Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms Author(s): Ralph

P. Ferretti, Charles D. MacArthur and Cynthia M. Okolo
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, Teaching for Understanding with Students
with Disabilities (Winter, 2001), pp. 59-71 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511296

Accessed: 13/06/2014 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TEACHING FOR HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDIN
IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

P. Charles D. and M. Okolo

Ralph Ferretti, MacArthur, Cynthia

Abstract. Fifth-grade students with and without mild disabili-

ties in an
participated eight-week project-based, technology-sup-ported investigation
about the 19th westward
century expansion in the United States. A narrative
and students' of the
framework was used to organize support understanding
of three their students
experiences emigrant groups. During investigations, analyzed
and sources to understand the of these The
primary secondary experiences emigrants.
of these sources was
analysis preceded by teacher-led discussions about the possibility
of bias in evidence that affects the trustworthiness of historical documentation.
Students a multimedia about the
designed presentation experi-ences of one
and
emigrant group and presented their work to their peers parents. Quantitative
analyses showed that these inves-tigations were associated with gains in students'
the of westward a better of his-
knowledge about period expansion, understanding
torical content and historical inquiry, and improvements in their self-efficacy as
learners. The gains in knowledge and understand-ing of historical content for
students with learning disabilities (LD) were not generally as large as those for
their nondisabled peers, but both groups showed comparable gains in their self-
effi-cacy as learners and their understanding of historical inquiry. Qualitative
observations documented some of the challenges faced by teachers and students in
meeting the demands of rigor-ous curriculum in addition to some of the
for all students this The
opportunities afforded by project-based investigation.
tions of our for the historical
implica- findings improving understanding of
students with LD are discussed.

RALPHP. is
FERRETTI,Ph.D., professorof education and psychology, Universityof Delaware.
CHARLESD. is
MACARTHUR,Ph.D., professorof education, Universityof Delaware.
CYNTHIAM. is associate
OKOLO,Ph.D., professorof education, Universityof Delaware.

During the last decade, the National Assessment of most social studies educators seek to ensure acquisi-
Educational tion of the
Progress (NAEP; 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) has disciplinary knowledge and the critical
documented how little general education students habits of mind that students need to participate as
&
know or understand about social studies concepts and informed citizens (Barr, Barth, Shermis, 1977;
NAEP are &
content. The findings disturbing because Brophy, 1990; Carnine, Bean, Miller, Zigmond,

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1994). Students with disabilities are expected to partic-ipate in that facilitate or impede the construction of historical
of a
democratic decision making and owe their guarantee free, In and in
education to of understanding qua interpretation. retrospect,
appropriate public the application democratic these
fact, contrasting perspectives represent an artifi-cial dichotomy
processes (Curtis, 1991; Ferretti & Okolo, 1996). Unfortunately,
students with that obscures our efforts to elucidate the nature of understanding. As
disabilities have traditionally been excluded from
instruction & we now know, teach-
social studies (Patton, Polloway, Cronin, and for access to
tend to worse than their ing learning understanding requires facts and
1987). Consequently, they perform and solve
nondisabled et knowledge (expertise) that can be used to interpret
peers (Carnine al., 1994). authentic &
In of these the which is the problems (Bransford, Brown, Cocking, 1999).
light findings, textbook,
de facto
Authentic problems are the kinds of ill-defined prob-
social studies curriculum (Brophy, 1992), has come under lems &
(Bransford Stein, 1984; Simon, 1980) that people confront in
increasing scrutiny. Social studies text-books often lack their life and work. Ill-defined problems
often have or
conceptual coherence, sacrifice depth for breadth of coverage, ambiguous vague goals (Voss, 1991; Voss, Greene, Post,
& &
Penner, 1983; Voss Post, 1988; Voss,
attempt to cover too much information in the allotted pages, and & such as "Did
fail to provide contextual information and other conceptual Tyler, Yengo, 1983). Questions the benefits of
industrialization outweigh the costs?" or "Should the Spanish
scaffolds that would facilitate comprehension (see Okolo &
The of these limitations have colonized the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica?" do not
Ferretti, 1997a). recognition has led some
have generally accept-ed standards against which all proposed
(e.g., Carnine et al., 1994) to recommend improvements in the be evaluated. In there be
coherence and "considerateness" of social studies texts. These solutions can fact, may many different,
recommendations are con- solutions to social whose
apparently contradictory problems, validity
of can be determined
sistent with the goal of improving students' knowledge only by considering
but fail to address the the one takes to the
disciplinary content, they goal of interpretative perspective question (Bruner,
need in order Ill-defined students
developing the critical habits of mind that students 1996). problems challenge to define goals, and
to in a democ- & to identify and analyze evidence that can be used to evaluate the
participate representative racy (Ferretti Okolo,
1996). ments offered to alternative
these for social plausibility of argu- support positions
Understandably, contrasting goals studies (Ferretti
instruction are reflected in different concep- & Okolo, 1996; Okolo & Ferretti, 1998). In general, these kinds of
tions of historical understanding. As it turns out, the problems are best resolved in the context of informed public
discussion during which people gather and consider available
codification of the social studies curriculum nearly coincided with evidence and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of various
actions. In our view, these activities are at the core of democratic
the emergence of a psychology of the action
and of At
teaching learning history (Wineburg, 1996). its inception, (Dewey, 1916, 1933).
the pioneers of this scant literature wres-tled with competing The solution of historical problems and the construc-tion of
Bell and McCollum's historical interpretations confront novice and expert thinkers with
conceptions of historical under-standing. (1917)
sketch a unique set of intellectual chal-lenges. Historical thinkers must
prescient lays out at least five different ways to think about his-
torical the the and
understanding (Wineburg, 1996), including sift through the tracesof past (e.g., artifacts, documents,
to understand the in of the the as well as accountsof the
physical environment) past (e.g.,
capacity (a) present light past,
stories, films, television news, and historical fiction) to construct
(b) sort out documentary evidence to construct a probable an of an event To some
account of histori-cal interpretation (Seixas, 1996). degree, each of
things past, (c) appreciate narrative, (d) these sources reflects a presentation and representation of the past
reflect thoughtfully about historical situations, and (e) answer that both exists in some form
factual questions about his-torical characters and situations. and is lost the
As the tension between the irretrievably (Seixas, 1996). Consequently, historical
Wineburg (1996) recounts, thinker is compelled to ask questions about how these sources came to
of the fact-based and the
proponents interpretative perspectives be, what they were like
on historical dominated
understanding the early research about before, who constructed them and for what purpose, what other
the of
the teaching and learning of history. Early on, proponents accounts exist for these historical events, and which accounts warrant
the
fact-based per-spective held sway because of the relative ease our trust (Seixas, 1996).
factual the of Seixas' is borne out
of meas-uring knowledge, difficulty measuring (1996) analysis by Wineburg's (1991a, 1991b)
of and novice historical
historical interpretation, and the emergence of the cult of study expert thinking. Professional historians
behaviorism after World War I. With the cognitive revolution of and high school sen-iors were asked to think aloud as they constructed
an
the 1960s (Gardner, 1985), American researchers began to
investigate some of the factors

