A systematic review of Historical Literacy (HL) interventions conducted during the past 17 years (2000–2017) with students with and at risk for LD is presented in this article. HL is defined as the skills required to reason, read, write, and learn with historical evidence from the past. The review begins with a description of reforms in history education and summarizes more recent changes in legislation. Next, HL standards that pose challenges for struggling learners are discussed, and findings from HL interventions are presented. Results are synthesized and reported according to three themes that align with the CCSS for literacy in history/social studies: (1) disciplinary reading, (2) historical writing, and (3) classroom research projects. Instructional suggestions and directions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandeira de MelloV., BohrnstedtG., BlankenshipC., & ShermanD. (2015). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: Results from the 2013 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NCES 2015–046). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 24, 2017 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
2.
BaronC. (2016). Using embedded visual coding to support contextualization of historical text. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 516–540.
3.
BiancarosaG., & SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
BoneE., & BouckE. (2016). Accessible text–to–speech options for students who struggle with reading. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61, 48–55.
BulgrenJ. A., GranerP. S., & DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 17–27.
7.
CarrE. H. (1961). What is history? New York: Knopf.
8.
ChardD. J., VaughnS., & TylerB. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
9.
CollinsA., BrownJ., & NewmanS. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Accessed July 7, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org.
11.
ConnorC. M., AlbertoP. A., ComptonD. L., & O'ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014–3000). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov.
12.
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, 137–156.
13.
De La PazS. & FeltonM. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–92.
14.
De La PazS., FeltonM., Monte–SanoC., CroningerR., JacksonC., DeograciasJ. S., & HoffmanB. P. (2014). Developing historical reading and writing with adolescent readers: Effects on student learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 42, 228–274.
15.
De La PazS., & Hernandez–RamosP. (2013). Technology–enhanced project–based learning: Effects on historical thinking. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 1–13.
16.
De La PazS., & MacArthurC. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 142–154.
17.
De La PazS., Monte–SanoC., FeltonM., CroningerR., JacksonC., & PiantedosiK. W. (2016). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.147.
18.
De La PazS., & WissingerD. (2017). Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 658–671.
19.
DraperR. J., & BroomheadP. (Eds.). (2010). (Re)imagining content–area literacy instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
FeltonM., & HerkoS. (2004). From dialogue to two–sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 672–683.
21.
FerrettiR. P., MacArthurC., & OkoloC. M. (2007). Students’ misconceptions about U.S. westward migration. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 145–154.
22.
FerrettiR. P., MacArthurC., & OkoloC. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71.
23.
FerrettiR., & OkoloC. M. (1996). Authenticity in learning: Multimedia design projects in the social studies for students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 450–460.
24.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness–to–instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
25.
GaddisJ. L. (2002). The landscape of history: How historians map the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
GerstenR., BakerS. K., Smith–JohnsonJ., DiminoJ., & PetersonA. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 264–280.
27.
GrantS. G. (2001). It's just the facts, or is it? The relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ understandings of history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29, 65–108.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
30.
KentS., WanzekJ., SwansonE., & VaughnS. (2015). Team–based learning for students with high–incidence disabilities in high school social studies classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 3–14.
31.
KitmittoS. (2011). Measuring status and change in NAEP inclusion rates of students with disabilities: Results 2007–09 (NCES 2011– 457). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
32.
MacArthurC. A., FerrettiR., & OkoloC. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 160–172.
33.
MastropieriM., & ScruggsT. (2010). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
MastropieriM., 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.
McMasterK. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
36.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
37.
Monte–SanoC. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1045–1079.
38.
Monte–SanoC., & De La PazS. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
41.
NokesJ. D., DoleJ. A., & HackerD. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while writing historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 492–504.
42.
OkoloC. M., EnglertC. S., BouckE. C., HeutscheA., & CourtadC. A. (2007). Web–based history learning environments: Helping all students learn and like history. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 3–11.
43.
OkoloC. M., EnglertC. S., BouckE. C., HeutscheA., & WangH. (2011). The virtual history museum: Learning American history in diverse eighth grade classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 417–28.
44.
OkoloC. M., & FerrettiR. P. (1997). The impact of multimedia design projects on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 223–252.
45.
OkoloC. M., & FerrettiR. (2014). History instruction for students with learning disabilities. In SwansonL., HarrisK., & GrahamS. (2nd Ed.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 462–486). New York: The Guilford Press.
46.
ReismanA. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document–based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition & Instruction, 30, 86–112.
47.
SeixasP., & PeckC. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In SearsA. & WrightI. (Eds.), Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies (pp. 109–117). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
ShanahanT., & ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.
50.
StearnsP. N., SeixasP., & WineburgS. (2000). Knowing, teaching, and earning history. National and international perspectives. New York and London: New York University Press, 2000.
51.
SwansonE., HairrellA., KentS., CiulloS., WanzekJ., & VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta–analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 178–195.
52.
SwansonE., WanzekJ., VaughnS., FallA–M., RobertsG., RobertsG., et al. (2016). Middle school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below–average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33, 1–17.
53.
SwansonE., WanzekJ., VaughnS., RobertsG, & FallA. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82, 11–24.
54.
SwansonH. L., CooneyJ. B., & McNamaraJ. K. (2004). Learning disabilities and memory. In WongB. Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 41–92). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
55.
SwansonH. L., & Sachse–LeeC. (2001). Mathematical problem solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294–321.
56.
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). Twenty–ninth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Parts B and C. 2007. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2007/parts-b-c
57.
van BoxtelC., & van DrieJ. (2012). “That's in the time of the Romans!” Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualize historical images and documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 113–145.
58.
VanSledrightB. (2002). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
59.
VaughnS., SwansonE. A., RobertsG., WanzekJ., Stillman–SpisakS. J., SolisM., et al. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 77–93.
60.
WaltonD., ReedC., & MacagnoF. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
WanzekJ., VaughnS., KentS. C., SwansonE. A., RobertsG., HaynesM., et al. (2014). The effects of team–based learning on social studies knowledge acquisition in high school. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 183–204.
62.
WineburgS. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
63.
WissingerD., & De La PazS. (2016). Using small–group discussions to enhance the historical arguments of middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 43–59.
64.
YoungK. M., & LeinhardtG. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15, 25–68.
