period of data collection, the school’s enrollment included 139
students (deaf and hard-of- hearing) from 21 counties and 67 school districts as indicated
by the school’s annual report, serving students from 30 months of age through 26 years of
age.
Personal and professional background. Teacher A reported that she was prelingually deaf, and had “no language” until 4 or 5 years of age, at which time Teacher A
was enrolled in an ASL class. Based on the researcher’s observations, Teacher A used
ASL with native-like fluency. This was determined based on the researcher’s sixteen
years of experience working directly with the Deaf community and twenty-one years of
experience using ASL. Teacher A communicated effectively with students, as indicated
by student engagement and participation during instruction as well as their responses to
questions posed by the teacher. For example, when Teacher A asked a question, students
responded by raising their hands and answering with appropriate responses or by
extending discussion on the topic by making a comment. There were no observed
instances of students asking for linguistic clarification during instruction or otherwise.
Teacher A reported having seventeen years of teaching experience, with fourteen
years teaching social studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher A reported that
she had a baccalaureate degree in elementary education, a master’s degree in special

52

education (with a focus on deaf education), and a certification in educational leadership.
Teacher A also reported that she was “highly qualified” in social studies based on the
NCLB criteria (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
When asked about her certifications and endorsements, Teacher A added that she
successfully completed the ASL/English Bilingual Professional Development (AEBPD)
certification program. AEBPD is a two-year professional development program
developed by Dr. Steven Nover as part of a language planning initiative at the New
Mexico School for the Deaf (Nover, Andrews, Baker, Everhart, & Bradford, 2002). The
training covers a comprehensive review of the history of deaf education practices over
the past century as well as best practices and strategies used in schools that adopt the
bilingual philosophy of educating students who are DHH. The main goal of the AEBPD
training is to support teachers in identifying, reflecting on, and modifying their
instructional approaches to support the development of ASL and English in a way that
meets the needs of students who are DHH (Nover, et al., 2002).
Participating class. Student demographic and educational data were collected
over the course of the entire study and were gathered from a variety of sources including
information documented on student IEPs, information provided by service providers
(e.g., speech language pathologists), information provided by administrators, and
information provided by the teachers. To protect the identity of students, the school
requested that all student data be reported in aggregate.
The participating class was an 8th grade United States History class. At the time of
the study, six students were enrolled in the class and ranged in age from 13 years to 15
years. Parental consent and student assent were provided for all six students. Student IQ

53

information was not available for participants in this setting. When asked, a school
administrator clarified that IQ data were only documented in cases when the score was
below average and/or when students had a documented cognitive disability. The
administrator provided assurance that all of the participating students had IQ scores in the
average range and that none of the students had a documented disability that would
impede learning.
Audiological information. All of the students in the participating class had
bilateral, sensorineural hearing losses at a variety of audiological levels including the
following categories: mild/moderate, severe, and profound. The etiology of hearing loss
was indicated on the IEP for three students as “unknown” and for three students as
“hereditary deafness”.
Only one participating student used an assistive listening device (ALD), a
unilateral hearing aid. Of the five students that did not use ALDs during school, one
student had bilateral hearing aids, but preferred not using them and one student used
bilateral hearing aids only when at home.
Language use and preferences. Four students reported that ASL was their
preferred language and that signing was their preferred modality for communicating and
for learning. One student reported a preference for sign-supported speech, and one
student reported a preference for using spoken English. The student who reported a
preference for spoken English was new to the school, and had just started to learn ASL a
few weeks prior to the start of the study. Kendall Communication Proficiency Levels (Plevels) were provided for each of the student participants. The Kendall Communication
Proficiency Levels assessment was developed at Gallaudet University (Singleton &

54

Supalla, 2005). This assessment uses checklists to determine the syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic development of language and is organized into five categories (Singleton &
Supalla, 2005). The five categories of the Kendall Communication Proficiency Levels
assessment are: reference (the type and variety of things and ideas communicated);
content (semantic categories); cohesion (pragmatic and syntactic links between topics);
use (pragmatic functions of language); and form (syntactic characteristics of
communication) (Singleton & Supalla, 2005).
Five of the participating students had P-levels of seven, which translates to
communicative competency equivalent to 11-13 years of age. The student who preferred
using spoken English as the primary method of communication did not have a reported Plevel. Teacher A reported that because the student had just arrived to the school a
language assessment had not yet been scheduled. The school did not have any
information regarding that student’s language proficiency for spoken English.
Reading levels. Documented reading levels were obtained from the Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) for each of the participating students. Documented reading levels
ranged from a 2.4 grade level (reading at the same level as a second grader in their fourth
month of schooling) to 12.6 (reading at the same level as a twelfth grader in their six
month of schooling). These reading levels were based on zone of proximal development
(ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) scores obtained from the Standardized Test for the Assessment
of Reading (STAR). Scores on the STAR test are compared to national norms and results
from the STAR test are predictive of achievement for other standardized reading
measures and are recommended by the National Center on Response to Intervention
(Renaissance Learning, 2013). The STAR test is computerized and takes approximately

55

12 minutes to complete (Renaissance Learning, 2013). Scores are immediately
calculated and are presented as grade equivalents (e.g., 4.7), percentile ranks, and normal
curve equivalents (Renaissance Learning, 2013).
QRI-4. The Qualitative Reading Inventory, 4th Edition (QRI-4) was chosen to
assess the instructional reading levels of all student participants with regards to
expository text. This assessment was used to provide consistent reading scores across all
participating schools and students, as each participating school did not use the same
reading assessments to measure students’ reading achievement levels. The QRI-4 is an
informal reading inventory developed by Leslie and Caldwell (2006), and was chosen as
an appropriate assessment for measuring content area reading for a variety of reasons,
including reported reliability ratings above 0.80 (with 75% of the assessments reaching
reliability ratings of 0.90 and higher) (Nilsson, 2008). The QRI-4 includes measures for
background knowledge, understanding of text structure, content-specific vocabulary, and
inference (see Appendix F for an example passage). The QRI-4 also includes commonly
used text features and social studies passages that assess readers from the pre-primer
reading level through the 12th grade reading level. The QRI-4 was rated as an appropriate
measure for content reading by the International Reading Association (Nilsson, 2008) and
was highly recommended by colleagues who had experience using the assessment with
students in the deaf education classroom. Based on the QRI-4 assessment, students in
Teacher A’s classroom had instructional reading levels ranging from 3rd grade through
middle school. Specific details about the administration of the QRI-4 assessment are
described in the data collection section below.

56

Observed instruction. Observations took place over the course of a full unit of
study on the American Revolution. Ten observations were scheduled across three
calendar weeks, starting on October 29, 2013 and ending on November 21, 2013. Ten
observational sessions were determined to be appropriate for providing a comprehensive
view of the instructional approaches and CAR integration of a teacher based on a pilot
study (Maiorana-Basas, 2013). The first day of observation occurred on the first day of
the new unit, and the last day of observation occurred on the last day of the unit. The
remaining eight observational sessions were scheduled as evenly spaced out as possible
over the course of the entire unit. Specific details about data collection procedures are
described in the data collection section below.
Teacher B
The school. Teacher B taught in a residential school for the deaf in a Southeastern
state in the United States. Based on information published on the school’s official website
the school was described as a “residential school for the sensory impaired”. Deaf
education classrooms at the school followed a total communication educational
philosophy where both sign-based communication (e.g., ASL and/or sign-supported
speech) and spoken English were used as the languages of instruction. During the period
of data collection, the school’s enrollment included 600 on campus students (deaf, blind,
and deaf-blind), grades Pre-k-12th grade and 400 children from across the state, served by
the infant/toddler program.
Personal and professional background. Teacher B was hearing and reported
having eight years of teaching experience, including six years of experience teaching
social studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher B had a baccalaureate degree in

57

deaf education (k-12) and middle grades integrated curriculum (grades 5-9), which
included an endorsement to teach social studies.
Teacher B reported being proficient in ASL, but stated that she was still learning.
Based on the researcher’s observations, Teacher B communicated effectively with
students, as indicated by student engagement and participation during instruction as well
as their responses to questions posed by the teacher. Based on the researcher’s
observations and knowledge of ASL, Teacher B did use conceptually accurate signs
during the majority of interactions with students, using sign-based communication that
resembled Conceptually Accurate Signed English (CASE). That is, using signs that
appropriately convey the concepts being expressed, but that are executed in a way that
resembles more of an English sentence structure.
There were several instances when complex/abstract concepts were repeated by
Teacher B using ASL (without voice support) in order to clarify what was said using
sign-supported speech. In those instances, the researcher noted that the level of
conceptual accuracy increased when ASL was used in place of sign-supported speech.
While most of the signs were executed with conceptual accuracy when communicating
using sign-supported speech, ASL grammar was compromised in favor of English
grammar and structure. There were no observed instances of students asking for linguistic
clarification during instruction or otherwise.
Participating class. Student demographic and educational data were collected
over the course of the entire study, and were gathered from a variety of sources including
information documented on student IEPs, information provided by service providers
(e.g., speech language pathologists), information provided by administrators, and

58

information provided by the teachers. To protect the identity of students, the school
requested that all student data be reported in aggregate.
The participating class was an 8th grade United States History class. At the time
of the study, students enrolled in the class ranged in age from 14 years to15 years. Six
students were enrolled in the participating class. Parental consent and student assent was
provided for all six students. Student IQ scores were obtained from each student’s IEP.
Scores were obtained within each student’s triennial reevaluation and were measured
using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th Edition (WISC-IV) and/or the
Universal Non-verbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Students’ perceptual reasoning scores
ranged from 77 to 108, as reported in each student’s IEP. Four of the six students had
documented disabilities reported on their IEP; all identified as language impaired/speech
impaired, one of which was identified as having a mild educational disability and a mild
behavioral disability, and one of which was identified as having an “other health
disorder”.
Audiological information. All students in the participating class had bilateral,
sensorineural hearing losses. A variety of audiological levels were reported for the
students in the participating class and included the following categories: mild/moderate,
severe, and profound. The reported etiology of hearing loss for three students included
premature birth, Waardenburg Syndrome, and chronic ear infections. The etiology of
hearing loss was indicated as “hereditary deafness” on the IEP for the remaining three
students.
All six student participants had access to an ALD, but there was variation in their
use. Four students had unilateral cochlear implants. Of those four students, one student

59

did not use the cochlear implant at all, and one student did not use the cochlear implant
consistently. Two of the six students used hearing aids. Of these two students, one
student had a unilateral hearing aid that was not used consistently and one student had
bilateral hearing aids that were worn consistently.
Language use and preferences. Three of the six students reported that signsupported speech was their preferred method of communication. Two students reported
that ASL was their preferred language for communication. One student reported that
ASL was the preferred method of communicating in the academic environment and
spoken English was the preferred method of communicating in social settings. The school
did not conduct language assessments and was not able to provide documented language
levels for any of the student participants.
Reading levels. Documented reading levels were obtained from the IEP for each
of the participating students. Reading comprehension levels ranged from a pre-primer
reading level to a 5.0 grade level (reading at the same level as a 5th grader in their before
their first month of schooling). These reading levels were based on the Bader Reading
and Language Assessment and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT).
The Bader Reading and Language Assessment measures word recognition,
reading comprehension, and writing (Bader & Pearce, 2008). The assessment is presented
in three sections, each of which are based on the performance of the previous (Bader &
Pearce, 2008). For example, a student is first given a word recognition task. Once a
student reaches a certain ceiling for that section of the test, they are given a reading
comprehension passage that is chosen based on the number of mistakes made on the word
recognition task (Bader & Pearce, 2008).

60

The school did not provide information about which edition of the WIAT test was
used. The most current edition for the WIAT is the third edition (WIAT-III). As such,
information for the third edition is provided. The WIAT-III assessment includes subtests
for oral reading, math fluency, early reading skills, enriched listening comprehension,
oral expression, written expression, enhanced reading comprehension, and is nationally
standardized (Weschler, 2009).
QRI-4. Based on the QRI-4 assessments administered by the researcher, students
had instructional reading levels ranging from pre-primer to third grade. Details about this
assessment are described above (Teacher A, QRI-4) and details about the administration
of the QRI-4 assessment are included in the data collection section below.
Observed instruction. Observations took place over the course of a full unit of
study on the American Revolution. Ten observations were scheduled over six calendar
weeks (including 2 weeks of winter break) starting on December 18, 2013 and ending on
January 28, 2014. As with Teacher A, the first day of observation occurred on the first
day of the new unit and the last day of observation occurred on the last day of the unit.
The remaining eight observational sessions were scheduled as evenly spaced out as
possible over the course of the entire unit. Specific details about data collection
procedures are described in the data collection section below.
Teacher C
The school. Teacher C taught in the same school as Teacher B. Descriptive
information about the school can be found above (Teacher B, The school).
Personal and professional background. Teacher C was pre-lingually deaf and
reported having nine years of teaching experience with three years of experience teaching

61

social studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher C had a baccalaureate degree in
government and general education, and a master’s degree in deaf education and social
studies. Based on her educational experience and teaching certifications, Teacher C met
the “highly qualified” guidelines established by NCLB (U.S. Department of Education
2005).
Teacher C reported spoken English as her native language, and that she learned
ASL at a “young age”. Based on the researcher’s observations, Teacher C used ASL with
native-like fluency. Teacher C communicated effectively with students, as indicated by
the student engagement and participation during instruction as well as their responses to
questions posed by the teacher. For example, when Teacher C asked a question, students
responded by raising their hands and appropriately answering or by extending discussion
on the topic by making a comment. There were no observed instances of students asking
for linguistic clarification during instruction or otherwise.
Participating class. Student demographic and educational data were collected
over the course of the entire study, and was gathered from a variety of sources including
information documented on student IEPs, information provided by service providers
(e.g., speech language pathologists), information provided by administration, and
information provided by the teacher. To protect the identity of students, Teacher C and
the school requested that all student data be reported in aggregate.
The participating class was a 9-12th grade mixed United States History class.
Eight students were enrolled in the participating class. Parental consent was provided for
all eight students and student assent was given by six of the eight students. Two of the
students declined assent because they did not want to participate in the assessment

62

process. As such, no educational or demographic data were collected for the two nonparticipating students. Of the six participating students, two were in 9th grade, one was in
10th grade, two were in 11th grade, and one was in 12th grade. At the time of the study, the
participating students enrolled in the class ranged from 14 years of age to 19 years of age.
The IQ scores for participating students ranged from 90-110 based on the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale, 4th edition, as reported in each student’s IEP. None of the participating
students had documented disabilities other than deafness. The school did report that four
of the students had speech impaired/language impaired indicated as areas of eligibility on
their IEPs, and that students came to the school with those areas of identification from
their previous educational placements in the public school system.
Audiological information. All participating students were identified as having a
bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss. A variety of audiological levels were reported for the
students in the participating class and included the following categories: mild/moderate,
severe, and profound. The school principal reported that the etiology of hearing loss for
one student was high fever at age 2. For the remaining five students, the principal
reported that the etiology of deafness for these students was “hereditary”.
Two of the participating students had access to ALDs. Of these two students, one
student had a bilateral hearing aid, but reported that it had not been used in the past two
years, and one student used a unilateral cochlear implant. Another student previously had
cochlear implant, but it was surgically removed.
Language use and preferences. Five of the student participants reported using
ASL as their preferred language and that signing was their preferred modality for
communicating and for learning. One student reported using both ASL and spoken

63

English, and that spoken English was used more often than ASL. No formal language
assessments were conducted at the school, and no information was available regarding
students language proficiency.
Reading levels. Reading levels for the participating students ranged from 1.2
(reading at the same level as a first grader in their second month of schooling) and 6.5
(reading at the same level as a sixth grader in their fifth month of schooling). All reading
levels were based on the WIAT. The school was not able to report which edition of the
WIAT was used to measure reading levels.
QRI-4. The instructional reading levels for participating students based on the
QRI-4 assessment ranged from 1st grade to 3rd grade. Details about this assessment are
described above (Teacher A, QRI-4) and details about the administration of the QRI-4
assessment are included in the data collection section below.
Observed instruction. Observations took place over the course of a full unit of
study on “The Kennedy Years.” Ten observational sessions were scheduled across two
calendar weeks starting on January 6, 2014 and ending on January 10, 2014. All
observations were consecutive. An assessment was given to students on the last
observation day. Specific details about data collection procedures are described in the
data collection section below.
Teacher D
The school. Teacher D taught in a residential school for the deaf in an Eastern
state in the United States. Based on information published on the school’s official
website, the school was described as a bilingual educational environment where both
ASL and English are used as the languages of instruction, “with a mission to support and

64

enhance the communicative, cognitive, and social-emotional skills of all students.”
During the period of data collection, the school’s enrollment included 125 students from
across the state, serving students who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind from birth
to age 21.
Personal and professional background. Teacher D reported having eighteen
years of teaching experience with fourteen years of experience in the social studies deaf
education classroom. Teacher D had a baccalaureate degree in History and Political
Science. Teacher D reported having two master’s degrees, one in Soviet and European
Economic and Social History and one in Deaf Education. Teacher D also reported
doctoral studies focused on Soviet Military History and had completed all requirements
except the dissertation. Like Teacher A, Teacher D reported that he completed the
AEBPD certification program.
Teacher D reported that he was post-lingually deafened and reported learning
ASL at the age of 30 years through courses taught at Gallaudet University and through
interacting with the Deaf community. Spoken English was Teacher D’s preferred method
of communication. All interviews and response-to-instruction meetings were conducted
using spoken English. Teacher D reported having better receptive ASL skills than
expressive ASL skills, and during the semi-structured interview described his signing as
“Pidgin Signed English.”
Based on the researcher’s observations, Teacher D appeared to have difficulty
with the execution of signs and with expressing complex ideas and information using
sign-based communication. For example, in ASL, each sign is executed using a specific
set of parameters (e.g., handshape, location of sign, movement, palm orientation, and

65

non-manual markers such as facial expression). During observations, multiple instances
of incorrect sign execution (e.g., violation of one or more parameters) was documented in
the researcher’s field notes. For example, the correct handshape, location, and movement
of a sign made by Teacher D may have been correct, but the palm orientation and/or nonmanual marker was not.
Teacher D did not appear to communicate effectively with students at all times, as
indicated by student engagement and participation during instruction as well as their
responses to questions posed by the teacher. Teacher D’s frequent errors in sign
execution resulted in several observed instances of students asking for linguistic
clarification during instruction. For example, during instruction students were observed
turning to one another during Teacher D’s instruction to ask questions such as: “Did he
say camera or photographer?”
Participating class. Student demographic and educational data were collected
over the course of the entire study, and was gathered from a variety of sources including
information documented on student IEPs, information provided by service providers
(e.g., speech language pathologists), information provided by administrators, and
information provided by the teacher. To protect the identity of students, the school
requested that all student data be reported in aggregate.
The participating class was a 9-10th grade mixed United States History class.
Eight students were enrolled in the participating class. Parental consent and student
assent were provided for six of the eight students. As such, no educational or
demographic data were collected for the two non-participating students. Of the six
participating students, four were in 9th grade and two were in 10th grade. At the time of

66

the study, the participating students enrolled in the class ranged in age from 14 years to
18 years. The IQ scores for participating students ranged from low-average to highaverage based on the Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability; as reported in each student’s
IEP. IQ data was not available for one of the student participants. None of the
participating students had documented disabilities other than deafness.
Audiological information. Three of the participating students had bilateral,
sensorineural hearing losses included within the following categories: moderate, severe,
and profound. Audiological levels were not available for three of the participating
students. The etiology of hearing loss was either not available or unknown for all of the
participating students. Three of the participating students had access to ALDs. Of these
three students, one student had bilateral hearing aids that were not worn consistently, one
student had a unilateral cochlear implant but was reported as being a “non-user”, and one
student had a unilateral hearing aid and a unilateral cochlear implant.
Language use and preferences. Four students reported that ASL was their
preferred language and that signing was their preferred modality for communicating and
learning. One student reported a preference for sign supported speech and spoken
English, and one student reported a preference for using ASL and spoken English.
Kendall Communication Proficiency levels (P-levels) were provided for five of the six of
the participating students. One of the participating students had a P-level of 5+, which
translates to a communicative competency equivalent to 4-5 years of age. Two of the
participating students had P-levels of 6+, which translates to a communicative
competency equivalent to 6-11 years of age. Two of the participating students had P-

67

levels of 7, which translates to a communicative competency equivalent to 11-13 years of
age.
Reading levels. Documented reading levels were obtained from the IEP for each
of the participating students. Documented reading levels ranged from a 4th grade reading
level to a high school grade level equivalent reading level. These reading levels were
based on the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI). The IRI is described as a reading survey
that is designed to determine the instructional reading level of a student and assesses a
student’s strengths and weaknesses in word recognition, word meaning, reading
strategies, and reading comprehension (Roe & Burns, 2010).
QRI-4. The instructional reading levels for participating students based on the
QRI-4 assessment ranged from 2nd to 4th grade. Details about this assessment are
described above (Teacher A, QRI-4) and details about the administration of the QRI-4
assessment are included in the data collection section below.
Observed instruction. Observations took place over the course of a full unit of
study on “The Progressive Era.” Ten observational sessions were scheduled across five
calendar weeks starting on February 6, 2014 and ending on March 13, 2014. Due to
extreme weather and the block-scheduling calendar used by the school, only two
observations could be scheduled each week. An assessment was given to students on the
last observation day. Specific details about data collection procedures are described in the
data collection section below.
Data Collection
To ensure quality of data collection (see Yin, 1994), data were collected from
multiple sources including: regularly scheduled classroom observations; regularly

68

scheduled viewings of video recorded instruction with teacher participants (as a means of
instructional responsiveness and member checking); and semi-structured interviews with
teacher participants. All teacher interviews were transcribed and confirmed by member
checks with each participant.
QRI-4 procedures. Prior to observing instruction, the QRI-4 was administered to
all students who provided parental consent and student assent. The researcher
administered the QRI-4 in a quiet location designated by each school.
Vocabulary assessment procedures. Before students were given a reading
passage, the procedures of the QRI-4 indicated that a vocabulary assessment be
completed to determine a starting point when administering the reading comprehension
portion of the assessment. To determine a starting point for the vocabulary assessment,
the QRI-4 recommended choosing a vocabulary list that was at or just below the student’s
estimated reading level. This proved to be a challenge with several of the student
participants.
In several instances, there were discrepancies in the reported reading levels across
assessments administered by each of the schools. For example, one student was assessed
using the WIAT and scored at the 2.3 grade level (reading at the same level as a second
grader in their third month of schooling), but scored at the 4.0 grade level (reading at the
same level as a fourth grader before the first month of schooling) on the Bader Reading
Inventory that was given during the same academic year. Because of these and other
similar discrepancies, it was difficult to ascertain a true grade equivalent reading level for
each student prior to administration of the QRI-4. As such, the researcher started the
QRI-4 vocabulary assessment at the lowest reported reading level for each student, and

69

used the QRI-4 vocabulary scores as a guideline for choosing the reading passages, as
suggested by the QRI-4 manual. For the majority of student participants, the QRI-4
vocabulary score was a reliable predictor of their reading level, as indicated by Leslie and
Caldwell (2006). In a few cases, vocabulary scores on the QRI-4 were 1-3 grade levels
higher than their QRI-4 instructional reading comprehension levels. There were no
instances of QRI-4 reading comprehension level scores surpassing QRI-4 vocabulary
scores.
Once approximate reading levels were determined, student participants were
given a short vocabulary assessment using word lists provided in the QRI-4 battery that
correlated to their reported reading levels. Each word list contained 20 vocabulary words
organized by grade level. Notecards were made for each of the word lists and were
organized by grade level and by the order in which they appeared on the scoring
checklist. The notecards were organized by color, and a marker was used to print the
words on the front of each card. The word was also written on the back of each card in
pencil so that the researcher was able to know what word the student was reading without
having to flip the card around. Each student was shown one card at a time and asked to
use their preferred method of communication to say or sign what the word on the card
was. As the students read the words, a printed checklist was used to mark how many
correct and incorrect responses were given. When a student hit his/her instructional level
(between 14 and 17 words correctly, identified out of 20), the student was excused.
Reading comprehension assessment procedures. After the completion of the
vocabulary portion of the QRI-4, each student participant was given the reading
comprehension portion (in most cases the day after the vocabulary assessment). Before

70

reading, each student was informed that after reading the passage, he/she would be asked
to summarize what they read, and then answer some questions. Each student was told to
use as much time as they needed to read the passage to themselves and to let the
researcher know when they were done. While the students read, the researcher also read
the passage silently.
After reading the story, the student was asked to provide a summary of what was
read. A checklist, included in the QRI-4 assessment materials, was used to indicate how
many details of the story each student included in their retelling. Each student was then
asked between 5 and 8 comprehension questions (depending on the passage), which was
presented to them in their preferred mode of communication. Students responded to each
question using their preferred mode of communication, and their answers were recorded
on a scoring sheet. Fluency was not measured as it was not appropriate for the focus of
the study, and also because it could not be measured accurately. Many of the students
used ASL as their primary mode of communication. Because ASL does not map directly
onto English, it would be difficult to obtain an accurate fluency score for those students.
Class observation procedures. Each observational session was video recorded.
To reduce potential distraction during the observed lessons, the video camera was set up
before the start of class in an out-of-the-way location designated by each teacher. Video
recordings of each session began at the official start of class, as identified by the school
bell or other alert system (some schools for the deaf use a flashing light system to
indicate the start and end of a class period) and continued until the official end of the
class period as identified by that same alert system.

