bean zigmond hartman-1994-adapted use of social studies textbooks

Adapted Use of Social Studies Textbooks in Elementary Classrooms Views of Classroom Teachers

R I T A M . B E A N , N A O M I Z I G M O N D , A N D D O U G L A S K . H A R T M A N

A B S T R A C T

T 1 W E N T Y - T W O C L A S S R O O M T E A C H E R S ( G R A D E S 1

T H R O U G H 7 ) W E R E I N T E R V I E W E D TO O B T A I N I N F O R M A T I O N

A B O U T H O W T H E Y U S E T H E I R S O C I A L S T U D I E S T E X T B O O K S ,

T H E P R O B L E M S T H E Y E X P E R I E N C E , A N D T H E I R P E R C E P T I O N S

O F T H E S T R E N G T H S A N D W E A K N E S S E S O F T H E T E X T S .

T E A C H E R S W E R E A L S O A S K E D T O D E S C R I B E T H E M O D I F I

C A T I O N S OR A D A P T A T I O N S T H E Y M A D E TO H E L P S T U D E N T S

W H O M I G H T HAVE D I F F I C U L T Y U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E T E X T

BOOK. R E S U L T S I N D I C A T E D T H A T A L T H O U G H T E A C H E R S

L I K E D H A V I N G T H E T E X T B O O K AS A R E S O U R C E , T H E Y W E R E

C O N C E R N E D A B O U T C O N T E N T A N D C O M P R E H E N S I B I L I T Y .

T E A C H E R S T E N D E D T O S O L V E T H E P R O B L E M O F T E X T B O O K

D I F F I C U L T Y I N T H R E E W A Y S : H E L P I N G S T U D E N T S T O C O P E

W I T H T H E T E X T B O O K , D E E M P H A S I Z I N G T H E T E X T B O O K , OR

R E I N F O R C I N G A N D E X T E N D I N G T E X T B O O K I N F O R M A T I O N .

A JL J L l T H O U G H T E X T B O O K S A R E A P R I M A R Y

instructional tool for teaching social studies in elementary and middle school classrooms (Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1980; Woodward, Elliot, & Nagel, 1986), there is a great deal of criticism of these books, their content, instructional design or presentation, and level of difficulty (Beck, McKeown, & Gromoll, 1989; Gagnon, 1987; Hoge, 1986; Sewall, 1987). This criticism tends to be based on analyses of texts by researchers in the field of social studies or in related fields such as reading. Little information is available,

however, from teachers themselves on how they view the textbooks that are used in their classrooms and on how they use these books, especially when they have students in their classes who experience difficulty in understanding textbook material. And, as more and more students with learning difficulties are being placed in general education classrooms as part of the full inclusion movement (National Association of State Boards of Education, 1992; Will, 1986), the issue of textbook use in social studies instruction becomes even more crucial.

The work reported in this paper is part of a larger study commissioned by the Office of Special Education Programs to investigate and influence social studies curriculum and instruction for mainstreamed special education students. This paper describes the perceptions of a group of elementary/middle school social studies teachers about several textbook-related issues. In addition to analyzing teachers' views about the use of textbooks, problems they experience, and strengths and weaknesses of textbooks, we describe the modifications or adaptations teachers say they make for students experiencing difficulties with social studies, especially as related to understanding text.

Researchers who have focused their attention on the study of textbooks have found them lacking in several dimensions. Beck, McKeown, and Gromoll's (1989) comprehensive examination of four widely used commercial social studies texts identified four problem areas: unclear content goals, assumed background knowledge, inadequate explanations, and poor presentations of content. Larkins, Hawkins, and Gilmore (1987) were highly critical of the content in primary social studies textbooks, calling it superficial, vacuous, and redundant. Tyson-Bernstein and

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 15, Number 4, July 1994, Pages 216-226

at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on January 17, 2012rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rse.sagepub.com/

Woodward (1986) found that elementary social studies textbooks gave bland, homogeneous, and insufficient treatment to most topics. Elliot, Nagel, and Woodward (1985) found that the layouts and graphics in 10 published basal social studies series textbooks were of high quality, but content, presentation, scope, and sequence were laden with problems. In fact, Elliot et al. observed that a social studies series was not really a series at all, but a collection of loosely related volumes.

When Armbruster and Ostertag (1987) analyzed the instructional and assessment questions found in contemporary fourth- and fifth-grade social studies series of three publishers, they found a preponderance of lower cognitive-level questions, implying that what really counted in social studies were names, definitions, and other facts, rather than meaningful learning of big ideas. Chall and Conard (1991) reported that the difficulty levels of social studies textbooks were substantially higher than those of basal reading texts for the same grade, and in fact, the lower the grade, the more difficult the text relative to students' reading ability. These criticisms are broad, ranging from concerns about content (too little, too much, or wrong choice) to comments about instructional design or presentation within both the students' textbooks and teachers' guides.

Yet, despite indictments from scholars, elementary/ middle school teachers of social studies tend to rely heavily on their textbooks as the primary source of instruction (Chall & Conard, 1991; Shaver, 1989; Shaver et al., 1980). Moreover, teachers seem to consider the textbook infallible, a source of knowledge provided by experts (McCutcheon, 1981). Gagnon (1987) noted that textbooks are "likely to determine what teachers will seek to accomplish in their courses . . . , tell the student what is important [and] what is not important. . . , and [are] taken as the final authority on most matters" (p. 33).

