Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms

7/30/2019 Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teaching-for-historical-understanding-in-inclusive-classrooms 1/14

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive ClassroomsAuthor(s): Ralph P. Ferretti, Charles D. MacArthur and Cynthia M. OkoloReviewed work(s):Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, Teaching for Understanding withStudents with Disabilities (Winter, 2001), pp. 59-71Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

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

Accessed: 10/02/2013 12:38

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 [email protected].

.

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 on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511296?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511296?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



TEACHING F O R HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDIN

I N INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

Ralph P. Ferretti, Charles D. MacArthur, and Cynthia M. Okolo

Abstract. Fifth-grade students with and without mild disabili-ties participated in an eight-week project-based, technology-sup-ported investigation about the 19th century westward expansionin the United States. A narrative framework was used to organizeand support students' understanding of the experiences of three

emigrant groups. During their investigations, students analyzedprimary and secondary sources to understand the experiences ofthese emigrants. The analysis of these sources was preceded byteacher-led discussions about the possibility of bias in evidencethat affects the trustworthiness of historical documentation.Students designed a multimedia presentation about the experi-ences of one emigrant group and presented their work to their

peers and parents. Quantitative analyses showed that these inves-

tigations were associated with gains in students' knowledge aboutthe period of westward expansion, a better understanding of his-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 challengesfaced by teachers and students in meeting the demands of rigor-ous curriculum in addition to some of the opportunities affordedfor all students by this project-based investigation. The implica-tions of our findings for improving the historical understandingof students with LD are discussed.

RALPHP. FERRETTI,h.D., is professorof education andpsychology, Universityof Delaware.CHARLES . MACARTHUR, h.D., is professorof education, Universityof Delaware.

CYNTHIAM. OKOLO,Ph.D., is associateprofessorof education,Universityof Delaware.

During the last decade, the National Assessment of most social studies educators seek to ensure acquisi-Educational Progress (NAEP; 1990a, 1990b, 1990c) has tion of the disciplinary knowledge and the criticaldocumented how little general education students habits of mind that students need to participate asknow or understand about social studies

conceptsand informed citizens

(Barr, Barth,&

Shermis, 1977;content. The NAEP findings are disturbing because Brophy, 1990; Carnine, Bean, Miller, & Zigmond,

Volume 24, Winter 2001 59







1994). Students with disabilities are expected to partic-

ipate in democratic decision making and owe their

guarantee of a free, appropriate public education to

the application of democratic processes (Curtis, 1991;Ferretti & Okolo, 1996). Unfortunately, students with

disabilities have traditionally been excluded fromsocial studies instruction (Patton, Polloway, & Cronin,

1987). Consequently, they tend to perform worse than

their nondisabled peers (Carnine et al., 1994).In light of these findings, the textbook, which is the

de facto social studies curriculum (Brophy, 1992), has

come under increasing scrutiny. Social studies text-

books often lack conceptual coherence, sacrifice depthfor breadth of coverage, attempt to cover too much

information in the allotted pages, and fail to providecontextual information and other conceptual scaffolds

that would facilitate comprehension (see Okolo &

Ferretti, 1997a). The recognition of these limitations

has led some (e.g., Carnine et al., 1994) to recommend

improvements in the coherence and "considerateness"

of social studies texts. These recommendations are con-

sistent with the goal of improving students' knowledgeof disciplinary content, but they fail to address the goalof developing the critical habits of mind that students

need in order to participate in a representative democ-

racy (Ferretti& Okolo, 1996).

Understandably, these contrasting goals for social

studies instruction are reflected in different concep-tions of historical

understanding.As it turns

out,the

codification of the social studies curriculum nearlycoincided with the emergence of a psychology of the

teaching and learning of history (Wineburg, 1996). At

its inception, the pioneers of this scant literature wres-

tled with competing conceptions of historical under-

standing. Bell and McCollum's (1917) prescient sketch

lays out at least five different ways to think about his-

torical understanding (Wineburg, 1996), including the

capacity to (a) understand the present in light of the

past, (b) sort out documentary evidence to construct a

probable account of things past, (c) appreciate histori-

cal narrative, (d) reflect thoughtfully about historicalsituations, and (e) answer factual questions about his-

torical characters and situations.

As Wineburg (1996) recounts, the tension between

the proponents of the fact-based and the interpretative

perspectives on historical understanding dominated

the early research about the teaching and learning of

history. Earlyon, the proponents of the fact-based per-

spective held sway because of the relative ease of meas-

uring factual knowledge, the difficulty of measuringhistorical interpretation, and the emergence of the cult

of behaviorism after World War I. With the cognitive

revolution of the 1960s (Gardner, 1985), Americanresearchers began to investigate some of the factors

that facilitate or impede the construction of historical

understanding qua interpretation. In retrospect, and in

fact, these contrasting perspectives represent an artifi-

cial dichotomy that obscures our efforts to elucidate

the nature of understanding. As we now know, teach-

ing and learning for understanding requires access tofacts and knowledge (expertise) that can be used to

interpret and solve authentic problems (Bransford,

Brown, & Cocking, 1999).Authentic problems are the kinds of ill-defined prob-

lems (Bransford& Stein, 1984; Simon, 1980) that peopleconfront in their life and work. Ill-defined problemsoften have ambiguous or vague goals (Voss, 1991; Voss,

Greene, Post, & Penner, 1983; Voss & Post, 1988; Voss,

Tyler, & Yengo, 1983). Questions such as "Did the

benefits of industrialization outweigh the costs?" or

"Should the Spanish have colonized the indigenous

peoples of Mesoamerica?"do not have generally accept-ed standards against which all proposed solutions can

be evaluated. In fact, there may be many different,

apparently contradictory solutions to social problems,whose validity can only be determined by consideringthe interpretative perspective one takes to the question

