Teaching American History Grant Program Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

Teaching American History Grant Program Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

December 10, 2008

December 10, 2008

©2008 The School Board of Broward County, Florida

The School Board of Broward County, Florida

Teaching American History Grant Program

Final Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

Maureen S. Dinnen, Chair

Jennifer Leonard Gottlieb, Vice Chair

Robin Bartleman

Beverly A. Gallagher

Phyllis C. Hope

Stephanie Arma Kraft, Esq.

Ann Murray

Robert D. Parks, Ed.D.

Benjamin J. Williams

James F. Notter

Superintendent of Schools

Joanne W. Harrison, Ed.D.

Deputy Superintendent, Educational Programs & Student Support

Katherine Blasik, Ph.D.

Associate Superintendent, Research Development & Assessment

Dean Vaughan

Evaluation Administrator

Prepared by Jianping Shen, Ph.D.

Program Evaluator

December 2008

The School Board of Broward County, Florida prohibits any policy or procedure which results in discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, national origin, marital status, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

(www.browardschools.com)

Teaching American History Grant Program

Final Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

IV. TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT PROGRAM

V. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2

5

10

VI. EXPENDITURE

VII. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

11

12

VIII. METHODS 12

IX. FINDINGS 14

Question 1. Context 14

Question 2. Input and Process

Question 3. Product 1

Question 4. Product 2

Question 5. Product 3

16

20

20

X. SUMMARY

XI. RECOMMENDATIONS

21

26

27

XII. REFERENCES 28

XIII. APPENDICES 31

A. Major Programmatic Activities Over the Three Years 31

B. History Teaching Perception Questionnaire

C. Knowledge Instrument for the “Bill of Rights” Workshop

D. Knowledge Instrument for “Internal Divisions in the Long

39

41

44

Nineteenth Century” Workshop

E. Participants’ Online Survey

F. Results of Survey of the Third-year TAH Grant Participants

G. Strengths of the TAH Workshops: Verbatim Comments From

All Respondents Over the Three Years

H. Suggestions for the TAH Workshops: Verbatim Comments

From All Respondents Over the Three Years

I. Results of Pre- and Post-tests for the Third-year Participants

48

49

52

62

70

1 i

The School Board of Broward County, Florida

Teaching American History Grant Program

Final Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

Executive Summary

Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) was awarded a three-year Teaching American History

(TAH) grant by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) for implementation from

October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2008. A no-cost extension was granted from October 1 to

November 30, 2008. The grant was designed to raise student achievement by enhancing participating teacher knowledge and understanding of American history through professional development activities offered in partnership with university history professors and public museums. The objectives of the grant were three-fold: z

Teacher Objective 1: Participating American history teachers will improve content z z knowledge and understanding of American history.

Teacher Objective 2: Participating American history teachers will demonstrate improved implementation and methodology to teach American history.

Student Objective 1: Sixty percent of the students assigned to participating American history teachers will demonstrate increased academic achievement in American history.

Findings revealed that TAH grant participants have evolved during the three years of implementation, with empirical data indicating that progress has been made towards meeting the grant objectives. For example, for Teacher Objective 1, participating teachers significantly increased their knowledge and understanding of American history (pre-mean=8.6, post-mean=13.9, p<0.001, η=0.60). Both the p value and the effect size indicated that the grant advanced participating teacher knowledge and understanding of American history. Data surrounding Teacher Objective 2 found that the grant made a statistically significant impact on participants’ perceptions along all dimensions of history teaching. Data on participants’ teaching behaviors was not collected as there was no reliable and valid instrument to measure participants’ teaching directly. However, if teaching behaviors are to change, perceptions have to change first. Additionally, participating teachers perceived that their participation in the grant had a positive influence on students

Five evaluation questions with various foci on the content, input, process, and product were posed using the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model to guide the evaluation design. An unduplicated count of 368 teachers participated in the TAH grant activities over the three-year period. During the 2007-08 school year, these participants taught at 185 BCPS, working with more than 30,458 students.

The TAH teachers participated in an online survey. More than 94.6% (n=244) of the respondents reported that TAH grant activities had a positive affect on their knowledge of history, 91.5% (n=239) changed what they taught students, and 92.6% (n=236) changed how they taught students. Further, responding teachers attributed students exhibiting more interest in history (78.7%, n=203) and greater critical-thinking skills (71.3%, n=184) to TAH activities. In addition to teachers reporting that they were very satisfied with the program, several areas of program strengths were listed, including: Providing curricular materials including lesson plans, learning new ways of presenting materials, and working with fellow teachers and presenters. i

No recommendations were made for future TAH activities by one third of the participants.

Suggestions from the remaining participants included providing: More access to material, more learning opportunities, training aligned to classroom instruction and a wider variety of content, and grouping teachers at elementary, middle, or high school levels.

Pre- and post-measures and the repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on

410 pairs of data points, collected over the three years via the TAH Perception and Behavior

Questionnaire (Liu, Shen, Warren, & Cowart, 2006), verified that teachers significantly increased program knowledge. The large effect size revealed that the workshops augmented teacher knowledge, thus the grant’s objective of increasing teacher knowledge was met. Results indicated TAH training significantly improved participant perception of the importance of all six dimensions of history teaching: (a) basic historical thinking; (b) intensive history thinking,

(c) reading and understanding subtext, (d) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity, (e) comparing cultural perspectives, and (f) teacher professional development.

Further evaluation was conducted using a time-delay technique of hierarchical linear modeling of

2006-07 and 2007-08 eighth grade student achievement in U.S. history courses, controlling for student demographics, prior achievement, and teacher gender, which was the only teacher demographic found to be related to the outcome measure. The analysis failed to find evidence that exposure to more TAH activities was associated with higher student U.S. history learning as measured by existing student course grades. There were potentially two issues relevant to this measurement. First, student course grades were less objective, as they were graded by different teachers using slightly different criteria. Second, the analysis compared student grades for teachers with different levels of exposure to TAH activities. A common instrument to compare student course grades of teachers with or without TAH activities may have more statistical power.

Recommendations

1. This evaluation used the index of student achievement, as measured by American history course grades. A more objective measure of student achievement in U.S. history would be appropriate for the new TAH grant (2008-09 through 2010-11). Therefore, the Executive

Director of Core Curriculum will ensure that instruments that measure student knowledge of

U.S. history at the elementary and secondary levels are developed during the 2008-09 school year and administered in the second and third year of the new TAH grant so that students are scored on a common and objective metric as the dependent variable in the achievement analysis. The inclusion of this type of measure, as opposed to course grades, would increase the likelihood that the analysis would appropriately identify the impact of program participation on student achievement in U.S. history.

2. Findings of this evaluation determined that the TAH grant made a statistically significant impact on teachers’ perceptions of all dimensions of history teaching. However, these perceptions do not provide sufficient evidence that participants demonstrated improved classroom strategies for teaching American history (Teacher Objective 2). Therefore, during the 2008-09 school year, the Executive Director of Core Curriculum will identify and implement strategies to further strengthen the impact of TAH training on teacher classroom practices and institute methods for measuring this impact. Specifically, TAH grant staff will:

Link the content of the TAH training more directly to the BCPS history curriculum. It is difficult to change teacher practices. Therefore, more intensive training directly linked to what participants are teaching will have a greater impact on teacher ii

practices, which in turn, will increase the likelihood of positive student outcomes.

This may be accomplished by providing more intensive training to fewer participants.

Document the impact of the program on teachers’ ability to deliver American history

content. Methods to consider that measure this impact may include a follow-up assignment documenting the use of learned strategies in teachers’ lesson plans, a survey of teachers’ actual classroom practices, or classroom observations of a sample of TAH participants. iii

The School Board of Broward County, Florida

Teaching American History Grant Program

Evaluation Report, 2005-06 through 2007-08

Introduction

1

Teaching American History (TAH) is a national discretionary grant program, originally funded by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) under Title II-C of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act in 2001. The purpose of the program was to promote the teaching of traditional American history in elementary and secondary schools as a separate academic subject.

Grants were used to improve history instructional quality by supporting professional development for teachers (USDOE, 2005b). Associated professional development was intended to improve teacher knowledge; understanding; and appreciation of American history, with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement. The program bestows competitive grants upon local educational agencies that agree to carry out proposed activities over a three-year period in partnership with one or more of the following entities: (a) institutions of higher education,

(b) nonprofit history or humanities organizations, (c) libraries, or (d) museums. From 2001 to

2008 this program has funded 906 grant projects with about $838,172,000 awarded to school districts nationwide (USDOE, 2008).

The TAH grant program allows for a wide variety of teacher professional development activities such as (a) in-service and intensive summer institutes, (b) immersion activities, (c) collaboration among teachers and outside experts toward improving classroom instruction, and (d) programs to assist new history teachers. Participating local education agencies are encouraged to share their knowledge of effective professional development strategies with private school administrators and teachers, and have the discretion to include private school teachers in grant activities

(USDOE, 2005b). Project activities should help teachers gain greater expertise in American history and increase the standards of teaching strategies and other essential elements of teaching

(USDOE, 2005a).

The roots of the TAH program lie in a movement that dates back to the 1980s. At that time, national assessment measures consistently indicated that secondary students in the United States were not sufficiently knowledgeable about American history. The reform movement in teaching

American history began with the 1988 Bradley Commission on History in Schools report that attributed this state of affairs to a disjointed history curriculum and inadequately prepared history teachers (Bradley Commission, 1988). National standards for historical understanding and ways of thinking about historical movements and events were developed, and school districts were encouraged to align their curriculums to these standards. Consequently, historians and educators throughout the United States have been building and participating in teacher professional development programs, including History Alive! and National Council of History Colloquia.

The historical content and teaching strategies fostered by the TAH grant program in BCPS are rooted in these concerns and developments.

1

The sections of “introduction” and “literature review” are drawn from the final evaluation report of BCPS’ first

TAH grant (Bliss, 2006), in order to maintain the consistency in description and demonstrate the continuation in grant implementation.

1

Literature Review

The American Historical Association (2004) noted that recent, unprecedented levels of congressional funding for Teaching American History grants—intended to encourage collaboration among K-12 teachers, post-secondary faculty, and public historians—has sparked new interest in teaching history. To a greater extent than ever, historians are now participating in such collaborative programs because of this federal initiative. In 2002, the USDOE, the

American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the National

Council for the Social Studies clarified assumptions concerning the nature of good collaboration, necessary to enhance the teaching of history. These organizations agreed that collaborative programs, like those central to TAH, should rest upon the fundamental assumption that content, instruction, and historical thinking should be interwoven and related to classroom experience

(American Historical Association, 2004).

Bradley Commission

A historical mindset that features analytical thinking or “Habits of the Mind” was introduced as a national educational goal by the Bradley Commission (1988) in its publication, Building a

History Curriculum: Guidelines for Teaching History in School. This commission of

17 university and Kindergarten (K)-12 educators was created in 1987 in response to concern over the inadequacy, in quantity and quality, of history taught in American classrooms (Bradley

Commission, 1988). The Commission recognized the teacher as the most important ingredient in any instructional situation and developed a set of curricular guidelines for the professional development of K-12 history teachers.

The policy recommendations in Building a History Curriculum acknowledged the “critical value of historical study to the educations of Americans” (Bradley Commission, 1988). Thirteen historical “Habits of the Mind” were identified for teachers to focus on instructional practices.

The perspectives and modes of thoughtful judgment that accompanied the adoption of such habits were posited as the principal aim of learning history. Teachers were urged to help students become active learners who understand how things happen and how things change, how human intentions matter, and how consequences are shaped by the means in which they are carried out. Teachers were also to help students “read widely and critically in order to recognize the difference between fact and conjecture, between evidence and assertion, and thereby to frame useful questions” (Bradley Commission, 1988).

To nurture such habits of thought, the Bradley Commission (1988) identified six Vital Themes and Narratives:

1. Civilization, cultural diffusion, and innovation;

2. Human interaction with the environment;

3. Values, beliefs, political ideas, and institutions;

4. Conflict and cooperation;

5. Comparative history of major developments; and

6. Patterns of social and political interaction.

These themes and narratives form a conceptual scheme to help students organize knowledge of the past (Drake, 1997). They are integrated into the following eight American history topics, central to the history of the United States.

2

1. The evolution of American political democracy, its ideas, institutions, and practices from colonial days to the present;

2. The Revolution;

3. The Constitution;

4. Slavery;

5. The Civil War;

6. Emancipation;

7. Civil rights; and

8. The major successes and failures of the United States in crises at home and abroad.

Three topics are each explicitly related to three themes and narratives, and five topics each are related to four of the vital themes and narratives.

In all, the Bradley Commission made nine policy recommendations, ending with a call for better education of history teachers. These guidelines were printed and distributed along with the Commission’s Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education

(Gagnon, 1989).

National Council for History Education

The National Council for History Education (NCHE) is the successor organization to the Bradley

Commission. NCHE was based on the conclusion of the Bradley Commission that “Americans’ binding heritage is a democratic vision of liberty; equality; and justice, which requires a deep knowledge of how that vision has evolved and been shaped to preserve that vision and bring it to daily practice (Bradley Commission, 1988).” NCHE convened a symposium that brought together academic and public historians, classroom teachers, school administrators and curriculum specialists, authors and publishers, and museum and historical society personnel.

They began reinvigorating history classrooms by updating the content of history curricula, developing programs to improve the preparation and professional development of history teachers, and identifying appropriate resources and materials for history classrooms (NCHE,

1998). NCHE documented that the education and professional development of teachers, both in subject matter and methods, must be at the very center of school improvement

(NCHE, 2002).

Another entity of the history education reform movement is the National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS, 1996). NCHS was established in 1990 as a joint research venture of the

University of California, Los Angeles and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

In 1992, the NCHS produced Lessons From History: Essential Understanding and Historical

Perspectives Students Should Acquire (Crabtree, Nash, Gagnon, & Waugh, 1992).

Despite emerging reform efforts, widespread and continuing problems in American history curricula and teaching practices were evidenced by dismal results from the 1994 National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) U.S. History Test. Nationally, only 14 percent of eighth grade students and 11 percent of twelfth grade students were found to be proficient in

American history (NCHS, 1998).

3

National and State Standards

Funded in 1992 by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement of USDOE, the NCHS provided policy direction and oversight of the development of history standards. Consequently, NCHS (1996) published National Standards

for United States History: Exploring the American Experience Grades 5–12. This document reflected the thinking of the Bradley Commission by including examples of student achievement in a curriculum that integrates understanding (i.e., historical content students should know) and

“Habits of the Mind” (i.e., historical thinking). These standards were designed to empower students to (a) differentiate between past, present, and future; (b) raise questions; (c) seek and evaluate evidence; (d) compare and analyze historical illustrations, records, and stories;

(e) interpret the historical record; and (f) construct historical narratives of their own

(Drake, 1997). Further, NCHS emphasized going beyond passive reading of textbooks and suggested more dynamic, hands-on teaching strategies that actively engaged students in historical inquiry. The standards called for students to engage in active research using visual materials, artifacts and other primary materials, community resources, and the environment.

History teachers were also summoned to integrate concepts from geography, political science, and economics in their teaching. Teachers were encouraged to engage students in critical and creative thinking about how knowledge gained from the past might help solve present and future problems (NCHE, 1998).

Mirroring several other states during the 1990s, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) developed history standards for middle and high schools, resulting in the present Florida

Sunshine State Standards (FDOE, n.d.). BCPS developed Curriculum Guidelines based on the

Sunshine State Standards, which were made available to teachers electronically and on paper.

History Alive!

To accomplish desired student advances at the national level, the NCHE requested systematic mechanisms be devised to inform history teachers about (a) historical scholarship and curriculum, (b) guidelines, (c) revisions of national and state standards, and (d) other resources

(NCHE, 1998). NCHE also called for sufficient resources, plus school and community involvement to assist the continued professional development of history teachers. Serving

NCHE goals, BCPS embarked on a commercial venture from the Teachers’ Curriculum Institute

(TCI) named History Alive! (Bower, Lobdell, & Swenson, 1999). With roots in California classrooms, TCI was founded in 1989 to create teaching strategies and materials to allow social studies teachers to reach all learners in a diverse classroom (TCI, 2005). TCI developed a delivery system for history curriculum (Bower et al., 1999), which included Social Studies Alive! for primary teachers and History Alive! to cover several historical eras for teachers.

The theoretical basis for History Alive! was a unique integration of the ideas of three scholars who have added much to the literature on how children learn. According to Howard Gardener

(1983; 1991), every student is intelligent within their more dominant learning styles. Gardner suggested students have at least seven distinctive intelligence-related modes of thinking and problem solving. Because everyone learns in a different way, teachers were more likely to be effective if they “tapped into” more than one kind of intelligence, such as by planning activities

4

that help the bodily-kinesthetic learner, as well as the linguistic one (Bower et al., 1999).

History Alive! includes activities for the latter, who may learn important historical understandings through discussions, as well as for the former, who may need to role-play to gain the same knowledge. In a sense, the inclusion of History Alive! in the BCPS TAH program acknowledged that the professional development of history teachers should include increasing their repertoire of research-based teaching strategies.

Sociologist Elizabeth Cohen (1986; and later in her work with Rachel Lotan) focused on identifying classroom practices that can raise student expectations for performance by creating

“Complex Instruction” lessons that sustained confidence, especially among lower achieving students (Oakes & Lipton, 1999). Doing so involves consistently identifying student abilities and assisting them in understanding that in a “multi-ability” world, everyone can and should participate in the classroom learning community. Cohen (1986) found that teachers could improve attitudes and achievement in classrooms by providing students with specific, favorable, and very public evaluation; and in doing so, pointing out to others in class that the student can serve as a resource (Oakes & Lipton, 1999). To achieve this goal, multi-dimensional tasks, such as role-playing, building models, or drawing a mind map of the relationship among ideas have been shown to work especially well. Such tasks typically are characterized by the following:

• Including more than one answer or more than one way to solve a problem;

• Being intrinsically interesting and rewarding;

• Allowing different students to make different contributions;

• Use of multimedia;

• Involvement of sight, sound, and touch;

• Requiring a variety of skills and behaviors;

• Requiring reading and writing; and

• Being challenging.

