This mixed methods study explored students’ learning following an intervention unit, which focused on discipline-specific practices in elementary social studies/history. The following questions guided the research: To what extent does students’ learning in social studies/history change following their participation in a unit emphasizing disciplinary-specific practices? and How does their learning compare to students who learn the same content without this approach? Two fifth-grade teachers in a low socioeconomic district taught a disciplinary unit to their students, and a third fifth-grade teacher in the same district taught the same content to her students using a transmission approach. All students performed similarly on the pre-assessment; following the intervention students in the experimental classrooms made greater gains and demonstrated disciplinary-specific practices. This study has implications for elementary school instruction in social studies/history and literacy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfflerbachP., PearsonP. D., & ParisS. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies.The Reading Teacher,61(5), 364–373.
2.
AllisonP. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis.Sociological Methodology,20(1), 93–114.
3.
AuW. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.Educational Researcher,36(5), 258–267.
4.
BrugarK. (2015). Clashing cultures in conversations: Engaging students in the study of the convergence of three civilizations.The Councilor, 76(1), 1–11.
5.
BainR. (2005). ‘They thought the world was fat?’ HPL principles in teaching high school history. In BransfordJ., & DonovanS. (Eds.), How students learn: History, math, and science in the classroom (pp. 179–214). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
6.
BarrR. D., BarthJ. L., & ShermisS.S. (1977). Redefining the social studies (Bulletin 51). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
7.
BaumannJ. F., HoffmanJ. V., Duffy-HesterA. M., & RoJ. M. (2000). The First R yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators.Reading Research Quarterly,35(3), 338–377.
8.
Boyle-BaiseM., HsuM., JohnsonS., SerriereS. C., & StewartD. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms.Theory and Research in Social Education36(3), 233–255.
9.
BrophyJ. (1990). Teaching social studies for understanding and higher-order applications.Elementary Journal,90(4), 351–417.
10.
BrophyJ., & AllemanJ. (1991). A caveat: Curriculum integration isn't always a good idea.Educational Leadership,49(2), 66.
11.
CaswellL. L., & DukeN. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy development.Language Arts, 75(2), 108–117.
12.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Stages of reading development.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
13.
CiardielloV. (2004). Democracy's young heroes: An instructional model of critical literacy practices.The Reading Teacher58(2), 138–147.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
15.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Urban teaching: Strategies for quality. In SimmonsJ. (Ed.), Breaking through: Transforming urban school districts (pp. 150–167). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16.
De La PazS. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2) 139–156.
17.
De La PazS., & FeltonM. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers.Contemporary Educational Psychology,35(3), 174–192.
18.
DukeN. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade.Reading Research Quarterly,35(2), 202–224.
19.
DukeN. K., Bennett-ArmisteadV. S., & RobertsE. M. (2003). Bridging the gap between learning to read and reading to learn. In BaroneD. M., & MorrowL. M. (Eds.), Literacy and young children: Research-based practices (pp. 226–242). New York, NY: Guilford.
20.
FangZ. (1996). Illustrations, text, and the child reader: What are pictures in children's storybooks for?Reading Horizons,37(2), 130–142.
21.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
FitchettP. G., & HeafnerT. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization.Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114–130.
23.
FryS. W. (2009). Exploring social studies through multicultural literature: Legend of St. Ann's food.The Social Studies100(2), 85–91.
24.
GayG. (2004). Social studies teacher education for urban classrooms. In AdlerS. (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies teacher education (pp. 75–95). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
25.
GreenlawJ., & McIntoshM. E. (1987). Science Fiction and Fantasy Worth Teaching to Teens. In CullinanB. E. (Ed.), Children's literature in the reading program (pp. 111–120). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26.
HeafnerT. L., & FitchettP. G. (2012). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining social studies instructional time in elementary schools.Journal of Social Studies Research,36(2), 190–215.
27.
HouserN. (1995). Social studies on the back burner: Views from the feld.Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(2), 147–168.
28.
HuttonL. A., CurtisR., & BursteinJ. H. (2006). The state of elementary social studies teaching in one urban district.Journal of Social Studies Research,30(1), 12–20.
29.
LeeP. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In DonovanM. S., & BransfordJ. D. (Eds.), How students learn: History in the classroom (pp. 31–77). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30.
LevstikL. S., & BartonK. C. (2008). Researching history education: Theory, method and context.New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
LincolnY., & GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
MojeE. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching.Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44.
36.
MojeE. B., CiechanowskiK.M., KramerK, EllisL., CarrilloR., & CollazoT. (2004). Working toward a third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse.Reading Research Quarterly,39(1), 38–70.
37.
Monte-SanoC. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing.Journal of the Learning Sciences,19(4), 539–568.
38.
MossB., & NewtonE. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers.Reading Psychology,23, 468–475.
39.
National Center for Educational Statistics, (2012). Number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by school locale and state or jurisdiction: Fall 2011.In A.1.a.-3_1112 (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
40.
National Center for History in the Schools (1996). National standards for history.Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles.
41.
National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS] (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K–12 civics, economics, geography, and history.Silver Springs, MD: NCSS.
42.
National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS]. (2008). Powerful and purposeful teaching and learning in elementary school social studies.Silver Springs, MD: Author.
43.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGACBP & CCSSO] (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects (with Appendices A & B).Washington, DC: Author.
44.
PaceJ. L. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California.Social Studies Research and Practice,3(1), 32–60.
45.
PappasC. C., KeiferB. Z., & LevstikL. S. (2005). An integrated language perspective in the elementary school: An action approach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
46.
PaquetteK. R., & KaufmanC. C. (2008). Merging civic and literacy skills.The Social Studies99(4), 187–190.
47.
RogersP. (1987). The past as a frame of reference. In PortalC., (Ed.). The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 3–21). London. UK: Falmer.
48.
SchwabJ. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline.Educational Record43(3), 97–205.
49.
SeixasP. (1996). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding. In OlsonD., & TorrenceN. (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 765–783). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
50.
ShadishW. R., CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin.
SolomonW. (1987). Improving students’ thinking skills through elementary social studies instruction.The Elementary School Journal87(5), 556–569.
53.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. M. (1998). Grounded theory in practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
ThorntonS. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In ShaverJ.P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on social studies thinking and learning, (pp. 237–248). New York, NY: Macmillan.
55.
VanFossenP. J. (2005). “Reading and math take so much time…”: An overview of social studies instruction in Indiana.Theory and Research in Social Education,33(3), 376–403.
56.
VanSledrightB. (2002). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary school.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
57.
VanSledrightB. A. (2005). On the importance of historical positionality to thinking about and teaching history.The International Journal of Social Education12(2) 1–18.
58.
VoglerK. E., LintnerT., LipscombG. B., KnopfH., HeafnerT. L., & RockT. C. (2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program.Journal of Social Studies Research31(2), 20–34.
59.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.Journal of Educational Psychology,83(1), 73–87.
60.
WineburgS. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
61.
WineburgS., MartinD., & Monte-SanoC. (2012). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school classrooms.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
62.
YenawineP. (2013). Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
ZimmermanD. W., & WilliamsR. H. (1982). Gain scores in research can be highly reliable.Journal of Educational Measurement,19(2), 149–154.
64.
GrantR. G. (2009). Slavery.New York, NY: DK Children.
65.
RumfordJ. (2004). Traveling man: The journey of Ibn Battuta 1325–1354.San Anselmo, CA: Sandpiper Press.
66.
QuigleyM. (2002). Ancient West African Kingdoms: Ghana, Mali, & Songhai.New York, NY: Heinemann-Raintree.
67.
ScherL. (2010). Kids Discover: Ancient African kingdoms.New York, NY: Kids Discover.
68.
ShuterJ. (2008). Ancient West African kingdoms.New York, NY: Heinemann-Raintree.
69.
Scott Foresman (2003). Social studies: Building a nation.Glenview, IL: Author.