(Bruner, 1996). Ill-defined problems challenge students

to define goals, and to identify and analyze evidence

that can be used to evaluate the plausibility of argu-ments offered to support alternative positions (Ferretti& Okolo, 1996; Okolo & Ferretti, 1998). In general,these kinds of

problemsare best resolved in the context

of informed public discussion during which people

gather and consider available evidence and weigh the

advantages and disadvantages of various actions. In our

view, these activities are at the core of democratic action

(Dewey, 1916, 1933).The solution of historical problems and the construc-

tion of historical interpretations confront novice and

expert thinkers with a unique set of intellectual chal-

lenges. Historical thinkers must sift through the tracesof

the past (e.g., artifacts, documents, and the physical

environment) as well as accountsof the past (e.g., stories,

films, television news, and historical fiction) to constructan interpretation of an event (Seixas, 1996). To some

degree, each of these sources reflects a presentation and

representation of the past that both exists in some form

and is irretrievably ost (Seixas, 1996). Consequently, the

historical thinker is compelled to ask questions about

how these sources came to be, what they were like

before, who constructed them and for what purpose,what other accounts exist for these historical events, and

which accounts warrant our trust (Seixas, 1996).Seixas' (1996) analysis is borne out by Wineburg's

(1991a, 1991b) study of expert and novice historical

thinking. Professional historians and high school sen-iors were asked to think aloud as they constructed an

Learning Disability Quarterly 60







interpretation of paintings and written documents that

depicted the Battle of Lexington. These primary and

secondary sources presented fragmentary and some-

times contradictory information about this historical

event. Both groups were asked to think aloud as theystudied the paintings and documents, and to rank thedocuments with respect to their "trustworthiness" as

sources for understanding the events that led to the

Battle of Lexington.

Wineburg observed stark differences between histori-

ans and students with respect to their judgments of

documentary evidence and the strategies they used to

construct a historical interpretation. When asked to

judge the accuracy of pictorial representations, novices

were more likely to base their judgments on the quali-

ty of the artwork. In contrast, experts' judgments of

accuracy were based on the correspondence between

the pictorial representations and the written docu-

ments. Further, historians were much more likely than

novices to make use of the strategies of corroboration,

contextualization, and sourcing in constructing an his-

torical interpretation. Corroboration involves compar-

ing the details of one source against those of another

before accepting its trustworthiness. Contextualization

situates an event in its temporal and spatial context.

Sourcing involves checking the document's source to

judge its integrity and the rhetorical purpose for which

it was written. The use of these strategies by historians

increased their confidence ininterpreting and judgingthe trustworthiness of culturally mediated evidentiary

sources. A major instructional challenge for teachers,

then, is to promote students' understanding and use of

the processes of historical interpretation.The weight of this challenge is especially heavy for

teachers who are responsible for designing and deliver-

ing instruction that is responsive to the needs of an

increasingly diverse student population. Classrooms

are more varied than ever with respect to race, income,

language, and the academic aptitudes and dispositionsof students (Pallas, Natriello, & McDill, 1989). As a

result of this diversity, the average urban elementaryschool classroom contains a five-year span in academic

performance (Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders,

1994). Clearly, state and national standards are intend-

ed for nearly all students, including those with mild

disabilities. Two-thirds of the approximately five andone half million children in this country who receive

special education are considered mildly disabled

(United States Department of Education, 1996).Research shows that students with mild disabilities cansucceed in rigorous curricula when they are providedwith appropriate instruction, materials and support

(e.g., Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, & Rawson, 1997;Ferretti & Okolo, 1996; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994).

In this article, we report on the implementation of a

unit based on a curriculum model, strategy-supported

project-based learning (SSPBL),which was designed to

help learners with and without mild disabilities to

learn historical content and understand the processesof historical thinking. The curriculum model is basedon national and state standards for social studies

(National Council for Social Studies, 1994; National

Center for the Study of History in the Schools, 1996;State of Delaware, 1995) and is consistent with the cur-

riculum frameworks developed by the state of Delaware

and local districts. As we document below, the curricu-

lum model was designed to be consistent with the prin-

ciples that promote acquisition of core content about

westward expansion and understanding of historical

thinking processes in children with disabilities (see

Morocco, this issue).In what follows, we report on the degree to which

implementation of the SSPBLunit promoted improve-ments in students' knowledge of the history of U.S.

westward expansion, their understanding of historical

content and historical inquiry, and their self-efficacy as

learners. In addition, we document instructional

opportunities afforded by the unit, as well as obstacles

to its effective implementation in practice.

METHODS

Participants

The Delaware school district in which this study wasconducted has a longstanding commitment to the edu-

cation of students with disabilities in inclusive settings.It employs a model called the Team Approach to

Mastery (TAM; Bear & Proctor, 1990), in which stu-

dents with mild disabilities and those without disabili-

ties are educated in classes taught by both a general and

a special educator, with part-time assistance from a

paraprofessional. The typical ratio of students with and

without disabilities in these classrooms is three to one.

Four fifth-grade classrooms volunteered to partici-

pate in the study. Participating classrooms were locat-

ed in two different urban intermediate (grade 4through 6) schools. In one of the classrooms, several

new special education students joined the class

mid-year and the teachers experienced continual diffi-

culties with classroom management. A death occurredin the family of the special educator after the study

began, and she was unable to teach the unit for sever-

al weeks. At the teachers' request, our research teamintervened to provide assistance. Research assistants

taught lessons and worked closely with individualsand small groups when classroom managementbecame problematic. Given the substantial assistance

provided by our research team, we dropped this class-room from the sample.








Thus, our final sample consisted of three TAM class-

rooms in two schools. Fifty-nine students without

disabilities and 28 students with mild disabilities partic-

ipated (see Table 1). Most of the students with

disabilities (24) had been identified by multidisciplinary

teams as learning disabled (LD).Delaware's definition ofLD is consistent with federal definitions, and diagnosisis based on a discrepancy between ability and academic

achievement. However, not all of the students met

accepted criteria for identification as LD. Eight of the

28 students had IQ scores below 80, and only 12 met

the dual criteriaof IQ above 85 and a discrepancy of one

standard deviation between IQ and achievement. The

remaining students with disabilities included one stu-

dent identified as mildly retarded and three students

with severe attention deficits. The general education

students scored in theaverage range

or above on the

total reading score from the ComprehensiveTest of Basic

Skills, with the exception of two students who scored

more than one standard deviation below the mean.

Overall, the sample was 69% Caucasian, 28% African

American, and 3% Hispanic.

Materials

Description of the instructional unit. We devel-

oped an SSPBLunit about the westward expansion that

took place in the United States in the 19th century.The unit was designed to be consistent with features of

project-based learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991;

Krajcik,Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994). Students

were asked to investigate the experience of one of

three emigrant groups: miners, farmers, or Mormons.

