Students’ Perceptions of Reading and Learning in Social Studies: A Multimethod Approach

Social studies is a content area that encompasses many subtopics, including civics, economics, geography, and history, and is grounded in citizenship education for a democratic society (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). Because our content-area literacy intervention study was driven by the state standards in which our site was located,¹ we focused on American history instruction in middle school. Grade 6 curriculum targeted American history up to the Civil War. Grade 7 curriculum addressed the period after the Civil War to present day.

Historically, social studies instruction has been delivered in a way that emphasizes the memorization of facts rather than the fostering of critical thinking (Wineburg, 1996). This results in the presentation of disconnected and seemingly irrelevant material described by Hicks, van Hover, Doolittle, and VanFossen (2012) as “portraits of classrooms emphasizing the coverage of a series of neatly packaged, socially disengaged chronicles of fragmented facts presented to students by their teachers” (pp. 284-285). In a study of elementary, middle, and high school students’ perceptions of social studies, participants defined social studies as a collection of activities (Stodolsky et al., 1991) rather than a coherent content area.

Investigations of students’ perceptions of social studies within the last decade show troubling trends related to the persistent, superficial perception of social studies. To understand elementary students’ perceptions of learning in social studies, Zhao and Hoge (2005) conducted a large interview study of 300 kindergarten through Grade 5 students. Most students viewed history as irrelevant and had only superficial knowledge of social studies topics; for example, more than half of the kindergarten and first-grade participants did not know who the current president of the United States was. The authors concluded that young students were receiving little instruction in social studies and advocated that greater importance be placed on this content area. In another study, Chiodo and Byford (2004) interviewed 48 students in Grades 8 and 11 to discern students’ attitudes toward social studies curriculum. The authors found that students saw a utilitarian value in learning social studies, students professed many different preferences for learning social studies, and that teachers made a significant contribution to students’ attitudes and perceptions of social studies. This research is particularly prescient in light of the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) which places a new emphasis on social studies instruction that was previously absent under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (2001). Thus, it is important to renew investigations into students’ learning in social studies, particularly regarding reading in social studies as it is heavily text based. Moreover, the perceptions of EL students are important as this population is quickly growing in American public schools yet underresearched in studies of reading comprehension (Taboada & Rutherford, 2011). In studies of EL students’ reading comprehension, researchers have found that they do not develop at the same rate as their native-speaking peers but much more remains to be discovered about how these students read and learn.

Scholars have debated the efficacy of two approaches to literacy instruction: content-area literacy and disciplinary literacy (Brozo, Moorman, Meyer, & Stewart, 2013). Contentarea literacy has been defined as “focus[ing] on study skills that can be used to help students learn from subject matter specific texts” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012, p. 8). This type of literacy instruction is not specialized to a particular content area but instead provides students with generic literacy strategies to use across all content areas. Conversely, disciplinary literacy has been defined as specific literacy skills unique to a content area; for example, teaching students how to critically think about and evaluate texts like a historian (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Brozo et al. (2013) have called for a “radical center” in this debate in which both types of literacy instruction are appreciated for the tools they offer to improve student learning (p. 354). The investigations presented here were set within the context of a content-area literacy intervention. The primary goal of this intervention was to foster reading comprehension through instruction in general reading strategies that could be applied to various content areas.

Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) have developed a hierarchy of literacy instruction in which intermediate literacy skills, defined as “literacy skills common to many tasks, including generic comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and basic fluency” (p. 44), provide a foundation for disciplinary literacy. Thus, content-area literacy, defined as a collection of basic literacy instruction including explicit instruction in strategy use, the use of graphic organizers, and vocabulary instruction, can provide a foundation for more advanced reading and critical thinking which disciplinary literacy requires. This area of instruction is particularly important for EL students who need instruction in both language practices and content (Taboada & Rutherford, 2011). Moreover, content-area literacy instruction has increased comprehension in science, particularly when coupled with motivation practices such as in the reading engagement model (Wigfield et al., 2008). The current studies explore middle school students’ beliefs about reading and learning in social studies within the context of the reading engagement model, but we have expanded the reading engagement model to include a focus on EL students.

