1 The Language of Historical Thinking Read-Alouds

Language is understood as a social construct; thus, understandings of language are conflated by social purposes (Kress, 2005), power (Nieto, 2002), and identity (Gee, 2004). From a functional position, language can be both expressed and received in a variety of settings and for a variety of purposes (Halliday, 1977, 1978). When linguistic exchanges happen in classrooms, students need proficiency across several academic registers, which requires teachers to be adept at making complex linguistic processes transparent (Schleppegrell, 2012). In this chapter, we explore the confluence of these aspects of language as part of an exploration of pre-service teachers’ (PST) historical thinking read-aloud (HTRA) lessons, which is part of a larger action research investigation into strategies to support PSTs’ planning and teaching of academic language (AL) in elementary social studies. Currently, little research exists to support PSTs in the teaching and planning of AL for elementary social studies, and this study offers important insights into how PSTs plan for and enact academic discourse through HTRA lessons. We begin this chapter by exploring existing literature on the nexus of language and read-alouds. Then, we present our research methods including a three-phase analysis process, followed by the findings and related discussion. Finally, we share concluding thoughts and implications for supporting PSTs in the planning and teaching of HTRAs.

2 Review of the Literature

2.1 Role of Language

Social interactions and interpersonal skills have a reciprocal relationship (Vygotsky, 1978), as anyone who has observed how children learn can attest. In a classic illustration, Halliday’s (1977) influential work on systemic functional linguistics was informed by his observations of his son, Nigel, whom he watched linguistically explore the small world of his living room. Halliday (1977, 1978) describes semantic pathways along which individuals make contextualized decisions that inform their linguistic transactions. These linguistic choices are also present in academic settings, though children need support when engaging with academic registers that require knowledge about language (Schleppegrell, 2012) and the language of teaching and learning (see Fillmore & Snow, 2000). For example, considerations of young children’s discursive interactions were documented via case study research in a preschool classroom with Haitian American children by Ballenger (1999) who observed children’s energetic interactions with text and the world around them and used these interactions as opportunities to build their language knowledge. We posit Ballenger’s knowledge of her students, knowledge of the role of language, and knowledge of language informed her instructional decisions and served as a model for elevating all three components in practice.

Importantly, how teachers manage interactions around language can either support or hinder learning, and having language knowledge as a teacher means that one values the linguistic diversity and perspectives of all students (Nieto, 2002). While Nieto’s (2002) work was related to English learners and the subtractive practices associated with deficit thinking, her philosophy set the stage for critical pedagogy around language/literacy.

Pedagogical language knowledge and dialogic language knowledge can work in tandem to support teachers’ abilities to develop and maintain strong classroom discourse. Bunch (2013) synthesized existing research on pedagogical language knowledge. While his research focused primarily on teachers of English learners, he posited that “the pedagogical language knowledge of mainstream teachers can be construed as knowledge of language directly related to disciplinary teaching and learning and situated in the particular (and multiple) contexts in which teaching and learning take place” (p. 307; italics in original). Dialogic language knowledge reflects an understanding that classroom discourse can operate along a continuum from monologic to dialogic talk, which dialogic representing student-centered and student-driven conversations (see Alexander, 2006; Reznitskaya, 2012). Our primary purpose was to find strategies to support PSTs’ planning and teaching of academic language (see Wrenn & Stanley, 2022), and as such, developing their pedagogical language knowledge and dialogic language knowledge through these lenses was fundamental to this action research study.

Through this process of working to find strategies to support our PSTs, it became very clear to as part of the action research process that there were differences between students from the first semester (i.e., Groups 1 and 2) and the second semester (i.e., Group 3). In particular, earlier analysis demonstrated that Group 3’s HTRA lessons were markedly more aligned with critical talk moves (Schieble et al. 2020). Although Schieble et al. (2020) focused on critical conversations in middle school English Language Arts (ELA) classrooms, we maintain that the families of critical talk moves, including inquiry, disruptive, and inclusive talk moves (Schieble et al., 2020) are inherently embedded in the function of the HTRA with social studies teaching. Thus, applying critical talk moves through data analysis became of high interest as we parsed out what strategies were best supporting our PSTs with academic language associated with their teaching of the social studies read-alouds.

2.2 Historical Thinking Read-Alouds

Historical thinking read-aloud (HTRAs) lessons are planned around historical thinking concepts (Krutka & Bauml, 2018). Types of historical thinking include historical significance, historical perspectives, cause and consequence, continuity and change, primary sources, and ethical dimensions (Center for the Study of Historical Consciousness, 2014). Additionally, HTRAs integrate disciplinary literacy and literacy skills into one lesson plan. At its most basic level, disciplinary literacy refers to “literacy skills specialized to history, science, mathematics, literature, or other subject matter,” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, p. 44), yet it should also be inquiry-driven and socially oriented (Moje, 2008). Moje’s (2015) explanation of disciplinary literacy includes a strong social-cultural connection.

Over the past decade, scholars have steadily been progressing toward a new construct—critical disciplinary literacy (CDL). CDL refers to the practice of unpacking dynamics of power and culture within disciplinary settings (Dyches, 2018). Understandings of CDL informed the analysis of our data, but our PSTs planned their HTRA with a disciplinary literacy focus. We wanted our PSTs to teach against single stories and shed light on critical narratives (e.g., Tschida et al., 2014) juxtaposed with historical thinking (Wineburg, 2001). However, it was through the analysis process that we began to see patterns associated with CDL emerge over time. Research on expanding the HTRA into a uniquely CDL lesson plan exists (Wrenn & Gallagher, 2021); however, at the time of this action research study, our primary goal was to support our PSTs in the development of an HTRA lesson that was designed to foster academic discourse among their elementary students.