They were charged with answering the question:Should these emigrants have gone west? Studentsworked together in heterogeneous groups to read and

interpret evidence that would help them answer this

question. They developed an artifact that presentedthe results of their investigation.

The unit is designed to reflect the four principles of

teaching for understanding that frame our REACH

Institute investigations. Consistent with our concep-tion of authentic tasks, we designed the unit to helpstudents understand selected concepts and ideas relat-

ed to westward expansion and to understand some

rudimentary ideas about the processes used by histori-ans to analyze and interpret historical evidence. For

example, we developed lessons to teach students about

the importance of providing a true and accurate

account of a historical event, ways to evaluate bias in

evidence and corroborate sources, and the need to

qualify one's conclusions when there is contradictoryevidence. To guide students in constructing knowledgeabout these concepts and disciplinary processes, we

provided them with questions to ask of one another as

they examined historical evidence (e.g., Who wrote

Table 1

Demographic Data

Special Education

(n = 28)

General Education

(n = 59)

Age (months) M 131 129

(SD) (6.1) (4.1)CTBSReading' 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 reading score, ComprehensiveTestof Basic Skills (M = 100; SD = 15).

2Individually administeredreading test, either KaufmanTestof EducationalAchievement r WideRangeAchievementTest(both with M = 100;SD = 15).

'Full scale IQ on Wechsler ntelligenceScalefor Children, II.

LearningDisabilityQuarterly 62

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

I -1 --- 1-"

. R-11, ;, gg,

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







this evidence? For what purpose was it written?). With

the exception of the video described below, the materi-

als that students investigated were excerpted from

authentic primary sources that historians use in their

investigations, including diaries, drawings and photo-

graphs, memoirs, and letters.

Further, we engaged students in using cognitive

strategies that would help them retain information

about the westward migration. The most important of

these was a narrative framework around which we

organized the unit. Our goal was for students to under-

stand that history is fundamentally a narrative (Seixas,

1996)-the story of people who encountered a problemthat required them to take some action. Both positiveand negative outcomes occurred as a result of the

action taken. Consistent with other work in social stud-

ies (e.g., Carnine et al., 1994; Kinder & Bursuck, 1991),narrative provides both a conceptual framework and

strategic support for understanding historical content.

We asked students to investigate the stories of emigrant

groups by gathering information about the followingnarrative components: the people, the problems theyfaced in their homeland, the reasons for their decision

to move west, the challenges they faced on the trip,and the outcomes that occurred when they reached

their destination. As students worked in groups, theyexamined historical evidence about each component of

the narrative framework, and their multimedia projectswere

organizedaround these

components.To introduce the narrative strategy and teach stu-

dents how to evaluate evidence, we began the unit with

an anchor (Cognition and Technology Group at

Vanderbilt, 1990), The AmericanExperience:The Donner

Party (Public Broadcasting Service, 1992). The story ofthe Donner Party, a group of emigrants who took an

alternative western route over the SierraNevadas, with

disastrous results, was a fascinating story that captivat-ed the students and piqued their interest in westward

expansion. In conjunction with teacher-led discussion,it provided a means for supplying background knowl-

edge about the period in which the unit occurred, thegoals and characteristics of the people who lived at this

time, and the rigors of life in general and on the

Oregon Trail.

Consistent with our view that building an under-

standing of migration should be a socially mediated

learning process, the majority of activities, including

analysis and interpretation of historical evidence andconstruction of multimedia projects, were designed tobe completed in cooperative groups. Based on students'

pretest knowledge of westward expansion, we formed

groups that included students with average to

above-average knowledge and students with minimalknowledge of the topic. In this way, expertise was dis-

tributed. Groups were diverse with respect to diagnos-tic label, race, and gender. Group work provided stu-

dents with disabilities access to peers who often

brought more background knowledge to the task andwho were more skilled readers and writers.

To structure group work, students were taught a

process for analyzing, interpreting, and communicat-

ing historical information. They read each piece of evi-

dence aloud, described it orally and in writing, dis-

cussed any questions or ambiguities, and drafted a card,for eventual transfer to the computer, describing their

conclusions about that component of the narrative

framework. These collaborative activities were designedto simulate what we term "constructive conversation"

in our REACHframework, where students' questionsand interpretations could be addressed and their think-

ing extended in discussion with other students. Allgroup activities involved oral reading of the evidence

and group discussion so that information and ideas

could be shared. Each group was provided with promptcards that contained questions to ask of one another

during group discussion.

We designed the unit to take into account the typesof difficulties students with disabilities were likely to

experience in learning history, including challenges in

reading and interpreting text, difficulties demonstrat-

ing knowledge through traditional paper-and-pencil-based indicators, and lack of motivation. Although we

believed these features would assist all students, wethought they would be especially important for help-ing students with disabilities. Students used multime-

dia technology to create a presentation about their

emigrant group. Their presentations included text writ-

ten by students and images selected by them. We sup-plied each participating classroom with two computers,a scanner, and a printer. Students seemed highly moti-

vated to use the technology and, in some cases, access

to these resources was the catalyst for securing teachers'

participation in the study. Students presented their

multimedia projects to their peers, parents, and teach-

ers during an Open House.

The unit was taught over eight weeks, or one school

marking period, and consisted of 14 lessons extendingover about 25 to 29 class periods. An additional eightclass sessions were allocated to creating the multimedia

presentation and preparing and hosting an OpenHouse for parents.

Procedures

Professional development. General and specialeducators from the initial four classrooms met with usfor two days in the summer prior to the start of the

study. During these meetings, we discussed the goalsof the project and its major instructional components








including project-based learning, cognitive strategy

instruction, cooperative learning, and use of technolo-

gy. We also discussed the logistics of implementing the

study (e.g., research instruments and scheduling of the

intervention). At that time, we presented a draft of the

westward expansion unit to the group and solicitedtheir feedback about lessons and activities. Teachers'

primary concerns about the unit were the need for

explicit directions and structure in student activities

and for sufficient repetition of major concepts. We

took these factors into account as we revised and

refined the unit over the remainder of the summer.

