Social studies content, with its difficult content and often inadequate sources, can pose challenges for students with disabilities. Though secondary sources, such as textbooks, are a popular choice for instruction, primary sources may provide a more authentic view of history. This study examines the experiences of a U.S. history teacher and their students, with and without disabilities, in engaging with primary source documents in a secondary history classroom. Through qualitative analysis, three overarching themes emerged: strategies for access, engagement, and independence. The teacher employed various strategies such as guided questions and organization techniques to support student comprehension. Students, both with and without disabilities, preferred primary sources but acknowledged challenges in understanding them. The findings highlight the importance of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles and explicit instruction in literacy strategies and historical writing to enhance student comprehension and engagement with primary sources. Overall, this study underscores the value of primary sources in history education and the need for tailored instructional approaches to support student learning.
BashamJ. D.BlackorbyJ.MarinoM. T. (2020). Opportunity in crisis: The role of universal design for learning in educational redesign. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 71–91.
2.
BerkeleyS.King-SearsM. E.ConklinS. (2016). Textbook characteristics that support or thwart comprehension: The current state of social studies texts. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.970721
3.
BerkeleyS.MarshakL.MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E. (2011). Improving student comprehension of social studies text: A self-questioning strategy for inclusive middle school classes. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361261
4.
BerkeleyS.RiccominiP. J. (2013). QRAC-the-code: A comprehension monitoring strategy for middle school social studies textbooks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(2), 154165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411409412
5.
BersonI. R.BersonM. J.DennisD. V.PowellR. L. (2017). Leveraging literacy: Research on critical reading in the social studies. In ManfraM. M.BolickC. M. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research teaching and learning social studies (pp. 414–439). John Wiley & Sons.
6.
BeyersS. J.LembkeE. S.CursB. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(4), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413489162
7.
BouckE. C.CourtadC. A.HeutscheA.OkoloC. M.EnglertC. S. (2009). The virtual history museum: A universally designed approach to social studies instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2), 14–20.
8.
BratenI.BraaschJ. L. G.SalmeronL. (2020). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts. In MojeE. B.AfflerbachP.EncisoP.LesauxN. K. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., Vol. V, pp. 79–98). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1553601
9.
ClaravallE. B.IreyR. (2022). Fostering historical thinking: The use of document-based instruction for students with learning differences. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 46(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2021.08.001
10.
CowgillD. A.WaringS. M. (2017). Historical thinking: An evaluation of student and teacher ability to analyze sources. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 8(1), 115–145.
11.
CurtisM. D.GreenA. L. (2021). A systematic review of evidence-based practices for students with learning disabilities in social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 12(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2020.1841715
12.
DeverB. V.RainesT. C.DowdyE.HostutlerC. (2016). Addressing disproportionality in special education using a universal screening approach. Journal of Negro Education, 2016, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.85.1.0059
13.
EllemanA. M.OslundE. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
14.
EpsteinS. E. (2020). Supporting students to read complex texts on civic issues: The role of scaffolded reading instruction on democratic education. Democracy & Education, 28(2), 1–12.
15.
FisherD.FreyN. (2021). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
16.
FitzgeraldJ. C. (2019). Teaching the reasons why: An analysis of causation in history textbooks and historical primary source documents. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070414
17.
GilmourA. F.FuchsD.WehbyJ. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830
18.
GirardB.HarrisL. M.MaygerL. K.KessnerT. M.ReidS. (2021). “There is no way we can teach all of this”: Factors that influence teachers’ content choices. Theory & Research in Social Education, 49(2), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104/020/1855280
GrahamS.KiuharaS. A.MacKayM. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
21.
HicksD.DoolittleP.LeeJ. K. (2004). Social studies teachers’ use of classroom-based and web-based historical primary sources. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32(2), 213–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2004.10473253
22.
King-SearsM. E.StefandisA.EvmenovaA. S.RaoK.MergenR. L.OwenL. S.StrimelM. M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122(2023), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956
23.
KoutsoklenisA.HonkasiltaJ. (2023). ADHD in the DSM-5-TR: What has changed and what has not. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 1064141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1064141
24.