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
interpretation of paintings and written documents that In this we unit based
article, report on the implementation of a
the Battle of These and on a curriculum
depicted Lexington. primary model, strategy-supported
sources and some- which was
secondary presented fragmentary times project-based learning (SSPBL), designed to help
contradictory information about this historical event. Both groups learners with and without mild disabilities to
were asked to think aloud as they studied the paintings and learn historical content and understand the processes of
documents, and to rank the documents with respect to their
"trustworthiness" as historical thinking. The curriculum model is based on
Battle of national and state standards for social studies
sources for understanding the events that led to the Center for
(National Council for Social Studies, 1994; National
Lexington. the of in the
Study History Schools, 1996; State of Delaware, 1995)
Wineburg observed stark differences between histori-ans and
evidence and and is consistent with the cur-riculum frameworks developed by
students with respect to their judgments of documentary
the used to
strategies they construct a historical interpretation. When the state of Delaware and local districts. As we document below,
asked to
the of novices the curricu-lum model was designed to be consistent with the
judge accuracy pictorial representations, were more
of the artwork. In prin-ciples that promote acquisition of core content about
likely to base their judgments on the quali-ty
were based on the westward expansion and understanding of historical thinking
contrast, experts' judgments of accuracy
between the and the processes in children with disabilities (see Morocco, this issue).
correspondence pictorial representations
written docu- In what we
ments. Further, historians were much more likely follows, report on the degree to which
novices to make use of the of of the SSPBLunit
than strategies corroboration, implementation promoted improve-ments in
contextualization, and sourcing in constructing an his-torical students' knowledge of the history of U.S. westward expansion,
interpretation. Corroboration involves compar-ing the details of their understanding of historical content and historical inquiry,
one source against those of another before accepting its and their self-efficacy as learners. In addition, we document
trustworthiness. Contextualization situates an event in its temporal instructional opportunities afforded by the unit, as well as
and spatial context. Sourcing involves checking the document's obstacles
source to judge its integrity and the rhetorical purpose for which to its effective
implementation in practice.
it was written. The use of these strategies by historians increased METHODS
their confidence in interpreting and judging the trustworthiness of
sources. A instructional Participants
culturally mediated evidentiary major
for is to The Delaware school district in which this study was
challenge teachers, then, promote students' understanding
the of historical conducted has a longstanding commitment to the edu-cation of
and use of processes interpretation.
The of this is for students with disabilities in inclusive settings. It employs a model
weight challenge especially heavy teachers who are Bear &
called the Team Approach to Mastery (TAM; Proctor, 1990),
responsible for designing and deliver-ing instruction that is responsive in
which stu-dents with mild disabilities and those without disabili-
to the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Classrooms
a
are more varied than ever with respect to race, income, ties are educated in classes taught by both a general and
and the academic and of students special educator, with part-time assistance from a
language, aptitudes dispositions
& result of this the
(Pallas, Natriello, McDill, 1989). As a diversity, paraprofessional. The typical ratio of students with and
urban without disabilities in these classrooms is three to one.
average elementary school classroom contains a five-year span
in academic Four fifth-grade classrooms volunteered to partici-pate in the
&
performance (Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, Sanders, 1994).
ed for all study. Participating classrooms were locat-ed in two different
Clearly, state and national standards are intend- nearly
students, including those with mild disabilities. Two-thirds of the urban intermediate (grade 4 through 6) schools. In one of the
approximately five and one half million children in this country classrooms, several new special education students joined the class
who receive special education are considered mildly disabled mid-year and the teachers experienced continual diffi-culties with
States
(United Department of Education, 1996). Research shows classroom management. A death occurred in the family of the
that students with mild disabilities can
with special educator after the study began, and she was unable to
succeed in rigorous curricula when they are provided
teach the unit for sever-al weeks. At the teachers' request, our
appropriate instruction, materials and support
Ferretti & research team intervened to provide assistance. Research
(e.g., Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, & Rawson, 1997; assistants
Okolo, 1996; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994). taught lessons and worked closely with individuals and small
groups when classroom management became problematic.
our research
Given the substantial assistance provided by team,
we
dropped this class-room from the sample.

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Thus, our final sample consisted of three TAM class- et
project-based learning (Blumenfeld al., 1991; Krajcik, Blumenfeld,
rooms in two schools. Fifty-nine students without &
Marx, Soloway, 1994). Students were asked to investigate the
disabilities and 28 students with mild disabilities partic- three
disabilities experience of one of emigrant groups: miners, farmers, or
ipated (see Table 1). Most of the students with (24)
were with the
had been identified Mormons. They charged answering question:
by multidisciplinary teams as learning
worked in
disabled (LD). Delaware's definition of LD is consistent with Should these emigrants have gone west? Students together
to read and
federal definitions, and diagnosis is based on a discrepancy heterogeneous groups interpret evidence that would help
an artifact that
between ability and academic achievement. However, not all of the them answer this question. They developed presented
students met accepted criteria for identification as LD. Eight of the results of their investigation.
the 28 students had IQ scores below 80, and only 12 met the dual for
The unit is designed to reflect the four principles of teaching
criteria of IQ above 85 and a discrepancy of one standard that frame our REACH
understanding Institute investigations.
deviation between IQ and achievement. The tion of authentic
Consistent with our concep- tasks, we designed
remaining students with disabilities included one stu-dent
the unit to help students understand selected concepts and ideas
identified as mildly retarded and three students with severe
relat-ed to westward expansion and to understand some
attention deficits. The general education students scored in the
rudimentary ideas about the processes used by histori-ans to
average range or above on the total reading score from the
ComprehensiveTest of Basic Skills, with the exception of two analyze and interpret historical evidence. For example, we
students who scored more than one standard deviation below the developed lessons to teach students about the importance of
mean.
Overall, the sample was 69% Caucasian, 28% African providing a true and accurate account of a historical event, ways
and 3% to evaluate bias in evidence and corroborate sources, and the need
evidence.
American, Hispanic. to qualify one's conclusions when there is contradictory
Materials To students in
guide constructing knowledge
Description of the instructional unit. We devel-oped an about these and we
concepts disciplinary processes, provided them with
SSPBLunit about the westward expansion that took place in the questions to ask of one another as they examined historical evidence
United States in the 19th century. The unit was designed to be (e.g., Who wrote
consistent with features of