Although we had hoped that the general and specialeducator in each classroom would share equally in the

study, one teacher took responsibility for teachingsocial studies and the other for teaching science, as

wastypical

in both schools. In the first classroom, the

general educator taught social studies and the specialeducator had minimal involvement in the study. In

the second classroom, the special educator taughtsocial studies and the general educator, who was hired

on a temporary contract after the school year began,had minimal involvement in the study. In the third

classroom, the general educator taught social studies

with the special educator assisting during most social

studies classes. After our initial summer meeting, the

bulk of our research team's interaction occurred with

the four teachers who were actively involved in the

unit's implementation.We had planned to hold regular meetings in which

all participants could gather as a group to discuss

implementation of the unit and share ideas and expe-riences. However, at teachers' request, common meet-

ings were held only once a month. Teachers preferredto meet during their planning periods rather than after

school. We met with each of the four participantsabout once a week to discuss upcoming lessons, diffi-

culties, successes, and logistics.

Data Collection

Groupknowledge test. We assessed students' con-

tent knowledge about westward expansion with a

16-item multiple-choice test, developed based on a

content analysis of the curriculum, including infor-

mation presented in whole-class and small-groupactivities. This test was administered to all participat-

ing students prior to and at the conclusion of the

unit. It was read to the whole class and teachers and

research staff monitored students to ensure theyunderstood directions and completed the task appro-

priately. To assess the test's internal consistency of

the knowledge measure, we computed Chronbach's

alpha and obtained .47 for the pretest administrationand .61 for the posttest administration.

Individual interviews on historical content and

historical inquiry. We developed an interview with

questions designed to tap students' understanding of

the historical content about westward expansion and

their understanding of the processes of historical

inquiry. Interviews were administered before and afterinstruction individually to 18 students with disabilities

and to a sample of 27 students without disabilities who

were selected to match the students with disabilities on

race and gender. The interview yielded separate scores

for understanding of content and understanding of his-

torical inquiry.The content section of the interview consisted of

nine questions structured according to the narrative

framework. Thus, the questions addressed the students'

understanding of the following issues: (a) the three

emigrant groups-farmers, miners, and Mormons; (b)

the reasons why they moved west; (c) problems theyencountered on the journey and their response to

those problems; (d) their interactions with Native

Americans; and (e) the outcomes for the emigrants and

the Native Americans.

The historical inquiry section of the interview con-

sisted of 11 questions that probed students' under-

standing of history and historical thinking. These ques-tions targeted students' understanding of the followingissues: (a) what history is and what historians do (Whatis history? How do historians know what happened?);

(b) why historians have different opinions about the

past (What is an opinion? Why do historians have dif-

ferent opinions about things that happened in the

past?); (c) what evidence is and the kinds of evidence

used by historians (What is evidence? What kinds of

evidence do historians use?); (d) the nature of bias in

evidence (What does it mean to say that a piece of evi-

dence is biased? How do you know a piece of evidence

is biased?); (e) the legitimacy of ignoring evidence that

is inconsistent with a historian's interpretation (Is it

alright for a historian to ignore evidence that does not

agree with her opinion? Why?); (f) what historians do

to reconcileconflicting

evidence(What

can historians

do when the evidence doesn't agree with their opin-

ion?); and (g) the conditions that increase a person'sconfidence in a historian's interpretation (When would

you feel pretty sure that a historian's opinion is right?).We developed scoring guides for each section of the

interview. The interviews were scored by two of the

authors. A random sample of interviews was independ-

ently scored by a second rater. On the content section,across 16 interviews, the percentage of agreement within

one point on the total interview score [agreements/(agree-ments + disagreements)] was 81%. Agreement within 2

points was 100%. On the inquiry section, across all 11questions and 24 interviews, the percentage of exact








agreement [agreements/(agreements + disagreements)]between raters was 90% (range = 100%-46% across ques-

tions). Foreight of the questions, the percentage of exact

agreement was greater than 90%. We obtained low

agreement (46%) for the question that asked students to

identify the different types of evidence used by histori-ans. The disagreements were due to the number of typesof evidence coded by the raters.When we computed the

percentage of agreement within one category of evi-

dence, perfect interrateragreement (100%) was obtained

for this question.Attitude scale. We also examined students' attitudes

with an instrument used in previous studies of social

studies instruction (e.g., Okolo & Ferretti, 1998). It con-

tained three factors: The first assessed students'

self-efficacy for learning social studies in general and

for learning about westward expansion in particular. It

included items about students' beliefs that they could

get a good grade, perform well on a test, and teach

social studies content to others. Many of these items

were adapted from the self-efficacy for learning and

performance subscale of the Motivated Strategies for

Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &

McKeachie, 1991, p. 2). The second set of items

assessed academic intrinsic motivation for social stud-

ies, defined as "enjoyment of school learning charac-

terized by an orientation toward mastery, curiosity,

persistence, and the learning of challenging, difficult,and novel tasks"

(Gottfried, 1986, p. 4).This subscale

was based on the Children's Academic Intrinsic

Motivation Inventory (Gottfried, 1986). Finally, a set of

items assessed students' attitudes toward cooperative

learning and toward collaborating with their peers.These items were drawn from other studies of coopera-tive learning (Owens & Stratton, 1980; Smith, Johnson,& Johnson, 1981). We have administered the attitude

scale in previous studies with students similar to those

participating in this study and have validated the exis-

tence of three distinct factors, as described above, and

adequate internal consistency (Okolo & Ferretti, in

press). Chronbach's alpha was .74 for the pretestadministration of the cooperative learning subscale.

For all other subscales and administrations, alphas were

greater than .85.

Observations and field notes. We observed each

participating classroom approximately once a week.

During these observations, we took field notes docu-

menting teacher and student activities and paraphras-ing classroom discussions. We also circulated amongthe students during group work and asked them ques-tions about the activity and their understanding of the

topics they were studying. Field notes were used to get

a better sense of how the unit was implemented in eachclassroom and its impact on students. They were not

subjected to quantitative analysis but were examined

for the challenges encountered by students and teach-

ers and the opportunities afforded by this type of

instructional unit.

RESULTSFor each of the three quantitative measures, we ana-

lyzed knowledge gains and examined differences in stu-

dents with and without disabilities through 2 (diagnos-tic category) x 2 (time of test) repeated-measuresANOVAs. In addition, we examined results from the

attitude measure by first computing a MANOVA to

determine if there were significant pre- to posttest dif-

ferences on the three factors of the scale. We then used

univariate repeated-measures ANOVAs to examine dif-

ferences from pre- to posttest and between students

with and without disabilities.