Educators in the field of reading (e.g., Armbruster & Gudbrandsen, 1986; Conley, 1992; Vacca & Vacca, 1989) and special education (Bos & Vaughan, 1988; Ciborowski, 1992; Schumm & Strickler, 1991) have suggested many different ways in which teachers might modify textbook use so that these books can serve as effective tools for learning. These instructional suggestions range from techniques for helping students use the textbook more efficiently to ideas for supplementing textbook use. Social studies educators also speak to the importance of using a variety of content-appropriate teaching methods, especially those that would engage students actively in the learning process (Chapin & Messick, 1989; History-Social Science Framework, 1987). Thus, in their view, the textbook, used alone, might result in narrow, restricted programs. Social studies educators call for instruction that includes such techniques as cooperative learning, inquiry learning, role playing, and simulations (Chapin & Messick, 1989).

Regardless of discipline, experts stress the importance of teacher adaptations to accommodate individual differences. Indeed, Stainback, Stainback, Courtnage, and Jaben

(1985) have indicated that the success of mainstreaming is highly dependent on teachers' ability and willingness to make adaptations.

There is little information available, however, about how teachers try to reconcile the textbook they use with the varied abilities and experiences of their students, and about their views on the strengths or problems with the textbooks they use. Chall and Conard (1991), in their observations of 27 elementary classrooms, characterized teachers' use of social studies textbooks in three ways: directed-lesson approach, study-skills approach, and multiple resource approach, with lower grade teachers using directed lessons more frequently. Chall and Conard also reported that to compensate for students' experiencing difficulty with textbooks, teachers tended to eliminate the textbook altogether, and "instead, they lecture, use pictures to demonstrate, or direct discussions" (p. 110). Chall and Conard believed this to be an unsatisfactory accommodation because students would not develop reading skills even though they might learn some content. Stodolsky (1989), who also looked at ways that teachers used social studies texts, suggested that the nature of the texts as well as the nature of the subject matter may be related to variations in use.

Given the Regular Education Initiative (Will, 1986) and the current emphasis on full-inclusion models that place students with learning disabilities into general education classrooms (Jenkins et al., 1994; Zigmond & Baker, 1990), social studies teachers in elementary and middle school grades find themselves working with students who present a wide range of reading and cognitive abilities. In the present study, we attempted to obtain more information about teachers' views of social studies textbooks (their strengths as well as their weaknesses), and how teachers say they adapt textbook use for children who experience difficulty in the social studies classroom.

METHOD

Sample

To obtain information about teachers' perceived use of textbooks, 22 teachers (Grades 1 through 7) from four school districts were interviewed. The districts included one suburban, one rural, and two urban districts (a large city district and a smaller, middle-sized urban district). The suburban district is a predominantly white, middle class district located 10 miles north of a large northeastern metropolitan area. The district has a school population of 4,751 students with 6% identified as eligible for special education. The rural district is a predominantly white, low to middle class district of 2,687 students located approximately 40 miles from a large northeastern metropolitan city. Approximately 8% of the student body has been identified as eligible for special education.

The large city district has a student population of 40,000, of whom 50% are African American. Current rec-


Volume 15, Number 4, July 1994



ords indicate that 6% of the students are classified as eligible for special education. The middle-sized urban district has a student population of just over 5,000 students, approximately 40% of whom are minority, primarily African American. Eight percent of the school population is classified as eligible for special education.

Although each of the four districts used a single, recently published textbook series, each used a series from a different major publishing company. The series was supplemented in three of the districts at either the third- or fourth-grade level with a textbook on the state of Pennsylvania. Also, the urban district teachers used the district's own curriculum materials about the city in Grade 3.

In each of the four districts, we made a brief presentation to all of the elementary teachers in one school, discussing the purpose of our project and requesting participation in several interviews and classroom observations from any teacher who had at least 1 student with learning disabilities mainstreamed into his or her social studies class. The 22 teachers who were interviewed were all those who agreed to participate in the study. They included 22 teachers in Grades 1 through 7, with 7 teachers representing primary grades (1 through 3), 8 teachers representing intermediate grades (4 or 5), and 7 teachers representing Grades 6 or 7. There were 4 males (all teaching at Grades 6 or 7) and 18 females; the mean number of years teaching was 18.1 years, with a range from 3 to 33 years (see Table 1).

Procedure

INTERVIEWS. The interview protocol was developed to elicit information on how elementary and middle school social studies teachers plan their curriculum, instruct their students, use their textbooks, and accommodate main-streamed students with learning disabilities or students with reading difficulties. (See Appendix for a list of the interview questions relevant to this study.)

Three graduate students were selected to administer the interview. They included an experienced teacher, a student trained in psychological testing and interviewing techniques, and a student with experience in interviewing

techniques. Before data were collected, these interviewers practiced a mock interview and conducted interviews with nonparticipating teachers. The results of these pilot sessions were examined for numbers of probes asked and for the richness of data elicited. Protocols were revised to enhance clarity or provide additional probes. Once a final protocol was developed, teachers were contacted and interviewed at their schools. They were asked to be prepared to share materials and discuss their instructional procedures and beliefs. All interviews were audiotaped and notes were taken by the interviewer. Interviews varied in length from 1 to I V 2 hours.