ls~~~~~~~~~~~B~~~~~~~B~~~~~~~d~~~~~1

Table 1
Demographic Data

Special Education General Education

= =
(n 28) (n 59)
Age (months) M 131 129
(SD) (6.1) (4.1)
CTBS
Reading' M 82.7 102.4
(SD) (9.6) (13.0)
Reading2 M 85.3
(SD) (9.5)
FIQ3 M 88.0
(SD) (12.0)

Minority percentage 43% 25%

Male
percentage 61% 46%
'Total Test Basic Skills = SD =
reading score, Comprehensive of (M 100; 15).
=
2Individually administered reading test, either KaufmanTest of EducationalAchievementor WideRangeAchievementTest (both with M 100; SD = 15).
'Full scale on Wechsler
IQ IntelligenceScale for Children,III.

I -1 --- 1-
"

1-11----1. 11 -I I

62
LearningDisabilityQuarterly
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 tic
this evidence? For what purpose was it written?). With the tributed. Groups were diverse with respect to diagnos-
and
exception of the video described below, the materi-als that label, race, gender. Group work provided stu-dents with
students investigated were excerpted from authentic primary disabilities access to peers who often
sources that historians use in their more to the
and brought background knowledge task and who
investigations, including diaries, drawings photo-graphs, memoirs,
and letters. were more skilled readers and writers.
for
we in To structure group work, students were taught a process
Further, engaged students using cognitive strategies that and communicat-
analyzing, interpreting, ing historical
would help them retain information about the westward migration. dence
information. They read each piece of evi- aloud, described it
The most important of these was a narrative framework around which cussed or and
we orally and in writing, dis- any questions ambiguities,
stand that drafted a
organized the unit. Our goal was for students to under- card, for eventual transfer to the computer, describing
is a narrative of their conclusions about that component of the narrative
history fundamentally (Seixas, 1996)-the story
who a framework. These collaborative activities were designed
people encountered problem that required them to take
to simulate what we term "constructive conversation"
some action. Both positive and negative outcomes occurred as a in our REACH
result of the action taken. Consistent with other work in social framework, where students' questions and
stud-
ies Carnine et interpretations could be addressed and their think- ing
(e.g., al., 1994; Kinder & Bursuck, 1991), narrative extended in discussion with other students. All
for
provides both a conceptual framework and strategic support
understanding
historical content.
We asked students to investigate group activities involved oral reading of the evidence
information about the and group discussion so that information and ideas
the stories of emigrant groups by gathering
narrative the the could be shared. Each group was provided with prompt cards that
following components: people, problems they
faced in their homeland, the reasons for their decision discussion.
contained questions to ask of one another during group
to move the
west, challenges they faced on the trip, and the We designed the unit to take into account the types of difficulties
outcomes that occurred when they reached their destination. As students with disabilities were likely to
students worked in groups, they examined historical evidence in in
experience learning history, including challenges reading
about each component of the narrative framework, and their and
were around these interpreting text, difficulties demonstrat-ing knowledge
multimedia projects organized components. traditional
through paper-and-pencil-based indicators, and lack
To introduce the narrative strategy and teach stu-dents how to
an anchor of motivation. Although we believed these features would assist all
evaluate evidence, we began the unit with (Cognition would be for
and at The students, we thought they especially important help-
Technology Group Vanderbilt, 1990), American
ing students with disabilities. Students used multime-
Experience:The Donner
The of dia technology to create a presentation about their emigrant group.
Party (Public Broadcasting Service, 1992). story the Their included
presentations text writ-ten by students and images
Donner Party, a group of emigrants who took an alternative each classroom with two
disastrous selected by them. We sup-plied participating
western route over the Sierra Nevadas, with results, computers,
was a
fascinating story that captivat-ed the students and piqued
their interest in westward
ascanner, and a printer. Students seemed highly moti-vated to use
In with teacher-led it the technology and, in some cases, access to these resources was
expansion. conjunction discussion, in the
a means for knowl- the catalyst for securing teachers' participation study.
provided supplying background edge Students
about the period in which the unit occurred, the goals and presented their multimedia projects to their peers,
and parents, and teach-ers during an Open House.
characteristics of the people who lived at this time, the
The unit was taught over eight weeks, or one school marking
rigors of life in general and on the Oregon Trail. and consisted of 14 lessons
of period, extending over about 25 to 29 class
Consistent with our view that building an under-standing
should be a the periods. An additional eight class sessions were allocated to creating
migration socially mediated learning process, the multimedia
of
majority activities, including analysis and interpretation of presentation
and
preparing and
hosting an Open House
historical evidence and construction of multimedia projects, were for parents.
be in Based on
designed to completed cooperative groups.
of westward Procedures
students' pretest knowledge expansion, we formed
groups that included students with average to above-average Professional development. General and special
of the In educators from the initial four classrooms met with us
knowledge and students with minimal knowledge topic.
this for two days in the summer prior to the start of the study.
way, expertise was dis- these we discussed of the
During meetings, the goals project
and its instructional
major components