71

In instances where the participating classroom included students who were nonparticipants (i.e., Teacher C’s and Teacher D’s classes) the video camera was positioned
in a way to avoid the capture of these students. However, because the classroom is not a
static environment, there were some instances when non-participants were captured on
video. To protect the identity of non-participants, all video data were carefully reviewed
and any portions that revealed the likeness of any non-participant was edited out using
Camtasia. A description of Camtasia is provided in the software and technology section
below.
During the observational sessions, fieldnotes were recorded using a laptop
computer. At the end of each observational session, a summary of observations and
noteworthy insights were composed. After each observational session, the video
recording of instruction was transferred to a laptop computer and converted into a maccompatible format using a free version of Wondershare video conversion software. A
description of the software is provided in the software and technology section below.
Response-to-instruction meetings. As a means of contextualizing data and
member checking, two response-to-instruction meetings were scheduled with each
teacher participant. The purpose of these meetings was to review segments of video
recorded instruction and have a discussion with each teacher participant about their
instructional practices and choices. The first meeting was scheduled as close as possible
to observation 5, and the last meeting was scheduled as close as possible to observation
10. Scheduling was done at the teacher’s convenience, and each meeting typically lasted
between 1 hour and 1 hour and 30 min. While viewing the video recorded instruction, the
researcher asked teachers to explain what was happening and the purpose behind any

72

instructional strategies being demonstrated. This also provided an opportunity for the
researcher to get an initial understanding of how each teacher perceived their students as
learners and readers. Videos were viewed on a laptop computer and handwritten notes
were taken during the meeting. The response-to-instruction meetings were video
recorded. At the end of each response-to-instruction meeting, a brief summary was
composed with key information and insights.
Teacher interviews. After completing the 10 observational sessions, a semistructured interview (see Appendix G) was scheduled with each participating teacher.
Each interview was video recorded and transcribed for the purposes of data analysis.
After the interview was transcribed, the interview videos were uploaded to a passwordprotected file on screencast.com. The interview transcript was sent to each teacher via
email with a message asking them to review the transcript and to use the track changes
tool in Microsoft Word to make any additions, changes, or general notes. All teachers
were given the opportunity to access their video recorded interview as part of the member
checking process. Only one teacher (Teacher A) made this request. The semi-structured
interviews helped to provide a rationale for the instructional and CAR practices used by
each of the teacher participants during content area instruction. These interviews also
provided information about “why” a particular practice was valued over another, or at all
and to identify any connections between teacher beliefs about their students as readers
and learners and instructional choices.
Software and Other Technology Used to Manage Data
Wondershare. Wondershare video conversion software is a program that
translates digital video files from a .MOD file (the default file format of the video camera

73

used to collect data for this study) to an .mp4 file, so that it can be read by any Macintosh
or Windows operating system (Wondershare Software Co., Ltd., 2013). The free version
of this software leaves a transparent watermark in the upper left corner of the video,
which did not impede data analysis in any way. After the video was converted using
Wondershare, it was then uploaded to Camtasia where it was reviewed for any segments
containing non-participants.
Camtasia. Camtasia is a video capture and editing software that allows the user to
edit and adjust imported digital video files (TechSmith Corporation, 2011). In Camtasia,
a digital video file can be edited, and portions of video can be trimmed or removed and
replaced with a place holder or text box (TechSmith Corporation, 2011). The video
canvas can also be adjusted to remove or crop out portions of the video frame
(TechSmith Corporation, 2011). Video segments containing the likeness of a nonparticipant were edited out by either cropping the video canvas or by replacing the video
segment with a marker labeled “non-participant interaction”. In instances where the
video segment had to be replaced with a marker, a brief description of what was
happening during that period of time was indicated on each removed segment using a text
box. This was done to ensure the most accurate data analysis possible.
Camtasia is directly linked to a password-protected screencast.com account
(TechSmith Corporation, 2011). This feature allows the user to directly upload videos
edited in Camstasia to screencast.com without having to save a copy of the file on the
user’s hard drive (TechSmith Corporation, 2011). After each video was edited, it was
then uploaded to Screencast.
Screencast. Screencast.com is an online video storage and sharing site that allows

74

users to create password-protected files for video storage (TechSmith Corporation, 2014).
Videos are stored in password-protected files in Screencast can only be downloaded from
authorized users with permissions to access the file, and also require the user to enter a
password (TechSmith Corporation, 2014). Once video transfer was confirmed by
Screencast, all video data remaining on the designated laptop was immediately deleted.
Raw video data files will be stored at screencast.com for up to 3 years following the
conclusion of the study (August, 2017).
Data Coding and Analysis
Video recorded data. All edited video from the observational sessions were
uploaded to Dedoose.com for the purposes of data coding and analysis. Dedoose is a
cross-platform application used for coding and analyzing qualitative and mixed methods
data (Dedoose, 2014). As an Internet-based program, it provides a way for sensitive
information to remain off personal technology and makes it easy to share raw data files
with an inter-rater (Dedoose, 2014). In Dedoose, codes are directly applied to digital
video files and digital memos can be attached to any code for the purposes of providing
context and/or considerations regarding a specific code (Dedoose, 2014).
Coding system. The coding system used in the present study (see Appendix H)
was developed and refined in a pilot study conducted by the author during the previous
year (Maiorana-Basas, 2013). Four major categories were used in the coding process: (a)
instruction approaches; (b) content area reading skills; (c) other literacy skills; and (d)
other content area integration. Instructional behavior codes were broken down into
subcategories of: (a) teacher-directed learning; (b) teacher-facilitated learning (c) peer-topeer learning (d) teacher-guided hands-on instruction; (e) student-independent

75

work/activity; (f) teacher giving directions/instructions (g) non-instructional; and (h)
other. Instruction codes and detailed descriptions of these categories and their subcategories can be found in Appendix H.
All instruction were designed to be exclusive and did not overlap with one
another. Instruction codes were not given a weighted ranking with the exception of peerto-peer learning and student-independent work/activity. A weighted ranking of 1 or 2 was
applied to peer-to-peer learning codes and student independent work/activity codes. A
weighted ranking of 1 was given when students were doing independent work with
minimal or no assistance from the teacher. A weighted ranking of 2 was assigned when
students were doing independent work with assistance and support from the teacher.
After applying instruction codes, the durations of each applied code were added
together to ensure they when equivalent to the actual length of the session. There were
some instances where the time recorded for instruction codes were not exactly equal to
the length of the session. This was determined to be a limitation of using Dedoose.
Because of the way the program is designed, it was nearly impossible to line up
instruction codes, leaving fractions of a second between applied instruction codes, uncoded. Additionally, Dedoose does not allow the user to apply or calculate codes at a unit
of measure smaller than one second. Because of this limitation, a ¼ second gap between
each end of an applied code (½ second total per code) was determined to be the
maximum acceptable duration between instruction code application. These small gaps
between codes represented less than 0.01% of total instructional time.
The remaining codes (content area reading skills, other literacy skills and other
content integration) were not mutually exclusive, and overlapped with other codes.

76

Content area reading (CAR) codes were given a weighted ranking depending on the skill.
Activation of background knowledge, building of background knowledge, and inference
had weighted rankings of 1-3 based on the intensity of delivery. For example, if a
weighted ranking of 1 was applied to an activation of background knowledge code, it
indicated that the skill was addressed at the lowest level of intensity. If a weighted
ranking of 3 was applied to that code, it indicated that the skill was addressed at the
highest level of intensity. All other CAR codes (text features, text structure, and contentspecific vocabulary) had weighted rankings of 1-4. These rankings were developed
based on findings from a pilot study (Maiorana-Basas, 2013) and paired with themes
from relevant literature.
Other literacy skills (decoding, CLOZE, and spelling) and other content
integration (e.g., mathematics) were not given weighted rankings of intensity since the
main focus of the study was to determine the type and complexity of CAR integration
and the types of instruction practices used by each teacher. Because CAR codes were not
applied exclusively, a blanket code was applied to individual and overlapping CAR codes
in order to determine an accurate duration for CAR integration.
In addition to instructional behavior and CAR codes, the researcher also coded
questions asked by the teacher participants during instruction. This included questions
that were repeated by the teacher. Thus, in instances where a teacher asked a question,
and then repeated the question two more times, three questioning codes were applied.
Instances when a teacher repeated a student’s question were not coded. Questioning
codes were weighted with a ranking of 1-6 based on level of complexity. Weighted
rankings were designed based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) with a level 1

77

ranking applied to knowledge level questions (e.g., What is this? Who is that?) and a
level 6 ranking applied to evaluation level questions (e.g., How would you have solved
the problem of the Bostonians being angry with the soldiers?) Questioning codes were
only applied to questions asked during instruction (e.g., teacher-facilitated learning,
teacher-directed learning, teacher giving directions, student independent work/activity,
and peer-to-peer learning).
Questions not related to instruction (e.g., How was your weekend?) and rhetorical
questions were not coded. Rhetorical questions are often used in ASL as a means to
emphasize causal relationships between two or more pieces of information (e.g., in
signing the phrase(s): boy cry why, swing fell knee scrape) which translates to, “The boy
cried because he fell off the swing and scraped is knee.” (Valli, Lucas, & Mulrooney,
2005). As such, these types of questions were not included in the overall question count.
Only questions that were asked by the teacher that indicated that the teacher wanted
students to answer were included.
Each observational session was independently coded using the system described
above. After which the total duration for each applied code was added together to
determine the percentage of total time spent on each skill/instructional approach. For
example, if “activation of background knowledge” occurred for a total duration of 62
minutes across 10 observational sessions totaling 500 minutes, the percentage of
integration of that skill was calculated to be 12.4% of total instructional time. Frequency
counts and co-occurrences of codes were also included as part of the analysis. Cooccurrences of codes were calculated as any two or more codes that occurred during the
same segment of instruction (e.g., prior knowledge and vocabulary, inference and

78

questioning, etc.) and was calculated using the code co-occurrence analysis tool in
Dedoose.
Inter-rater agreement measures. In the present study, in addition to
triangulation of data sources (field notes, video recorded observational sessions,
response-to-instruction meetings, and semi-structured interviews), inter-rater agreement
measures were used as a “bias-reducing tool” (Marques & McCall, 2005). The inter-rater
agreement procedures, inter-rater agreement scores, and the rationale for the use and
exclusion of inter-rater agreement measures in qualitative research in general are
explained below.
Procedures for inter-rater agreement. The inter-rater selected for the current
study was a hearing, former teacher of the deaf, and recent Ph.D. graduate with extensive
knowledge in deaf education and literacy. The inter-rater described herself as a
“proficient” user of ASL who has been a member of the ASL community for fifteen
years. All data were independently coded by the researcher, after which, an online
random number generator was used to determine which sessions were given to the interrater for agreement measures. Twenty percent of the raw video data (2 sessions from each
teacher participant) were assigned to the inter-rater. Session 6 and session 8 were
randomly selected for agreement measures for Teacher A, session 5 and session 7 were
randomly selected for agreement measures for Teacher B, session 2 and session 5 were
randomly selected for agreement measures for Teacher C, and session 1 and session 6
were randomly selected for agreement measures for Teacher D. Once instructional
sessions were chosen for inter-rater agreement measures, they were renamed and
uploaded to Dedoose.

79

The inter-rater was provided with a copy of the coding system (Appendix H) via
Google Docs and via email. In addition, a one-hour training session was conducted via
Skype. During this session, the inter-rater was trained in how to log on to Dedoose, apply
codes and code weights using Dedoose, and was given a basic overview of the codebook
and examples of how codes were defined. During this training, the inter-rater was
encouraged to ask clarifying questions and was instructed to use the comments tool in
Google Docs to make notes of anything that was not clear or to ask questions about
specific codes that might arise after the training session. After the inter-rater was trained,
she was provided with a username and password to access the inter-rater agreement
sessions created in Dedoose.
In addition to the initial training via Skype, a 30-minute supplementary training
review video was created as a reference tool for the inter-rater using the screen-capture
function of Camtasia. The supplementary video included a review of step-by-step,
narrated instructions on how to apply codes in Dedoose. An additional procedure for
documenting applied codes using a code documentation form (see Appendix I) was also
included in the supplementary video. This additional procedure was included after a
system crash in Dedoose, in which some previously analyzed data was damaged and
unable to be recovered. Because of the system crash and inability to conduct a hard drive
back-up of analyzed data in Dedoose, the researcher developed the inter-rater agreement
code documentation form (see Appendix I) as an additional layer of data security.
To calculate inter-rater agreement, the code documentation forms completed by
the inter-rater were compared to the code documentation forms completed by the
researcher. The inter-rater’s recorded time segments for each applied code were

80

compared with the researcher’s documented time segments along with visual inspection
of code placement within Dedoose. For example, in Figure 2, example 1, the code applied
by the inter-rater, starts moments before the code applied by the researcher, and ends
moments before the code applied by the researcher. In Figure 2, example 2, the code
applied by the researcher starts moments after the code applied by the inter-rater and ends
moments before the code applied by the inter-rater. Because of the limitations of code
application in Dedoose, in these cases, enough of the duration of the code applied by the
inter-rater overlapped with the code applied by the researcher, and was therefore
determined to be in agreement.

81

Example 1:

Example 2:

|____________________________|

|__________________________|

activation of background knowledge level 1 (inter-rater)

activation of background knowledge level 1 (inter-rater)

|_____________________________|
activation of background knowledge level 1 (researcher)

|_____________________________|
activation of background knowledge level 1 (researcher)

Figure 2: Visual approximation of code applications determined to be in agreement via
visual inspection in Dedoose.

82

The following diagram is an example of a code application that was determined to
be in partial agreement by visual inspection of the data. In the example presented in
Figure 3, the duration of the first and second “teacher-directed learning” codes overlap
completely with the code applied by the researcher. However, the inter-rater also applied
a “directions” code that overlapped with the “teacher-directed learning code” applied by
the researcher. This code was determined to not be in agreement. In this example, the
two “teacher-directed codes” applied by the inter-rater would be rated as in agreement,
and the “directions” code would be rated as not in agreement.

83

|____________________||_____||__________________________|
Teacher-Directed Learning

Directions

Teacher-Directed Learning

(inter-rater)

|_____________________________________________________|
Teacher-Directed Learning (researcher)

Figure 3: Visual approximation of code applications determined to be in partial
agreement via visual inspection in Dedoose.

84

The following diagram is an example of a code application that was determined
not to be in agreement by visual inspection of the data. In the example presented in
Figure 4, none of the codes applied by the inter-rater were in agreement with the code
applied by the researcher. These codes were determined not to be in agreement.

85

|______________________________________||______________|
Peer-to-Peer level 1

Teacher-Directed Learning (inter-rater)

|_____________________________________________________|
Teacher-Facilitated Learning (researcher)

Figure 4: Visual approximation of code applications determined not to be in agreement
via visual inspection in Dedoose.

86

The percentage of absolute agreement was used to calculate inter-rater agreement
(Graham, Milanowski, & Miller, 2012) in the present study. The documented duration of
disagreement was calculated and divided by the number of minutes in the session in order
to determine a percent of agreement. In instances where there was partial agreement on
code placement for content area reading (CAR) codes, the documented duration of the
disagreement was calculated and divided by the total number of minutes of all CAR
codes in the session in order to determine a percent of agreement.
Inter-rater agreement scores. Inter-rater agreement measures for instruction
codes were calculated at a mean percentage of absolute agreement of 85.2% across all
inter-rater sessions with a range of 74.8%-90.8%. These agreement scores fell within the
range of acceptable levels of agreement as reported by Graham, Milanowski, & Miller
(2012), Hartmann (1977), and Stemler (2004). These scores also fell well within the
acceptable range for qualitative research (e.g., two-thirds or 66.7% agreement) as
suggested by Marques and McCall (2005).
Inter-rater agreement measures for CAR codes were calculated at an average
percentage of absolute agreement of 66.6% across all inter-rater sessions with a range of
50.0%-83.4%. While the agreement score for the CAR codes did not fall within the range
of acceptable levels of agreement as reported by Graham, Milanowski, and Miller (2012),
Hartmann (1977), and Stemler (2004), the overall inter-rater agreement score was only
one-tenth of a percent lower than the recommended level suggested by Marques and
McCall (2005). The CAR agreement scores in three out of eight sessions were below
66.7%, and the majority of the disagreements occurred in the placement of “activating
background knowledge” and “building background knowledge” codes.

87

There are several reasons why the agreement scores for CAR codes were low.
First is the external rater’s lack of context as described by Marques and McCall (2005).
The sessions assigned to the inter-rater for external coding were not sequential and taken
out of the context of the larger unit, possibly having an effect on how certain codes that
require context (e.g., activating background knowledge and building background
knowledge) were applied. Second, the inter-rater’s coding was compared to the coding of
the researcher, and not that of another external rater, which may be another possible
reason for the lower agreement scores (Marques & McCall, 2005). Third, the majority of
disagreements in CAR code application was representative of instances when the interrater did not apply a code to a specific segment of the video, and the researcher did.
There were very few instances when the inter-rater applied a code that was in direct
conflict of a code placed by the researcher during the same segment of video, further
supporting the argument that the low reliability scores could have been due to the interrater’s lack of context.
It could also be argued that while activating background knowledge and building
background knowledge are two different skills, they are often intertwined with one
another, making it difficult to determine exactly when one is ending and the other is
beginning. Because these skills are not as “black and white” as other content area reading
codes (e.g., using a text feature, teaching a content-specific vocabulary word, etc.) or
specific behaviors of instruction (e.g., giving directions to students, giving a lecture,
having a discussion, etc.), a lower reliability score would be expected as different
observers may package the skills differently (Davey, Gugiu, & Coryn, 2010) due to
potential ambiguity in separating the two.

88

It may also be important to note that two of the three sessions with the lowest
reliability scores for the CAR codes were from Teacher D’s observational sessions. As
mentioned previously, there were many times when it was difficult to understand what
Teacher D was saying during instruction due to less than proficient communication skills
using sign language. The challenge of trying to understand what was being said, in
combination with a lack of context, may have affected the inter-rater agreement results
for the CAR codes for those sessions.
Use of inter-rater agreement in qualitative research. There are mixed opinions
on the use of inter-rater agreement measures in qualitative research. Some researchers
(Armstrong, Gosling, Weinman, & Martaeu, 1997; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, &
Spiers, 2002) have suggested that quantitative methods for ensuring rigor in research,
such as inter-rater agreement measures, may not be appropriate for qualitative research.
Armstrong and colleagues (1997) argue that it is unrealistic to expect an external rater to
come to the same insights and conclusions as the primary investigator in a qualitative
study. While inter-rater agreement measures are one way of reducing researcher bias in
qualitative studies, data triangulation in combination with transparent and detailed
documentation of procedures are just as appropriate for ensuring rigor and reliability in
qualitative research (Given & Saumure, 2008; Marques & McCall, 2005). Others state
that ensuring rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research is the responsibility of the
researcher, and not external raters (Morse et al., 2002).
The opposing side of the argument suggests that utilizing quantitative methods for
establishing the reliability of qualitative findings may be a helpful for eliminating bias
and strengthening findings (Marques & McCall, 2005). However, there still remains a

89

great deal of unexplored territory when determining appropriate methods for calculating
reliability in qualitative research, and presently, there are more questions than answers
(Marques & McCall, 2005). Marques and McCall (2005) state that while inter-rater
agreement measures have a place in all types of research, they acknowledge that there is
still much work to be done in determining the role of inter-rater agreement in qualitative
research, and that qualitative researchers who employ these strategies for ensuring rigor
and reliability are viewed as “pioneers.”
Minimum standards for inter-rater agreement in qualitative research. In
quantitative research, an acceptable range for inter-rater agreement measures using
percentage of absolute agreement is between 75% (representing the minimum level of
agreement) and 90% (representing a high level of agreement) (Graham, Milanowski, &
Miller, 2012; Hartmann, 1977; Stemler, 2004). However, there remains a considerable
amount of variation in what is considered an acceptable standard of agreement between
raters in qualitative research (Marques & McCall, 2005). McMillian and Schumacher
(2001) report that there is no easy answer to the question of what is an appropriate
minimum standard for inter-rater agreement in qualitative research. They conclude that
the answer to this question is, “it depends”.
Marques and McCall (2005) made an attempt to determine these minimum
standards by investigating several sources including: Isaac and Michael (1997),
McMillian and Schumacher (2001) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998). In addition to
these sources, Marques and McCall (2005) also conducted an extensive search across
academic databases such as Proquest, and other mainstream search engines including
Google. As a result of their efforts to find an answer, Marques and McCall (2005) found

90

many inconsistencies in the literature regarding acceptable levels of inter-rater agreement
in qualitative research, with levels ranging from 66.7% (two-thirds) to 80%. They also
found that higher levels of agreement occurred when inter-rater agreement measures were
conducted by two raters, neither of them being the researcher. They point out that lower
levels of agreement were found in studies when inter-rater agreement measures were
conducted by an external rater and compared to the researcher’s analysis. They go on to
note that lower levels of agreement in these instances could partly be due to the
researcher having a larger bank of knowledge and context about the study and the data as
a whole. As such, Marques and McCall (2005) argue that depending on the nature of the
study, and taking into consideration that inter-raters typically only review a small
percentage (20%) of the data, obtaining a level of agreement higher than two-thirds
(66.7%) might be difficult to achieve in qualitative research.
Chapter 4 provides the results of the observations of the four teachers regarding
their instructional approaches and CAR integration. The chapter begins with data that
report the frequency and duration of instructional approaches for all teachers, as well as
the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration for all teachers. Results are
contextualized with information provided in the semi-structured interviews, response-toinstruction meetings, and field notes.

91

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Instrumental case study design (Stake, 2000) was used to investigate the
instructional approaches and content area reading (CAR) integration of four teachers of
the deaf in upper-grade social studies classrooms. Content area reading skills are the
skills needed to read and comprehend content area texts and include background
knowledge (activation of background knowledge and building of background
knowledge), text structure, text features, content-specific vocabulary, and inference. Few
studies have addressed the topic of CAR in the deaf education classroom (Andrews &
Mason, 1991; Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Diebold & Waldron, 1998; Howell &
Luckner, 2003; Negin, 1987). As such, the aim of the present study is to describe how
teachers in these classrooms address CAR. Results will establish the foundation for
designing future educational interventions.
The following research questions guided the present study:
•

In what ways do teacher of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR)
during instruction?
o What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in
the upper-grade, social studies classroom?
o What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration
in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom?

92

•

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf
have regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and
understand content area text in the social studies?
o Is there a relationship between these teacher preconceptions about
students’ ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches
used by these teachers in the upper-grade, deaf education social
studies classroom?
o Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how
teachers of the deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies
instruction in the upper-grade, deaf education classroom?

Four upper-grade social studies teachers from three residential schools for the
deaf participated in the present study. Ten lessons across a full unit of study were
observed and video recorded for each teacher. Results from the study revealed an
inconsistency in the use of CAR during instruction across all four teachers with one
teacher including CAR skills more often than the three others. A description of each
teacher’s instruction and the CAR skill targeted during observed instructional sessions
are described below.
CAR skills were not used frequently, for long durations of instructional time, or
at high levels of intensity during the observed instructional sessions. Additionally, the
majority of questioning by teacher participants (tied to the skill of inference) also
occurred primarily at the lowest levels of intensity (knowledge and comprehension).
Results are organized below as an overall comparison across all four teachers by their
instructional approaches, CAR integration, and preconceptions about students as readers

93

and learners. Contextualization and insights from field notes, teacher interviews, and
response-to-instruction are included.
Overall Comparison Results
Instructional approaches and content area reading integration of all
teachers. The following figures and tables provide a side-by-side comparison of the
instructional approaches and CAR integration of each teacher. See Appendix J for an
omnibus table of overall results.
Instructional approaches duration. The figure below (Figure 5) is a side-byside comparison of the duration of instructional approaches for each teacher. All teachers
incorporated socially-mediated instruction (as indicated by teacher-facilitated learning
and peer-to-peer learning) to some extent. Teacher A had the largest percentage of
instructional time dedicated to socially-mediated instruction when compared to other
teachers. Teachers B, C, and D had larger percentages of instructional time dedicated to
student independent work activities when compared to Teacher A. Teacher D had the
largest percentage of instructional time dedicated to giving students directions. All
teachers had similar percentages of instructional time categorized as non-instructional.
Instructional approaches are contextualized with observational and interview data in the
section (Overall Results) below.

94

Instructional Approaches: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)

Instructional Approaches: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)
TFL, 3.1

Other,
3.5
NI, 17.2
NI, 19.5

DIR, 3.1

TFL,
25.1

DIR, 3.7
TDL,
48.5
IND,
27.3

IND,
11.4
TDL,
28.2
P2P, 8.6

P2P , 0.8

Instructional Approaches: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)

Instructional Approaches: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)
Other,
1.7
TFL, 6.8

TFL, 7.4
NI, 20.8

NI, 18.1

TDL,
32.0

DIR, 4.9

DIR, 9.3

IND,
33.3

IND,
23.2
P2P, 1.6

TDL,
35.3

P2P,
5.6

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TFL- Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL-Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; H-O- Hands-on; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-instructional; O-Other
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of instructional behaviors.
Figure 5: Total duration of instructional approaches (expressed as percentage of total
instructional time).

95

Instructional approaches frequency. The figure below (Figure 6) is a side-byside comparison of the frequency of instructional approaches for each teacher across all
observational sessions. The frequency of teacher-directed learning is greater than the
frequency of teacher-facilitated learning for all teachers. Teacher D had the highest
frequency of teacher-directed learning, peer-to-peer learning, student independent work
activities, non-instructional, and other. Instructional approaches are contextualized with
observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

96

Instructional Approach Frequency
Teacher B

180

180

160
140

160
140

120
100

120
100

Frequency

Frequency

Instructional Approach Frequency
Teacher A

80
60
40

80
60
40

20

20

0

0
TFL

TDL

P2P

IND

DIR

NI

Other

TFL

P2P

IND

DIR

NI

Other

Instructional Approach Frequency
Teacher D

180

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

160
Frequency

Frequency

Instructional Approach Frequency
Teacher C

TDL

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

TFL

TDL

P2P

IND

DIR

NI

Other

TFL

TDL

P2P

IND

DIR

NI

Other

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TFL- Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL-Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; HO- Hands-on; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-instructional; O-Other
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of instructional behaviors.
Figure 6: Frequency of instructional approaches.

97

Duration of content area reading integration. The figure below (Figure 7) is a
side-by-side comparison of the duration of CAR integration for each teacher. The two
middle school teachers (Teacher A and Teacher B) had larger percentages of instructional
time dedicated to CAR than did the high school teachers (Teacher C and Teacher D).
Teacher A dedicated the largest percentage of instructional time to CAR as compared to
the other teachers. Teachers B, C, and D had larger percentages of instructional time
dedicated to teacher-directed learning and less dedicated to CAR when compared to
Teacher A. Content area reading integration is contextualized with observational and
interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

98

CAR Integration: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)

CAR Integration: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)

CAR,
21.6%

CAR,
31.6%

CAR Integration: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)

CAR Integration: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)

CAR,
7.5%

CAR,
10.9%

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
CAR- Content Area Reading
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 7: Total duration of CAR integration (expressed as percentage of total
instructional time).

99

Duration of background knowledge. The figure below (Figure 8) is a side-byside comparison of the duration for the CAR skills related to background knowledge
(including: activation of background knowledge and building of background knowledge).
Compared to all other CAR skills, all teachers addressed the skills of background
knowledge (activation of background knowledge and building of background knowledge)
for the largest percentage of instructional time. Within this time, all teachers, with the
exception of Teacher C, spent more instructional time on activation of background
knowledge than on building of background knowledge. Background knowledge
integration is contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall
Results) below.

100

Background Knowledge: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)
BBGK,
3.7

Background Knowledge: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)
BBGK,
3.6

Other
CAR,
15.5

ABGK,
12.4

ABGK,
8.5

Background Knowledge: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)
BBGK,
3.7
ABGK,
3.0

Other
CAR,
9.5

Background Knowledge: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)
BBGK,
1.9

Other
CAR,
4.2

ABGK,
0.9

Other
CAR,
4.7

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
ABGK- Activation of Background Knowledge; BBGK- Building Background
Knowledge; CAR-Content Area Reading
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 8: Total duration of activation and building of background knowledge (expressed
as percentage of total instructional time).

101

Frequency and intensity of background knowledge. The figure below (Figure
9) is a side-by-side comparison of the frequency and intensity of the CAR skill,
background knowledge (including: activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge). Teacher A addressed the CAR skill, activation of background
knowledge, more frequently and at higher levels of intensity than did any other teacher.
Teacher A addressed the CAR skill, building of background knowledge, at higher levels
of intensity than did any other teacher. Teacher B addressed the CAR skill, building of
background knowledge, at the lowest levels of intensity more frequently than did any
other teacher. Teacher D addressed the CAR skills of background knowledge (including:
activation of background knowledge and building of background knowledge) less
frequently than did any other teacher. Background knowledge integration contextualized
with observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

102

Frequency/Intensity of
Activation and Building of
Background Knowledge
Teacher A

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency/Intensity of
Activation and Building of
Background Knowledge
Teacher B*

Frequency

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ABGK ABGK ABGK BBGK BBGK BBGK
lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3 lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3

ABGK ABGK ABGK BBGK BBGK BBGK
lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3 lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3

Frequency/Intensity of Activation
and Building of Background
Knowledge
Teacher C

Frequency/Intensity of
Activation and Building of
Background Knowledge
Teacher D

180
160
Frequency

140
Frequency

120
100
80
60
40
20

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ABGK ABGK ABGK BBGK BBGK BBGK
lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3 lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3

0
ABGK ABGK ABGK BBGK BBGK BBGK
lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3 lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
ABGK- Activation of Background Knowledge; BBGK- Building Background
Knowledge; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 9: Frequency and intensity of activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge

103

Duration and intensity of background knowledge. The table below (Table 2) is
a side-by-side comparison of the duration and intensity for the CAR skill, background
knowledge (including: activation of background knowledge and building of background
knowledge). Teacher A dedicated more instructional minutes to the CAR skill of
background knowledge and addressed the CAR skill of background knowledge at the
highest levels of intensity as compared to Teachers B, C, and D. Background knowledge
integration contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall
Results) below.

104

Table 2
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Activation and Building of Background Knowledge
Participant

ABGK
Lvl 1

ABGK
Lvl 2

ABGK
Lvl 3

BBGK
Lvl 1

BBGK
Lvl 2

BBGK
Lvl 3

Teacher A

38.0

7.4

16.6

11.3

5.2

2.0

Teacher B*

32.6

3.1

5.7

13.8

3.9

0.0

Teacher C

18.9

4.0

3.1

7.4

25.5

0.0

Teacher D

5.9

0.6

0.0

6.1

8.3

0.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
ABGK- Activation of Background Knowledge; BBGK- Building of Background
Knowledge; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.

105

Duration and intensity of text structure. The table below (Table 3) is a side-byside comparison of the duration and intensity of the CAR skill, text structure. Teacher C
was the only teacher who addressed the skill of text structure. Text structure was only
addressed at the lowest level of intensity and for a short duration. Text structure
integration for Teacher C is contextualized with observational and interview data in the
section (Overall Results) below.

106

Table 3
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of Text
Structure
Participant

TS
Lvl 1

TS
Lvl 2

TS
Lvl 3

TS
Lvl 4

Teacher A

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Teacher B*

3.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Teacher C

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Teacher D

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TS- Text Structure; Lvl-level of intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.

107

Duration of text features. The figure below (Figure 10) is a side-by-side
comparison of the duration for the CAR skill, text features. Teacher A dedicated the
largest percentage of instructional time to the CAR skill of text features as compared to
Teachers B, C, and D. Text feature integration is contextualized with observational and
interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

108

Text Features: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)
TF, 7.3

Text Features: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)
TF, 5.4

Other
CAR,
24.3

Text Features: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)
TF, 2.3

Other
CAR,
16.2

Text Features: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)

Other
CAR,
8.6

TF, 2.5

Other
CAR,
5.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TF- Text Features; CAR- Content Area Reading
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 10: Total duration of text features (expressed as percentage of total instructional
time).

