An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities
We compared two approaches to teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities (LD). We randomly assigned students in seventh through ninth grades (n = 44) to separate treatment groups (strategy-based instruction or traditional instruction). In both approaches, students were tau...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of direct instruction 2009, Vol.9 (1), p.57 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 57 |
| container_title | Journal of direct instruction |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Winchester, Katherine Darch, Craig Eaves, Ronald C Shippen, Margaret E Ern, Greg Bell, Bedarius |
| description | We compared two approaches to teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities (LD). We randomly assigned students in seventh through ninth grades (n = 44) to separate treatment groups (strategy-based instruction or traditional instruction). In both approaches, students were taught identical content on two units of the Civil War. Teachers conducted 50-minute lessons each day for 4 weeks. We compared the groups' scores on (a) two unit tests measuring vocabulary and factual recall, (b) two thematic measures, (c) a relevant portion of the "National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)", and (d) a student attitude-satisfaction scale. Results showed students who received the strategy-based instruction had significantly better scores on all dependent measures except for the student attitude measure. (Contains 8 tables.) |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>eric</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ877262</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ877262</ericid><sourcerecordid>EJ877262</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-eric_primary_EJ8772623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFisEOwUAURWdBQugfWLwfkAyqZSlUGmGl1jL0VZ_UjMx71fTvkdi7m5OcczuqP5mHeqx1HPdUwHzXn0Xhch4t-6pYWUhepqqNkLPgCsgaBweU0uUMhfOQobmWZG9wsiSYw1GMIENKLM63IO5j6hytMDQkJezRePv9b4jNhSoSQh6qbmEqxuDHgRptk2ydjtHT9fz09DC-PSe7RRxPo-nsT34DlF5B0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Winchester, Katherine ; Darch, Craig ; Eaves, Ronald C ; Shippen, Margaret E ; Ern, Greg ; Bell, Bedarius</creator><creatorcontrib>Winchester, Katherine ; Darch, Craig ; Eaves, Ronald C ; Shippen, Margaret E ; Ern, Greg ; Bell, Bedarius</creatorcontrib><description>We compared two approaches to teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities (LD). We randomly assigned students in seventh through ninth grades (n = 44) to separate treatment groups (strategy-based instruction or traditional instruction). In both approaches, students were taught identical content on two units of the Civil War. Teachers conducted 50-minute lessons each day for 4 weeks. We compared the groups' scores on (a) two unit tests measuring vocabulary and factual recall, (b) two thematic measures, (c) a relevant portion of the "National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)", and (d) a student attitude-satisfaction scale. Results showed students who received the strategy-based instruction had significantly better scores on all dependent measures except for the student attitude measure. (Contains 8 tables.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1540-0077</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Association for Direct Instruction</publisher><subject>Alabama ; Comparative Testing ; Conventional Instruction ; Educational Strategies ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Instructional Materials ; Intermode Differences ; Learning Disabilities ; National Assessment of Educational Progress ; Predictor Variables ; Special Needs Students ; Teaching Methods ; United States ; United States History ; War</subject><ispartof>Journal of direct instruction, 2009, Vol.9 (1), p.57</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ877262$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Winchester, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darch, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaves, Ronald C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shippen, Margaret E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ern, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Bedarius</creatorcontrib><title>An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities</title><title>Journal of direct instruction</title><description>We compared two approaches to teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities (LD). We randomly assigned students in seventh through ninth grades (n = 44) to separate treatment groups (strategy-based instruction or traditional instruction). In both approaches, students were taught identical content on two units of the Civil War. Teachers conducted 50-minute lessons each day for 4 weeks. We compared the groups' scores on (a) two unit tests measuring vocabulary and factual recall, (b) two thematic measures, (c) a relevant portion of the "National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)", and (d) a student attitude-satisfaction scale. Results showed students who received the strategy-based instruction had significantly better scores on all dependent measures except for the student attitude measure. (Contains 8 tables.)</description><subject>Alabama</subject><subject>Comparative Testing</subject><subject>Conventional Instruction</subject><subject>Educational Strategies</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Instructional Materials</subject><subject>Intermode Differences</subject><subject>Learning Disabilities</subject><subject>National Assessment of Educational Progress</subject><subject>Predictor Variables</subject><subject>Special Needs Students</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States History</subject><subject>War</subject><issn>1540-0077</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFisEOwUAURWdBQugfWLwfkAyqZSlUGmGl1jL0VZ_UjMx71fTvkdi7m5OcczuqP5mHeqx1HPdUwHzXn0Xhch4t-6pYWUhepqqNkLPgCsgaBweU0uUMhfOQobmWZG9wsiSYw1GMIENKLM63IO5j6hytMDQkJezRePv9b4jNhSoSQh6qbmEqxuDHgRptk2ydjtHT9fz09DC-PSe7RRxPo-nsT34DlF5B0w</recordid><startdate>2009</startdate><enddate>2009</enddate><creator>Winchester, Katherine</creator><creator>Darch, Craig</creator><creator>Eaves, Ronald C</creator><creator>Shippen, Margaret E</creator><creator>Ern, Greg</creator><creator>Bell, Bedarius</creator><general>Association for Direct Instruction</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2009</creationdate><title>An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities</title><author>Winchester, Katherine ; Darch, Craig ; Eaves, Ronald C ; Shippen, Margaret E ; Ern, Greg ; Bell, Bedarius</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-eric_primary_EJ8772623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Alabama</topic><topic>Comparative Testing</topic><topic>Conventional Instruction</topic><topic>Educational Strategies</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Instructional Materials</topic><topic>Intermode Differences</topic><topic>Learning Disabilities</topic><topic>National Assessment of Educational Progress</topic><topic>Predictor Variables</topic><topic>Special Needs Students</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States History</topic><topic>War</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Winchester, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darch, Craig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaves, Ronald C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shippen, Margaret E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ern, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Bedarius</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><jtitle>Journal of direct instruction</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Winchester, Katherine</au><au>Darch, Craig</au><au>Eaves, Ronald C</au><au>Shippen, Margaret E</au><au>Ern, Greg</au><au>Bell, Bedarius</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ877262</ericid><atitle>An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities</atitle><jtitle>Journal of direct instruction</jtitle><date>2009</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>57</spage><pages>57-</pages><issn>1540-0077</issn><abstract>We compared two approaches to teaching United States history to students with learning disabilities (LD). We randomly assigned students in seventh through ninth grades (n = 44) to separate treatment groups (strategy-based instruction or traditional instruction). In both approaches, students were taught identical content on two units of the Civil War. Teachers conducted 50-minute lessons each day for 4 weeks. We compared the groups' scores on (a) two unit tests measuring vocabulary and factual recall, (b) two thematic measures, (c) a relevant portion of the "National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)", and (d) a student attitude-satisfaction scale. Results showed students who received the strategy-based instruction had significantly better scores on all dependent measures except for the student attitude measure. (Contains 8 tables.)</abstract><pub>Association for Direct Instruction</pub><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1540-0077 |
| ispartof | Journal of direct instruction, 2009, Vol.9 (1), p.57 |
| issn | 1540-0077 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_eric_primary_EJ877262 |
| source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Alabama Comparative Testing Conventional Instruction Educational Strategies Instructional Effectiveness Instructional Materials Intermode Differences Learning Disabilities National Assessment of Educational Progress Predictor Variables Special Needs Students Teaching Methods United States United States History War |
| title | An Evaluation of Two Methods for Teaching United States History to Students with Learning Disabilities |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T02%3A11%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Evaluation%20of%20Two%20Methods%20for%20Teaching%20United%20States%20History%20to%20Students%20with%20Learning%20Disabilities&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20direct%20instruction&rft.au=Winchester,%20Katherine&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=57&rft.pages=57-&rft.issn=1540-0077&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ceric%3EEJ877262%3C/eric%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ877262&rfr_iscdi=true |