Engagement can be demonstrated in two forms: behavioral and emotional (Reeve et al., 2004). Behavioral engagement is displayed through active participation (e.g., effort) in a task. Emotional engagement is shown through the emotional tone of voice and individuals’ ownership and personal responsibility for their behavior in comparison to passively allowing outside forces to dictate actions or outcomes.

Researchers have used observable behaviors such as students’ effort, positive emotion, tone of voice, and demonstrated personal responsibility for a task to evaluate student engagement during instruction. For example, Reeve et al. (2004) observed students in 20 U.S. classrooms to determine how students’ engagement related to specific teacher practices. After quantitatively coding the data, they found that students’ engagement positively correlated to teachers’ autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors (e.g., providing students with choice). In another study, Jang, Reeve, and Deci (2010) evaluated students’ collective engagement at the classroom level based on observations and students’ self-report data. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that students’ engagement was strongly and positively associated with teacher-provided autonomy support and structure. Given the long-term importance of engagement, it is useful to study it with student preferences for learning.

Our purpose in the investigations reported here was to move beyond conducting interviews with students at one time point (e.g., Zhao & Hoge, 2005) and to more fully understand the complexity of students’ perceptions of reading and learning and their engagement in social studies. To fulfill this purpose, we chose Q methodology, created specifically to explore subjectivity, as one of our methods of data collection. Q methodology entails designing a concourse, or sample of items, related to the phenomena under investigation that individuals sort according to their preferences along a Likert scale (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). The sorts are then subjected to factor analysis to identify profiles of participants. Q methodology has been used to explore Grade 6 students’ general self-concepts in relation to their school achievement (Bennett, 1964); Grade 4 and 5 students’ perspectives about their language arts classes (Brown & Brown, 1981); and Grade 3 students’ reading of science diagrams (McTigue & Flowers, 2011). Q methodology was chosen for this study to help students express their perceptions about reading and learning in social studies in a scaffolded way—particularly our EL students who sometimes struggled to articulate their ideas in interviews. We also hypothesized that completing a hands-on Q sort independently but with another student and a researcher in the room might reduce any power imbalances that may have existed between the researcher and student participant in a one-on-one situation.

Experience sampling method (ESM) was chosen as the method of data collection to explore student engagement because it yields rich data (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). ESM differs from traditional questionnaires or observations in that participants are prompted to respond to Experience Sampling Forms (ESF) (i.e., brief surveys or interviews) either during or immediately after participating in an activity. Data are collected across a period of time and in specific contexts allowing researchers to collect multiple data points from each participant (Hektner et al., 2007). The timeliness of ESM data allow researchers to collect data that are more valid as participants are signaled to complete an ESF related to their thoughts and feelings immediately after the activity rather than recalling it at a later time. This method is particularly well suited to collecting data on engagement in daily instructional activities such as whole class lecture, computer games, cooperative learning, and videos (Grimley, Green, Nilsen, & Thompson, 2012), but it has not yet been used in middle school social studies to evaluate student engagement in response to literacy activities, nor with EL students.

We present the results of two separate studies, conducted over 2 years, below. Study 1 was an initial foray into students’ preferences for reading and learning in social studies, and focused on the question, How do middle school students prefer to learn and read in social studies? In Study 2, we used the results of Study 1 to design a Q-sort activity to explore how particular profiles of students respond to and engage with a literacy intervention in social studies. The following research questions guided Study 2:

• How do Grade 6 students view learning and reading in social studies?

• How do different profiles of Grade 6 students respond to a literacy intervention in social studies?

• How does students’ self-reported engagement align with their views of reading and learning in social studies?

