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 Classrooms Author(s): Ralph P. Ferretti, Charles D. MacArthur and Cynthia M. Okolo Reviewed work(s): 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: 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 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14
Embed
Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/30/2019 Teaching for Historical Understanding in Inclusive Classrooms
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
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
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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-
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
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.
Volume 24, Winter 2001 61
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
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
Volume 24, Winter 2001 63
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
Learning Disability Quarterly 64
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 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
Volume 24, Winter 2001 65
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
Volume 24, Winter 2001 67
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
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
This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:38:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
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.
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,
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-
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.
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,