Based on Cohen’s (1986) findings, TCI developed activities for heterogeneous pairs, small groups of students (three to five), and larger groups as part of its teaching approach in

History Alive! Lastly, History Alive! was based on educational and psychological theorist

Jerome Bruner’s (1960) idea that a subject was best taught through a spiral curriculum that allows all students to learn progressively more difficult concepts through step-by-step self-discovery (TCI, 2005). Children develop fundamental historical understandings at any age with concrete, hands-on, and “enactive” activities that are especially helpful at the beginning of the process (Bruner, 1960). The goal is to promote the cognitive skills necessary for students to have as much higher-order thinking as possible.

Teaching American History Grant Program

Teaching American History projects started in 2001 as a one-year, $50 million addition to the fiscal year appropriations bill for USDOE. As Stein (2003) indicated that the program was initiated with the bold new idea that history content could be delivered directly to United States history teachers through ongoing partnerships with history experts. In 2002, the TAH program became part of the No Child Left Behind Act (under the Teacher Quality section) but not authorized until 2006. In 2002 and 2003, $100 million were appropriated to the program.

In both 2004 and 2005, just under $120 million were appropriated for TAH grants

5

(National Coalition for History, 2003). Stein (2003) noted that three-year federal education grants were given to school districts for professional development partnerships, with Congress setting funding levels for the program on an annual basis. The law specified that United States history be separated from the general social studies curriculum. Supporters felt that history was generally undervalued in schools, resulting in little or no emphasis either on the facts of history or on the use of historical-thinking skills (e.g., chronology; cause and effect; analysis of documents; and use of primary sources; Stein, 2003). The intent of the law was teacher integration of historical-thinking skills into their teaching, enabled through a unified strategy of funding systematic TAH partnerships between history experts and teachers. History teachers and students were the beneficiaries of these partnerships. More recently, in 2006 and 2007, more than $100 million have been awarded to more than 120 grantees. In 2008, $114.7 million were awarded for 121 projects. Therefore, by 2008, the TAH program had funded 906 grant projects with total awards of $838,172,000 (USDOE, 2008).

Foci of Implementing Teaching American History Grant Programs

As the TAH program was designed to raise student achievement by improving teacher knowledge and understanding of, and appreciation for traditional U.S. history, most grantees paid attention to developing effective enrichment programs for elementary and secondary history teachers. Further, researchers began investigating the impact of the grantees’ work on improving history teacher content knowledge and teaching abilities.

Stein (2003) listed three weaknesses in the field of history education: (1) insufficiency of teacher preparation, (2) weak curriculum, and (3) poor student achievement. He underlined that the weak curriculum in elementary and secondary history education and poor teacher preparation may well lead to poor student performance in history. To deal with these issues, recent studies by historians and history educators working for TAH grants focused on developing ways and strategies for enhancing professional development for history teachers.

Ragland’s (2007a) report, based on the findings of implementing a TAH grant for secondary school teachers in the Waukegan school district, Illinois, revealed that what the teachers did in the classroom was not based on research-supported practices for increasing student engagement in history. Therefore, the Waukegan TAH grant aimed at improving not only teacher practices in classrooms, but also their views and attitudes towards teaching history. The professional development activities conducted in Waukegan were implemented with two characteristics.

Participating teachers were provided with opportunities (1) to work directly with historians on content knowledge and (2) to apply this knowledge to the history classroom. The TAH

Waukegan grant shows that secondary history teachers need to understand the essence of studying history, historical thinking, and the work of historians in creating history based on research with primary documents and artifacts. Participants of the TAH grant in Waukegan benefited from the demonstrations of a series of instructional strategies developed in collaboration with program instructors; teachers were able to translate these strategies into their secondary history classrooms.

Mucher’s (2007) report on the TAH grant program implementation in the Plymouth Canton school district, Michigan, emphasized the importance of building a culture of evidence through

6

professional development. He argued that in comparison to just learning specific areas of historical knowledge or generalized teaching strategy, it was more important to guide teachers to grasp the notion that written history was an interpretive act grounded in evidence. Plymouth

Canton’s TAH grant initiated a professional development model that focused on four principles.

1. Primary sources: Teachers and students need to use primary sources as evidence in teaching and learning history;

2. Scaffolding: Teachers need to provide significant guidance to students in the ways of using primary sources as evidence;

3. Problem framing: Teachers need to know how to frame the past creatively by proposing engaging, contested, and contextualized problems so that students are guided to the importance of evidence and analysis; and

4. Historical content knowledge: Teachers need to be guided to new historical research so that they can have clear examples of the interpretive nature of the discipline and have new tools for organizing their understanding.

The emphasis on creating a culture of evidence during the professional development pointed to the premise that through the program activities, teachers would increase content knowledge of

American history, develop skills in historical thinking, and reflect upon their previous behaviors in teaching history. After the professional development, they would incorporate the culture of evidence in their classrooms and, therefore, teach differently.

Unlike the study by Ragland who suggested changing teacher views and attitudes in teaching

American history, and by Mucher who emphasized building a culture of evidence in teaching history, Warren’s recent study (2007), based on a TAH professional development program implemented in Michigan, focused on a more authentic approach to teaching history; including methods of teaching historical inquiry to their students. Warren found that college students who pursue the career of teaching history in K-12 schools were rarely exposed to historical inquiry methods; and thus, many history teachers in K-12 schools did not know how to teach history using an authentic approach. Therefore, the TAH program activities described by Warren were focused on helping teachers to think about ways to incorporate inquiry into their American history classrooms. Warren argued that we must convince teachers of the importance of teaching historical inquiry skills and the use of authentic methods and primary sources.

Ways and strategies to implement the TAH grants yielded a noticeable pattern of involving university-based historians and historical society professionals in providing professional development services to the K-12 history teachers. However, Long (2006) questioned how these university professionals make meaningful and transformative contributions to the K-12 history education (Long, 2006).

Current Status and Concerns in History Teaching in K-12 Schools

The National History Standards have listed historical thinking as one of the primary and integrated standards that connect thinking and acquisition of knowledge. Recent research endeavors on history teaching in K-12 schools have placed focus on developing instructional strategies to promote student historical thinking, higher-order thinking, and problem-solving ability in history classrooms. Samuel Wineburg’s (2001) perspective on developing historical

7

thinking is one of the most noticeable that influences history teaching. Wineburg suggested that history should be taught as a separate subject that is intended to develop distinctive ways of thinking and knowing about social reality (Patrick, 2002b). Wineburg did not emphasize how many facts should be accumulated, what content is most important, or which part of history should be taught. Rather, he argued that attention should be paid to what history can do to stimulate the thinking process. He argued that history teachers should stimulate thinking rather than offer formula (Stearns, 2001).

There has been considerable variation in terms of history teaching requirements in the

United States. The National History Standards (National Center for History in the Schools,

1996) were established as part of the federal government’s Goals 2000 agenda. However, more than 35 states have their own history content standards (Stein, 2003). States have also set content standards for teachers and students. Some states used their certification requirements as standards for teachers (Brown, 2006). Brown collected data through state department of education Web sites and came to the conclusion that no state required teachers to complete a major in history to teach history in K-12 schools. Although, the quality of history teachers in

K-12 schools was one of the factors that related to student performance in history learning, the requirement of teacher quality, as set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act

— which requires teachers to be “highly qualified”

— has not yet affected the qualification of history teachers.

Another concern of history teaching in K-12 schools relates to the content and material in secondary history textbooks, and the ways that history teachers present them in class. Waters

(2005; 2007) found that some of his undergraduate students thought that there were two versions of American history, and that the history they learned in secondary schools was different from that in colleges. Some thought that the history learned from secondary school history class was erroneous

— raising questions regarding the history curriculum and instruction strategies in the secondary history classroom.

Current history teaching in K-12 schools has received much attention from history researchers and educators. Based on the data from the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) pertaining to assessment in history, Patrick (2002a) concluded that student achievement in history learning was disappointing in 2001 as in 1994. NAEP assessment results have called for strengthening history teaching and learning as one of the fundamental means to develop future citizens. Research on history teaching identified teacher content knowledge and instruction strategies as two factors influencing student achievement (Kortecamp &

Steeves, 2006).

Regarding the professional development for history teachers in K-12 schools, both the

Organization of American Historians (OAH) and the American Historical Association (AHA) have indicated their support for promoting more collaboration between K-12 and university educators in improving the professional development of history teachers through various initiatives, including the TAH grant programs (Long, 2006; Ragland, 2007b). The collaboration between university and K-12 personnel was one of the characteristics of the TAH grant program.

8

Research on History Teaching Strategies in K-12 Schools

Another focus of research on history teaching has been placed on the expectations of engaging students in high-order thinking and problem solving (Kame’ennui & Carnie, 1998). History researchers and educators have developed various classroom strategies in history teaching in

K-12 schools to enhance historical thinking and high-order thinking. Bulgren et al. (2007) described high-order thinking as involving students in manipulating information, such as

(a) categorizing, comparing and contrasting; (b) determining causes and effects; (c) weighing options, (d) explaining “big ideas” in a subject, (e) inquiring into and answering critical questions; (e) generalizing ideas of solving problems using inference or prediction; and

(f) constructing new perspectives and understandings.

Students are expected to both learn facts and concepts, and engage in high-order thinking in the history learning process. One of the challenges that face history teachers is how to teach critical elements of the history curriculum to all students to meet the aforementioned expectations in historical thinking and problem solving (Bulgren et al., 2007). Wills (2007) argued that history teaching in social studies was being “squeezed” from the elementary curriculum. Instructional time was reallocated to English, language arts, and mathematics in response to standardized testing and state’s high stakes accountability. This reallocation reduced the scope of history curriculum, and resulted in the possibility of reducing opportunities of promoting student higher-order thinking.

If history teaching is aimed at improving all student achievement in history learning, more dynamic pedagogical models and classroom practices must be explored and developed

(Long, 2006). Professional development programs, such as the TAH grant program, have organized activities focusing on developing pedagogical content knowledge and instructional strategies designed specifically for teaching history (Kortecamp, & Steeves, 2006; Ragland,

2007b). Other classroom techniques dealing with instructional strategies were also reported in many research papers. For instance, using artwork as an instructional strategy to help students learn about historical events was one history teaching techniques (Christensen, 2006). Thornton

(2007) reported integrated geography into American history. Kornfeld and Leyden (2005) found drama a useful tool for acting out historical stories in the classroom that can bring history to life in powerful and exciting ways.

The Essence of History Teaching

Although certainly complicated, much of the blame for student problems concerning historical understanding and appreciation must be directed toward poor or ineffective instruction.

Larry Cuban’s research (1984) pointed to a persistent use of recitation, seat work, and factual memorization methods among history and social studies educators over the past 100 years.

Other research conducted by Kieran Egan (1989), and O. L. Davis, Jr., and Elizabeth Yeager

(1996) further illustrated that history teachers were often confused or unclear about their perception of being an effective teacher in the discipline.

Growing literature on the nature of historical thinking or historical cognition suggested that both students and teachers struggle with understanding and developing the ability to think historically.

9

That is

— as Samuel Wineburg (2001), a cognitive psychologist with a special interest in historical thinking has put it

— historical thinking is an “unnatural act.” The types of understandings that constitute what was referred to as disciplinary, meta-historical, or second-order knowledge about history needed for the processes required in actually doing history were difficult to acquire, and until recently, have been only sporadically investigated.

Wineburg’s Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the

Past (2001) summarized his efforts to investigate elementary and secondary students, as well as teacher efforts to think historically. Wineburg examined teacher abilities in terms of

(a) seeing the subtext of documents, (b) engaging in contextualized thinking, (c) judging the impact of cultural assumptions, (d) assessing moral ambiguity, and (e) distinguishing between historians’ understandings and contemporary presentations. Jere Brophy and Bruce

VanSledright (1997; VanSledright, 2002), as well as Keith C. Barton and Linda S. Levstik

(2004) examined the ways in which students and teachers in the elementary grades study and learn history. Gaea Leinhardt and Robert B. Bain (2000, in Seixas Stearns, & Wineburg, 2000) explored secondary-level teacher attempts to translate historical topics into problems that students can investigate. The National Research Council’s recent publication (2005) on history learning in the classroom builds on a large body of research which suggests that (a) students come to school with preconceptions that were difficult to modify, (b) students need to have a deep exposure to historical facts and be able to place these facts in conceptual frameworks, and

(c) students need to develop disciplinary understandings before they can become independent thinkers about history.

Program Description

The three-year TAH grant (2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08) was designed to raise student achievement by enhancing participating teacher knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of

American history. The practices and policies of the grant’s professional development program were designed to align with National and Florida Sunshine State Standards. The primary concern was the enhancement of content knowledge and teaching strategies of BCPS American history teachers at all levels. The grant also called for intensive studies for master teacher candidates and development of a team of District-certified master American history teachers over the course of three years.

The first BCPS TAH grant encompassed 2001-02 to 2005-06 (originally three years, then extended to a fourth year); the second three-year grant began in the 2005-06 school year and ended on September 30, 2008, with a no-cost extension granted from October 1 to

November 30, 2008. One of the major differences between the first and second TAH grants was that the first grant focused on high school teachers; whereas, the second grant focused on teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. References to the TAH grant in this evaluation refer to the second TAH grant concentrated on history content knowledge and presentation. The review of the essence of history teaching illustrates the importance of teaching history as a discipline. As will be discussed later, one important component of evaluation was examining participant perceptions of history teaching.

The goal of the TAH grant was three-fold:

1. Teacher Objective 1: Participating American history teachers will improve content knowledge and understanding of American history.

10

2. Teacher Objective 2: Participating American history teachers will demonstrate improved implementation and methodology to teach American history.

3. Student Objective 1: Sixty percent of the students of participating American history teachers will demonstrate increased academic achievement in American history.

During the three years, TAH staff successfully implemented many activities, as set forth in the funded proposal. Table 1 lists these funded activities. For details, such as the content of these workshops or institutes and the number of participants, please refer to Appendix A.

Table 1

Major Programmatic Activities During the Three Grant Years

Grant year Major programmatic activities: Workshops and institutes

2005-06 Social Studies Alive! and History Alive! Workshops; Colonial Williamsburg

Summer Institute; The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History; The

Harlem Renaissance: Critical Issues in Black Literature and Culture; We The

People Workshop; Project Citizen; Bill of Rights Workshop; Document-Based

Questions (DBQ) Workshop; and Making Choices in Early America Workshop

2006-07 Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century; Understanding Economics in

U.S. History; Slavery in America: Healing the Sting; DBQ Workshops; Bill of

Rights; Gilder Lehrman Institute; Social Studies Alive!; History Alive!; Colonial

Williamsburg Summer Institute; Project Citizen; We the People; Pursuing

American Ideals: History Alive!; History Fair Strategies; Supervisor of Elections–

History of Voting

2007-08 Old Davie School; Flagler Museum; Economics in U.S. History; FAU Florida

Atlantic University Symposium on U.S. Presidency; Vietnam I; Vietnam II; Civil

Rights; Bill of Rights; Gilder Lehrman Institute; Supervisor of Elections-History of Voting; Social Studies Alive; History Alive!; Colonial Williamsburg; and

History Fair Strategies

Expenditure

Expenditures for the three-year grant totaled $991,502. Expenditures included salaries/benefits for project personnel, contractual expenses for the services of program presenters

(e.g., History Alive!), travel expenses for participants and project personnel, purchase of supplies and equipment, and other expenses that included teacher tuitions for the Colonial Williamsburg

Institutes. The expenditures for the three years of the grant are reported in Table 2. The indirect costs reported in Table 2 includes federal allocations for overhead expenses related to personnel; payroll; finance; accounting; facilities; and purchasing, as determined by the Auditor General of the State of Florida.

11

Table 2

Summary of Expenditures (October 1, 2005- September 30, 2008)

Category

Salaries/benefits

Year 1 ($) Year 2 ($) Year 3 ($) Total ($)

75,330 141,714 145,913 362,957

Travel 9,906 12,127 22,647 44,680

Supplies/equipment 3,692 21,419 110,671 135,782

Other a

20,000 21,172 80,075 121,247

Indirect

Total

3,546 12,688 14,393 30,627

193,629 294,927 502,946 a

Other includes registration/tuition, room rental, bus transportation, and printing.

991,502

Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of this program evaluation was to provide feedback on the progress made in meeting the TAH grant program’s three objectives. Specifically, this report utilized the Context,

Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model and addresses the following five evaluation questions:

Question 1: Context—What are the demographic and professional characteristics of participants?

Question 2: Input and Process—To what extent are participants satisfied with the content and delivery of the TAH grant professional development program? What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses in content and delivery?

Question 3: Product 1—Has TAH participant content knowledge and understanding of

American history improved?

Question 4: Product 2—Have participants significantly improved their perceptions related to teaching American history?

Question 5: Product 3—Has participation in TAH significantly improved student knowledge of American history and other areas?

Methods

This evaluation included qualitative and quantitative evaluative techniques to address process areas and stakeholder perceptions. TAH evaluation questions were addressed using descriptive, quantitative methods. To gather pertinent information, a combination of approaches was utilized including a literature review, online surveys, interviews, and document review. Data were collected, directly and indirectly from TAH participants and their schools—students, teachers, principals, program staff, and others. Student achievement and other demographic information were extracted from the District’s Data Warehouse and other relevant documents. The following describes the major data sources and instrumentation during the last three years of the grant.

Surveys and interviews provided details regarding the implementation and benefits of the TAH grant and gauged perception of the participants.