109

Frequency and intensity of text features. The figure below (Figure 11) is a sideby-side comparison of the frequency and intensity of the CAR skill, text features.
Teachers A, B, and C addressed the CAR skill, text features, for similar total frequencies
(79 times, 70 times, and 73 times, respectively). Teacher A addressed the CAR skill, text
features, more frequently at an intensity of level 3 than did the other teachers. Teacher B
was the only teacher to address the CAR skill, text features, at an intensity of level 4.
Teacher D addressed the CAR skill, text features, less frequently than did all the teachers
(48 times). All teachers addressed the CAR skill, text features, typically at the lowest
level of intensity. Text feature integration is contextualized with observational and
interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

110

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency and Intensity of Text
Features
Teacher B*

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency and Intensity of Text
Features
Teacher A

TF lvl 1

TF lvl 2

TF lvl 3

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

TF lvl 4

TF lvl 1

Frequency and Intensity of Text
Features
Teacher C

TF lvl 3

TF lvl 4

Frequency and Intensity of Text
Features
Teacher D

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

TF lvl 2

TF lvl 1

TF lvl 2

TF lvl 3

TF lvl 4

TF lvl 1

TF lvl 2

TF lvl 3

TF lvl 4

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TF- Text Features; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 11: Frequency and intensity of text features.

111

Duration and intensity of text features. The table below (Table 4) is a side-byside comparison of the duration and intensity for the CAR skill, text features. Teacher A
dedicated more instructional minutes to the CAR skill, text features, than did Teachers B,
C, and D. Teacher B was the only teacher who addressed the CAR skill, text features, at
the highest level of intensity. Teacher A dedicated the most instructional minutes to the
CAR skill, text features, at an intensity of level 3. Teacher D dedicated the least amount
of instructional minutes to the CAR skill, text features. Text feature integration is
contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results)
below.

112

Table 4
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of Text
Features.
Participant

TF
Lvl 1

TF
Lvl 2

TF
Lvl 3

TF
Lvl 4

Teacher A

18.1

2.0

16.6

0.0

Teacher B*

14.8

5.9

5.1

0.8

Teacher C

14.2

5.7

0.6

0.0

Teacher D

9.9

3.5

4.1

0.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TF- Text Features; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.

113

Duration of content-specific vocabulary. The figure below (Figure 12) is a sideby-side comparison of the duration for the CAR skill, content-specific vocabulary.
Teacher A dedicated the largest percentage of instructional time to the CAR skill,
content-specific vocabulary, as compared to Teachers B, C, and D. The middle school
teachers (Teacher A and Teacher B) dedicated larger percentages of instructional time to
the CAR skill, content-specific vocabulary, than did the high school teachers (Teacher C
and Teacher D). Teacher D dedicated the least amount of instructional time to the CAR
skill, content-specific vocabulary. Content-specific vocabulary behaviors are
contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results)
below.

114

Content-Specific Vocabulary: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)

CSV,
10.8

Content-Specific Vocabulary: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)

Other
CAR,
20.8

CSV,
5.3

Content-Specific Vocabulary: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)
CSV,
1.9

Other
CAR,
16.3

Content-Specific Vocabulary: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)

Other
CAR,
9.0

CSV,
1.5

Other
CAR,
6.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
CSV- Content-Specific Vocabulary; CAR- Content Area Reading
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 12: Total duration of content-specific vocabulary (expressed as percentage of total
instructional time).

115

Frequency and intensity of content-specific vocabulary. The figure below
(Figure 13) is a side-by-side comparison of the frequency and intensity of the CAR skill,
content-specific vocabulary. Teacher A addressed the CAR skill, content-specific
vocabulary, more frequently and at higher levels of intensity than did any other teacher.
Teacher D addressed the CAR skill, content-specific vocabulary, less frequently and at
lower levels of intensity than did any other teacher. Content-specific vocabulary
integration is contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall
Results) below.

116

Frequency and Intensity of ContentSpecific Vocabulary
Teacher A

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency and Intensity of ContentSpecific Vocabulary
Teacher B*

Frequency

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

CSV lvl 1

CSV lvl 2

CSV lvl 3

CSV lvl 1

CSV lvl 4

Frequency and Intensity of ContentSpecific Vocabulary
Teacher C

CSV lvl 1

CSV lvl 2

CSV lvl 3

CSV lvl 3

CSV lvl 4

Frequency and Intensity of ContentSpecific Vocabulary
Teacher D

Frequency

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

CSV lvl 2

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

CSV lvl 4

CSV lvl 1

CSV lvl 2

CSV lvl 3

CSV lvl 4

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
CSV- Content-Specific Vocabulary; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 13: Frequency and intensity of content-specific vocabulary.

117

Duration and intensity of content-specific vocabulary. The table below (Table
5) is a side-by-side comparison of the duration and intensity for the CAR skill, contentspecific vocabulary. Teacher A dedicated the most instructional minutes on the CAR
skill, content-specific vocabulary, and at higher levels of intensity when compared to
Teachers B, C, and D. Teacher D spent the least amount of instructional minutes on the
CAR skill, content-specific vocabulary, at the lowest levels of intensity when compared
to Teachers A, B, and C. The middle school teachers (Teachers A and B) spent more
instructional minutes on the CAR skill, content-specific vocabulary, at higher levels of
intensity than did the high school teachers (Teachers C and D). Content-specific
vocabulary behaviors are contextualized with observational and interview data in the
section (Overall Results) below.

118

Table 5
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of ContentSpecific Vocabulary
Participant
CSV
CSV
CSV
CSV
Lvl 1
Lvl 2
Lvl 3
Lvl 4
Teacher A

32.8

7.0

8.1

6.1

Teacher B*

23.2

1.2

0.0

1.8

Teacher C

14.1

1.6

0.2

0.5

Teacher D

9.4

1.1

0.0

0.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
CSV- Content-Specific Vocabulary; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.

119

Duration of inference. The figure below (Figure 14) is a side-by-side comparison
of the duration for the CAR skill, inference. Teacher A dedicated the largest percentage
of instructional time to the CAR skill, inference. Teacher C dedicated the smallest
percentage of instructional time to the CAR skill, inference. Inference integration is
contextualized with observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results)
below.

120

Inference: Teacher A
(500 min total observed instruction)
INF,
6.4

Inference: Teacher B
(489 min total analyzed instruction*)
INF,
2.3

Other
CAR,
25.2

Inference: Teacher C
(880 min total observed instruction)

INF,
0.8

Other
CAR,
19.3

Inference: Teacher D
(730 min total observed instruction)

Other
CAR,
10.1

INF,
1.5

Other
CAR,
6.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
INF- Inference
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 14: Total duration of inference (expressed as percentage of total instructional
time).

121

Frequency and intensity of inference. The figure below (Figure 15) is a side-byside comparison of the frequency and intensity for the CAR skill, inference. Teacher A
addressed the skill of inference more frequently than any other teacher. Teacher D was
the only teacher who addressed the CAR skill, inference, at the highest level of intensity
(global inferences). Inference integration contextualized with observational and interview
data in the section (Overall Results) below.

122

Frequency/Intensity of Inference
Teacher A

Frequency

Frequency

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency/Intensity of Inference
Teacher B*

INF lvl 1

INF lvl 2

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

INF lvl 3

INF lvl 1

INF lvl 3

Frequency/Intensity of Inference
Teacher D

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency/Intensity of Inference
Teacher C

INF lvl 2

INF lvl 1

INF lvl 2

INF lvl 3

INF lvl 1

INF lvl 2

INF lvl 3

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
INF- Inference; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.
Figure 15: Frequency and intensity of inference.

123

Duration and intensity of inference. The table below (Table 6) is a side-by-side
comparison of the duration and intensity for the CAR skill, inference. Teacher A
dedicated the most instructional minutes to the CAR skill, inference, as compared to
Teachers B, C, and D. Teacher C dedicated the least instructional minutes on the CAR
skill, inference, as compared to Teachers A, B, and D. Teacher A dedicated the most
instructional minutes to elaborative inferences (level 2) than did any other teacher.
Teacher D was the only teacher who dedicated instructional time to global inferences
(level 3). Integration of inference is contextualized with observational and interview data
in the section (Overall Results) below.

124

Table 6
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes Across All Observations) of
Inference
Participant

INF
Lvl 1

INF
Lvl 2

INF
Lvl 3

Teacher A

25.5

6.4

0.0

Teacher B

9.9

1.4

0.0

Teacher C

4.2

2.9

0.0

Teacher D

5.6

4.4

0.7

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
INF- Inference; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of CAR behaviors.

125

Frequency and complexity of questioning. The figure below (Figure 16) is a
side-by-side comparison of the frequency and complexity of questioning for each teacher.
Teacher A asked the most questions (688) of all the teachers. Teacher C asked the least
amount of questions (213) of all the teachers. Teacher B asked 447 questions and Teacher
D asked 651 questions. Teacher A asked more knowledge (level 1), application (level 3),
and evaluation (level 6) questions as compared to Teachers B, C, and D. Teacher D asked
more comprehension (level 2) and analysis (level 4) questions as compared to Teachers
A, B, and C. Knowledge level questions (level 1) were asked more frequently than were
any other type of question across all teachers. Synthesis level questions (level 5) were not
asked by any teacher during the study. Questioning behaviors are contextualized with
observational and interview data in the section (Overall Results) below.

126

Complexity of Questioning
Teacher B*

350

350

300

300
Frequency

Frequency

Complexity of Questioning
Teacher A

250
200
150

250
200
150

100

100

50

50
0

0

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Complexity of Questioning
Teacher C

Complexity of Questioning
Teacher D

350
300
Frequency

Frequency

350
300
250
200
150
100

250
200
150
100

50
0

50
0

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
Question levels are based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. For example, Level 1 represents
knowledge questions; Level 2 represents comprehension questions; Level 3 represents
application questions; Level 4 represents analysis questions; Level 5 represents synthesis
questions; Level 6 represents evaluation questions.
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of each level.
Figure 16: Frequency and complexity of questioning.

127

Summary of overall comparison results. The previous section summarized
overall results as a side-by-side comparison of each teacher with regards to the frequency,
duration, and intensity of instructional approaches and CAR integration over the course
of an instructional unit. In the following section, these results are contextualized with
observational and interview data.
Within Teacher Results
The following section organizes results by teacher. For each teacher, a description
of their instructional approaches, CAR integration, and preconceptions about their
students as readers and learners are described and contextualized using insights from field
notes, teacher interviews, and response-to-instruction meetings.
Teacher A
As described in Chapter 3, Teacher A was pre-lingually deaf and used American
Sign Language as her preferred method of communication. Teacher A reported having a
total of seventeen years of teaching experience, fourteen of those years teaching social
studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher A reported that her highest level of
education was a post-graduate certification in Educational Leadership, and had a
baccalaureate degree in Elementary Education and a master’s degree in Special
Education with a focus in Deaf Education. Teacher A also reported that she was “highly
qualified” in social studies based on the NCLB standards (U.S. Department of Education
2005).
Instructional approaches. Teacher A’s United States History class for middle
school students was designed as a traditional, full year course that met daily for 50
minutes, Monday through Friday. A total of 500 instructional minutes were observed and

128

analyzed across a full instructional unit. The observed instructional practices of Teacher
A reflected both directive instruction (such as lecture) and socially-mediated instruction
(such as discussion and peer-to peer learning) fairly equally. Teacher A devoted 28.2% of
total observed instructional time to directive instruction (coded as teacher-directed
learning) and 33.7% of total observed instructional time to socially-mediated instruction
(coded as teacher-facilitated learning. 25.1% and peer-to-peer learning, 8.6%. The
remaining instructional time was categorized as student independent work (11.4%),
teacher giving directions (3.7%), non-instructional time (19.5%), and other (3.5%),
explained further below.
Teacher A’s instruction was centered on a common text and included teacher-led
discussions and opportunities for students to examine and dissect text. Teacher A often
asked students to read text from these sources and to translate the displayed text from
English print to American Sign Language (ASL). As students did so, Teacher A
followed up with questioning (e.g., asking what the text meant). Text was further
dissected through discussions (with Teacher A or with their peers). Teacher A facilitated
these discussions by using statements and questions such as: “Tell me more.”, “Does that
make sense?”, “Show me where it says that in the text.”, and “Why do you think that?”.
During the semi-structured interview and response-to-instruction meetings, Teacher A
reported that using socially-mediated instruction, such as class discussion, was favored
over traditional lecture, stating that, “It allows [the students] to draw on their language
skills as well as expand their thinking.”
Teacher A’s lessons were systematic and followed a whole-to-part sequence, with
each lesson connecting to and building off of the previous one. New lessons often began

129

with activation of student’s background knowledge through a short review of previously
covered material. During these brief reviews, Teacher A would ask students to
summarize what they had learned.
Teacher A’s instructional style was interactive and engaging. Students were
observed as being on task and actively involved for the majority of instruction. The
culture of the classroom appeared to be one in which students shared in the learning
process. Students often got up, wrote on the board, acted out historical events that were
being discussed, and made references to information in their books during instruction.
Teacher A indicated during the semi-structured interview that discussion and
hands on activities were an important part of her instruction, although hands-on
instructional activities were not observed during Teacher A’s instruction. She commented
that using discussions and hands-on instructional activities helped students make
connections to what they were learning, and that the types of instructional practices that
she used were related to the language abilities and thinking skills of the students in her
classroom. Teacher A indicted that students in the participating classroom had the highest
language and thinking skills of all the classes she taught and thus more discussion was
used over hands-on learning activities. She expressed that discussions were particularly
important because students did not “have the benefits that hearing kids do, like watching
TV or listening to people having discussions.” Teacher A also reported, however, that she
was torn between using discussion and directive teaching activities over hands-on
instructional activities. Teacher A felt that although hands-on learning activities
contributed to more authentic learning, these kinds of activities took up a great deal of

130

instructional and planning time, and that they required additional financial support, which
she did not have.
Student independent learning activities in Teacher A’s classroom were designed
with a clear and specific purpose, centered on text. The majority of student independent
learning activities consisted of reading content texts, answering comprehension
questions, and responding to writing prompts. Teacher A used leveled readers specific to
the unit topic, that matched each student’s documented reading level (only one student in
Teacher A’s class used a grade level textbook). During student independent learning
activities, Teacher A was actively present and monitoring student progress. Teacher A
reported that students often struggled with answering questions about the text and that it
was during independent learning activities where students’ struggles with reading became
very apparent. During a response-to-instruction meeting, Teacher A expressed concerns
that some students might not really understand the reading, and simply lifted portions of
text directly from the book to answer comprehension questions. Teacher A commented
that students were constantly asking her, “What do I put here?” when doing independent
work. It was for this reason that Teacher A indicated a preference for providing
opportunities for discussion and activities that support the skills related to background
knowledge (e.g., showing a film) as she felt that these types of activities helped students
“visualize” content concepts and make connections while reading.
Non-instructional time occurred primarily at the beginning and end of
observational sessions, roughly totaling 10 minutes per session (19.5% of total observed
instruction). Activities during these times included announcements, collecting
assignments, passing out materials, transitions between activities, and students entering

131

and exiting the classroom. The 3.5% of instructional time categorized as “other” was due
to a school-wide activity that occurred during the official class meeting time.
Table 7 below shows the total number of instructional minutes dedicated to each
category (teacher-facilitated learning activities, teacher-directed learning activities, peerto-peer learning activities, hands-on learning activities, independent learning activities,
teacher giving directions, non-instructional time, and other) by Teacher A over the ten
observed instructional sessions.

132

Table 7
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher A
TFL

TDL

P2P
Lvl 1

P2P
Lvl 2

H-O

IND
Lvl 1

IND
Lvl 2

DIR

NI

O

125.5

140.7

26.6

16.7

0.0

13.3

43.4

18.6

97.7

17.5

TFL-Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL- Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; H-O-Hands-On; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-Instructional; O- Other; Lvl- Level of Intensity
See Appendix H for definitions and descriptions of instructional behaviors.

133

Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills. Teacher A had the highest
number of CAR behaviors observed over the course of her instructional unit. Teacher A
also had the highest percentage (31.6%) of instructional time (duration) dedicated to
CAR skills integration. The frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration for
Teacher A is provided in the following section.
Background knowledge. Teacher A used socially-mediated instructional practices
such as: class discussions, questioning, reenacting of historical events, and viewing
historical images and videos when integrating the skills of background knowledge.
Background knowledge refers to what an individual knows about a specific topic
(Dochy, 1994; Jonassen, & Grabowski, 1993) and supports reading comprehension by
helping readers make connections to what they know (Anderson & Pearson, 1984;
Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Kintsch, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2009; Pressley, 2002; Stahl,
2008).
Teacher A had the highest percentage (12.4%) of instructional time dedicated to
the activation of background knowledge, addressing this skill at higher levels of intensity
than did any of the teachers who participated in the study (see Figure 9). Activation of
background knowledge was typically followed by the CAR skill, building of background
knowledge. Teacher A, (along with Teacher C), dedicated the highest percentage of
instructional time (3.7%) to the CAR skill, building background knowledge, as compared
to all of the teachers in the study (Teacher A and Teacher C dedicated equal percentages
of instructional time to building background knowledge). Teacher A integrated building
background knowledge primarily at an intensity level of 1 (e.g., making an attempt to
find out what students know and what they do not know by asking knowledge level

134

questions), and was the only teacher who integrated this skill at an intensity level of 3
(e.g., brainstorming about a topic and acting out historical events). During the semistructured interview, Teacher A emphasized the importance of building background
knowledge, commenting that the use of visual information such as videos, photos, and
other media was key in helping students make connections for activation of background
knowledge and building of background knowledge.
Text structure. Text structure refers to how a text is organized (Meyer & Rey,
2011; Vacca & Vacca, 2010) and supports readers by helping them make connections
between concepts presented in text (Akhandi, Malayeri, & Samad, 2011; Vacca & Vacca,
2010). The CAR skill, text structure, was not addressed by Teacher A during observed
instructional sessions.
Text features. Text features are visual cues that assist readers in understanding
content area texts (Bluestein, 2010; Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Moss, 2005), and
include: table of contents; index; glossary; bold words; italicized words; bullet points;
titles; headings; graphs; charts; maps; labeled diagrams; and timelines (Bluestein, 2010;
Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2010; Moss, 2005; Nolan, 1991). The most common text
features used by Teacher A were images, captions below images, maps, and charts.
Teacher A did have one observed instance of addressing the glossary and table of
contents with students during independent work; however, the use and purpose of these
types of text features were not modeled during teacher-directed learning activities or
teacher-facilitated learning activities. Teacher A did not address text features such as bold
or italicized words during observed instruction. When presenting a text feature to the
class, Teacher A typically used a statement such as, “This is...” or a question such as

135

“Who is…?” Compared to the other teachers, Teacher A spent the largest percentage of
instructional time (7.3%) analyzing text features.
Content-specific vocabulary. Content-specific vocabulary words are the technical
terms and phrases particular to certain disciplines (Yopp, et al., 2009), and play a critical
role in both reading comprehension and academic success (Vacca & Vacca, 2008).
Compared to the other teachers, Teacher A spent the largest percentage (10.8%) of
instructional time on the CAR skill of content-specific vocabulary. Teacher A addressed
content-specific vocabulary at higher levels of intensity as compared to Teachers B, C,
and D (see Table 5). Content-specific vocabulary was integrated primarily within the
context of text, a best practice identified by Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2008). Teacher
A addressed the skill of content-specific vocabulary largely during socially-mediated
instruction, such as discussion, and conversations about multiple meanings of words as
well as working through students’ misconceptions about the meanings of words. For
example, Teacher A discussed how certain individuals were “appointed” to a leadership
position, then asked students what the word “appoint” meant in this context. One student
replied that “appoint” was the opposite of “disappoint”. Teacher A used that student’s
comment as an opportunity to compare the words and discuss their morphographic
components to help students gain a better understanding of the meanings of each word.
Inference. The skill of inference requires a reader to use two or more pieces of
information to uncover details implied by the author (Kispal, 2008). Inferences can be
made within textual elements (text connecting inferences), across textual elements
(coherence inferences), and across an entire text (global inferences) (Kispal, 2008).
Teacher A dedicated the largest percentage of instructional time, as compared to the other

136

teachers, (6.4%) to inference (see Table 6). As did the other CAR skills, inference cooccurred primarily with socially-mediated instruction including teacher-facilitated
learning, discussion, and peer-to-peer learning activities that occurred as a result of
students discussing and debating their inferences with one another. Teacher A also
addressed the CAR skill of inference at higher levels of intensity than did any of the
teachers in the study. Teacher A often asked higher order questions such as “Why do you
think that?” and “What do you think they were feeling at this moment?” when discussing
historical events. After posing these questions, Teacher A facilitated discussions with
students and provided opportunities for students to have discussions about what they
inferred from the text and text features presented during instruction. The longer duration
of inference observed during Teacher A’s instruction is most likely due to the length of
time Teacher A allowed for discussion of inferences and points of view with regards to
content information.
Complexity of questioning. Because of the relationship between questioning and
the skill of inference (Kispal, 2008), every observed instance of a question was
categorized and included in the analysis. Questions were categorized by level of intensity
based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, level 1 corresponding with knowledge level questions,
level 2 corresponding with comprehension questions, level 3 corresponding with
application questions, level 4 corresponding with analysis questions, level 5
corresponding with synthesis questions, and level 6 corresponding with evaluation
questions (see Appendix H). Teacher A asked the most questions (688) of any teacher
who participated in the study (see Figure 16). The majority of Teacher A’s questions
(46.7%) were categorized at the knowledge level (level 1), 27% were categorized at the

137

comprehension level, and 23% were categorized at the application level (level 3).
Although Teacher A did include analysis (level 4) and evaluation (level 6) questions
during observed instructional sessions, each represented only a small percentage of the
total questions asked (1.9% and 1.3%, respectively), averaging about one analysis and
one evaluation question per observed session. However, longer durations of instructional
time were dedicated for students to discuss and answer these types of questions, whereas
the duration of instructional time dedicated to answering lower level questions was much
shorter. This may be one reason for the lower frequency of these higher-level types of
questions, that is, they take longer to answer. Teacher A was not observed asking any
synthesis (level 5) questions during the study.
Summary. Instruction in Teacher A’s classroom was primarily learner-centered
and the teacher and students worked together as a community of learners. Teacher A’s
instruction reflected a balanced approach integrating both direct instruction and sociallymediated instruction for similar percentages of instructional time. She provided multiple
opportunities for discussion, and asked higher-level questions (such as analysis and
evaluation questions) to support critical thinking, inference, and understanding of “big
picture” concepts. Teacher A spent the most amount of instructional time addressing the
skills of CAR and addressed these skills at higher levels of intensity than did any other
teacher in the study.
Teacher B
As described in Chapter 3, Teacher B was hearing and used Spoken English as
her preferred method of communication during one-on-one conversations. Teacher B
used sign supported speech as the primary method of communicating when instructing.

138

Teacher B reported having a total of eight years of teaching experience, six of those years
teaching social studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher B reported that her
highest level of education was a baccalaureate degree in Deaf Education (k-12) and
Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (5-9). Teacher B also reported having an ESOL
(English for Speakers of Other Languages) endorsement and a state reading initiative
certification.
Instructional approaches. Teacher B’s United States History class for middle
school students was designed as a traditional, full year course that met daily for 57
minutes, Monday through Thursday, and for 45 minutes on Fridays. A total of 489
instructional minutes were analyzed (One of the video recorded sessions, Teacher B,
session 10, was damaged and not included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s
instructional practice is based on 9 sessions). Teacher B had the lowest percentage of
analyzed instructional time (3.1%) dedicated to socially-mediated instructional practices
(e.g., teacher-facilitated learning activities such as discussion, and peer-to-peer learning
activities), relying on lecture as the primary method of delivering content information.
Students in Teacher B’s class were observed as being attentive, yet passive. There were
few observed instances of students raising their hands to comment or ask questions, and
student interaction was typically limited to answering questions asked by the teacher.
Peer-to-peer interactions were representative of only 0.8% of Teacher B’s instruction.
The remaining instructional time was categorized as teacher-directed learning (48.5%),
teacher giving directions/instructions (3.1%), student independent work activities
(27.3%), and non-instructional (17.2), explained further, below.

139

Teacher B dedicated 48.5% of instruction to teacher-directed learning activities
(e.g., lecture), which was the highest percentage of all the teachers in the study. During
the semi-structured interview, Teacher B stated that the reason instruction was primarily
delivered through lecture was because,
“…sometimes I feel like there is this information that I want to make sure [the
students] have, and I can’t really come up with a good way for [the students] to
figure it out on their own, or we don’t have time for [the students] to figure it out
on their own, so I just need to give it to them. Sometimes, that is just how I feel,
that I just need to give [the students] the information. So, to me, a lecture kind of
helps me out that way”.
Teacher B also indicated that there was a lot of pressure from state mandates to cover a
large scope of content information, and lecture seemed to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that in a timely manner.
Teacher B described her lectures as “more like guided reading.” Although there
are several variations on what defines guided reading, a common theme throughout these
definitions is that the teacher talks through a selected text with a small group of students
while making connections to background knowledge, bringing attention to key
vocabulary, and monitoring comprehension through discussion (Marshall, 2014;
Scholastic, 2014). The practice of guided reading as described by Marshall (2014) and
Scholastic (2014) was not what was observed during Teacher B’s instruction. Teacher B
often read chunks of text projected onto a SmartBoard (e.g., PowerPoint slides, selected
portions of the electronic version of the textbook, and documents projected via a
document camera) to students. These instances were interpreted as “decoding text” since
they did not meet the requirements to be defined as guided reading as described by
Marshall (2014) and Scholastic (2014). Few opportunities were provided for students to
have discussions focused around text during observed instruction.

140

There were several observed instances of students being asked to come to the
front of the room to read portions of text to their classmates from their United States
history textbook, which was projected onto a SmartBoard. In each instance where
students were asked to read to the class, students decoded text, word-by-word, using
signs borrowed from ASL and signed in English word order. Students were not asked to
translate what they read into conceptually accurate ASL, to summarize what they were
reading, identify or discuss problematic vocabulary, or to demonstrate comprehension.
During these activities, the students decoded the text and then returned to their seat. After
each student read their assigned portion of the text, Teacher B summarized what the
student read, and provided additional context and explanation to the whole class.
As students decoded text in sign, Teacher B voice interpreted what was signed.
When asked her reason for this particular practice, Teacher B explained that the voice
translation was for students who benefited from auditory input. Additionally, when a
student came across a word s/he did not know, or when s/he fingerspelled a word that had
a sign equivalent, Teacher B would supply the student with the appropriate sign. In one
instance, a student fingerspelled the word “act” while reading a selected portion of text to
the class. Teacher B interrupted the student, commenting to the class, “I am making up a
sign for this”, and signed the word using an “A” handshape while executing the sign in a
way similar to the sign for “rule” or “law”. This was the only observed instance of a
teacher participant deliberately creating a sign for the purposes of instruction. When
asked why a sign was created for the word “act” (instead of just fingerspelling the word)
during the response-to-instruction meeting, Teacher B indicated that the fabricated sign

141

would help students understand the concept of the word by relating it to signs they were
already familiar with (e.g., rule, law), but that making up signs was not a regular practice.
There were several observed instances of student independent work activities
(27.3% of total analyzed instruction). During student independent work activities,
Teacher B was actively present and monitoring students’ progress and therefore, were
measured at an intensity of level 2 (21.5%). Student independent work activities had a
specific purpose and were designed by Teacher B to function as cooperative learning
activities. However, despite repeated prompting by Teacher B to work collaboratively,
students were observed completing their assignments individually. Observed
collaboration and discussion between students during student independent work was
limited to students asking each other about the answer they had on each other’s papers.
As a result, the activities intended to serve as collaborative/ socially-mediated learning
activities (for example, peer-to-peer learning) were in actuality “student independent
work” since students were not observed collaborating with one another, even after
repeated encouragement by Teacher B.
The culture of the classroom reflected one where the teacher acted as the “keeper
of information,” that is, where the majority of information and discussion about content
was delivered by the teacher. One observed example of this occurred when Teacher B
asked students a question during instruction. As a student began to answer the question,
instead of directing the class to look at the student who was answering, Teacher B
mirrored the students’ response by repeating the student’s comment simultaneously so
that the entire class knew what was being said. Teacher B’s decision to use this strategy
for relaying information during discussions may have been a reflection of the classroom

142

seating arrangement. The seating in Teacher B’s classroom was arranged into small
round tables that were spread around the room. The type of seating arrangement in
Teacher B’s class was not designed to facilitate communication access between students
when using visual communication modalities such as ASL during whole group
instruction, and may explain why peer-to-peer interactions did not occur frequently
during Teacher B’s instruction. When asked why she chose this particular seating
arrangement, Teacher B stated that she felt the arrangement promoted cooperative
learning in small groups, and helped to reduce off task behaviors and conversations
among students during whole group instruction. However, based on observations the
students did not appear to be comfortable participating in large group discussions, and at
times, seemed unsure as to how to have discussions with peers during whole group
instruction.
Similar to Teacher A, non-instructional activities occurred primarily at the
beginning and ending of each observational session, roughly 9 minutes per session
(17.2% of total analyzed instructional time). Non-instructional activities were typically
reflective of the time needed for Teacher B to collect assignments and pass out materials,
homeroom type activities such as morning announcements and reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance, and transitions between activities and as students entered and exited the
classroom. The remaining instructional time was categorized as “teacher giving
directions” (3.1%) about assignments and projects.
Like Teacher A, hands-on instructional activities were not observed during
Teacher B’s instruction. Yet, also like Teacher A, Teacher B indicated that hands-on
activities were an important part of instruction (rating it second behind having a

143

discussion during the semi-structured interview). When asked to rank instructional
practices from most effective to least effective, Teacher B ranked text-based learning as
most effective, followed by hands-on learning, discussion, lecture, and guided reading.
Teacher B reported that designing and planning hands-on activities was difficult and time
consuming, which was one of the reasons it was not addressed often, but that it was her
preferred method of delivering content, noting that the rankings she provided for
instructional practices during the semi-structured interview were the opposite of how she
actually taught. When asked, Teacher B could not come up with a reason why this
occurred, commenting that it was “interesting”.
Teacher B reported that having class discussions was a challenge because students
often did not come to class with the necessary background knowledge. She noted that if
students did not have something to discuss, or if they did not have adequate background
knowledge, that the discussion would not be productive. Teacher B commented that
students in her class required a lot of guidance in learning social studies concepts, and
that was why most of her instruction focused on lecture, and what she described as
“guided reading”. During the interview, Teacher B stated that she felt block scheduling
would allow more flexibility and opportunity to incorporate socially-mediated learning
activities such as discussion and hands-on activities, and that the traditional class period
(57 minutes on Monday-Thursday and 45 minutes on Fridays) was not conducive for
including those types of activities and still covering all of the required content.
The table below (Table 8) shows the total number of instructional minutes
dedicated to each category (teacher-facilitated learning, teacher-directed learning, peer-

144

to-peer learning, hands-on learning, independent learning, teacher giving directions, noninstructional time, and other) by Teacher B over nine analyzed instructional sessions.