Analyzing the Data

Full transcriptions of the interviews, along with field logs prepared by the graduate student researchers, allowed for contextualization of the interviews. Transcriptions ranged in length from 916 to 1,750 lines of text. Files were converted for use with the software program Ethnograph (Seidel, 1988).

Based on reading of a sample of the interviews, a code book was developed and each of the codes was defined. Interview texts were then coded into segments. For this study the following codes were relevant: Text, Instruction, Special Education, and Adaptation. The code Text was used when the teacher being interviewed made references to any text materials used by students or teachers, including textbooks, trade books, periodicals, and reference books (e.g., teacher would discuss the difficulty of the textbook or the comprehensiveness of the teachers' manual). The code Instruction was defined as any discussion of approaches, strategies, or activities that teachers used to help students learn (e.g., project work, discussion, cooperative grouping, etc.). Special Education was used when the teacher made reference to students labeled as having learning disabilities or social-emotional disturbance. Adaptation was assigned to reflect any accommodations the teacher made to meet the needs of individual students (e.g., adapting reading procedures, modifying assignments, etc.). We used a sorting procedure to retrieve decontextualized segments of the 22 interviews by

T A B L E 1. Distr ibution o f Teachers Interviewed

G r a d e Suburban Rural Large urban Middle-size u r b a n Total

1 1 1 2 1 1. 2 3 1 2 1 4 4 2 2 1 5 5 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 7 2 1 1 4

Total 9 5 4 5 22





the four codes described above. These decontextualized segments were then searched for further refinement and identification of key patterns.

We first addressed teachers' use of textbooks, looking for what teachers said about the frequency and style of use. Second, we analyzed the data to identify teachers' comments about the value of the textbooks and the problems that they experienced in using them. Finally, we analyzed the transcripts to determine how teachers adapted textbooks to accommodate individual differences and difficulties.

To assist in the analysis of data as to teacher accommodation, we developed a framework of strategies or techniques that could be used by teachers. The framework was generated from current literature (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990; Schumm & Strickler, 1991) and from the data with which we were working. It includes four major categories by which teachers modify or adapt textbook use: teacher mediation (before, during, or after reading); substituting or supplementing the primary textbook; simplifying textbook use for students; and reteaching or reviewing. These are described more fully in the Results section.

To determine reliability of our coding, a graduate student who was trained in using the code recoded a random sample of 31% of the complete interviews that had been previously coded. The percentage of agreement between the original coder and the graduate student on segments retrieved for use in this paper was 88.8%.

RESULTS

In our analyses, we focused on how teachers indicated that they used textbooks, why they valued textbooks, and the problems they experienced with their textbooks. Further, we analyzed the transcripts to determine if there were patterns in the ways in which teachers modified or adapted instruction or text use when students experienced difficulties understanding the textbook. We provide exact comments from teachers to illustrate findings; all names are pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality.

Teachers' Use of Texts

The textbook was a major resource tool for our teachers. Ninety-one percent of the teachers reported using a single basal social studies text as the primary resource for planning instruction; only two of the four seventh-grade teachers indicated that they used multiple resources. As one of these teachers stated, "In that subject, it is not possible to find anything on the reading level for seventh graders" (Mr. Koffee, Grade 7).

Most of the teachers stated explicitly that they used the textbook a great deal and that they tended to follow it as written because they saw no reason to change it. However, three teachers changed the order of the presentation of topics or chapters to coincide with current events or holidays. For example, Ms. James, a third-grade teacher, covers

the section on government in November when elections are held; Ms. Madison, a fourth-grade teacher, skipped to the chapter on the Middle East during the Gulf War.

We found variation in the amount of material covered and the degree to which teachers added information to the textbook. At least half of the teachers said they omitted sections of the text. Among the reasons given was the need for curricular alignment; omitted chapters were often on topics not listed in the district curriculum guide or scheduled to be taught again at a different grade level. Some teachers indicated that they omitted topics that were covered in other subjects, like science or health.

Other teachers omitted or added topics because of student interest, or because of their own interests or experiences:

I use what kids are interested in . . . kids have been to the mountains; the plains are boring (Ms. Gray, Grade 4) .

I can take something and go with it the way I want to, some subjects I do not cover as much . . . because I can see that it is not that interesting for the children and I am losing [their] interest (Ms. Balent, Grade 2) .

I add information on Famous Americans; it's not really in our curriculum but I think it's important. The children need to have a sense of how we were founded (Ms. Patrick, Grade 4) .

I have a lot of information on Mt. St. Helens . . . and I'm going to throw that in, even though it's not in my book . . . it was really fascinating . . . I was there . . . brought back the dust. . . slides . . . and I want them to know about it (Ms. Gray, Grade 4).

Our findings indicated that teachers were comfortable moving component parts of text around, but they did not change content within the components. In other words, teachers were willing to omit a specific chapter or to teach a chapter that was placed later in the textbook earlier in the school year, but they never mentioned modifying content within a chapter. They tended to see the text as immutable and deferred to text as a closed entity, one not open to revision or adaptation.