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
including project-based learning, cognitive strategy instruction,
and use of technolo-
Individual interviews on historical content and
cooperative learning, gy. We also discussed historical inquiry. We developed an interview with questions
the logistics of implementing the study (e.g., research instruments to students' of
At we a designed tap understanding the historical
and scheduling of the intervention). that time, presented
draft of the content about westward expansion and their understanding
westward expansion unit to the group and solicited
their feedback about lessons and activities. Teachers' of the processes of historical inquiry. Interviews were
administered before and after instruction individually to 18
primary concerns about the unit were the need for explicit
and for sufficient students with disabilities and to a sample of 27 students
directions and structure in student activities without disabilities who were selected to match the students
of We with disabilities on
repetition major concepts. took these factors into account as for
we revised and race and gender. The interview yielded separate scores
of content and of his-torical
refined the unit over the remainder of the summer. understanding understanding
we had that the and inquiry.
Although hoped general special educator
one teacher The content section of the interview consisted of
in each classroom would share equally in the study, nine questions structured according to the narrative
took for
responsibility teaching social studies and the other for framework. Thus, the questions addressed the students'
teaching science, as was typical in both schools. In the first of the issues: the three
understanding following (a) emigrant
classroom, the general educator taught social studies and the and
groups-farmers, miners, Mormons; (b) the reasons why
special educator had minimal involvement in the study. In moved
they west; (c) problems they encountered on the
the educator
the second classroom, special taught social studies and
journey and their response to those problems; (d) their
the general educator, who was hired on a temporary contract after outcomes for
interactions with Native Americans; and (e) the
the school year began, had minimal involvement in the study. In the the and
emigrants the Native Americans.
the educator social studies
third classroom, general taught with the The historical inquiry section of the interview con-sisted of 11
of and
special educator assisting during most social studies classes. After our questions that probed students' under-standing history
historical These tions students'
initial summer meeting, the bulk of our research team's interaction thinking. ques- targeted
of the
occurred with understanding following issues: (a) what history is and what
unit's historians do (What is history? How do historians know what
the four teachers who were actively involved in the
implementation. happened?);
We had to hold
planned
in which all
regular meetings (b) why historians have different opinions about the past
is an do historians have dif-ferent
could as a to discuss (What opinion? Why opinions
participants gather group implementation about that in the
things happened past?); (c) what evidence is and
of the unit and share ideas and expe-riences. However, at teachers'
the kinds of evidence used by historians (What is evidence? What
request, common meet-ings were held only once a month. kinds of
Teachers preferred to meet during their planning periods rather evidence do historians use?); (d) the nature of bias in evidence
than after school. We met with each of the four participants about (What does it mean to say that a piece of evi-dence is biased? How
is the of
once a week to discuss upcoming lessons, diffi-culties, successes, do you know a piece of evidence biased?); (e) legitimacy
and evidence that
logistics. ignoring is inconsistent with a historian's
Data Collection interpretation (Is it alright for a historian to ignore evidence that
with her what historians do
Group knowledge test. We assessed students' con-tent does not agree opinion? Why?); (f) to

knowledge about westward expansion with a 16-item multiple- reconcile conflicting evidence (What can historians do when the
based on a of the evidence doesn't agree with their opin-ion?); and (g) the
choice test, developed content analysis
infor- conditions that increase a person's confidence in a historian's
curriculum, including mation presented in whole-class and
interpretation (When would you feel pretty sure that a historian's
small-group activities. This test was administered to all
opinion is right?).
participat-ing students prior to and at the conclusion of the unit. We for each section of the
developed scoring guides interview. The
It was read to the whole class and teachers and
interviews were scored by two of the
research staff monitored students to ensure they understood
authors. A random sample of interviews was independ-ently scored by a
directions and completed the task appro-priately. To assess the across 16 the
second rater. On the content section, interviews,
the we of within
test's internal consistency of knowledge measure, percentage agreement one point on the total interview score
Chronbach's [agreements/(agree-
computed alpha and obtained .47 for the pretest ments + was 81%. within 2
disagreements)] Agreement
administration and .61 for the posttest administration. was 100%. On the across all 11
points inquiry section,
and 24 the of exact
questions interviews, percentage

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 + to but were examined
agreement [agreements/(agreements disagreements)] between subjected quantitative analysis for the
For
raters was 90% (range = 100%-46% across ques-tions). eight
of the the of exact challenges encountered by students and teach-ers and the
questions, percentage agreement was greater
for the opportunities afforded by this type of instructional unit.
than 90%. We obtained low agreement (46%) question
that asked students to
identify the different types of evidence RESULTS
used by histori-ans. The disagreements were due to the number of For each of the three we ana-
quantitative measures,
lyzed
types of evidence coded by the raters. When we computed the knowledge gains and examined differences in stu-dents with and
of within one of evi-
percentage agreement category dence, perfect without disabilities through 2 (diagnos-
interrater was for this tic x2 of
agreement (100%) obtained question. category) (time test) repeated-measures ANOVAs. In
Attitude scale. We also examined students' attitudes addition, we examined results from the attitude measure by first
with an instrument used in previous studies of social studies computing a MANOVA to determine if there were significant pre-
instruction (e.g., Okolo & Ferretti, 1998). It con-tained three to posttest dif-ferences on the three factors of the scale. We then
factors: The first assessed students' used
for social studies in and for
self-efficacy learning general learning univariate repeated-measures ANOVAs to examine dif-
about westward in It
expansion particular. included items about ferences from pre- to posttest and between students with and
students' beliefs that they could without disabilities.
a well on a and teach Test
get good grade, perform test, social studies Knowledge
Scores for the test are dis-
content to others. Many of these items multiple-choice knowledge played in Table
were from the for and 2. Statistical analyses showed main effects for time of test [F(1, 83) =
adapted self-efficacy learning
252.3, p < .000] and
performance subscale of the Motivated Strategies for = < The
& diagnostic category [F(1,83) 9.2, p .005]. diag-nostic
Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,
The second set of items category x time of test interaction was also sig-nificant [F(1,83)
McKeachie, 1991, p. 2). assessed = <
academic intrinsic motivation for social stud- 4.5, p .05]. Follow-up tests, with Bonferroni correction,
defined as of school charac- dents scored on
ies, "enjoyment learning terized by an showed that both groups of stu- comparably
the but
orientation toward mastery, curiosity, pretest, general education students scored significantly
and the of
persistence, learning challenging, difficult, and novel higher than students with disabilities on the posttest [t(83) =
tasks" (Gottfried, 1986, p. 4). This subscale was based on the 3.7, p < .000]. Both the general education students [t(57) =
Children's Academic Intrinsic abilities =
Motivation a set of 16.9, p < 000] and the students with mild dis- [t(26)
Inventory (Gottfried, 1986). Finally, items
7.5, p <.005] made significant gains
assessed students' attitudes toward cooperative from to With two the
pretest posttest. exceptions, number of students
and toward with their
learning collaborating peers. These items were
responding correctly to each item increased from pre- to posttest. The
tive &
drawn from other studies of coopera- learning (Owens Stratton, first exception was an item that queried students about the typical out-
1980; Smith, Johnson,
come for emigrants. On this item it appeared that the
& Johnson, 1981). We have administered the attitude scale in previous Donner
studies with students similar to those participating in this study and party video, although highly interesting and motivating,
have validated the exis-tence of three distinct factors, as described led many students to draw the erroneous conclusion on the
above, and on the Trail.
internal & in posttest that 50% of all emigrants perished Oregon
adequate consistency (Okolo Ferretti, press). The second
exception was an item asking about the impact of
Chronbach's alpha was .74 for the pretest administration of Native
westward expansion upon Americans; about three-quar-
ters of the to this on the
the cooperative learning subscale. For all other subscales and sample responded correctly question
and
administrations, alphas were greater than .85. pretest posttest.
Observations and field notes. We observed each Understanding of Historical Content
classroom once a week.
participating approximately During these Scores for the interview that tapped students' under-standing of
observations, we took field notes docu- menting teacher and student historical content are displayed in Table 2. Statistical analyses showed
activities and paraphras-ing classroom discussions. We also circulated main effects for time of test
= < and =
among [F(1,43) 271.4, p .000] diagnostic category [F(1,43) 14.3,
< interaction also
the students during group work and asked them ques-tions about the p .000]. The time of test x diagnostic category
was = < tests showed
activity and their understanding of the topics they were studying. Field significant [F(1,43) 5.9, p .05]. Follow-up
notes were used to get a better sense of how the unit was implemented that and education students
general education special performed
in each classroom and its impact on students. They were not on
similarly