145

Table 8

Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All Analyzed
Sessions*) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher B
TFL

TDL

P2P
Lvl 1

P2P
Lvl 2

HO

IND
Lvl 1

IND
Lvl 2

DIR

NI

O

15.0

237.0

2.2

1.9

0.0

28.4

105.2

15.2

84.1

0.0

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not
included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s instructional practice is based on 9
sessions.
TFL-Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL- Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; HO-Hands-On; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-Instructional; O- Other; Lvl- Level of Intensity

146

Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills. Teacher B spent 21.6% of
instructional time on CAR skills (see Figure 7). Content area reading skills were typically
addressed during directive learning activities (lecture). Grade-level content texts were
used as resources in the majority of observed sessions, regardless of students’
documented reading levels. When asked about the decision to use grade-level texts,
Teacher B indicated that she was mandated by the state to use them since all of the
students in the class were classified as being educated in a general education setting,
noting that modified materials and/or curricula were only permitted in special education
settings.
Background knowledge. Teacher B spent more than half the amount of CAR time
dedicated to the skills of background knowledge, totaling 12.1% of total analyzed
instruction (see Figure 8). The skills of background knowledge often co-occurred with
lecture. Activation of background knowledge was addressed at more than twice the
duration of building of background knowledge (8.6% and 3.6% of total analyzed
instruction, respectively). Both activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge were addressed at the lowest level of intensity (see Figure 9), and
never at an intensity of level 3 in any of the sessions. Similar to Teacher A, Teacher B
typically incorporated the skills of background knowledge when introducing a new lesson
or sub-topic, and the activation of background knowledge was often followed by the
building of background knowledge. Teacher B typically activated background knowledge
through questioning and the use of text features (e.g., images). Building of background
knowledge was integrated by making connections to students’ previous experiences

147

through socially-mediated activities such as: discussions and the exploration of
interactive websites, as well as viewing content related videos.
Text structure. Teacher B was the only teacher in the study that was observed
integrating the skill of text structure. Text structure was addressed only during one-onone interactions with students in sessions two, four, and nine for a total duration of 3.1
minutes (0.6% of total analyzed instruction) (see Table 3). Text structure was addressed
only at the lowest level of intensity, at the sentence and paragraph level. For example,
when working with a student during an independent work activity, Teacher B pointed
out, “The first sentence in this paragraph tells you what the rest of the paragraph is
about.” Although addressing text structure at the sentence level may support
comprehension as discussed in Negin’s (1987) study, Teacher B did not address the text
structures that support comprehension of content area texts as described by Meyer and
Rey (2011).
Text features. Images were the most commonly observed text feature used during
Teacher B’s instruction, and were used in every observed class session. Teacher B
commented on the importance of using visual information (such as text features) to
support student learning. Teacher B was the only teacher participant to compare and
contrast text features, the highest level of intensity. This occurred during an activity when
students were asked to compare and contrast two artistic renditions of the same event in
history. However, text features were only integrated at this level of intensity (level 4) for
a short duration (0.8 minutes) while Teacher B modeled the skill for students. Once
Teacher B modeled the skill, students were asked to continue comparing and contrasting
the two images as part of an independent work activity. As such, it was not possible to

148

ascertain how long students spent on this particular skill at this level of intensity, given
that the independent work activity also included other skills such as answering
comprehension questions, defining vocabulary, and reading passages, and was only
documented when it was addressed by the teacher.
Teacher B did include opportunities for students to practice the analysis of text
features (categorized at level 3) during independent work activities, however, text
features addressed at this level of intensity only occurred for a duration of 5.1 minutes
(1.0%) of total instruction. There were several observed instances of Teacher B calling
attention to headings in the body of text, and one instance when Teacher B asked students
to refer to the table of contents in their textbooks as a tool to find information. Other text
features such as bold and italicized words were not addressed by Teacher B during
observed instruction.
Content-specific vocabulary. Teacher B addressed content-specific vocabulary
for 5.3% of total analyzed instruction, which often co-occurred with the decoding of text
(see Table 11). Teacher B did not assign a specific vocabulary list for students to study.
When asked why a vocabulary list was not assigned, Teacher B indicated that she
included a list of words in her lesson plans to target during instruction and that contentspecific vocabulary words were addressed as they came up during a lesson. Teacher B
posted key content-specific vocabulary words on a word wall for students to reference on
their own. There were several instances observed when Teacher B referred to words on
the word wall during instruction. These instances frequently co-occurred with the skill of
activation of background knowledge, as Teacher B asked students to recall words that
had been discussed in previous lessons. When addressing content-specific vocabulary,

149

Teacher B typically identified the content-specific vocabulary word and then told
students the meaning and/or corresponding ASL sign. There were not any observed
instances of discussion or analysis of content-specific vocabulary.
Inference. Teacher B addressed the skill of inference for 2.3% of analyzed
instructional time, primarily categorized as text-connecting (level 1) inferences (2.0%)
(see Table 7). The skill of inference was primarily addressed during teacher-directed
learning activities, and co-occurred with the use of text features (see Table 11). An
example occurred when Teacher B presented an image of soldiers camping out in severe
weather conditions. Teacher B asked the students to infer how the soldiers were feeling.
In this instance, students responded with one-word answers or short phrases (e.g., sad).
Teacher B often repeated students’ responses, providing confirmation that their inference
was correct and occasionally expanded on their comments by adding additional
information and inferences.
Complexity of questioning. Teacher B asked 447 questions across all analyzed
sessions (see Figure 16). The majority of Teacher B’s questions (71.2%) were at the
knowledge level (level 1), 13% were at the comprehension level, and 10% were at the
application level (level 3). Teacher B did ask more level 4 questions than did Teacher A
(4.7% and 1.9% respectively), however, less instructional time was spent on these
questions as compared with Teacher A. When Teacher B asked higher-level questions
during instruction, there were not any observed opportunities for students to discuss
multiple points of view. For example, when asking a higher-level question like “why” or
“what do you think”, a student would respond with a brief comment, after which Teacher
B would provide confirmation that the student answered “correctly”, made additional

150

comments, and then moved on to the next topic or question. There was only one
observed instance of students having a whole group discussion around a question posed
by Teacher B.
Summary. Instruction in Teacher B’s classroom was primarily delivered through
lecture and teacher-directed learning activities. Students in Teacher B’s classroom were
passive participants and few observed opportunities were provided for discussion.
Teacher B did allow students to learn from and explore text-based information. Teacher
B addressed the skills of CAR at lower levels of intensity than did Teacher A, but
addressed CAR for a larger percentage of instructional time than did Teachers C and D.
During the interview, Teacher B commented that her actual instructional approaches were
not the same as her desired instructional approaches, and that “in a perfect world”, she
would include more socially-mediated/social-constructivist learning activities such as
hands-on learning, discussion, and facilitative instruction.
Teacher C
As described in Chapter 3, Teacher C was deaf and used American Sign
Language (ASL) as her preferred method of communication during one-on-one
conversations and as the language of instruction. Teacher C reported having a total of
nine years of teaching experience, three of those years teaching social studies in the deaf
education classroom. Teacher C reported that her highest level of education was a
master’s degree in Deaf Education and Social Studies, and had a baccalaureate degree in
Government and General Education.
Instructional approaches. Teacher C’s United States History class of high
school students was designed as a full year course that was condensed into a half year

151

through the use of a block scheduling model. Teacher C’s class met daily for 90 minutes,
Monday through Thursday, and for 80 minutes on Fridays. A total of 880 instructional
minutes were observed and analyzed. The observed unit was the final unit taught for the
semester. Teacher C’s instruction favored a more directive approach with 32.0% of
instructional time dedicated to teacher-directed learning activities and 9.0% of
instructional time dedicated to socially-mediated instruction (teacher-facilitating learning
activities, 7.4% and peer-to-peer learning, 1.6%). The remaining instructional time was
categorized as teacher giving directions/instructions (4.9%), student independent work
(33.3%), and non-instructional (20.8), explained further below.
The majority of observed instructional time (33.3%) was dedicated to student
independent learning activities. During these activities, Teacher C was not available to
students for support or monitoring of progress. Instead, Teacher C was often observed
working on a computer in the back of the classroom. Student independent work activities
included completion of work packets related to content covered in the unit and included
comprehension questions and vocabulary matching activities. Students were also given
time to work on an end of the semester project. During student independent work
activities, students were observed spending time primarily on off-task behaviors
including conversations with other students about school related and personal activities,
or surfing the Internet. In one session, a student was observed watching a movie on a
laptop computer during independent work time, and in several other sessions, students
were observed playing online games and searching the Internet for information that was
not related to content (e.g., local basketball team statistics).

152

Only 36.6% of observed instruction (322 minutes) was dedicated to contentrelated instruction delivered by the teacher. Teacher C’s lessons were connected and
followed a whole-to-part sequence. During instruction, Teacher C demonstrated a strong
understanding of content knowledge, often supplementing information from the textbook
with anecdotes and stories about historical events and generally presented content
information as a story. Students were observed as being engaged, however, the culture of
Teacher C’s classroom reflected one where information flowed through the teacher. Few
opportunities were provided for socially-mediated instructional activities such as class
discussion and peer-to-peer learning. Several observations were noted of students
expressing an interest to discuss or ask questions about content information being
presented by Teacher C (indicated by students raising their hand, or making brief
interjections), however, these requests were often disregarded by Teacher C, telling
students to, “let me finish” or “hold on,” and then continuing on with the planned lecture.
During the semi-structured interview, Teacher C reported that socially-mediated
instruction using dialogue, in addition to direct instruction through lecture, were key in
preparing students for college. Teacher C stated,
“I encourage my students to engage in dialogue. They need to be critical thinkers.
I encourage them to be critical thinkers. That is what they are going to need to do
when they go to college. In college, much of the learning is done through lecture.
I have a tendency to spoil my students. I am always adding, expanding on the
information, but really, when they get to college, the lecture will be more boring
and dry. Also, in college, you are expected to do a lot of reading and discussion.
Those are part of the expectations of college, so I try to internalize those skills
within my students so that they will have a smoother transition to college.”
Teacher C did not frequently use text-based information when presenting contentrelated material. Typically, Teacher C displayed content related information to the class
by projecting segments of the textbook or results from Internet searches (Google images)

153

on a SmartBoard. Displayed information was limited to images of those individuals being
discussed during the lesson and short video clips related to content. When asked about
reading strategies such as guided reading, Teacher C indicated that guided reading was
not a strategy used when teaching content, and that it would be difficult to do guided
reading activities due to the varied reading levels of students. Teacher C also reported
that guided reading was more appropriate for students at the elementary level, and that
students might not be able to understand if the text was too difficult and they would “give
up”. Teacher C also indicated that lecture and discussion helped students make
connections when doing reading assignments for homework. Teacher C reported that in
the past, students were required to come to class having read the material to prepare for
the lecture, however, she found that strategy to be ineffective and began to assign
readings after the lecture. Teacher C reported that when lecture was done before the
reading assignments, the students understood more and their grades began to improve.
Teacher C stated that during instruction she provided the students the information
needed to learn the material, wrote key words/information on the board, and used
discussion to support the learning of content information. Teacher C stated,
“…students are more comfortable doing that then if I told them to just read. The
students push away from that type of work. If I forced them to read, it would
mean that I failed them. They would resist history, and I don’t want that. If I
lecture and have discussions with them first, then they are ok with it. Then they
are more accepting to doing the reading, because they begin to make the
connections.”
Teacher C reported that while reading materials (e.g., articles, book chapters,
supplementary reading materials, etc.) were important for supporting content instruction,
teaching students how to read was the job of the English/Language Arts teacher and not
the content teachers. During the interview, Teacher C stated, “if I did [teach reading], that

154

would mean I would have to reduce the amount of time I spend on my social studies
content. We have reading teachers. That is their job.”
As with Teachers A and B, non-instructional behaviors such as entering and
exiting the classroom typically occurred at the beginning and ending of each class. There
were several observed instances of Teacher C passing out materials, engaging students in
conversations not directly related to content, and setting up technology which were also
categorized as non-instructional, resulting in 28.8% of instructional time categorized as
non-instructional (averaging 18.3 minutes per session).
The table below (Table 9) shows the total number of instructional minutes
dedicated to each category (teacher-facilitated learning, teacher-directed learning, peerto-peer learning, hands-on learning, independent learning, teacher giving directions, noninstructional time, and other) by Teacher C over ten observed instructional sessions.

155

Table 9
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher C
TFL

TDL

P2P
Lvl 1

P2P
Lvl 2

HO

IND
Lvl 1

IND
Lvl 2

DIR

NI

O

65.0

281.8

10.8

3.6

0.0

267.6

25.0

42.9

183.3

0.0

TFL-Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL- Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; HO-Hands-On; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-Instructional; O- Other; Lvl- Level of Intensity

156

Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills. Teacher C integrated the
skills of CAR for 10.9% of total observed instruction (see Figure 7). Teacher C’s
instructional activities were less text centered. Similar to Teacher B, Teacher C used a
grade-level textbook (mandated by the state) and a state approved, modified textbook.
The company who published the grade level textbook provided an online version that was
made available to all students. One feature of the online version of the text was that it
could be adjusted to match the reading level of each student. Teacher C reported that this
feature was a preferred option for her students, and that in addition to the benefit of not
having to carry around a large textbook, many of the students told her that they did not
want the hard copy version of the book because the reading level could not be adjusted to
fit their needs. Guidance provided to students by Teacher C in supporting the
understanding and decoding of text was limited to decoding of specific words and
questions represented in English print, and occurred most often during teacher-directed
learning activities.
Background knowledge. The skills of background knowledge (activation of
background knowledge and building of background knowledge) were addressed for the
majority of total CAR time for Teacher C, representing 6.7% of total observed instruction
(see Figure 8). Teacher C spent the most time of all the teacher participants on the skill of
building background knowledge (3.7%), with the majority of building background
knowledge categorized at an intensity of level 2 (2.9%). Building of background
knowledge occurred primarily when Teacher C showed videos related to the unit topic.
Teacher C was the only teacher that was observed doing guided viewing of video. When
showing a video or video clip to students, Teacher C would often expand on the

157

information being presented, would pause the video and ask students questions or make
additional comments, or rewind portions of the video for students to view a second time.
Activation of background knowledge was addressed for 3.0% of total instructional time,
primarily at an intensity level of 1 (2.1%). Activation of background knowledge was
addressed by questioning students at the beginning of a lesson, or before moving on to a
new topic. During Teacher C’s instruction, a logical pattern of activating background
knowledge was followed by building background knowledge. During the semi-structured
interview, Teacher C emphasized the importance of the skill of background knowledge,
commenting that the use of visual information (e.g., photos, videos, etc.) was key in
supporting students in the activation of background knowledge and building of
background knowledge.
Text structure. The CAR skill of text structure was not addressed by Teacher C
during observed instructional sessions.
Text features. The CAR skill of text features was addressed for 2.3% of total
observed instructional time (see Figure 10). Text features were primarily categorized at
an intensity of level 1 (1.6%), meaning that Teacher C would just bring attention to the
text feature and move on with instruction without further explanation or analysis. Few
opportunities were observed of Teacher C analyzing or interpreting text features. The text
feature used most by Teacher C was images. When presenting a text feature to the class,
Teacher C typically used the statement of “This is...”. Observations indicated that the use
of text features by Teacher C were more of an afterthought, as many of the text features
used during instruction were from Google image searches done spontaneously during
Teacher C’s lecture to help emphasize a point or bring attention to a person, location, or

158

event that was being discussed. Use of other text features such as bold or italicized
words, headings, tables, glossaries, etc. were not observed during Teacher C’s
instruction.
Content-specific vocabulary. Teacher C was the only teacher who assigned a
specific list of content-specific vocabulary for students to learn. Content-specific
vocabulary was addressed for 1.9% of total instructional time, with the majority of
content-specific vocabulary categorized at the lowest level of intensity. When addressing
content-specific vocabulary word(s), Teacher C identified the word by either pointing it
out in a segment of text, writing the word on the white board, or by fingerspelling the
word. After bringing attention to the content-specific vocabulary, Teacher C would tell
students the meaning or corresponding sign with no further discussion. There were no
observed instances of Teacher C dissecting the morphographical components of contentspecific vocabulary or providing students with opportunities to discuss content-specific
vocabulary. Content-specific vocabulary primarily co-occurred with decoding of text (see
Table 11).
Inference. Teacher C spent 0.8% of instructional time of the skill of inference
(see Table 6). Inference was typically at lower levels of intensity, including text
connecting inferences (level 1) and elaborative inferences (level 2). The skill of
inference was not addressed at an intensity level of 3 (global inference) (see Table 6).
The skill of inference was primarily addressed during socially-mediated learning
activities such as peer-to-peer learning and teacher-facilitated learning activities, and only
occurred in 3 of the 10 observed sessions. One example of Teacher C integrating the skill
of inference at higher levels of intensity occurred during a class discussion about the

159

conspiracy theory in reference to the Kennedy assassination. Teacher C had students
watch video segments of the Kennedy assassination and of firsthand accounts as told by
eyewitnesses. After providing some context through lecture and watching the video
segments, students in the classroom had a lively discussion on the topic, providing their
perspectives and theories about President Kennedy’s assassination.
Complexity of questioning. Teacher C asked the fewest questions of any of the
teacher participants (213) (see Figure 16). Questioning frequently occurred during
teacher-directed learning activities. The majority of Teacher C’s questions (55.4%) were
at the knowledge level (level 1), 30.5% were at the comprehension level, 7.5% were at
the application level (level 3), and 6.6% were at the analysis level (level 4). Questions at
an intensity level of 4 were typically asked during teacher-facilitated learning (for
example, the discussion on the Kennedy Assassination described above). Generally,
more instructional time was spent on questions that were at higher levels of intensity.
Teacher C was not observed asking any level 5 (synthesis) or level 6 (evaluation)
questions.
Summary. Instruction in Teacher C’s classroom was primarily delivered through
lecture and teacher-directed learning activities. Students in Teacher C’s classroom were
highly engaged, however, discussion was often stymied so Teacher C could finish her
planned lecture. A large portion of instructional time was allocated for student
independent work and no opportunities for collaborative learning between peers were
observed. Teacher C stated that students had to follow lectures if they were going to be
successful in college, and that her instruction was specifically designed for that purpose.

160

Teacher C addressed CAR skills at lower levels of intensity and asked fewer high-level
questions than did any of the teachers in the study.
Teacher D
As described in Chapter 3, Teacher D was post-lingually deaf and used spoken
English as his preferred method of communication during one-on-one conversations.
Sign-based communication was used by Teacher D as the language of instruction.
Teacher D reported having a total of eighteen years of teaching experience, fourteen of
those years teaching social studies in the deaf education classroom. Teacher D reported
that his highest level of education was an ABD in Soviet Military History, and reported
having a baccalaureate degree in History and Political Science and two master’s degrees,
one in Soviet and European Economic and Social History and one in Deaf Education.
Instructional approaches. Teacher D’s United States History class of high
school students was designed as a traditional, full year course that met Mondays,
Wednesdays, and alternating Thursdays for 73 minute long class periods. A total of 730
instructional minutes were observed and analyzed. Teacher D’s instructional approaches
favored a more direct instruction approach with 35.3% of observed instructional time
dedicated to teacher-directed learning and 12.4% of instructional time dedicated to socialconstructivist learning activities (teacher-facilitated learning, 6.8% and peer-to-peer
learning, 5.6%). The remaining instructional time was categorized as student
independent learning activities (23.2%), teacher giving directions (9.3%), noninstructional (18.1%), and other (1.7), explained further below.
Teacher D’s lessons could best be described as “fragmented”. Lessons in Teacher
D’s classroom were disconnected within and across sessions, following more of a part-to-

161

whole sequence. For example, one lesson did not lead into the next and instructional
sessions did not begin with the activation of background knowledge or review of what
was taught during the previous instructional session. There was also fragmentation within
lessons. For example, Teacher D would jump from one sub-topic to another without
providing a transition or information about how each sub-topic was related.
Each observational session followed a similar pattern: passing out materials,
giving a short lecture on a unit sub-topic, giving students directions for independent work
activities, passing out materials, having students copy information from the board, giving
a short lecture on a new sub-topic related to the unit, passing out materials, giving
students directions, having students copy information from the board, etc. This pattern is
evident in the data presented in Figure 5, which shows Teacher D as having the highest
frequency counts for teacher-directed learning, teacher giving directions, independent
student work/activities, and non-instructional.
Although Teacher D’s lessons were related to the topic of the unit (The
Progressive Era), few connections were made between lessons and activities, making it
difficult for the students to follow, as indicated by their questions to Teacher D and
nearby peers as well as their facial expressions and behaviors. Field notes taken during
Teacher D’s instruction also indicated that the researcher had a difficult time following
the lessons. Teacher D spent the most instructional time of any of the teacher participants
(9.3%) on giving directions/instructions. This may be largely due to the fragmented
nature of Teacher D’s instruction as described above.
Teacher D dedicated 23.2% of total observed instruction to independent work
activities. Student independent work and cooperative learning activities were largely text-

162

based, and required students to think critically about information solely through
interaction with text with minimal instruction and support from Teacher D. During the
semi-structured interview, Teacher D rated text-based learning and lecture as the least
effective instructional approaches for delivering content information, which were the
instructional approaches primarily observed across the instructional unit.
Much of the instructional time categorized as student independent work addressed
lower levels of intensity and typically included activities where students copied
information from the board onto worksheets. There were several observed instances of
students being asked to answer questions on a worksheet, followed by Teacher D
directing them to write in the “correct” answers by copying information displayed onto a
SmartBoard onto their papers.
Like the other teacher participants, non-instructional behaviors typically occurred
at the beginning and ending of each observational session as students transitioned into
and out of class, and during the distribution of worksheets and materials, representing
16.5% of total observed instruction (roughly 12 minutes per session). There was also one
instance of a fire drill (lasting approximately 12 minutes). In addition, there were several
brief portions of instruction where content information was delivered by a paraprofessional. This occurred in two of the ten sessions, and only for brief periods of time
(totaling 2.7 minutes of instructional time). These portions of instruction were
categorized as “other”.
Observed interactions between students and Teacher D during instruction were in
the form of students using repair strategies to figure out what was being said by Teacher
D. Teacher D’s fragmented teaching style combined with his less than proficient signing

163

skills appeared to make it especially difficult for students to establish connections during
instruction. Students were often observed saying to one another, “What did he say?”, “I
don’t understand what he said”, “What did he mean by that?”, and “I don’t understand
him.”
There were several observed instances of oversimplified communication used to
convey complex content topics. One example occurred during a lesson when Teacher D
was lecturing about a famous journalist and photographer, Jacob Riis, who is known for
his anthology of photographs depicting child labor and impoverished areas of New York
during the Progressive Era. In his explanation, Teacher D displayed a photo of Riis and
signed the following: “man [Teacher D points to photo] famous book famous, famous,
book camera, camera book famous” which would be loosely translated, at best, into
English as “That man, famous book, taking photos, famous book.”
There were also several observed interactions between students and Teacher D,
when the student used ASL (without spoken language support) to communicate with
Teacher D, and Teacher D did not appear to understand what was being said (as indicated
by his response to the students). In each instance, the student repeated what was signed
in ASL, and after multiple failed attempts, used sign-supported speech to communicate
with Teacher D. It was only when the students used sign-supported speech that Teacher
D appeared to understand what was being said. Teacher D’s lack of ASL proficiency
seemed to be the biggest contributor to the fragmented instruction and confusion among
students. Because Teacher D had so much difficulty in using ASL to express complex
ideas and concepts, many of the concepts taught were paired down to their most basic

164

elements, and little opportunity was provided for authentic critical thinking activities and
discussion during instruction.
Table 10 shows the total number of instructional minutes dedicated to each
category (teacher-facilitated learning, teacher-directed learning, peer-to-peer learning,
hands-on learning, independent learning, teacher giving directions, non-instructional
time, and other) by Teacher D over ten observed instructional sessions.