The investigations took place within the context of a 3-year, literacy intervention study in social studies in Grades 6 and 7 within a large, metropolitan area in the mid-Atlantic United States in an ethnically diverse suburban school district (i.e., 43% Hispanic, 24% White, 12% African American) with a growing population of EL students (i.e., 44% of students speaking a language other than English at home). The mission of the United States History for Engaged Reading (USHER) intervention was to foster reading engagement and comprehension in English monolingual and EL students by incorporating high interest, nonfiction texts (trade books), comprehension strategy instruction (e.g., identifying main idea and supporting details), and motivation practices (e.g., selfefficacy for reading strategy use) into social studies classroom instruction. USHER instruction also consisted of both whole class and guided reading instruction (i.e., reading in small groups with teacher scaffolding). Teachers presented instructional strategies using the gradual release of responsibility model in which they modeled a strategy, conducted guided practice with a strategy, and then released students to practice the strategy independently (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). To support their implementation of USHER, teachers received over 10 hours of professional development before and during the intervention each year. The USHER intervention took place across 3 years between fall 2010 and spring 2013. For the investigations presented here, we rely on data collected in Years 2 and 3 of the USHER project (i.e., fall 2011-spring 2012 and fall 2012-spring 2013).

For Study 1, we interviewed 16 Grade 6 students and 17 Grade 7 students for a total sample of 33 participants. These students were chosen based on varying ethnicities, linguistic backgrounds, and reading abilities in the process of maximum variation sampling in order to identify the central themes that cut across this variation (Patton, 2002). We asked teachers to identify below-grade, on-grade, and above-grade readers as well as EL students for these interviews. These readings levels were determined by the teachers based on data they had on their students (e.g., state reading assessment data). In all, we conducted interviews with six above-grade readers, 12 on-grade readers, and 15 below-grade readers (i.e., ELs, struggling readers, and special education students). Some Grade 7 students also received the USHER intervention in Grade 6 and thus were exposed to 2 years of the USHER intervention.

We used semistructured interviews to garner an understanding of how students prefer to learn and read in social studies. We chose this format in order to elicit specific information from the students while also giving us flexibility to ask follow-up questions (Merriam, 2009). Interview questions targeted students’ feelings about social studies; their reading and learning in social studies; and students’ reactions to their textbooks, trade books, and the reading strategies used in the intervention. Interviews were conducted one on one with students in a private room and the length of student responses varied with some students reporting their preferences at length whereas other students were more reticent in responding or could not articulate their preferences at all. Interviews lasted between 7 and 40 minutes and generated more than 8 hours of audiotape. Interviews were conducted after the students had completed the USHER intervention.

Three researchers conducted open codings of the 33 transcripts separately, keeping our research question in mind during coding. We met several times to discuss potential categorizations of these codes as well as possible variations—a method that Merriam (2009) dubbed “triangulating analysts” (original emphasis; p. 216). We went through four iterations of negotiating the larger categories and subcategories until we agreed upon three categories and six subcategories. We then organized quotes from each interview under each category and subcategory where appropriate in a modified version of Stake’s (2006) cross-case analysis. Once interview portions were categorized, we reduced the data by identifying the most meaningful quotes (i.e., those that best exemplified that category or subcategory) to facilitate reporting.

Students’ motivation to learn in social studies. The majority of our student participants (31 out of 33 participants, or 94%) across both Grades 6 and 7 reported that they either enjoyed social studies or thought that it was important to learn about this subject. Two subcategories emerged that provided more explanatory power (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) about why students liked social studies as well as which aspects of this subject they enjoyed: students’ connections to self and learning about wars and battles.

Connections to content. When asked whether it was important to learn about social studies, students repeatedly responded by making connections to their own lives. Thomas,² an above-grade reader in Grade 6, explained, “Because if you go to a different country and they ask you some questions you don’t want to say, ‘I don’t know anything about my country.’” Thomas’s answer here indicates a global perspective in which he is concerned about understanding his own country in order to have a discussion with people from other countries. However, students also indicated local interests in social studies such as Robin, an above-grade reader in Grade 6, “I’m 1/16th Native American, so I’m really interested in learning about that ’cause then I can learn about my own tribe and stuff.” Thus, students saw direct connections between their personal experiences and social studies content.