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the = > Table 2. Statistical analyses showed main effects for time of
pretest [t(43) 2.7, p .0125]. However, general education = =
test [F(1,40) 30.3, p < .000] and diagnostic cat-egory [F(1,40)
students outperformed students with dis-abilities on the < Students without dis-
= < 17.9, p .000]. abilities generally
posttest [t(43) 3.9, p .000]. Both general education students
= < understood more about historical inquiry than their nondisabled
[t(27) 17.5, p .000] and students with disabilities [t(17) =
their scores from to peers, but both groups
7.6, p < .000] improved pretest posttest, showed substantial and
but the
general education students improved more than their roughly comparable improve-
peers with disabilities. ments in their from to
of answers to individual understanding pretest posttest. To determine the
Qualitative analysis ques-tions sources of improvement in the
a of
indicated that, prior to instruction, majority students knew we
understanding inquiry, computed
that people traveled west in covered wagons and faced problems from to in the of
changes pretest posttest percentage students who
such as disease and run-ning out of supplies. A substantial each of the 11
were credited with correct responses to questions.
minority of students had a general idea that people went west for showed in
Inspection gains the percentage of students who generated
more land and that Native Americans were subsequently forced to each of these but the
off land. not differ- correct responses questions, greatest changes
the However, they could identify ent groups
were observed for "What is bias in evidence?" (31%), "How do you
who moved west or reasons and problems specific to the groups,
know a piece of evidence is biased?" (36%), and "Why do historians
and they had a limited under-standing of interactions with Native have different
Americans. As a result of instruction, nearly all students were able about that in the After
the three and most rea- opinions things happened past?" (29%).
to identify groups studied, gave sons why the to a
intervention, compared before, greater percentage of
these groups moved west. Most students learned more about students understood that bias involves the distortion of evidence to
is when
specific problems faced on the journey and understood the support an opin-ion, bias suggested contradictory
outcomes of the migra-tion better (e.g., that most participants in evidence is ignored, and historians may have different opinions
Rush did not did not
the Gold get rich). However, they explain
because they have access to different sources of evi-
more complex issues, such as the fact that farmers needed land to
dence. The smallest changes were obtained for "What is history?"
pass on to their sons and the nature of the conflict with Native "How do historians know what
(11%), hap-pened?" (9%), and
Americans. to
of Historical "What is evidence?" (7%). After the intervention, compared
Understanding Inquiry a
before, comparable per-centage of students understood that
Scores for the interview that tapped students' under- history had to do with events in the past, that historians study
of historical also are in clues
standing inquiry displayed evidence to understand the past, and that evidence involves
about that
something already happened.