Knowledge Test

Scores for the multiple-choice knowledge test are dis-

played in Table 2. Statistical analyses showed main

effects for time of test [F(1, 83) = 252.3, p < .000] and

diagnostic category [F(1,83) = 9.2, p < .005]. The diag-nostic category x time of test interaction was also sig-nificant [F(1,83) = 4.5, p < .05]. Follow-up tests, with

Bonferroni correction, showed that both groups of stu-

dents scored comparably on the pretest, but generaleducation students scored significantly higher than

students with disabilities on the posttest [t(83) = 3.7,

p < .000]. Both the general education students[t(57) = 16.9, p < 000] and the students with mild dis-

abilities [t(26) = 7.5, p <.005] made significant gainsfrom pretest to posttest. With two exceptions, the

number of students responding correctly to each item

increased from pre- to posttest. The first exception was

an item that queried students about the typical out-

come for emigrants. On this item it appeared that the

Donner party video, although highly interesting and

motivating, led many students to draw the erroneous

conclusion on the posttest that 50% of all emigrants

perished on the Oregon Trail. The second exceptionwas an item asking about the impact of westward

expansion upon Native Americans; about three-quar-ters of the sample responded correctly to this questionon the pretest and posttest.

Understanding of Historical Content

Scores for the interview that tapped students' under-

standing of historical content are displayed in Table 2.

Statistical analyses showed main effects for time of test

[F(1,43) = 271.4, p < .000] and diagnostic category[F(1,43) = 14.3, p < .000]. The time of test x diagnostic

category interaction also was significant [F(1,43) = 5.9,

p < .05]. Follow-up tests showed that general educationand special education students performed similarly on








the pretest [t(43) = 2.7, p > .0125]. However, generaleducation students outperformed students with dis-

abilities on the posttest [t(43) = 3.9, p < .000]. Both

general education students [t(27) = 17.5, p < .000] and

students with disabilities [t(17) = 7.6, p < .000]

improved their scores from pretest to posttest, but the

general education students improved more than their

peers with disabilities.Qualitative analysis of answers to individual ques-

tions indicated that, prior to instruction, a majority of

students knew that people traveled west in covered

wagons and faced problems such as disease and run-

ning out of supplies. A substantial minority of students

had a general idea that people went west for more land

and that Native Americans were subsequently forced

off the land. However, they could not identify differ-

ent groups who moved west or reasons and problems

specific to the groups, and they had a limited under-

standing of interactions with Native Americans. As a

result of instruction, nearly all students were able to

identify the three groups studied, and most gave rea-

sons why these groups moved west. Most students

learned more about specific problems faced on the

journey and understood the outcomes of the migra-tion better (e.g., that most participants in the Gold

Rush did not get rich). However, they did not explainmore complex issues, such as the fact that farmers

needed land to pass on to their sons and the nature of

the conflict with Native Americans.

Understanding of Historical Inquiry

Scores for the interview that tapped students' under-standing of historical inquiry also are displayed in

Table 2. Statistical analyses showed main effects for

time of test [F(1,40) = 30.3, p < .000] and diagnostic cat-

egory [F(1,40) = 17.9, p < .000]. Students without dis-

abilities generally understood more about historical

inquiry than their nondisabled peers, but both groupsshowed substantial and roughly comparable improve-ments in their understanding from pretest to posttest.

To determine the sources of improvement in the

understanding of historical inquiry, we computed

changes from pretest to posttest in the percentage of

students who were credited with correct responses to

each of the 11 questions. Inspection showed gains in

the percentage of students who generated correct

responses to each of these questions, but the greatest

changes were observed for "What is bias in evidence?"

(31%), "How do you know a piece of evidence is

biased?" (36%), and "Why do historians have different

opinions about things that happened in the past?"

(29%).After the

intervention, comparedto

before,a

greater percentage of students understood that bias

involves the distortion of evidence to support an opin-ion, bias is suggested when contradictory evidence is

ignored, and historians may have different opinionsbecause they have access to different sources of evi-

dence. The smallest changes were obtained for "What is

history?" (11%), "How do historians know what hap-

pened?" (9%), and "What is evidence?" (7%). After the

intervention, compared to before, a comparable per-

centage of students understood that history had to do

with events in the past, that historians study evidence

to understand the past, and that evidence involvesclues about something that already happened.

LearningDisabilityQuarterly 66







Attitude Scale

Scores on the attitude subscales are reported in Table

2. The MANOVArevealed a significant effect for time of

test, [F(6,80) = 3.3, p < .01]. Follow-up univariate

repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed significant effects

only for the self-efficacy subscale. The main effects for

diagnostic category [F(1,85) = 7.9, p < .001] and time of

test [F(1,85) = 97.4, p < .000] were statistically signifi-cant. Students without disabilities generally had a

greater sense of self-efficacy than students with disabil-

ities, and both groups of students had a greater sense of

self-efficacy after completing the intervention.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to see if the

provision of a rigorous curriculum unit about the 19th

century westward expansion in the United States led to

improvements in knowledge about the period, under-

standing of historical content and the processes of his-

torical inquiry, and attitudes about learning, especiallyfor students with disabilities. The evidence is consistent

with the conclusion that implementation of the SSPBL

unit was associated with positive outcomes for students

with and without disabilities alike. After engaging in

the SSPBLunit, students knew more about the topic of

westward expansion, had a better understanding of his-

torical content and the processes of historical inquiry,and had more favorable attitudes about their self-effi-

cacy in social studies than they did prior to these inves-

tigations. Our findings are generally consistent with

previous research documenting the benefits of project-based investigations for all students (Ferretti & Okolo,

1997; Okolo & Ferretti, 1997a, 1997b).As noted, there have been surprisingly few studies of

the effects of social studies instruction on students with

disabilities (Curtis, 1991) because students with disabil-

ities are often excluded from these instructional oppor-tunities (Patton et al., 1987). Within the scant social

studies literature about instructional interventions for

students with disabilities, the most frequently meas-

ured outcome is improvement in content knowledge(see Curtis, 1991). We suspect that the focus on this

outcome is attributable to the relative ease of measur-

ing declarative knowledge, as well as teachers' reliance

on the textbook as the medium for promoting the goalsof social studies education (Brophy, 1992). In fact,valuable recommendations based upon instructional

design principles (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 1991;Carnine et al., 1994) have been made to improve the

"considerateness" (Armbruster & Anderson, 1985) of

textbooks and increase students' knowledge of socialstudies content. However, we believe a commitment to

the principle of authenticity entails a responsibility toacculturate all students in the practices of historical

inquiry (Seixas, 1996; Weinburg, 1991a, 1991b) to pro-mote the critical dispositions they need to participatein a representative democracy.

