design rationale for digital materials -1- running head...

Design Rationale for Digital Materials -1-

RUNNING HEAD: DESIGN RATIONALE FOR DIGITAL MATERIALS

Design Rational for Digital, Multimedia Text Materials in Social Studies

Krista D. Simons, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Purdue University

Cindy S. York, M.S. Graduate Assistant Purdue University

White Paper Prepared for Pearson Digital

January 24, 2005

Please direct comments and questions to: Krista D. Simons Purdue University 100 N. University West Lafayette, IN 47907 765-496-2189 [email protected]


Table of Contents

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3

II. Context: Multimedia Technology in K-12 Education.........................................................4

Video Anchored Instruction.................................................................................................4

The Impact of Multimedia, Anchored Instruction...........................................................5

The Need for Multimedia Technology Use in the Social Studies.......................................7

Multimedia Internet Resources ........................................................................................9

Case Study of Three Internet Environments: Webquests, WIPs, and PIH-NET.............10

WebQuests......................................................................................................................10

Web Inquiry Projects (WIPs) ........................................................................................11

Persistent Issues in History Network (PIH-NET)........................................................12

The Impact of Multimedia Technology: Modest, but Important, Gains.......................13

III. Toward a Design Rationale for Multimedia Texts in Social Studies.............................16

1) Apply Principles of Differentiated Instruction.........................................................18

2) Situate Tasks in a Flexible Context...........................................................................20

3) Provide Tools for Comprehension and Integration of Information.........................21

4) Capitalize on the Value of Visual and Textual Representation of Information.......24

IV. Meeting National and State Standards............................................................................26

Historical Interpretation......................................................................................................27

Chronological and Spatial Thinking ..................................................................................27

Research, Evidence, and Point of View.............................................................................28

Summary.................................................................................................................................28

References...............................................................................................................................28


I. Introduction

I believe that teaching machines are destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in a few years they will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of teachers (Skinner, 1968, p. 1).

Machines and technology have come along way since B. F. Skinner’s predictions; while it

is true that no one would argue for technology to supplant teachers, we cannot deny the impact of

technology in educational environments. In 2003, Kulik’s seminal review of research examined

the effect of instructional technology in K-12 schools since 1990. He reported a major shift

during the mid-1990s that represented an important new trend in technology use: students began to

use technology not only for receiving instruction via skill and drill, but also for production. In

short, by the late 1990s many students were using technology throughout all aspects of the learning

process, from initial research of topics, to organization of information, to integration and synthesis,

to representation of their ideas (Kulik, 2003). Schacter and Fagnano (1999) echoed similar

findings in their summary of research on technology use in schools. They further asserted that

while technology integration is an important part of the learning process, informed teacher selection

and meaningful use of technology for defined learning purposes were identified as equally critical

factors in order for computer use to lead to a positive impact on student learning (Schacter &

Fagnano, 1999).

While early research on the impact of technology in schools compared traditional teaching

approaches with computer-based instruction (i.e., research examining the impact of Integrated

Learning Systems compared achievement of students using the software versus a matched sample

receiving traditional instruction), more recent research has examined the conditions under which

various types of technology can advance certain types of learning and the affordances made

possible through technology. More specifically, many researchers have examined the role of one

of the most ubiquitous forms of technology, multimedia technology, on various student outcomes,

including student achievement, student attitudes, time-on-task, and the like. In addition, researchers


have examined students’ needs in these environments based on learner characteristics. The purpose

of this research review is to examine the related research in this area, and to present a design

rationale for multimedia texts developed to most effectively maximize student learning potential.

II. Context: Multimedia Technology in K-12 Education

Video Anchored Instruction

In the late 1980s, the Cognition and Technology Group (CTGV) at Vanderbilt University

developed the Jasper Woodbury series of multimedia: math-based programs on videodisc for

elementary and middle schools students. The CTGV is often touted as the example of technology

researchers and developers who began with a much different question in mind. Rather than asking,

“What can technology do that is new and different?”, they asked the question, “In what ways can

students learn with technology that are new and different?”

Jasper is based on the design principles of anchored instruction in which content is

“anchored” or embedded within the context of a real-world, ill-structured problem (Bransford &

Stein, 1993). Anchored instruction is closely associated with Situated Learning or Situated

Cognition, a theory of knowledge acquisition based on the premise that learning becomes deeper if

placed (or situated) in the context and culture in realistic environments (Langone, Malone, Stecker,

& Greene, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). CTGV uses anchors which initially focus on “…an event

or problem situation…that facilitates the development of shared experience, or an ‘anchor,’ to

facilitate learning” (Reith et al., 2003, p. 174). Anchored video instruction enables a teacher to link

video examples with specific concepts during the presentation of content. Researchers believe this

creates an “experiential context” through which meaningful and active learning can take place

(Langone, et al., 1998). Students explore the environment multiple times, with each pass

purportedly gaining a deeper understanding of the subject matter (Langone et al., 1998; Bransford

& Stein, 1993).


The Impact of Multimedia, Anchored Instruction

The CTGV researchers have evaluated the impact of the Jasper curriculum for more than a

decade with hundreds of teachers and thousands of students across North America (CTGV, 1997).

In 1990, Jasper was implemented in classrooms across nine states. Students in the Jasper

curriculum were compared with a matched sample. At the end of the school year, students in the

Jasper sample scored significantly higher on constructs of planning and comprehension when

compared with the matched sample. This implies the Jasper students were able to plan more

effectively when confronted with word problems and could better identify the concepts and goals

of each problem (CTGV, 1997). The Jasper students also performed slightly better than the

comparison group on calculation scores (CTGV, 1997). In addition, almost every teacher in the

study reported anecdotal effects on low-achieving students, attributing these students’ successes to

the motivational aspects built into the program as well as the opportunity to contribute to the

problem-solving process (CTGV, 1997). Simply put, the Jasper promotes interdependence among

group members. High-achieving students are not able to dominate and provide correct answers

immediately because the complex problems require planning and investigation (CTGV, 1997).

