This article presents a comprehensive review of the published social studies and technology-based intervention research for students with high-incidence disabilities in elementary through secondary grade levels. Eighteen research-based studies published from 1980 to 2006 were obtained, reviewed, and synthesized. Four major areas emerged representing the use of technologies in social studies instruction: (a) computerized study guides, (b) project-based learning activities, (c) computerized map tutorials, and (d) the use of computerized concept mapping software. A synthesis of the results of these social studies intervention studies integrated with technological advances, indicate that technology as a component of the instructional process has been beneficial; improving and enhancing academic achievement, engagement, motivation, and study skills for both students with and without disabilities. Findings of these studies in relation to instructional practice, implications for both general and special education teachers, recommendations, and future research questions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonB. (1987). HyperCard [Computer program]. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc.
2.
BeanR.ZigmondM.RogersM.HartmanD.GozdzikG. (1991, December). Use of textbooks in elementary and middle school social studies classrooms. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, CA.
3.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. (1988). Toward meaningful accounts in history texts for young learners. Educational Researcher, 17(6), 31–39.
4.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.GromollE. W. (1989). Learning from social studies textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99–158.
5.
BlankenshipT.AyresK.LangoneJ. (2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 15–23.
6.
BoonR.ForeC.AyresK.SpencerV. (2005). The effects of cognitive organizers to facilitate content-area learning for students with mild disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 101–117.
7.
BoonR.BurkeM.ForeC.SpencerV. (2006). The impact of cognitive organizers and technology-based practices on student success in secondary social studies classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 5–15.
8.
BoonR.BurkeM.ForeC.Hagan-BurkeS. (2006). Improving student content knowledge in inclusive social studies classrooms using technology-based cognitive organizers: A systematic replication. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 1–17.
9.
BoyleE.RosenbergM.ConnellyV.WashburnS.BrinckerhoffL.BanerjeeM. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 203–214.
10.
BrophyJ. (1992). The de facto national curriculum in U.S. elementary social studies: Critique of a representative example. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 401–447.
11.
Claris (1991). MacWrite II. [Computer software]. Santa Clara, CA: Author.
12.
DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.LenzK.BulgrenJ.HockM.KnightJ.EhrenB. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96–108.
13.
DreherM.SingerH. (1989). Friendly texts and text-friendly teachers. Theory into Practice, 28, 98–104.
14.
EdyburnD. (1991). Fact retrieval by students with and without learning handicaps using print and electronic encyclopedias. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11(2), 75–90.
15.
FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. D.OkoloC. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71.
16.
GlaserC.RiethH.KinzerC.ColburnL.PeterJ. (2000). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 27–43.
17.
GleasonM.CarnineD.ValaN. (1991). Cumulative versus rapid introduction of new information. Exceptional Children, 57, 353–358.
18.
HarnissK.DicksonV.KinderD.HollenbeckL. (2001). Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies for enhancing learning from published history textbooks. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 127–150.
19.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 529–540.
20.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1992). Hypermedia computer study guides for social studies: Adapting a Canadian history text. Social Education, 56, 154–159.
21.
HigginsK.BooneR.LovittT. C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 402–412.
22.
HortonS. V.BooneR. A.LovittT. C. (1990). Teaching social studies to learning disabled high school students: Effects of a hypertext study guide. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 118–131.
23.
HortonS.LovittT. (1989). Using study guides with three classifications of secondary students. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 447–462.
24.
HortonS.LovittT. (1994). A comparison of two methods of administering group reading inventories to diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 378–390.
25.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.GivensA.NelsonR. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 102–107.
26.
HortonS.LovittT.SlocumT. (1988). Teaching geography to high school students with academic deficits: Effects of a computerized map tutorial. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 371–379.
27.
HyperStudio (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. (1995). El Cajon, CA: Roger Wagner.
JitendraA.HoppesM.XinY. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction, The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
30.
The Learning with Hypermedia Group. (1989–91). HyperAuthor [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
31.
LedererJ. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–106.
32.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective teaching. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.
33.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT.GraetzJ. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
34.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.SpencerV.FontanaJ. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52–65.
35.
Microsoft. (1983). BASIC. Redmond, WA: Author.
36.
OkoloC. M.FerrettiR. P. (1996a). The impact of multimedia design projects on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 223–251.
37.
OkoloC. M.FerrettiR. P. (1996b). Knowledge acquisition and technology-supported projects in the social studies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 91–103.
38.
OkoloC.FerrettiR. P. (1998). Multimedia design projects in an inclusive social studies classroom: “Sometimes people argue with words instead of fights.”Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 50–57.
39.
Owl International. (1986). Guide: Hypertext for the Macintosh [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Author.
40.
PaxtonR. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of Educational Research, 69, 315–339.
41.
Tyson-BernsteinH. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
42.
Tyson-BernsteinH.WoodwardJ. (1986). The great textbook machines and prospects for reform. Social Education, 50(1), 41–45.
43.
Wings for Learning. (1992). MediaText [Software program]. Scotts Valley, CA: Author.
44.
WoodwardA. (1987). Textbooks: Less than meets the eye. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 511–526.