Interest in learning about focused content: Wars and battles. Many of our student participants professed an interest in learning about events such as the Revolutionary War. Blake, a below-grade reader in Grade 6, explained his interest in learning about the Civil War, “I’m not the best at reading, but sometimes if it’s about wars, ‘cause I’m a big war person, then happy thoughts come to my mind.” Blake struggled with reading but enjoyed learning about wars which was an engaging topic for him. The findings from this category show that students view social studies as relevant and profess a variety of reasons for learning about this content area.

Reading in social studies. The majority of our student sample (25 out of 33, or 76%) agreed that reading is important to learning in social studies. This category contained two subcategories: reading in small groups and students’ use of reading strategies.

Reading in small groups. The first subcategory revealed both challenges and benefits to students reading and working collaboratively. Students noted that working in groups built relationships among students and teachers, contributed to their self-efficacy in social studies, and created a positive classroom environment. Shelby, an on-grade reader in Grade 7, explained, “I like little groups because then we have more confidence.” The testimony of the students in our interviews confirmed that small group work is important to middle schoolers who seek social connections that will help them to face the challenges of literacy tasks (Guthrie, 2008).

Students also described challenges related to group work. Claire, a Grade 6 above-grade reader, explained the danger of working in groups without sufficient structure, “It was usually like one of us was the peacekeeper, and the other ones were quiet, and then the other two were fighting.” For group work to operate efficiently, students need sufficient teacher support. In the Grade 7 USHER implementation, we provided roles for the students as they read in their small groups. Mercedes, a Grade 7 below-grade reader, noted how these roles fostered collaboration within the group, “They [group members] had the job before you and they’ve already done it and they know how to do their job so it’s just a little easier.” Mercedes’s explanation conveys a sense of collaboration and support within her small group. Students thrive in group-work situations that have clear goals, include texts, and are closely monitored (Guthrie, 2008).

Students’ use of reading strategies. USHER implementation incorporated four reading strategies including activating background knowledge using text features, textbased questioning, identifying main idea and supporting details, and comprehension monitoring. Many students noted how finding the main idea was paramount to comprehending the text. Juan, an EL student, explained, “When I want to say it back I can remember, I can say the main idea, I can find out what’s the important thing.” Students also noted using the strategies of rereading, visualizing, and monitoring their comprehension frequently. Providing students with a set of general content strategies may not only enhance students' comprehension, but also increase awareness of how these tools can enhance their reading.

Students’ perceptions of text. Students’ perceptions of text, the third category, pertained to students’ responses to the texts used in class. In particular, they expressed a preference for books with informative and interesting details. Students also discussed their struggles with vocabulary and how they used text features to figure out unfamiliar words.

Importance of rich details. We asked student participants about their preferences for what type of book (i.e., trade book or textbook) they liked to read and why in order to get a better understanding of their perspectives on this topic. Although some students reported to enjoy both types of books or to not see differences between them (8 out 33 students, or 24%), most student participants (16 out of 33 students, or 48%) noted that they preferred the trade books used in the USHER intervention. In general, our student participants explained that the depth of information in a book was important to them. Claire liked having multiple trade books that focused on different topics, “Having different books kinda helped me understand a little more. Since we had different books it was kinda like focusing on each thing.” Overall, our participants indicated that depth and quality of information were important to their reading and learning in social studies.

Use of text features. Many students reported that they struggled with unknown vocabulary and that they chose different tactics to figure out the meaning of these words. Thomas provided an example, “I liked it [the book] because all the pictures that it had in it described the stuff you were reading. So it helped you out when you didn’t understand something.” Other students also reported using the glossary, special vocabulary features, and a dictionary for help. Based on the results reported here, social studies teachers can contribute to students’ content-area vocabulary learning by choosing books with text features such as special vocabulary features, glossaries, and pictures in order to support student reading comprehension.

Study 1 provided us with a better understanding of why and how students prefer to learn and read in social studies. What is perhaps most significant about these findings is that student participants viewed social studies as relevant which contradicts past research (Chiodo & Byford, 2004; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). This investigation was also a renewal into literacy instruction in social studies, an area that has been neglected in recent years, and it highlighted student reading strategy use as well as students’ preferences for small group instruction. Although these findings were important to literacy instruction in social studies, there were still many questions about student learning in this domain—including what influences student engagement. Moreover, we noticed that our data collection method of semistructured interviews was difficult for students who were particularly introverted, or received EL or special education services. We also wanted to reduce the threat to the validity of our study introduced by any power imbalances perceived by the students; for example, students providing positive answers to please the research team.