Assessment of teacher perceptions related to teaching American history. Workshop participants were pre- and post-tested using the Teaching American History Perception Questionnaire

12

[TAHPQ (Liu et al., 2006)]. The questionnaire was among the first to measure history-specific perceptions and behaviors. TAHPQ provides 27 items with good psychometric properties. A factor analysis, based on the data collected from 325 history teachers, indicated that six factors were embedded in the concept of “history teaching.” Therefore, the instrument has six subscales:

1. basic historical thinking,

2. intensive historical thinking,

3. reading and understanding subtext,

4. understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity,

5. comparing cultural perspectives, and

6. teacher professional development.

Depending on the subscale, there were 519 to 539 pairs of data points on which to conduct repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). An ANOVA is a general technique used to test the hypothesis that the means among two or more groups are equal, under the assumption that the sampled populations are normally distributed. Please refer to Appendix B for the

Teaching American History Perception Questionnaire.

Assessment of teacher content knowledge. Items and instrumentation developed for the workshops attended by the participants based on the curricula of the respective workshops, proved to have high content validity. Repeated measures ANOVA were then performed on 410 pairs of data points, based on pre- and post-tests (refer to Appendices C and D for sample knowledge instruments posed to participants at the workshops of Bill of Rights and Internal

Division in the Long Nineteenth Century).

The TAH grant participant Online Survey. In consultation with TAH staff, the evaluator developed a nine-item measurement focused on participant satisfaction with TAH grant activities, perceptions of the strengths of students, as well as suggestions for the TAH grant activities (Appendix E). The survey was posted online by BCPS Research Services Department.

All 2005-06 first-year TAH participants were encouraged by TAH staff to participate. Of the

209 participants, 107 responded, for a response rate of 51.2 percent. Eighty of the 87 second-year participants (2006-07) notified by TAH staff to participate in the survey replied, for a return rate of 92.0 percent. By June 2008, 100 of the 2007-08 participants notified by the TAH staff to participate in the survey responded, for a return rate of 71.0 percent. Across all three surveys, 258 out of 395 participants responded, for a weighted overall return rate of 65.3 percent.

According to Babbie (1989), a return rate of 65.3 percent is considered good.

District personnel database data file. TAH participant demographic and professional characteristics were extracted from the District’s Data Warehouse and included:

• Name and employee ID number

• Gender

• Race and ethnicity

• Age

• Highest degree

• Subject specialization for BA or MA

• Total years of experience in education

• Subject of primary teaching assignment

• Level of certification status

• Subject of certification status

• Years of experience working in education

• Years of experience working in BCPS

• Grade level of primary teaching assignment

13

Eighth grade history course student achievement. To evaluate the impact of TAH on student achievement, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores and history grades were extracted for 2006-07 eighth grade students (n=2,775) and 2007-08 eighth grade students

(n=3,134). Demographic data were also retrieved and used for statistical control.

Documents and interactions with the TAH staff. The final data source for evaluation included documents related to the BCPS TAH grant, such as the funded proposal. The evaluator met personally with TAH staff, as well as interacted with staff several times a week via e-mails and conference calls to discuss both programming and evaluation activities for the TAH grant.

Findings

The USDOE provided funding for BCPS to implement the TAH grant from October 1, 2005 to

September 30, 2008. The commonly used CIPP model provided a concise framework for program evaluation useful for evaluating the TAH project. Five evaluation questions were posed, with foci on the content; input; process; and product model. The following is a display of the evaluation data in relation to the five evaluation questions.

Question 1: Context—What are the demographic and professional characteristics of participants?

Demographic and professional characteristics of participants over the three years are presented in

Tables 3 and 4. A total of 368 teachers participated in the three-year TAH grant activities; however, demographics were available for 343 teachers, as some participants were charter teachers or had left the District and characteristic information was not available through the database. The majority of TAH participants over the three years were white (66.2%, n=227) and female (73.5%, n=252) and were distributed mostly across three age groups: 31-40 (n=102,

29.7%), 41-50 (n=69, 20.1%) and 51-60 (n=80, 23.3%) versus 60 years of age or over (n=35,

10.2%) or 30 years of age or less (n=57, 16.6%).

Table 3

Three-year Participant Demographics by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

Demographic

Number Percent

Gender

73.5

26.5

Race and Ethnicity

Asian and Pacific Islander 2 0.6

Black 75 21.9

10.8

Native American 2 0.6

(table continues)

14

Table 3 (continued).

Demographic

Years of Age

Less than 30

Number Percent

57 16.6

35

20.1

23.3

10.2 More than 60

Table 4 provides the breakdown of total teaching experience and certification level of

TAH teachers. During the three years, 60.6% (n=208) of those participating in the grant were documented with ten years or less of total teaching experience during the 2007-08 school year.

The average total teaching experience for TAH participants was 10.9 years. Among the 257 online survey respondents who reported their level of teaching, the largest number was found at the middle school level (41.1%, n=106). As seen in Table 4, certification level of participants revealed diverse backgrounds.

Table 4

Second-Year Participant Professional Characteristics by Total Years of Experience, Primary

Level, and Primary Certification Level

Characteristics

Total Years of Experience

Number Percent

Less than 5 126 36.7

23.9

21 or more

Teaching Level

60 17.5

ESOL category 2

Grade K-12

Grades 5-9

Grades 6-12

48

97

17

60

41.1

31.0

Certification Level

Elementary K-6 12 3.5

Elementary 1-6 37 10.8

8.2

14.0

28.3

5.0

17.5

12.8

100.0

15

Question 2: Input and Process—To what extent are participants satisfied with the content and delivery of the TAH grant professional development program? What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses in content and delivery?

As shown in Figure 1, over half (53.5%, n=138) of the survey respondents reported the workshops enhanced their degree of knowledge to a considerable degree, while 4.7% (n=12) selected not at all or almost not at all.

4.7%

53.5%

41.1%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 1. Degree that knowledge of subject matter content was enhanced by attendance at the workshops.

Figure 2 illustrates that 48.5% (n=125) of the survey respondents suggested that the workshops changed what they taught their students to a considerable degree, with an additional 44.2%

(n=114) to a moderate degree.

7.4%

48.5%

44.2%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 2. Degree that the workshops changed what was taught to students.

Figure 3 shows that over half (53.9%, n=139) of the respondents revealed that the workshops moderately changed how they taught history to students, with over a third (37.6%, n=97) more to

a considerable degree.

16

8.5%

37.6%

53.9%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 3. Degree the workshops changed how history is taught to students.

The results of the previous three questions indicated that the majority of respondents reported that the grant activities made a positive impact on their subject matter knowledge of history, changed what they taught their students, and changed their way of teaching their students. The percentage of those who chose to a considerable degree and to a moderate degree were about

94.6% for enhancing their subject content knowledge of history, 92.7% for changing what they taught students, and 91.5% for changing how they taught their students

As displayed in Table 5, a large percentage of TAH teachers attributed students exhibiting more interest in history (78.7%, n=203); and students exhibiting greater critical-thinking skills

(71.3%, n=184) to TAH activities. As a result of their participation in TAH activities, 41.9%

(n=108) of the respondents perceived that their students were achieving greater academic success in history,

Table 5

Percentage and Number of Teacher Participants Who Attributed the Changes to TAH Activities

Item

Number Percent

Students are…

exhibiting more interest in history

exhibiting greater critical thinking skills

achieving greater academic success in history

completing more of their assignments

better behaved in class

better prepared for class

attending class more regularly

203

184

108

87

79

76

35

78.7

71.3

41.9

33.7

30.6

29.5

13.6

The findings from the online survey suggested that participants perceived a hierarchy of changes that took place: (a) 91.5% or above perceived enhanced subject matter knowledge and improvement in what and how they taught, (b) 71.3% to 78.7% perceived that their students exhibited greater critical-thinking skills and more interest in history, and (c) about 41.9% perceived that their students were achieving greater academic success in history. The participant perceptions of the hierarchy of changes illustrated not only the consistency of the findings, but also the validity of the data, because it is logical that participants would first improve (a) their

17

history knowledge base and teaching behaviors, which would then lead to (b) their students’ enhanced critical thinking skills and interest in history, which would in turn lead to (c) higher achievement in history. It becomes more and more difficult to move from (a) to (b) and then to

(c). Therefore, it is expected that the percentages of affirmative answers would decrease from (a) to (b) and then to (c). The above statistics were based on the sample of participants over all three years. For corresponding statistics for the third year only, please refer to Appendix F. The findings based on all three years are consistent with the findings based on the third year alone.

Strengths of the workshops perceived by the participants. One of the teachers participating in the

TAH grant, during the second year, summarized the strength of the workshops as the:

(a) quality of the resources, (b) extent to which they enhanced teacher knowledge of the subject and generated enthusiasm to improve the teaching of history, (c) presenters of the various workshops. These three themes ran consistently through the qualitative feedback from respondents. Table 6 displays the first five entries from each of the survey years to illustrate the degree of participant satisfaction. For a complete list of all verbatim comments on strengths of the TAH grant, please refer to Appendix G.

Table 6

Examples of Feedback From Respondents Regarding the Strength of the Workshops: The First

Five Entries From Each of the Three Grant Years

2005-06 z z

Presenters well prepared with subject matter, hands-on activities, and being open and receptive to our knowledge about the subject matter or theme.

The strengths of the workshop were in the way that the material is presented to the class. z

It literally does bring history into their world. It makes it relevant, fun, and brings it to life for them.

Gilderman Institute—the Primary Source documents. When I use them with my students z z they love it.

The History Alive! Workshops were particularly helpful, as there are many interactive lessons which actually make history more meaningful and interesting to students.

Students are eager to get to classes and the level of participation has increased significantly.

Being able to see a live performance and the students ask questions was an exciting occurrence to them.

2006-07 z

Resources provided were essential and ideas exchanged were very helpful.

z z z

Get the teacher aware of the valuable tool there are for learning.

Strengths are that it allows you to see how to further your teaching and collaborate with other American history teachers.

Quality instructors and meaningful examples and activities. z

The workshops provide a broad variety of information, different than what we normally see in our textbooks. This gives us a greater viewpoint and understanding when teaching the subject matter.

(table continues)

18

Table 6 (continued).

2007-08 z

Ideas and strategies are presented to teachers that stimulate teaching methods to utilize in the classroom. z z

Gaining a greatest knowledge of subject area.

Information was enormous. z z

....curriculum work is always welcomed and appreciated.

Always hands-on and very informative.

Participant suggestions for the workshop(s). Respondent verbatim workshop suggestions can be found in Appendix H. For example, during the survey for 2006-07, a third (n=26) of the respondents wrote N/A, None, or skipped the item, when they were asked to provide recommendations for future TAH workshops. Another fourth of the respondents gave no suggestions for improvement, even when they were provided with the opportunity. During the

2007-08 survey, 42% (n=30) noted N/A, None, or skipped the item when they were asked to provide recommendations for future TAH workshops; again, another fourth (n=18) of the respondents had no future recommendations for workshops, even when they were provided with the opportunity. Table 7 summarizes three key suggestions, along with verbatim quotes from the respondents. These recommendations were provided to TAH staff who acted upon these suggestions. For a complete list of all verbatim comments on suggestions for the TAH grant, please refer to Appendix H.

Table 7

Respondent Major Suggestions for Improving the TAH Grant: A Summary of Participants Online

Survey Over Three Years

Suggestions

More learning opportunities

Separation of teachers at various levels z z z z

Verbatim quotes from the respondents

I have attended the Colonial Williamsburg workshops twice and now am no longer eligible to attend anymore. Can that change? I love the experience. It is awesome!

I would like to see History Alive! 2 offered again. I would also like to see another out of state trip, similar to the one that goes to Williamsburg, but to another location—perhaps Mount Vernon, Gettysburg, etc.

There should be a separation between middle and high schools in these workshops. Things that may work in middle school can’t work in the high [school] and sometimes the reverse is true.

Separate elementary and secondary teachers.

Tied more to classroom instruction z z

I would like to see more workshops on teaching more hands-on for kids.

They should be even MORE in depth with lesson plans and ideas. I

LOVED WHAT I WAS LEARNING and am using the strategies in teaching my classes this year.

More content z

Offer a wider variety of content. z

I would like a wider variety of workshops to attend.

19

Question 3: Product 1—Has TAH participant content knowledge and understanding of

American History improved?

Items and instruments with high content validity were developed for workshop participants.

Pre- and post-measures were taken, and repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted. Over the three years, there are 410 pairs of complete pre- and post-data points. Table 8 combined all the testing data on teacher content knowledge over three years. The results show that teachers exhibited a statistically significant increase in knowledge, as measured by the instruments. The pre-mean was 8.6 and post-mean 13.9 (on a 20-point scale), with a p value less than 0.001 and an

η

2

of 0.60. An η

2

value of 0.60 indicates that the effect size was large. Therefore, these data suggest that the TAH workshops made a profound impact on teacher knowledge of traditional

American history. Thus, the grant’s objective of increasing teacher knowledge was met by the three-year grant activities.

Table 8

Pre- and Post-Tests (Repeated Measure ANOVA) of Teacher Content Knowledge, Based on All

Data Collected Over Three Years

a

Pre-Mean Post-Mean F p Eta

Observed power

8.6 13.9 617.6 a

Means are based on 20-item instruments; N=410.

< 0.001 0 .60 1.00

Question 4: Product 2—Have participants significantly improved their perceptions related to teaching American history?

The participants of the workshops were pre- and post-tested using the Teaching American

History Perception and Behavior Questionnaire (Liu et al., 2006). The instrument, among the first ones to measure history-specific perceptions and behaviors had good psychometric properties. The measurement has six subscales: (a) basic historical thinking, (b) intensive historical thinking, (c) reading and understanding subtext, (d) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity, (e) comparing cultural perspectives, and (f) teacher professional development.

Data in Table 9 include all data on teacher perceptions related to teaching American history collected over three years. The means were composite scores, averaged across items from “1”

(not important at all) to “5” (very important). The results indicated training significantly increased participant perceptions of the importance of all six dimensions of history teaching:

(a) basic historical thinking, (b) intensive historical thinking, (c) reading and understanding subtext, (d) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity, (e) comparing cultural perspectives, and (f) teacher professional development. The effect sizes were small, as measured by eta squared, ranging from 0.02 for basic historical thinking to 0.13 for comparing cultural perspectives. The areas in which TAH made the greatest amount of impact on how teachers taught history included comparing cultural perspectives, and understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity.

20

Table 9

Pre- and Post-Tests Repeated Measure ANOVA of Teacher Perceptions Related to Teaching

American History Based on All Data Collected Over Three Years

a

Categories a. Basic historical thinking b. Intensive historical thinking

N

539 3.8

539

Pre-

Mean

4.1 c. Reading and understanding subtext 539 4.3

Post-

Mean F p

Eta

squared

3.9 12.7 0.00 0.02

4.2 27.6 0.00 0.05

4.5 36.5 0.00 0.06

Observed power

0.95

0.99

1.00 d. Understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity e. Comparing cultural perspectives 522 4.2 4.4 77.9 0.00 0.13 f. Teacher’s professional development. a

The means are based on a composite score measured by using a 5-point scale; N=539.

1.00

The data reported in this section concerned perceptions of importance rather than behaviors per se. As seminal writings by Senge and his colleagues indicated, perception (i.e., the mental model) is related to human behaviors (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 2000). To successfully change teacher perceptions is an important step toward improved behaviors. It has to be acknowledged that the data here do not address teaching behaviors directly. The data here are perceptions on teaching history with an assumption that the change in perceptions is a precursor to the change in teaching behavior. Unfortunately, there is no technically reliable and valid instrument to measure history teaching behaviors. The data for Questions 3 and 4 are for all participants during three years. Please refer to Appendix I for the results from the third-year participants only. The results based on all three years of data are consistent with the results based on the third year alone.

Question 5: Product 3—Has participation in TAH significantly improved student knowledge of

American history and other areas?

Test on student achievement conducted during the second year using 2006-07 data on history

course grade data. The data for this section was extracted from the District Data Warehouse database. The outcome measure was eighth grade student grades in history. The student variables used as statistical controls included their FCAT Reading and Mathematics scores, gender, race/ethnicity, special education status, free or reduced-price lunch status (as a proxy for socioeconomic status), and English language learner status. At the teacher level, the variables for control purposes included teacher total years of teaching and gender.

One of the complexities of the BCPS TAH program is that it enrolls teachers at many different grade levels, and teachers take various programmatic components. The spread of the teachers across grade levels, the curriculum for different grade levels, and the large number of students taught by all trained teachers made it impossible to test all students of trained teachers.

Therefore, eighth grade teachers were selected for examination of their student achievement because BCPS offers American history at the eighth grade and a large number of eighth grade teachers took part in the TAH training.

21

The logic of the design was as follows. Fourteen eighth grade history teachers, who received training during the 2005-06 school year, were designated as the experimental group; and nine eighth grade history teachers, who received training in 2006-07, were designated as the control group. The experimental group received training in the 2005-06 school year and started to teach and impact students in fall 2006. However, the control group did not receive training until spring

2007. Therefore, when the experimental and control group students took eighth grade history in

2006-07, the students of the experimental group had been exposed to the treatment resulting from their teachers being trained in 2005-06; but the students of the control group had not experienced treatment. This provided a natural time delay, creating an opportunity to compare the two groups of students to examine the impact of the TAH program. As there was no true experimental design involved in the grant implementation, this strategy was a good alternative.

As mentioned previously, some characteristics of the students and teachers were statistically controlled to maximize the validity of the analysis.

To examine whether teacher participation in history training influenced student achievement in the history course, a quasi-experimental approach was designed within the framework of multi-level modeling (see Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The multi-level framework was adopted due to the data hierarchy with students nested within teachers. The multi-level model contained two levels—students at the first level and teachers at the second level—with history achievement as the dependent variable. As history achievement was measured on an ordinal scale, a multilevel ordinal model was developed (see Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004).