Finally, the Jasper series has demonstrated significant impact on students’ attitudes toward

mathematics. When compared with the matched sample at the end of the school year, Jasper

students demonstrated less anxiety in math, showed a greater tendency to see the relevance of

mathematics in every day life, and expressed value in completing complex challenges (CTGV,

1997).

In a study by Bottge and others (2003), the researchers investigated the impact of a video-

based, anchored instructional unit similar to Jasper Woodbury. Participants were 11 low achieving

and 26 average achieving students divided among three instructional conditions: 1) baseline

instruction (traditional teacher-led), 2) video-based instruction (similar to Jasper), and 3) applied

problem instruction (video plus an applied project). The posttest results showed significantly


higher achievement for the video instruction over the baseline, but no other differences. There was

also increased motivation found among the students while immersed in the video and applied

activities.

Shyu (2000) investigated the effects of computer-assisted videodisc-based anchored

instruction on attitudes toward mathematics and instruction among elementary students. Based on

Dunlap and Grabinger’s (1996, as cited in Shyu, 2000) suggestions that teachers should (1) help

students apply newly learned information and should (2) make both the need and reason for

learning content apparent, Shyu created videodisc-based anchored instruction similar to the Jasper

Woodbury series. In a pretest-posttest design, 74 fifth-graders completed an “attitudes toward

mathematics” measure. They were then presented with the instruction followed by a post measure

similar (but not the same) to the pre measure. Results indicated that the students “felt more positive

about, interested in and less anxious toward mathematics” (Shyu, 2000, p. 64).

In a second experiment, Shyu investigated the impact of the program on problem-solving

skills. Thirty-seven fifth-graders were grouped according to their ability in mathematics and

science. They were first presented with the video program and given a pretest over the content of

the video. Students in the problem-solving group then completed various activities surrounding the

segments of the video before taking a posttest similar to the pretest. Students achieved significant

gains over the control group. The author suggests that video-based anchored instruction provides a

more motivating environment that enhanced students’ problem-solving skills, and goes on to

summarize the implications for design of anchored instruction:

The excitement currently generated by computer technology in instruction is due to the recognition that they are our best hope for bridging the gap between the classroom and the real-world conditions within which students are expected to work outside of the classroom. This study suggests that video-based anchored instruction has its potential for offering interactive, authentic instructional experiences to bridge that gap. In addition, this study may suggest students are able to solve complex mathematical problems with an improved attitude toward mathematics and instruction in interactive video-based anchored instruction. This study also seems to indicate that the video-based anchored instruction was a success in


promoting students’ performance in both cognitive and affective domains (Shyu, 2000, p. 67-68).

It is not surprising that the anchored, multimedia instruction “works,” so to speak. The

types of multimedia representations built into a curriculum series like Jasper have resulted in

presentation of content that promotes active engagement among students within a motivating

environment. The CTGV was one of the first research groups to ask, “In what ways can students

learn with technology that are new and different?” in the subject area of mathematics, but more

recent developments of multimedia have revealed researchers and developers are asking this

question across every subject area, namely social studies.

The Need for Multimedia Technology Use in the Social Studies

Social studies is a complex content domain, integrating “anthropology, archaeology,

economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and

sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences”

(National Council for the Social Studies, 1994, p. vii). As such, the National Council for the

Social Studies (NCSS) has outlined three primary goals for students to “achieve excellence” in the

social studies: 1) Supporting the common good, described as the general welfare of individuals and

groups in our society; 2) Adopting common and multiple perspectives that will lead to civic

responsibility; and 3) Applying knowledge, skills, and values to civic action, which encompasses

everything from involvement in the electoral process to positively impacting communities in some

way (NCSS, 1994).

The complexity of the social studies content domain can be characterized as “ill-structured”;

that is, there is not a systematic procedure or set of rules for teaching the content, nor is there one

“correct” way to interpret information. In addition, the domain is an evolving one as new historical

interpretations of events and cultures are constantly emerging and new nations are coming into

existence. This presents a unique set of challenges for teachers and publishers alike: how do we


ensure that students are meeting the standards set forth by the NCSS and state agencies, while at

the same time ensure support of multiple perspectives, emerging content, and thorough presentation

of information?

To address such challenges, program developers and curriculum designers have begun to

rely on multimedia technology. In a reprint of a 1999 white paper for the U. S. Department of

Education’s Forum on Technology, Bass and Rosenzweig described the numerous ways in which

multimedia technology has enhanced social studies education. Most predominantly, students and

teachers are afforded consistent access to resources such as primary source documents, motion

pictures, oral histories, speeches, photographs, and more (Bass & Rosenzweig, 1999). In their

report, the authors also go on to say that inquiry in social studies has changed with multimedia.

They describe examples of activities that range in scope from basic exercises, such as having

students locate a photo that represents “work” in the late nineteenth-century, to more advanced

tasks in which students consider how artists and writers have treated poverty throughout history

(Bass & Rosenzweig, 1999).

In summary, multimedia resources have greatly impacted how, where, and what students

can learn in social studies. As Berson noted in his review of technology use, “Within the social

studies, computers have served dual roles, as both important instructional tools and as objects that

have had a significant effect on the political, social, and economic functioning of American society.

As both a method and a topic of instruction, the potential impact of computers on the social studies

seems immense” (1996, p. 486). Diem (2000) reports that evidence indicates “…social studies

teachers are beginning to use technology as part of the learning process” (p. 494), and further

asserts that when teachers are successful at determining a need for technology applications in the

classroom, it allows for the effective distribution of limited resources.

Some possible ways in which computers can be integrated into the social studies classroom

as listed by Berson (1996), are “simulations, drill and practice, educational games, tutorials,


database management, word processing and writing, and graphing” (p. 488). There are also web-

based learning activities (Diem, 2000), Internet activities (VanFossen, 2000), as well as Webquests

and Web Inquiry Projects (Molebash & Dodge, 2003). Bass and Rosenzweig (1999) describe

using on-line dialog tools such as electronic mail, discussion boards, and Web-based bulletin

boards as a method for learners to create contacts beyond the classroom. One example of this is

having ‘pen pals’ in other parts of the world via email.

Multimedia Internet Resources

Whitworth and Berson (2003) found that the most common use for computers in the social

studies classroom was accessing information on the Internet. According to data collected by

VanFossen (2000), social studies teachers have a desire to “incorporate the Internet into their

classroom teaching more frequently” (p. 92) than they currently are. In that same study it was also

found that social studies teachers used the Internet most frequently for the following: (1) to

encourage independent background research on a topic, and (2) to gather information to

supplement activities teachers already planned (VanFossen, 2000).

The Internet has much to offer as a learning resource for social studies teachers (Ehman,

2002). It allows for the combination of the research process with the writing process and finally,

the publishing process (Bass & Rosenzweig, 1999). Having access to so many diverse sources of

knowledge allows for critical thinking skills in the evaluation of these sources (Shiveley &

VanFossen, 2004). “Social studies teachers can create structured activities that require students to

locate and evaluate information about questions and problems (Ehman, 2002, p. 176).” The Internet

also provides increased opportunities for collaboration both within the classroom and with outside

sources for research projects. Then students can publish and present their projects on the Internet

(Shiveley & VanFossen, 2004).

Bass and Rosenzweig (1999) discuss the potential digital tools have for learning

approaches in order to help students both obtain and understand the complexity that makes up


social studies knowledge. There are many complex relationships that digital tools can help

represent, in addition to providing the huge amounts of information and making that information

malleable. “Student projects offer a potentially very rich synthesis of resources and expressive

capabilities; they combine archival and database resources, with conversational, collaborative, and

dialogic tools, in digital contexts characterized by hypertext and other modes for discovering and

representing relationships among knowledge objects (Bass & Rosenzweig, 1999, n.p.).” However,

when using computers to analyze “real” situations, lack of resources can be a problem. The

incorporation of learning stations, both computer and non-computer stations, has been a successful

strategy for many teachers (Dils, 2000).

Even though the Web, as a hypermedia environment, allows learners the flexibility in

choosing what information to access as well as when to access it, the complexity of the many

hyperlinks can be both overwhelming and distracting to students. This distraction can allow

learners to easily become sidetracked and diminish the cognitive energy needed for learning (Lee &

Calandra, 2004). In addition, students can easily become passive learners by just reading

information on a Web site rather than interacting through searches, note taking, or having to

complete specific tasks. According to Gardner and Wissick (2002) it is most meaningful when

students are actively involved and making decisions during the activity. It is for this reason that

many researchers advocate implementation of more structured web-based activities, such as

WebQuests, Web Inquiry Projects, and the Persistent Issue in History Network, discussed in more

detail below.

Case Study of Three Internet Environments: Webquests, WIPs, and PIH-NET

WebQuests

The WebQuest is one method of using the Internet in an interactive way. The WebQuest

model was originally developed by Bernie Doge and Tom March in 1995 to help learners use the

information on the Web instead of spending time searching for needed information. Because of the


overwhelming amount of information on the Web, students and teachers now have the opportunity

to explore previously unattainable documents. The developers claim that through their explorations,

students can solve authentic problems that are relevant to the social studies content and the

students’ personal interests (Molebash & Dodge, 2003). Teachers create WebQuests that are

structured according to a particular task or activity defined by the teacher. The students then use an

inquiry-oriented process to go through the five components of the WebQuest: Introduction, Task,

Process, Evaluation, and Conclusion. The authors describe the most important component as the

Task, which provides the focus. Students find WebQuests to be stimulating, as they usually require

a high level of judgment, creativity, and / or problem solving (Molebash & Dodge, 2003). For

example, in one activity, students explore the ancient nation of Nubia, one that is commonly

overlooked in the study of Egypt. Their task involves finding and creating artifacts to be placed in

a “virtual” museum.

Web Inquiry Projects (WIPs)

A more open-ended instructional model that is similar to the WebQuest is the Web Inquiry

Project. WIPs have less predetermined structure than the WebQuest by allowing the learner to

define their own task and what procedures are necessary to complete that task. They also have to

find their own online resources unlike the teacher specified online resources in a WebQuest

(Molebash & Dodge, 2003). WIPs can be used to facilitate learning in situations where the teacher

doesn’t have experience with a subject. They incorporate uninterpreted, primary source data found

at numerous websites such as the Library of Congress's American Memories

(http://memory.loc.gov), the Valley of the Shadow project (http://www.iath.virginia.

edu/vshadow2), the National Climatic Data Center (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html), and the

U.S. Census (http://census.gov) (Molebash & Dodge, 2003).

Web Inquiry Projects contain six phases of structured inquiry as follows: Reflect,

Questions, Procedures, Data Investigation, Analysis, and Findings (Molebash & Dodge, 2003).


Students are meant to begin in the Reflect phase by thinking of a problem or situation that they

wonder about. The teacher can provide a “hook” to get the students thinking about a particular topic

if they want. One example of a WIP being used by a social studies teacher would be as a way for

students to use resource materials to examine what life was like for a “typical” southern family

during the Civil War period. Students can investigate letters, census records, military records, and

other primary source materials. They could represent their findings in a concept map to reflect their

own understanding of how the Civil War affected families and individuals (Molebash & Dodge,

2003).

Persistent Issues in History Network (PIH-NET)

The Persistent Issues in History Network establishes its design on two premises: 1) the

study of history is organized around recurring societal questions, and 2) multimedia technology

provides more realistic encounters with history as well as tools for supporting student thinking

(Saye & Brush, 2004). In an effort to address enduring concerns regarding low retention of social

studies content among students (e.g., Ravitch & Finn, 1987; Smith & Neimi, 2001), Saye and

Brush argue that a centralized focus on issues throughout history that are pervasive and persistent

will lead to longer retention and authentic work. The PIH framework is used to connect history

units of study (Saye & Brush, 2004, p. 127):

Persistent Issue Representative Topics Topic-Specific Issue When are citizens justified in resisting governmental authority?