Why Teachers Value Texts Teachers appeared to value textbooks because these materials provide a guide for making decisions about curriculum and instruction. Overwhelmingly, teachers saw organization as the greatest strength of the textbook. Specifically, teachers commented that texts were organized with a "proper sequence of ideas," that is, chapters presented in chronological order. Ms. Lee, a fifth-grade teacher, believed the text gave her students "experience organizing infor-





mation." Many of the teachers also valued the skills that were presented in the texts and stressed the advantage of the text as a reference. Ms. Miles, Grade 4, admitted to skipping several chapters but assured us that she did not skip any skills.

In talking about the strengths of texts, teachers identified one or two chapters that they liked, or they mentioned that the textbook provided a great deal of information about certain topics. Individual teachers also commented on instructional features such as pictures, review questions, and maps. Finally, teachers discussed the advantages of the worksheets and practice sheets that were provided with the text series. Our findings indicated that teachers viewed textbooks and their accompanying material as important resources that they would not want to do without. The textbook provided the organization for the content of the curriculum materials and ideas for instruction.

Problems Teachers Have with Texts

Problems with their textbook were mentioned by 91% of the teachers. Nine teachers (from third- through seventh-grade levels) complained about what they called "readability," particularly for children with reading problems. They meant that vocabulary words were too difficult, or that too many new words were presented:

Reading the textbook is difficult. It's overwhelming, it's difficult. The vocabulary is difficult, interesting but difficult (Ms. Toney, Grade 6).

. . . overwhelmed because of the amount. . . the size of the chapter . . . they'd rather close their eyes or put their heads down. It's too much (Mr. Sams, Grade 4).

Three teachers specifically criticized the presentation of vocabulary. As Ms. Sanford, a fourth-grade teacher expressed it, "There are not sufficient ideas for the teacher [in the teacher's manual] on how to teach or introduce words in the textbooks, given the difficulty of the concepts presented."

However, most of the problems mentioned revolved around content. Comments tended to be general rather than specific; that is, teachers did not criticize a specific unit or topic but addressed the textbook as a whole. Comments ranged widely, from several teachers expressing the view that their book covered too much, to those who wanted "more meat." Five teachers felt that the text was "boring" for children:

Chapter 2 is something that is very dull and boring (Mr. Sams, Grade 4) .

The children just don't care, they don't have any interest. . . it's definitely not their favorite and because it's not their favorite, it ends up not being my favorite (Ms. Miles, Grade 4) .

The text is very d u l l . . . it is not enough people-oriented . , . you can read so much about a pineapple plantation . . . it's good from the viewpoint of factual clear material, but let's put some more life into it (Ms. Madison, Grade 4) .

Eight teachers wanted more content, but there was little consistency in their suggestions: Some wanted additional information on culture, others on their particular state, still others on geography.

In contrast, seven teachers, all in intermediate or middle grades, were concerned that there was far too much content covered in one grade level. Closely related was the concern raised by Ms. Harris, a sixth-grade teacher, about the lack of development of ideas presented: "WWI and WWII are covered in one chapter!"

Adaptation of Text-Based Instruction

As summarized in Table 2, teachers reported using a wide range of techniques to adapt text-based instruction, which we have summarized under four general approaches. In this section, we describe each of these four general approaches; further, we provide specific comments from the teachers that explain or elaborate on why and how they used certain approaches.

TEACHER MEDIATION. We found that teachers used mediation techniques before, during, and after reading of the textbook. The most frequent focus before reading was to work with the vocabulary necessary to understand the textbook material. Most of the activities described were those that were suggested in teacher guides. Teachers said they had students look up words in the glossary, write definitions, and talk about the words; a few teachers asked students to keep vocabulary notebooks in which they wrote each word in a sentence. These procedures seemed consistent with teacher views that the textbook chapters had too many difficult words for students.

All teachers described ways they had students read the textbook. The most frequent technique was oral reading, which teachers believed provided assistance to students who were experiencing difficulty. Eight teachers used oral reading alone; eight teachers asked students to read silently and then followed this with oral reading. For example, one fourth-grade teacher had students read silently for homework, and the next day asked the students to read the text orally in class. Other teachers had students silently read the chapter or section from beginning to end, then reread important sections orally in response to teacher questions.

Each teacher appeared to have a rationale for using oral reading, or oral reading in combination with silent reading. For example, Ms. Sanford, Grade 4, emphasized students' need to hear the vocabulary:





. . . We do reading silently first and then we always read it orally . . . we have to read orally just to hear the words and discuss (Ms. Sanford, Grade 4).

Ms. Toney, on the other hand, related reading orally to the abilities of her group.

My period 1 class is mostly an average to an above average class, so we spend more time on silent reading. The second period . . . I have many LD students in that group. Now that reading is all done in class . . . read word for word . . . I can't assign any silent reading with that group (Ms. Toney, Grade 6).