2.3 Read-Alouds

Teachers conduct read-alouds in a variety of contexts, and they have been widely recognized as an effective practice in literacy classrooms (National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, 2000). An effective read-aloud involves a teacher reading a book to a group of elementary students and engaging them in conversations before, during, and after reading (e.g., Barrentine, 1996). Importantly, older elementary students benefit from read-alouds. For example, in a year-long study of a literacy–curriculum program, Walpole et al. (2017) found that read-alouds were associated with gains in fluency and comprehension for third and fifth-grade students. Not only are read-alouds an effective strategy to support comprehension, but also, this strategy may also increase exposure to content knowledge. For example, upper elementary teachers may rely upon read-alouds for integrating ELA and social studies (Brugar & Whitlock, 2019). Brugar and Whitlock (2019) interviewed eight fifth-grade teachers and concluded that seven of them used read-alouds as part of their regular instruction, and four of the teachers believed historical fiction was also an important part of integrating ELA and social studies. While these studies did not focus on HTRAs, they do suggest read-alouds are an important part of elementary students’ learning across the curriculum.

2.4 Texts for HTRAs

With the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), most states in the USA began to emphasize more informational text in elementary classrooms. While 80–90% of elementary teachers depend on basal readers and other commercially packaged materials for their reading curricula, the more rigorous Common Core State Standards necessitate supplemental informational texts to meet the goal of 50% exposure to the informational genre (Braker-Walters, 2014). However, this transition is challenging because young students traditionally receive little instructional reading time devoted to informational texts (Duke, 2000). Duke’s (2000) landmark study brought to light that her first-grade participants only received 3.6 min of exposure to informational text per day. According to Duke (2000), informational texts may include informational-narrative (i.e., information presented using plot), informational-poetic (i.e., information explained in poem form), and informational (e.g., biographies). In addition, we included historical fiction as an option for PSTs during the planning of their HTRA lesson because historical fiction can also develop historical thinking (Wineburg, 2001). In this study, PSTs used picture books in the form of informational-narrative, informational texts, or historical fiction for their HTRA lessons.

2.5 HTRAs and Research Trends

In this study, PSTs integrated ELA and social studies by aligning with a hybridity approach, which makes them “more likely to foster disciplinary literacy in equitable and lasting ways” (Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019, p. 526). This way of integrating acknowledges the discipline-specific way of thinking and fills a gap left by recent US literacy standards which do not fully address disciplinary ideologies (see Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019). It was our intent that the HTRAs would create a space for our PSTs to engage elementary students in conversations about a historical person or event through a pedagogical approach that equally privileged literacy and social studies. This merging of research and practice around literacy-based read-alouds and disciplinary thinking clearly aligns with the hybridity approach (Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019), which privileges the affordances of literacy and the given discipline.

Both the HTRA and research on hybridity are new areas of research, but we feel that in this case, history, namely historical thinking, was the discipline, and listening comprehension and discussion were the literacy skills. This study supports the current call for more research that demonstrates the juxtaposition of authentic disciplinary literacy and literacy practices (Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019). We were guided by the question: How does pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the role of language influence historical thinking read-aloud lessons?

3 Methods

In this study, we investigated the HTRAs of elementary education undergraduate students. This research was part of a larger action research study designed to investigate PSTs’ academic discourse practices and the strategies that support them (see Wrenn & Stanley, 2022). In the following sections, we describe each aspect of the methods beginning with the research context and ending with an in-depth explanation of the analysis process.

3.1 Context

This study took place at a large, regional university in the southeastern USA. The university is situated within a rural area that is classified as a high-poverty area and reflects many of the larger economic disparities in the southeastern USA. About 1,000 students are enrolled in its elementary education program. Research was conducted in the spring 2019 and fall 2019 semesters as part of a larger, collaborative action research study focused on investigating academic language practices and supportive strategies in elementary social studies instruction (see Wrenn & Stanley, 2022).

3.2 Participants

Altogether, 61 PSTs consented to participate in the larger study via a research process approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (UMCIRB 18-002,568). Due to attrition, 60 were included in the HTRA study. All the students were female and predominantly white. Notably, racial demographics were not collected from participants, but participants reflected the program’s demographics and the larger racial disparity in elementary teacher preparation programs in the USA (King, 2018).

All participants were dually enrolled in social studies methods and a related practicum for grades 3–5. PSTs taught all the lessons they planned for their social studies, math, science, and reading courses within the practicum at local elementary schools. Students were placed in triads for planning and teaching, with some PSTs in dyads; groupings depended upon availability and space in the practicum setting. Within their assigned dyad or triad, PSTs co-planned the HTRA lesson, co-taught it in the practicum setting, and co-wrote one group reflection. Groups 1 and 2 received the same methods instruction; however, Group 1’s cooperating teachers engaged in professional learning communities (PLC) with the researchers (i.e., university-based cooperating teachers, authors of this chapter) as part of the larger study. At the PLC meetings, classroom teachers and the researchers discussed topics and strategies related to AL. There was no difference in performance across the two groups as measured by classroom assignments and teaching of lessons as scored on a rubric (Wrenn & Stanley, 2020).