165

Table 10
Duration and Intensity (Expressed in Total Minutes of Instruction Across All
Observations) of Instructional Behaviors of Teacher D
TFL

TDL

P2P
Lvl 1

P2P
Lvl 2

HO

IND
Lvl 1

IND
Lvl 2

DIR

NI

O

49.6

258.0

20.4

20.4

0.0

105.8

63.3

67.6

132.6

12.3

TFL-Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL- Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer
Learning; HO-Hands-On; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities; DIR- Teacher
Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-Instructional; O- Other; Lvl- Level of Intensity

166

Integration of content area reading (CAR) skills. Teacher D integrated the
skills of CAR for 7.5% of total observed instruction (see Figure 7). Teacher D’s
instructional activities were not text centered, although text was displayed in the majority
of the lessons observed. Teacher D had the lowest frequency of CAR skills integration
(102) of all the teachers in the study. Teacher D did not use a textbook and stated during
the semi-structured interview that he did not use them because they were often poorly
written. Instead, Teacher D stated that he assigned articles for students to read. However,
in observed instruction there was only one instance of Teacher D assigning any reading to
students. The next class meeting after the reading assignment was given, Teacher D
organized a lesson whereby students discussed the reading in small groups. The
discussion occurred for a duration of 11.9 minutes, after which, students were asked to
complete a worksheet.
Any guidance provided to students in supporting the understanding and decoding
of text was limited to decoding of specific words or questions represented in English
print, and typically occurred during teacher-directed learning for Teacher D. When
discussing comprehension questions related to the reading assignment, Teacher D would
pose the question to students, and then display the correct answer on the SmartBoard.
Once the answers were displayed, Teacher D directed the students to copy the correct
answers onto their papers.
Background knowledge. Background knowledge was the CAR skill that
accounted for the highest percentage of Teacher D’s instructional time dedicated to CAR
skills (2.8%) (see Figure 5). Activation of background knowledge was addressed for
0.9% of instructional time, primarily at the lowest level of intensity (0.8%). When

167

Teacher D activated students’ background knowledge, it typically occurred during
questioning, often at the beginning of a lesson or when introducing a new sub-topic.
Teacher D dedicated 1.9% of total observed instruction to the skill of building
background knowledge, primarily at an intensity of level 2 (1.1%). Building background
knowledge was primarily addressed by showing content-related videos to students.
Teacher D spent the least percentage of instructional time on background knowledge of
all the teachers in the study. When asked about which skills Teacher D believed were
necessary for students to read and comprehend content area texts, Teacher D commented,
“They have to have background knowledge”. Teacher D also noted the importance of
background knowledge in accessing texts, however, during the interview, Teacher D
stated, “I have not found a way to build in the background knowledge”.
Text structure. The CAR skill of text structure was not addressed by Teacher D
during observed instructional sessions.
Text features. Teacher D used text features in 9 out of 10 observed instructional
sessions for 2.5% of total observed instructional time. The most common text feature
used by Teacher D was images and the captions below images to support learning of
concepts. Teacher D called attention to text features through statements and questions
(e.g., This is... Who is…?). Text features were typically integrated at the lowest level of
intensity. There were several observed instances of Teacher D modeling the analysis of
text features using political cartoons from the Progressive Era. These instances represent
the highest level of intensity, accounting for 0.6% of total instructional time. The analysis
of text features through the use of political cartoons co-occurred with the skill of
inference (discussed below). Teacher D commented on the importance of using visual

168

information such as text features to support the learning of content material. Teacher D
did not address any text features other than images (including the use of political
cartoons).
Content-specific vocabulary. Content-specific vocabulary was addressed for
1.5% of instructional time, and only at the lowest levels of intensity (1.3% at level 1 and
0.2% at level 2). Teacher D used the Frayer Model strategy to address content-specific
vocabulary during instruction. The Frayer Model (Frayer, Frederick, & Klausmeier,
1969) includes the use of a graphic organizer consisting of four boxes surrounding a
vocabulary word written inside an oval shape in located in the middle of the page (Frayer,
et al., 1969). In each of the boxes, students write the definition of the word in their own
words (box 1), facts and characteristics about the word, including an image or drawing
(box 2), examples of the word (box 3), and non-examples of the word (box 4) (Frayer, et
al., 1969).
During observations, Teacher D projected a completed Frayer Model for each
content-specific vocabulary word and directed students to copy the information onto their
blank Frayer Model pages. After students copied the information, the Frayer Model
sheets were filed in their social studies folders. No discussions or instruction were
observed during the Frayer Model activities.
When asked about the Frayer Model approach, Teacher D commented that the
Frayer Model activity had been one where students discussed each of the components and
developed responses as a class, but that the approach had taken too much time to
complete and that the students often complained that they could not read Teacher D’s
handwriting when student responses were transcribed onto the document. Teacher D

169

reported that it was easier to have all of the information pre-typed so that students were
able to read the information in order to copy it to their papers. When asked why the
Frayer Model was used, Teacher D reported that it was a school-wide policy, and that
many of the teachers expressed frustration in using the tool. Administrators at the school,
however, clarified that the Frayer Model was one of many graphic organizer tools
recommended for teachers to use when teaching vocabulary, but was not required, and
that teachers were free to select strategies and tools that worked with their instructional
style and needs.
Inference. Teacher D dedicated 1.5% of total observed instruction on inference
(see Table 6). Inference was primarily addressed at an intensity of level 1 (0.8%).
Teacher D incorporated inference for short durations of instructional time when asking
students to interpret political cartoons from the Progressive Era, by asking students to
infer the meaning of different messages hidden within the image.
Teacher D was the only participant who addressed inference at an intensity of
level 3 (global inference), but only for a short duration (0.7 minutes or < 0.001% of total
instructional time). Inference, at an intensity of level 3, was addressed four times in one
session (session 7) and was related to Teacher D translating questions from printed
English to sign based communication on an assessment. No further interaction occurred
after questions were translated for students, explaining the very short duration of
integration at this level. There were several instances when students were asked to make
inferences on independent assignments and assessments, but the duration of those
inferences were only counted when there was direct interaction with the teacher or other

170

peers, as it was impossible to know how long students were using the skill of inference
when doing independent work.
Complexity of questioning. Questions asked by Teacher D were at the
knowledge level (46.7%), comprehension level (32.3%), application level (15.3%), and
analysis level (5.2%). Teacher D did not ask any synthesis questions, but did ask two
evaluation questions. It is important to note that most instances of Teacher D asking
analysis questions and all of the instances of asking evaluation questions occurred when
Teacher D read questions to students from a handout or assessment. For example, during
a formal assessment, Teacher D walked around the room and “translated” test questions
from English print into sign based communication for students at their request. Each time
Teacher D read a test item to a student, it was categorized as a question. As a result, the
frequency for these questions are not reflective of questions that Teacher D asked as part
of a discourse with students during instruction. For the majority of questions, Teacher D
added a question marker (signing the word “inquiry”) to statements, transforming them
into questions however, this is not considered a commonly used practice for asking
questions in ASL. In each of the instances when Teacher D added a question marker to a
statement, it was counted as a question.
Summary. Instruction in Teacher D’s classroom was primarily delivered through
lecture and teacher-directed learning activities. Students in Teacher D’s classroom were
passive and appeared to have difficulty in understanding what Teacher D was saying.
Instruction was not centered on a text, and lessons were fragmented and disconnected. In
talking with Teacher D formally (during response-to-instruction meetings and during the
semi-structured interview) and informally (before and after observation sessions), it

171

appeared that Teacher D had knowledge of what skills were important in fostering
content knowledge and CAR skills, yet had a difficult time executing these skills in
practice. This was a common pattern across all of the instructional practices and CAR
integration with regards to Teacher D. Teacher D addressed CAR the least of all the
teacher participants and addressed the skills of CAR typically at low levels of intensity.
Across Teacher Results
There were many instances when CAR skills overlapped or co-occurred with one
another (see Table 11). Across all observations of teacher participants, activation of
background knowledge had the highest frequency of co-occurrences (531 total) than any
other CAR skill. Activation of background knowledge and content-specific vocabulary
co-occurred the most often (223 co-occurrences), followed by use of text features and
activation of background knowledge (194 co-occurrences). These two skills also had the
highest frequency of co-occurrences with decoding of text (141 co-occurrences and 369
co-occurrences, respectively).
With the exception of integration of the CAR skill, text structure, which did not
co-occur with any CAR behavior (likely due to the fact that it was only integrated for less
than 1% of instruction with only one teacher participant) building of background
knowledge had the lowest frequency of co-occurrences (154 total), suggesting that other
CAR skills may not be as dependent on building of background knowledge than
activation of background knowledge. This is not to say that building of background
knowledge is a “less important” skill, but that building of background knowledge is not
necessarily an essential component of other CAR skills.

172

Table 11
Co-Occurrences of CAR Skills
ABGK
ABGK
BBGK
CSV
INF
TS
TF

BBGK
31

CSV
223
69

INF
83
16
56

TS
0
0
0
0

TF
194
38
64
145
0

Decoding
141
41
369
68
1
52

ABGK- Activation of Background Knowledge; BBGK- Building Background
Knowledge; CSV- Content-Specific Vocabulary; INF- Inference; TS- Text Structure; TFText Features

173

Summary of across teacher results. The majority of teacher participants in this
study favored instruction that included lecture and teacher-directed learning activities,
with the exception of Teacher A. Teacher A favored instruction that demonstrated a more
balanced approach to instruction, integrating both socially-mediated learning activities
and teacher-directed learning activities (see Figure 5). Non-instructional behaviors were
fairly evenly distributed across sessions and across teachers, typically occurring during
transitions to and from class and during the distribution of materials. None of the teacher
participants had large segments of time that were spent on non-essential activities (e.g.,
having long, off topic conversations with students or non-content or school related
activities, which was observed in the pilot study) (Maiorana-Basas, 2013). Teachers B, C,
and D had similar percentages of observed instructional time spent on student
independent work activities. Independent work activities assigned by Teachers A and B
had a clear purpose, and students were monitored and supported by the teachers for the
majority of independent work activities. The purpose of independent work assigned in
Teacher C’s and Teacher D’s classes was less clear, and resembled more of what might
be described by some as “busy work” (e.g., completing work packets or copying
information projected on the SmartBoard). During these activities, Teachers C and D
were less present and apt to support students during these activities.
Insights From Semi-Structured Interviews
Each interview was video recorded and teacher responses were transcribed.
Grounded theory was used to code the transcribed interviews. Five major themes were
identified from the semi-structured interviews: 1) instructional preferences (e.g., sociallymediated instruction or lecture/teacher-directed instruction); 2) preconceptions/views

174

about students as readers and learners; 3) teaching of reading versus teaching of content
knowledge; 4) frustrations about curriculum and policy; and 5) frustrations about support
at the district, school, and/or family levels explained and contextualized further, below.
Instructional preferences. The theme “instructional preferences” was defined as
the types of instructional activities used to teach content. Instructional practices fell into
two categories: socially-mediated learning (e.g., discussion, hands-on learning, etc.) and
teacher-directed learning (e.g., lecture). During the semi-structured interviews, the
teachers highlighted their preferred methods of instruction. Teachers A, B, and D all
commented that discussion and hands-on learning were preferred instructional practices.
Teacher C was the only teacher who stated a preference for more directive methods (e.g.,
lecture). Both Teacher B and Teacher D commented that while they had a preference for
using discussions, guided reading, and hands-on activities (what Vygotsky would label as
a more socially-mediated instructional practice), these preferences did not reflect what
they actually did in the classroom. When reflecting on her comment about her preferred
methods of teaching, Teacher B stated, “That is the opposite of how I teach.” Teacher D
made a similar comment stating that while he would prefer to include more discussion
and activities where students are “doing history,” stated that, “I really don’t like to
lecture, and I don’t want to lecture. I have not found a better way to get the curriculum to
the students who aren’t going to read, other than direct instruction.”
The instructional practices observed in Teacher A and Teacher C’s classrooms
reflected the preferred methods of instruction they highlighted during their interview.
Teacher A made frequent comments about the importance of using discussion during
instruction, stating that:

175

“ My reason for doing this is to ensure their comprehension. Instead of lecturing
throughout, I want to incorporate dialogues with my students Also, it allows them
to draw on their language skills as well as expand their thinking.”
Teacher C commented that reason she used lecture was to prepare students for college,
stating that:
“In college, much of the learning is done through lecture. I have a tendency to
“spoil” my students. I am always adding, expanding on the information, but
really, when they get to college, the lecture will be more boring and dry. Also, in
college, you are expected to do a lot of reading and discussion. Those are part of
the expectations of college, so I try to internalize those skills within my students
so that they will have a smoother transition to college.”
Preconceptions/views about students as readers and learners. The theme,
“preconceptions/views about students as readers and learners” was defined as comments
and statements made by the teachers that included preconceptions/views that students
were motivated/capable readers and learners (this included statements that described
students as having the potential to become capable readers and learners) and
preconceptions/views that students were not motivated/capable readers and learners
(which included statements describing students as apathetic about reading and/or
learning, students having disinterest or lack of motivation for reading and/or learning,
etc.). During the semi-structured interviews, each teacher commented that their students
struggled with reading and language. Teachers A, B, and C had positive views of their
students as readers and learners. Teachers A, B, and C all made comments such as “when
these students go to college…”, and “with a little extra work, they will be able to pull up
their reading levels”, etc. When asked, “Do you believe your students are good readers?”
Teacher A commented:
“They can be. They definitely can be. Definitely. Because, they already have
their BICS [Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills], they can communicate
with each other, and it is not just superficial communication. They really have the

176

ability to have deep conversations and have discussion with each other and ‘play’
with language. In their other classes, they will have discussions and dialogues, but
then they have a block when they get to the text. To me, it is a physical thing. As
if their brain has not yet developed that ability yet. I think that they can. They
can.”
When asked, “Do you believe your students are good readers?”, Teacher B said,
“I believe that they have more abilities than they let on. I think they are capable.
With regards to reading words and text, some maybe face frustration and some are
more successful.”
Over the course of the interview, Teacher C commented that students in her class did not
like to read at that they preferred learning content “through the air. She stated,
“When I first met the students, they would often tell me, “I don’t like to read. I
don’t like history.” I would hear these things again and again. So, I took that and
put it in the back of my mind, and I thought about my expectations for them. Yes,
I expect them to read. But, there are limitations to how much can be done in the
dorm. These students have other classes that they need to worry about. So, if they
are doing reading and vocabulary work in four classes, it can be exhausting for
them. So, I thought it would be better if I lectured more, in a way that is fun, not
dry, and the kids attend. I also check to see where they are. For example, I am
assessing them to see if they understand, if there are things that they do not quite
understand.”
She went on to comment,
“I provide them with the information they need, and I support that information by
writing key words/ information on the board, having discussions with the
students. They are more comfortable doing that then if I told them to just read.
The students would push away from that type of work. If I forced them to read, it
would mean that I failed them. They would resist history, and I don’t want that. If
I lecture and have discussions with them first, then they are ok with it. They are
more accepting of doing the reading, because they begin to make the
connections.”
During the interview, Teacher D remarked that the students had the capability to learn
from text, but that many of the reading selections were too hard for them and that they
would not be able to access texts that covered the required content. During the interview,
Teacher D made the following statement,
177

“I think reading is just really a hard skill and not just for deaf kids… For a 1st
grade reader, the curriculum is not accessible to them. They don’t have the skill
to inference and do the kind of things that I am asking them to do. So, then you
start asking, well, what’s the point? And then, what should I be doing? And, do I
just dump the whole curriculum? But, what will I replace it with? They are
surface reading. I am not really sure they are reading, and we have had a lot of
discussions. I just can’t comprehend it. What it is to be a high school student and
reading at a first or second grade level. I just don’t know what you get from any
material, even if I adapt something into PowerPoint with captions. What are you
bringing into that? What background knowledge do you bring in if that is really
your reading level? And, no one can give me a really good answer to that, and I
think that’s probably… we don’t know.”
Teacher D also remarked that several students were able to access content texts, but that
they were “lazy” and unmotivated to do the reading on the own. Teacher D provided the
following example during the semi-structured interview:
“I think, for a while here, and I don’t know about other schools, we were into this
phase where kids would just read because we said, ‘you have homework, read’,
you know. I remember, we were doing All Quiet on the Western Front and it was
an adapted version of the book, so it was probably written between the third and
fifth grade level, so it was accessible and [names a staff member] was involved
too, so we got them in a literacy circle, I think that is what we called it, and we
would sit around and they would have a chapter or two to read every night and
then we would discuss it. And, I kept saying they are not going to read it, and if
we don’t give them questions they are not going to read it, and that is what
happened. They came in, and they talked about life experiences and stuff that
didn’t connect to what was going on in the book, they were just inventing stuff.
So, they weren’t tethered to the book at all.”
Reading versus content knowledge. The theme “reading versus content
knowledge” was defined as statements describing how the teachers identified themselves
(e.g., as teachers of reading or as teachers of content) and as statements made by the
teachers during the interview that emphasized the importance of integrating reading
during content instruction and statements that emphasized the importance of instruction
of content over the integration of reading. Teacher A and Teacher B were the only
teacher participants that identified as a teacher of content and a teacher of reading.

178

During the interview, when Teacher A was asked, “As a content area teacher, do you feel
it is your job to teach reading skills to your students?”, Teacher A responded with the
following:
“Oh yes! All the classes are. However, again, it’s a struggle. Am I teaching them
content or am I teaching them how to read? How do you create that balance? I
don’t feel that it is enough.”
Teacher B expressed a desire to incorporate more reading during instruction,
however, her comments throughout the interview suggested that content was given
priority. When asked, “As a content area teacher, do you feel it is your job to teach
reading skills to your students?”, Teacher B responded with the following:
“Yes. There is another way to access information, that ‘text-based’ learning, and,
honestly, a lot of what they get tested on at higher levels is going to be contentarea passages, when they are tested on reading, or, you know, there is not going to
be so many fairy tales when you get to high school, you know. So, who is
necessarily going to teach that? If they are in language arts class and doing a lot
of literature, do they get a lot of opportunities to tackle a text-book, and so, if
we’ve got this text-book, readily available every day, why not teach them how to
use it? It's a tool for the content I am trying to teach them.”
When asked, “If you had to choose, do you feel that it would be more important to teach
the content or to teach the students how to read to learn content information on their
own? Teacher B responded:
“In this course, the content. To me, this course is all about how America became
this proud nation and you are part of it. I want you to be proud of America and
know that you are one person but you can make a difference, and I think it would
be the same for like a civics course, those kinds of things. Um, you know, I think
I could say that in general about most content classes. We could talk about a
science class, you know, there are principles in science that might motivate a kid
to do or be something better, you know. Um, I do, I do want to argue, why do we
have these classes in general? It is for the content, right? I do think it is important
for them to read, but I think we have kids who are way smarter than what they can
read. You know, and just to say, you have got to be able to read it on your own
and understand, I think would limit too many of our kids. So, if we can just teach
the content, they can show what they have learned and they can think about
179

things, that would be my choice I guess. [laughter] Not to ‘diss’ reading. Reading
and writing is really important.”
Both Teachers C and D did not identify as teachers of reading and expressed a belief that
reading instruction was primarily the job of the English/Language Arts teacher. During
the semi-structured interview, both Teachers C and D expressed that taking time to teach
reading skills would be taking time away from teaching the content. Teacher C made the
following comments during the semi-structured interview:
“I did take a reading methods course where I did learn some helpful tools. But,
reading is not my primary area. I provide the information and the knowledge of
the content. I do require reading, which supports what they are learning.
Whatever they learned in class today, when they get to the reading part, they can
see that there are connections, but as for my primary goal to teach reading, no. So,
if I did [teach them how to read the text], that would mean I would have to reduce
the amount of time I spend on my social studies content. We have reading
teachers. That is their job.”
When Teacher D was asked, “As a content area teacher, do you feel it is your job to teach
reading skills to your students?”, he made the following comments:
“[laughs] I like that question! I was just at a workshop, and it was by, I had the
book on my desk for a while, Historical Literacy, and the guy was presenting, and
first he said there are five aspects to historical literacy. The first one was the
code, ‘cracking the code’, and this guy said, and he is renowned in his field, um,
‘It’s not your job to teach kids to break the code’. So, if they don’t understand the
word ‘dog’, they need more help than you can give them, and that is from a
content area perspective.”
Teacher D went on to comment,
“If they [the students] are reading at a 3rd or 4th grade level, they can’t inference,
and therefore they can’t do what is needed. Your job is to teach them historical
literacy, which is a whole special set of skills, and that’s sourcing and
corroboration and how to read the historical text. Having said that, being in deaf
ed., being a special educator, yeah, it is my job to teach them the reading. But,
then the question would be, actually teach them to read what?”
During the interview, Teacher D did comment that a shift towards more crossdisciplinary planning across all content areas might help alleviate issues in covering

180

content in a timely manner while also making time for reading instruction and
opportunities for examining text on a deeper level.
Frustrations about curriculum and policy. The theme “frustrations about
curriculum and policy” included any statement(s) made by the teachers that expressed
discontent or restriction due to educational policy, educational reforms, and/or mandated
curricula. During the semi-structured interviews, all teachers mentioned that they felt as
if they were under a great deal of pressure to cover content, and that there was not enough
time in the academic year to cover everything as in depth as they would have liked to. All
teachers indicated that they were either “behind schedule” in teaching the required
content, or that they would most likely not be able to cover everything by the end of the
year. When asked, “What is your biggest frustration regarding content instruction?”,
Teacher A answered, “Following the rules. I am serious. I am serious.” The interviewer
clarified by asking, “You mean, Common Core?” Teacher A continued,
“Well, that the state… the school... they have a long list of ‘requirements’. You
must do this, and this, and this, and most of the time it is just really frustrating for
me to follow all of those rules.”
When asked why she felt that way, Teacher A stated,
“Because they really just don’t understand how deaf students learn. Also, my big
frustration is that we really don’t have… for example, they don’t have the
foundation, yet. Or, the foundation that they have is weak. So, I need to go back
and re-teach. But, I can’t do that. I am just rushing through it because I have to
follow all of these requirements and things that the state and the school are telling
me… I have to ‘break the rules’ sometimes. I have to go back. I have to fill in the
missing gaps first. I can’t just jump. Their brains can’t handle all of that! They
have to develop a foundation of knowledge first. But, by law, I have to do it. I
have to do what the law says. They have to know the content. So, this is a very
complex question. So, we have Common core, and we have all of these
objectives that we must teach, and then they have to take a state test, and it can be
signed [in ASL]. They don’t have to read it.”

181

Teacher B expressed her frustrations about curriculum and policy stating,
“I feel stress with the amount of standards I am supposed to cover in a year. I was
actually thinking this morning, it would be great if my content was The American
Revolution, The Constitution…that much. I could spend a whole year on this
segment of history. But I’ve got to do all this other stuff beyond it, and yeah, there
is just a lot to cover, and I feel, especially with our kids, they are lacking a lot of
skills. How to read English, and communicate effectively in English, and they are
being tested in English, so they need that practice. So, that cuts into our time too.
So, not only do I have to teach all of these standards, and I only have 45 minutes,
if I am not interrupted and we don’t have a fire drill and all of these other things.”
When asked, “What is your biggest frustration regarding the instruction of content
material?”, Teacher C responded:
“The state keeps modifying and changing things. That puts a lot of pressure on
me. I am responsible for teaching them what they need to know and to do well on
the EOC [End of Course Exam]. Basically, I have to teach them to pass the EOC.
That is not what I want to do, and I only have one semester to do it in, and that is
not enough time. Really, I need a full year. The content really needs to be spread
out over a full year.”
Teacher D expressed his frustrations about curriculum and policy with the
following statement:
“I do think, the way the curriculum is headed, not in a bad direction, but I do think
the kids themselves are feeling more pressure, the teachers are feeling more
pressure, and I think that is impacting, to some degree, the relationships we have
built with our kids. And, a lot of the education has come through those
relationships of trust and working with the kids. So, now, when you are pressured
to do the content and the curriculum, I think it is disintegrating that relationship,
and that may lead to, I don’t want to say rebellion, which is good, I like that in
social studies, to be rebellious. Protest! Don’t accept anything I say is true,
because I could… But, that idea of, ‘they don’t care about me, I don’t have to
bring a pen, I don't have to do this, I don’t have to say anything’. I think there
is… I think some of the seeds are sowed with what we are asking them to do and
they’re frustrated, we are trying to do it, we are frustrated, so, when that
relationship breaks, you know, the ‘I don't care’, that kind of attitude, they are
basically saying, ‘I’m done, here’.”

182

Frustrations about support at the district, school, and/or family levels. The
theme “frustrations about support at the district, school, and/or family levels” included
any statement(s) made by the teachers that expressed discontent or restriction related to
lack of support from their school district, their school, or from the families of their
students. All teacher participants indicated that they felt a lack of support from the state,
district, school, and home in supporting student learning and growth in social studies. All
teacher participants commented on student’s difficulties with language (both ASL and
English) and their struggles with reading. When asked about recommendations for
change in teaching content in the deaf education classroom, Teacher A expressed
frustrations at both the school level and family level. Teacher A commented that many of
her students did not have the support they needed at home stating that in the home,
“there are no high expectations for them”. Teacher A went on to discuss her frustrations
about the expectations in the dorm setting stating that,
“In the dorm, it is just not very structured. If they had more reading… They
really just have a lot of playtime and video games. They need more emphasis on
the important stuff like reading. As well as bringing in Deaf role models to talk
about their successes, so they can build up their self-esteem, or identify with them
and think, ‘Oh, I can be like that.’ But, most of the time it is just eat and do your
homework and they [the dorm staff] don’t feel the need to enhance the student’s
education in the dorm.”
Teacher A also expressed frustrations at the school level with regards to ASL proficiency
among teachers at the school. Teacher A commented that,
“They [school administrators] must make sure that our teachers are fluent in sign
[ASL]. If you can’t sign, what are you doing here? And really, there are no
consequences.”
Teacher A continued,
“You need to be fluent. That is just another big issue. I mean, I am fluent, and in
my classroom I sign with my voice off, but you go into some other rooms, I mean,

183

do they have the ability to connect their language to the concepts fluently?
Because, in some of their other classes, they are not developing that
understanding, and they [the students] will ask me, ‘What is she [their teacher]
talking about?’ There is language mixing and that becomes confusing.”
Teacher B also expressed concerns at the school level, stating that her biggest frustration
regarding content instruction was “time”. She commented,
“Kids get pulled from my class for things. They can’t get pulled from reading and
math classes, we have a rule at school that they cannot be pulled from that, which,
is a good thing. They really need to be in those classes, but that leaves the content
classes for all of these pullouts for counseling, audiology, and speech, and all of
these other things. So, sometimes I do feel like some of the kids are getting
robbed, if they are pulled multiple times a week, um, for other services and then
they won’t be able to go home to read just to catch up, you know.”
Teacher C expressed concerns at the district level. When asked why she chose a
particular text book to use in her classroom, she stated that,
“That is what was given to me. Why, because of the EOC [End of Course Exam].
They [the students] need that book to prepare for the EOC. I have to use that book
because it has everything they need to pass that test. If I did not use the book or
complained that it was too high for them the response I would get would be they
need it for the EOC test. This is the book that I was given, my hands are tied, and
if the students struggle with it, I am expected to handle that.”
Teacher C also commented that the students in her classroom made negative comments
about having to read, which she believed was tied to the communication philosophy at
the school. She commented,
“Here, we use a Total Communication approach. I think, maybe, if we changed to
a BiBi [bilingual/bicultural] approach, that would be more successful. If we are
talking about an approach, it needs to be BiBi. Not only that, we get many
students from other countries that come in. We also get a lot from the mainstream
setting. These students are raised in the tradition of the Total Communication
approach, but I think the right approach is BiBi.”
She went on to comment that,

184

“In the Total Communication approach, it is so structured, that students feel
limited. Their thoughts and ideas get ‘stuck’. For example, when my students
give me writing assignments, I tell them not to worry so much about the structure
and grammar. That is not my job. As long as they can convey the message and
show me that they understand the content material, that is my job. I give the
students the option to write 10 pages or to sign, and almost all of them chose to
sign.”
The interviewer followed up Teacher C’s comments with the following question: “Do
you think students that are learning within a Total Communication approach prevents
them from identifying themselves as successful readers?”
Teacher C responded,
“Yes, right. Still, reading is important. I know that, and I emphasize that. But,
when I see their struggles, and the barriers… [shakes head].
Teacher D expressed frustrations at the district level and the school level, emphasizing
that there was just not enough time for planning lessons that will not only address the
content that is required to be taught, but to also fill in the gaps in knowledge. Teacher D
commented,
“I really think, when you teach history, one of the problems all teachers have, and
what I think is a glaring problem here. If they [the students] don’t have basic
math facts, they miss out on a lot of stuff that I do, because I don’t have the time.
Or the lesson becomes a math lesson sometimes when I am just looking at
statistics. A good example, is the other day, from the 8th grade class, and, it was
one of these, uh, Stanford history lessons about loyalists in America. Who were
the loyalists, what did they…? You know, so, that’s it. Ten to 20% of all people
in the American colonies were loyalists. So I said, there are 6 million people at
the time in America, how many of them were loyalists? No idea. So, the number
itself, there was no number sense behind how big, how small a number is that. So,
does the lesson really mean that. Twenty percent? Who cares? What does that
mean? You know. So, when you lose the lesson at that point, because of the math
problem, you can’t get into the history stuff, because now it does not make any
sense to them. So, we spent a while doing the math. So, again, there has to be a
better way that we can all connect. You have to give us time in the summer to

185

plan curriculums. But, at this point we are still saying we are doing the district
stuff, and what they are putting out there. So, again, there is that conflict. So, I
think, again, when you talk about the ‘ideal world’. If my ideal world was five
sections of US history in a deaf ed. school, I think, eventually I could get pretty
good at adapting that curriculum and doing it and finding materials. If I do it
every three years, eh, not so much, and who knows, if by the third year that
curriculum then changes again, and we are introducing new stuff and we are
doing it a whole different way! It feels like I am reinventing the wheel all the
time. I can’t tell you how many different American History curriculums I have,
and even when I have this curriculum done, when we are done this year with this
curriculum, I mean, when I teach it again, I will adapt it again based on the
students I have. And, depending on who is here, I will try to adapt it lower or try
to adapt it higher, so, it is never the same. I think deaf ed. teachers work way too
hard. In my opinion [laughter]. Harder than any other group of teachers that I
have ever seen before.”
The subsequent chapter provides an interpretation of the results and conclusions of this
study in the context of each of the research questions outlined at the beginning of this
chapter and the themes discussed in the section above.