66
LearningDisabilityQuarterly
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Attitude Scale to mote
inquiry (Seixas, 1996; Weinburg, 1991a, 1991b) pro-
Scores on the attitude subscales are reported in Table the critical need to in a
= dispositions they participate
2. The MANOVA revealed a significant effect for time of test, [F(6,80) representative democracy.
< univariate ANOVAs revealed Our with to students' of historical
3.3, p .01]. Follow-up repeated-measures findings respect understanding
effects
significant only for the self-efficacy subscale. The main effects for are Prior to
= < and time of inquiry promising. instruction, the majority of students
diagnostic category [F(1,85) 7.9, p .001] with and without disabilities
test = < were had a of the of and
[F(1,85) 97.4, p .000] statistically signifi-cant. rudimentary understanding concepts history
and knew that historians used sources in their
Students without disabilities generally had a greater sense of self- evidence, they doing
and both of
efficacy than students with disabil-ities, groups investigations. However, few students understood the concept of bias
students had a sense of after the historians' differ. After
greater self-efficacy completing or reasons why interpretations instruction,
intervention. of
a greater percentage of students could explain the con-cept bias,
DISCUSSION and that
articulate the signs that are diagnostic for it, recognize
The primary purpose of this study was to see if the provision of historical is affect-
interpretation ed by the evidence that one
a rigorous curriculum unit about the 19th century westward
investigates. While there is considerable room for improvement in all
expansion in the United States led to students'
in about the under- of these we must note in
improvements knowledge period, standing of understanding ideas, that gains
torical and historical were
historical content and the processes of his- inquiry, understanding roughly comparable for students
attitudes about with and without disabilities. Our data are
learning, especially for students with disabilities.
The evidence is consistent
consistent with the conclusion that students with dis-
with the conclusion that implementation of the SSPBL unit was abilities can understand authentic historical practices
and meet the demands of rigorous curricula.
associated with positive outcomes for students with and without
In contrast to their peers with disabilities, students without
disabilities alike. After engaging in the SSPBLunit, students knew
disabilities appeared to learn more about the period of westward
more about the topic of westward expansion, had a better
expansion and have a better under-standing of historical content.
understanding of his-torical content and the processes of historical with our work &
These findings are at odds previous (Okolo Ferretti,
inquiry, and had more favorable attitudes about their self-effi- which for stu-
1997a, 1997b), reported comparable knowledge gains
cacy in social studies than they did prior to these inves-tigations. dents with and without disabilities. We cannot be cer-
Our are consistent with research
findings generally previous tain of the reasons for these differences, but one possi-bility is
the benefits of based for all
documenting project- investigations that the students without disabilities were better
students &
(Ferretti Okolo, able to use the narrative framework to organize informa-tion
Okolo & and to understand the historical content. The con-
1997; Ferretti, 1997a, 1997b).
As tent assessments developed for the current study were based
noted, there have been surprisingly few studies of the effects
of social studies instruction on students with on this narrative framework. For example, the interview on
disabilities (Curtis, 1991) because students with disabil-ities are historical content asked students to recall
often excluded from these instructional oppor-tunities (Patton et information about the people who lived during the peri-od, the
al., 1987). Within the scant social studies literature about conditions that gave rise to their migration, the problems they
instructional interventions for confronted along the way, and the out-comes associated with their
students with the most
disabilities, frequently meas-ured migration. The narrative framework was embedded in the
outcome is improvement in content knowledge (see curriculum, for exam-ple, in a large wall chart and in the
Curtis, 1991). We suspect that the focus on this outcome is timedia Students with
structure of the mul- template. disabilities,
attributable to the relative ease of measur- who
ing declarative knowledge, as well as teachers' reliance on the began instruction with less content knowledge than students
without need more
textbook as the medium for promoting the goals of social studies disabilities, may explicit instruction to use the
education (Brophy, 1992). In fact, valuable recommendations based narrative framework to organize and under-stand the content.
upon instructional
Beck & Classroom Observations
design principles (e.g., McKeown, 1991; Carnine et al., 1994) As we described above, the field notes were examined for two
themes: (a) challenges encountered by teachers in implementing
have been made to improve the "considerateness" (Armbruster & and
the unit and by students in develop-ing understanding (b)
Anderson, 1985) of textbooks and increase students' knowledge of and events that
practices provided opportunities for students
social studies content. However, we believe a commitment to with disabilities to
the of
principle
entails a
authenticity responsibility
to
acculturate all students in the practices of historical

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
participate and profit from the unit. The focus of these lived and the differences in of life
people great people's way
observations was on ways in which SSPBLwas imple-mented in and
yesterday today.
the class as a whole. Although we speculate below about some
Key goals of the unit were to help students under-stand the
specific opportunities afforded stu-dents with disabilities, we
about individual or importance of providing a true and accurate historical account, the
did not collect extensive data performance
participation. fact that evidence can be biased, ways to check for bias, and the need
In these three TAM teach- to qualify one's conclusions. These ideas were not easy for students to
Challenges. classrooms, ers encountered a
in the classroom and
number of challenges that affected learning grasp. As we observed one teacher instruct the class about bias,
the Teachers were
impacted teaching practices they employed. charged we saw students vacillate in their opinions about a topic, subject
with
helping all students understand the same unit; yet
students' to the piece of evidence they were examining at that moment.
background knowledge, skills, motivation, and two of
instructional and behavioral needs covered a The task of simulta-neously considering conflicting pieces
broad For historical
as some students evidence and integrating them to make an informed
range. example,
struggled to decode
simple words,
others read
avidly
conclusion was a challenge for students. Teachers also echoed this
observation in exit interviews.
from
books they had borrowed from their local library. A third area of difficulty was found in working with
Enlisting the attention and participation of all stu-dents in group primary sources. Students did not seem to appreciate the
activities and class discussions proved difficult. Furthermore, a need to take into account the author and his or her
motives when
substantial number of stu-dents participated in other reading primary sources, despite specific
social studies instructions to discuss these issues in their group. Students also
instructional services (e.g., Chapter 1) during dence.
found it difficult to interpret pictorial evi- Often, they
instruction, causing minor disruptions as they entered and exit- lacked the
background information needed to understand the
ed the classroom. As we discuss below, teachers For we
a of to the significance of features of the image. example, questioned
employed variety approaches manage range of students about the
romantic depiction of trail life present in the
student needs and characteristics.
We observed three aspects of the substance and goals drawing of a serene and neatly dressed and coifed young woman
of this unit that for stu-
posed significant challenges dents. First, sitting atop a covered wagon. Students did not know enough
the
students often evidenced the bias of pre-sentism that has been so about the typical dress of the times to judge picture
erature & In irrelevant
accurately. addition, details often affected their
frequently reported in the lit- (Ashby Lee, 1987; Judd,
1915). That is, it was extremely difficult for students to understand conclusions. For example, when discussing the above picture,

the events and people of another time on their own terms. For some concluded that the woman was dirty because the picture
was black and white.
example, shrinking access to land and farmers' desire to have Students' in
Opportunities. participation learning activities was
sufficient land for their progeny were major reasons for traveling enabled by the constructive conversa-
to uncharted and unclaimed lands in the West. However, in
with we found that did tions they had with their teachers and peers. Teachers used
discussions students, they not compre-
classroom conversations to monitor student
hend why the emigrants would not be able to secure more land in and to misunder- or
understanding immediately clarify standings
the Midwest. One group of students insisted that the farmers could information. Teachers the of
expand upon incomplete adapted pace
procure land if they so desired. When we asked them to envision the its and nature the
discussion, explic-itness, the of examples they
what hap-
used based on the difficulties students exhibited. In all classes, teachers
pens to the price of land when it becomes scarce, one group insisted, ities. monitored
circulated among students during group activ- They
could asked to
"they just work more hours" in order to purchase it. Other participation, questions check understanding, provided
and California as additional instruction and information to students as needed, and
students could not imagine Oregon minimally
populated states, with an abundance of available land. In another students' ideas. As discussed
after expanded upon above, evaluating
instance, reading about the persecution of Mormon evidence proved difficult. When students' responses indicated they
Joseph Smith's family, one group insisted that such events did not understand the concept of biased evidence, we observed one
couldn't in our
could not happen to their families. "They get teacher use an increasingly focused set of questions to cultivate her
couldn't in our declared one students' the nature of life
windows, they get doors," understanding. Appreciating in the 1800s
student, "and if they did, we have a shotgun." Teachers presented another challenge, and we observed teachers use events
validated our observa-tions in exit interviews. They noted that from students' daily lives
students found it difficult to understand the context in which

