This study compared two approaches for teaching a history unit on the Civil Rights Movement (1954–1965) to middle school students with learning disabilities (LD) in general education settings. The curriculum was designed to make the content challenging, but accessible. The major text was the documentary, Eyes on the Prize (DeVinney, 1991). Readings were brief and included primary sources from the time period. Curriculum content was constant in both instruction conditions, but in the experimental condition teachers isolated the video selections into brief 2- to 3-min segments to facilitate learning and used peer dyad activities to foster active processing of content. Students with and without disabilities in the experimental condition scored significantly higher on 2 of 3 content measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreT. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–318.
2.
BakerS.GerstenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.
3.
CampioneJ.BrownA. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In LidzC. S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment (pp. 82–116). New York: Guilford.
4.
SteelyD. CarnineSilbertJ. (1996). Understanding U.S. History—Reconstruction to world leadership 2. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
5.
DencklaM. B.RudelR. (1976). Rapid ‘automatized’ naming (ran): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479.
6.
DeVinneyJ. A.Writer/Producer (1991). Eyes on the prize—America's civil rights years, 1954–1965 [Documentary]. United States: Blackside Inc.
7.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM.MoodyS. W. (1999). Grouping practice and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399–415.
8.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.AnthonyH. M.StevensD. D. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.
9.
FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. D.OkoloC. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59.
10.
GerstenR. (2005). Behind the scenes of a research study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 200–212.
11.
GerstenR.BakerS.Smith-JohnsonJ.PetersonA.DiminoJ. (2003). Providing meaningful access to the general curriculum through use of design experiments (Technical Report 03–02). Long Beach, CA: Instructional Research Group.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsD.WilliamsJ.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
13.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.MacArthurC. A.SchwartzS. (1991). Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
14.
HasbrouckJ. E.TindalG. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades two through five. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 24, 41–44.
15.
JenningsP.BrewsterT. (1998). The century. New York: Doubleday.
16.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L. (1994). Making sense of accounts of history: Why young students don't and how they might. In LeinhardtG.BeckI.StaintonC. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 1–26). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
McTigheJ.LymanF. T.Jr. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-based tools. Educational Leadership, 45, 18–24.
18.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
19.
PasseJ.BeattieJ. (1994). Social studies for students with mild disabilities: A progress report. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 227–233.
20.
PedhazurE. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
21.
SchatschneiderC.CarlsonC. D.FrancisD. J.FoormanB.FletcherJ. (2002). Relationships of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 245–256.
22.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
23.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.TillyW. D.CollinsV. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.
24.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). IDEA proposed regulations, 42 fed. Reg. 55026, 55115, to be codified at 34 c.F.R. § § 300. 660–662.
25.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). IDEA proposed regulations, 42 fed. Reg. 55026, 55115, to be codified at 34 c.F.R. § § 300. 660–662.
26.
ViewJ. (2004). Teaching civil rights: Putting the movement back in the story. Education Week, pp. 28–29.
27.
WagnerM.BlackorbyJ. (2002, July). Measuring student outcomes. Paper presented at the 2002 OSEP Research Project Director's Conference, Washington, DC.
28.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
29.
ZigmondN.WoleryR.MengY.FlumerD.BeanR. (1994, April). Students with learning disabilities in elementary-level mainstream history classes: What gets taught? What gets learned? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