186

CHAPTER 5
INTERPRETATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study investigated the instructional approaches and content area
reading (CAR) skills integration of four, upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf.
The instructional practices of four, upper-grade social studies teachers in three residential
schools for the deaf were observed during ten instructional sessions that spanned across a
full unit of study. Each instructional session was coded for specific related instructional
strategies (e.g., teacher-facilitated instruction, teacher-directed instruction, peer-to-peer
learning, etc.) as well as instructional strategies specific to CAR (e.g., activation of
background knowledge, building of background knowledge, text structure, text features,
content specific-vocabulary, and inference).
To understand why teachers used specific instructional approaches, teachers were
given opportunities to review their video recorded instruction and provide context
through response-to-instruction meetings. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with each teacher to gain a better understanding of how each teacher perceived
their students as readers and learners and whether or not those preconceptions influenced
their instructional choices. In this section, an interpretation of the results and conclusions
of this study in the context of each of the research questions is provided, along with
limitations, recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development, as
well as recommendations for future research.
Instructional Approaches
In what ways do teachers of the deaf in the upper-grade, social studies
classroom integrate the skills associated with content area reading (CAR) during

187

instruction? All of the teachers in the study were observed using CAR skills to some
degree during observed instructional sessions. Teachers integrated CAR skills primarily
during lectures and class discussions. Three of the four teachers commented that even
though students’ abilities to learn content from text was a challenge for the majority of
students however, teaching students to read was not feasible, emphasizing that pressure
from state mandates and state testing requirements were what drove their instructional
practices. All teachers had some form of text displayed during observed content
instruction; however, the middle school teachers provided more opportunities for
viewing, reading, and dissecting print-based information than did the high school
teachers. All teachers admitted that they did not consistently assign content reading for
homework, and that the majority of reading assignments were completed in class.
Teachers found it difficult to incorporate text-based learning into instruction for
several reasons. First, because of the wide range of reading levels they had to contend
with in each of their content classrooms, teachers found it difficult to incorporate text
based learning and reading instruction while teaching content. Second, several teachers
commented that finding content-appropriate reading materials at appropriate reading
levels for all of the students in their classes was difficult. Additionally, all teachers
reported that they rarely assigned reading for homework due to lack of appropriate
reading materials, support at home and in the dorms, as well as lack of student motivation
to complete reading assignments outside of class.
A lack of reading experiences both in and out of the classroom may have an
impact on a student’s ability to develop the skills of CAR at high levels of intensity. It
may also have an impact on a student’s ability to learn content at deeper levels. Further,

188

not regularly assigning reading both in and outside of the classroom places the “burden”
of teaching all content related material on the teacher and may have an impact on
instructional flexibility, quality and quantity of classroom discussions, and quality and
quantity of instructional activities meant to enhance student’s knowledge about content
topics.
Based on the results, the differences between teachers in upper-grade, social
studies classrooms may be related to the roles with which teachers identify. The
literature states that content area teachers traditionally do not view themselves as teachers
of reading (Fisher & Ivey, 2005; Grey, 1920; Moores, 2001; O’Brien & Stewart, 1990;
O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009; Vacca & Vacca, 2010;
among others). The data in the present study support this conclusion. Results clearly
showed that the middle school teachers in this study identified more as teachers of
reading than did the high school teachers. One reason that the middle school teachers
identified more as teachers of reading than did the high school teachers could simply be
the age of the students in their classrooms. For example, the middle school teachers may
view themselves as an extension of elementary school teachers, and thereby feel a
responsibility to teach reading skills, whereas high school teachers may feel that if
students cannot read by the time they are in high school, they cannot be remediated and
that the delivery of content, then, is their sole responsibility.
What instructional approaches are used by teachers of the deaf in the uppergrade, social studies classroom? Findings reveal that instruction in the upper-grade,
deaf education social studies classroom is highly teacher-centered and directive, and that
teachers in these classrooms may not use instruction that is socially-mediated frequently

189

or for long durations of instructional time. Data indicated that instruction that was more
directive and teacher-centered, such as lecture, accounted for the largest percentage of
observed instructional minutes for three of the four teachers. These instructional
approaches were used more often, and for longer durations of instructional time than
were social-constructivist instructional approaches (e.g., teacher-facilitated learning and
peer-to-peer learning). These findings are similar to those found in a case study by
Maiorana-Basas (2013), where the teacher dedicated the 49.9% of observed instructional
time to activities that were teacher-centered and directive, and included few opportunities
for socially-mediated learning. One of the four teachers in the present study was observed
as having a “balanced” approach, dedicating similar percentages of instructional time for
lecture and for socially-mediated learning activities. This teacher dedicated the most
instructional time to CAR skills than did any other teacher.
According to the literature, socially-mediated instruction supports critical
thinking, text comprehension, and academic language development (Gee, 2008; Morrell,
2004; Stahl, 1994; Stewart & Kluwin, 2001, among others). Instructional approaches that
are more lecture-based may restrict a teacher’s opportunity to incorporate CAR skills for
longer durations of instructional time. As was the case with the teacher described above,
socially-mediated instructional practices may naturally support the integration of CAR in
the content area classroom. This style of teaching allows the teacher to address these
skills for longer periods of time and at higher levels of intensity than relying primarily on
teacher-centered approaches such as lecture. As such, the use of socially-mediated
instructional approaches is an important consideration for teachers when designing CAR
instruction.

190

Unfortunately, teachers may be deterred from using socially-mediated instruction
for at least two reasons: 1), teachers may feel “conflicted” between how they want to
instruct and how they feel they must instruct in order to meet the demands and criteria
outlined by state and federal governments. Mandates such as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB, 2002) and yearly state assessments press teachers to cover a significant amount
of content within a limited amount of instructional time, as referenced by Woolsey and
colleagues (2009) and the National Council for the Social Studies (2007), thus forcing
them to chose a more direct instructional approach with little discussion or active
learning; 2), teachers may lack full understanding of what social-constructivist
instructional approaches include. For example, an activity that one teacher described as a
“cooperative learning activity”, resembled more of an independent seatwork activity.
Similar misconceptions were observed in other teachers’ classrooms.
Student independent work/activities. All four teachers incorporated student
independent work/activities into their instruction to some extent, however the types of
activities and the level of support provided by teachers during these activities were
different for the middle school teachers than for the high school teachers. The types of
student independent work and level of teacher support was clearly different for the
middle school teachers than the high school teachers. For example, middle school
teachers designed student independent work which included problem solving and critical
thinking activities (e.g., activities that required students to compare and contrast
information presented from various resources to come to conclusions about what really
happened during a particular period in history, and activities that required students to
look for clues in the text in order to solve a problem). During these activities, the middle

191

school teachers provided high levels of support to students, guiding student thinking and
supporting the learning of concepts through dialogue. As a result, CAR skills were
addressed more often during student independent work activities in these classrooms, and
included higher levels of teacher support and dialogue.
Student independent work activities in the high school classrooms typically
consisted of completing work packets (filling in the blanks, matching vocabulary,
answering comprehension questions, etc.) or copying information off the board. During
these activities, the high school teachers provided little to no support, and there was
limited interaction between students. As a result, CAR skills were not observed during
these activities.
Although teachers did not feel that there was enough instructional time to cover
content or to incorporate reading instruction during each class period, extended periods of
instructional time were observed where these types of learning activities could have been
utilized. Both high school teachers were in classrooms that utilized block scheduling, yet
both these teachers maintained the highest duration of instructional time dedicated to
student independent work, with the least amount of instructional support. For example,
one-third (33.3%) of Teacher C’s observed instruction was categorized as student
independent learning, meaning that for 30 minutes of each 90-minute block, students
were doing seatwork activities. Based on these results, it is possible that extended class
periods, or block scheduling, may not be used effectively in the upper-grade, deaf
education social studies classroom.
The effectiveness of block scheduling and its impact on student achievement have
been widely discussed and debated in the literature (e.g., Hackmann & Waters, 1998,

192

Queen, 2000, Queen, Algozzine, & Eaddy,1997, Skrobarcek, Chang, Thompson,
Johnson, Atteberry, Westbrook, & Manus, 1997, among others). Queen (2000) pointed
out that in classrooms where teachers use “traditional” instructional approaches (such as
lecture), teachers had a difficult time adjusting to block schedules and tended to overuse
or overextend lectures to fill time. Queen (2000) commented that when implementing
block scheduling, teachers often required additional instruction and staff development in
order to understand how to plan for and how to effectively use large blocks of
instructional time. The longer durations of student independent learning activities
observed in the high school classrooms in the present study may then be due to the lack
of instruction or knowledge about how to use large blocks of instructional time
effectively. Regardless, the extended student independent work time in these classrooms
could be used for working on CAR skills with students either independently or in small
groups.
Content Area Reading Integration
What is the frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR integration in the
upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom? Findings from this study
indicate that CAR skills are not integrated frequently or for long durations of
instructional time in the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom. When
teachers do integrate CAR, they typically do so at lower levels of intensity. Of all the
identified CAR skills, background knowledge was the most frequently integrated
(specifically activation of background knowledge) followed by text features and contentspecific vocabulary. Activation of background knowledge also co-occurred the most
frequently with other CAR skills, specifically content specific vocabulary, text features,

193

and inference. This finding suggests that activation of background knowledge may be an
important, and perhaps necessary component of other CAR skills.
Inference and text structure were the least frequently integrated CAR skills by all
teachers. According to the literature, inference supports reading comprehension (Brown
& Brewer, 1996) and the use of higher-level questioning supports the skill of inference
(Cain, et al., 2004). This is consistent with findings from the observed instruction.
Teachers who included higher-level questions frequently during instruction addressed the
skill of inference more often than did teachers who did not frequently include higherlevel questions. Inference and the use of higher-level questions also occurred most
frequently during socially-mediated instruction, further supporting that instruction that is
socially-mediated may support CAR.
Co-occurrences. Based on the co-occurrences of CAR skills found in this study
(see Table 11) and in a previously conducted pilot study (Maiorana-Basas, 2013), there is
evidence to suggest that certain CAR skills may be linked to one another. For example,
findings from the present study indicate that activation of background knowledge cooccurred most frequently with all other CAR skills. This finding suggests that activation
of background knowledge may be an important, and perhaps necessary component of all
CAR skills. Based on this finding, it may be important to take into consideration whether
and how each of the CAR skills are linked when developing strategies and educational
interventions for supporting CAR during instruction. This analysis was beyond the scope
of the current study.
Teacher Preconceptions

194

What preconceptions do upper-grade, social studies teachers of the deaf have
regarding the ability of their students who are DHH to read and understand content
area text in the social studies? Overall, findings from the teacher interviews revealed
that all the teachers had similar preconceptions regarding their students’ abilities to read
and learn from content area text. Generally, teachers reported that their students were
capable of learning how to read and understand content area texts, but that most of their
students required significant support and guidance during reading activities. All teachers
indicated that the majority of the students in their classes struggled to comprehend 50%
of what they read, and that even their very “best” readers were only able to comprehend
about 70% of the information presented in text. All of the teachers made some reference
to their students’ struggles with language (both social language and academic language),
and indicated that language levels had an impact on their students’ abilities to think
critically and to understand content-area texts.
There were some identified differences among teachers regarding their
preconceptions about the reasons for their students’ struggles with text. Some teachers
identified external factors such as lack of intensive reading instruction, little or no
practice with answering comprehension questions, and few opportunities to practice
reading content-area texts as reasons their students had difficulties comprehending text.
These teachers also identified difficulties visualizing, making inferences while reading,
and limited academic language proficiency as obstacles to comprehension of text among
their students. Other teachers identified internal factors such as lack of motivation to read
and complete assignments outside the classroom as reasons their students struggled with
comprehension of content-related text.

195

Is there a relationship between these preconceptions and how teachers of the
deaf integrate CAR skills during social studies instruction in the upper-grade, deaf
education classroom? As did Gee (2008), Morrell (2004), and Oakes, (1984) (among
others), the present study also points towards a relationship between teacher
preconceptions about their students as readers and learners and instructional approaches.
Teachers who identified external factors as reasons for their students’ difficulties with
comprehension (e.g., need for more intensive reading instruction) spent the most
instructional time addressing CAR skills (see Figures 6 and 7), suggesting a relationship
between preconceptions and instructional practices. Even though these teachers
recognized their students as struggling readers and learners, their generally optimistic
view of their students’ potential seems to have had an effect on the amount of
instructional time dedicated to the skills needed to mediate and comprehend complex
texts. Teachers who identified external factors as reasons for their student’s difficulties
with comprehension of content texts provided relatively more opportunities for viewing,
reading, and dissecting print-based information than did teachers who blamed internal
factors (e.g., motivation) for poor reading outcomes. Results indicated that teachers who
identified internal factors as reasons for their students’ struggles with comprehension of
text tended to incorporate CAR skills less frequently and at lower levels of intensity
during instruction than did teachers who blamed external factors for their students’
struggles. These teachers also used texts less often than did teachers who identified
external factors as reasons for student’s struggles with reading and comprehending
content area texts.

196

Is there a relationship between teacher preconceptions about students’
ability to learn from text and the instructional approaches used by these teachers in
the upper-grade, deaf education social studies classroom? When examining the
relationship between preconceptions and instructional approaches, the data are
inconclusive. Only one teacher incorporated a relatively larger amount of sociallymediated instructional practices when teaching content. Two of the participating teachers
had generally optimistic views of their students potential as readers and learners, yet had
very different instructional approaches. Of the two teachers who had generally optimistic
views of their students as readers and learners, one had a balance of socially-mediated
instruction and teacher-directed learning, while the other had longer durations of
instructional time dedicated to teacher-directed learning. Teachers who had less
optimistic views of their students as readers and learners tended to have instruction that
was more teacher-directed than socially-mediated.
Based on the findings from this study, it is evident that participating teachers
recognize the struggles that their DHH students have with navigating and comprehending
complex texts, and as a result, do not typically incorporate reading assignments as a
regular part of their instruction. Data also suggest that preconceptions of students as
readers and learners may be related to how content is presented; however, pressure to
cover content covered on standardized tests, time, and resources seem to have a larger
influence on the instructional practices and choices of these teacher participants.
Overall, while preconceptions may not have had an impact of the types of
instruction used in these classrooms, teacher preconceptions may have an impact of the
duration and intensity of CAR integration. The teachers who had generally positive

197

views about their students as readers and learners tended to incorporate CAR for longer
durations and at higher levels of intensity than did teachers who did not have positive
views about their students as readers and learners. While the data do provide some
possible insights regarding how preconceptions impact instructional choices and CAR
integration, more investigation is needed in order to generalize findings.
Suggestions for Teacher Preparation Programs and Professional Development
The teachers in the present study recognized the need for support and strategies to
help their students navigate and understand content area texts; however, none of them
seemed to have a comprehensive understanding of the CAR skills that were necessary for
cultivating advanced literacy development in the social studies classroom. The following
suggestions are thus provided to help inform and guide teacher preparation and
professional development with regards to integrating coursework that fosters advanced
literacy development in the content area classroom.
Preparation in instructional practices and CAR. Based on the data from this
study, it is clear that content area teachers are not incorporating CAR skills or text-based
learning for long durations of instructional time. These findings suggest that an emphasis
on CAR is needed in the area of teacher preparation for pre-service and in-service
teachers. Teacher preparation programs should consider designing courses and schools
should seek professional development that specifically addresses CAR as part of their
agenda. Ongoing preparation for teachers is also needed to provide pre-service and inservice teachers with an understanding of advanced literacy development. These courses
and workshops should focus on methodologies for teaching adolescent readers the skills
of CAR, as well as identify specific strategies that can be used to teach these skills, such

198

as activation of background knowledge, using socially-mediated instructional techniques,
and incorporating higher order questioning to support the skill of inference. More so,
courses and workshops that target advanced literacy and content area reading should take
into consideration that students who are DHH have unique learning needs, and are not
“hearing children who can’t hear” (Marschark, 2014). Strategies that may work with
children who are hearing may not be appropriate or as effective for children who are
DHH (Marschark & Hauser, 2008). Children who are DHH have less background
knowledge than hearing peers (Andrews & Mason, 1991; Boyd & George, 1971;
Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Dymock & Nicholson, 2010; Easterbrooks & Stephenson,
2006; Schirmer, 1997) and thus require instructional strategies that help foster
background knowledge. The amount of background knowledge a student has about a
certain topic has an effect on a students’ ability to make elaborative and global inferences
(Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008; McMackin & Lawrence, 2001), and
understand content-specific vocabulary (Fisher & Frey, 2009; Marschark & Hauser,
2008; Stahl, 2008).
When designing courses for pre-service teachers and specialized professional
development for in-service teachers, the following should be considered. First, an
emphasis on the importance of reading and literacy instruction, along with fostering the
concept that “all teachers are teachers of reading” (discussed further, below), should be
included. Second, an outline of the skills and strategies that foster CAR should be
highlighted. For example, activation of background knowledge may be a core strategy
for fostering other CAR skills such as building background knowledge, understanding
content-specific vocabulary, understanding and interpreting text features, and making

199

inferences. Therefore, coursework and workshops should emphasize strategies for
activating background knowledge during instruction.
Third, a focus on the use of higher-order questioning during instruction should be
emphasized. Skills related to asking complex questions and mediation strategies for
helping students understand complex questions should be included as part of the curricula
adopted by schools and districts, as these skills are tied to the CAR skill of inference
(Cain, et al., 2004) an important component for reading and comprehending content-area
texts (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kispal, 2008; McMackin & Lawrence, 2001).
Finally, since text structure was the least integrated CAR skill in both the present study
and the pilot study (Maiorana-Basas, 2013), inclusion of strategies for identifying text
structures and using text structures to support the understanding and comprehension of
content area texts is necessary. While more research is needed on the overall effects of
identifying and understanding text-structures on reading comprehension, there is some
evidence to support the role of text-structure in comprehension of complex texts such as
those used in the content areas (Bringham & Hartman, 2010; Chall, 1996; Marschark,
Lang, & Albertini, 2002; Moores, 2001; Strassman, 1997; among others).
Preparation in language and communication. The ability for a teacher to be a
skilled communicator in the language and communication modalities of students in the
deaf education classroom is a best practice as identified by Easterbrooks and Stephenson
(2006), and is listed as one of the ten standards of knowledge and skill required of all
beginning teachers (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003). Programs that are designed
to prepare teachers to work in educational settings that use American Sign Language
(ASL) or other sign-based communication systems as the communication of instruction

200

should consider including advanced ASL courses that include in-depth study of academic
ASL. In order to address CAR skills such as content-specific vocabulary, teachers in
these educational settings must have knowledge of the signs for these higher academic
concepts. Courses should include instruction in translating content-specific vocabulary
from English to ASL and instruction in the use of classifiers to explain complex topics
and concepts discussed in the content area classroom. A teacher’s sign choice and
execution directly impacts students’ abilities to understand content knowledge
(Easterbrooks & Stephenson, 2006), including the ability to correctly and effectively ask
questions and foster meaningful discussion during content instruction.
Preparation that fosters the belief that all teachers are teachers of reading.
An important consideration for both teacher preparation programs and in-service
professional development is a focus towards fostering the belief that all teachers are
teachers of reading, especially for teachers who plan to teach content in the upper grades.
Results from the present study allude that teachers in the upper grade, deaf education
social studies classroom may not incorporate reading as part of their instructional
practices often, or at all. Easterbrooks and Stephenson (2006) point out that reading skills
are a crucial component for success in the content areas, and reading instruction in the
content areas is especially important for struggling readers. Given the current literacy
outcomes for students who are DHH (Easterbrooks & Beal-Alvarez, 2012; Kelly &
Barac-Cikoja, 2007; Traxler, 2000), it is even more critical for these students to have
instruction that specifically addresses CAR beyond the elementary years.
Limitations
Like all research, this study presents its own strengths and limitations.

201

Researcher bias. Because data were collected first hand, there remains a
potential for bias in their interpretation. In order to reduce bias, several procedures were
included. First, at the mid and end points of data collection, during the response-toinstruction meetings, all teachers were given an opportunity to view their video-recorded
instruction and provide commentary as to what was happening and why specific
instructional practices and strategies were used. Those meetings were also used as a
member check to clarify and contextualize the researcher’s observations and field notes.
Member checks are important tool for improving accuracy and credibility to the findings
of the study, and gives participants an opportunity to clarify and correct any
misconceptions of the researcher (Walters, 2006).
To further reduce bias, video recorded sessions were reviewed multiple times and
were compared to additional information sources (e.g., field notes, teacher interviews,
and teacher comments during response-to-instruction meetings) before any conclusions
were generated. Video recordings provide an accurate and detailed account of what was
observed and are more reliable than field notes alone (Baily, 2008). In addition, interrater agreement measures also help to establish reliability of qualitative findings through
the use of quantitative measures (Marques & McCall, 2005). Ten percent of all analyzed
video was given to an independent inter-rater, and was coded for inter-rater agreement
measures (averaging 85.2% agreement for instructional codes and averaging 66.6%
agreement for CAR codes) as a means to reduce bias in the analysis of instructional
approaches and CAR integration. Inter-rater agreement measures also increased
reliability of findings.

202

Researcher presence. While all efforts were made to not influence instructional
practices, it is possible that the researcher’s presence alone could have had an effect on
the behaviors of the teacher and the students. In an attempt to reduce this influence, an
introductory session was scheduled to give students an opportunity to meet with and ask
questions of the researcher, and about the study and the research process. Meetings were
also scheduled with each of the teachers prior to data collection to address any questions
and concerns. As an added measure to reduce distraction, all video recording equipment
was set up during transition periods in an out-of-the-way location in the classroom.
Sample. Data collection was restricted to residential schools for the deaf and
classrooms where sign-based communication was the primary method of delivering
content. While every attempt was made to find classrooms that had the same
communication philosophy, two of the participating schools followed a
bilingual/bicultural communication philosophy and one school followed a total
communication philosophy. Programs that use other communication methods such as
listening and spoken language were not included. These differences in communication
philosophies and settings, could have biased the data and do limit the generalizability of
findings.
According to www.deafed.net, there are 60 residential schools for the deaf in the
United States. The current study took place in three different residential schools for the
deaf, representing only 5% of all schools for the deaf, and an even lower percentage of
upper-grade level social studies teachers of the deaf from these schools. Other
educational settings where students who are DHH are educated (e.g., general education,
resource rooms, inclusion classrooms, etc.) were not included. While generalizability

203

may be limited for this study, the findings do provide some initial insights into the
instructional practices of upper-grade teachers, as well as into how teachers integrate
CAR during instruction, and can be used as a foundation to building the literature base in
this area.
Observations. The teachers in the study did not all teach the same unit of study.
Although the focus of the study was restricted to one subject area (social studies),
differences between each of the participating classrooms confounds comparison findings
across teachers, as instructional approaches may change based on a topic of study.
Although two of the teacher participants (the middle school teachers) taught the same
unit topic (The American Revolution), they did not use the same materials or texts, and
covered different topics within the scope of the unit. The high school teachers taught
completely different topics (The Kennedy Years and The Progressive Era). Because of
these differences, student learning and growth was not measured in the present study,
making it difficult to discern how certain instructional approaches and CAR integration
directly influence student learning and growth.
Data analysis. The frequency of questioning for all teacher participants should be
interpreted with a level of caution. As part of the coding rules, a Questioning code was
applied each time a question was asked. For example, if a teacher repeated a question
multiple times in short succession (e.g., Who is this? Who is this in this picture? Does
anyone know who this is?) a Questioning code was applied for each question, which
could have inflated frequencies for questions in some categories. Typically, lower level
questions, such as knowledge and comprehension questions, tended to be repeated
multiple times.

204

Directions for Future Research
Content area reading is an understudied area especially in the field of deaf
education. The current study represents the first of its kind to investigate the frequency,
duration, and intensity of instructional and CAR behaviors in the upper-grade, social
studies deaf education classroom, thus providing a baseline for future research. Several
recommendations are provided for such studies.
First, investigating instructional practices and CAR integration in other content
areas (e.g., mathematics, science, etc.), especially in the upper grades, is a logical next
step in expanding the findings of the present study, as these were not subject areas
included in the present study, and are also under-researched in deaf education. It may be
that teachers in different content areas, such as mathematics or science, may include even
less CAR and text-based learning during instruction, as those subjects tend to include
more application, practice, and hands-on learning activities (e.g. conducting experiments,
observation of data, practicing mathematics skills, etc.).
Second, investigating instructional practices and CAR integration in deaf
education classrooms using different philosophies of communication (e.g., listening and
spoken language) and in different educational settings (e.g., general education, resource
rooms, inclusion classrooms, etc.) will provide additional information to document
practice and increase generalizeability. Findings may differ, for example, in educational
settings where students are not learning and reading content in two different languages.
Some areas to investigate include: the frequency and duration of instructional practices
used in deaf education classrooms that use a listening and spoken language approach; the
frequency, duration, and intensity of CAR skills used in deaf education classrooms that

205

use a listening and spoken language approach; and teachers preconceptions about their
students as readers and learners in classrooms that use listening and spoken language to
communicate.
A third recommendation for future research is an investigation of specific
evidence-based instructional strategies that support CAR skills, especially those most
overlooked by teachers such as: text structure, inference, and the use of higher level
questioning in the upper-grade, deaf education content classroom. Intervention studies
should be designed to target text structure, inference, and the use of higher-level
questioning in the content area classroom. Investigation of interventions that target these
skills and that take into account the unique learning needs of students who are DHH will
provide support for teachers when designing and planning instruction, and may help
improve the academic reading skills of students who are DHH.
It is also beneficial to investigate further what teachers in the deaf education
classroom already know about CAR and advanced literacy development in addition to
how teachers of the deaf perceive their students as readers and learners. A fourth
recommendation, then, is for researchers to investigate these areas through interviews,
focus groups, or survey research. Data from these sources would provide better
information about areas of need when developing intervention research and can help
guide the development of professional development opportunities related to CAR.
Since student achievement was not measured in the present study, a fifth
recommendation is for researchers to investigate how specific instructional approaches
impact student learning and achievement in the content area classroom, specifically with
regards to reading proficiency. While findings suggest that teachers who favor a social-

206

constructivist approach to instruction may incorporate CAR skills at higher levels of
intensity and ask more complex questions during instruction, more investigation is
needed in order to establish an evidence base for this practice in the deaf education
classroom.
Finally, it may also be beneficial to investigate how teachers of the deaf in upper
grade classrooms incorporate academic language proficiency during instruction, since
this was a point of concern for all teacher participants in this study and in the pilot study.
Conclusions
Findings from the present study revealed that upper-grade, social studies teachers
in the deaf education classroom are not incorporating CAR for long durations of
instructional time and are limited in those CAR strategies that are addressed. Data
suggest that lack of CAR integration may be due to teachers not having enough
knowledge about CAR skills to incorporate them into instruction. Teachers may not
establish their instruction so as to provide opportunities for the inclusion of such
strategies, focusing more on direct instruction, teacher-centered models that do not lend
themselves to integration of CAR for long durations of time or at high levels of intensity.
The nature of socially-mediated instruction such as discussion and peer-to peer learning
may lend itself to addressing specific skills for longer durations of time and other CAR
skills such as inference, which according to the literature is typically measured through
questions (Kispal, 2008) might be asked as a result of a discussion. While it is not yet
known what types of instructional approaches are best suited to foster CAR, inclusion of
socially-mediated instruction may be an important consideration when designing
interventions that target CAR.

207

Teacher preconceptions about their students as readers and learners may influence
their instructional practices. Believing that their students cannot read or read at the level
of instruction and that reading instruction is not their responsibility, and may cause
teachers to present a more directed instructional style when teaching content material,
and not dedicate much of their time to CAR. Additionally, these beliefs resulted in
teachers not assigning reading outside of class and avoiding text-based learning. As a
result, students spent little time interacting with content area texts and relied on the
teacher to deliver all information related to content. Further, policy and state mandates
that dictate what teachers should teach, how much time they have to teach it, and how
students will be assessed on what they learn may have a strong influence on how content
material is taught, and consequently on the amount of instructional time dedicated to
teaching advanced literacy skills.
The present study serves as a starting point for investigating teacher practice in
relation to CAR with DHH adolescents. Findings can be used as a springboard to future
studies investigating the types of instructional strategies that are most beneficial for
supporting CAR and advanced literacy development for adolescent students who are
DHH.