Learing Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 the social studies class to complete their projects. Project
to help them contrast this period to their own. Thus,
and of the classroom construction also required us to provide additional staff to assist
immediacy responsiveness discussions
the students in using the authoring system, the computers, and
seemed important in promoting the learn-ing of all students.
the scanners. Teachers could not have managed these activities
The teachers clearly communicated the expectation that without our assistance, which calls into question the feasibility of
and that
everyone was a valued participant in the classroom they having students create multimedia projects without substantial
all students to act
expected accordingly. We heard two teachers com-puter resources and student and teacher expertise.
state, on several occasions, that everyone could learn from one In the a
conclusion, implementation of SSPBLunit about
at or others would not be in students'
another and that laugh-ing demeaning westward expansion was associated with gains
permitted. Teachers praised students for contributing to the dis- about the
knowledge period, improve-ments in their
cussion. Even when statements were not completely correct or
understanding of historical content and historical inquiry, and a
tangential, teachers found a way to work them into the discussion; greater sense of their self-efficacy as learners. While students
we never observed a teacher criticize a student's comments or
ideas. Furthermore, teachers enthusiastically praised students with disabilities did not seem to learn as much about the period or
understand the content as well as their nondisabled
who had lit-tle to say when they did volunteer an answer or ask a
we did peers, both groups showed considerable gains as a result of
question. Indeed, not observe any instances in which
engaging in SSPBL.We suspect that students with disabilities will
students poked fun at one another's skills or ideas. In fact, in one for and
benefit from more explicit strate-gic support learning
class we observed two occasions historical
understanding content. Finally, we observed a number
on which the teacher misunderstood a special educa-tion student's instructional
response to a question. Other students in the class, in defense of a of that were
it that teachers challenges, variety teaching practices implemented by
the student, clarified his response. Thus, appeared and some
had teachers, genuine instruc-tional opportunities that were
success-fully created a classroom climate in which all students
afforded by the imple-mentation of a SSPBLunit. These findings will
felt safe to participate and in which they believed their contributions our efforts in of the
were valued. Although we observed a minority of students who were inform continuing subsequent years proj-ect to
in class discussions and this
not active participants group activities, promote the understanding of all students in inclusive social studies
minority included both students with and without disabilities. classrooms.
We also found evidence in the field notes that some
of all REFERENCES
of the supports built into the unit facilitated the learn-ing & level
Armbruster,B., Anderson, T. (1985). Does answering higher-
students, including those with mild disabili-ties. The Donner Party while facilitate
After questions reading productive learning? Reviewof
video anchor was highly moti-vating. watching attentively, EducationalResearch,49, 280-318.
M. P.& and
students asked Ashby, G., Lee, (1987). Children's concepts of empathy
in In C. Portal The cur-
understanding history. (Ed.), history
about the and its riculum teachers London: FalmerPress.
many questions party experiences. We heard for (pp. 62-88).
them connect events in the video to a num- Barr,R., Barth,J., & Shermis, S. (1977). Definingthe social stud-ies.
ber of other topics discussed throughout the unit.and Arlington, VA: National Council for the Social Studies.
G. &
Bear, G., Proctor,W. A. (1990). Impact of a full-time inte-grated program
Furthermore, the students were enthusiastic about cre-ating on the achievement of and children.
nonhandicapped mildly handicapped
their multimedia Exceptionality,1, 227-238.
presenting projects. They looked forward to
in could Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. (1991). Substantive and method-
considerations for textbook In
working on the computer and brought pictures they ological productive analysis.
scan into their
HyperStudio stack. Students' contributions to the P. Shaver Handbook researchon social studies and
proj-ects were not limited to writing, which opened other J. (Ed.), of teaching
New York:MacMillan &
avenues of and learning(pp. 496-512). Publishing Co. Bell, J. C.,
participation (e.g., selecting scanning pictures) for McCollum, D. F. (1917). A study of the attain-
students with disabilities. The pride stu-dents took in their projects ments of pupils in United States history. Journalof Educational
Psychology,8, 257-274.
was evident in their per-formance during the Open House. With one P. R.
Blumenfeld, C., Soloway, E., Marx, W., Krajcik,J. S., Guzdial, M.,
&
A.
exception, all students chose to read their work to the audience, Palincsar, (1991). Motivating project-based
which after each learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the
clapped enthusiastically presentation. Unfortunately, learning.

the construction of the multimedia project took an inordinate amount Educational 369-398.
of time. With only Psychologist,26,

two and Bransford, & R. R. A.

How
computers per classroom, limited keyboarding skills,
students required quite a bit of time outside of L., Cocking,
J. D., Brown, (1999). peo-

ple learn: Brain, mind, experience,and school. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.
Bransford,J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problemsolver.
New York:W. H. Freeman.
Brophy,J. (1990). Teaching social studies for understandingand
The School 353-417.
higher-orderapplications. Elementary Journal,90,

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Brophy, J. (1992). The de facto national curriculum in U.S. ele- dents with disabilities.
social studies: of a The learning Journal of Special Education
mentary Critique representativeexample. Journalof Technology,13, 91-103.
401-447. C. & R. P. The of dia
CurriculumStudies,24, Okolo, M., Ferretti, (1997b). impact multime- design
education. MA: on the and collaboration
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of Cambridge, projects knowledge, attitudes, of students in
HarvardUniversity Press. inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computers in ChildhoodEducation,7, 223-
& N. Social 251.
Carnine, D., Bean, R., Miller, S., studies: Zigmond, (1994). C. & R. P.
428-441. Okolo, M., Ferretti, (1998). Multimediadesign projects in an
Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review,23, inclusive social studies classroom: "Sometimespeople argue
at Vanderbilt. of fists."
Cognition and Technology Group (1990). with words instead TeachingExceptionalChildren,31, 50-57. Okolo, C.
& P. citi-
Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. M., Ferretti,R. (in press). Preparingfuture
EducationalResearcher,19, 2-10. zens: in the social
Technology supported project-basedlearning
Curtis, C. K. (1991). Social studies for students at-riskand with studies. In L. Cuban & Woodward technolo-
disabilities. In P. Shaver Handbook researchon socialstud- J. (Eds.),Implementing