We conducted Study 2 to build on Study 1 and provide additional design strengths. Specifically, for Study 2, we used the findings from Study 1, along with literature on learning in social studies, to generate a concourse and create a Q sort for Grade 6 students. Based on the profiles we identified using the Q sort, we explored students’ engagement in specific instructional activities. The specific research questions that guided Study 2 were:

• How do Grade 6 students view learning and reading in social studies?

• How do different profiles of Grade 6 students respond to a literacy intervention in social studies?

• How does students’ self-reported engagement align with their views of reading and learning in social studies?

Fourteen Grade 6 students from the seven classes that participated in the USHER intervention³ in Year 3 completed the Q-sort activity. We again used maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2002) to collect data from a student sample that was diverse in gender, ethnicity, and language. We selected two students (a boy and a girl) from each class for a p set (i.e., person sample) of 14 students. These students came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds including Latino, Laotian, and White. Because our population was 61% Hispanic, we made sure that the students chosen for the sample represented this demographic. Based on the results of the Q sort, we interviewed four students (i.e., one male student who received EL and special education services; two on-grade level female students; and a male student who received EL services) and examined their engagement data for specific instructional activities.

In Study 2, we used both quantitative and qualitative methods to develop a robust picture of middle school students’ beliefs about reading, learning, and engagement in social studies. Each method was implemented individually but the different components were meant to strengthen and illuminate other methods. Data collection for this study was three pronged: Q-sort administration, semistructured interviews, and ESF administration.

Q-sort design and administration. The findings from the interviews in Study 1 provided the naturalistic aspect of our concourse in Study 2. We also had a ready-made component to our concourse in that we drew statements from the literature on learning and reading in social studies (e.g., Wineburg, 1996). The original concourse included 62 statements that were reduced through a process of negotiation between the researchers to 22 statements.

The Q sort included a 5-point Likert scale written in student-friendly language; the values included “Most Unlike Me (—2),” “Kind of Unlike Me (—1),” “Neither Like me or Unlike Me (0),” “Kind ofLike Me (1),” and “Most Like Me (2).” Students were allowed to place three statements at the two polar ends of the Q sort under “Most Unlike Me” and “Most Like Me,” five statements under “Kind of Unlike Me” and “Kind of Like Me,” and six statements in the middle (i.e., “Neither Like Me or Unlike Me”). Q sorts were administered to two students at a time in a private room. They were provided as much time as needed to complete the Q sort and were then briefly interviewed about their answers and experience with the activity. We reviewed several examples with the students before they began sorting the statements including where to place a card that read, “I love ice cream” (i.e., under “Most Like Me”). The instrument was designed to be student friendly. Items were printed in large font on index cards and students were instructed to “Think of your social studies class and sort the following statements according to how you like to learn and read in social studies” and place items in plastic pockets on a trifold board.

Semistructured interviews. The lead author conducted semistructured interviews with four students after the completion of the USHER intervention and Q-sort analysis in winter 2013. The purpose of these interviews was to: (1) gather information on students’ reactions to USHER implementation; (2) better understand the learning preferences of these students; and (3) triangulate the results of the Q-sort analysis. These interviews, which lasted between 24 and 42 minutes and resulted in 92 pages of transcript data, provided the narrative behind the Q data.

Experience sampling form (ESF). To better understand students’ engagement in response to the USHER intervention, we developed an ESF that was administered periodically throughout the intervention after activities such as whole-class strategy instruction or small group reading activities (i.e., guided reading or partner reading). The ESF was based on the work of Hektner et al. (2007) and was administered by four trained doctoral research assistants. Students responded to six Likert items to assess their engagement (e.g., “Were you concentrating on your work?”) and four items to report their affective responses to the activities (e.g., “excited,” “happy”) by circling a response from 4 (“YES! Absolutely!”) to 1 (“NO! Not at all.”).