Group 1. In the spring semester of 2019, Melissa taught the social studies methods course, and Julie taught the related practicum to Group 1 (n = 19). PSTs were divided into three triads and five dyads and placed in third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classrooms. Groups 1 and 2 received identical classroom instruction about academic language.

Group 2. In the spring semester of 2019, Melissa taught the social studies methods course, and Julie taught the related practicum to Group 2 (n = 20). PSTs were divided into six triads and one dyad; all PSTs were placed in third-grade classrooms.

Group 3. In the fall semester of 2019, Melissa taught both the social studies methods course and the related practicum to Group 3 (n = 21). PSTs were divided into seven triads and placed into third-grade classrooms. Additionally, she adjusted instruction related to disciplinary literacy and academic discourse based upon the lessons learned through the first semester of the action research study. Notably, Group 3 participated in focused mini-lessons on academic language and more explicit guidance on discursive strategies than Groups 1 and 2.

3.3 Instructional Differences Across Semesters

In order to fully understand how pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge influenced the PSTs’ practice, we must first explain their language learning experiences. These differences can be described in three main categories—modeling language, mini-lessons, and equity-oriented stance. In the following sections, we explain these differences to illustrate the pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge opportunities that Group 3 had as part of their coursework.

Modeling Language. One example of the differences between the first semester and second semester of the study was how Melissa modeled the HTRA in class. Melissa used the RAND model of comprehension (Snow, 2002) both semesters to help PSTs conceptualize the sociocultural influence of comprehension. While she modeled in both semesters, with Group 3 she explained the rationale for this lesson by connecting it to their knowledge about expressive and receptive language. Additionally, with Group 3 Melissa more clearly articulated that it was the goal of the HTRA to capitalize on what they knew about students and language to identify questions designed to engage elementary students and build a bridge between where the children were developmentally and where the PSTs wanted to push them in terms of historical thinking.

Mini-Lessons. Another difference was the implementation of academic language mini-lessons for Group 3. While focused instruction on academic language demands occurred with Groups 1 and 2, Group 3 received more comprehensive instruction. For example, Group 3’s mini-lessons involved activities like identifying examples and non-examples of revoicing (O’Connor & Michaels, 1993) or examining a variety of language functions, then creating a chart to illustrate how language functions and social studies standards aligned. While Melissa asked Groups 1 and 2 to identify the academic language demands in the standards, they did not create charts that required careful analysis. Finally, she did not make the discursive connection by having a class discussion around their findings, as she did with Group 3. Additionally, Group 3 PSTs received explicit instruction on academic registers (Schleppegrell, 2012) and applications for social studies lessons. Thus, PSTs in Group 3 had been taught more pedagogical language knowledge than Groups 1 and 2.

Equity-oriented stance. Simultaneously, Melissa strengthened her position on equity literacy (Gorski & Swalwell, 2015) and worked to articulate more clearly the role of critical narratives in social studies education. For example, in both semesters, she taught Socratic seminar and debate as ways to engage elementary students in meaningful discussion. The two methods privilege dialogic talk; however, for Group 3, Melissa intentionally asked PSTs to consider classroom talk through an equity lens by aligning discourse with critical narratives (e.g., historical events from multiple perspectives). Another key difference regarding equity and language was in book selection across the two semesters. PSTs in Group 3 learned more about how to select texts that challenge dominant narratives (e.g., single-storied views of history) and how to align those texts with equity-oriented questions.

3.4 Data Sources

A lesson plan template used for this study was designed to elicit historical thinking among elementary students (Krutka & Bauml, 2018). We obtained the HTRA lesson plan template through a collaborative planning meeting between members of our academic department and Dr. Dan Krutka in the fall of 2018. The HTRA template (Krutka & Bauml, 2018) appealed to us because of its potential for supporting PSTs in leading discussions about text with elementary students. Also, being new to teaching social studies methods, Melissa found it useful for supporting PSTs in the teaching of historical thinking.

Data sources included lesson plans (n = 19), transcripts of videos from teaching (n = 19), and PSTs’ self-reflections of their teaching (n = 19). Due to technical difficulties three sets of lessons plans and related data from Group 1 were excluded from this data set. Altogether, the HTRA teaching artifacts included 19 sets which consisted of the following: one lesson plan, one video, one transcript of video, and one self-reflection conducted as a group. Additionally, pre-assessments and post-assessments were conducted as part of the larger study. The pre-assessment results confirm that all PSTs, regardless of grouping, had similar understandings of academic language and social studies at the beginning of the course.

3.5 Data Analysis

Using Saldaña (2016) as a guide, Melissa conducted data analysis in a series of phases—pre coding, first cycle coding, second cycle coding; she was the lead researcher on the project and conducted the analysis for this study independently. Julie confirmed the analysis and participated in the writing of the results. In the following sections, we describe each phase in detail and provide supportive examples to ensure reliability and consistency (Merriam, 2009).