T A B L E 2 . Teacher U s e o f T e x t b o o k Adaptat ion A p p r o a c h e s

Teachers ( N = 2 2 )

n %

A. Teacher mediation of textbook

Before reading Prior knowledge 4 (18) Vocabulary 12 (55)

During reading Guided reading 7 (32) Oral reading 8 (36) Oral/silent 8 (36) Silent 2 (9) Taped text 2 (9) Teacher reading 9 (41)

After reading Discussion 9 (41) Grouping strategies 12 (55) Modifying assignment 4 (18)

B. Substitute/supplement text Additional texts 6 (27) Games 10 (46) Nonprint materials/speakers 12 (55)

(maps, graphics) Notebooks 6 (27) Project experiences 19 (86) Workbooks 22 (100)

C. Simplifying text Rewrite 0 (0) Study guides/outlines 12 (55) Teach reading skills 7 (32)

D. Reteaching/review 9 (41)

Several teachers used oral reading because of the difficulty of the text, especially for students with reading problems:

Oh, yes. We read the text orally together because the slower children don't understand the words and can't read them . . . I usually say, "Read the page quickly" . . . and then we'll all read it together or maybe a couple volunteers will read (Ms. Patrick, Grade 4) .

If a paragraph is difficult. . . then I make sure that we read it [orally] in the class. We don't just start from the top of the page (Ms. Madison, Grade 4).

In all cases, teachers who used oral reading, either alone or in combination with silent reading, did so to "get the words out."

Another strategy—used by nine teachers, some of whom also used oral reading—was to have the students listen to the teacher read the text:

I usually do read out loud, everything. I found that if I don't my people who are not up to the reading level of the book, will not comprehend i t . . . and we read everything again in class (Ms, Lakes, Grade 3).

They don't read the text at all. . . there is very little reading . . . if there is any reading to be done, I read it to the class because of having children such as the resource children or special children who cannot read as well (Ms. Balent, Grade 2) .

Reading, per se, out loud, no. Reading by me, yes. Not the students orally (Ms. Marks, Grade 6).

As the examples indicate, teachers read the text material to facilitate understanding when they believed students would have difficulty reading the textbooks themselves.

One teacher explained that she spent a great deal of class time discussing a topic with students prior to any textbook work.

We read it after, after we were done [discussing the topic], and then it made more sense . . . two years ago, I came up with this idea and decided to see what happens. It was a shot in the dark, but it was worth it because it paid off (Ms. Johns, Grade 3).

This teacher seemed to sense, intuitively and experientially, the value of providing students with the prior knowledge and





vocabulary understanding that would aid them in reading and understanding their textbook.

Only two teachers, both of them at upper levels, used silent reading in their classes without any oral reading. One of them, a seventh-grade teacher, described a guided reading procedure in which she asked a question and then had students read and locate the answer.

I found that it works better if I make each question and tell them what paragraph it's in . . . most of the questions at this point are bottom level cognitive only . . . later on in the year, I try to get them into some of the higher level thinking skills (Ms. Rakes, Grade 7).

Seven of the teachers discussed the use of a guided reading procedure similar to the one described by Ms. Rakes, in which they would ask students to read a small section of text and then highlight key concepts or facts that students should remember.

These teachers, like those in other studies (Chall & Conard, 1991; Stodolsky, 1989), reported using various strategies that required students to read the textbook. Many used oral reading in their instruction because they believed that students would have difficulty with reading the textbook silently. However, there were variations in how teachers used oral reading, some more instructionally sound than others (e.g., silent before oral reading or teacher reading to class vs. round robin oral reading).

Another approach mentioned by teachers as an adaptation strategy was grouping of students. Twelve teachers discussed ways in which they used peer or cooperative grouping:

Cooperative grouping . . . put various ability levels within a group . . . when we put one youngster who is really very good with someone who is not that good . . . so everyone . . . has something valuable to contribute (Ms. Nichols, Grade 5).

. . . Sit and listen to another student read a passage (Ms. Sams, Grade 4).

I'll usually pair them up with one of the brighter children and then as we are working I'll say to the child . . . make sure that the other child is in the right place or can do it, whatever (Ms. Patrick, Grade 4).

A large percentage of teachers (41%) also stressed the value of discussion as a means of promoting students' understanding, although their description of discussion tended to reflect a teacher-directed recitation model.

SUBSTITUTE/SUPPLEMENT TEXTBOOK U S E . Elementary teachers frequently used approaches that supple

mented their use of the prescribed textbook. All the teachers indicated that they used the workbook and study sheets that were provided as part of their textbook series as a means of increasing student understanding. In addition, nonprint materials such as filmstrips, videos, pictures, and maps were discussed as important supplements to the textbook.

Projects or hands-on experiences were mentioned as important techniques for adapting to student differences. Teachers believed that students benefited from having art, drama, or language arts activities (including research papers) incorporated into social studies instruction. Ms. Miles, a fourth-grade teacher, discussed a journal kept by her students in which they described the 5 days they spent in the land of the Navajos. Other teachers described various art projects.

The most comprehensive project-oriented approach was described by Ms. Lakes, a Grade 3 teacher, for a unit on women. Each student read a biography of a famous woman, presented his or her woman to the class, and made a commercial to convince others that this woman was important. Students also drew pictures of women at work, developed a timeline to show how women dressed in various time periods, and wrote invitations to a "special woman" to come to school to receive a gift. Ms. Lakes developed this unit on her own; it was not in the textbook:

I do have extra things that I'll do like t h a t . . . I too get tired of the book . . . and I try to think of some different things to do or some activities that the children would really like (Ms. Lakes, Grade 3).

Several other teachers discussed projects similar to this one, but generally, the projects revolved around the units covered in the textbook.