J. (Ed.), of
in education: devel-
ies and New York:Macmillan.
teaching learning(pp. 157-174).
P. gy special Implicationsfor curriculum,professional
Dalton, B., Morocco, C., Tivnan, T., & Rawson, (1997). and Los CA: Corwin Press.
science: for in opment, managingchange. Angeles, Owens, L., &
a
Supported inquiry Teaching conceptual change urban and Straton,R. G. (1980). The development of coop-
and individualised scale
suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities,24, 261-269. erative, competitive, learning preference
for children. British of Educational 147-161.
and education. New York: The Journal

&
Psychology,50,

The
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy Free Pallas, A. M., Natriello, G., McDill, E. L. (1989). chang-
Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath ing nature of the disadvantagedpopulation: Currentdimensions and
& C. M. in future trends. EducationalResearcher,18, 16-22.
Ferretti,R. P., Okolo, (1996). Authenticity learning: & M. Social studies
Patton, J., Polloway, E., Cronin, (1987). instruction
Multimedia design projects in the social studies for students with
disabilities. Journal 450-460. for handicapped students: A review of current prac-tices. The
R. & C. M. multime- SocialStudies,78, 131-135.
of LearningDisabilities,

Ferretti, P., Okolo, (1997, April). Designing &

dia in the social studies: on students'content Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., McKeachie,W. J.
projects Effects knowledge

and attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A manual the use the Motivated
American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago. (1991). for of Strategiesfor Learning

H. The mind's new science:A the

Gardner, (1985). historyof cog- Ann Arbor: of
nitive revolutionNew. York:Basic Books. Michigan.
Questionnaire. University
Gottfried, A. E. (1986). Children'sacademicintrinsicmotivation Public Service. The American
FL: Assessment Resources. Broadcasting (1992). experience:
inventory.Odessa, Psychological VA:Author.
TheDonnerparty. Fairfax,
C. H. P. the of historical
Judd, (1915).
The
psychology of high school subjects. Seixas, (1996). Conceptualizing growth thinking. In
Boston: Ginn.
D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbookof education and human
Kinder,D., & Bursuck,W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies UK:
Does itself?
curriculum: history really repeat Journalof LearningDisabilities,24, development(pp. 765-783). Oxford, BlackwellPublishersLtd.
270-275. H. A.
Simon, (1980). Problem solving and education. In
P. R. & E. D. T. Tuma & R. Reif Problem and education:Issuesin
Krajcik,J. S., Blumenfeld, C., Marx, W., Soloway, (1994). A (Eds.), solving

teachers learn and research Erlbaum.

teaching (pp. 81-96). Hillsdale, NJ:
collaborative model for helping middle school science D. &
The School 483-497. Smith, K. A., Johnson, W., Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can con-flict be
project-based learning. Elementary Journal,94, constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on
Journal Educational
science curriculum. Remedial and Special Education,
cooperative learning groups.
15(2),72-85. of Psychology,73,

Mathes, P. G., Fuchs,D., Fuchs,L. S., Henley, A. M.,

&
Sanders,A. (1994). 651-663.
with Classwide
Increasingstrategicreadingpractice Peabody Stateof of PublicInstruction.
Peer DisabilitiesResearchand 4-48. Delaware-Department (1995, June).

Tutoring.Learning
Practice,9(1), New directionsSocial.studiescurriculum Dover:Author.
National Assessment of EducationalProgress.(1990a). Thecivics frameworks.
card. DC: U.S. of United States of Education. annual to
Department (1996). Eighteenth report
report Washington, Department Education, on the the individuals
congress implementationof with disabilitiesact. Washington,
Office of Educational Researchand Improvement. DC: Author.
National Assessment of Educational Progress.(1990b). Thegeog-raphy Voss, J. F. (1991). Informal reasoning and international rela-
school seniors. DC:
learning of high Washington, U.S. Department of tions. In F. D. N. & W. rea-
Education, Office of EducationalResearchand
J. Voss, J.
Improvement. and
Perkins, Segal (Eds.),Informal
soning education(pp. 37-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990c). The &
U.S. card. DC: U.S. of Office Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem
history report Washington, Department Education,
of solving skill in the social sciences. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Thepsychologyof
Educational Researchand Improvement.
National Center for Study of History in the Schools. (1996). learningand motivation:Advancesin researchand theory(Vol. 17, pp. 165-
213). New York:Academic Press.
National standards UnitedStates Los UCLA. & T. A. the of
Voss, J. F., Post, (1988). On solving ill-structured
for history. Angeles: In M. H. R. & M. Farr Thenature
problems. T. Chi, Glaser, J. (Eds.), of
National Council for Social Studies. (1994). Expectationsof excel-lence: expertise(pp. 261-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Curriculumstandards for social studies, Bulletin No. 89. &
DC: Author. Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual dif-ferences in the
Washington, solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon
C. & R. P.
Okolo, M., Ferretti, (1997a). Knowledge acquisition and technology-
in the social studies for stu-
& R. R. Schmeck
(Eds.),
Individual in
differences cognition (pp. 205-232). New
supported projects York:Academic Press.
S. S. Historical A of the
Wineburg, (1991a). problem solving: study cognitive
used in the evaluation of
processes documentary
and evidence. Journal Educational 73-87.
pictorial of Psychology,83,
 S. S. On the of historical texts:
Wineburg, (1991b). reading Notes on the
breach between school and academy. American
EducationalResearchJournal,28, 495-519.

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of
S. S. The of and teach- The authors wish to acknowledge the members of the University
Wineburg, (1996). psychology learning ing
Delaware's REACH Kim
history. In D. C. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), The handbookof Project (Constance Anderton, Carroll,
educationalpsychology(pp.
423-437).

New York:Macmillan. RebeccaMerino, Jennifer Thompson, and Keith Wyner) for their
efforts on behalf the project. We also wish to acknowledge the
cooperating teachers of the Bayard and Pulaski Elementary Schools for
AUTHOR NOTE the professionalism and energy they exhibited in sup-
The research in this was supported by a goals.
reportedwportedinthis article
from the U.S. of Education to the The order of is for or
Department (H023V70008) authorship alphabetical. Requests reprints materials can be
REACH Institute to Accelerate

project
(Research Learningthrough

sent to the authors at: School of Education,

Willard Hall Education of
High Supports for Students with Disabilities in Grades 4-8) and the Dwight D. Building, University Delaware,Newark, DE
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grant 19711.
Program(#84.281B).

Volume 24, Winter 2001

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:39:22 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions