Using concepts to frame history content

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 329-350

  Twyman, Todd ^a   McCleery, Jennifer ^a   Tindal, Gerald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept learning; Middle school education; U.S. history

Indexed keywords

EID: 85023814503     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: 19400683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JEXE.74.4.329-350     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315-343.
2. Beyer, B. K. (1984). Improving thinking skills—defining the problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 486-490.
3. Cameron, M. G. (2000). Students must learn and understand certain concepts in world history and geography in order to succeed in a new era of global trade. Paper presented at the World History Organization & National Council for Geographic Education’s World 2000 Conference. 2-5 August, Chicago, IL. Retrieved March 18, 2002, from http://www.dla.utexas.edu/world2000/cameron.html
4. Caros, J. (1996). Curriculum-based analysis of students’ vocabulary acquisition within an experimental eighth-grade history text. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene.
5. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29-39.
6. De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1986). Cognitive structure of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 279-288.
7. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of setting. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.
8. Hollenbeck, K., & Tindal, G. (1996). Teaching law concepts within mainstreamed middle school social studies settings. Diagnostique, 21, 37-58.
9. Ketterlin-Geller, L., Twyman, T., McCoy, J. D., & Tindal, G. (in press). Using a concept maze to assess student understanding of secondary content. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
10. Klausmeier, H. J. (1992). Concept learning and concept teaching. Educational Psychologist, 27, 267-286.
11. Leinhardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 20-25.
12. Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C., & Virji, S. (1994). A sense of history. Educational Psychologist, 29, 79-88.
13. Martorella, P. H. (1972). Concept learning: Designs for instruction. San Francisco: Intext Educational Publishers.
14. McCleery, J. A., & Tindal, G. (1999). Teaching the scientific method to at-risk students and students with learning disabilities through concept anchoring and explicit instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 7-18.
15. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1994). Making sense of accounts of history: Why young students don’t and how they might. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). U.S. history achievement-level results, grade 12. Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ushistory/results/natachieve-g12.asp
17. National Center for History in the Schools. (1999). National standards for history. Retrieved March 20, 2002, from http://www.iac.net/~pfilio/stand.txt
18. National Council for the Social Studies. (2000). Standards and position statements. Retrieved March 15, 2002, from http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/positions
19. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment.
20. J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 41-56.
22. Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1994). Instruction and learning in middle school science classes: Implications for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 166-187.
23. Oregon Department of Education. (2003). Oregon standards. Retrieved June 23, 2004, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/cifs/newspaper/newspaper-2003-04.pdf
24. Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 2, 201-209.
25. Ravitch, D. (1989). The plight of history in American schools. In P. Gagnon & The Bradley Commission on History in Schools (Eds.), Historical literacy (pp. 51-68). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1980). Analogical processes in learning (Tech. Rep., April 1979-August 1980). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego.
27. Schug, M. C., & Western, R. D. (1997). Why do social studies teachers use textbooks? Social Education, 61(2), 97-102.
28. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
29. Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 55-70.
30. Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1996a). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 7(27), 1-22.
31. Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1996b). Serving students in middle school content classes:A heuristic study of critical variables linking instruction and assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 414-432.
32. Tindal, G., Nolet, V., & Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes (Training Module No. 3). Eugene: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program.
33. Twyman, T. (2003). Effects of a conceptually framed, problem/solution/effect graphic organizer on content comprehension and problem solving skills for seventh grade social studies students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
34. Twyman, T., McCleery, J. A., & Tindal, G. (2005). Exploring a concept-based instructional approach to increase geography achievement for at-risk students and students with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
35. Twyman, T., McCoy, J. D., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Tindal, G. (2003). Effects of concept-based instruction on an English language learner in a rural school: A descriptive case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 333-348.
36. Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2005). Using a computer adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills for students with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript. Eugene, OR.
37. Voss, J. F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem-solving model. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 607-622.
38. Wineburg, S. S. (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.
39. Woodward, J. (1994). The role of models in secondary science instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 94-104.