We created composites to represent engagement (i.e., behavioral and cognitive) and positive affect for each ESF administration. Specifically, to measure student engagement during the intervention, six items related to enjoyment, concentration, effort, perceived relevance, interest, and perceived importance were averaged to form a composite (a = .90). A composite for positive affect was created by averaging the emotion items relaxed, excited, proud, and happy (a = .90). We aggregated these composite scores to the level of various activities.

Analysis of the Q sort. Q sort analysis requires three steps: (1) correlation, (2) factor analysis, and (3) the computation of factor scores (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). After entering the data from the 14 Q sorts into PQ Method software (Schmolck, 2002), we subjected the correlation matrix to principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Because there were two eigenvalues greater than 1.00, we extracted two centroid factors. We then created crib sheets for each centroid factor based on these results. Each crib sheet consisted of four categories: items ranked at +2; items ranked higher in Factor 1 (or Factor 2) array than other factor arrays; items ranked lower in Factor 1 (or Factor 2) array than in other factor array; and items ranked at -2. We drafted profiles of each factor based on these crib sheets which helped us to include as many relevant statements as possible.

Qualitative analysis of semistructured interview data. We conducted four interviews with students with high factor scores on Factors 1 and 2 (i.e., two from Factor 1 and two from Factor 2). The lead author conducted these interviews and then transcribed them verbatim to ensure the quality of the transcription. She then conducted two cycles of coding on these transcripts: an initial, open coding to fracture the data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and a second cycle to look for larger themes. Memos were drafted after the initial coding of each student using the open codes. In the second coding cycle, the researcher looked across memos to identify similarities and larger themes within each profile of learner.

ESM analysis. After computing the engagement and positive affect aggregate composites, we converted these scores into z scores at the person level relative to the entire sample. We then examined the z scores for our four focal participants to map their engagement and positive affect during various USHER activities (Grimley et al., 2012; Figures 1a and 1b).

Results from the three types of analyses are presented here in a holistic manner to illustrate a portrait of each learner profile. The Q sort analysis produced four factors with eigenvalues over 1.00. After evaluating two-, three-, and four-factor solutions, we decided the two-factor solution was the best representation of the data because it explained 39% of the total variance and included two or more students on each factor (i.e., seven students on Factor 1 and two students on Factor 2). The three-factor and four-factor solutions included only one student on each factor. The correlation between factor scores was r = .03, indicating that the two profiles are not related. Here, we discuss the two identified factors supported by interview and ESF engagement data from the four students selected to represent the two factors.

Factor 1: Social butterflies. Factor 1 is defined by seven participants (Table 1). The fact that half of our sample loaded on this factor may be a testament to the propensity for adolescents to learn socially. These students enjoyed working with partners or in groups and they claimed with confidence that they were good at social studies. They preferred to learn about social studies by reading rather than listening although they did sometimes see reading in social studies as boring and, at times, preferred to read independently for fun. They easily made connections to what they learned in social studies and indicated that it is important to know about American history because it was part of who they are.

Based on the results of the Q sort analysis, we hypothesized that the social butterflies would report greater engagement and positive affect during final project and guided reading activities due to the collaborative nature of these types of instruction. Carlos and Aisha were the two students interviewed from this factor; Carlos was a Spanish-speaking EL student who was also receiving special education services, and Aisha was of Laotian descent but spoke fluent English and was not receiving EL or special education services. Both students reported to be engaged across all three types of activities used in the intervention (Figure 1a). In general, their engagement across the three activities was higher than their peers’ engagement for final project and whole class activities—the latter of which contradicts our hypothesis and could have been confounded by the quality of teacher instruction. They also reported greater positive affect during guided reading activities than their peers (Figure 1b).