1. American Revolution 2. English Civil War 3. U.S. Abolitionist

Movement 4. Palestinian Intifada

Revolution: Were the colonists justified in revolting from Great Britain?

What actions are justified in the interest of national or community security?

5. Native Americans 6. Chinese Isolation under

the Ming Dynasty 7. U.S. Labor Struggles 8. Rise of Fascism 9. U.S. WWII Homefront

Policies

Native Americans: Were European-American policies towards Native Americans justified?


To address the problem-based questions presented in the framework, students access a

database of primary and secondary sources (see http://www.pihnet.org). For example, in the

Decision Point! database, learners access over 1,400 artifacts (i.e., articles, photographs, movies,

essays, and the like) about the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Content is organized by

an overarching timeline divided into the three strands of the movement: 1) Black Power /

Separatism, 2) Nonviolent Direct Action, and 3) the Legal System. The database also contains a

host of student and teacher tools, to include a notebook, analysis guide, presentation tool,

annotation tool, activity creator, glossary, search tool, and a number of other organizational and

construction tools. In addition, there is a teacher workspace from which they can access a teacher’s

guide, video of classes using PIH strategies, a teaching archive of lessons and units, and an on-line

discussion board moderated by experienced teachers (Brush & Saye, 2004).

The Impact of Multimedia Technology: Modest, but Important, Gains

According to the research of Shiveley and VanFossen (2004), social studies teachers are

slow to adopt computer technology. Diem (2000) further confirms that studies showing the

positive effects of the integration of technology into social studies classrooms are limited. The

studies that do exist seem to center around specific learning strategies such as problem solving

skills, critical thinking, web-based instruction, or the use of telecommunications as a way of

developing multicultural awareness. In a recent study by Shiveley and VanFossen on Internet use

among social studies teachers (2004), it was found that the Internet creates both the necessity and

opportunity to apply critical thinking skills, can help facilitate collaborative communication, and can

increase the availability of diverse resources and multiple perspectives. However, the authors

further go on to conclude that the Internet is not used effectively by most teachers, and the potential

to assist and challenge students is not being realized (Shiveley & VanFossen, 2004).

Rieth and colleagues (2003), who examined the implementation of anchored instruction,

found that teachers spent less time addressing behavior and classroom management problems.


They concluded that “…during anchored instruction, students paid attention to the task, participated

more often, and created fewer behavior…problems” (Rieth et al., 2003, p. 174). The authors

attributed this phenomenon to the affordances in the environment in which students were able to

encounter “contextual experiences” not encountered in more traditional environments. In short,

“The anchor was used as the focal point for class discussion to foster increased interactions

between students and teachers… Students used the anchor as a point of departure for asking and

answering questions and discussing complex issues. It fostered knowledge-seeking, leading

students to ask for more information” (p. 177).

Saye and Brush have examined the impact of PIH-NET for a number of years. In their

seminal evaluative study of Decision Point!, they explored the potential of multimedia technology

for “supporting thoughtful engagement of social issues” (Saye & Brush, 1999, p. 471). In a quasi-

experimental study, one class of high-school students was instructed in the traditional, teacher-led

environment while one participated in the problem-based, multimedia program of Decision Point!.

They found that the group utilizing the multimedia resources were both more engaged in the

activities and performed slightly better on the factual knowledge test than those in the traditional

environment. However, on an essay test of analysis and synthesis, the Decision Point! students

performed significantly better than their counterparts. Ultimately, Saye and Brush (1999)

determined that the more authentic context afforded through multimedia may serve to raise student

interest, encourage deep encounters with content, and make the content more available for

application (Saye & Brush, 1999). Finally, expert guidance built into a multimedia-supported

environment through interactive essays and tools may enable students to achieve more scholarly

inquiry.

Saye and Brush (2002) further examined the influence of a storyboard tool technique on

students’ critical reasoning in a culminating presentation activity following interaction with a

hypermedia database. In the scaffolded context, most groups were able to competently meet


standards relating to reasoning with evidence, clarity of argument, and overall use of resources. In

contrast, the groups in the non-scaffolded context were unable to meet these standards. In other

words, students achieved higher gains in the presentations when assisted by the tool. These

findings are consistent with those of Ferretti, Macarthur, and Okolo (2001) who examined the

effects of a narrative tool on the integration of information in students’ multimedia, historical

presentations. The tool impacted the quality of student work, and students demonstrated gains in

both self-efficacy as learners and understanding of historical inquiry.

Multimedia Mania is an international design competition where K-12 students submit their

student-created multimedia projects that explore “global issues” (Steelman, Grable, & Vasu,

2004/2005). Students have submitted projects related to a number of global concerns, such as

promoting civil rights, addressing terrorism, describing the effects of land mines, disposing of

waste materials, and exploring women’s efforts to achieve equality. In these projects, technology

serves as both a tool for research and a tool for student production. The researchers point to a dual-

outcome: the technology provides the platform through which students can analyze and synthesize

information, while the competition gives students an authentic audience (Steelman et al.,

2004/2005). Both of these are mediated and afforded through the multimedia.

It is clear that teachers are using technology resources as a source of both content delivery

and a means of student representation and production of knowledge with significant, but not

necessarily pervasive, results. As we have explored above, there are a number of reasons social

studies teachers have not adopted these technologies to the most effective extent possible. These

reasons center less on inadequate technology resources (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002),

and increasingly on lack of understanding regarding what resources are available, knowing what to

do with resources teachers do find, and ineffective organization of the resources. In addition, the

resources and activities must be flexible enough to conform to the compatibility of teachers’

pedagogical beliefs (Zhao et al., 2002). It is for these reasons researchers and developers alike


have examined best practices in design of multimedia materials for social studies. Their

recommendations and findings converge on a number of key characteristics and design elements,

described in more detail below.

III. Toward a Design Rationale for Multimedia Texts in Social Studies

The principles of universal design for learning (UDL) are important to consider in any

learning environment, especially within the framework of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001).