Pre-cycle Coding. During data collection, Melissa wrote researcher memos and reflections about instruction related to the HTRA lessons, and we discussed the PSTs’ teaching of the lessons together. For the fall semester with Group 3 students, Melissa reflected on this process independently. Post hoc, Melissa read through the lesson plans, reflections, and transcripts for each dyad/triad. Through this process, Melissa wrote analytic memos through which she noticed that PSTs asked questions during their teaching that were not in their lesson plans; these observations informed the first cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2016).

First Cycle Coding. Melissa engaged in a two-step, first cycle coding process. First, she applied an approach similar to exploratory coding (Saldaña, 2016), as she compared the questions PSTs had written in their lesson plans to those that they asked to elementary students. Melissa manually coded the lesson plans and transcripts to determine which questions were approved during the planning process and which ones were added during teaching by PSTs. She also noted questions that were semantically similar to those planned but may have been syntactically different; she counted these as being approved during the lesson submission process. While coding, Melissa observed that PSTs’ questions and comments which were outside of the lesson plan were not as open-ended and often less critical when compared to approved questions (see Table 9.1). One group’s reflection said they were trying to teach the dominant narrative of Columbus because their elementary students “didn’t know anything about him.” This statement exemplifies the difficulty some PSTs had with teaching against single stories and becoming more critical (e.g., Tschida et al., 2014). At this point, Melissa engaged in a critical conversation with a knowledgeable colleague to determine if her data analysis was reliable and discussed appropriate coding options based upon the exploratory coding process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ultimately, she decided to conduct a more deductive analysis of the questions PSTs asked to reduce the impact of her own bias as the practitioner–researcher because she wanted the PSTs to perform better over time.

Table 9.1 Excerpt showing questions planned compared to questions asked
Full size table

For the next part of first cycle coding, Melissa transferred all data in NVivo 12, a qualitative software program, and began structural coding (Saldaña, 2016). Then, she focused on the transcripts to further understand the nuances of PSTs’ teaching of the HTRAs. Melissa coded each transcript using a priori codes based upon three families of critical talk moves, including inquiry, disruptive, and inclusive talk moves (Schieble et al., 2020) and counter-qualities that she determined based upon literature on discursive practices. Throughout this process, Melissa wrote analytic memos and conducted visual analysis (i.e., tree maps, word clouds) to look for emerging patterns. Data from this cycle is represented in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Data examples of talk moves
Full size table

PSTs showed evidence of different types of critical talk moves (Schieble et al., 2020); Schieble et al. (2020) list a fourth critical talk move, action talk moves, that was not included in the analysis process in this study. In addition to critical talk moves, Melissa noted that PSTs also practiced what she considered to be non-critical talk moves. Non-critical talk moves occurred when PSTs engaged students in conversation designed to elicit general knowledge, shared wrong information with their students, and enacted limiting talk moves that did not provide space for their students to participate in the conversation.

In addition to analyzing data for critical and non-critical talk moves, Melissa noted that PSTs often attempted to engage their students in critical talk moves, but they were not successful (see Table 9.3). We believe that identifying attempts helped us better understand how PSTs were implementing academic discourse during the HTRA lessons.

Table 9.3 Attempting critical talk moves with example data
Full size table

After coding all the data, Melissa double-coded them with the aid of a graduate assistant who played the role of critical partner. Together, they tested data against codes and compared samples from different categories to determine credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Second Cycle Coding. For second cycle coding, Melissa applied theoretical coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to better understand how PSTs engaged in more critical and discursively productive HTRAs. She reviewed the data analysis from the first cycle to determine the core concept that “explains the total experience” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 265) and its associated multiple realities. Through this process, Melissa created a series of diagrams to support the progression toward a grounded theory. Finally, she shared the analysis and results with the same colleague who first served as her critical partner to ensure reliability.

3.6 Researcher Positioning

In qualitative methods the researcher is the tool for analysis which makes explaining researcher bias and positioning a crucial part of quality research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We are white females from the southeastern USA. Much of Melissa’s youth was spent as part of a military family, and her years spent living in various regions of the USA contributed to an inherent interest in how people engage in discourse in and out of school settings. Additionally, her doctoral program was in curriculum and instruction with a focus on literacy education, and social studies methods is a new area of instruction for her. Julie has worked in a range of schools and community settings (rural, suburban, and urban) and developed an interest in the power and use of language. Much of her interests are grounded in her lived experiences in rural poverty.

Recently, we have been purposefully working to enact an anti-racist approach (Kendi, 2019) and equity literacy (Gorski & Swalwell, 2015) into our professional practice. This work has generated a season of reflection for both of us, and we have built upon related developments in our own critical consciousness to implement immediate changes to discourse around text and disciplinary literacy in our courses. As a result, our developing understanding in these critical areas influenced how we positioned knowledge, equity, and discourse across the two semesters of this study. For Group 3, Melissa’s new knowledge impacted aspects of the study such as which texts she approved for use in the read-alouds, the questions she approved in lesson plans, and the stronger connection to inquiry and advocacy over time. These developments are not limitations; rather, they offer important insights into how our values as the practitioner–researcher changed during this study.

3.7 Limitations

While this study adheres to the rigorous expectations of qualitative action research, some limitations do exist. First, we were both the professor and researcher of these courses, and participants could have perceived a power-imbalance because of the nature of our relationship. Also, because of our roles as action–researchers, we could have unknowingly biased the findings; we worked to combat this possibility by employing critical partners outside of the study throughout data collection and at each phase of analysis. Even with steps in place for triangulation and reliability, another scholar may have interpreted the data differently, and as such, this work is not generalizable to other settings and populations. Additionally, due to the qualitative nature of the study, these findings are not generalizable to other contexts and populations. Due to IRB limitations, only the PSTs’ voices were allowed to be transcribed. Despite these limitations, the present study has much to offer the research and practice spaces devoted to the nexus of language and learning.