These social butterflies had some preferences for learning in social studies in common but they also had their own special needs as learners. For example, both Carlos and Aisha provided examples of how they learned socially from their peers during small group work. Carlos explained the rationale for this preference, “I really don’t like working by myself when I’m doing social studies. I don’t know, sometimes I get confused. So I like when there’s a bunch of people with me, like six or 10.” Both also had a natural curiosity, either about social studies or the world in general, as Aisha conveyed when she described how she learned best,

Carlos and Aisha found it easy to make connections to social studies based on their background knowledge and experiences. Although both students saw reading as a learning experience, Carlos struggled with his learning disability and was unable to recall information and articulate his preferences for learning as clearly as Aisha could. Moreover, the students found different reading strategies included in the intervention helpful; for example, Carlos preferred to use the strategy of identifying main idea and supporting details whereas Aisha preferred to use the questioning strategy.

Factor 2: Lone wolves. This factor was defined by two students. Rebecca was White and enrolled in general education courses, and Juan was a Spanish-speaking EL. These students preferred to work individually at their own pace which directly contrasted the collaborative approach of the social butterflies. The lone wolves liked reading but found reading in social studies boring and noted that it was not a good way for them to learn about social studies. They preferred to watch movies as a means to learn about social studies and they found that the best way for them to learn social studies was to think of the topic(s) as a story. It was also hard for them to learn about social studies by listening alone. They did not profess feeling nervous in social studies and did not see any barriers to learning social studies (e.g., learning disability).

The interviewed lone wolves expressed some similar ideas and some unique needs and struggles for learning and reading in social studies. Both students saw the utilitarian value in reading; Juan wanted to improve his reading so that he could move out of his remedial class whereas Rebecca saw it as an important life skill. Both students preferred the high-interest, nonfiction texts used in the intervention because of the pictures in the books. Juan and Rebecca also both found it easy to think of social studies as a narrative: Juan thought of it as a sequential progression whereas Rebecca found it easy to visualize events like a story. She explained, “I think of it like a book, and I create images in my head about it.” Rebecca professed having a different learning style than most of her peers and emphasized that choice was important to her learning whereas Juan liked to participate in hands-on activities which he described as “doing stuff.” Rebecca’s responses in the interview sometimes contradicted the results of the Q sort. In particular, she explained that her preferences for group work were contingent upon whom she was working with whereas Juan preferred to work by himself regardless of who his group mates were. Specifically, Juan tied this preference to his academic performance, “Because if I’m working with a group they usually just fool around and then I don’t concentrate and I get like Fs every time and when I work by myself I get As.” Although Juan explained that movies were a helpful way for him to learn about social studies, Rebecca explained that videos sometimes failed to hold her attention and that she sometimes preferred to read about a topic in order to learn it. The strategy that Juan used most frequently was rereading whereas Rebecca professed finding success in visualizing as well as rereading.

Based on the results of the Q sort analysis, we hypothesized that Rebecca and Juan, the lone wolves, would report less engagement and positive affect during collaborative activities such as final project activities and guided reading. The results of the ESM analysis revealed that Rebecca was consistently disengaged and her positive affect was consistently lower across the three types of activities than all three of her peers—including Juan. This may be due to her expressed dislike of school and preference to explore her own interests. Juan reported lower engagement than the social butterflies during final project activities and diminished positive affect (compared to his peers) during guided reading activities (Figures 1a and 1b).

Study 2 revealed two profiles of learners within an ethnically and linguistically diverse sample of Grade 6 social studies students. Our multimethod approach to exploring students’ perceptions of reading and learning in social studies showed the complexity of these perceptions and provided students with a scaffolded, hands-on method to articulate their preferences. Although there were similarities within profiles of learners, there was also variation and the various forms of data we collected allowed us to explore these variations. The multifaceted results derived from these approaches lend credence to the use of a variety of methods of data collection in order to explore students’ perceptions and engagement.

Although these results are revealing, there are also limitations to these studies. In Study 1, students may have been reacting to the presence of the researchers, and may have professed to enjoy social studies and the USHER intervention more than they actually did. Also, students may have had difficulty articulating their perspectives in the interviews. We attempted to address this by using the Q sort activity in Study 2. In Study 2, we scaffolded the instrumentation for Grade 6 students so we used only 22 statements in order to keep the Q sort activity manageable for participants. This smaller Q set may have posed problems for our factor analysis. The size of the p-set was also small (n = 14) and the factor analysis revealed only two profiles of student learners. In Q methodology, the participants are the variables rather than a particular construct. It is therefore more important that the Q sample is sufficient for factor analysis (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). A larger p set may have revealed more nuanced profiles of student learners and we suggest that future studies include larger p sets and Q sets where appropriate.

The CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) have widened curriculum in the United States, previously narrowed due to No Child Left Behind (2001; Popham, 2005), and provided a catalyst for renewed instruction in social studies. The studies presented here have multiple implications for practice, both in social studies and in other content areas. Specifically, Study 1 illustrated some reasons why students enjoy social studies such as the connections to their lives. This finding indicates that teachers in social studies and other content areas should explore students’ preferences to improve their instruction. Indeed, Popham (2005) has advocated the extensive use of affective data in the classroom in order to improve and drive instruction. Brief quantitative and qualitative surveys could be used to garner student input and perhaps increase student buy-in.

Additionally, Study 1 indicates the need to carefully structure group activities and provide both peer and teacher scaffolding. Specifically, groups should have clear goals and be driven by texts. Study 1 also showed the need to select texts rich with information and text features. Indeed, the latter can foster student reading comprehension by providing visual scaffolds, a particularly important feature for a linguistically diverse student population for whom vocabulary can serve as an obstacle. In the current investigations, we focused on social studies. However, the need to select texts with both information and text features likely applies to other content areas that rely heavily on text and content-specific vocabulary (e.g., science).

Study 2 provided similarly actionable findings. This study confirmed the need for a variety of grouping configurations in the social studies classroom and reaffirmed the importance of student choice. Developmentally, peer relationships and social interactions are important aspects of middle school students’ academic development. For instance, previous research has indicated the importance of peer scaffolding in middle school students’ learning (Guthrie, 2008). Our findings challenge this idea and provide greater nuance regarding adolescent learning. Although many of the students in this sample enjoyed working in groups, some students preferred to work independently. Indeed, student engagement varied across activities which suggests the need to vary instruction to best serve all students. Also, this study highlighted the complexity of students’ perspectives and engagement in reading and learning and points to the need for teachers to know and understand their students deeply (Dinkins, 2014). A formative approach to assessment is most valuable in accomplishing this goal.

Investigations into social studies instruction should also be renewed along with instruction in this content area. The studies reported here are part of this agenda, but additional investigations are warranted. For instance, our students came from predominantly Spanishspeaking backgrounds and identified primarily as Hispanic. Students from other linguistic and ethnic backgrounds may view social studies and literacy instruction differently and their preferences for learning in these domains should be explored. Additionally, our research was conducted in the content area of American history and students’ preferences for learning in other subtopics of social studies such as civics, economics, or geography may vary due to the specialized nature of learning and should be investigated. It follows that additional research is needed in other content areas such as science and math with equal attention to subtopics within these domains. We advocate the continued use of Q methodology in investigating student subjectivity because this method can be tailored to be developmentally appropriate for middle grades students. During brief, follow-up interviews our participants noted that they enjoyed the Q sort activity and found it more engaging than surveys. This research agenda surrounding student subjectivity is particularly prescient in light of burgeoning research on the language demands of the CCSS on EL students (Wolf, Wang, Huang, & Blood, 2014). Other researchers may consider writing concourse items in students’ native language(s) to ensure validity.

The students in our study named a variety of reading strategies that they used while they were reading independently including a strategy that was not explicitly taught during the intervention (i.e., visualizing). Other strategies included identifying main idea and supporting details, rereading, and questioning. Future literacy investigations could explore the use of other comprehension strategies. Moreover, students need strategies that they can apply independently when they encounter unknown words, such as using special vocabulary features or the glossary of a text. No matter what research questions are explored, multiple methods of data collection should be used in order to explore student perceptions and engagement in a holistic, robust way. The diverse, complex student population deserves nothing less.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A100297 to George Mason University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.