Universal design stems from the premise that for a learning environment to be successful, it must

be effective for and accessible to all, not just many, learners. These learners could include students

with learning disabilities, low achievers, high achievers, and English Language Learners (ELL)

(Curry, 2003; Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003). Hitchcock

and Stahl characterize UDL as a deliberative, thoughtful, comprehensive plan to meet the needs of

all students, stating,

A universally designed curriculum is a curriculum that has been specifically designed, developed, and validated to meet the needs of the full range of students who are actually in our schools, students with a wide range of sensory, motor, cognitive, linguistic, and affective abilities and disabilities rather than a narrow range of students in the ‘middle’ of the population (2003, p. 45).

To design curricula that align with the UDL framework, experts suggest teachers and

designers consider four domains of the environment: learning goals, materials, methods, and

assessment (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Learning goals should be appropriately challenging for all

students; materials should accommodate a flexible format to support multiple representations of

content; methods should be flexible and diverse to provide a variety of experiences for all students;

finally, assessment should be flexible and provide ongoing information that helps teachers decide

how to adjust instruction to maximize learning (Hitchcock et al., 2002).

The experts additionally point out that technology assumes a crucial role in UDL, and it is

important to incorporate both assistive forms for students with disabilities and instructional forms

to support the learning of all students. One of the primary advantages of integrating technology


within UDL is reflected in what Hitchcock and Stahl term the “transformational qualities of

technology” (2003 p. 49). In other words, as learning environments and learners evolve and

change over time; multimedia technology is flexible enough to accommodate these changes. For

example, a learner without strong problem-solving skills might find it difficult to tackle one of the

open-ended problems described in the PIH-NET framework above, such as “When are citizens

justified in resisting governmental authority?” (Saye & Brush, 2004). However, multimedia

technology is flexible enough to provide tools that will support the learner during his or her initial

investigation. These tools can then be reduced or faded over time. As Hitchcock and colleagues

state, “…digital media and computer technologies make it possible to offer a curriculum that is

created once but can be displayed and used in an almost limitless variety of ways and transformed

to suit different learners” (Hitchcock et al., 2002, p. 9).

Rose and Meyer (2002) point out that building a flexible curriculum helps teachers maintain

the integrity of the content, while simultaneously individualizing learning. They present a case

study of the Concord School District in Concord, New Hampshire, a district that has formed a

strong collaboration with the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). In this case,

technology is viewed as enhancing the goals of the learning environment (CAST, 2004, which

include the following:

• Improve Student Skills in the Craft of Technology • Improve Classroom Instruction through Integration • Improve Access to the Curriculum for All Students • Seed and Promote “Futuristic” Innovative Models In considering UDL framework along with the recommendations from researchers and

developers, there are four specific recommendations for the design and use of digital text materials

in social studies: 1) Apply principles of differentiated instruction, 2) Situate tasks in a flexible

context, 3) Provide tools for comprehension and integration of information, 4) Capitalize on the


value of visual and textual representation of information. Each of these is described in more detail

below.

1) Apply Principles of Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is closely associated with universal design. Experts in this area

seek to demystify the notion of “homogeneity by virtue of chronological age” (Tomlinson et al.,

2003). In fact, as the experts point out, in any given classroom there exist students with learning

problems, advanced students, English Language Learners, learners from diverse ethnic and cultural

backgrounds, motivated learners, unmotivated learners, and students whose profiles fit many of

these characteristics (CAST, 2004 Sapon-Shevin, 2000/2001; Tomlinson et al., 2003).

Research has shown technology resources to be effective in supporting differentiated

instruction. Experts believe the affordances of computer-mediated communication (CMC) support

learners who might need more time in crafting a response to a question or task (Gonzalez-Bueno,

1998; Gonzalez-Bueno, M. & Perez, L. C., 2000; Van Handle & Corl, 1998). Such

communication tools are commonly found in most classrooms today, either in the form of email,

Internet discussion boards, or word-processing programs. Researchers attribute the positive

effects to meaningful, real-world communication that enhances language development for ELL or

learning disabled students.

Another prominent feature of differentiated instruction is collaboration. Experts on

collaboration find that even informal collaboration is effective, whether it is a period lasting for a

matter of minutes or for the length of an entire class session. Informal cooperative learning groups

are used to facilitate focused, “turn-to-your partner” interactions designed for such things as

creating a tone conducive to learning, establishing lesson expectations, focusing student attention

on content, promoting cognitive engagement with the lesson, or providing closure at a lesson’s

conclusion. Informal cooperative groups “…also ensure that misconceptions, incorrect


understanding, and gaps in understanding are identified and corrected” (Johnson, Johnson, &

Smith, 1991, p. 5).

This type of collaboration is supported when students are working together on technology-

enhanced tasks. Researchers finding positive results include Singhanayok and Hooper (1998) who

compared cooperative vs. individual learning and learner vs. program control with high and low

ability sixth graders. Students were grouped by ability, and then randomly assigned to one of the

four treatment conditions. Members of the cooperative dyads then received training in cooperative

skills prior to the beginning of instruction, when all groups were asked to complete a computer-

based tutorial on relationships among organisms. Achievement results revealed significant positive

effects for the cooperative group condition for both high and low ability students.

Similarly, Xin (1999) studied the effects of computer-based cooperative learning with

general education students and students with learning disabilities. Prior to the study, the students

with learning disabilities had been receiving mathematics instruction in self-contained special

education classrooms. Both the general education students and those with learning disabilities

were integrated together and randomly assigned to one of six classrooms. Each day, 30 minutes of

teacher led instruction was followed by 20 minutes of computer-based instruction using three

commercially produced mathematics software packages. In three of the six classes, students used

the mathematics software in cooperative groups, while in the remaining three classes, students

worked individually. Analysis of student scores on the math subtest of the SAT showed

significant positive results for both general and special education students working cooperatively in

comparison to those working independently. Similar findings supporting the effectiveness of

integrating computers with cooperative learning have been reported by additional researchers

(Brush, 1997; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Simsek & Hooper, 1992).