Another technique for increasing students' understanding of social studies text, mentioned by 10 teachers, was the use of games, especially games developed to increase vocabulary understanding and acquisition. Teachers discussed ways in which they presented definitions and had students identify the words (or vice versa); they also described the value of games as a motivational device:

We play round robin where I call out a word and they have to give a definition or we play Jeopardy. . . . Children have come up with other things; word finds, simple crossword puzzles (Ms. King, Grade 3).

Two of the 10 teachers mentioned computer games as an adaptation technique.

SIMPLIFYING TEXTBOOKS . Although no teachers talked of rewriting materials for students, a number of teachers discussed ways in which they used study guides or outlines that would make textbook reading easier:

I make up a study guide that the students do, we check and then we can use these to study for the





test (Ms. Sanford, Grade 4). I'll have them outline that section. And just use that as a study guide with them (Mr. Joseph, Grade 5).

If I have a particularly slow group, I have pages where words were left out of the text, and they're always key ideas in the chapter. So [we] look at that chapter . . . those concepts are in darker print, and . . . more or less it is reinforced (Ms. Lakes, Grade 3).

Several teachers highlighted textbook information prior to its use. As stated by Ms. King, a third-grade teacher, "We take it slowly, we have highlighted our books. . . we read both orally and silently . . . that way we focus on the important material."

A smaller number of teachers specifically discussed teaching reading skills using their social studies textbook. Several teachers described using the SQ3R strategy:

We use SQ3R . . . we turn every boldface sentence or phrase into a question . . . that is done routinely with the introduction of every new chapter (Ms. Marks, Grade 6).

Several others talked about teaching their students how to do research reports, including how to use the library:

We took them to the library and developed a step-by-step method on how to use the library . . . what it is you're going to look up, how you're going to read through the information, how you're going to analyze the information (Mr. Koffee, Grade 7).

RETEACHING/REVIEW. Nine teachers commented on the fact that they adjusted their rate of instruction (pacing) and retaught lessons to accommodate students who were experiencing difficulties with concepts that were presented in the text. To help us understand what teachers meant by "reteaching," we searched the transcripts for explanations. Most teachers seemed to mean that they took more time to cover a topic. But others meant that they used repetition or explanation to help students transcend the lack of coherence or poor presentation in textbooks. For example, Ms. Gray helped students by pointing out rationales that would help them remember information:

We repeat over and over and over. . . . If there are ideas that are real logical, I try to make them seem so logical that they are silly . . . Why the Delaware Indians were given the name the Delaware Indians . . . they lived along the Delaware River . . . we'll talk about how logical that is . . . helps them remember why something is called the way it's called (Ms. Gray, Grade 4).

Ms. Swan discussed her use of mnemonic devices:

I'll use a lot of mnemonic devices . . . like archaeology, I'll circle the a and the c, and I'll say that archaeology is the study of ancient civilization . . . things like that (Ms. Swan, Grade 7).

Still others indicated that they reviewed information frequently as a means of ensuring understanding. As one teacher commented, "I begin each lesson with a review using, 'You know, that lady from California's idea.'"

These teachers seemed to be trying to make social studies meaningful and coherent by going over topics again and again while at the same time creating student interest and connecting events or information to the everyday lives of the students. In summary, teachers were cognizant of the need for providing reinforcement of concepts and motivation for learning and for supplementing the textbook with different activities as a means of enhancing understanding. At the same time, a smaller number of teachers emphasized the importance of teaching students how to learn from the textbook.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with the findings of other researchers that social studies textbooks are a primary resource, the teachers in our study, as a group, reported that they relied a great deal upon their texts. However, unlike the scholars who study textbooks and find them lacking, our teachers reported that, overall, they liked their textbooks. They considered the textbook to be a valuable information resource. Most used the organization provided by the textbook to guide their curriculum and instructional activities.

Our teachers, however, when pressed, did identify problems with the textbook, and those identified were similar to ones identified by scholars. The two most prevalent problems highlighted by our teachers were related to content and readability.

Teacher comments about content were as far-ranging as those discussed by researchers: too much, too little, or the wrong choice. Primary teachers had much less to say about content than the intermediate and middle grade teachers, who tended to be more concerned about the amount of information that was included in their textbooks. Although this lack of concern about content among primary teachers may reflect the nature of the content in primary textbooks, it may also reflect the fact that these teachers are less dependent on the textbook or that social studies is of less importance at that level.

Although teachers were critical of textbook readability, their meaning for the term readability was much broader than the operational definition generally used in readability formulas. These teachers were not overly concerned about the reading level of a book as determined by some formula





(e.g., sentence length or numbers of syllables per word). Rather, they felt that poor readers could not read or understand the text easily because texts contained a tremendous amount of difficult content and too many technical vocabulary words.

So, what we find is that on the one hand, teachers valued having a textbook for social studies instruction: They could identify what it provided for them in the way of information and activities—and they said that they used it. On the other hand, teachers also identified problems with textbooks, and some of their concerns were similar to the issues raised by researchers such as Beck et al. (1989) and Tyson-Bernstein and Woodward (1986). Specifically, teachers concurred that when textbooks lack coherence or present material in a bland or homogeneous fashion, students may experience difficulties in reading and understanding; further, bland and incoherent texts may be considered boring by students and teachers alike.