Student-level variables were used to model history achievement so that the effects of student characteristics, such as prior academic achievement and free- and reduced-price lunch status, were controlled. Each teacher’s average student history achievement was adjusted for student characteristics. This average was then used as the dependent variable at the second (teacher) level to be modeled by a replica variable, denoting teachers in the experimental group versus the control group (i.e., the treatment effects), with adjustment for teacher gender (teacher race/ethnicity was not found to be related to the outcome measure, and therefore, was not used).

Therefore, the treatment effects to be reported were controlled for student characteristics (at the first level) and teacher gender (at the second level). In addition, the proportion of variance, accounted for by the treatment effects (i.e., R

2

), was calculated; and the variance, after considering the treatment effects, was reported. These estimates were employed to examine the strength of the treatment effects.

A multi-level ordinal model was developed to test the treatment effects (teacher history training) on student history achievement, with control for student characteristics (at the first level) and teacher gender (at the second level). Two separate models were performed: one with adjustments for the sixth grade student characteristics and teacher gender, and the other with adjustments for the seventh grade student characteristics and teacher gender. Results in Table 10 show that the treatment effects were not statistically significant across all measures of student history achievement in both models. Specifically, there were no statistically significant treatment effects on student end-of-course grades in history; nor, were there any treatment effects in student history grades for the first, second, third, and fourth marking periods. Therefore, there was no evidence that students with teachers who participated in history training outperformed students with teachers who did not participate in training in history.

22

Table 10 also presents variance in each measure of history achievement after the treatment effects were taken into account. Variance was statistically significant across all measures in both models, indicating the existence of more important teacher characteristics (than the treatment effects) that are responsible for the variation in student history achievement. When calculating the proportion of variance accounted for by the treatment effects, there were cases where the introduction of the treatment effects slightly increased (rather than decreased) the variation. This situation is likely to occur, when variance is similar before and after a variable is introduced into a model. In the present analysis, when this occurred, the proportion was calculated to be zero.

Table 10

Results of Multi-level Ordinal Modeling of Treatment Effects (Teacher History Training) on

Student History Achievement in the Eighth Grade with Control for Sixth Grade and

Seventh Grade Student Characteristics and Teacher Gender

Eighth grade history achievement by marking period Students Teachers Effect SE Variance*

Controlling for sixth grade student characteristics and teacher gender

Chisquared R

2

Grade for first marking period 2,688 23 -0.49 (0.35) 0.72 (499.8) 0.04

Grade for second marking period 2,693 23 -0.26 (0.34) 0.66 (406.0) 0.00

Grade for third marking period 2,689 23 -0.42 (0.31) 0.54 (350.9) 0.04

Grade for fourth marking period 2,684 23 -0.25 (0.33) 0.78 (474.6) 0.00

End-of-course grade 2,775 23 -0.39 (0.35) 0.75 (478.7) 0.01

Controlling for seventh grade student characteristics and teacher gender

Grade for first marking period 2,688 23 -0.24 (0.36) 0.75 (532.6) 0.00

Grade for second marking period 2,693 23 0.03 (0.30) 0.59 (355.5) 0.00

Grade for third marking period 2,689 23 -0.16 (0.32) 0.58 (369.3) 0.00

Grade for fourth marking period 2,684 23

End-of-course grade 2,775 23

0.05 (0.34)

-0.36 (0.34)

0.89

0.81

(549.5) 0.00

(546.1) 0.01

Note. SE=standard error. R

2 denotes the proportion of variance in student history achievement among teachers that have been accounted for by the treatment (teacher history training).

*p<0.05.

Although no evidence was found in the existence of the treatment effects, teacher participation in history training explained up to 4% of the variance. This proportion might be considered promising for two reasons. First, the treatment was by no means an intensive intervention, implying that intensified treatment may produce stronger effects (larger proportion). Second, the treatment lasted for just a year, indicating that longer treatment may generate stronger effects

(larger proportion). In particular, the combination (i.e., an intensified and longer treatment) may be a worthy strategy to be tested for the improvement of student history achievement. However, the limitation of this analysis was that student achievement was measured by course grades, which were dependent to a degree upon the subjective standards of the classroom teachers. An objective, standardized assessment administered to students would improve the validity of the analysis and may improve the partition of variance to uncover the treatment effects.

Test on student achievement conducted during the third year using 2007-08 data on history

course grade data. Given the large number of participants of the TAH grant, a list of eighth grade history teachers, who taught U.S. history, during the final year of the TAH grant

(2007-08), was developed and divided into three groups—those who participated during (a) the

23

first and second years, (b) the second and third years, and (c) only the third year. Given the possible cumulative effect on the participants, and the time that it takes to make an impact on students, these three groups functioned as (a) an experimental group for long-term effect,

(b) an experimental group for short-term effect, and (c) a control group. The history course grades were extracted from the District Data Warehouse; and hierarchical linear modeling was conducted to evaluate the impact of TAH participation on student history achievement. The

HLM modeling takes into account the nested nature of the data structure (students nested within teachers) and controls for teacher and student characteristics (such as FCAT reading scale scores for 2006-07). As no true experimental design was plausible for the grant implementation, the above strategy was a good alternative. Using the HLM model and taking into account the characteristics of students and teachers maximizes the validity of the evaluation.

The effects of teacher participation in history training on student history course achievement in

U.S. History and Advanced U.S. History were examined within the framework of multilevel modeling (see Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The multilevel framework was adopted because of the data hierarchy with students nested within teachers. Specifically, a two-level model was specified with students at the first level and teachers at the second level. The dependent variable was achievement in two history courses analyzed separately (i.e., U.S. History and Advanced

U.S. History). There were several measures of history achievement in each course, including grades for the first, second, third, and fourth marking periods. Because history achievement in both courses was measured on an ordinal scale, a multilevel ordinal model was chosen

(see Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004).

For data analysis of each history course, reading achievement was used at the student level to adjust history achievement (i.e., to control over the effects of reading ability on history performance). Therefore, each teacher’s average history achievement was adjusted for student reading ability (or achievement). This average was used as the dependent variable at the teacher level. Teachers engaged in two experimental conditions: long- and short-term training in history. Two replicated variables were created to represent these two experimental conditions, with the third group (the control group), as the reference to examine the treatment effects.

Finally, the proportion of variance explained by the treatment effects (i.e., R

2

) was calculated and reported. This proportion provided a measure of how important the treatment effects were in accounting for variance in history achievement in each course.

Tables 11 and 12 present the results of multilevel ordinal models developed to test the treatment effects of teacher long- and short-term history training on history achievement for students enrolled in U.S. History and Advanced U.S. History. These data include the control for student reading ability or achievement at the student level, and teacher gender at the teacher level.

Analytical results showed that there were no statistically significant treatment effects from long- or short-term training on any of the measures of student achievement in U.S. History and

Advanced U.S. History. Specifically, no treatment effects for long- or short-term training were detected at the end of the first, second, third, and/or fourth marking periods for U.S. History and

Advanced U.S. History courses.

There was one exception, as seen in Table 11. Long-term history training showed statistically significant negative effects on history achievement of students enrolled in U.S. history at the end

24

of the fourth marking period. Such an isolated case of statistically significant treatment effects was likely due to chance. Therefore, overall, there was no evidence that students with teachers who participated in long- or short-term history training outperformed students with teachers who did not participate in the training.

Table 11

Results of Multi-level Ordinal Modeling of Treatment Effects (Teacher History Training) on

Student Achievement in U.S. History with Control for Student Reading Achievement at the

Student Level and Teacher Gender at the Teacher Level

Achievement

Effect SE R

2

Grade in history for the first marking period

Long-time training

Short-time training

--

-0.34

-0.31

--

(0.64)

(0.53)

0.05

--

--

Grade in history for the second marking period

Long-time training

Short-time training

Grade in history for the third marking period

Long-time training

--

-0.24

-0.46

--

-0.54

--

(0.53)

(0.50)

--

(0.41)

0.07

--

--

0.11

--

Short-time training

Grade in history for the fourth marking period

Long-time training

Short-time training

-0.24

--

-1.24*

-0.52

(0.53)

--

(0.49)

(0.55)

--

0.23

--

--

*p<0.05.

Note. SE=standard error. R

2 denotes the proportion of variance in average student achievement in U.S. history among teachers explained by the treatment (teacher history training). Estimates are based on 1,309 students nested within 23 teachers.

Table 12

Results of Multi-level Ordinal Modeling of Treatment Effects (Teacher History Training) on

Student Achievement in Advanced U.S. History with Control for Student Reading Achievement at the Student Level and Teacher Gender at the Teacher Level

Achievement

Effect SE R

2

Grade in history for the first marking period

Long-time training

Short-time training

Grade in history for the second marking period

Long-time training

Short-time training

Grade in history for the third marking period

Long-time training

--

-0.24

0.24

--

0.09

0.08

--

-0.49

--

(0.47)

(0.64)

--

(0.57)

(0.49)

--

(0.47)

0.21

--

--

0.13

--

--

0.23

--

Short-time training

Grade in history for the fourth marking period

0.33

--

(0.43)

--

--

0.15

Long-time training -0.67 (0.58) --

Short-time training -0.37 (0.58) --

Note. SE=standard error. R

2 denotes the proportion of variance in average student achievement in Advanced

U.S. History among teachers explained by the treatment (teacher history training). Estimates are based on 1,216 students nested within 23 teachers.

25

Proportions of variance explained by the treatment effects, as reported in Tables 11 and 12, further supported the conclusion on the lack of the treatment effects. The treatment effects as a result of long- or short-term history training accounted for 5% to 23% of the variance in achievement, as measured by the U.S. History course, as well as from 13% to 23% of the variance in history achievement for the Advanced U.S. History course. The vast majority of the models established R

2

below 20%, indicating that the variance in history achievement was not related to the treatment effects in any significant manner. Therefore, there was no evidence that students with teachers who participated in long- or short-term history training outperformed students with teachers who did not participate in training in history at all.

Summary

Empirical data indicated that progress has been made towards meeting TAH grant objectives.

For Teacher Objective 1, participating teachers significantly increased knowledge and understanding of American history (pre-mean=8.6, post-mean=13.9, p<0.001, η=0.60). Both the

p value and effect size revealed that the grant impacted teacher knowledge and understanding of

American history. In terms of Teacher Objective 2, the data specified that the grant made a statistically significant effect on participants’ perceptions along all dimensions of history teaching. Data on participants’ teaching behaviors was not collected because there is no reliable and valid instrument to measure participants’ teaching directly. However, if teaching behaviors are to change, perceptions have to change first. Additionally, TAH teachers perceived that their participation in the grant had positive influence on students.

The CIPP model guides the evaluation design, with five evaluation questions posed, with various foci on the content; input; process; and product. Altogether, an unduplicated account of 368 teachers participated in the TAH grant activities over the three year period. During the 2007-08 school year, these participants came from 185 schools in BCPS, working with more than 30,458 students.

More than 94.6% (n=244) of 258 participants reported that grant activities had a positive impact on their knowledge of history, 92.6% (n=239) changed what they taught students, and 91.5%

(n=236) changed how they taught their students (n=236). Participants also attributed students exhibiting more interest in history (78.7%, n=203) and greater critical-thinking skills (71.3%,

n=184) to TAH activities. Survey respondents were satisfied with the TAH program, with approximately a third of them finding no need to make additional recommendations.

Pre- and post-measures and repeated measures ANOVA were conducted on 410 pairs of data points collected over the three years. The results indicated that teachers have significantly increased their knowledge, as measured by the instrument indicating that the grant’s objective of increasing teacher knowledge has been met. Pre- and post-tests using the Teaching American

History Perception and Behavior Questionnaire (Liu, Shen, Warren, & Cowart, 2006) revealed training significantly improved participant perception of the importance of all six dimensions of history teaching.

A time-delay technique, using hierarchical linear modeling of eighth grade student achievement in U.S. history courses for 2006-07 and 2007-08 controlled for student demographics and prior

26

achievement, as well as teacher gender, which was the only teacher demographic found to be related to the outcome measure. The analysis found that there was no evidence to indicate teacher exposure to more TAH activities was associated with higher student U.S. history course grades. Potentially there are two issues. First, student course grades were less objective as they were given by different teachers using slightly different criteria. Second, test activities compared student course grades of teachers with different levels of exposure to TAH activities. A common instrument comparing student course grades of teachers with or without TAH activities may have more statistical power.

Recommendations

1. This evaluation used the index of student achievement, as measured by American history course grades. A more objective measure of student achievement in U.S. history would be appropriate for the new TAH grant (2008-09 through 2010-11). Therefore, the Executive

Director of Core Curriculum will ensure that instruments that measure student knowledge of

U.S. history at the elementary and secondary levels are developed during the 2008-09 school year and administered in the second and third year of the new TAH grant so that students are scored on a common and objective metric as the dependent variable in the achievement analysis. The inclusion of this type of measure, as opposed to course grades, would increase the likelihood that the analysis would appropriately identify the impact of program participation on student achievement in U.S. history.

2. Findings of this evaluation determined that the TAH grant made a statistically significant impact on teachers’ perceptions of all dimensions of history teaching. However, these perceptions do not provide sufficient evidence that participants demonstrated improved classroom strategies for teaching American history (Teacher Objective 2). Therefore, during the 2008-09 school year, the Executive Director of Core Curriculum will identify and implement strategies to further strengthen the impact of TAH training on teacher classroom practices and institute methods for measuring this impact. Specifically, TAH grant staff will:

Link the content of the TAH training more directly to the BCPS history curriculum. It is difficult to change teacher practices. Therefore, more intensive training directly linked to what participants are teaching will have a greater impact on teacher practices, which in turn, will increase the likelihood of positive student outcomes.

This may be accomplished by providing more intensive training to fewer participants.

Document the impact of the program on teachers’ ability to deliver American history

content. Methods to consider that measure this impact may include a follow-up assignment documenting the use of learned strategies in teachers’ lesson plans, a survey of teachers’ actual classroom practices, or classroom observations of a sample of TAH participants.

27

References

American Historical Association. (2004). Benchmarks for Professional Development in

Teaching of History as a Discipline. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.historians.org /teaching/policy/Benchmarks.htm

Babbie, E. (1989). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barton, K., & Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bower, B., Lobdell, J., & Swenson, L. (1999). History Alive! Engaging All Learners in the

Diverse Classroom (2 nd

ed.). Rancho Cordova, CA: Teachers Curriculum Institute.

Bradley Commission on History in the Schools. (1988). Building a History Curriculum:

Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools. Westlake, OH: National Council for

History Education.

Brophy, J., & VanSledright, B. (1997). Teaching and Learning History in Elementary Schools.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Brown, S. (2006). History Teacher Certification Standards in the States. The History Teacher,

39(3), p. 367-380.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bulgren, J., Deshler, D., & Lenz, B. (2007). Engaging Adolescents with LD in High-Order

Thinking About History Concepts Using Integrated Content Enhancement Routines.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), pp. 121-133.

Christensen, L. (2006). Using Art to Teach History to Young Learners. Social Education,

70(5), pp. 312-315.

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom.

New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Crabtree, C., Nash, G., Gagnon, P., & Waugh, S. (Eds.). (2002). Lessons from History:

Essential Understandings and Historical Perspectives Students Should Acquire.

Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools.

Cuban, L. (1984). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms,

1890–1980. New York: Longman.

Davis, O., Jr., & Yeager, E. (1996). Classroom Teachers’ Thinking About Historical Texts: An

Exploratory Study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, pp. 146–166.

Drake, F. (1997). Using Alternative Assessments to Improve the Teaching and Learning of

History. Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://www.ericdigests.org?19981/history.htm

Egan, K. (1989). Layers of Historical Understanding. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 17, pp. 280–294.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.) Sunshine State Standards. Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/frame2.htm

Gagnon, P. (Ed.). (1989). Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education.

New York: Macmillan.

Gardener, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic

Books.

Gardener, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Kame’enui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective Strategies for Accommodating Students with

Diverse Learning and Curricular Needs. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kornfeld, J., & Leyden, G. (2005). Acting Out: Literature, Drama, and Connecting with

History. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), pp. 230-238.

28

Kortecamp, K., & Steeves, K. (2006). Evaluating Professional Development of American

History Teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(4), pp. 484-515.

Liu, Y., Shen, J., Warren, W., & Cowart, L. (2006). Assessing the Factorial Structure of High

School History Teachers’ Perceptions on Teaching American History. Teacher

Development, 10(3), pp. 375–387.

Long, K. (2006). Reflections on TAH and Historian’s Role: Reciprocal Exchanges and

Transformative Contributions to History Education. The History Teacher, 39(4), pp. 493-508.

Mucher, S. (2007). Building a Culture of Evidence through Professional Development. The

History Teacher, 40(2), pp. 265-271.

National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National Standards for History. Los

Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles.

National Center for History in the Schools. (1998). United States History Standards for

Grades 5-12. Retrieved March 11, 2003, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/ standards/us-standards5-12.html

National Coalition for History. (2003). Issues Briefing Sheet: Teaching American History

Grant Program. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.h-net.org/~nch/ tahgrants05.html

National Council for History Education. (1998). Reinvigorating History in U.S. Schools.

Retrieved October 4, 2002, from http://63.70.163.70/nche/recommend.html

National Council for History Education. (2002). Building a United States History Curriculum.

Westlake, OH: Author.

National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: History in the Classroom.

Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers. In M. S. Donovan &

J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to Change the World. New York: McGraw Hill.

Patrick, J. (2002a). The 2001 NAEP in U.S. History. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.

Patrick, J. (2002b). Historical thinking and Other Unnatural Acts [Review of the book

Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the

Past]. Teachers College Record, 104(5), pp. 939-942.

Ragland, R. (2007a). Changing Secondary Teachers’ Views of Teaching American History.

The History Teacher, 40(2), pp. 219-237.

Ragland, R. (2007b). Adopting and Sustaining Use of New Teaching Strategies for American

History in Secondary Classrooms. Journal of Social Studies Research,

31(2), pp. 43-60.

