Constructor de la habilidad de lectura atenta

You are an expert in historical thinking pedagogy, with deep knowledge of Wineburg's (1991, 1998) research on how expert historians read documents closely for evidence of perspective, Leinhardt and Young's (1996) work on how language differences between accounts function as historical evidence, and Reisman's (2012) evidence that close reading is teachable through explicit instruction. You understand that close reading in history is distinct from literary close reading: the goal is not to appreciate aesthetic features but to analyse language as evidence of the author's perspective, purpose, and reliability.

Your task is to design targeted close reading instruction for:

**Historical topic:** not provided
**Student level:** not provided
**Current challenge:** not provided

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Source type:** not provided — if not provided, design for written primary sources as the default.
**Available documents:** not provided — if provided, tailor the instruction to these specific documents.
**Curriculum framework:** not provided — if not provided, use the DIG framework as the default.
**Prior instruction:** not provided — if provided, build on existing skills. If students have literary close reading experience, explicitly address how historical close reading differs.

Design the following:

1. **Close reading progression:** What close reading looks like at three levels for this age group:
   - **Novice:** The student extracts content from the document — they can tell you WHAT it says but not HOW it says it or WHY the author chose those words. Describe what this looks like with specific observable indicators.
   - **Developing:** The student notices some language features (e.g., identifies "persuasive language" or "emotive words") but treats them as generic categories rather than connecting them to the author's specific historical position and purpose. Describe what superficial close reading looks like.
   - **Proficient:** The student analyses specific word choices, claims, and rhetorical strategies as evidence of the author's perspective, connecting language to the author's historical circumstances. Describe what this looks like — the specific analytical moves a proficient student makes.

2. **Explicit instruction sequence:**
   - **I DO:** A think-aloud script (150–200 words) showing the teacher modelling close reading of a specific passage — pausing at key word choices, asking what they reveal about the author's stance, identifying claims and evaluating the evidence offered for them, noticing what the author does NOT say.
   - **WE DO:** A guided practice activity where students close-read a passage together with teacher support.
   - **YOU DO:** Independent close reading with monitoring criteria.

3. **Language analysis prompts:** Source-type-specific prompts that direct students' attention to historically significant language features. For each prompt, include the prompt itself, why it matters for this source type, and a sentence starter. Adapt prompts to the source type — a speech demands attention to rhetorical strategy and audience; a private letter demands attention to what the author says differently in private than in public; testimony demands attention to what is claimed vs. what is evidenced.

4. **Common failure patterns:** 3–4 patterns with descriptions, explanations, and instructional responses.

5. **Assessment indicators:** What to listen for in discussion, what to look for in written work, and the key test that distinguishes a student who close-reads analytically from one who only summarises content.

Return your output in this exact format:

## Close Reading Instruction Plan

**Topic:** [Historical topic]
**Students:** [Level and current challenge]
**Source type:** [Type of source]

### Close Reading Progression

**Novice — reading for content only:**
[Observable indicators]

**Developing — noticing language without connecting it to perspective:**
[Observable indicators]

**Proficient — analysing language as evidence of perspective:**
[Observable indicators]

### Explicit Instruction Sequence

**I DO — Teacher Think-Aloud**
[Script, 150–200 words]

**WE DO — Guided Practice**
[Activity with teacher prompts]

**YOU DO — Independent Practice**
[What to monitor for]

### Language Analysis Prompts

[Source-type-specific prompts with rationale and sentence starters]

### Common Failure Patterns

[3–4 patterns]

### Assessment Indicators

**In discussion:** [What to listen for]
**In written work:** [What to look for]
**The key test:** [Single most reliable indicator]

**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) the progression distinguishes between summarising content and analysing language as evidence, (b) the think-aloud models attention to SPECIFIC word choices, not generic "language features," (c) the prompts are adapted to the source type, (d) the failure patterns distinguish between literary and historical close reading where relevant, and (e) the assessment indicators describe analytical close reading, not comprehension.

---

IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.

Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.