Our findings with respect to students' understandingof historical inquiry are promising. Prior to instruction,

the majority of students with and without disabilitieshad a rudimentary understanding of the concepts of

history and evidence, and they knew that historians

used sources in doing their investigations. However,few students understood the concept of bias or reasons

why historians' interpretations differ. After instruction,a greater percentage of students could explain the con-

cept of bias, articulate the signs that are diagnostic for

it, and recognize that historical interpretation is affect-

ed by the evidence that one investigates. While there is

considerable room for improvement in all students'

understandingof these

ideas,we must note that

gainsin historical understanding were roughly comparablefor students with and without disabilities. Our data are

consistent with the conclusion that students with dis-

abilities can understand authentic historical practicesand meet the demands of rigorous curricula.

In contrast to their peers with disabilities, students

without disabilities appeared to learn more about the

period of westward expansion and have a better under-

standing of historical content. These findings are at odds

with our previous work (Okolo & Ferretti,1997a, 1997b),which reported comparable knowledge gains for stu-

dents with and without disabilities. We cannot be cer-tain of the reasons for these differences, but one possi-

bility is that the students without disabilities were better

able to use the narrative framework to organize informa-

tion and to understand the historical content. The con-

tent assessments developed for the current study were

based on this narrative framework. For example, the

interview on historical content asked students to recall

information about the people who lived during the peri-

od, the conditions that gave rise to their migration, the

problems they confronted along the way, and the out-

comes associated with their migration. The narrative

framework was embedded in the curriculum, for exam-

ple, in a large wall chart and in the structureof the mul-

timedia template. Students with disabilities, who beganinstruction with less content knowledge than students

without disabilities, may need more explicit instruction

to use the narrative framework to organize and under-

stand the content.

Classroom Observations

As we described above, the field notes were examined

for two themes: (a) challengesencountered by teachers

in implementing the unit and by students in develop-

ing understanding and (b) practices and events thatprovided opportunitiesfor students with disabilities to








participate and profit from the unit. The focus of these

observations was on ways in which SSPBLwas imple-mented in the class as a whole. Although we speculatebelow about some specific opportunities afforded stu-

dents with disabilities, we did not collect extensive data

about individual performance or participation.

Challenges. In these three TAM classrooms, teach-

ers encountered a number of challenges that affected

learning in the classroom and impacted the teaching

practices they employed. Teachers were charged with

helping all students understand the same unit; yetstudents' background knowledge, skills, motivation,and instructional and behavioral needs covered a

broad range. For example, as some students struggledto decode simple words, others read avidly from

books they had borrowed from their local library.

Enlisting the attention and participation of all stu-

dents in group activities and class discussions proveddifficult. Furthermore, a substantial number of stu-

dents participated in other instructional services

(e.g., Chapter 1) during social studies instruction,

causing minor disruptions as they entered and exit-

ed the classroom. As we discuss below, teachers

employed a variety of approaches to manage the

range of student needs and characteristics.

We observed three aspects of the substance and goalsof this unit that posed significant challenges for stu-

dents. First, students often evidenced the bias of pre-sentism that has been so

frequently reportedin the lit-

erature (Ashby & Lee, 1987; Judd, 1915). That is, it was

extremely difficult for students to understand the

events and people of another time on their own terms.

For example, shrinking access to land and farmers'

desire to have sufficient land for their progeny were

major reasons for traveling to uncharted and

unclaimed lands in the West. However, in discussions

with students, we found that they did not compre-hend why the emigrants would not be able to secure

more land in the Midwest. One group of students

insisted that the farmers could procure land if they so

desired. When we asked them to envision what hap-pens to the price of land when it becomes scarce, one

group insisted, "they could just work more hours" in

order to purchase it. Other students could not imagine

Oregon and California as minimally populated states,with an abundance of available land. In another

instance, after reading about the persecution of

Mormon Joseph Smith's family, one group insisted

that such events could not happen to their families.

"They couldn't get in our windows, they couldn't getin our doors," declared one student, "and if they did,we have a shotgun." Teachers validated our observa-

tions in exit interviews. They noted that studentsfound it difficult to understand the context in which

people lived and the great differences in people's wayof life yesterday and today.

Key goals of the unit were to help students under-

stand the importance of providing a true and accurate

historical account, the fact that evidence can be biased,

ways to check for bias, and the need to qualify one'sconclusions. These ideas were not easy for students to

grasp. As we observed one teacher instruct the class

about bias, we saw students vacillate in their opinionsabout a topic, subject to the piece of evidence theywere examining at that moment. The task of simulta-

neously considering two conflicting pieces of historical

evidence and integrating them to make an informed

conclusion was a challenge for students. Teachers also

echoed this observation in exit interviews.

A third area of difficulty was found in working with

primary sources. Students did not seem to appreciatethe need to take into account the author and his or her

motives when reading primary sources, despite specificinstructions to discuss these issues in their group.Students also found it difficult to interpret pictorial evi-

dence. Often, they lacked the background information

needed to understand the significance of features of the

image. For example, we questioned students about the

romantic depiction of trail life present in the drawingof a serene and neatly dressed and coifed youngwoman sitting atop a covered wagon. Students did not

know enough about the typical dress of the times to

judgethe

picture accurately.In

addition,irrelevant

details often affected their conclusions. For example,when discussing the above picture, some concluded

that the woman was dirty because the picture was black

and white.

Opportunities. Students' participation in learningactivities was enabled by the constructive conversa-

tions they had with their teachers and peers. Teachers

used classroom conversations to monitor student

understanding and to immediately clarify misunder-

standings or expand upon incomplete information.