208

APPENDICES

209

Appendix A: Research Approval Letter
Date:
Michella Maiorana-Basas
866 E. Grand River #56
Brighton, MI 48116
maiora12@msu.edu

RE: Request to conduct research at _________(name of school here)__________

Dear Michella Maiorana-Basas,
The research study entitled “Content Area Reading in the Deaf Education Classroom: An
Instrumental Case Study of Four Teachers” is authorized to be conducted at the
________(name of school here)______. Data collected for this study, conducted at
________(name of school here)______, is not subject to any outside committee or
Internal Review Board’s approval other than what is required by Michigan State
University.
Because you have received final approval from Michigan State University’s Internal
Review Board, you have the permission of ________(name of school here)______ to
begin participant recruitment and data collection.
Sincerely,

Name of person in charge of approving research
Address of School
Phone/email contact of person in charge of approving research

210

Appendix B: Teacher Participant Consent Form
Dear _________________,
You have been invited to participate in a research study about reading and literacy in
social studies. The purpose of this student is to describe how teacher of the deaf
incorporate literacy while teaching content area subjects (such as social studies) and how
the reading achievement of students who are deaf and hard of hearing develops over half
a school year.
The researcher will observe instruction in your classroom for ten instructional sessions,
three to four times a week for a period of four to five weeks. Before the observational
sessions begin, the researcher will conduct a short interview with you (approximately 3045 min) and may ask questions throughout the period of the study.
A video camera will be used to film the interview and classroom instruction for the
purposes of note taking and data analysis. All records, videos and information collected
during the student will be kept private, and your name or likeness will not be used in any
way. This consent form will be stored in a secure location, along with the results of the
study in a secure, locked location for seven years after the completion of the study.
There are no foreseeable risks for participating in this study. Participation is completely
voluntary, and you have the right to opt out of participation at any time.
Should you have any questions regarding the nature of the study, please do so before
signing and agreeing to participate. Any questions you may have can be directed to me at
maiora12@msu.edu. I am also happy to meet with you in person, by phone, or by Skype
should you need further explanation of the project.
Thank you,
Michella Maiorana-Basas
Doctoral Candidate and NLCSD Fellow
Michigan State University
Yes, I give permission for the researcher to collect data in my classroom. I understand
that my identity and likeness will not be used or revealed in any way, and that I have the
right to opt out of participation at any time during the study.
No, I do not give permission for the researcher to collect data in my classroom. I
understand that there is no penalty for opting out of this study.
Signature of Teacher Participant __________________________ Date ____________
Signature of Investigator ________________________________ Date ____________

211

Appendix C: Parent Consent Form
Date:
Dear ____________________,
Your child is invited to participate in a research study about instruction in the content
area deaf
education classroom. You are receiving this invitation because your child’s teacher has
agreed to
participate. The purpose of the study is to describe how teachers in the deaf education
content
classroom (such as social studies) instruct their students.
A researcher will observe your child’s classroom, several times a week over a period of
three to
five weeks (for a total of 10 instructional sessions). Before the researcher begins
observing, your
child will be given a short reading assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to
understand
how well your child reads and understands content area texts (such as a social studies text
book).
Most schools already administer regular reading assessments. Your child will not be
subjected to
excessive or additional testing for the purposes of this study. The results of your child’s
assessment will not affect their grade in any way, and will be explained to their classroom
teacher at the end of the research study. Your child’s scores will also be sent home to you,
along with a brief explanation.
Video cameras will be used to film classroom instruction for the purposes of note taking
and data
analysis. All records, video, and information collected during the study will be kept
private. Your
child’s name or likeness will not be used in any way. Your child’s name will be removed
from any documents, and replaced with an assigned number to protect their privacy.
There are no foreseeable risks for participating in this study. Participation is voluntary.
You may
choose not to allow your child to participate at all, or you may refuse to allow your child
to
participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions. You may choose to
discontinue your
child’s participation at any time without consequence. Full, partial or lack of participation
will not
affect the treatment your child receives, nor will it affect their grades or evaluations in
any way.

212

This consent form will be stored in a secure location, along with results of the study, for
five years after the completion of the study. If you have concerns or questions about this
study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please
contact the researcher (Michella Maiorana-Basas) at 866 East Grand River #56 Brighton,
MI 48116; maiora12@msu.edu; or 808-282-4258.
Thank you,

Michella Maiorana-Basas
Doctoral Candidate at Michigan State University and NLCSD Fellow
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to allow your child to participate
in this research study.
Signature of Parent/ Legal Guardian __________________________ Date
________________

213

Appendix D: Parent Consent Form (Spanish Translation)
Fecha:
Estimado ______________,
Su hijo esta invitado a participar en un estudio para la investigación de estudiantes con
problema de audición en la clase de estudios sociales. Usted está recibiendo esta
invitación porque el maestro de su hijo a acordado participar. El objetivo del esté studio
es describer cómo los profesores de niños con problema de audición enseñan a sus
alumnos en los estudios sociales.
Un investigador entrará en la clase de su hijo para observar su maestro diez días durante
varias semanas. Al inicio del estudio, su hijo se le dará una prueba de lectura corta. El
propósito de la prueba es entender cómo su hijo lee su libro de estudios sociales. La
mayoría de las escuelas ya administrar las pruebas de lectura con frecuencia. Su hijo no
se le dará pruebas excesiva durante este estudio. Resultados de las pruebas de su hijo no
afectará sus notas. Los resultados se explican a la maestra de su hijo cuando el estudio se
ha completado. Los resultados serán enviados a casa con una breve explicación.
Cámaras de video ser utilizados para registrar la instrucción en la clase. El vídeo será
utilizado por el investigador para tomar notas y analzing datos. Todos los videos y la
información recogida durante el estudio será privado. El nombre o imagen de su hijo no
se utilizarán de ninguna manera. El nombre de su hijo será retirado de todos los
documentos, y reemplazado con un número para proteger su privacidad. No se perceve
probelmas por participar en este estudio y la participación es voluntaria. Usted puede
decidir si su hijo no va a participar en este estudio. También puede optar permitir que su
hijo participe sólo en ciertos procedimientos. Usted puede decidir suspender la
participación de su hijo en cualquier momento sin consecuencias. No participar o
participar parcialmente, o participar por completo, no afectará a la forma de tratar a su
hijo, y no afectará a sus notas de ninguna manera.
Este formulario de consentimiento se mantendrá en un lugar seguro, junto con los
resultados del estudio, durante cinco años después de la finalización del estudio. Si tiene
dudas o preguntas acerca de este estudio, sobre procedimientos científicos o para reportar
un daño, por favor póngase en contacto con la investigadora (Michella Maiorana-Basas) a
866 East Grand River #56 Brighton, MI 48116; maiora12@msu.edu; or 808-282-4258.
Gracias por su cooperación,
Michella Maiorana-Basas
Candidato Doctoral en la Universidad del Estado de Michigan y miembro del NLCSD
Su firma significa que está de acuerdo con la participación de su hijo en este estudio de
investigación.
Firma del Padre / Tutor Legal __________________________ Fecha ____________

214

Appendix E: Student Assent Form
Dear _______________,
Your teacher has agreed to participate in a research study about reading in the social
studies classroom. The reason for the student is to describe how your teacher helps you
learn reading skills while teaching social studies. The researcher would also like to know
how your reading improves over time by giving you a short reading test at the beginning
of the study and again right before the winter recess.
The researcher will also use video cameras to help remember what happened in class
each day. The researcher will not show the videos to anyone, and any information about
you will be kept private.
You are allowed to decide (yes or no) if you would like to be a part of this study. Even if
your parents said yes, you can still say no. You can even decide later on that you do not
want to be in the study by telling your teacher or the researcher. There are not any
consequences for saying “no”.
You can ask the researcher questions about the study, anytime, before or after class.
Thank you,

Michella Maiorana-Basas
Doctoral Candidate and NLCSD Fellow
Michigan State University

Yes, I give permission for the researcher to observe me during my social studies class and
to give me a short reading test at the beginning of the school year and again just before
winter recess. I understand that it is ok to tell the researcher if I decide I do not want to be
a part of the study any longer, and that I will not be punished in any way.

No, I do not give permission for the researcher to observe me during my social studies
class or to give me a short reading test at the beginning of the school year, and again just
before winter recess. I understand that it is ok to say “no” to participating, and that I will
not be punished in any way.

Signature of the Student Participant _________________________ Date ___________
Signature of Investigator _________________________________ Date ___________

215

Appendix F: Sample of a Level 5 Expository QRI-4 Passage

216

Appendix G: Semi-structured Interview Questions
1. Based on my observations, it appears that your primary approach to teaching
content is (lecture, guided reading, text-based learning, hands-on activities,
discussion, a combination of these, other). Why have you chosen ____ to be your
primary approach to teaching content material?
2. In your opinion, what is the most effective way to deliver content material to your
students (e.g. lecture, guided reading, text-based learning, hands on activities,
discussion, a combination of these, other)?
3. If you had to rate the following (lecture, guided reading, text-based learning,
hands on activities, discussion) in the order of effectiveness in delivering content
material to your students, which would you give the highest rating? Lowest
rating?
4. What is the range of reading levels of students enrolled in this class? (If the
teacher does not know, I will reframe as: What would you estimate the average
reading level of your students to be?)
5. As a content area teacher, do you feel it is your job to teach reading skills to your
students? (Why/ why not?) (If “no” is given as a response, follow-up question:
Who is responsible for teaching reading to your students?)
6. During my observations, I noticed that you typically use (or don’t use) the
following types of reading materials in your classroom (text books, leveled
readers, scholastic magazines, other?), what is your rationale for choosing these
types of materials?
7. What types of skills do you believe are necessary for students to read and
comprehend content area text?
8. How many students (your estimate) are able to grasp key information from
content area text alone? (Follow up, how many grasp 100%, 50%, 25%, lower
than that…?)
9. If you had to choose, is it more important to teach the content or to teach the
students how to read to learn content information on their own? (Follow up: Why
or why not?)
10. Do you assign content reading outside of class? (Follow up: Why or why not?)
11. Do you assign vocabulary related to content? (Follow up: Why or why not?)
12. How well do you think your students can communicate and articulate their
thoughts and ideas about content-related material linguistically (e.g. sign/ speech/
sign and speech, respectively)?
13. What is your biggest frustration regarding content instruction? (Follow up: Do
you have any frustrations regarding your student’s ability to read and comprehend
content area text? Successes to share?
14. Do your students believe they are good readers (your opinion)?

217

15. Do you believe your students are good readers? (Follow up: Do you think your
students are capable of being good/ proficient readers?)
16. This question will be asked re: each student participant: Tell me about student
“x”. Is student “x” a good reader? Why or why not? (Follow up: What makes
student “x” a good reader?)

218

Appendix H: Codebook
The following codes will be used to analyze video data of instructional and content area
reading (CAR) practices observed during 10 instructional sessions of four teachers of the
deaf in upper-grade social studies classrooms.
Instruction Codes*: Delivering Content Material
These codes are exclusive and will not overlap in the coding process.
Only “Peer-to-Peer Learning” and “Student Independent Work/Activity” codes are
weighted… all other instructional practices do not have a weighting system.
Non-instructional: Any transition that is longer than 10 seconds (e.g., restroom
breaks, moving locations, breaking into learning groups, dealing with significant
behavior issues) or any instance when the focus is not on content material (e.g.,
schedule change reminders, collection or passing out of materials, distributing
incentives to students, talking about the inclement weather, school events, fire
drills, “housekeeping” items such as grades, standardized test scores, etc.). If the
teacher is giving instructions about what the students are supposed to do for a
specific independent assignment or project, this will be coded as “Teacher Giving
Directions/ Instructions”. Non-instructional codes are not weighted.
Teacher-Directed Learning: Instruction that is directed, explicit, and primarily
delivered by the teacher through lecturing or convergent discourse (attempting to
elicit a correct answer during questioning or attempting to elicit a correct procedure,
skill, or strategy from students through direct teacher prompting). This might be
observed during a lecture, read-aloud, completing a handout/worksheet as a class
where the teacher is guiding the students step-by-step, viewing a video* when the
teacher is translating and elaborating, and/or through discussions** between
teacher and student(s) that are directed or explicit (limited to eliciting a “correct”
response from a student). This code will also be applied during instances when the
teacher is writing something on the board that is directly related to instruction (e.g.,
writing a vocabulary word on the board, or drawing a diagram to help students
understand content material. Not a homework assignment or other non-instructional
related material.). This code is representative of instruction that is more directed,
dominated, authoritative, and goal/skill directed. Teacher-Directed Learning codes
are not weighted.
Teacher-Facilitated Learning: Instruction that is less directed, and more facilitative,
and attempts to extend student’s thinking through discussions** and conversations,
providing students with an opportunity to construct meaning without the answer
being explicitly provided by the teacher. This might be observed when the teacher
is scaffolding instruction or during a discussion with a student(s) that is more
conversational in nature, allowing the student(s) to explore multiple angles of a
particular idea or answer and to reach their own conclusions about a particular idea
or answer. Teacher-Facilitated Learning codes are not weighted.

219

Peer- to-Peer learning: Instruction or knowledge building that occurs between
students (with minimal prompting from the teacher). This includes instances such
as having a debate, students standing in front of the class to explain a concept or
give their point of view, students working collaboratively to complete an activity or
solve a problem, and discussion that occurs between students with minimal
prompting/ elaboration from the teacher. Peer-to-Peer learning is weighted at 2
levels of intensity (described below).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the student is explaining a concept to the
class and information is coming directly from the student with minimal
teacher prompting/guidance.
Weight Level 2: Instances when peers are learning from each other
through a conversation, discussion, or debate between students with
minimal teacher prompting/guidance.
Hands-On Instruction: Any instance when students are doing hands-on learning
activities (e.g., matching vocabulary cards, holding a faux election,
building/creating of any kind), when the teacher is monitoring progress and
providing direction and or clarification to guide students learning. Teacher-Guided
Hands-On Instruction codes are not weighted.
Student Independent Work/Activity: Instances when students are given an
assignment to work on during class. This code will also be used during formal paper
and pencil type assessments. In instances when the teacher provides directions or
clarification on test items will be coded as “Teacher Giving Directions/
Instructions”. If the assessment is interactive in nature, this will be coded as either
“Teacher-Directed Learning” or “Teacher-Facilitated Learning”, depending on the
context. Student Independent Work/Activity is weighted at 2 levels of intensity
(described below). If students are off task, but their instructions are to do an
independent assignment, this code will still be applied. In these instances, context
will be provided in the description of the class session.
Weight Level 1: Any instance when students are working on an assignment
in class, without any guidance/facilitation by the teacher. Instances of
students working together as a group will be coded as “Peer-to-Peer
Learning” (only in instances when the students are actually interacting with
one another. If students are physically in a group, or are told to work in
groups, but are, in reality, not interacting with one another, this action will
then be coded as “Student Independent Work/Activity). This includes
copying content related material from the board.
Weight Level 2: Any instance when the class is working independently on
an assignment, but the teacher is "floating", providing minimal guidance or
monitoring of individuals working. This is not instruction, just guidance
and progress monitoring. Some students may need 1:1 assistance as

220

indicated on their IEP's as well. Instances where students are doing
independent work/activities and the teacher is providing instruction and/or
scaffolding, will be coded as either "Teacher-Directed Learning" or
"Teacher-Facilitated Learning".
Teacher Giving Directions/Instructions: Any instance longer than 10 seconds when
the teacher is giving detailed directions regarding a task, assignment, class project,
etc. This code will still be used when students are asking questions about a task,
assignment, class project, etc., and the teacher clarifies or provides further
explanation. This includes discussion about where to find resources and materials
to complete a task, assignment, class project, etc.
This may also occur in instances when the directions are not related to contentspecific instruction. For example, the teacher may say, “I would like you to get a
green marker and a purple marker to fill in this map….” or “Let’s read the
directions together…” (while referring to the written directions on an assignment)
or “I want you to take the next 10 minutes to work on your class projects”.
“Teacher Giving Directions/Instructions” codes are not weighted.
Other: Any instance when there is a guest speaker, video, or other instruction that is
not delivered primarily by the teacher or students. (e.g., passively watching a video
without teacher support or elaboration, note: if the teacher is “interpreting” a video,
this will be coded as “Teacher-Directed Learning” since the information is coming
from the teacher, or instances when the class is attending a presentation delivered
by another class, teacher, or guest speaker). “Other” codes are not weighted.
* Passively viewing a video will be coded as “Other”.
**Discussions that are between peers or that are primarily peer directed (whether
through the teacher or across peers) will be coded as “Peer-to-Peer Level 2.
Content Area Reading (CAR) and Other Literacy Skills Integration*
*These codes are not exclusive and can overlap with one another. These codes
specifically fall under “Teacher-Directed and Teacher-Facilitated” instructional
practice codes (as they are meant for analyzing teacher behaviors only*). These codes
would not be utilized in cases where a student asks a question or uses one of the five
CAR skills and/or “other” literacy or content skills. For example, if a student is having a
discussion with another student and uses text features, the segment would not be coded
as “Attention to Text Features” as it is a student practice and not a teacher practice.
*There may be FEW instances when a CAR code “bleeds” into a student code, for
example, “Peer-to-Peer Level 1”. CAR codes may only “bleed” into these codes if they
are initiated during “Teacher-Directed” or “Teacher-Facilitated” codes, and continue
through a portion of a student code.

221

For the 5 CAR skills and teacher questioning, a weighted system was used to determine
the level of complexity/intensity.
CAR Skill 1: Background Knowledge. This skill is separated into two distinct categories:
Activation of Background Knowledge and Building Background Knowledge. See below
for further descriptions of these categories.
Activation of Background Knowledge. Instances when the teacher makes connections to
or refers to previous lessons, student knowledge/experiences, etc. Activation of
Background Knowledge is weighted at 3 levels of intensity (described below).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the teacher makes an attempt to determine what
students know, don’t know, or have misconceptions about regarding content
topics. This is typically accomplished through questioning at the knowledge
level, or level 1 questioning (see questioning code levels for further
clarification).
Examples: What did we talk about yesterday?; What is an election?; Does
anyone know what the term “progressivism” means?; Remember, this is
what happened?
This also includes instances when the teacher has students revisit a web
page or when reviewing a video or photos.
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher guides students to use a particular
resource to assist them in the recall of information previously read or learned. (If
the students use a resource without teacher prompting, for example, the teacher
asks them a question and the students use a resource, this DOES NOT
COUNT. Only in instances when the teacher prompts the students use a resource
is coded).
Examples: Teacher asking students, “Look back in your books on page 32.
Check your notes from last week’s lesson. Have you seen in the news
lately?”
Having students do a quick write on an assigned topic.
Weight Level 3: Instances when the teacher provides a comprehensive review of
material before introducing a new concept or before building on a new concept
through a lecture, discussion, brainstorming activity, acting something out, or
some other experience. (Note: This is code is not applied in instances when the
teacher is adding or “building” knowledge. This code is only for instances when
there is a review or “activation” of prior knowledge or learning. In instances
when the teacher is adding or “building” upon student’s knowledge, that will be
coded as “Building Background Knowledge”. See below for a further description
of coding “Building Background Knowledge”).

222

Examples: Having a discussion about previously learned content material
as a review before introducing new information.
Asking students to provide a comprehensive review of what they learned
in a previous lesson through a discussion facilitated by the teacher.
Relating familiar experiences to new experiences as a means to activate
background knowledge (e.g., linking learning to living).
Building Background Knowledge. Instances when the teacher builds upon or adds to
student knowledge/experiences, etc. Building Background Knowledge is weighted at 3
levels of intensity (described below).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the teacher clarifies or corrects student’s
misconceptions about a specific concept or idea. Helping students connect and
apply their background knowledge to understand a topic more deeply through
comparison or analysis. Linking information to what the students know and
building on that. Using a personal story to “parallel” a concept in order to build
upon that. Using student’s personal experiences to parallel or connect to new
information. Making connections to what students know at the most basic level.
Examples: Student sees the word “progressivism” written on the board
and makes a connection with Progressive Insurance. Teacher clarifies the
use and meaning of the word and makes a comparison with how the word
is used as the name of a company, and how the word is used within the
context of the lesson on political progressivism in the 1920’s.
Pointing to a map and saying “This is where PA would be in the 13
colonies, if PA was a state back then”.
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher makes explicit connections through
instruction, modeling, and/or student discussions between previous learning with
the learning of new information, concepts, or ideas.
Examples: Watching a film or video clip. Exploring a virtual museum on
the Internet. Using interactive software or an interactive website. Going
on a field trip. Direct experiences such as conducting a faux election,
telling a personal story, “suppose you were a …” scenario. Having a
discussion with students.
Connecting and building upon what students know as a way to build new
knowledge, for example, discussing idiomatic phrases or words with
multiple meanings. “A battle is a small part of a war. A war is made of
many battles. All together, all of these battles are one war.”

223

Weight Level 3: Instances where the teacher creates cooperative learning
opportunities for students to use experiences to develop/expand
background knowledge. These are what are referred to as “direct types of
building background knowledge” as defined by Fisher and Frey (2010).
Examples: Language Experience Activities, conducting a faux election
and having students tally and report the results based on an “electoral
college” system developed by the teacher to understand the results of the
presidential election, and then having students discuss/ debate findings,
etc. Acting out concepts in class.
CAR Skill 2: Text Structure. Instances when the teacher identifies and explains how a
text is organized. For example: “This text is organized by types of animals in Australia.
This section is about koalas, this section is about kangaroos, and this section is about
bandicoots”. Text Structure is weighted at 4 levels of intensity (described below).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the teacher identifies/acknowledges the structure
of a text without in depth explanation, or instances of text structure at the sentence
or paragraph level.
Examples: This chapter is organized as a sequence; this chapter is
organized by categories; this article is organized as cause and effect; etc.)
The teacher making the statement, “This page explains the British view”,
or “The first sentence in this paragraph is going to let you know what
details will be explained in that paragraph”.
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher explains and instructs how and why a
text is organized in a specific way.
Examples: This chapter is organized sequentially because it talks about
what happened in history in order. This event happened first, this event
happened next, and this event happened last.
Weight Level 3: Instances when the teacher identifies and compares examples of
key words and phrases that help students understand how texts are organized.
Examples: When the teacher explains “because/as a result/the effects ofare typically found in texts organized in a cause/effect, where terms such
as: first/second/third/next/ initially/finally/before/after are words typically
found in texts that are organized sequentially”.
Weight Level 4: Instances when the teacher guides students in comparing and
contrasting texts that are on the same subject but organized differently or guides
students in organizing textual information from a variety of sources and
organizing them in a logical way.

224

Examples: Assisting students in collecting information from various
sources about animals in Australia to make a class “book” or report, and
organizing the information categorically.
CAR Skill 3: Text Features. Instances when the teacher acknowledges or uses text
features such as visual aids, maps, charts, graphs, headings, titles, sub headings, glossary,
bulleted lists, captions (under an image), italicized, underlined, and boldface text. For
example: having students interpret a graph that represents the presidential election results.
Text Features is weighted at 4 levels of intensity (described below). NOT coded when the
teacher refers to/points to a text feature using it as a pronoun (e.g., pointing to a photo
and saying “he”/“she”, without directly identifying or explaining the image, etc.).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the teacher identifies/acknowledges a text
feature (any image, chart, heading, map, graph, bold, or italicized word or any
information presented visually) without an in depth explanation (not in cases
when a text feature is used as a pronoun in ASL).
Examples: This is a picture of president Obama; this is a map of Australia;
This heading says “election results”; this is a chart of the Koala population
in 1900, this word is bold, etc.
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher uses/explains the basic features
and/or functions of a text feature.
Examples: Identifying the key on a map or chart and understand what
symbols mean; explaining the headings within a chapter and how to
navigate the text based on the headings, etc. The teacher asking, “what is
the title of this chapter”? The teacher stating, “We are on chapter 5, lesson
5. Use the front of your textbook to find which page it is on” (referring to
the table of contents).
Weight Level 3: Instances when the teacher uses text features and/or the functions
of a text feature to extrapolate and/or interpret information.
Examples: Guiding the students in understanding how to interpret the
information presented in a key/ legend to help students interpret the
information presented on a map or chart.
Analysis of a photo. Making inferences about a topic through analysis of
a photo.
Weight Level 4: Instances when the teacher guides or prompts students to use
information from more than one text feature (e.g., charts and headings, or photos
and maps; or bolded words, photos and captions) to develop a deeper
understanding of information presented in the text.

225

Examples: Using a map and a photo together to develop a deep
understanding of a concept. For example, showing a photo of soldiers
camping out in terrible conditions next to a map of their wins and losses in
battle to create a better understanding of the conditions and struggles of
fighting the war. Comparing/contrasting 2 images.
CAR Skill 4: Content-Specific Vocabulary. Instances when the teacher uses or provides
instruction of content-specific vocabulary. For the purposes of this study, contentspecific vocabulary will be defined as any word(s) or phrase(s) that are pertinent to
understanding content material. For example: in a lesson about the presidential election,
content-specific vocabulary words would be “election, vote, candidate, electoral college,
ballot, precinct, etc.) Content-Specific Vocabulary is weighted at 4 levels of intensity
(described below).
Weight Level 1: Any instance of decoding, recalling, defining, or matching
content-specific vocabulary. This can occur during instruction and/or discussions
with students to identify words at the “meaning” level only (not a breakdown or
analysis or word parts or a comparison of multiple meanings). Limited to word
identification.
Examples: The word “election” means a specific time when people of
voting age all come together to vote for something.
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher guides students in applying the use of
content-specific vocabulary.
Examples: Prompting students to use the word “eucalyptus” instead of
“leaf” when discussing or writing about what koalas eat.
Guiding students in using content-specific vocabulary to understand the
meaning of a word or phrase within the context of text. Making
connections/giving context to vocabulary by providing examples or having
a discussion around the meaning of a vocabulary word.
Weight Level 3: Any instance of analyzing the composition of a word based on its
parts (root, suffix, prefix) to understand its full meaning.
Examples: Biped breaks down to “2 feet”.
Discussion of multiple meanings and similar word pairs (militia v.
military; appointed v. appointment).
Weight Level 4: Instances when the teacher discusses and compares multiple
meanings of words (e.g., electoral college vs. college of education) and/or

226

instances when the teacher guides students in identifying synonyms and/or
antonyms for content-specific vocabulary.
Examples: What is another word for “habitat”? Discussion of word
categories (weapons include: guns, knives, rifles, bow and arrow…)
CAR Skill 5: Inference. Instances when the teacher assists students in making inferences
(reading between the lines) based on the information presented in text, discussion, and/or
experiences (background knowledge). For example: asking students, “Looking at this
map, why do you think the koala population is dwindling?” or using open ended
questions to illicit an inference from students (e.g., Why?, How do you know?, What do
you think?, If you lived during this time, what would life be like?, etc.). Inference is
weighted at 3 levels of intensity (described below).
Weight Level 1: Instances when the teacher draws inferences directly from text
(e.g., coherence inferences, inter-sentence inferences, text connecting inferences)
during instruction. This includes when the teacher models how students can piece
together information to make an inference or instances when the teacher is
guiding the students on how to make an inference.
Examples: Asking a “why” type of question that can be answered through
recall of information presented in the text (e.g., Why did Obama win?
Because according to this chart, he had more votes; Why is this different
than_____?; How do you know that ______?)
Weight Level 2: Instances when the teacher draws inferences from a text and
manipulates that information (e.g., elaborative/ gap filling inferences) during
instruction.
Examples: Using background knowledge to create new knowledge or to
elaborate on learned knowledge that is not explicitly present in the
text. (e.g., What is the difference between the population of Koala’s in
1900 and now?; Do you think most Americans are happy with the election
results?; How do you think the soldiers felt when they ran out of rations?;
What do you think about _____?); Comparing/contrasting information.
For example, the teacher asking, “Do you think these two social groups
have the same beliefs about how society should be run?”
Weight Level 3: Instances when the teacher uses global inferences (e.g., making
inferences in regards to the theme, main idea, or moral of a text) during
instruction.
Examples: If you could go back in time, what would you change to help
koalas in Australia? If all the Koalas in the world disappeared forever,
what would that do to the environment?

227

Other Literacy Skills: Any other literacy skill that is not included as one of the 5
CAR skills (described below) (These codes will not be weighted)
Spelling: Instances when the teacher focuses on the spelling of a particular word. This
includes spelling of specialized vocabulary words. In those instances when the teacher
focuses on the spelling of specialized vocabulary, both codes (spelling and specialized
vocabulary) will be used. In cases where spelling of specialized vocabulary is the focus,
a level 1 code will be used for that CAR skill.
CLOZE: Instances when the teacher uses “blanks” (e.g., _ _ _ _ _ _) to prompt students
to figure out a word, when filling in a particular word in a phrase or sentence (e.g.,
koala’s have _______ appetites), or when filling in a missing phrase or sentence within
an excerpt of text (e.g., Electoral college votes are ________________________.) This
can also be accomplished “through the air”. For example, attempting to have students
recall a content-specific vocabulary word by saying… “It starts with an ‘A’…”.
Decoding Text: Instances when the teacher points to text AND interprets, reads, or
deciphers what is written word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase (not just pointing at
text). This action MUST include actual decoding text. This code is to be applied when
the teacher is assisting the students in decoding a chunk of text, and NOT when students
are reading aloud. This can occur in a facilitative nature when the teacher is assisting
students in decoding (interpreting, reading, deciphering) a chunk of text through a
discussion, or in a directive nature when the teacher is decoding (interpreting, reading,
deciphering) text for the students word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase. The duration of this
code will be applied at the beginning of the decoding action and may continue through
discussions around a chunk of text during teacher-directed or teacher-facilitated
codes. This code may “bleed” into peer-to-peer codes as long as it initiates during a
teacher code, and that the teacher is actively monitoring the discussion between students
while deciphering text.
Mathematics Integration: (This code will not be weighted)
In some instances, mathematics was used to help students interpret text features,
determine how long ago something happened, build/support background knowledge, or to
problem solve. Any instance when the teacher integrates mathematics skills (e.g.,
calculations, making mathematical comparisons such as greater than or less than, etc.)
should have this code.
Questioning Codes: Instances when the teacher asks questions of the students based on
what was read or discussed. These will be directly correlated to Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Only frequency and intensity of questioning will be measured. Questioning codes are
weighted at 6 levels of intensity (see chart below).
Note: The teacher must actually use language (ASL, English, or a combination of both)
to ask a question. Instances when a teacher points to several options, implying a question
of “which” will not be coded.