4 Findings

Through a rigorous analysis process, we sought the answer to the question: How does pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the role of language influence HTRA lessons? We provide the answer to this question in two parts. First, we explain the overarching theory that emerged from data analysis—Pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge scaffolded our PSTs’ critical practice in HTRAs. Then, we provide the key ways that PSTs demonstrated their language knowledge in the HTRA lessons to establish how the ways PSTs’ learned language knowledge manifested itself into their teaching.

4.1 Learning Language Knowledge

The aim of this action research study was to understand how PSTs’ knowledge of the role of language influenced the teaching of their HTRA lessons, and in this section, we present the overarching theory supported by our analysis—Pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge scaffolded our PSTs’ critical practice in teaching HTRAs. Within the action research study, we closely evaluated our teaching practices and students’ needs regarding discourse, and our instructional decisions became the route for PSTs to build capacity for language knowledge.

Given the nature of action research, our instructional methods influenced the study’s outcomes. For example, as the primary researcher and methods professor of the course in which the lesson plans were created, Melissa made numerous changes in her instructional practices from the first semester with Groups 1 and 2 to the second semester with Group 3. The action research evidence supported what Melissa intuitively felt—she needed to improve her teaching of the “why” and the “how” of language use within social studies lessons. With that in mind, she approached the fall 2019 semester differently than the spring 2019, and Group 3 received more purposeful instruction regarding pedagogical language knowledge (see Bunch, 2013) and academically productive talk (e.g., O’Connor & Michaels, 2019).

To maintain rigor via action research, Melissa charted the action research cycles from Semester 1 to Semester 2 and documented how she taught the HTRA in her methods course during Semester 1, revisions she wanted to make in Semester 2, instructional adjustments that she actually implemented in Semester 2, comparative differences from Semester 1 to Semester 2, and suggested changes for future instruction. She also expanded her chart notations, as seen in the following excerpt from her researcher memos:

I believe that the best way to do that at this point is to use the HTRA lesson. I made some major changes to the roll out of that in order to build the relationship between academic language and concept knowledge. This is based off of students’ “need to know” from the exit ticket and what I am seeing in practicum… My plan is to be very purposeful by explaining the point of the lesson is to deepen students’ ability to think historically thinking by facilitating a discussion around a picture book. I will connect this back to inquiry. (9/27/19)

Overall, we anticipated that PSTs who learned more about pedagogical practices to support meaningful conversations in social studies would have stronger teaching experiences in the practicum setting. Data analysis supports this hypothesis. For example, students in all three groups learned how to set expectations when beginning the HTRA, and the HTRA lesson is intended to support elementary students’ knowledge in social studies. Therefore, it was not surprising that in all 19 of the HTRA lessons, PSTs included setting expectations for learning, and 16 of them supported their elementary students’ general content knowledge. Also, for 12 of the HTRA lessons, PSTs used talk moves that align with inquiry talk moves to deepen their elementary students’ thinking. We expected that some PSTs would not demonstrate proficiency in this area, as facilitating talk is a difficult skill to master.

We did not anticipate that Group 3 would show a marked increase in adhering to the lesson plan and trying elements associated with critical academic discourse. To illustrate, students in Group 3 were more likely to attempt an inquiry-based talk move. They also had a higher number of attempts at critical questions per lesson and were more likely to engage in inclusive talk moves such as asking their elementary students to imagine they were faced with the decisions of the historical figures in the selected texts. We argue that Group 3’s increased knowledge of language, as evidenced through Melissa’s improved academic language strategies in the second semester of the action research study, clearly corresponds with more critical discourse. Therefore, our overarching theory is Pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge scaffolded our PSTs’ critical practice in teaching HTRAs.

4.2 Demonstrating Language Knowledge

We believe the most powerful way to understand how PSTs' language knowledge is through their planning and teaching of it. The data analysis process illustrated two main trends in how PSTs’ knowledge of the role of language influenced their HTRA lessons. First, PST made mistakes in their teaching that affected the efficacy of their HTRA lessons. Second, PSTs engaged in specific instructional decisions that increased the critical discourse of their HTRA lessons. In the following sections, we will discuss each of these themes using rich, thick descriptions (Merriam, 2009).

4.3 Making Mistakes

Despite PSTs’ careful planning, they made mistakes with content knowledge and also engaged in linguistic decisions that did not promote equity. Aligning language with content experiences is part of pedagogical language knowledge (Bunch, 2013). For example, Bunch (2013) explained that studies included for his analysis had to “be linked in some direct way to the texts, activities, or practices at the center of mainstream academic instruction” (p. 308). Additionally, dialogic talk and classroom content are closely associated, as seen in the academic discussion matrix (Elizabeth et al., 2012), which includes criteria for information and evidence in which students are evaluated based on how they “present relevant, accurate information, and require contributions to be accompanied by verifiable evidence” (p. 27). Issues of equity are closely tied to national suggestions for social studies instruction (see National Council for the Social Studies, 2013), and equity is an important part of critical conversations (Schieble et al., 2020). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, content knowledge and equity were intimately connected with PSTs’ pedagogical and dialogical language knowledge. In the following sections, we explain how PSTs made mistakes with content knowledge and equity by providing examples from the data.