The two strategies presented above, CMC and cooperative learning, represent strategies

useful for any technology-based task and any type of learner. Taken together, the differentiated


instructional and universal design principles lead to increased learner success. However, for

students to be successful with digital materials, it is important to provide greater flexibility in the

presentation of content.

2) Situate Tasks in a Flexible Context

The research described above on situated learning has demonstrated that students are both

much more successful and more motivated when their learning is anchored in a situated context. In

social studies, researchers have experimented with a number of contexts, from problem-based, to

self-generated, to role playing. One common design feature that makes these environments

universal is that the teacher can select, develop, situate, and modify resources as necessary. In fact,

within Decision Point! social studies teachers can create an activity and assign the activity to all

students or to some students (Saye & Brush, 2004). The teacher is also capable of assigning

different versions of the same activity to different groups of students, allowing students to work at

their own pace and providing an incremental workload for students who might require this feature.

In this way, students are all working within the same context and content, but for certain students

the materials are modified.

It is important to note that such contexts have proven to be successful for a wide range of

learners. For example, in a report of a role-play experience by Pisha and Coyne (2001), students

of all ability levels studying the Vietnam War were assigned different sets of electronic materials

for close reading. Each group was then given a “controversial statement” (p. 201) to refute or

defend with evidence. For example, one group received the following statement, “The Tet

Offensive was a disaster for the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong because their assaults were

beaten back and they suffered serious losses of troops” (Pisha & Coyne, 2001, p. 201). The

groups orally presented their arguments to a mock congress that debated the merits of each

presentation and decided who presented the strongest defense. The authors note remarkably higher

degrees of student engagement and higher quality work over more traditional work. They attribute


this to several factors, such as the “anytime / anywhere” accessibility of digital material, the

opportunity to collaborate with peers of different cognitive strengths, and the requirement of a

verbal rather than written final product (Pisha & Coyne, 2001).

The research efforts surrounding the Decision Point! materials (Saye & Brush, 1999;

Brush & Saye, 2000; Saye & Brush, 2004) have been conducted with students of diverse ethnic

backgrounds as well as varying achievement levels. Students in the Decision Point! groups have

outperformed their peers who received traditional instruction on the same topic. In response to

experiences with the multimedia materials and the tasks they conducted, one student remarked, “It

wasn’t just like the lecture and then take notes and fill out the worksheet and take a test…Reading

over everything, you kind of absorb stuff. And knowing you had to know it to do what was

coming up next” (Brush & Saye, 2000, p. 91). The authors attribute student success to

collaboration among students and the multiple perspectives afforded through the materials.

Situating the students in a meaningful context is a key component and aligns well with the

principles of Universal Design. However, it is also important to note that learners can sometimes

feel “lost” with multiple amounts of information. Tools for comprehension provide an important

support system.

3) Provide Tools for Comprehension and Integration of Information

I thought the subject itself was very interesting. It was just, there was so much information thrown at us, I think, at once, in the beginning, that we didn’t really know how to take it and what to do with it. (student quote, Brush & Saye, 2000, p. 92).

The above quotation represents how a student felt in exploring the digital materials and

engaging in the problem-based investigation within Decision Point!. While students have

experienced success in this environment, it is important to provide them with the necessary tools

for comprehension and integration of information. A more recent version of Decision Point!

provides students with a number of such tools, from a guided presentation tool to a more structured

overview of the materials (Saye & Brush, 2004).


Various other researchers have investigated the role of electronic tools to support student

performance in the context of tasks supported by multimedia. Tools can support learners in a

variety of functions: information seeking (Wolf, Brush & Saye, 2003), problem-solving (Cho &

Jonassen, 2002), reflection (Davis & Linn, 2000), research assistance (Wolf, 2000; Brinkerhoff

& Glazewski, 2004), task constraint (Simons, Klein, & Brush, 2004; Cho & Jonassen, 2002),

concept integration (Davis & Linn, 2000; Saye & Brush, 2002), and knowledge acquisition

(Roehler & Cantlon, 1997).

Modeling tools have helped support students in problem-solving and finding information.

In a study by Pedersen and Liu (2002), middle school students working in a problem-based

environment had access to multimedia materials for their resources. Each of three classes of sixth

grade students was assigned to a condition: modeling, didactic, and help. In the modeling group, an

expert modeled cognitive problem-solving processes and tool functionality in video format. In the

didactic group, the same video format was used to demonstrate tool functionality and offer tips on

how to work in a self-directed environment. In the help group, the expert described tool

functionality, but did not offer any advice on how students should work. Students worked through

the initial problem, and were then presented with a similar problem in which they had to apply

many of the same problem-solving strategies. The problem elicited questions that the students

needed to ask relating to this problem and a solution supported by a rationale. Students in the

modeling condition generated significantly more appropriate questions than the help group, and had

significantly higher scores on the problem solution than the other two groups. The implications of

these results suggest that enhancing students’ thinking during the inquiry process may lead to

enhanced problem-solving in other situations.

Another study implemented with sixth grade students found that a variety of tools are

necessary to support achievement with multimedia tasks, which included collaboration among

peers, a systematic approach for giving feedback, and additional structure in the environment to


ensure all students would succeed (Simons, Klein, & Brush, 2004). These finding are consistent

with those found by researchers who used a multimedia program with students who had a variety

of disabilities (Lancaster, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002). They found students displayed

important increases in knowledge, and two of the key factors leading to success was feedback

and modeling the processes for students.

Another study examined the effects of a tool to support the forming and presenting of

arguments. Dependent measures included argumentation and problem solving. Researchers

found that the use of a constraint-based tool (which constrained the interactions students could

make) demonstrated a positive effect on the ability of groups to form a collaborative, online

argument during group problem-solving (Cho & Jonassen, 2002). Students in the constraint-

based condition scored significantly higher on the elements of claims (making a prediction) and

grounds (using data to support claims) in constructing their arguments, though lower on the

component of warrants (describing why data supports or refutes claims).

In a report of a succession of three studies with the Knowledge Integration Environment

(KIE), Davis and Linn (2000) examined two types of tools in the form of questioning reflection

prompts: self-monitoring and activity. Self-monitoring prompts were designed to support

planning and reflection, whereas activity prompts were designed to facilitate completion of

specific aspects of the activity. The first study compared students in an activity prompt and an

activity-plus-self-monitoring, and found the overall quality of projects did not differ

significantly. However, students in the activity-plus-self-monitoring condition were significantly

more likely to use at least one scientific principle in their designs. In the second study, groups

were assigned to one of three conditions: self-monitoring, activity, and control. Students in the

self-monitoring condition were significantly more likely than the other two groups to explain

phenomena using a scientific principle, but were significantly less likely than students in the

activity prompt to complete all aspects of the project. To gain deeper insight into the use of self-


monitoring, students in a third study received self-monitoring and activity prompts. In a

qualitative analysis of student responses, the authors concluded that students who identified areas

of confusion benefited more from self-monitoring tools than those who denied difficulty. Taken

together, results from these three studies suggest students are more likely to integrate knowledge

and concepts if given tools for self-monitoring and reflection.

Depending on the environment and the content, the most appropriate tools should be

incorporated to fit the task. Tools do not have to be computer-based, as Simons et al. found when

a teacher created a series of paper-based graphical organizers to help students understand and

integrate complex information (2004). These students found the tools helpful, and the ease of use

associated with paper-based organizers allowed students to review information at home when they

did not have access to the database. This provides important support, especially for learners who

need multiple representations of information.

4) Capitalize on the Value of Visual and Textual Representation of Information

The work of Mayer and his colleagues has contributed greatly to the overall knowledge

base surrounding the importance of visual and textual representation of information, and has

contributed to our understanding of the modality effect. This recognized effect confirms that

learners who receive instruction in audiovisual format (i.e. textual and pictorial, such as using

visual images to accompany the narration of text) remember more of what they learned than those

who receive the same information only visually (such as images and text) (Brunken, Plass, &

Leutner, 2003, 2004; Mayer, 2001; Mayer & Moreno, 1998). The modality effect is based on the

premise that all learners have a limited capacity to comprehend and retain information. However, it

is commonly assumed that there are two “tracks” or pathways to the learner memory: auditory and

visual (Baddeley, 1992; Clark & Pavio, 1991; Pavio, 1986). Placing content on both tracks, so to

speak, to the memory may promote more coherent and connect representation of information

(Moreno & Mayer, 2000, 2002).


In a series of three experiments regarding this theory, Moreno and Mayer (2002) studied

students who received instruction from one of a variety of conditions: as narration only, narration

plus visual, narration prior to visual, or narration after visual. The researchers found that students

learned better with words and images rather than images alone, even if the information was

redundant. These findings add to a previous body of research confirming positive effects for more

than one type of information mode.

This effect is probably most effectively captured by the students’ own words, such as a

student who worked through the Decision Point! program:

I could imagine it better . . . We had more of a picture of what people were like . . . like, there was a video of [George] Wallace; just the accent and everything, the attitude, everything combined gives you an idea of what they were like back then, and you wouldn’t really know all about that just reading a book. . . We knew about it before, but when you hear it and when you, like, see it, it just kind of takes you there. . . . You don’t really get to put yourself into history, you know; it’s just kind of like facts, and you’re just instilling them. . . if you could put yourself into history, you know, like we did in this [unit], and, like, if you could relate to history . . . that would help me more probably. . . (Saye & Brush, 1999, p. 496).

The student is expressing both the added learning value as well as an “affective” value: the

opportunity to actually “see” history in action, with the “accent,” the “attitude,” and “everything

combined” to get a sense of how things were during that time. The teacher of this student also

confirmed the value of the materials: “That’s what I liked about it, to have that much [information]

at hand, and they could either read it or they could look at the pictures or the videos” Brush &

Saye, 2000, p. 92). And one other student felt the value was in what they would retain after the

instruction was over; as one stated,

You can learn more maybe in an encyclopedia or in a book, but will you want to know more? I mean it’s like…will you carry it on? Like next year will I remember what I read in this book? Probably not, but I will remember those pictures I saw because they’ll stay in my mind. And it’s more about what I carry with me later…I mean when you say “learning”…I can learn facts but I won’t learn, you know, the experiences…and I think that’s what a lot of people remember and those experiences help them to learn like other things... (Brush & Saye, 2000, p. 92).


Taken together, both qualitative and quantitative research points to an important impact for

multimedia materials. The value of being able to “see” history in action combined with the power

of capitalizing on “dual tracks” to the mind present a powerful set of resources not afforded

without multimedia. However, as all teachers and administrators are aware, it is important to

ensure one final need of learners is met: the need to meet national and state standards.

IV. Meeting National and State Standards

A number of experts have emphasized that in today’s society, graduates have a lot of

demands placed on them. In addition to learning the content for each subject area, they must learn

to reason and solve problems; they must collect, interpret, and present information; and they must

be able to collaborate with others as well as work independently (Rice & Wilson, 1999). In

addition, a number of professional organizations increasingly emphasize critical thinking, decision

making, and new knowledge construction (e.g., the National Council for the Social Studies

(NCSS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)).

In order to assist students in meeting such cognitive and metacognitive requirements, a

number of organizations highlight the role of technology. However, as experts caution, technology

will not meet the demands placed on students; in fact, a “shift” in teaching approaches is needed

that emphasize critical thinking, decision making, and new knowledge construction (Rice &

Wilson, 1999; Bennett, 2002). This leads to a changes in roles for the teacher and student as the

teacher becomes more of a guide while the student becomes more active in his or her learning

(Bennett, 2002).

It is recognized that the Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (CSSS)

(http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/) do not directly address the issue of teaching social

studies with technology. However, there are a number of ways in which Internet and multimedia

technology can support student efforts to meet the standards and requirements, as described below.