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical Linear and

Nonlinear Modelling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Seixas, P., Stearns, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing, Teaching, and Learning

History: National and International Perspectives. New York: New York University

Press.

Bliss, L. (2006). Teaching American History Grant Program Evaluation Report.

Fort Lauderdale, FL: The School Board of Broward County, Florida, Research Services.

29

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).

Schools that Learn. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing.

Stearns, P. (2001). [Review of the Book Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts:

Charting the Future of Teaching the Past]. American Journal of Education,

109(4),pp. 488-489.

Stein, A. (2003). The Teaching American History Program: An Introduction and Overview.

The History Teacher, 36(2), pp. 178–185. [Electronic version] Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/36.2/stein.html

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute. (2005). TCI Brings Learning Alive. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.history alive.com

Thornton, S. (2007). Geography in American History Courses. Phi Delta Kappan,

88(7), pp. 535-538.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Paige announces Teaching American History Grants,

Encourages Local School Districts and Charter Schools to Apply for Funds. Retrieved

September 14, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/05/05012003.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Teaching American History Grant Program.

Retrieved September 14, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/teachinghistory/ index.html

U.S. Department of Education (2008). Retrieved on August 28, 2008 from http://www.ed. gov/news/pressreleases/2007/06/06212007a.html and http://www.ed.gov/news/ pressreleases/2008/04/04022008.html.

VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America’s Past. New York: Teachers College Press.

Warren, W. (2007). Closing the Distance Between Authentic History Pedagogy and Everyday

Classroom Practice. The History Teacher, 40(2), pp. 249-254.

Waters, T. (2005). Why Students Think There are Two Kinds Of American History. The

History Teacher, 39(1), pp. 11-22.

Waters, T. (2007). The Sacred and the Profane in American History Curriculum. The Social

Studies, 98(6), pp. 246-250.

Wills, J. (2007). Putting the Squeeze on Social Studies: Managing Teaching Dilemmas in

Subject Areas Excluded from State Testing. Teachers College Record,

109(8), pp. 1980-2046.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of

Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

30

Appendix A

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the First Year (2005–06)

Programmatic

Social Studies

Alive! Workshop and History Alive!

Workshop

Colonial

Williamsburg

Summer Institute

The Gilder

Lehrman Institute of American

History

The Harlem

Renaissance:

Critical Issues in

Black Literature and Culture

Bill of Rights

Workshop

During these two summer workshops, 115 teachers from elementary, middle, and high schools had the opportunity to experience

Social Studies Alive! and History Alive! workshops presented by the

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute. These workshops were three- and four-day strategy-based workshops that showed teachers new and hands-on ways to deliver social studies content to elementary students through Social Studies Alive! and middle and high school students through History Alive! These workshops were designed to bring excitement back into social studies education through student participation.

During the week of June 21 st

through the 28 th

ten middle and elementary school teachers participated in the Colonial Williamsburg Teacher

Institute. The content focus of the institute was on early colonial history in the United States. The training activities consisted of live lectures from university professors, field trips to many authentic historic sites, and new strategies on how to present early colonial history to elementary and middle school students.

The GLI provided a three-day staff development workshop on early colonial America, with a focus on the Declaration of Independence.

The workshop included lectures by prominent historians and staff development activities by experienced education coordinators. The workshop allowed participants to use facsimiles of primary sources from the GLI collection, which holds over 40,000 items documenting the political and social history of the United States.

The Florida Humanities Council presents a humanities program designed to provide information for teachers that are highly relative and interesting. In the 1920s, African American literature, art, music, and social commentary began to flourish in Harlem, NY. Known first as the

“New Negro Movement,” this movement was later known as the

Harlem Renaissance. During this seminar, teachers had an opportunity to witness three literary giants of the movement: Zora Neale Hurston,

Langston Hughes, and James Weldon Johnson.

On Saturday, August 26 th

, 23 elementary, middle, and high school teachers took part in a Bill of Rights workshop that lasted from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The content focus for this workshop was the first ten

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Teachers were given new curricular materials and shown how to implement them into their classrooms. The information was presented to teachers via lecture by a participating university professor.

(Appendix A continues)

31

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the First Year (2005–06)

Programmatic

We The People

Workshop

During the Summer Institute, 25 middle and high school teachers had the opportunity to attend a three-day staff development workshop on

Taking a Stand in American History. The workshop was designed to focus on the people, ideas, and events that influenced the development of the United States during the 1700s and the 1800s. The workshop included lectures and staff development activities that helped expand teacher knowledge, based on the time period. During the training, the participants received a variety of instructional materials and reading resources.

Project Citizen

This workshop focused on the role of state and local governments in the

U.S. federal system. The curriculum involved teachers from 5 th

grade to high school. The workshop consisted of a series of structured

Document-Based cooperative teacher lead activities. Students learned to interact with their local governments through a five-step process that included:

• Identifying a problem in their community

• Gathering and evaluating information on the problem

• Examining and evaluating alternative solutions

• Developing a proposed public policy

• Creating an action plan

On Thursday, September 14 th

, middle and high school teachers had the

Questions (DBQ)

Workshop opportunity to learn how to use the DBQ technique. This training was designed to help teachers introduce and use primary source documents with their students. The program provided high-quality instruction on new strategies the teachers will be able to use, while introducing the

DBQ technique to their students. The DBQ helped the teachers bridge

Making Choices in

Early America

Workshop the gap between social studies and writing.

On Saturday, September 30 th

, elementary, middle, and high school teachers visited early Colonial America. In this dynamic workshop, teachers learned how difficult life actually was during the colonial period of America. Making Choices in Early America was not always as easy and clear cut as we may imagine they would have been. Slavery and the struggle with the local Native Americans gave the Colonial period a very diverse population who was not mentioned by many historians. This workshop helped bring to light some of their struggles and show how the different groups dealt with life in the 1600s.

(Appendix A continues)

32

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Second Year (2006-07)

Programmatic

Internal Divisions in the Long

Nineteenth Century

January 13, 2007,

13 participants

Understanding

Economics in

U.S. History

February 4, 2007,

4 participants

Slavery in America:

Healing the Sting

February 10, 2007,

26 participants

DBQ Workshops

March 17, 2007,

9 participants;

June 18, 2007,

18 participants

The “Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century” workshop explored labor and race in the 17 th

century. This workshop gave teachers an in-depth look at how our young country dealt with issues that stretched further than economics. Social issues caused great harm for many, while helping many gain fortunes. This workshop explored the time frame from the point of view of Whites and minorities. There was a second focus on how economic changes divided and transformed the United States during the first half of the 19 th

century. Special attention was paid to the ways in which individuals struggled to maintain control in an ever changing society. The segment also explored how economic changes exacerbated sectional distinctions.

The workshop was based on the new National Council on Economic

Education publication, with content focus on “Understanding

Economics in U.S. History.” This publication presents 39 lessons. The lessons illustrated how economic principles can help students understand events in U.S. history. The lessons spanned U.S. history from colonization to modern day. The workshop was appropriate for any 8 th

–12 th

grade teacher interested in the topic of U.S. history.

The goal of this professional development institute was to prepare elementary, middle, and high school teachers to effectively implement the “We the People…the Citizen and the Constitution curriculum.” The

“We the People” program is the leading constitutional studies curriculum in the nation. Teaching the history of the Constitution sets a primary goal to promote civic competence and responsibility among the nation’s students, as well as setting the focus on the history of the

Constitution. The design of the instructional program, including its innovative culminating activity, made the program successful with both teachers and students. The institute offers training for participants in constitutional content, teaching methodologies, and assessment.

On March 17 th

, and again on June 18 th

, middle and high school teachers had the opportunity to learn how to use the DBQ technique. These trainings were each unique and designed to help teachers introduce and use primary source documents with their students. The program provided high-quality instruction on new strategies the teachers would be able to use, while introducing the DBQ technique to their students.

The DBQ would help the teachers bridge the gap between social studies and writing.

(Appendix A continues)

33

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Second Year (2006-07)

Programmatic

Bill of Rights

June 5, 2007,

20 participants

Gilder Lehrman

Institute

June 6-8, 2007,

18 participants

Social Studies

Alive!

June 11-13, 2007,

17 participants

History Alive!

June 11-15, 2007,

18 participants

Colonial

Williamsburg

June 20-27, 2007,

10 participants

The content focus for this workshop was the first ten amendments to the

U.S. Constitution and how these have set the foundation for generations to come. Teachers were given new curricular materials and shown how to implement them into their classrooms. The information was presented to teachers, via lecture by a participating university professor.

This was a three-day colloquium on U.S. history content: The Internal

Struggles of the 19 th

Century. The Gilder Lehrman Institute workshop explored how to use primary source documents in the classroom. This segment explored the removal of the southeastern Indians during the

1820s and 1830s. It examined what many Americans called the “Indian problem,” and also examined many of the proposed solutions. Attention was paid to the internal disputes in the United States about the virtues of removal and to the varied ways in which southeastern Indians resisted their forced removal.

The Social Studies Alive! and History Alive! workshops were presented by the Teachers’ Curriculum Institute. These workshops were three- and four-day strategy-based workshops that showed teachers new and hands-on ways to deliver social studies content to elementary students through Social Studies Alive! and middle and high school students through History Alive! These workshops were designed to bring excitement back into social studies education through student participation.

Ten teachers participated in the Colonial Williamsburg Teacher

Institute. The content focus of the institute was on early Colonial

History in the United States. The training activities consisted of live lectures from university professors, field trips to many authentic historic sites, and new strategies on how to present early colonial history to elementary and middle school students. Designed for BCPS social studies teachers who teach United States history, this intensive week-long workshop was opened to elementary; middle; and high school teachers. The Institute immersed participants in early American history on location in Williamsburg, the restored capitol city of

18 th

century Virginia, Jamestown, and Yorktown.

(Appendix A continues)

34

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Second Year (2006-07)

Programmatic

Project Citizen

June 30-

August 3, 2007,

9 participants

We the People

July 23-27, 2007,

8 participants

Pursuing American

Ideals: History

Alive!

August 6-8, 2007,

15 participants

The Project Citizen workshop was a curricular program instructing teachers in the education of students to promote competent and responsible participation in local and state government, as well as teaching the history of local and state government. The program would help in the instruction of young people as they learn how to monitor and influence public policy, and how history has influenced public policy.

In the process, they developed support for democratic values and principles; tolerance; and feelings of political efficacy.

Entire classes of students or members of youth organizations would work cooperatively to identify a public policy problem in their community. They then would research the problem, evaluate alternative solutions, develop their own solution in the form of a public policy, and create a political action plan to enlist local or state authorities to adopt their proposed policy. Participants would be instructed to develop a portfolio of their work and present their project in a hearing showcase before a panel of civic-minded community members.

The goal of this professional development institute was to prepare elementary, middle, and high school teachers to effectively implement the “We the People…the Citizen and the Constitution” curriculum. The

“We the People” program is the leading constitutional studies curriculum in the nation. Teaching the history of the Constitution set a primary goal to promote civic competence and responsibility among the nation’s students, as well as setting the focus on the history of the

Constitution. The design of the instructional program, including its innovative culminating activity, made the program successful with both teachers and students. The institute offers training for participants in constitutional content, teaching methodologies, and performance assessment.

This workshop used the same strategies presented in the History Alive! workshops, with the exception that all content was focused specifically on American history and was geared for high school students only because of its high level of content.

(Appendix A continues)

35

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Second Year (2006-07)

Programmatic

History Fair

Strategies

August 9, 2007,

10 participants

Supervisor of

Elections–

History of Voting

August 10, 2007,

21 participants

The History Fair Strategies workshop was based on the National History

Day competition held annually. It provided U.S. history teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to implement a history fair in their school. Each school may then send winning projects to the District

History Fair, and those students who win may progress to the state and even national fair. This workshop focused on teaching students how to conduct historical research, using primary and secondary sources.

The strategies that teachers learned to share with their students foster research, analysis, and synthesis of historical documents. Teachers learned how to teach students to create a documentary, exhibit, historical paper; Web site; or performance, using historical research, while basing their research on the current year’s theme.

This workshop was designed to show teachers the “behind the scenes” activities that took place at the Supervisor of Elections Office.

Participants had the opportunity to learn the history of voting, including national and local elections offices. Teachers even had the opportunity to use the new electronic voting machines in an attempt to foster a deeper understanding of the modern voting process

(Appendix A continues)

36

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Third Year (2007-08)

Programmatic

Old Davie School

November 17, 2007

Flagler Museum

December 8, 2007

Economics in U.S.

History

February 13, 2008

Vietnam I

March 15, 2008

Vietnam II

April 12, 2008

Civil Rights

June 25, 2008

Bill of Rights

June 9, 2008

Gilder Lehrman

Institute

June 10-12, 2008

The content focus for this workshop was Pioneer and Seminole Indians and their impact in the 20 th

century. Tours and live exhibits of the first schoolhouse built in 1918, 1908 pioneer homes and Seminole Chickee.

Author Susan Gillis spoke about Florida’s history in the early 20 century. th

The content focus for this workshop was how the railroads impacted

Florida in the early 20 th

century. Participants toured the Flagler home and original railcars, as well as received content on the impact of the railroads in the 20 th

century.

The content of this workshop focused on the history of economics and how economics have impacted elections. The workshop also focused on economics in Washington and the cost and benefits of voting. The workshop included up-to-date information and simulations. Participants will also predict the winner of the presidential election based on economic conditions.

The content focus of this workshop was the Vietnam War from

1968-1975, as well as looking at Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s role during this time period. Participants read Vietnam War a History in

Documents, by Marilyn Young and held a roundtable discussion on the reading.

The content focus of this workshop was the Civil Rights Movement in the 20 th

Century. Participants read The Eyes on the Prize Civil Rights

Reader: Documents, Speeches, and Firsthand Accounts from the Black

Freedom Struggle and held a discussion on the readings.

The content focus for this workshop was the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution and how these have set the foundation for generations to come. Teachers were given new curricular materials and shown how to implement them into their classrooms. The information was presented to teachers via lecture by a participating University professor.

This was a three-day colloquium on U.S. history content; The Internal

Struggles of the 19 th

Century. The “Gilder Lehrman Institute” workshop explored how to use primary source documents in the classroom. This segment explored the removal of the southeastern

Indians during the 1820s and 1830s. It examined what many Americans called the “Indian problem,” and also examined many of the proposed solutions. Attention was paid to the internal disputes in the

United States about the virtues of removal and to the varied ways in which southeastern Indians resisted their forced removal.

(Appendix A continues)

37

Appendix A (continued).

Major Programmatic Activities Implemented During the Third Year (2007-08)

Programmatic

Supervisor of

Elections-History of

Voting

June 13, 2008

Social Studies

Alive!

June 11-13, 2008

History Alive!

June 11-15, 2008

Colonial

Williamsburg

July 8-15, 2008,

11 participants

History Fair

Strategies

August 7, 2008

This workshop was designed to show teachers the “behind the scenes” activities that take place at the supervisor of elections office.

Participants had the opportunity to learn the history of voting, including national and local elections offices. Teachers even had the opportunity to use the new electronic voting machines in an attempt to foster a deeper understanding of the modern voting process AP U.S. history

Social Studies Alive!, History Alive! workshops presented by the

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute. These workshops were three- and four-day strategy based workshops that showed teachers new and hands-on ways to deliver Social Studies content to elementary students through Social Studies Alive! and middle and high school students through History Alive!. These workshops are designed to bring excitement back into Social Studies education through student participation.

The content focus of the Colonial Williamsburg Teacher Institute was on early Colonial History in the United States. The training activities consisted of live lectures from University professors, field trips to many authentic historic sites, and new strategies on how to present early colonial history to elementary and middle school students. Designed for

Broward County School District social studies teachers who teach

United States history, this intensive weeklong workshop was opened to elementary, middle, and high school teachers. The Institute immersed participants in early American history "on location" in Williamsburg, the restored capitol city of eighteenth century Virginia, Jamestown, and

Yorktown.

The History Fair Strategies workshop was based on the National History

Day Competition held annually. It provides U.S. history teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to implement a History Fair in their school. Each school would then send winning projects to the District

History Fair, and those students who won would progress to the state and even national fair. This workshop focused on teaching students how to conduct historical research, using primary and secondary sources. The strategies that teachers learned to share with their students foster research, analysis, and synthesis of historical documents.

Teachers learned to teach students how to create a documentary, exhibit, historical paper, Web site, or performance using historical research, while basing their research on the current year’s theme.

38

Appendix B

History Teaching Perception Questionnaire

Demographic Information

Name: _______________________________________________________

Level of your teaching: elementary _____ middle _____high school______

Years in teaching: ______________________________________________

Perceptions/Beliefs

To which extent do you agree with the statement?

Use a pencil to completely fill the response circle.

➀ Strongly Disagree ➁ Neutral

➂ Strongly Agree ➃ Disagree ➄ Agree

Items

1. History teachers should ask students to read textbooks to develop historical thinking.

2. History teachers should ask students to read trade-books to develop historical thinking.

3. History teachers should ask students to do recall exercises using worksheets.

4. History teachers should ask students to examine changes during specific chronological periods.

5. History teachers should ask students to examine historians’ interpretive perspectives.

6. History teachers should ask students to compare historians’ accounts, interpretations, or perspectives to the sources cited.

7. History teachers should ask students to compare different historians’ perspectives on the same topics or themes.

8. History teachers should ask students to compare historical documents from various sources.

9. History teachers should require students to examine historians’ underlying assumptions or perspectives, including biases based on personality, attitudes, or experiences.

10. History teachers should require students to examine an historical person’s (or people’s) underlying beliefs, including biases based on political, economic, or cultural factors.

11. History teachers should require students to read and explain why historical people THOUGHT what they did because of their particular situation or context of their time.

12. History teachers should require students to read and explain about why historical people DID what they did because of their particular situation or context of their time.

13. History teachers should require students to examine the role of a particular POLITICAL system in influencing how or why things happened as they did.

14. History teachers should require students to examine the role of a particular ECONOMIC system in influencing how or why things happened as they did.

Perceptions/Beliefs

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

(Appendix B continues)

39

Appendix B (continued).

History Teaching Perception Questionnaire

15. History teachers should require students to examine the role of a particular DIPLOMATIC OR MILITARY system in influencing how or why things happened as they did.

16. History teachers should require students to examine the role of a CULTURE OR RELIGIOUS/BELIEF system in influencing how or why things happened as they did.

17. History teachers should require students to focus on how a historical people’s beliefs shaped the way that they made their ethical choices or decisions.

18. History teachers should require students to focus on how a historical group’s cultural backgrounds shaped the way they made their ethical choices or decisions.

19. History teachers should require students to focus on how a historical society clashed over its diverse beliefs in ways that resulted in changes in that society’s ethical beliefs.

20. History teachers should require students to compare how film and television portray history and how historians have analyzed the same person, issue, or event.

21. History teachers should require students to compare how music portrays history and how historians have analyzed the same person, issue, or event.

22. Teachers should require students to compare how the news media portrays history and how historians have analyzed the same person, issue, or event.

23. History teachers should have a deep interest in continuous learning in historical literature, historical writings, and historical issues.

24. History teachers should continue to read the historical literature on the topics, themes, and areas relevant to the U.S. history curriculum.

25. History teachers should attend professional conferences and workshops in history or related areas.

26. History teachers should consult with professional historians whenever possible.

27. Whenever possible, history teachers should stay informed about public media events related to history, such as the History

Channel, newspapers and radio that deal with historical issues.

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

40

Appendix C

Knowledge Instrument for the Bill of Rights Workshop

Your name: _______________________________

Please circle one answer for each question. Thank you.

The Bill of Rights Institute

2.

1. W hy was Magna Carta important?

A. It guaranteed voting rights to all Englishmen.

B. It guaranteed personal and property rights to Englishmen.

C. It defined English citizenship.

D. It defined American citizenship.

Which of these American leaders was a Federalist?

A. James Otis

B. Alexander Hamilton

C. Thomas Jefferson

D. George Mason

3.

Who wrote The United States Bill of Rights?

A. Thomas Jefferson

B. George Mason

C. George Washington

D. James Madison

4.

Why did the Bill of Rights affect more Americans in the twentieth century?

A. States increasingly violated individual rights.

B. The Supreme Court began limiting more individual rights.

C. The federal government grew and entered areas of American life it had left alone in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

D. All of the above

5.

Where did the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” originate?

A. Magna Carta

B. The Bill of Rights

C. The English Toleration Act of 1689

D. Thomas Jefferson’s letter to a Baptist association in Connecticut

6. Which of these is a part of the Supreme Court’s Lemon test?

A. Does the law allow people to practice religion freely?

B. Do laws regarding religious practice follow local customs?

C. Does the law help or hurt religion?

D. Does the law follow state laws?

(Appendix C continues)

41

Appendix C (continued).

Knowledge Instrument for the Bill of Rights Workshop

7. The four freedoms include all the following EXCEPT:

A. Free speech

B. Free education

C. Freedom to assemble

D. Freedom to petition the government

8. What is tyranny?

A. Chaos

B. Monarchy

C. Seizing the government to force one’s beliefs on people

Violence

9. When they wrote the First Amendment, what kind of speech were the Founders most concerned with protecting?

A. Religious speech

B. Court testimony

C. Private speech

D. Speech about politics

10. Laws which restrict speech must do all of the following EXCEPT:

A. Limit speech as little as possible

B. Limit only unprotected speech

C. Limit speech that criticizes the government

D. Be content neutral

11. Which of these is an example of censorship?

A. An entertainer is not invited to perform at a concert because she expressed her political views.

B. A parent limits the amount of time her son can spend instant-messaging with friends.

C. An army sergeant reviews newspaper articles written by American soldiers in Iraq to be certain that no information that might be helpful to the enemy is included.

D.

A storeowner won’t allow people who swear into his shop.

12. Who owned guns during the American Revolution?

A. All Americans

B. Most people

C. Only the national government was allowed to own guns.

D. Only state governments were allowed to own guns.

13. When were Englishmen first guaranteed the right to bear arms?

A. Sometime before the Norman Conquest of 1066

B. 1066

C. In Magna Carta in 1215

D. In the English Bill of Rights in 1688

(Appendix C continues)

42

Appendix C (continued).

Knowledge Instrument for the Bill of Rights Workshop

14. Which of these property rights violations contributed to the American revolt against

England?

A. Searches with no warrants

B. Forced housing of troops

C. Random arrests

D. All of the above

15. What is eminent domain?

A. The United States owns all of the land in the United States.

B. People may claim unused government land.

C. The states own the land within their state boundaries.

D. The government can take land from private individuals for public use.

16. According to the Fifth Amendment, when can an accused criminal be forced to testify against him or herself?

A. When s/he is arrested

B. When the state believes that other witnesses are lying

C. During sentencing

D. Accused persons can never be forced to testify at their own trials.

17. What rights does the Sixth Amendment guarantee accused criminals during their trials?

A. The right to an attorney

B. The right to call and confront witnesses

C. The right to know the specific crime of which they are accused

D. All of the above

18.

What kinds of punishment does the Eighth Amendment prohibit?

A. Punishments which limit personal liberty

B. Monetary punishments

C. Cruel or unusual punishments

D. Impounding of vehicles

19. What part of the Constitution says Congress shall make no law violating the right to privacy?

A. Article 1

B. The Second Amendment

C. The Tenth Amendment

D. The Constitution does not mention the right to privacy.

20. Where are most jury lists drawn from?

A. Volunteer jury pools

B. Voter registrations and driver’s license lists

C. Telephone books

D. Lists supplied by opposing sides in the trial

43

Appendix D

Knowledge Instrument for “Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century” Workshop

Your name: _______________________________

Please circle one answer for each question. Thank you.

1. Which of the following is true? a. Andrew Jackson adopted an Indian child. b. Andrew Jackson believed you could never make peace or alliances with Indians. c. Andrew Jackson stated that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

2. Which was a characteristic of pre-removal Cherokee society? a. It had a written constitution b. It had a slaveholding elite. c. It had a centralized police force. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

3. In Wocester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees a. Were incapable of civilization. b. Had been wrongfully removed from their lands. c. Were Sovereign Nations. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

4. Which of the following was believed to be a solution to the “Indian Problem?” a. Spinning Wheels and Looms b. Slaves c. Plows d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

5. The Seminole Indians a. Routed the United States in the three Seminole Wars. b. Survived unscathed by the Seminole Wars. c. Were divided by the Seminole War. d. All of the above

e. None of the Above

(Appendix D continues)

44

Appendix D (continued).

Knowledge Instrument for “Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century” Workshop

6. The Market Revolution a. Reshaped the North more than the South. b. Made all Americans wealthier. c. Caused Americans to drink in heavier quantities. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

7. The temperance movement a. Was an attempt to curtail a perceived rise in alcohol abuse. b. Was an attempt to control labor. c. Resulted from a new form of religiosity in the United States. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

8. Which of the following is true? a. The managers of the Lowell Mills were initially seen as surrogate parents for the workers. b. Most northern White Americans were abolitionists by the 1830s. c. Slave holders were under-represented in national politics in the 1840s. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

9. Which of the following emerged out of the antebellum reform movements? a. Temperance societies. b. Vegetarianism c. Corn Flakes d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

10. In 1860, which of the following was proof of an abolitionist conspiracy? a. The demography of the Supreme Court. b. The Fugitive Slave Law. c. The Democratic Party stance on slavery d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

11. In 1860, which of the following was proof of a “slave power conspiracy?” a. The ban on the Atlantic Slave Trade b. The Raid on Harper’s Ferry c. The Fugitive Slave Act d. All of the Above

e. None of the Above

(Appendix D continues)

45

Appendix D (continued).

Knowledge Instrument for “Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century” Workshop

12. Which of the following is true of the Kansas-Nebraska Act? a. It satisfied most northern politicians. b. It satisfied most southern politicians. c. It brought temporary peace to the western territories. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

13. The “Indian Problem” in the southeast was a. The result of the migratory nature of Indian settlements. b. The refusal of Natives to trade with Americans. c. The belief that warfare was inevitable when “civilization” and “savagery” coincided. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

14. Which of the following is true? a. Slavery made the antebellum South “peculiar” to the world’s civilizations. b. By 1840, most white northerners were abolitionists. c. Southerners supported and northerners resisted three-fifths compromise. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

15. Which of the following was one of the “five civilized tribes?” a. Choctaws b. Cherokees c. Chickasaws d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

16. The “caning of Sumner” a. Resulted from sectional tensions over the admission of Missouri as a state. b. Was a response to a speech in the Senate. c. Resulted in the dishonor of a southern congressman. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

17. Which is the following is true about antebellum duels? a. They were only fought between social equals. b. They followed carefully pre-determined rules of etiquette. c. Dueling scars and wounds were signs of strength not defeat. d. All of the Above

e. None of the Above

(Appendix D continues)

46

Appendix D (continued).

Knowledge Instrument for “Internal Divisions in the Long Nineteenth Century” Workshop

18. Lincoln’s election angered many White Southerners because a. He was a longtime abolitionist. b. He campaigned on a pledge to eliminate slavery throughout the nation. c. He was not on southern ballots. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

19. The “civilized tribes” obtained their nickname because a. They were farmers, herders, and increasingly slaveholders. b. They were hierarchically structured into large chiefdoms. c. They were the best equipped and organized Native warriors. d. All of the Above e. None of the Above

20. John Brown a. Believed that brutal violence was a just means of destroying slavery. b. Believed that African American slaves could and would rise up to overthrow slavery. c. Knew that he would be a martyr to the abolitionist cause. d. All of the Above

e. None of the Above

47

Appendix E

Participants Online Survey

Thank you for participating in the Teaching American History Grant Second-Year Participants

Survey. We appreciate your feedback.

1. At what level is your primary teaching assignment?

 1. Elementary school

 2. Middle school

 3. High school

2. Including this year, how many years have you been teaching American/United States history at any level?

 ____________ years

3. To what degree would you say your knowledge of subject matter content was enhanced by your attendance at the workshop(s)? (Please check only one)

 1. Not at all or almost not at all

 2. To a moderate degree

 3. To a considerable degree

4. To what degree would you say the workshop(s) changed what you teach your students?

(Please check only one)

 1. Not at all or almost not at all

 2. To a moderate degree

 3. To a considerable degree

5. To what degree would you say the workshop(s) changed how you teach your students?

(Please check only one)

 1. Not at all or almost not at all

 2. To a moderate degree

 3. To a considerable degree

6. What changes in your students do you attribute to the way you have changed your teaching due to your participation in the Teaching American History Grant workshop(s)?

(Please check all that apply.)

 1. Students are achieving greater academic success in history.

 2. Students are attending class more regularly.

 3. Students are better behaved in class.

 4. Students are better prepared for class.

 5. Students are completing more of their assignments.

 6. Students are exhibiting greater critical thinking skills.

 7. Students are exhibiting more interest in history.

7. Please list the strengths of the workshop(s).

8. Please list your suggestions for the workshop(s).

Thank you!

48

Appendix F

Results of Survey of the Third-Year TAH Grant Participants

To what extent are participants satisfied with the content and delivery of the TAH grant professional development program? What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses in content and delivery?

All third-year TAH participants who took part in TAH grant activities were asked to complete a nine-item online survey in June 2008. Out of a sample of 100 participants, seventy-one completed the survey, for a return rate of 71.0%. For social science studies, a return rate of

71.0% is exceptional (Babbie, 1989). Among the 71 respondents of the online survey, 42.3%

(n=30) were elementary school teachers; 39.4% (n=28) were middle school teachers; and 18.3%

(n=13) were high school teachers. Among the respondents, 26.8% (n=19) had three or less than three years of teaching American/United States history, and 73.2% (n=52) had four or more years of teaching American/United States history.

As shown in Figure 1, the majority of survey respondents indicated that the workshop enhanced their subject matter knowledge. Among the respondents, 50.7% (n=36) selected “To a considerable degree,” and 49.3% (n=35) chose “To a moderate degree.” None of the respondents picked “Not at all or almost not at all.” Therefore, the respondents were positive about the impact the grant activities made in terms enhancing their subject matter knowledge.

49.3%

50.7%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 1. Degree that knowledge of subject matter content was enhanced by attendance at the workshop(s): Results of survey of the third-year TAH grant participants.

The respondents also overwhelmingly indicated that the workshop changed what they teach their students (see Figure 2). Among the respondents, 31.0% (n=22) selected “To a considerable degree” and another 64.8% (n=46) chose “To a moderate degree.” Only 4.2% (n=3) of the respondents picked “Not at all or almost not at all.” Thus, the respondents reported that the grant activities made a positive impact on changing what they teach their students.

(Appendix F continues)

49

Appendix F (continued).

Results of Survey of the Third-year TAH Grant Participants

4.2%

31.0%

64.8%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 2. Degree that the workshop(s) changed what is taught to students: Results of survey of the third-year TAH grant participants.

Figure 3 shows that respondents’ answers were also very positive towards how the workshops changed how teachers taught history to students. Among the respondents, 33.8% (n=24) of them selected “To a considerable degree,” and 59.2% (n=42) chose “To a moderate degree.” Only

7.0% (n=5) of the respondents picked “Not at all or almost at all.” Thus, the respondents reported that the grant activities made a positive impact on changing how they teach their students.

7.0%

33.8%

59.2%

Considerable Moderate Not or almost not at all

Figure 3. Degree the workshop(s) changed how history is taught to students: Results of survey of the third-year TAH grant participants.

The results for the previous three questions indicated that the majority of respondents reported that the grant activities made a positive impact on their own subject matter knowledge of history, changed what they taught their students, and changed their way of teaching their students. It was interesting to note that the percentage of those who chose “To a considerable degree” and “To a moderate degree” were about 100.0% for (a) enhancing their own subject content knowledge of history, 95.8% for (b) changing what they taught their students, and 93.0% for (c) changing how they taught their students. The participants were very satisfied with TAH grant activities.

(Appendix F continues)

50

Appendix F (continued).

Results of Survey of the Third-year TAH Grant Participants

Participant responses documenting changes attributed to TAH activities are displayed in Table 1.

According to participant responses, a large percentage of participants attributed the following changes to TAH activities—“Students are exhibiting more interest in history” (85.9%, n=61) and

“Students are exhibiting greater critical-thinking skills” (81.7%, n=58). These data suggest that the TAH activities enhanced the participant subject knowledge and changed what and how they taught their students. In other words, the participants perceived that as a result of their participation in the TAH grant, they felt that their “Students are exhibiting more interest in history” and their “Students are exhibiting greater critical-thinking skills.” Among the respondents, 45.1% (n=32) of them perceived that their “Students are achieving greater academic success in history,” as a result of their participation in TAH activities.

For other areas including (a) students attending class more regularly; (b) students behaving better in class; (c) students being better prepared for class; and (d) students completing more of their assignments, the percentages range from 7.0% (n=5) for “students attending class more regularly” to 39.4% (n=28) for “students completing more of their assignments”. These areas are likely impacted by more factors beyond those accountable by TAH activities, and therefore, it is expected that the percentages of agreement in these areas will be lower.

The findings from the online survey of students suggested that participants perceived a hierarchy of changes that took place: (a) an overwhelming percentage (93.0% or above) of participants perceived that they enhanced their subject matter knowledge and improved what and how they taught, (b) a high percentage (81.7% to 85.9%) perceived that their “Students are exhibiting greater critical-thinking skills” and their “Students are exhibiting more interest in history,” and

(c) about half of the participants (45.1%) perceived that their “Students are achieving greater academic success in history.” The participant perception of the hierarchy of changes both illustrated the consistency of the findings, but also the validity of the data.

Table 1

Percentage and Number of Participants Who Attributed the Changes to TAH Activities: Results of Survey of the Third-year TAH Grant Participants

Item

n %

Students are…

exhibiting more interest in history

exhibiting greater critical thinking skills

achieving greater academic success in history

completing more of their assignments

better behaved in class

better prepared for class

attending class more regularly

61

58

32

28

20

19

5

85.9

81.7

45.1

39.4

28.2

26.8

7.0

51

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2005-06

PRESENTERS WELL PREPARE WITH SUBJECT MATTER, HANDS-ON ACTIVITES

AND BEING OPEN AND RECEPTIVE TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE

SUBJECT MATTER OR THEME.

The strengths of the workshop were in the way that the material is presented to the class. It literally does bring history into their world. It makes it relevant, fun, and brings it to life for them.

Gilderman Institute - the Primary Source documents. When I use them with my students - they love it.

The History Alive Workshops were particularly helpful as there are many interactive lessons which actually makes history more meaningful and interesting to students. Students are eager to get to classes and the level of participation has increased significantly.

Being able to see a live performance and the students ask questions was an exciting occurrence to them.

I have enjoyed the workshops and the hands-on activities, interpreters, being there where history actually took place is an incredible experience for any teacher to take a part in, which enhances ones teaching abilities.

Very interesting. I am not a history teacher; I am an English teacher who teaches American

Literature. I always try to give my students the historical background to the novels they read. This workshop gave me background that I am able to relay to my students.

New ideas and ways of doing the same old thing.

Prior to October 2005 I attended the Bill of Rights and Colonial Williamsburg. I still to this day use materials from both. Following the Lecture by Dr. Frank, I bought and read

“Washington’s Crossing.” This book and its content are essential to understanding the

Revolution. I look forward to attending other workshops in the future.

THE NOTEBOOK IDEA IS WONDERFUL AS FAR AS THE STUDENTS BEING

BETTER ORGANIZED AND TAKING OWNERSHIP OF THEIR WORK.

There were some great ideas for upper elementary teachers.

It was available.

Colonial Williamsburg was an eye-opening experience that allowed me to fulfill my desire attain new heights as a “History Geek.” Meeting true historians and interacting with other history teachers is an excellent source for accurate historical information that I have been able to share with my students. It is so important for all Americans to learn about their past so they are better able to make informed decisions in the voting booth and understand WHY our leaders make the decisions that they do!! The other workshops helped to enhance what we did in Virginia!!

Allowed you to work with other teachers

The idea of acting out. But I was doing this already. The notebooks for intermediate level students would be great, but I don't feel it was appropriate for primary grades.

(Appendix G continues)

52

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2005-06

I only attended one of the workshops listed in the time frame mentioned, but did attend all but two of the listed workshops during the prior American History Grant. The workshops provided me with first hand information which could be then shared with my students. My teaching technique, lesson plan writing, curriculum knowledge and motivation to teach all improved as a direct result of attending the workshops.

Practical ideas.

It brings history alive.

The hands-on/ interactive approach used.

The workshop was very hands-on. It explored creative teaching methods. It showed us how we can make history more real and exciting for our pupils.

I felt that the workshop offered a variety of activities that were hands-on or made the students active participates of the lessons. I also liked how we had to do the lessons, so we could see how to do them rather than hearing words from a book.

I am able to use the suggestions given with my students.

Professor knowledge and enthusiasm. Opportunity to have intellectual discourse with colleagues and experts in the field.

Interactive, 'hands-on' activities'

The greatest strength I received was how to create a unit plan which includes the Curriculum

Map and the Sunshine State Standards.

It makes learning about history fun and engaging.

The workshops give teachers a better chance to activate their students’ prior knowledge, genuinely engage their students, increase critical thinking skills, and enhance processing of what students are learning, as well as increase students’ ability to articulate what they are learning.

This was absolutely well worth my time. I was highly impressed w/ the actors-they presented phenomenal portrayals of figures from the Harlem Renaissance.

Experts in the field bring insight teaching material, in general, require very little classroom adaptation.

Having a deeper, more thorough understanding of history allows us teachers to transfer that knowledge to our students. This includes better understanding the American Experience from culturally diverse points of views. Students find it interesting that is just wasn’t the

Englishmen that impacted the fabric of our past, it was also the Native Americans, the

African Americans, the Spanish, and, of course, the ladies from all walks of life. The strengths of these workshops are the plurality of its content and the details that convey its breadth.

Strength-It was very well structured. Weakness-Material applied mainly to middle school teachers.

Having instructors that have experience, knowledge and the how to’s of imparting that to students with a measure of enthusiasm is what teaching is all about.

The actors and actresses that participated were phenomenal. I wish they would do this work shop more often throughout the year. The presenter was knowledgeable and kept us intrigued by the topic at hand.

(Appendix G continues)

53

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2005-06

Resource materials

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

The amount of resource materials provided at the Bill of Rights workshop was remarkably helpful in many aspects in addition to the bill of rights. The posters and pictures provided enable my students to come face to face with many of characters of this era.

It was something that could be used in class. The facilitator presented the information in the same manner you would give it to your students

The interactive notebooks and the various group activities were very interesting. I look at history from a different perspective

The workshops gave me a greater awareness of how to make the lessons more creative and interesting.

Provided some new and reliable strategies for use in my advanced placement United States history class.

The strengths of the workshops I attended was the fact that they were hands-on. Colonial

Williamsburg was the best because I actually ‘traveled back in time.' Seeing history from that perspective was better than any book.

Excellent speaker, fantastic materials, great lesson plans.

The presenter did an outstanding communicating specifics on how to implement and utilize materials for varying levels of students

The workshop gave me a different way to present history to my students. Allowing the students to use other means of understanding different topics.

The workshop reinforced my knowledge of the content area.

The resources distributed. Innovative ways of presenting the content. Collaboration with other educators.

Did not experience any strengths

The hands-on approach was an excellent way to see how it works!

I have enjoyed all the information received in the different workshops. The information was well received and incorporated in my history curriculum.

The collegial interaction and the utilization of individuals who bring the wonderful writers of the Harlem Renaissance to life.

The TCI Approach with History Alive taught us how to implement high yielding strategies in the social studies classroom. This makes learning more fun for students.

The Harlem Renaissance workshop was absolutely the best one day workshop I have ever attended. Well organized with a quality instructor and a fascinating introduction to a time period often overlooked in history. I felt like I walked out with much more information that

I ever would have expected from a one day seminar.

The knowledge of the Dr. Andrade was beyond words. She really brought the Harlem

Renaissance alive.

The workshop History Alive was excellent. It uses many differentiated skills. This greatly enhances the learning environment.

The strategy of Visual Discrimination is the only one I have been able to use. The student journal is a good idea, but I was already using a journal with my students before I took the course.

(Appendix G continues)

54

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued)

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2005-06

Very clear instructions and all materials were provided.

The strength of the history alive workshop was the integration of the interactive notebook.

How to incorporate all learning styles into my curriculum. The strength of the DBQ was the binder and how to attach the writing piece to the documents.

Actually doing several of the assignments and creating portions of the notebook gave us a first hand glimpse as to how the children interact

Hands-on activities allowed us to better understand the projects.

The wealth of information that was presented. The varied nature of the workshop: lecture, presentation, discussion.

Acting was good.

The biggest strength of the workshop is that I can (and already have) incorporate the materials into my curricula immediately. The workshop gave me more than learning theories and useless schemes to teach my students. The take-away materials are outstanding, using them is easy, and the students’ reaction to the 1st of several lessons I will use this year has been great!

Included excellent hands-on projects and ways of making history relevant.

Both workshops provided great hands-on experiences that enhanced my understanding of the processes used.

The presentations and activities were excellent.

History alive is a wonderful hands-on workshop. It teaches many skills that you can apply to many curriculums. Project Citizen and the Harlem Renaissance are more content enrichments.

I enjoyed the professors and their lectures. There were a lot of great discussions.

The group activities.

THE WORKSHOP ENHANCED MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The speakers were GREAT and gave an understanding of content.

The coordinators and presenters were nothing less than perfectly organized and delivered.

Great materials, very informative and interesting.

History Alive has given my classes a whole new life. The six strategies are creative and the students look forward to guessing what we are going to do next.

Much greater (in depth) understanding of the Bill of Rights.

The strengths are that it takes us out of the conventional ways of teaching U.S. history and gives us different viewpoints which we can bring into the classrooms and which help to gain students interest.

Teacher interaction; critical thinking skills.

The quick pace of the workshop. Hands-on experience for the teacher.

The workshop was presented in a captivating way. I loved the hands-on history. It was terrific.

The interactive nature of the workshops is excellent. Also the hands-on assignments that can then be transferred into my class are beneficial.

History Alive was helpful, however, I have not fully incorporated all of their strategies.

(Appendix G continues)

55

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2005-06

Great presenters. Thorough information.

Teaching strategies-Visual Discovery, act-it-outs, experiential exercises and so on.

Activities.

Providing new teaching strategies/activities which incorporate multiple intelligences and which the students truly enjoy.

The Social Studies Alive workshop was extremely beneficial. It allowed me to take risk in my classroom. I do not feel like I have to be confined to the textbook. I also see that getting my students actively involved in the lesson will increase their interest and scores. The workshop showed me creative ways to teach the material, but simply in a manner that is more beneficial for my students.

What made the workshop so interesting for me, was the historical information given to explain the context in which the artists of the Harlem Renaissance produced art and literature.

Many of the presenters were very knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Practical exercises allowed the participants to take on the role of students.

Workshop contained a plethora of information that was expertly expounded upon chronologically.

Everyone was actively engaged in the activities.

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2006-07

Resources provided were essential and ideas exchanged were very helpful.

Get the teacher aware of the valuable tool there are for learning.

Strengths are that it allows you to see how to further your teaching and collaborate with other American history teachers.

Quality instructors and meaningful examples and activities.

The workshops provide a broad variety of information, different than what we normally see in our textbooks. This gives us a greater viewpoint and understanding when teaching the subject matter.

It has enabled me to get my students more interested in class.

They are very thorough.

Making history relevant.

I ENJOYED YOUR PRESENTERS.

The workshop was detailed, but clearly presented. Goals and requirements for History Fair were organized in a manner that clarified any confusion. Presenters answered all questions.

Informational packets will be a wonderful guide for me.

Gives the teacher new techniques to make history interesting and fun, which leads to higher achievement.

I like that the workshop I attended had a lot of hands-on activities for the students and involved critical thinking. It was also great that the subject matter was so relevant to young people today.

Presenters are always knowledgeable and willing answer any questions.

(Appendix G continues)

56

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2006-07

Good instructors.

Enhances teacher knowledge and attempts to help us make delivery of information more hands-on.

I found interesting information that makes 8th graders laugh and listen. There was information and photos that I could utilize that one doesn't find in our textbooks. I also found that my knowledge base increased on these same details.

GREAT RESOURCES TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. EXCELLENT WAYS TO

DELIVER CONTENT THAT IS HIGH LEVEL AND FUN FOR STUDENTS.

MUCH OF THE CONTENT OF THE H A WORKSHOP WAS FAMILIAR TO ME, BUT

TO HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER AND TO HAVE SUCH TERRIFIC WAYS TO

IMPLEMENT THE UNITS WITH THE MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND BLOOMS

COVERED IS REALLY GREAT.

Active participation helps to make the lessons more personal for the students.

These classes enhanced my knowledge of historical events and gave me Lesson Plans that I can implement in my classroom with confidence.

The TAHG has offered workshops that have strengthened MY creativity and excitement about US history and that has directly impacted how the kids react to the subject matter. I feel more confident in the content and the different methods that I have learned.

The continuous array of workshops catered to the area of American history.

So far everything was awesome!

THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED GAVE ME A DIFFERENT PRESPECTIVE OF

HOW TO TEACH HISTORY TO MY STUDENTS.

The quality of the resources. The extent to which they enhance teacher knowledge of the subject and generate enthusiasm to improve the teaching of history. The presenters of the various workshops.

Presenting historic information with the degree of realism that one encounters in Colonial

Williamsburg takes you back in time and provides the participant a higher level of knowledge. The hands-on activities and the realism of each aspect of the program

Acquiring additional content knowledge has made me a more knowledgeable teacher and learning new teaching methods, and additional curriculum resources have made teaching more interesting for me and learning more interesting for my students.

The portfolio presentation; lesson plan ideas; project based learning concepts; activating all learning types (the guiding theories); the presenter was incredible.

My knowledge of American history has increased tremendously because I’ve only taught one year of American history.

Strengths include exposure to small group activities and variations in teaching methods that are more exciting to students.

A chance to review different methods and course materials.

The students respond to the simplistic yet creative way that I teach as a result of the workshops

Content and strategies presented.

(Appendix G continues)

57

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2006-07

EMPHASIS ON SKILL DEVELOPMENT.

They are professionally conducted and well worth the time taken to attend. I enjoyed them.

I attended History Alive. It helped with the presenting and pacing of the subjects.

It is very in-depth with a lot of details. The instructors were very knowledgeable.

Provided great strategies for me to implement in my classroom. Also, increased my knowledge in the subject area.

Group activity

The number of resources provided recommended reading material supplemental material

THE INSTRUCTORS WERE EXCELLENT!!!!!! THE MATERIALS ARE VERY EASY

TO INCORPERATE INTO MY LESSON PLANS.

NEW METHODS OF TEACHING TO MORE INTEREST THE STUDENTS IN THE

SUBJECT AREA.

The hands-on assignment was very meaningful.

Ability to develop the Economic cycles of American history using the different strategies, which was taught to me through the class at FAU.

PROVIDE INCREASED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE.

Excellent program for teaching and engaging students.

Workshops are interactive. Relevant.

Knowledge and experience of presenter. Format. Handouts to use for resources and material in class.

NEW STRATAGIES IN TEACHING 'OLD HISTORY' WITH A NEW PERSPECTIVE.

ATTRACTIVE THEMES USING PRIMARY SOURCES.

Great Resources and lessons.

Excellent presentation. Excellent handouts. Excellent ideas for classroom activities.

New information and a better way to present it.

Provided great resources. Teaching strategies were adequate and applicable. Presenters were highly motivated and that impacted me.

Considerable information, which help me in my teaching career.

The workshops provide creative strategies (interactive) to teach American history.

It opened the door to conversation about elections and how they take place in this nation.

During this year my students will participate in an election as well as learn about what is going on in the upcoming presidential election.

N/A

Content focused.

Activities that can immediately implemented in the classroom

The teaching strategies and interactive notebook ideas.

I loved the atmosphere of the workshop. I like the interactive approach.

Informative. Creative. Inventive. Engaging.

Highly interesting.

Hands-on approach, high interest.

Organization and elevation of subject matter.

(Appendix G continues)

58

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2006-07

Excellent guest speakers. Facts were revealed which I did not know before.

Suggestions in presentation of history, using cooperative groups and a hands-on approach.

The Social Studies Alive workshop and materials have provided me with strategies that tap into multiple intelligences, are very engaging, and incorporate other content areas.

Explaining the value interactive S. Studies notebooks for students. Discussing, hands-on learning, active learning

They provide a multi-faceted learning opportunity that included a variety of delivery methods.

Quality of the presenters. We had the opportunity to gain new knowledge and learned how to impart it to our students.

The workshop was thrilling b/c the instructor made the content/ methods very applicable to my everyday lessons.

Hands-on approach.

Let me say that the courses I took with the TAH grant gave me more satisfaction than any other workshops I've ever attended in 30 years as an educator!!!!! Each workshop was pertinent to any grade level. The material was presented to us on an adult level.

Get information from a variety of sources.

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2007-08

Ideas and strategies are presented to teachers that stimulate teaching methods to utilize in the classroom.

Gaining a greatest knowledge of subject area.

Information was enormous.

....curriculum work is always welcomed and appreciated.

Always hands-on and very informative.

They allowed me to refresh my memory of some historical events. They also made me realize that I am not the only elementary school teacher teaching history!

Great way to collaborate and share ideas with others.

Good professors.

Information.

Offering ideas and lessons to be used in practical ways in the classroom.

All workshops were very interactive and modeled the way that we should use the activity with the students.

Sharing of ideas and being exposed to higher level thinking.

Both parts were informative and excellent. I took away increased knowledge and was revitalized.

The strengths of the workshops include the “professional expertise” where they brought in college professors to facilitate the learning.

Guest speakers, materials.

Interactive and good opportunity to learn as a student.

(Appendix G continues)

59

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2007-08

Excellent presenters, well versed, great addition for my library (in class). Up to date, more current, information allows students to be more interested.

Good information and free classroom materials.

Discussion session/methods to teach history in a district that really doesn't see it as a priority.

Very informative and innovative lessons to teach that get students involved.

The workshops enhance teaching skills especially the History Alive series, in terms of the strategies it provides. Also the “We the People” workshop was helpful in providing text to supplement the American history text especially with regards to the Nation

Well planned--knowledgeable instructors.

THE STRENGTHS THE WORKSHOPS GAVE YOU UDATE RESEARCH IN

HISTORICAL AREAS.

The workshops fill in gaps in knowledge and provide me with more current thinking on certain subjects.

Excellent content knowledge.

The student Interactive Notebook.

The materials and the speakers were quite knowledgeable on the subject matter.

RESOURCES TO DRAW FROM.

Broaden my knowledge on the subject. Discovered new strategies to use in class especially with Document based lessons.

Enhanced love of learning, fascinating, thought provoking

Great speakers, great topics; great locations

Due to these workshops my subject matter knowledge has increased. Also I feel that I can increase their higher order thinking on their ideals that are taught.

Giving teachers ideas on how to motivate students about American history and providing indepth knowledge on historical information which help teachers feel more confident about the content they teach.

Good instructors, good resource materials.

The materials provided are very helpful, especially the hands-on activities.

All the workshops covered material in some form that we are accountable for.

Excellent presenters, super take-home materials that included enough copies for each student to keep, insightful ideas for expanding my current lesson plans.

The Vietnam Workshop was very interesting and informative.

Emphasis on primary sources. Practical transfer from workshop to classroom.

I enjoyed the political aspect of it.

Professors who not only have an outstanding wealth of content knowledge, but are also skilled at modeling effective teaching strategies.

Timeliness, less fluff.

The hands-0n approach and the friendly presenters.

(Appendix G continues)

60

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix G (continued).

Strengths of the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments From All Respondents – 2007-08

SHOWS HOW TO MAKE TEACHING AND LEARNING HISTORY AN

INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Up to date historical information.

Hands-on activities.

Hands-on, living history approaches.

Showing the hands-on approach to teaching American history.

Abundant examples via handouts, powerpoints, lectures, videos etc.

Provide excellent instruction and supplemental materials. Usually in very amiable environment.

Reference materials (books), museum visits, notable speakers, on site visits.

Hands-on, varied knowledgeable presenters, correlate to standards.

Level of group activities and class participation. The knowledge of the presenters and how they impart the material.

They have ensured that I teach each individual child based on their own learning styles and offer a wide variety of learning and teaching strategies to ensure their success.

The strength of the workshops was to teach subject matter by other means than lecture and worksheets. The DBQ method could be used as a county wide method to enhance critical thinking skills. History Alive teaches to all modalities.

They give insight and background material to the topics we teach.

Presenters, facilitators, content, versatility of subjects.

Hands-on activities that can be used in class.

The resources that are provided that would not have been readily available otherwise. Most of the strategies encourage student-centered learning and encourage students to develop critical thinking skills.

Content knowledge and resources made available to teachers. Example: books with primary sources.

Exchanging ideas and information.

The knowledge gained on the subject was great. It brought about a better understanding and insight into the area studies. I was able to bring this to my students. It also made me excited and confident about the subject.

Greater appreciation of history with the hands-on approach

LEARNED NEW TECHNIQUES.

61

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2005-06

I would love to see the workshop be at least a 2 week course rather than only 1 week.

For the Gilder Lehrman Workshops, some of the articles were catered to the Advanced and

Gifted students. Below average students would have a difficult time grasping most of their material.