Content . If teaching occurred in a vacuum, PSTs’ lessons would follow their scripts and a sea of opportunities for meaningful, discipline-specific discourse would ensue. However, that was not the case for this population of PSTs despite their best intentions as future educators. As they taught, PSTs engaged in problematic practices that were not part of their approved lesson plans. Specifically, PSTs in all three groups (n = 7) shared and confirmed inaccurate information during the teaching of the HTRAs to their elementary students. This occurred in two lessons from Group 1, two lessons from Group 2, and three lessons from Group 3. For example, during a read-aloud lesson on Christopher Columbus, one PST said, “[The crew] had to read the map the whole time to know where they were going.” While maps were an important part of sea voyages in the fifteenth century, sailors relied on a versatile toolbox to support navigation. In another instance, one PST replied to a student’s comment about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a United States Supreme Court justice, by saying, “So she dissented with all types of laws that the USA had.” While Ginsburg is well known for dissenting, she does not have a history of dissenting “all types of laws the USA had.” Some critics may view the latter example as indicative of the PST’s attempt to make the concept accessible to the elementary students, but we classified it as misinformation because the response is not historically accurate.

Wrong information was not limited to social studies content knowledge. Literacy content knowledge issues also arose in the HTRAs. Specifically, PSTs had a difficult time determining the literary genre of the texts they selected, as noted in Melissa’s researcher memos. This difficulty represented itself as an error in practice when one triad was reading Ron’s Big Mission (Blue, 2009). A PST explained to third-grade students that the text genre was “fiction” and “a biography.” This error in genre understanding was not evident in the original lesson plan. The selected text was biographical and written as a narrative, which is a possible explanation for this PST’s error; nevertheless, it was not fiction as the PST told the elementary student.

Even when the implementation of the lesson plan was closely followed, PSTs’ non-sanctioned comments created a space for critical errors. For example, one dyad from Group 1 planned and taught a HTRA lesson using the book, Pocahontas (d’Aulaire & d’Aulaire, 1946/1998). This was one of the stronger lesson plans in Group 1, and they adhered to their lesson plan with more compliance than any other teaching team in Groups 1 and 2. Despite their ability to execute their lesson plan, they still shared incorrect information with their fourth-grade students. For example, one PST said to their fourth-grade students about Pocahontas’ child, “That was the first English child; this was a child that was part American Indian and part English.”

Equity . PSTs fostered dominant narratives in 15 of the 19 lessons taught. Reinforcement of the dominant narrative occurred in four lessons from Group 1, five lessons from Group 2, and six lessons from Group 3. In this study, dominant narratives refer to ways of thinking that reinforce White, male, Eurocentric perspectives. Dominant narratives about women were reinforced when PSTs made or confirmed assumptions that women did not work outside of the home prior to the women’s suffrage movement. While that was likely true for many economically privileged White women, economically disadvantaged women and women of color had been working outside of their homes for centuries.

Another dominant narrative that PSTs reinforced was that racial discrimination has ended. One group of PSTs said, “Think about now how everybody obviously it’s not just White people at one school or just African Americans at one school; we are now equal.” This statement illustrates how racism made its way into the HTRA lessons because here the PSTs implicitly confirm the racist idea that somehow people of different races were not actually equal. Similarly, one PST asked why a man of color was denied the right to vote in the story. She was seeking an answer related to Jim Crow laws. These laws refer to the widespread discriminatory practices designed to keep people of color from voting even after receiving approval in the United States Constitution. The PST said, “Because he couldn’t read; that was the excuse he used.” Referring to a person not being able to read as an “excuse” for not voting is problematic. Instead of making these instructional decisions, PSTs should have emphasized how people of color were not treated equally under the law or in practice; instead, they implicitly adopted a stance that suggests an absence of systemic racism. The data analysis tool used for this study explicitly defines what disrupting racist ideas looks like in classrooms (i.e., Schieble et al., 2020). Likewise, Kendi (2019) argues that an anti-racist stance requires intentionally challenging the status quo; for these reasons, we believe this example and others like it represent instructional errors.

4.4 Increasing Critical Talk

PSTs engaged in specific instructional decisions that helped them increase critical, academic discourse in their HTRAs—compliance and talk moves. Through their capacity to make these instructional decisions, PSTs demonstrated competency with pedagogic and dialogic language knowledge because they adhered to their lesson plans, which aligns with an understanding of how pedagogy works. Moreover, “critical conversations build students’ literacies for full participation in civic life and democracy” (Schieble et al., 2020, p.13), which aligns with national social studies guidelines for standards (see National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) and the social studies goals for the HTRA lesson. In the following sections, we explain how PSTs demonstrated compliance and talk moves by providing examples from the data.

Compliance . Asking the follow-up questions included in the lesson plans maximized critical discourse. All three groups (n = 19) included follow-up questions in their plans that were designed to elicit discourse around historical thinking. Sample follow-up questions were: (a) “Why do you think Mary had such a big impact?” (Group 1), (b) “What did [Harriet Tubman] have to gain by helping President Lincoln?” (Group 2), and (c) “Why do you think Henry had to be creative?” (Group 3). Unfortunately, Groups 1 and 2 did not ask the follow-up questions as planned. Of the 25 follow-up questions written in Group 1’s lesson plans, five were asked. Of the 31 follow-up questions written in Group 2’s lesson plans, eight were asked. On the other hand, of the 37 follow-up questions written in Group 3’s lesson plans, 34 were asked.

Additionally, longer HTRAs were associated with more critical discourse. This difference is because PSTs who taught longer lessons were more likely to implement the lesson as planned, including the follow-up questions. Importantly, PSTs in all three groups were advised to keep their HTRA lessons to 30 min or less to respect the expectations of the clinical teachers. Group 1 PSTs taught their HTRAs in an average of 17 min, and only one of the five dyads/triads included in this study asked any of the follow-up questions included in their lesson plans. Group 2 PSTs taught their HTRAs in an average of 25 min, and two of the seven dyads/triads asked follow-up questions included in their lesson plans.

Group 3 PSTs taught their HTRAs in an average of 32 min, and all seven triads asked the follow-up questions in their lesson plans. Group 3 students had learned more about the value of critical discourse in social studies teaching. Moreover, Group 3 PSTs privileged follow-up questions in the HTRAs as a tool to promote deep, dialogic discussion around historical thinking concepts. While establishing causation is beyond the scope of the present study, data analysis clearly indicated that Groups 1 and 2 did not ask the follow-up questions as planned, yet Group 3 did. Overall, when PSTs were more compliant with asking the follow-up questions, their lessons were longer, and they included more critical discourse.

Talk moves. The notion of generating more talk as seen in this study aligns with Schieble et al. (2020) category of inclusive talk moves. While generating more talk is not necessarily indicative of critical discourse, opportunities for critical talk were supported when PSTs in this study used generative talk moves. Repeated instances of PSTs making evaluative comments in response to elementary students’ discourse occurred across the three groups. In each group, evaluative comments reflected the historically dominant talk pattern of IRE commonly associated with classroom discourse (Cazden, 2001). PSTs’ evaluative comments were regularly affirming; typical comments included, “Very good, good job. So that’s exactly what happened, good job,” or “That’s a good idea.” Despite including affirmations, such comments did little to promote discourse about the text and associated historical thinking.

Importantly, Group 3 had more instances of talk of this nature on average per lesson (n = 10.7) than the average of Groups 1 and 2 (n = 1.94). Additionally, Group 3 had substantially more attempts at hearing multiple students’ perspectives and often combined evaluation with a generative talk move. A typical Group 3 response was, “That is a good question. Can anyone answer her question? Can you say it again?” On the one hand, it is logical to assume that longer lessons would afford more opportunities for critical talk. However, we see this outcome as a difference in the way Group 3 demonstrated its knowledge of language because these PSTs privileged their students’ perspectives in ways that the other groups did not.

In addition to the act of questioning, PSTs’ word choice was an important talk move in implementing more critical lessons. “Think” was the most common word used in all three groups, which is logical because PSTs were often asking their elementary students about their thoughts. However, there were differences in other frequently used words. In later analysis, Melissa had already noticed differences in the word choice from the transcripts and determined that lessons from Group 3 were more critical. Therefore, she ran queries for word frequency in Nvivo 12 and generated pictorial images such as word clouds and tree maps that showed word choice across all groups. Then, she went back to the transcripts to see the context in which these patterns occurred. This process showed “good” and “anybody” were among the top 10 words used across all Group 1 and Group 2 HTRA lessons. “Good” generally came from evaluative statements, and “anybody” usually came from PSTs asking if anyone wanted to answer the questions. In contrast, Group 3 PSTs’ common words included “women” and “vote.” Both words were related to the historical issues centering the lessons of many groups. This evidence suggests a tighter connection among language, pedagogy, and disciplinary thinking in Group 3’s HTRAs compared to Groups 1 and 2. Considering the differences between strictly evaluative (i.e., Groups 1 and 2) and evaluative and generative (i.e., Group 3) are vital for understanding how critical discourse emerged in these HTRAs. In summary, the discipline was driving the discussion in Group 3 in ways that it did not in Groups 1 and 2.

5 Discussion

Operating within the hybridity (e.g., Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019) afforded by the HTRA (Krutka & Bauml, 2018) fosters dual development in both literacy skills and disciplinary ones. For example, PSTs in all three groups integrated speaking and listening with historical thinking through HTRAs, which illustrates its efficacy as a tool to promote hybridity in elementary classrooms. HTRAs (Krutka & Bauml, 2018) offer a tool to support elementary students in thinking historically (Wineburg, 2001). Lessons, such as HTRAs, that integrate literacy and historical thinking in the form of read-alouds create a space for educators to use children’s language and the language of text to promote critical learning, as evidenced in this study because when PSTs had stronger knowledge of language, their teaching of the HTRAs became more critical.

Our intention was to investigate the relationship between language knowledge and the teaching of HTRAs. We did not approach the study anticipating finding the association of language knowledge and critical discourse; however, data analysis shows stark differences in PSTs’ teaching of HTRAs when they had stronger university classroom experiences focused on academic discourse. Notably the instructional strategies used with Group 3 were associated with PSTs having increased critical discourse in their HTRA lessons. In particular, our PSTs who had more knowledge of language illustrated such through increased compliance with follow-up questions and generative talk moves were associated with more critically oriented lessons. Being able to engage elementary students in discourse around civic issues is a fundamental part of social studies teaching (see National Council for the Social Studies, 2013), and as such, PSTs should be prepared for these conversations to take a critical turn. However, as seen in this study, a prerequisite for being able to engage elementary students in critical talk moves is a strong understanding of pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge. In short, our PSTs needed to understand how the language of social studies worked and how to foster classroom conversations as part of their social studies methods experience, and PSTs with opportunities to better understand these constructs were also more likely to bring elements of critical conversations into their teaching of the HTRA.

Our data analysis illustrated how our specific practices as instructors (i.e., focused mini-lessons, targeted practice) were associated with different outcomes across semesters with our PSTs (i.e., more compliance, more critical talk moves). These differences reflect the desired improvements of practice, just as any effective action research study should (Putman & Rock, 2018); however, not everyone has the time or resources for such a study. One supplemental option is to consider the purposeful planning associated with HTRAs (Krutka & Bauml, 2018), which affords teachers a way of focusing a read-aloud to purposefully engage their students in a critical conversation that explores systems of power and oppression within the historical context of a given text. Elementary teachers are already integrating ELA and social studies via read-alouds (Brugar & Whitlock, 2019), so adding the critical aspect to HTRAs is a logical next step (see Wrenn & Gallagher, 2021). By developing critical disciplinary read-alouds, PSTs and others interested in the potential for purposefully apply critical pedagogy as an equally important component to historical thinking and literacy development (Wrenn & Gallagher, 2021).

Importantly, framing read-alouds in this way aligns practice and research because as scholars move toward increasing understanding of CDL as aligning equity and disciplinary thinking (Dyches, 2018), teachers can engage in opportunities for linguistic meaning making that privilege students’ voices and language histories (Nieto, 2002). While we echo Nieto’s (2002) call for linguistic inclusion and believe students and teachers should be adept at moving along academic registers by facilitating talk in a variety of instructional contexts (Schleppegrell, 2012), the critical nature of discourse should also be privileged in methods courses. It is difficult for PSTs to engage elementary students in critical discourse, and as noted in the findings, they will make mistakes. For most, if not all, of our PSTs, this was their first experience with an historical read-aloud. We suspect nervousness caused some PSTs to rush through their HTRAs, forgetting to ask the well-crafted questions in their lesson plans. However, nervousness alone does not account for the differences across the two semesters. Instead, we maintain the instructional practices developed through our action research and the subsequent pedagogical and dialogic language knowledge of our PSTs contributed to the differences across semesters.

At times, PSTs were unsure how to formulate a response in a way that elicited higher order thinking in students. As a result, many opportunities to deepen elementary students’ thinking were missed or avoided. In the future, we can implement more rehearsal during class time with an increased focus on developing talk moves prior to the HTRA with elementary students and continue to build upon the language lessons incorporated with Group 3. Live coaching is another option; Melissa has continued to modify instruction and subsequently has added the strategy of watching the HTRA recording with her PSTs. During these feedback sessions, Melissa helps PSTs identify places where the dominant narrative is being reinforced and discusses ways to avoid that in discourse. Other teacher educators may find this strategy helpful when supporting PSTs, who are often White and female, find pockets of implicit bias in their HTRA lessons.

Much like existing observations of young children (e.g., Ballenger, 1999; Halliday, 1977), we were also learning. The outside work that we did as teacher educators on equity literacy (Gorski & Swalwell, 2015) and anti-racism (Kendi, 2019) informed our practice in real time, as seen by Melissa’s instructional changes in Group 3. We cannot separate our learning from our PSTs’ learning; in the same way that they cannot separate their learning about critical narratives and language with types of questions they asked their elementary students. These concurrent developments reflect the complex nature of language of HTRAs as semantic decisions (e.g., Halliday, 1977, 1978) based upon pedagogical language goals (e.g., Bunch, 2013) of engaging in discussion related to historical thinking (Wineburg, 2001) as part of the academic register (Schleppegrell, 2012) of the read-aloud experience.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter offers an illustration of how understanding of language corresponded with read-alouds with a social studies content focus, but more work is needed to help all stakeholders understand the relationship between language and learning. Standards that guide curriculum require proficiency with literacy and disciplines, but at the current time, it is up to individual teachers and teacher educators to frame their instruction with critical discourse in mind. Future researchers should consider how teacher knowledge of language might inform critical discourse in other disciplines. This study was conducted with historical thinking in mind, but elementary students should also be aware of critical narratives in civics, science, mathematics, and other areas. Additionally, examining the impact of a series of HTRAs on elementary students’ disciplinary knowledge and critical discourse would inform the dual fields of social studies and literacy.

HTRAs help PSTs learn how to integrate, and this way of teaching privileges language as a foundational part of learning. Moreover, HTRAs offers a potential space where language, content knowledge, and critical evaluations of systemic power meet (see Wrenn & Gallagher, 2021). While we continue our practice as teacher educators, the HTRA will remain a vital part of helping our PSTs learn to operate in the hybridity (e.g., Hinchman & O’Brien, 2019) of social studies and literacy. We encourage other teacher educators and practitioners to embrace this approach and join us in working toward developing critical discourse as a normal part of pedagogical instruction targeted toward enacting language in elementary spaces.