228

Rhetorical (RH) questions will not be coded. In instances where a teacher asks a question
and does not provide enough wait time for students to answer (just moves on) or does not
prompt students to answer (e.g., asks a question, waits, no one answers, teacher decides
to move on) WILL be coded, as in many of these instances, it cannot be determined if the
teacher intended for the question to be RH. Only CLEAR instances of RH questions will
not be coded. For example, when the use of “WHY” in ASL is used as “BECAUSE”
(e.g., READ THIS WHY? REVIEW FOR TEST.)
Only questions that occur during instruction will be coded. For example, if the teacher
asks a student “How was your weekend” as the students are coming into the classroom, it
will NOT be coded.
Instances when a teacher repeats a student’s question will NOT be coded. Only questions
that are generated by the teacher will be coded.
Each instance of a question WILL be coded. For example, if a teacher asks a question
and repeats it three times, it will be coded three separate times.

Table 12:
Questioning Codes Contextualized Within Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s
Levels

Question Examples

Weight
Level 1
(Knowledge
level)

Questions that require students to demonstrate comprehension of
content material through remembering/recall.
These are typically “who, what, where, when” questions.
Occasionally, “why” is coded at the knowledge level when it is used
to recall knowledge level information. For example, when the teacher
says, these soldiers are sad because it is snowing and they have little
food and clothing. WHY are they sad?”
Examples:
• What is this picture of?
• Who is this story about?

229

Table 12 (cont’d)

Weight Level 2
(Comprehension)

Questions that require students to demonstrate
comprehension/understanding of content material.
Comprehension, translation, interpretation type
questions. This includes “WHY” questions that are used to
measure comprehension.
Examples:
• Can you explain, in your own words….?
• What do you think the phrase______ means?
• What is the main point of this passage?
• Can you describe what the authors’ message is?
• What is the author trying to warn us about?
• What does E-X-I-L-E-S mean?
• What happened?

Weight Level 3
(Application)

Questions that require students to use a learned/familiar
concept in a new situation. These are questions that require
students to predict or make judgements about something,
“how and why” type questions.
Examples:
• Can you give an example in your life when this
happened to you?
• How would you solve the problem of the dwindling
koala population in Australia?
• What do you think is happening in this picture?
• Why do you think this battle was lost?
• Why is the United States not a 3rd World Country?

230

Table 12 (cont’d)

Weight Level 4
(Analysis)

Questions that require students to analyze, break down
information, compare/contrast, deconstruct information, infer, or
outline.
Examples:
• Based on this graph, what part of Australia has the most
koalas in danger?
• What are the facts regarding the dwindling population of
koalas in Australia? What are some opinions?
• What actions do you think led to the soldiers success in
this battle?
• How do you think the soldiers felt?
• Why are these different?
• What does this picture NOT show?
• If JFK and Nixon had not had their debate on TV, do you
think the outcome would have been the same or
different?

Weight Level 5
(Synthesis)

Questions that require students to evaluate, explain, or
summarize learned information.
Examples:
• If you were a koala living in Australia, what would you
tell the
• humans?
• Is this painting an accurate representation of the events as
described in the text? If so, what is missing from this
description?

231

Table 12 (cont’d)

Weight Level 6
(Evaluation)

Questions that require students to categorize, modify, or
create new information.
Examples:
• What is your opinion about how environmentalists
are trying
• to save the koalas in Australia?
• Do you agree with them?
• What would you do the same/ differently?
• Do you think it would be worth it to do _______ in
this
• situation?
• If you were a soldier, what would you have done in
this situation?
• How would you have solved the problem of the
Bostonians
• being angry with the soldiers?
• How would you organize this information?

232

Appendix I: Inter-rater Agreement Code Documentation Form
Table 13:
Example of Inter-rater Agreement Documentation Form

Site Code:
Code Type
(INST/ CAR)
(frequency)

Session:
Code
Length
(duration)

Code Start/
End Time

Length of Session:
Code Level
(1= default)
(intensity)

Page ___ of ___

Code Notes/
IOA check
Memos
(if applicable)

Helpful Abbreviations:
TDL= teacher-directed learning; TFL= teacher-facilitated learning; P2P= peer-to-peer
giving directions; NI= non instructional; IND= student independent work O= other

DIR= teacher

A-BGK= activate background knowledge; B-BGK= build background knowledge; CSV= content-specific
vocabulary; INF= inference; TF= text features; TS= text structure

233

Appendix J: Omnibus Tables of Overall Results
Table 14:
Overall Results of Duration of Instructional Practices
TFL

TDL

P2P Lvl 1

P2P Lvl
2

106

124

47

15

HO

IND Lvl 1

IND Lvl 2

DIR

NI

Other

8

15

26

74

3

2.7%

8.7%

3.7%

19.5%

3.5%

13.3 min

43.4 min

18.6 min

97.7 min

17.5 min

13

31

20

39

5.8%

21.5%

3.1%

17.2%

28.4 min

105.2 min

15.2 min

84.1 min

25

15

27

83

30.4%

2.9%

4.9%

20.8%

267.6 min

25.0 min

42.0 min

183.3 min

94

58

85

92

13

14.5%

8.7%

9.3%

18.1%

1.7%

105.8 min

63.3 min

67.6 min

132.6 min

12.3 min

Teacher A (500 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

25.1%

28.2%

5.3%

3.3%

Total Observed Minutes

125.5 min

140.7 min

26.6 min

16.7 min

26

67

8

4

Not
Observed

Teacher B (489 total minutes across 9 sessions*)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

3.1%

48.5%

0.4%

0.4%

Total Observed Minutes

15.0 min

237.0 min

2.2 min

1.9 min

64

102

9

4

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher C (880 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

7.4%

32.0%

1.2%

0.4%

Total Observed Minutes

65.0 min

281.8 min

10.8 min

3.6 min

60

161

36

28

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher D (730 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

6.8%

35.3%

2.8%

2.8%

Total Observed Minutes

49.6 min

258.0 min

20.4 min

20.4 min

Not
Observed

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s data is based on 9 sessions.
TFL- Teacher-Facilitated Learning; TDL-Teacher-Directed Learning; P2P- Peer-to-Peer Learning; HO- Hands-on; IND- Student Independent Work/Activities;
DIR- Teacher Giving Directions/Instructions; NI- Non-instructional; Lvl- Level of Intensity

234

Table 15:
Overall Results of Duration of CAR Integration
ABGK
Lvl 1

ABGK
Lvl 2

ABGK
Lvl 3

BBGK
Lvl 1

BBGK
Lvl 2

BBGK
Lvl 3

Total Frequency

67

8

13

17

6

3

% of Total Observed Instruction

7.6%

1.5%

3.3%

2.3%

1.0%

0.4%

Total Observed Minutes

38.0 min

7.4 min

16.6 min

11.3 min

5.2 min

2.0 min

64

4

5

31

3

TS Lvl 1

TS Lvl 2

TS Lvl 3

TS Lvl 4

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher A (500 total minutes across 10 sessions)

Teacher B (489 total minutes across 9 sessions*)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

6.7%

0.6%

1.2%

2.8%

0.8%

Total Observed Minutes

32.6 min

3.1 min

5.7 min

13.8 min

3.9 min

Total Frequency

34

5

2

12

13

% of Total Observed Instruction

2.1%

0.5%

0.4%

0.8%

2.9%

Total Observed Minutes

18.9 min

4.0 min

3.1 min

7.4 min

25.5 min

Total Frequency

8

1

4

5

% of Total Observed Instruction

Not
Observed

0.8%

0.1%

0.8%

1.1%

Total Observed Minutes

5.9 min

0.6 min

6.1 min

8.3 min

3
Not
Observed

0.6%
3.1 min

Teacher C (880 total minutes across 10 sessions)

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher D (730 total minutes across 10 sessions)

235

Table 15 (cont’d)
TF Lvl 1

TF Lvl 2 TF Lvl 3

57

6

TF Lvl 4

CSV Lvl 1

CSV
Lvl 2

CSV Lvl
3

CSV Lvl
4

INF Lvl
1

INF Lvl
2

53

9

13

7

64

9

6.6%

1.4%

1.6%

1.2%

5.1%

1.3%

32.8 min

7.0 min

8.1 min

6.1 min

25.5 min

6.4 min

67

6

1

31

5

0.4%

2.0%

0.3%

1.8 min

9.9 min

1.4 min

INF Lvl 3

Teacher A (500 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency

16

% of Total Observed Instruction

3.6%

0.4%

3.3%

Total Observed Minutes

18.1 min

2.0 min

16.6 min

51

10

7

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher B (489 total minutes across 9 sessions*)
Total Frequency

2

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

% of Total Observed Instruction

3.0%

1.2%

1.0%

0.2%

4.7%

0.2%

Total Observed Minutes

14.8 min

5.9 min

5.1 min

0.8 min

23.2 min

1.2 min

57

15

1

28

2

1

2

6

4

1.6%

0.2%

0.02%

0.1%

0.5%

0.3%

14.1 min

1.6 min

0.2 min

0.5 min

4.2 min

2.9 min

17

2

8

5

4

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

0.8%

0.6%

0.1%

5.6 min

4.4 min

0.7 min

Teacher C (880 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

1.6%

0.6%

0.1%

Total Observed Minutes

14.2 min

5.7 min

0.6 min

32

7

9

Not
Observed

Not
Observed

Teacher D (730 total minutes across 10 sessions)
Total Frequency
% of Total Observed Instruction

1.4%

0.5%

0.6%

Total Observed Minutes

9.9 min

3.5 min

4.1 min

Not
Observed

1.3%

0.2%

9.4 min

1.1 min

*One of the video recorded sessions (Teacher B, session 10) was damaged and not included in the data analysis. Thus, Teacher B’s data is based on 9 sessions.
ABGK- Activation of Background Knowledge; BBGK- Building Background Knowledge; TS- Text Structure; TF- Text Features; CSV- Content-Specific
Vocabulary; INF- Inference; Lvl- Level of Intensity

236

REFERENCES

237

REFERENCES

Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea
construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46.
Akamatsu, C. T. (1988). Summarizing stories: The role of instruction in text structure in
learning to write. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 294-302.
Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2001). Structure to facilitate reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64, 368-372. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.5.9
Allen, T. E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students:
1974 and 1983. In A.N. Schildroth & M.A. Karchmer (Eds.) Deaf children in
America. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 255291). New York: Longman.
Andrews, J. F. & Mason, J. M. (1991). Strategy usage among deaf and hearing readers.
Exceptional Children, 57(6), 536–545.
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Martaeu, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater
reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606.
Bader, L. A., & Pearce, D. L. (2008). Bader reading and language inventory (6th edition).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Baily, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing. Family Practice
25(2), 127-131. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmn003
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayer Corporation. (2004). The Bayer facts of science education X: Are the nation’s
colleges and universities adequately preparing elementary school teachers of
tomorrow to teach science? Executive summary. Mission, KS: Market Research
Institute.
Beck, I. & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral
vocabulary repertories through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School
Journal, 107(3), 251–271.

238

Biancarosa, C. & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in
middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved
from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf.
Bluestein, N. (2010). Unlocking text features for determining importance in expository
text: A strategy for struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 63(7), 597-600.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Boyd, E. & George, K. (1973). The effect of science inquiry on the abstract
categorization behavior of deaf children. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 10, 91-99.
Bringham, M. & Hartman, M. C. (2010). What is your prediction? Teaching the
metacognitive skill of prediction to a class of sixth and seventh-grade students
who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(2), 137-143.
Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning
about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413.
Brown P. & Brewer L. (1996). Cognitive processes of deaf and hearing skilled and less
skilled readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, (1), 263-270.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. Originally published in
Contemporary approaches to cognition, and reprinted in J. M. Anglin (Ed.).
Jerome S. Bruner: Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability and component skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L. & Carey, D. A. (1998). Teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge of a student’s problem solving in elementary
arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385-401.
Carptenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.P. & Loef, M. (1989). Using
knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An
experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Davey, B., LaSasso, C., & Macready, G. B. (1983). A comparison of reading
comprehension task performance for deaf and hearing subjects. Journal of

239

Speech and Hearing Research, 26(6), 22-628.
Davey, J. W., Gugiu, P. C., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2010). Quantitative methods for
estimating the reliability of qualitative data. Journal of MultiDiciplinary
Evaluation 6(13), 140-162.
Davis, S. J. & Winek, J. (1989). Improving expository writing by increasing background
knowledge. Journal of Reading, 33(3). 178-181.
Dedoose Version 5.0.11, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting
qualitative and mixed method research data (2014). Los Angeles, CA:
SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC (www.dedoose.com).
Dewey, J. (1932/1990). The child and the curriculum/ The school and society.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Diebold, T. J. & Waldron, M. B. (1998). Designing instructional formats: The effects of
verbal and pictorial components on hearing-impaired student’s comprehension
of science concepts. American Annals of the Deaf, 133(1), 30-35.
Dochy, F. (1994). Prior knowledge and learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 4698-4702).
Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press.
Donin, J., Doehring, D. G., & Browns, F. (1991). Text comprehension and reading
achievement in orally educated hearing impaired children. Discourse Processes,
14, 307-337.
Dymock, S. & Nicholson, T. (2010). “High 5!" Strategies to Enhance Comprehension of
Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 166-78.
Easterbrooks, S. & Beal-Alvarez, J. (2012). Literacy acquisition in students who are deaf
and hard of hearing. Oxford University Press Series, Professional Perspectives on
Deafness: Evidence and Applications. New York, NY: Oxford
Easterbrooks, S. R., Lederberg, A. R., Miller, E. M., Bergeron, J. P., & Connor, C. M.
(2008). Emergent literacy skills during early childhood in children with hearing
loss: Strengths and weaknesses. Volta Review, 108(2), 91-114.
Easterbrooks, S. & Stephenson, B. (2006). An examination of twenty literacy, science,
and mathematics practices used to educate students who are deaf and hard of
hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 385-397.
Ewolt, C., Israelite, N., & Dodds, R. (1992). The ability of deaf students to understand
text: A comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. American Annals
of the Deaf, 137, 351-361.

240

Fagan, M. K. & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Hearing experience and receptive vocabulary
development in deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 15(2),149-161. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq001
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. & Empson, S. (1996).
Learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction: A longitudinal
study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
Fennema, E., Franke, M., Carpenter, T. P. & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children’s
knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3),
555-583.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2009). Background knowledge: The missing piece of the
comprehension puzzle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle
school readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 57(5), 367-376. doi:
10.1002/jaal.266
Fisher, D. & Ivey, G. (2005). Literacy and language as learning in content area classes: A
departure from “every teacher is a teacher of reading.” Action in Teacher
Education, 27(2), 3-11.
Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A Schema for Testing the
Level of Cognitive Mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education
Research.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Furth, H. G. (1966). A comparison of reading test norms of deaf and hearing children.
American Annals of the Deaf, 111(2), 461-462.
Furth, H. G. (1966). Thinking without language: Psychological implications of deafness.
New York: Free Press.
Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacy: Ideology in discourse. (3rd ed.)
New York: Taylor and Francis.
Given, L. M., & Saumure, K. (2008). Trustworthiness. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage
encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 895-896). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L., (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company

241

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during
narrative text comprehension, Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater
agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Center for Educator
Compensation Reform, 1-33.
Hackmann, D. G. and Waters, D. L. (1998). Breaking away from tradition: The
Farmington High School restructuring experience. NASSP Bulletin, 82(596) 8392. doi: 10.1177/019263659808259615
Hartman, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability measures.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116.
Howell, J. J. & Luckner, J. L. (2003). Helping one deaf student develop content literacy
skills: An action research report. Communications Disorders Quarterly. 25(1),
23- 27.
Hyde, M., Zevenbergen, R. & Power, D. (2003). Deaf and hard of hearing students'
performance on arithmetic word problems. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(1),
56-64.
Jackson, D. W., Paul, P. V. & Smith, J. C. (1997). Prior knowledge and reading
comprehension ability of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 2(3), 172-184.
Johnson, H. (2004). U.S. Deaf Education Teacher preparation programs: A look at the
present and a vision for the future. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(2), 75-91.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences,
learning, and instruction. Part VII, Prior knowledge (pp. 417-430). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelly, L. P. & Barac-Cikoja, D. (2007). The comprehension of skilled deaf readers: The
roles of word recognition and other potentially critical aspects of competence. In
K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and
written language (pp. 244-280). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kelley, M. J. & Clausen-Grace, N. (2010), Guiding students through expository text with
text feature walks. The Reading Teacher, 64, 191-195. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.3.4
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2004). The Construction-Integration model of text comprehension and its

242

implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models of processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Kispal, A. Department for Children, Schools and Families, (2008). Effective teaching of
inference skills for reading (DCSF-RR031). Retrieved from:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7918/1/DCSF-RR031.pdf
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Lang, H., Huppa, M., Monte, D., Brown, S., Babb, I., & Scheifele, P. (2006) A Study of
Technical Signs in Science: Implications for Lexical Database Development.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(1): 65-79.
Lederberg, A. R. & Beal-Alvarez, J. (2011). Expressing meaning: From communicative
intent to building vocabulary (pp. 258-275). In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, second edition.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lederberg, A. R. & Spencer, P. E. (2001). Vocabulary development of deaf and hard of
hearing children. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark, & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Context,
Cognition and Deafness (pp.88-112). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory-4. (4th Ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Luckner, J. & Cooke, C. (2010). A summary of the vocabulary research with students
who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(1), 38-67.
Luckner, J., Sebald, A. N., Cooney, J., Young, J., & Goodwin Muir, S. (2006). An
examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American
Annals for the Deaf, 150 (5), 443-456.
Luetke-Stahlman, B., Griffiths, C., & Montgomery, N. (1998). Development of text
structure knowledge as assessed by spoken and signed retellings of a deaf secondgrade student. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 337-346.
Maiorana-Basas, M. (2013). Content area literacy practices in the D/HH
classroom: A case study of a middle school social studies teacher. Poster
Session: Association of College Educators- Deaf/ Hard of Hearing National
Conference, Santa Fe, NM.
Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Juan, M., Gygax, P., Madden, C. J., & Rosa, S. (2009). Reading
between the lines: The activation of background knowledge during text

243

comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1). doi: 10.1075/p&c.17.1.03mar
Marques, J. F. & McCall, C. (2005). The application of interrater reliability as a
solidification instrument in a phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report
10(3), 439-462. Retrieved [July 27, 2014], from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/marques.pdf
Marschark, M. & Hauser, P. C. (2008). Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M., Lang, H. G. & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: From
research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, P. (2014). Guided reading, a snapshot. K12 Reader: Reading Instruction
Resources for Teachers and Parents. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from
http://www.k12reader.com/guided-reading-a-snapshot/
Martin, D. S. (2006). The social studies curriculum. Deaf Learners: Developments in
Curriculum and Instruction. (pp. 67-74). Washington D. C.: Gallaudet University
Press.
Martin, D. (n.d.). Deaf learners and successful cognitive achievement – Reaching every
learner: Differentiating instruction in theory and practice. LEARN NC. Retrieved
September 22, 2014, from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/every-learner/6393
McMackin, M. C. & Lawrence, S. (2001). Investigating inferences: Constructing
meaning from expository texts. Reading Horizons, 42(2). 117-137.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education (5th ed.).
New York: Longman.
Merlin, J. (2005). Bayer facts of science education XI: 2005 [Electronic version].
Retrieved from http://www.bayerus.com/msms/news/facts.c
fm?mode=detail&id=survey05
Meyer, B. J. F. & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading
comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 4(1), 127-152. Retrieved from
http://www.iejee.com/4_1_2011/8_IEJEE_4_1_Meyer_Ray.pdf.
Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles and practices (5th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and empowerment for
urban youth. New York: Peter Lang.

244

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19.
Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction
in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 46-55. doi:
10.1598/RT.59.1.5
Nagy, W. & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as
language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108. Retrieved
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/RRQ.011/full.
National Council for the Social Studies (2007). Social studies in the era of No Child Left
Behind: A position statement of the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS
Position Statement). Social Education, 71(5), 284.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Negin, G. A. (1987). The effects of syntactic segmentation on the reading
comprehension of hearing impaired students. Reading Psychology, 8(1), 23–31.
Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. Reading
Teacher, 59(4), 302-312.
Nilsson, N. L. (2008). A critical analysis of eight informal reading inventories. The
Reading Teacher, 61(7), 526-536. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.7.2
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. (2002).
Nolan, T. E. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive
strategies, Journal of Reading, 35, 132-138.
Nover, S. M., Andrews, J. F., Baker, S., Everhart, V. S., & Bradford, V. S. (2002). Star
schools’ USDLC engaged learning project No. 5 ASL/English bilingual staff
development project in deaf education staff development in ASL/English bilingual
instruction for deaf students: Evaluation and impact study final report 19972002.Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico School for the Deaf.
Nunes, T. & Moreno, C. (2002). An intervention program for promoting deaf pupils
achievement in mathematics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7(2),
120-133.

245

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
O’Brien, D. G. & Stewart, R. A. (1990). Preservice teachers’ perspectives on why every
teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 22, 101-129.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A. & Moje, E. (1990). Why content area literacy is difficult
to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and
school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
Peterson, C. L., Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2000).
Building reading proficiency at the secondary school level: A guide to resources.
San Marcos, TX: Southwest Texas State University and the Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Pittman, A. L. (2008). Short-term word-learning rate in children with normal hearing and
children with hearing loss in limited and extended high-frequency bandwidth.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 785-797.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of- the-century status
report. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 11-27). New York: Guilford.
Paul, P. V. & Jackson, D. W. (1993). Toward a psychology of deafness: Theoretical and
empirical perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pintner, R. & Patterson, D. (1916). A measurement of the language ability of deaf
children. Psychological Review, 23, 413-436.
Queen, J. A., Algozzine, R. F., & Eaddy, M. A. (1997). The road we traveled:
Scheduling in the 4 x 4 block. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 88-99.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 214-222.
doi:10.1177/003172170008200307
Rapin, I. (1986). Helping deaf children acquire language: Lessons from the past.
International Journal of Paediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 11, 213-223.
Renaissance Learning (2013). STAR reading: Technical manual. Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Robertson, L. (2009). Literacy and deafness: Listening and spoken language. San Diego,
CA: Plural Publishing, Inc. Yoshinaga-Itano, C. & Gravel, J.S. (2001). The
evidence for universal hearing screening. American Journal of Audiology, 10(2),
62-63.

246

Robinson, W. P. & Tajfel, H. (1996). Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy
of Henri Tajfel. Oxford: Routledge.
Roe, B., & Burns, P. (2010). Informal reading inventory: Pre-primer to twelfth grade.
(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.
Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.
35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanacore, J. & Palumbo, A. (2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of
view. The Educational Forum, 73, 67- 74.
Sarachan-Diely, A. (1985). Written narrative of deaf and hearing students: Story recall
and inference. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 151–159.
Schirnmer, B. R. (1993). Constructing meaning from narrative text: Cognitive processes
of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 46-54.
Schirmer, B. R. (1997). Boosting reading success: Language, literacy and content area
instruction for deaf. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(1), 52-55.
Schirmer, B. R. (2003). Using verbal protocols to identify the reading strategies of
students who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply?
Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 83-117.
Schirmer B. R. & Bond, W. L. (1990). Enhancing the hearing impaired child’s
knowledge of story structure to improve comprehension of narrative text. Reading
Improvement, 27, 242-254.
Schirmer, B. R., & Williams, C. (2011). Approaches to Reading Instruction. In The
Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp.
115-129). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schirmer, B. R. & Winter, C. R. (1993). Use of cognitive schema by children who are
deaf for comprehending narrative text. Reading Improvement, 30(1), 26-34.
Scholastic (2014). What is guided reading? Retrieved June 30, 2014, from
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/guidedreading/pdfs/whatis.pdf
Serrano Pau, C. (1995) The deaf child and solving problems of arithmetic: The
importance of comprehensive reading. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 287291.
Shanahan, T. (2012). [Web log message]. Retrieved from:
http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/01/disciplinary-literacy-is-not-new-

247

name.html
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review. 78(1), 40-59.
Singleton, J. L. & Supalla, S. (2003). Assessing children’s proficiency in natural signed
languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education.
(pp. 289-302). New York: Oxford University Press.
Skrobarcek, S. A., Chang, H. M., Thompson, C., Johnson, J., Atteberry, R., Westbrook,
R., and Manus, A. (1997). Collaboration for instructional improvement:
Analyzing the academic impact of a block scheduling plan. NASSP Bulletin,
81(589). 104-111. doi: 10.1177/019263659708158915
Skutnabb- Kangus, T. (1990). Language, literacy and minorities. London, England:
Minority Rights Group.
Stahl, K. A. D. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading
comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy
Research, 40(3), 359-393.
Stahl, S. & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strangman, N. & Hall, T. E. (2004). Background knowledge. Wakefield, MA: National
Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from
Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement
approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 9(4).
Squire, J. R. (1983). Composing and comprehending: two sides of the same basic
process. Language Arts, 60, 581-589.
Stake, R. (2000). Case Studies. In. N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed. pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stewart, D. A. & Kluwin, T. N. (2001). Teaching deaf and hard of hearing students:
Content, strategies and curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Strassman, B. K. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who are deaf: A review
of research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(3), 140-149.
TechSmith Corporation (2011). Camtasia (version 1.2.2) [software]. Available from
http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia-features.html

248

TechSmith Corporation (2014). Screencast Pro. Available from
http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia-features.html
Thornton, S. J. (2001). Educating the educators: Rethinking subject matter and methods.
Theory Into Practice, 40(1), 72–78.
Traxler, C. B. (2000). Measuring up to performance standards in reading and
mathematics: Achievement of selected deaf and hard of hearing students in the
national norming of the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337-348.
Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2010). Reading and deafness: Theory, research,
and practice. Canada: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Trezek, B. J., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2011). Processes and components of reading. In
The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (2nd ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 99-114). New York: Oxford University Press.
Trybus, R. & Karchmer, M. (1977). School achievement scores of hearing impaired
children: National data on achievement status and growth patterns. American
Annals of the Deaf. 122(2), 62-69.
Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2010). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across
the curriculum. (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Valli, C. (2001). Basic Syntax Types. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An
Introduction (5th ed., ). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Valli, C., Lucas, C., & Mulrooney, K. J., (2005). Linguistics of American Sign Language.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walters, J. (2006). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Adult Education
Quarterly, 56(2), 166-167. doi:10.1177/0741713605283440
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test, 3rd edition. San Antonio, TX:
Pearson.
Weisberg, R. (1988). 1980s: A change in focus of reading comprehension research: a
review of reading/learning disabilities research based on an interactive model of
reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 149-159.
White, R. (1999). A primer on pedagogy: Basic methodology for the beginning social
studies teacher. Southern Social Studies Journal, 25(1), 2–11.

249

Williams, C. (2012). Promoting vocabulary learning in young children who are d/Deaf
and hard of hearing: Translating research into practice. American Annals of the
Deaf, 156(5), 501–508
Wondershare Software Co., Ltd. (2013). Wondershare (4.4) [software]. Available from
http://www.wondershare.net/mac-video-converter-ultimate/index.html
Woolsey, M. L., Herring, T. J., & Satterfield, S. T. (2009). Social studies instruction in
signing programs for deaf and hard of hearing students: An ecobehavioral
assessment. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(4), 400-412. doi: 17612AAD154.4
Yin, R. (1994). Case-Study research: Design and Methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yopp, H. K., Yopp, R. H., & Boshop, A. (2009). Vocabulary instruction for academic
success. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. DOI: www.shelleducation.com.

250