Strategies teachers gave for adapting textbooks were consistent with the problems they identified in the texts. Teachers tended to solve the problem of textbook difficulty or readability in three ways: helping students to cope with the textbook, deemphasizing the textbook, or reinforcing and extending textbook information.

One of the primary approaches for helping students cope with text was oral reading, used as an adaptive strategy by almost every teacher. This strategy appears to be one that has survived over time (Adams & Biddle, 1970). Stodolsky (1988), in fact, found in her observations of social studies that the "most frequently occurring pattern was answering and asking questions in the context of oral reading" (p. 48) . Although the use of oral reading as an adaptive strategy may be helpful for enhancing student understanding of text, if it is used consistently or as a single strategy it could also limit opportunities for discussion and promote recitation-type classes, Further, some specific approaches to oral reading as described by the teachers were more instructionally sound than others, indicating a need to provide teachers with a better understanding of how to use oral reading effectively.

Teachers who taught reading or study skills or used study guides as part of their social studies classes were also helping students to deal with difficult text material and seemed to be cognizant of the need to provide instruction in social studies about how to read and understand a textbook. A large number of teachers also provided experiences with the difficult vocabulary of the textbook, and, in fact, besides the oral reading and the direct teaching of study skills, vocabulary work was one of the most frequently cited approaches for assisting students with difficult material. However, the techniques described tended to be memorization-type activities.

A number of teachers also deemphasized textbook use by developing units that included various hands-on projects designed to create enthusiasm and to enhance learning of social studies content. They also used nonprint materials, such as filmstrips or videotapes, as a means of supplement

ing textbook instruction. These teachers still relied on the text as the basis for their selection of content, however.

Finally, a small number of teachers discussed how they reinforced and extended textbook information using various review and reteaching modifications. Most of these ideas involved repetition and additional exposures to ideas rather than more complex notions like providing more elaborate explanations or organizational strategies.

Only a few teachers discussed, in-depth, ways in which they explained or elaborated upon difficult concepts as a means of helping students or how they adjusted the content of their instruction when topics or concepts were difficult for students. Teachers talked about their reliance on textbooks, and they talked about ways to get "around" the problems of textbooks, but not many talked much about what they did to make the textbook content more "user-friendly."

In summary, these 22 elementary and middle school teachers shared with us some very exciting ways in which they deemphasized textbook use and enriched the social studies curriculum through the use of various projects, activities, and cooperative grouping strategies. On the other hand, their description of how they might help students cope with the textbook itself was more limited, as was their description of how they could mediate and provide scaffolded instruction. This raises a question about whether students, especially students with reading difficulties, should be afforded experiences that will enable them to learn to use the textbook as a tool for learning. In other words, although our teachers may have provided opportunities that enabled students to learn the social studies content, there was less emphasis on helping students to become independent learners.

The fact that most of our teachers did not discuss ways in which they explained or elaborated upon the information in textbooks brings us to a discussion of limitations of our data collection procedure. Teachers may be doing more than they said in these interviews. Further, some teachers who actually make adaptations may do so "on the fly" rather than in a preplanned manner and may not even be conscious of the modifications they make that are related to understanding content. Also, although some teachers did describe adaptations, we cannot determine through this research the frequency or extent to which they actually used any of the accommodation strategies. Finally, we recognize that given our small sample of teachers, we cannot generalize beyond our group.

IMPLICATIONS

Our research indicates that teachers are using the textbook in teaching social studies to all students, including those who have special needs. Some teachers make adjustments in their use of textbooks to help students learn more effectively; others do very little. Not all of the adjustments made are based on sound theories of learning.





The findings from this study have implications for special educators, who should be aware of what students mainstreamed into general education classrooms might be experiencing, and for general education teachers who wish to consider more systematically just how they are providing for the needs of students who have difficulty reading texts. Further, the study provides important information for teacher educators, especially those involved with courses related to teaching reading in the content areas. The results suggest the need to present effective and appropriate ideas and techniques for using informational textbooks in content subjects. The framework that we developed to analyze our data might also be helpful to both classroom teachers and teacher educators as a means of thinking about various adaptation strategies.

Finally, our findings have heuristic value, thus helping us chart a course for further research. Foremost, it is essential that actual observations be made of teachers to determine whether they are in fact using texts as they report they are. Further, we need to get a more accurate picture of how teachers make the various accommodations they describe and to what degree, and whether teachers who do not talk about modifications actually implement modifications in the course of their teaching. Such research will expand our understanding of how teachers use social studies texts and the strategies and techniques that they engage to accommodate the diversity in their classrooms. •

RITA M. BEAN, PhD, is currently professor in the Department of Instruction and Learning and associate dean at the University of Pittsburgh. She also directs the Reading Center and teaches courses in reading assessment and instruction. Her research interests include the study of effective classroom and compensatory programs for students with reading difficulties, textbook use, and reading assessment. NAOMI ZIGMOND, PhD, is currently chair of the Department of Instruction and Learning at the University o f Pittsburgh and teaches doctoral level courses in research in special education and in issues related to educational assessment. Her major research interest is in the development and evaluation of appropriate and effective public school programs for elementary and secondary students with learning disabilities. DOUGLAS K. HARTMAN is an assistant professor in the Department of Instruction and Learning at the University of Pittsburgh. His research interests focus on teaching, learning, and textual materials from an intertextual perspective. Address: Rita M. Bean, University of Pittsburgh, 5T23 Forbes Quadrangle, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

A U T H O R S ' N O T E

Research for this article was supported by Grant No. H 0 2 3 D 0 0 0 0 3 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

R E F E R E N C E S

Adams, R. S., & Biddle, B. J . (1970) . Realities of teaching: Explorations with video tape. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Armbruster, B. B. , & Gudbrandsen, B . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Reading comprehension instruction in social studies programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 3 6 - 4 8 .