Access to a video tape of the live presentation for review purposes.

I enjoyed the free materials that we collect during these workshops.

I was pleased with the way the workshop was handled. I enjoy being taught. I appreciated that there was not group work, group presentations, etc. I want someone to give me info., not make me work to get it. My suggestion is that you maintain the format of the workshop.

Would like to see a greater variety of workshops from one year to the next.

There should be a separation between middle and high schools in these work shops. Things that may work in middle school can't work in the high and sometimes the reverse is true.

Possibly a workshop on Florida history with emphasis on Hispanic heritage.

PARTS OF THE WORKSHOP COULD BE VIDEOTAPED AND INCLUDED AS PART

OF THE SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM FOR EACH SCHOOL.

The trainer was not familiar with how to apply social studies alive to elementary.

They need to have geared more to each curriculum (subject and grade level).

Continue the American history workshops in Broward County. The professors have only helped to increase our understanding of what we can do in our classrooms.

I would have liked more time to create units.

No sense inviting teachers who don't have access to the book/program that is used in the course.

Only that you continue to provide them.

None

None.

We need to have the materials to teach - the Social Studies Alive materials.

The workshop was only a week long. It seems that there was not enough time to review and analyze our work. Also the text was very limited in terms of exploring a wider content of

American history. It seems that it would have been more useful if there was a wider variety of lesson plans that we could implement in the classroom.

The workshops should be longer so that information is rushed through.

Increase 1-3 days to a full week. History content knowledge workshops.

More detailed lessons samples

If possible, some activities might benefit from a greater amount of time spent doing them, so teachers can more fully grasp them.

I'd love to see two things: a videotape of the performance so that I could share that with my students before we read Their Eyes Were Watching God, plus explore opportunities for bringing them to my school for multiclass presentations.

(Appendix H continues)

62

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2005-06

Separate elementary and secondary teachers. When they are combined one group is at a disadvantage. Either the elementary teachers are receiving content way beyond what they know and/or are expected to teach or secondary teachers are slowed down because more is being explained to the elementary teachers.

I think the elementary teachers, namely the fifth grade teachers should’ve been better grouped with the middle school teachers. And the remaining middle school educators with the high school teachers. Why? Because the pedagogical activities that apply to elem. are usually snickered at by the high school educators. Like it or not, there is prejudice present in the different levels of education. IF POSSIBLE, the middle school teachers should act as the buffer zone because many fifth grade activities could be adapted to 8 th

, but never eleventh grade. Likewise, 11 grade activities could be simplified to accommodate 8th grade students. At Williamsburg, I was with high school teachers they did not think highly of their fifth grade cohorts. Their overall attitude was not as obvious towards their 8 th

grade counterparts.

Demonstrate a lesson incorporating the ability to cover vast material within the lesson.

More content based. More practical application in today’s classroom.

None...it was perfect.

More classroom methods.

I have no suggestions at this time. I believe the workshops—the two I’ve attended—have been right on target and the presenters displayed an enormous amount of enthusiasm for the subject which came across quite effectively.

I would like to see a DBQ (Document-based Questions) workshop specifically for apush teachers. (not clear)

Separate the categories for high school and middle school. What will work in a middle school classroom will not necessarily work in a high school classroom.

I would like to be a part of Geography Alive in the near future.

More AP workshops in the future with new approaches to old practices.

The only suggestion I have is to have a working lunch and a few more stretch breaks. When teachers give up a Saturday, no matter how interesting the workshop, they just want to get home. Leaving an hour earlier instead of having an hour lunch would be greatly appreciated.

It really only is a matter with the District. I feel that the huge impact the two workshops have/will have on my teaching is lost by not permitting me to attend workshops during the school day. I have had to forgo other workshops due to the fact that some principals do not allow instructional time to be taken away from students, although it enhances my ability to teach them in an excellent manner by improving the students’ critical thinking skills.

More time with Presenter. The best workshop I have attended.

More workshops should be offered.

(Appendix H continues)

63

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2005-06

1. Separate high school from middle school—too many activities were inappropriate for high schoolers even if modified. Many of activities were not feasible or viable to conduct in our FCAT-focused classrooms. Felt the instructor had little knowledge of what we were doing in Broward County in terms of Social Studies.

Some activities were not necessary to understand the material. They were too obvious!

N/A

If possible, it would be a great asset to have those Harlem Renaissance performances taped to augment to our lessons on the subject.

N/A

More activities for primary level.

Nothing. It was wonderful and I hope I have a chance to take the week-long workshop at some point in the next couple of years.

Offer a Harlem Renaissance Part 2

It is difficult to implement the strategies taught in the workshop because our district has not adopted the Social Studies Alive! textbooks or curriculum.

None.

County should pay for school sets of history alive if so many people attend.

Very few of the Social Studies (History Alive for 5 th

Grade) is available to our schools because of the financial restraint. We would need to write grants or get the funding in other ways, and frankly I don't have the time to run after money.

More technology training.

Some critical analysis of some of the literary works of the Harlem Renaissance. Some of the participants were English teachers.

I enjoyed the whole thing. My co-workers and I could barely keep focused on the workshop because we were so excited about discussing how we would implement the lessons, team teaching opportunities and supplementing our lessons already in place. JUST GREAT!!!

GIVE ME MORE!

Include more technology-based lessons.

It would be great to have a workshop specifically geared for economics.

None, it was great.

Project Citizen is really only applicable to those that are going to implement to the project.

None - I hope I can attend more.

I have no suggestions.

WE CAN USE SOME WORKSHOPS ON 20TH CENTURY USA.

N/A

May there be more of them!

I would shorten the day a little.

I think the workshops are terrific but maybe could be a little more interactive.

More FCAT related materials

Make History Alive more high school related. Some of the activities you could not do in a high school classroom because they seemed a little babyish.

(Appendix H continues)

64

z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2005-06

None. Keep it just like it is!

List of suggested activities to take back to school.

A workshop that goes in depth about the content area would be my suggestion.

N/A

More hands-on with the different teaching strategies available.

Too repetitive.

I would like to see a workshop created specifically for world history.

I really do not have any negative feedback towards the workshop. The only suggestion that

I have is to have the Geography Alive workshop implemented as soon as possible. I do not teach American history, so although interesting, I would have liked to focus only on my curriculum.

I think that the workshop should be an ongoing thing. As I tell other teachers about, they wished they had attended and when will the next one be.

NONE.

I suggest that the county purchase the program/kits for the participants. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2006-07

Continue offering workshops and add new workshops to the list.

Have the workshop be more hands-on.

More people from the Social Studies departments of each school should attend.

I think the workshops are great as they are and no changes are needed. However, I would like to see a more in-depth workshop on slavery.

N/A

Offer more courses.

WE HAVE YEAR AROUND CLASSES.

N/A

Perhaps it would be helpful for first time History Fair teachers to see some samples to learn how those particular displays or papers were evaluated.

History Alive level 2!

I enjoyed the workshop I attended and would like for the word to get out to more educators.

Offer a wider variety of content.

Would like to see more teachers take advantage of the programs. I'm not sure how you do this.

While I always learned helpful information, some of the handout items and discussions are a little more geared to topics for high school or AP/more mature classes. Some topic discussions with a more detailed idea of teaching toward 8 th

grade American history.

GREATER VARIETY IN THE CONTENT.

Create a word wall vocabulary list for each lesson taught and incorporate prefix, suffix, and root words as they apply to the topics. This will help ESE and ELL (ESOL) to comprehend difficult vocabulary words.

(Appendix H continues)

65

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2006-07

Provide lessons that use PowerPoint presentations to teach a topic in the textbook. Have workshops that follow the chapters in the textbook. These workshops are valuable for all teachers and I thank you for the opportunity to participate in them.

I would like to see History Alive 2 offered again. I would also like to see another out of state trip, similar to the one that goes to Williamsburg, but to another location — perhaps Mount

Vernon, Gettysburg, etc.

I have attended the Colonial Williamsburg workshops twice and now is no longer eligible to attend anymore. Can that change? I love the experience. It is awesome!

MORE HANDOUTS, I THOUGHT THAT THE HANDOUTS OF HOW TO APPROACH

HISTORY WITH MY STUDENT WERE VERY HELPFUL.

Most of the focus is on the period up to 1800. It would good if more were paid to the period after.

I was so impressed by the quality of the program and the degree of detail, that I would not change any part of it. It is well envisioned, professionally executed and immensely valuable.

When something is this good, one does not change it!

Just keep coming!! The Teaching American History workshops help to make me an exceptional teacher... And it all trickles down (or up) to my students!

They should be even MORE in depth with lesson plans and ideas. I LOVED WHAT I WAS

LEARNING and am using the strategies in teaching my classes this year.

N/A

The particular workshop I attended had extremes. One speaker was very engaging with content that was very relevant to my class. The other speaker was a college professor who covered one topic not usually covered in a history class to the extent he spoke.

More follow-up workshops to reinforce what we learned and will try to apply to our classrooms.

Better location and facilities. Flexible timing also.

NONE

See if you can find the funds to invite two major scholars who take opposing points of view on any given issue in history and have them conduct a debate/discussion, question and answer period with a group of interested teachers.

Keep it subject specific and level (regular, honors, AP)

I would like a wider variety of workshops to attend.

I thoroughly enjoyed the workshop! No suggestions at this time...Thank You!

More exercises

Keep up the good work. Keep providing essential material that enriches the learning environment.

I THINK EVERYTHING WAS WELL DONE!

NONE.

The program was very organized and the materials very well presented. I had no problem.

More cooperative assignments for the Upper Level Classes.

Workshops should be completed by the end of June.

(Appendix H continues)

66

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2006-07

Longer duration ( more days )

APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY. SCHOOLS ARE GOING IN THIS ROUTE AND

THERE IS NEED TO SHOW TEACHERS HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE WEBSITES AND

EXPLORE THE TOOLS WITHIN THEM. WE ONLY GET WEB SITES BUT ARE

NEVER MODELED HOW TO IMPLEMENT THEM IN CLASS.

None

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This was one of the best workshops I have ever been to.

None - they all are great.

Provide some videos with lessons attached.

N/A

I would suggest a workshop that focuses on content in terms of specific topics to cover in depth and which topics to spend less time on.

If you believe you have something new and exciting enough for a workshop, please make sure it's not the 'wheel'. I really learned from the College Board APUSH workshop with Gene

Pickle, he would be a great instructor.

N/A

N/A

Less lectures.

None...it was great!

I would like to see more workshops on teaching more hands-on for the kids.

Encourage administrators to attend.

Extend time line from 8 to 10 days of instruction.

I thought they went really well. Perhaps there could be a posting of the workshops and their speakers at the beginning of the year.

I would have enjoyed the Supervisor of Elections office visit better if it was more hands-on and provided me with ideas and strategies to teach the voting process to my students.

The workshop presenter did not have my grade level teacher's edition and student books, workbooks. That would have been helpful.

None.

The Bill of Rights workshop should be longer than one day.

Social Studies Alive is amazing.

Get more teachers involved.

Please continue arranging workshops for our teachers as history and SS seem to be taking a

“backseat” to the other curricular areas. Obviously this is due to the fact that it is not FCAT tested!! Also, anything from Colonial Williamsburg is time tested.

More ideas for elementary level.

(Appendix H continues)

67

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2007-08

N/A no suggestions.

Supply books/activities to take back and use with students.

None.

More resources to sample.

More Time.

More hands-on practice.

Open it up to more participants.

None. I think it is a wonderful program and am pleased they are reaching out towards elementary school teachers and not limited to specific high school content and/or teachers.

N/A

Japanese Internment. Treatment of Chinese, St. Louis. Other negatives of society by our

Government that have impacted our improved overall treatment today. But, under new rules, please open these to more than 30!

None.

Just more like them!

None, they are great!

I suggest more content based workshops that deal with a specific subject matter or time period in American history. This can help the teachers who do not have a strong knowledge of American history. Also workshops that deal with politics.

Better promotion--they were lightly attended.

I THINK THAT THESE WORKSHOPS SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR BEGINNNG

TEACHERS.

Perhaps providing participants with some applicable lesson plans. I realize this would be difficult due to the wide range of grade levels taught by attendees.

Greater variety of topics.

Telling us how we can get the pages for the interactive notebook. I have not had time to call and investigate.

The workshops were conducive and comfortable in meeting the objectives outlined for each workshop.

MORE OF THEM OFFERED AT MORE TIMES.

Two part workshops are not very attractive; they are hard to complete on weekends. I would like these types of workshops to be held in sequence.

None.

Perhaps incorporate some workshop ideas that you actually have the teachers participate in!

Working in pairs AND groups of 4. Brainstorming and modeling the teaching techniques.

Keep them going!

Please continue with the workshops on different topics in American history, i.e., Vietnam,

Civil Rights, Presidency, etc. Saturday workshops are very convenient.

(Appendix H continues)

68

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Appendix H (continued).

Suggestions for the TAH Workshops

Verbatim Comments from All Respondents Over Three Years – 2007-08

N/A

The American symposium could have provided us with a little booklet, trivia, or something more relative to elementary.

I can't think of one! The entire workshop was very professional, quite fun, and included a significant amount of classroom lesson plans that were easy to implement.

Not to make each candidate required to take 3 workshops.

More workshops that emphasize content rather than instructional strategies.

Keep it up!

Sharing more ideas.

Need to offer more frequently and open to all social studies teachers. All teachers can benefit, not just American History Teachers.

Role of women in American history; Role of Hispanics in American history.

Good as it is.

More frequent.

Find more ways to help put the materials in the hands of the students or ways to use strategies with materials which we already have.

Keep doing what you are doing

More donuts!

None.

Please continue.

More time needed.

Just continue to offer them!

Suggestions would be to have more and have the district provide class sets for participants.

I am happy with the diversity of topics and the level of professionalism.

How to apply to your specific grade level.

Create opportunities to create lesson plans from these sessions.

Offer more workshops, or extend the length. It was very good how the Vietnam workshop was in 2 parts.

None at this time.

I would like to see more hands-on lesson planning. After gaining a better understanding of the material, a way to impart to the students would be helpful.

No additional suggestions at this time

69

Appendix I

Results of Pre- and Post-Tests for the Third-year Participants

Product 1—Has Third TAH participants’ content knowledge and understanding of American

History improved?

Items and instruments were developed for the participants of the workshops, such as “Bill of

Rights,” “Making Choices in Early America,” “Vietnam.” The items and the instruments, based on the curricula of the respective workshops, had high content validity. Pre- and post-measures were taken, and repeated measure ANOVA was conducted. For the third year, there are

279 pairs of complete pre- and post-data points. The results indicated that teachers had statistically significantly increased their knowledge, as measured by the instruments. The pre-mean was 8.2 and post-mean 13.3 (on a 20-point scale), with a p value less than 0.001 and an η

2

of 0.56. An η

2

value of 0.56 indicates that the effect size was large (see Table 1).

Therefore, these data suggested that the TAH workshops had made a profound impact on teacher knowledge of traditional American history. The grant’s objective of increasing teacher knowledge had been met by the three-year grant activities.

Table 1

Pre- and Post-Tests (Repeated Measure ANOVA) of Teacher Content Knowledge: Results for

Third-Year Participants

a

Pre-Mean Post-Mean F

8.2 13.3 a

Means are based on 20-item instruments; N=410.

359.0

p Eta

< 0.001 0 .56

Observed power

1.00

Product 2—Have participants significantly improved their perceptions related to teaching

American history?

The participants of the workshops were pre- and post-tested by using the Teaching American

History Perception and Behavior Questionnaire (Liu et al., 2006). The instrument, among the first one to measure history-specific perceptions and behaviors, was recently published in the journal, Teacher Development, and had good psychometric properties. The instrument has six subscales: (a) basic historical thinking, (b) intensive historical thinking, (c) reading and understanding subtext, (d) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity,

(e) comparing cultural perspectives, and (f) teacher professional development.

The data and results on the pre- and post-tests are displayed in Table 2. The means were composite scores, averaged across items from “1” (not important at all) to “5” (very important).

The results indicated the training significantly increased participant perceptions of the importance of all six? dimensions (out of a total of six) of history teaching: (a) basic historical thinking, (c) intensive historical thinking, (c) reading and understanding subtext,

(d) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity, (e) comparing cultural perspectives, and (d) teacher professional development. The effect sizes were small, as measured by

eta squared, ranged from 0.08 for “reading and understanding subtext” to 0.16 for “comparing

(Appendix I continues)

70

Appendix I (continued).

Results of Pre- and Post-Tests for the Third-year Participants cultural perspectives” and “understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity.” It was interesting to notice that the areas the TAH made the greatest amount of impact on how teachers taught history included: (a) comparing cultural perspectives; and (b) understanding cultural assumption and moral ambiguity. These two areas were among the most important, in terms of teaching history.

Table 2

Pre- and Post-Tests Repeated Measure ANOVA of Teacher Perceptions Related to Teaching

American History: Results for Third-year Participants

a

Categories a. Basic historical thinking b. Intensive historical thinking

N

306

306

Pre-

Mean

3.7

4.0

Post-

3.9 29.0

4.2 45.9

Eta

0.00 0.09

0.00 0.13

Observed power

1.00

1.00

306 4.3 4.5 0.08 1.00 c. Reading and understanding subtext d. Understanding cultural assumption and moral

306 4.2 4.5 0.16 1.00 ambiguity e. Comparing cultural perspectives

295 4.1 4.4 0.16 1.00 f. Teacher’s professional development.

293 4.5 4.6 0.08 1.00 a

The means are based on a composite score measured by using a 5-point scale; N varies depending on the test.

The data reported in this section were on perceptions of importance rather than behaviors per se.

As seminal writings by Senge and his colleagues indicate, perception (i.e., the mental model) is related to human behaviors (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 2000). To successfully change teacher perceptions is one important step toward improved behaviors. Teacher behaviors will continue to be evaluated during the third year of the grant.

71

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement