Impact of the Design of U.S. History Textbooks on Content Acquisition and Academic Engagement of Special Education Students: An Experimental Investigation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2007
Impact of the Design of U.S. History Textbooks on Content Acquisition and Academic Engagement of Special Education Students: An Experimental Investigation
We used randomized controlled trials to compare the impact of the designs of 2 United States history textbooks on the content acquisition and behavior of 8th-grade students identified for special education services or identified as low achieving. We also investigated whether teachers differed in their use of instructional activities and questioning strategies based on the type of text used. Our findings suggest that students learned more history content, were more actively engaged, and answered more questions correctly when using the experimental textbook. Teachers used different activities depending on which textbook they used, but did not differ in types of questions asked.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?Review of Education-all Research , 49(2), 280—318.
2.
Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform . Educational Researcher, 25, 6—8.
3.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Gromoll, E.W. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Interchange, 17, 10—19.
4.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328—375). New York: Macmillan.
5.
Carnine, D.W., Caros, J., Crawford, D., Hollenbeck, K., & Harniss, M.K. (1996). Designing effective United States history curricula for all students. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 6. History teaching and learning (pp. 207— 256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
Carnine, D., Crawford, D.B., Harniss, M.K., & Hollenbeck, K.L. (1994). Understanding U.S. history, Vol. 1. Through the Civil War. Eugene, OR: Considerate.
7.
Carnine, D., Miller, S., Bean, R., & Zigmond, N. (1994). Social studies: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 428—441.
8.
Caros, J. (1996). Content area assessment: Technical adequacy of standardized, short-duration, alternate-form, curriculum-based measures of content area vocabulary for monitoring student progress with eighth-graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon , Eugene.
9.
Crawford, C., Carnine, D.W., Harniss, M.K., Hollenbeck, K., & Miller, S. (2007). Effective strategies for teaching social studies . In E. Kame'enui & D. Carnine (Eds.), Effective strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed., pp. 203—230). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
10.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184—192.
11.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T.W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 16, 142—151.
12.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497—514.
13.
Garraty, J.A. (1991). The story of America. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., Smith-Johnson, J., Dimino, J., & Peterson, A. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 264—280.
15.
Harniss, M.K. (1996). Task requirements of content area textbooks: Effects on the academic achievement and engagement of middle-level students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
16.
Harniss, M.K., Dickson, S.V., Kinder, D., & Hollenbeck, K.L. (2001). Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies for enhancing learning from published history textbooks . Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 127—150.
17.
Harniss, M.K., Hollenbeck, K., & Dickson, S.V. (2004). Direct instruction in the content areas. In N. E. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to direct instruction (pp. 246— 279). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
18.
Harniss, M.K., Hollenbeck, K.H., Crawford, D.B., & Carnine, D. (1994). Content organization and instructional design issues in the development of history texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 235—248.
19.
McKeown, M.G., & Beck, I.L. (1994). Making sense of accounts of history: Why young students don't and how they might. In I. Beck & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 1—26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Murray, D.M. (1998) Design and analysis of group randomized trials. New York : Oxford University Press.
21.
Peckham, P.D., Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, H.D. (1969). The experimental unit in statistical analysis . The Journal of Special Education, 3, 337—349.
22.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006a). Math now: Advancing math education in elementary and middle school. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 29, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/math-now.html
23.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006b). Reading first. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 29, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html