Armbruster, B. B., & Ostertag, J . (1987, April). Questions in elementary science and social studies textbooks. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D C .

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M., & Gromoll, E. W. (1989) . Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6 (2 ) , 9 9 - 1 5 3 .

Bos, C. S., & Vaughan, S. (1988) . Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chapin, J . R., & Messick, R. G . (1989) . Elementary social studies: A practical guide. New York: Longman.

Chall, J . S., & Conard, S. S. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Should textbooks challenge students? New York: Teachers College Press.

Ciborowski, J . (1992) . Textbooks and the students who can't read them: A guide to teaching content. Boston: Brookline.

Conley, M . W. (1992 ) . Content reading instruction: A communication approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Elliott, D. L., Nagel, K., & Woodward, A. (1985) . Do textbooks belong in elementary social studies? Educational Leadership, 42(7), 2 1 - 2 8 .

Gagnon, P. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Democracy's untold story: What world history textbooks neglect. Washington, D C : American Federation of Teachers.

History-social science framework for California public schools. (1987) . Sacramento: California State Board of Education.

Hoge, J . D . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Improving the use of elementary social studies textbooks. Bloomington, IN: E R I C Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service, E D 2 7 4 582)

Jenkins, J . R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O'Connor, R., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner, N. M. (1994) . Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 3 4 4 - 3 5 8 .

Kameenui, E. J . , & Simmons, D. C. (1990) . Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, O H : Merrill.

Larkins, A., Hawkins, M. , & Gilmore, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Trivial and noninformative content of elementary social studies: A review of primary texts in four series. Theory and Research in Social Education, 15, 2 9 9 - 3 1 1 .

McCutcheon, G . (1981) . Elementary school teachers' planning for social studies and other subjects. Theory and Research in Social Education, 9, 4 5 - 6 6 .

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992) . Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Schumm, J . S., & Strickler, K. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Guidelines for adapting content area textbooks: Keeping teachers and students content. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27, 7 9 - 8 4 .

Seidel, J . (1988) . The ethnograph: A user's guide version 3 [Computer program]. Corvallis, O R : Qualis Research Associates.

Sewall, G . T. ( 1987 ) . American history textbooks: An assessment of quality. New York: Educational Excellence Network.

Shaver, J . P. (1989, March) . What is known about elementary school social studies? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Shaver, J . P., Davis, O. L., Jr. , & Helburn, S. W. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . An interpretive report on the status of precollege social studies education based on three NSF-funded studies. In What are the needs in precollege science, mathematics, and social science education? Views from the field (pp. 3 - 1 8 ) (Publication S E - 9 0 ) . Washington, D C : National Science Foundation.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Courtnage, L., & Jaben, T. (1985) . Faci l i tat ing mainstreaming by modifying the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 52, 1 4 4 - 1 5 2 .

Stodolsky, S. (1988) . The subject matters: Classroom activities in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stodolsky, S. (1989) . Is teaching really by the book? In P. Jackson & S. Haroutunian-Gordon (Eds.) , From Socrates to software: The teacher as text and the text as teacher. Eighty-eighth yearbook of the





national society for the study of education (Part I, pp. 1 5 9 - 1 8 4 ) . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tyson-Bernstein, H., & Woodward, A. (1986) . The great textbook machine and prospects for reform. Social Education, 5 0 ( 1 ) , 4 1 - 4 5 .

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J . L. (1989) . Content area reading. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.

Will, M. C. (1986) . Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415 .

Woodward, A., Elliot, D . L., & Nagel, K. C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Beyond textbooks in elementary social studies. Social Education, 50(1), 5 0 - 5 3 .

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J . (1990) . Project M E L D : A preliminary report. Exceptional Children, 57, 1 7 6 - 1 8 5 .

APPENDIX

SELECTED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What is taught?

Tell me about your social studies curriculum.

Look at the "Table of Contents" in your social studies textbook/curriculum guide. What chapter/topics do you cover?

In what order do you cover the chapters/topics? Why do you follow that particular order?

Do you omit any chapters/topics/skills? If so, which? Why do you omit those chapters/topics/skills?

Do you add any topics? Skills? If so, which? Why do you add those topics? Skills?

What do you see as the strength(s) of the textbook you now use? Why do you see those as strengths?

What do you see as the weakness(es) of the textbook you now use? Why do you see those as weaknesses?

Are there different expectations or requirements for different students? If so, pick a couple of students and tell me how your instructional/assessment expectations vary for each student.

How is it taught?

What types of assignments do you give students? How do you individualize instruction?

Who is taught?

What kinds of problems do your students have in social studies? How do you deal with this problem?





bean zigmond hartman-1994-adapted use of social studies textbooks

Education

social studies instruction

elementary social studies

field of social studies

social studies curricu

deemphasizingt h e textbook

e d u c

grade social studies

r e s o u r c e