Historical Interpretation

Both the national and state curriculum social studies standards stress the skills needed for

elementary students to “interpret” historical events. This includes summarizing key events,

identifying characteristics of the places they are studying, and describing multiple causes and

effects of events. However, it is a pervasive concern that students are not retaining this

information, even if they participate in fantastic activities (Smith & Neimi, 2001). Multimedia

resources and tools can assist in this effort; when the information can be manipulated by students

themselves, they are in a position to construct their own knowledge and understanding. Online

tools such as notebooks and annotation guides enable students to keep and save the most relevant

information as well as record questions they wonder about.

Chronological and Spatial Thinking

Another key skill highlighted in the national and state curriculum standards is the

requirement for students to place key events and people in the historical era they are studying,

known as “chronological and spatial thinking.” This also involves describing how the present is

connected to the past and noting both similarities and differences between the two. The NCSS

terms this “spatial views” and “geographic perspective.” Without multimedia resources, teachers

need to rely on materials in texts and local libraries to promote this type of thinking. With

multimedia resources, teachers can highlight two documents and present them to students (either

virtually or in hard copy) along with annotations to guide students’ analysis. For example, in the

Decision Point! program, students analyze 2 philosophy statements from the Student Nonviolent

Coordinating Committee: one early in the Civil Rights movement and one later. The themes and

tones of the two documents read much differently, and students can speculate regarding reasons for

this. Finally, such resources also enable teachers to differentiate instruction for students with

special needs; they can alter the documents or annotate paragraphs to support student

understanding.


Research, Evidence, and Point of View

Both national and state curriculum standards give emphasis to research with primary and

secondary sources, which involves interpreting the point of view of a source and providing

evidence to support claims. Students must also distinguish fact from fiction through study of

historical figures and fictionalized characters. Without digital materials, it would be difficult for

teachers to engage students in such activities; with digital materials, students are able to access

primary and secondary sources as well as compare documents. A number of online databases

exist: Library of Congress's American Memories (http://memory.loc.gov), the Valley of the

Shadow project (http://www.iath.virginia. edu/vshadow2), the National Climatic Data Center

(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html), and the U.S. Census (http://census.gov). With available

tools, teachers can select from among these resources to create meaningful activities that will

engage students in this work.

Summary

It was not that long ago that B. F. Skinner predicted machines would replace teachers.

While machines are capable of doing far more than he probably imagined, his prediction could not

have been more incorrect. Now more than ever, teachers play an integral role in their students’

success. And when teacher access and use available resources to their full capacity, it means they

are in a position to better equip students to meet their full capacity.

References

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-9.

Bass, R. & Rosenzweig, R. (1999). Rewiring the history and social studies classroom: Needs, frameworks, dangers, and proposals. White paper prepared for Department of Education, Forum on Technology in K-12 Education: Envisioning a New Future. Retrieved January 5, 2005 from http://chnm.gmu.edu/assets/historyessays/rewiring.html

Bennett, L. (2002). A journey of discovery through cyberspace. The International Social Studies


Forum, 2, 163-165.

Berson, M. J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28.

Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S. Y., Mehta, Z. D., & Watson, E. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 5-22.

Bransford, J. D. & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Brinkerhoff, J. & Glazewski, K. (2004). Support of expert and novice teachers within a technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: A case study. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology, 1, 219-30.

Brunken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 58-62.

Brunken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115-32.

Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 51–64.

Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 79-100.

CAST. (2004). Assistive technologies and UDL. Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://www.cast.org/udl/AssistiveTechnologiesvs.UDL13.cfm

Cho, K-L. & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5-22.

Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology


Review, 3, 149-210.

Curry, C. (2003). Universal design accessibility for all learners. Educational Leadership, 61, 55-60.

Davis, E. A. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-37.

Diem, R. A. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 28(4) 493-501.

Dils, A. K. (2000). Using technology in a middle school social studies classroom. International Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 102-12.

Pedersen, S. & Liu, M. (

Rice, M. L. & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90, 28-33.

Rieth, H. J.,

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported


learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27, 468-500.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 77-96.

Saye, J.W. & Brush, T. (2004). Promoting civic competence through problem-based history learning experiments. In G.E. Hamot, J.J. Patrick, & R.S. Leming (Eds)., Civic Learning in Teacher Education, Vol. 3. Bloomington, IN: The Social Studies.

Schacter, J. & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 329-43.

Shiveley, J. M. & VanFossen, P. J. (2004 October). Toward assessing Internet use in the social studies classroom: Developing an inventory based on a review of relevant literature. Paper presented at the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for Social Studies, Baltimore, MD.

Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 57-69

Simons, K. D., Klein, J., & Brush, T. (2004). Instructional strategies utilized during the implementation of a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15, 213-33.

Simsek, A. & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 209-18.

Singhanayok, C. & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46, 17-33.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The Teaching Machine. New York: Appleton-Century Croft.

Smith, J. & Niemi, R. G. (2001). Learning history in school: The impact of course work and instructional practices on achievement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 29, 18-42.


Steelman, J. D., Grable, L. L., & Vasu, E. S. (2004/2005). Expanding global awareness: The use of student-developed multimedia created in a cooperative learning environment. International Journal of Social Education, 19, 41-50.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1997). The Jasper project: Lesson in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2/3, 119-45.

Van Handle, D. & Corl, K. (1998). Extending the dialogue: Using electronic mail and the Internet to promote conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO Journal, 15, 129-43.

VanFossen, P.J. (2000). An analysis of the use of the Internet and World Wide Web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana. International Journal of Social Education, (14), p. 87-109.

Whitworth, S., & Berson, M.J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 472-509.

Wolf, S., Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2003). The Big Six information skills as a metacognitive scaffold: A case study. School Library Media Research, 6. Retrieved January 11 from http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/contents.htm

Xin, J. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for students with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 61-78.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations: Executive summary. Teachers College Record, 104, 482-515

design rationale for digital materials -1- running head...

Documents