LanganE. (2019). The power of primary sources in the community college context. Community College Enterprise, 25(1), 50–58.
25.
LeeC. D.WhiteG.DongD. (Eds.). (2021). Educating for civic reasoning & discourse. National Academy for Education.
26.
LucyL.DemszkyD.BromleyP.JurafskyD. (2020). Content analysis of textbooks via natural language processing: Findings on gender, race, and ethnicity in Texas U.S. history textbooks. AERA Open, 6(3), 1–27. https://doi.org./10.1177/2332858420940312
27.
O’ConnorR. E.BeachK. D.SanchezV.BocianK. M.RobertsS.ChanO. (2017). Building better bridges: Teaching adolescents who are poor readers in eighth grade to comprehend history text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717698537
28.
OkoloC. M.EnglertC. S.BouckE. C.HeutscheA.WangH. (2011). The virtual history museum: Learning U.S. history in diverse eight grade classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 32(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/074932510362241
29.
MarcusA. S.MetzgerS. A.PaxtonR. J.StoddardJ. D. (2018). Teaching history with film: Strategies for secondary social studies. Routledge.
30.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
31.
MeoG. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30
32.
MorganD. N.RasinskiT. V. (2012). The power of primary sources. Reading Teacher, 65(8), 584–594.
NokesJ. D. (2022). Building students historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence. Routledge.
36.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K.PetscherY.RobertsG.MenzelA. J.SchatschneiderC. (2020). Differential codevelopment of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 608–627.https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000382
37.
RawlingsR.AllenS.ArceP. E. (2005). The personalized class binder (PCB): A powerful tool for enhancing active and collaborative learning environments [Conference session]. ASEE Southeast Section Conference, Chattanooga, TN, United States. http://se.asee.org/proceedings/ASEE2005/RP2005161ARC.pdf
38.
ReismanA.FogoB. (2016). Contributions of educative document-based curricular materials to quality of historical instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.018
39.
RiccominiP. J.MoranoS.HughesC. A. (2017). Big ideals in special education: Specially designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, intensive instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917724412
40.
SantangeloT. (2014). Why is writing so difficult for students with learning disabilities?A narrative review to inform the design of effective instruction. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 5–20.
41.
SchmittH. A.WitmerS. E.RoweS. S. (2022). Text readability, comprehension instruction, and student engagement: Examining associated relationships during text-based social studies instruction. Literacy Research Instruction, 61(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2021.2008561
42.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.OkoloC. M. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(2), 1–24.
43.
SeveranceS.HowellE. (2017). On gender disparities in disability identification and special education services. Journal of Gender and Power, 8(2), 27–34.
44.
SotoC.Gutiérrez de BlumeA. P.JacovinaM.McNamaraD.BensonN.RiffoB. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogen Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1565067
45.
StakeR. (1994). Qualitative case study. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Sage.
46.
StarkK.WexlerJ.SheltonA.JohnstonT. B.OmohundroK. (2024). Explicit and evidence-based literacy instruction in middle school: An observational study. Reading and Writing, 37(2024), 2253–2274. https://doi.org.10.1007/s11145-023-10470-y
47.
StewartA. A.AustinC. R. (2020). Reading interventions for students with or at risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 41(6), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519849660
48.
StewartA. A.SwansonE. (2024). Supporting reading comprehension for students with inattention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 56(5), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221087434
49.
SwansonE.HairrellA.KentS.CiulloS.WanzekJ. A.VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131
50.
TreptowM. A.BurnsM. K.McComasJ. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students; reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087958
51.
WalldénR. (2020). “It was that Trolle thing” negotiating history in grade 6: A matter of teachers’ text choice. Linguistics and Education, 60(100884), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100884
52.
WardM. R. M.DelamontS. (2020). Handbook of qualitative research in education. Edward Elgar.
53.
WoyshnerC. (2010). Inquiry teaching with primary source documents: An iterative approach. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5(3), 36–45.
54.
WineburgS.MartinD.Monte-SanoC. (2013). Reading like a historian: Teaching literacy in middle and high school history classrooms. Teachers College Press.