Teachers adapted the pace of the discussion, its explic-

itness, and the nature of the examples they used basedon the difficulties students exhibited. In all classes,teachers circulated among students during group activ-

ities. They monitored participation, asked questions to

check understanding, provided additional instruction

and information to students as needed, and expanded

upon students' ideas. As discussed above, evaluatingevidence proved difficult. When students' responsesindicated they did not understand the concept of

biased evidence, we observed one teacher use an

increasingly focused set of questions to cultivate her

students' understanding. Appreciating the nature of life

in the 1800s presented another challenge, and weobserved teachers use events from students' daily lives

Learing Disability Quarterly 68







to help them contrast this period to their own. Thus,the immediacy and responsiveness of the classroom

discussions seemed important in promoting the learn-

ing of all students.

The teachers clearly communicated the expectation

that everyone was a valued participant in the classroomand that they expected all students to act accordingly.We heard two teachers state, on several occasions, that

everyone could learn from one another and that laugh-

ing at or demeaning others would not be permitted.Teachers praised students for contributing to the dis-

cussion. Even when statements were not completelycorrect or tangential, teachers found a way to work

them into the discussion; we never observed a teacher

criticize a student's comments or ideas. Furthermore,teachers enthusiastically praised students who had lit-

tle to say when they did volunteer an answer or ask a

question. Indeed, we did not observe any instances in

which students poked fun at one another's skills or

ideas. In fact, in one class we observed two occasions

on which the teacher misunderstood a special educa-

tion student's response to a question. Other students in

the class, in defense of the student, clarified his

response. Thus, it appeared that teachers had success-

fully created a classroom climate in which all students

felt safe to participate and in which they believed their

contributions were valued. Although we observed a

minority of students who were not active participantsin class discussions and

group activities,this

minorityincluded both students with and without disabilities.

We also found evidence in the field notes that some

of the supports built into the unit facilitated the learn-

ing of all students, including those with mild disabili-

ties. The Donner Party video anchor was highly moti-

vating. After watching attentively, students asked

many questions about the party and its experiences.We heard them connect events in the video to a num-

ber of other topics discussed throughout the unit.

Furthermore, the students were enthusiastic about cre-

ating and presenting their multimedia projects. They

looked forward to working on the computer andbrought in pictures they could scan into their

HyperStudio stack. Students' contributions to the proj-ects were not limited to writing, which opened other

avenues of participation (e.g., selecting and scanning

pictures) for students with disabilities. The pride stu-

dents took in their projects was evident in their per-formance during the Open House. With one exception,all students chose to read their work to the audience,which clapped enthusiastically after each presentation.

Unfortunately, the construction of the multimedia

project took an inordinate amount of time. With only

two computers per classroom, and limited keyboardingskills, students required quite a bit of time outside of

social studies class to complete their projects. Projectconstruction also required us to provide additional staff

to assist the students in using the authoring system, the

computers, and the scanners. Teachers could not have

managed these activities without our assistance, which

calls into question the feasibility of having studentscreate multimedia projects without substantial com-

puter resources and student and teacher expertise.In conclusion, the implementation of a SSPBLunit

about westward expansion was associated with gainsin students' knowledge about the period, improve-ments in their understanding of historical content

and historical inquiry, and a greater sense of their self-

efficacy as learners. While students with disabilities

did not seem to learn as much about the period or

understand the content as well as their nondisabled

peers,both

groupsshowed considerable

gainsas a

result of engaging in SSPBL.We suspect that students

with disabilities will benefit from more explicit strate-

gic support for learning and understanding historical

content. Finally, we observed a number instructional

challenges, a variety of teaching practices that were

implemented by teachers, and some genuine instruc-

tional opportunities that were afforded by the imple-mentation of a SSPBLunit. These findings will inform

our continuing efforts in subsequent years of the proj-ect to promote the understanding of all students in

inclusive social studies classrooms.

REFERENCESArmbruster,B., & Anderson,T. (1985). Does answering higher-

level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?Reviewof EducationalResearch, 9, 280-318.

Ashby,M. G., &Lee,P. (1987). Children'sconcepts of empathyand understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.),Thehistorycur-riculum orteachers pp. 62-88). London: FalmerPress.

Barr,R., Barth,J., & Shermis,S. (1977). Defining he social stud-ies. Arlington,VA:National Council for the SocialStudies.

Bear,G. G., & Proctor,W. A. (1990). Impactof a full-time inte-

grated program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and

mildly handicappedchildren. Exceptionality, , 227-238.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown,M. (1991). Substantive and method-

ological considerations for productive textbook analysis. In

J. P. Shaver(Ed.),Handbook f research nsocialstudies eaching nd

learning pp. 496-512). New York:MacMillanPublishingCo.

Bell, J. C., & McCollum, D. F. (1917). A study of the attain-ments of pupils in United States history. Journalof Educational

Psychology, , 257-274.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik,J. S.,Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-basedlearning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Educational sychologist, 6, 369-398.

Bransford, . D., Brown,A. L.,&Cocking, R. R.(1999). Howpeo-ple learn:Brain, mind, experience,and school. Washington, DC:National AcademyPress.

Bransford,J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The idealproblem olver.New York:W. H. Freeman.

Brophy,J. (1990).Teachingsocial studiesfor understandingandhigher-order pplications.TheElementarychool ournal,0, 353-417.








Brophy,J. (1992). The defactonational curriculum n U.S. ele-

mentary social studies:Critiqueof a representativeexample. The

Journal f Curriculumtudies,24, 401-447.

Bruner, J. (1996). The cultureof education. Cambridge, MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Carnine, D., Bean, R., Miller, S., & Zigmond, N. (1994). Social

studies: Educational tools for diverse learners. SchoolPsychologyReview,23, 428-441.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990).Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.EducationalResearcher, 9, 2-10.

Curtis,C. K. (1991). Social studies for students at-riskand with

disabilities.InJ. P. Shaver(Ed.),Handbook f research nsocialstud-

ies teachingand learning pp. 157-174). New York:Macmillan.

Dalton, B., Morocco, C., Tivnan, T., & Rawson, P. (1997).

Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in

urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of LearningDisabilities,24, 261-269.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracyand education. New York: The

Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. HeathFerretti,R.P., & Okolo, C. M. (1996). Authenticity in learning:

Multimediadesign projectsin the social studies for students with

disabilities.Journal f LearningDisabilities,450-460.

Ferretti,R. P., & Okolo, C. M. (1997, April).Designingmultime-

diaprojectsn the socialstudies:Effectson students' ontentknowledgeand attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American EducationalResearchAssociation, Chicago.Gardner,H. (1985). The mind's new science:A historyof the cog-

nitive revolution.New York:BasicBooks.

Gottfried, A. E. (1986). Children's cademic ntrinsicmotivation

inventory.Odessa, FL:PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Judd, C. H. (1915). The psychology of high school subjects.Boston: Ginn.

Kinder,D., &Bursuck,W. (1991). The searchfor a unified socialstudies curriculum: Does history really repeat itself? JournalofLearningDisabilities,24, 270-275.

Krajcik,J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E.

(1994). A collaborative model for helping middle school science

teachers learn project-based learning. The ElementarySchool

Journal, 4, 483-497.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus

hands-on science curriculum. Remedial and Special Education,

15(2),72-85.Mathes,P.G., Fuchs,D., Fuchs,L.S.,Henley,A.M.,&Sanders,A.

(1994).Increasing trategic eadingpracticewith PeabodyClasswidePeerTutoring.Learning isabilitiesResearchndPractice, (1), 4-48.

National Assessmentof EducationalProgress. 1990a). Thecivics

reportcard. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Researchand Improvement.

National Assessmentof EducationalProgress. 1990b). Thegeog-

raphy learning of high school seniors. Washington, DC:

U.S.Departmentof Education,Office of EducationalResearchand

Improvement.National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990c). The

U.S. history reportcard. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education,Office of Educational Researchand Improvement.National Center for Study of History in the Schools. (1996).

Nationalstandards or UnitedStateshistory.LosAngeles:UCLA.National Council for SocialStudies.(1994). Expectations f excel-

lence: Curriculum tandards for social studies, Bulletin No. 89.

Washington, DC: Author.

Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti,R. P. (1997a). Knowledge acquisitionand technology-supported projects in the social studies for stu-

dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education

Technology, 3, 91-103.

Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti,R. P. (1997b). The impact of multime-

dia design projectson the knowledge, attitudes,and collaborationof students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computers n

ChildhoodEducation, , 223-251.

Okolo,C. M., &Ferretti,R. P. (1998).Multimediadesign projectsin an inclusive social studies classroom:"Sometimespeople arguewith words nsteadof fists."Teaching xceptional hildren, 1, 50-57.

Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti,R. P. (in press). Preparing uture citi-

zens: Technology supported project-based earning in the social

studies. In L. Cuban &J. Woodward(Eds.),Implementingechnolo-

gy in specialeducation:mplications orcurriculum,rofessional evel-

opment,andmanaging hange.LosAngeles, CA: CorwinPress.

Owens, L.,& Straton,R. G. (1980). The development of a coop-erative, competitive, and individualised learning preferencescale

for children. BritishJournal f Educational sychology, 0, 147-161.

Pallas,A. M., Natriello, G., & McDill, E. L. (1989). The chang-

ing nature of the disadvantagedpopulation: Currentdimensions

and futuretrends.EducationalResearcher,8, 16-22.

Patton, J., Polloway, E., & Cronin, M. (1987). Social studiesinstruction for handicapped students: A review of current prac-tices. The SocialStudies,78, 131-135.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia,T., & McKeachie,W. J.

(1991). A manualforthe use of the Motivated trategiesorLearningQuestionnaire. nn Arbor:Universityof Michigan.

Public BroadcastingService. (1992). The Americanexperience:TheDonnerparty.Fairfax,VA:Author.

Seixas, P. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical

thinking. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance(Eds.), The handbookofeducation and human development(pp. 765-783). Oxford, UK:

BlackwellPublishersLtd.

Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In

D. T. Tuma & R. Reif(Eds.),Problem olvingand education: ssues n

teachingand researchpp. 81-96). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Smith,K.A.,Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can con-

flict be constructive?Controversyversus concurrence seeking in

cooperative learning groups.Journal f Educational sychology, 3,651-663.

Stateof Delaware-Departmentf PublicInstruction. 1995, June).New directions. ocial tudies urriculumrameworks. over:Author.

United States Department of Education. (1996). Eighteenthannual report o congresson the implementation f the individuals

with disabilitiesact. Washington, DC:Author.

Voss, J. F. (1991). Informal reasoning and international rela-

tions. InJ. F.Voss, D. N. Perkins,&J. W. Segal(Eds.), nformal ea-

soningandeducation pp. 37-58). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983).

Problemsolving skill in the social sciences. In G. H. Bower(Ed.),Thepsychology f learningand motivation:Advances n research nd

theory Vol. 17, pp. 165-213). New York:Academic Press.

Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured

problems.In M. T. H. Chi, R.Glaser,&M.J. Farr Eds.),Thenature

of expertise pp. 261-285). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual dif-

ferences in the solving of social science problems. In R. F. Dillon

& R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition

(pp. 205-232). New York:Academic Press.

Wineburg,S. S. (1991a). Historicalproblem solving: A study of

the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentaryand pictorialevidence. Journal fEducational sychology, 3, 73-87.

Wineburg, S. S. (1991b). On the reading of historical texts:

Notes on the breach between school and academy. AmericanEducationalResearch ournal, 8, 495-519.








Wineburg, S. S. (1996). The psychology of learning and teach- The authors wish to acknowledge the members of the University

ing history. In D. C. Berliner& R.Calfee (Eds.),The handbookof of Delaware'sProjectREACHConstance Anderton, Kim Carroll,educational sychology pp. 423-437). New York:Macmillan. RebeccaMerino, JenniferThompson, and KeithWyner) for their

efforts on behalf the project. We also wish to acknowledge the

AUTHOR NOTE cooperating teachers of the Bayard and Pulaski ElementarySchools for the professionalismand energy they exhibited in sup-

The researchreported in this articleportedn this articlewas supported by a goals.from the U.S. Department of Education (H023V70008) to the

REACH roject (Research nstituteto AccelerateLearning hrough The order of authorship is alphabetical. Requestsfor reprintsor

High Supports for Students with Disabilities in Grades4-8) and materials can be sent to the authors at: School of Education,the Dwight D. Eisenhower ProfessionalDevelopment State Grant WillardHallEducationBuilding, Universityof Delaware,Newark,

Program #84.281B). DE 19711.


Documents

Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms