ENHANCING THE USE OF HISTORIC SITE TEXTS AS PRIMARY SOURCES FOR
HISTORICAL INQUIRY THROUGH FOCUSED INSTRUCTION
By
Denice Blair Leach

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology and Educational Technology
2011

ABSTRACT
ENHANCING THE USE OF HISTORIC SITE TEXTS AS PRIMARY SOURCES FOR
HISTORICAL INQUIRY THROUGH FOCUSED INSTRUCTION
By
Denice Blair Leach
This mixed methods study examined fourth- and fifth-grade students' experiences in using
multiple texts within a historic site environment (specifically objects, buildings, tour guide's
words, labels and signs) as sources of information for historical inquiry in order to determine
whether providing focused instruction about these multiple texts and intertextual reading
enhances student achievement and motivation to engage with texts. Phenomenographic and
survey research methodologies were employed. For the quantitative portion of the study, a
quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the effects of instruction about multiple
historic site texts on the students' conceptual development and abilities to use these texts for
historical inquiry. Students from two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade classrooms participating
in a visit to a local historic site were assigned to one of two groups: an instruction group, in
which students took part in focused classroom instruction about the multitextual historic site
environment and a historic site field trip, or a non-instruction group, in which students took a
field trip to the same site but did not receive the classroom instruction. Pre- and post-visit
questionnaires were administered that assessed participants' concepts of the multitextual historic
site environment, knowledge of source use, and motivation to engage with sources (including
value and perceived ability). For the qualitative portion of the study, transcripts from the
instruction group's classroom discussions and written artifacts from two participant source use
activities completed by all students were examined using systematic content analysis methods.

Intertextual reading models exhibited in the participants' source use activities were assessed and
categorized. In both portions of the study, analyses focused on describing the character of
students' concepts of historic site sources and on comparing group and grade level differences in
students' knowledge of source use, motivation, critical use of sources in the activities, and the
intertextual reading models exhibited in the source use activities. The results of this study
showed that the participants' abilities to use historic site sources were related to their conceptual
understandings of sources, participation in the focused instruction, and grade level. The
importance of scaffolding and pre-visit preparation for making a difference in the students'
conceptual development and skills improvement was demonstrated. Overall, students showed
significant improvements in their understandings of the use of historical sources for historical
inquiry and a shift toward thinking like historians. Classroom and historic site educators may
use this information as a basis for assessing students' conceptual understandings historic site
texts and for designing effective learning experiences for fourth- and fifth-grade students. New
theorizations based on the findings in the areas of intertextual reading and historical source
terminology are presented.

Copyright by
DENICE BLAIR LEACH
2011

To the late Dr. Jere Brophy,
who through sharing his knowledge and enthusiasm
showed me how to be a researcher

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No accomplishment is the product of one person's efforts alone. For helping this project
come to successful fruition, I am indebted to my committee members. I would like to thank Dr.
Patrick Dickson, my advisor, for his unfailing support and constant interest in my development
as a scholar. I owe him much for expanding my horizons, especially those related to teaching
with technology. Thank you, Dr. Dickson, for always being there. Dr. Elizabeth Heilman shared
her great talent for qualitative research and deep thinking. She modeled true investment in a
student's success and thus forever will shape what I do as a teacher. Dr. Kurt Dewhurst always
showed concern and gave encouragement, and his work has taught me how to make your passion
into your life's work. His example of reaching out to others worldwide and making a real
difference inspires me. Dr. Douglas Hartman helped me to develop new ways to think about
intertextuality in historic sites. I valued your creativity and the insights you shared.
I also would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in my study.
Working with you was a privilege, and you taught me so much. Without you, this project would
not have happened. I hope you enjoyed the experience as much as I did. The Ella Sharp
Museum of Art and History provided the historic site visits for the students free of charge, which
was greatly appreciated. Special recognition is due Ms. Judy Horn, a fantastic museum educator,
who developed and provided the programs for the students on-site.
My colleagues in the Writing, Research, and Professional Skills (WRAPS) group worked
through this dissertation with me from the first outline to the final draft. Knowing I would see
your smiling faces every week meant so much. Thanks for everything. Many special individuals
in the College of Education at Michigan State University created an intellectually stimulating

vi

and friendly place to learn and work. My friends at the Michigan Historic Preservation Network
helped me stay in touch with the reasons I do what I do. Dr. Robin Dickson cheered me on and
provided invaluable advice.
Finally, David Leach, an incredibly supportive spouse, and my devoted family made
everything possible. Through the years of hard work, you always stood by me. You make all
the difference.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................................7
What Is a Historic Site? ..............................................................................................................7
What Are Historic Site Texts? ....................................................................................................9
Theoretical Frameworks ...........................................................................................................11
Literature for Theory Based Analysis .......................................................................................20
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS ..............................................................................................................33
Research Design........................................................................................................................33
Methodological Framework ......................................................................................................33
Research Questions ...................................................................................................................36
Participants and Context ...........................................................................................................37
Procedures .................................................................................................................................43
Data Analyses ...........................................................................................................................50
Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................................53
Delimitations and Limitations...................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 4
FOCUSED INSTRUCTION SESSION RESULTS ......................................................................57
The Nature of Primary and Secondary Sources ........................................................................58
D-A-C/C Source Evaluation Method ........................................................................................65
The Nature and Evaluation of Specific Source Types ..............................................................76
Intertextual Use of Sources for Historical Inquiry ....................................................................86
Discussion .................................................................................................................................89
CHAPTER 5
PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ........................................................................100
Data Analyses .........................................................................................................................101
Source Concepts Category Results .........................................................................................103
Source Use Knowledge Category Results ..............................................................................123
Motivation Category Results ..................................................................................................126
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................130
viii

CHAPTER 6
SOURCE USE ACTIVITIES RESULTS ....................................................................................143
Data Analyses .........................................................................................................................146
Evidence Report Activity Results ...........................................................................................148
Source Based Question Activity Results ................................................................................159
Comparisons of Intertextual Models between the ERA and SBQA .......................................168
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................172
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................187
Responses to the Research Questions .....................................................................................187
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................203
Limitation of the Study and Directions for Future Research ..................................................204
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................208
Appendix A: Elementary School-aged Children's Skills and Challenges When
Working with Primary Sources ..........................................................................................209
Appendix B: Diagrams of Instruction Group Classrooms ......................................................212
Appendix C: Participant Questionnaire ..................................................................................214
Appendix D: Classroom Sessions for the Instruction Group ..................................................220
Appendix E: Concepts Related to Research Questions Discussed in the Instruction
Group Classroom Sessions .................................................................................................221
Appendix F: D-A-C/C Source Evaluation Method .................................................................223
Appendix G: Descriptions of Transcripts from the Instructional Sessions.............................224
Appendix H: Evidence Report Activity ..................................................................................225
Appendix I: Source Based Question Activity .........................................................................229
Appendix J: Researcher Identity Memo .................................................................................231
Appendix K: Short Essays Critiqued by Instruction Group Students in Session 4 ................233
Appendix L: Percentage of Participants Selecting Sources on Questionnaire
Item 9..................................................................................................................................234
Appendix M: Participants' Mean Source Reliability Ratings from Questionnaire
Item 12................................................................................................................................235
Appendix N: Percentage of Participants' Giving Correct Responses in Source Use
Knowledge Category ..........................................................................................................236
Appendix O: Scoring Procedure for Motivation Category .....................................................237
Appendix P: Coding Categories for the Evidence Report Activity ........................................238
Appendix Q: Intertextual Reading Model Coding Scheme ....................................................239
Appendix R: Examples of Essays with Mush, Separate Representation, and
Documents' Models ............................................................................................................240
Appendix S: Source Based Question Activity Codes .............................................................242
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................244

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Attributes of the Participants' Classrooms ...................................................................... 39
Table 2. Percentage of Participants Who Defined "Primary Source" in Terms of Particular
Conceptual Themes on the Pre- and Post-Tests .................................................................. 108
Table 3. Percentage of Participants Who Defined "Secondary Source" in Terms of Particular
Conceptual Themes on the Pre- and Post-Tests .................................................................. 108
Table 4. Percentage of Students Suggesting Learning Methods from Sources on the Pre- and
Post-Tests ............................................................................................................................ 114
Table 5. Percentage of Participants Indicating Particular Beliefs about Intertextual Use of
Sources ................................................................................................................................ 119
Table 6. Percentage of Participants Indicating Particular Beliefs about Responding to
Disagreements among Sources ........................................................................................... 122
Table 7. Participants' Mean Motivation Scores .......................................................................... 127
Table 8. Mean Expectancy and Value Scores on the Pre- and Post-Tests by Study Group and
Grade Level ......................................................................................................................... 130
Table 9. Word and Sentence Counts from the Evidence Report Activity .................................. 149
Table 10. Percentage of Participants Who Used D-A-C/C Methods in the Evidence Report
Activity ............................................................................................................................... 150
Table 11. Participants' Mean Ratings of Source Reliability ....................................................... 155
Table 12. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Evidence Report Activity
Essays.................................................................................................................................. 156
Table 13. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Evidence Report Activity
Essay By Group within Grade ............................................................................................ 158
Table 14. Word and Sentence Counts from the Source Based Question Activity ...................... 160
Table 15. Sources Selected by Participants in the Source Based Question Activity .................. 161
Table 16. Percentage of Participants Using D-A-C/C Methods in the Source Based Question
Activity ............................................................................................................................... 163
Table 17. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Source Based Question
Activity Essays.................................................................................................................... 167

x

Table 18. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Source Based Question
Activity Essay By Group within Grade .............................................................................. 168
Table 19. Percentage of Participants Retaining Intertextual Models between the Evidence Report
Activity and Source Based Question Activity .................................................................... 169
Table 20. Percentage of Participants Selecting Sources on Questionnaire Item 9 ..................... 234
Table 21. Participants' Mean Source Reliability Ratings from Questionnaire Item 12 .............. 235
Table 22. Percentage of Participants' Giving Correct Responses in Source Use Knowledge
Category .............................................................................................................................. 236

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Researcher's graphic representation of the documents' model described by Britt,
Perfetti, Sandak, and Rouet (1999) ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 2. Continuum of complexity in the four intertextual reading models ............................... 18
Figure 3. The Merriman-Sharp House at the Ella Sharp Museum of Art and History ................. 42
Figure 4. Facade of the horse barn at the Ella Sharp Museum of Art and History. ...................... 42
Figure 5. Instuction students' skills in evaluaing sources using the D-A-C/C method ................. 77
Figure 6. Percentage of participants identifying specific historic site sources ........................... 105
Figure 7. Means of participants' source reliability ratings. ......................................................... 116
Figure 8. Percentage of participants by study group giving correct responses on the Source Use
Knowledge questions .......................................................................................................... 125
Figure 9. Differences in the instruction and non-instruction groups' mean motivation scores on
the pre- and post-tests ......................................................................................................... 128
Figure 10. Differences in Grade 4 and Grade 5 students' mean motivation scores on the pre- and
post-tests ............................................................................................................................. 129
Figure 11. Writing from Wyatt's (Grade 4, instruction group) Evidence Report Activity ......... 148
Figure 12. Percentage of participants who used D-A-C/C methods for specific sources in the
Evidence Report Activity .................................................................................................... 151
Figure 13. Katie's (Grade 5, instruction group) list of sources from the Source Based Question
Activity ............................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 14. Percentage of participants by group and grade mentioning particular source types in
the Source Based Question Activity ................................................................................... 162
Figure 15. Percentage of participants giving "high," "low," and "no" source reliability ratings on
the Source Based Question Activity ................................................................................... 165
Figure 16. Diagram of the Grade 4 instruction group classroom ............................................... 212
Figure 17. Diagram of the Grade 5 instruction group classroom ............................................... 213
Figure 18. Concepts related to the research questions discussed in instruction group classroom
sessions ............................................................................................................................... 222

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Historical thinking, the means through which history is constructed and understood
(Limón, 2002), is advocated by national and state history standards and by experts in the fields of
history and social studies education. It has been argued successfully that elementary school-aged
children are able to think historically (Barton, 1997a; Fink, 2001; Martin, 1990; VanSledright,
2002b). Barton (1997a) observed, "Attempting simplistically to establish whether children can
or cannot understand history distorts the field beyond recognition; children clearly do understand
history—the important issues are what they understand and how they understand it" (p. 160).
Wineburg (2010) defended the notion that historical thinking is necessary for all students by
arguing,
Students need to be taught to 'think like historians' not because they will become
professional historians but precisely because most won't. The goals of school history are
not vocational but to prepare students to tolerate complexity, to adapt to new situations,
and to resist the first answer that comes to mind. (p. 4)
Helping K-12 students to achieve this type of thinking is the goal of the 1996 Revised
National History Standards. The Standards have been used as a model for history education in
over thirty states (National Center for History in the Schools, NCHS, 2004). According to the
Standards, the use of primary sources (including documents, photographs, oral histories,
artifacts, and historic places) is integral to facilitating historical thinking. For example, one of
the five types of historical thinking in the section "Developing Standards in History for Students
in Grades K-4," the NCHS advocated
Historical research capabilities, including the ability to formulate historical questions

1

from encounters with historical documents, artifacts, photos, visits to historical sites, and
eyewitness accounts; to acquire information concerning the historical time and place
where the artifact, document, or other record was created; and to construct a historical
narrative or story concerning it. (para. 6)
In other words, the Standards suggest that students should engage with primary and secondary
sources from the time they enter school in Kindergarten and throughout elementary school.
Children's use of primary and secondary sources in elementary schools has been the focus
of the majority of research studies about elementary school students' historical thinking.
Teaching children to learn history through this method is an established K-12 practice involving
asking questions about the past, which then are answered through analysis and interpretation of
sources. Understanding the characteristics of primary and secondary (historiography) sources is
central to this method (Barton, 2001a, 2001b; Drake & Nelson, 2005; Schamel, 1998; Zarillo,
2004), as is instruction in how to use sources (Drake & Brown, 2003; Fertig, 2005).
With a primary function of preserving evidences of the past for people present and future
(Bain & Ellenbogen, 2002; Schell, 1992; Tilden, 1957/1977), historic sites provide primary and
secondary sources for information about the past. (Although many definitions exist, in what
follows, historic site will refer to a place officially designated as historic by local, state, national,
or international authorities). Historic sites are considered places for the public to learn about
history, through resources that are available in these places, including the built environment,
landscapes, spaces, narratives, and more (Datel, 1985; Glassberg, 2001). The physicality of
objects and places provides opportunities for learning about the past (Donnelly, 2002; Prown,
1980; Schlereth, 1985), because they contain evidence of the past that is with us in contemporary
form, as Lowenthal (1985) asserted, "Artifacts are at once past and present" (p. 248). Like

2

museums (Bal, 1992; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Ravelli, 2006), historic sites provide non-material
sources of information as well, such as discourses and narratives. Tour guides communicate
narratives about people, objects, and places in historic sites, which may be as well remembered
by visitors as the people, objects, and places they describe (Leach, 2011a). Curators, educators,
and exhibit developers provide curatorial narratives through label and wall text, exhibition
practices, and spatial manipulation (Stainton, 2001). In sum, Meng (2004) described museum
exhibitions as "obviously multimodal in that different semiotic resources, such as photographs,
three-dimensional physical objects, space and language, are co-deployed in complex ways to
construct meaning" (p. 28). Similarly, a historic site is not one thing; rather, it is a multimodal,
intertextual environment (Mathewson-Mitchell, 2007; Ravelli, 2006), which supplies multiple
types of information to visitors. Texts within historic sites must be read against each other in
order for learners to interpret this information.
Every year, millions of people visit historic sites worldwide. In the United States, the
National Park Service reported over nine million visits to National Historic Sites in 2008 (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2009). State and local sites add millions more to this number. Many
of these visitors are children on school field trips. These trips have the potential to deepen
children's understandings and appreciation of the past, allow them to practice the work of
historians, and connect them with authentic historical objects and places (Farmer, Knapp, &
Benton, 2007; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). In Michigan, the state history curriculum sequence
begins in third grade, and as a result, many Michigan students visit local and state historic sites,
such as the State Capitol and Crossroads Village in Genesee County. For some students, this is
their first exposure to a historic site. Fifth-grade children study early American history, and
students in this grade in some schools visit local sites or travel greater distances to sites, such as

3

Colonial Michilimackinac in Northern Michigan.
Purpose of the Study
The impetus for this study was the realization that although millions of elementary school
children in the United States visit historic sites each year and the expectation exists in federal and
state curriculum standards that they will use these sites as sources of information for historical
inquiry, little understanding exists about students' capabilities in this area. Historical inquiry
involves working with multiple sources, requiring skill in evaluating sources and making
intertextual comparisons, but research on children's use of primary and secondary sources
generally has been confined to their study of documents, oral histories, and photographs.
Although the literature about teaching with primary sources has explored children's experiences
using these types of sources, no known studies expressly examine elementary school students'
use of the multitextual historic site environment as sources for historical inquiry. Further, in
most of the studies that do center on aspects of intertextual comparison in children's primary
source use, theoretical aspects of intertextuality, such as those from the fields of reading and new
literacies, have been ignored.
The purpose of this study was to examine fourth- and fifth-grade students' experiences
with historic site texts as sources for historical inquiry and to determine whether providing
focused instruction in using sources within historic sites (specifically, built and spatial
environments, artifacts, tour guide narrative communication, and curatorial interpretation, such
as labels and signage) enhanced students' critical use of sources and motivation to engage with
texts. Because fourth and fifth graders comprise a large historic site visitor population from the
elementary grades in Michigan and many other states, due to state and American history being
taught at these grade levels, conducting a study with students at these grade levels offered the

4

opportunity to understand more about the learning abilities of a population that is likely to
experience historic sites on school field trips.
Knowledge is limited about how these learners, particularly children who comprise a
large visitor population of historic sites, make sense of the multiple texts in these environments.
What are children's concepts of these texts? What do they believe about using texts for
answering historical questions? What texts do they think are most reliable and why? What do
they learn from different types of texts? How do they "read" multiple texts together?
In what follows, these questions are addressed in depth. The goal for this research study
is not only to answer these questions but also to provide information useful for shaping our
understandings about how children experience historic site environments and what they need to
be engaged learners in these environments. It is my hope that the answers to these questions will
supply information for classroom and historic site educators useful in producing relevant and
effective learning experiences for students in historic places. Further, this information may assist
professionals in developing related educational materials, activities, and pedagogies. Finally,
this knowledge may help to produce students who are more critical consumers of information in
multitextual forms, an especially necessary skill in a knowledge economy (Goldman, 2004;
Wineburg, 2010).
The next chapter introduces the literature used to frame this study. Literature related to
the nature of historic sites, children's concepts of the multiple historic site texts, children's skills
and challenges in using sources for historical inquiry, and use of document based question
activities in elementary school classrooms is discussed. The theoretical and empirical research
discussed therein provided the basis for the research study questions and design and informed the
interpretation of the results.

5

Chapter 3 outlines the research methods for the study. Information about the study's
research design, methodologies, research questions, participants, and data collection procedures
are presented here. The reasoning for making certain design and methodological decisions for
the study is included in this chapter.
Chapters 4-6 detail the research results of the study. Chapters 4 presents the results from
classroom sessions with the instruction group, Chapter 5 details the results of the participant
questionnaire, and Chapter 6 discusses the results of the two source use activities. In these
chapters, you will encounter a group of enthusiastic, bright, and generous young people, who
shared their experiences learning about the multiple texts within historic sites with me. What
they believed about historic site sources, how they used sources for historical inquiry, and the
skills they exhibited and challenges they faced are presented and discussed in these chapters.
The results from using a variety of data collection methods and instruments provide a clearer
picture of the children's conceptual understandings and abilities.
Finally, Chapter 7 highlights the most important findings and implications of this
research study. Connections from the results to the literature and existing theory are made and
discussed. Based on this discussion, suggestions are made about directions for future research.

6

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of the literature on the major terms and concepts
employed in this research study as well as delineates the theoretical frameworks for the study.
This study is grounded within three major theoretical frameworks: conceptual development,
intertextual reading theory, and motivation theory. Literature employed in the study's theory
based analyses came from the following areas: children's concepts of the nature of multiple texts
within historic sites, children's skills and challenges in using primary sources and multiple texts,
and use of document based question activities in elementary school history and social studies
education.
What Is a Historic Site?
Historic sites may be defined in many ways. Literature characterizes historic sites as
places for learning that are multitextual in nature. This literature also provides information about
experts' concepts of historic site, in order that they may later be compared to the research study
participants' concepts.
A Place for Inquiry and Learning
Many history and material culture scholars assert that historic sites are sources of
information about the past. Historic places allow the public to learn about history, through
resources that are available in these places, including the built environment, landscapes, spaces,
narratives, and more (Datel, 1985; Glassberg, 1996). Sites are physical environments in which
visitors can experience the spatial settings that people in the past experienced (Donnelly, 2002).
These places contain parts of the past that are with us in contemporary form, as Lowenthal
(1985) asserted, "Artifacts are at once past and present" (p. 248). Accessing primary information
through the physicality of objects and places provides opportunities for learning about the past

7

not possible with other types of primary sources, such as documents or photographs. Schlereth
(1985) contended, "Physical objects are viewed as slightly less biased records of past human
activity in that they usually survive not as transcriptions or translations or condensations of event
but often as events themselves" (p. 24, emphasis added). Thus, encounters with authentic
historical objects are regarded not only as opportunities for knowledge acquisition but also as a
type of knowledge of past events or personages (Bain & Ellenbogen, 2002; Gelman & Frazier,
2007; Huyssen, 1995; Nemeroff & Rozin, 2000).
From the perspective of many professionals working in the museum field, historic sites
are considered primary sources. In a content analysis survey of the websites of the 67 historic
sites/houses accredited by the American Association of Museums (Leach, 2011b), the researcher
found that one of the most commonly discussed aspects of the historic site's nature was the site
as a primary source (65.6% of the sites), exceeding the remembrance function (55.2%) or
connecting people to the past (49.2%). These institutions and others stress the function of the
historic site as unique locations embodying evidence of the past. An emphasis on visitors
learning from historic places as primary sources was found on these websites. The following
examples show how particular institutions described primary sources at their sites.
•

"Students will compare and contrast their lives with those of colonial children using
primary sources and material culture in a hands-on and interactive setting" (Carlyle
House Historic Park, Alexandria, Virginia, http://www.nvrpa.org/parks/carlylehouse/
index.php).

•

Opportunities for students "to analyze, interpret, and evaluate primary source
material" (Hermann-Grima/Gallier Historic Houses, New Orleans, Louisiana,
http://www.hgghh.org/).

8

•

"Our programs feature experiences with real objects in a real place. Getting close to
primary sources like buildings, landscape and artifacts provides a tangible connection
to the past" (Historic Deerfield, Deerfield, Massachusetts, http://www.historicdeerfield.org).

•

"Primary sources offer open-ended opportunities for teachers to encourage students’
curiosity and creativity and strengthen critical thinking skills" (Rutherford B. Hayes
Presidential Center, Fremont, Ohio, http://www.rbhayes.org/hayes).

Likewise, the National Park Service's Teaching with Historic Places (TwHP) program,
established in 1991, promotes the use of historic sites as primary sources. The more than 130
available lessons include introductions, practice in using primary evidence, hypothesis
generation, and analysis. Boland (2002) suggested that by using the lesson plans, "teachers and
students practice examining places as three-dimensional sources of evidence" (p. 21).
For the purpose of this study, historic site will be defined as an environment having
historic significance to a community or communities of people and possessing the characteristics
of a primary source, which may be explored through the historical method and material culture
methods.
What Are Historic Site Texts?
The historic site environment is not the same as a museum environment, although the two
have many similarities. Historic sites and museums both provide places for encountering objects
and narratives. Both are concerned with learning and visitor engagement. One major difference
is that while the museum provides a display context for objects, the historic site environment is
its own display context, and in its entirety, may be considered an object as well (Leach, 2007).
In many cases, however, literature from museum studies is equally applicable to historic sites, as

9

in literature about the multitextual museum environment.
The notion of "museum-as-text" has been explored by a number of scholars (Bal, 1992;
Macdonald, 1996; Silverstone, 1994). Ravelli (2006) asserted, "The meanings at stake need to
be interpreted in context, and the immediate context is that of museums themselves as a kind of
'text': a space which makes meanings, and which can be 'read'" (p. 119). Mason (2006) argued
that the analogy brings to the fore issues of narrative, authorship, and the place of the museum
visitor in the construction of meaning. She observed,
The advantage of understanding museums in terms of texts and narratives is that it moves
away from privileging or compartmentalizing a particular aspect of the museum; for
example, its building, collections, individual staff, or organizational status. All these
components remain crucial, but a textual approach argues that they must be viewed in
concert to understand the possible meanings of the museum. (p. 27)
Involving visitors in the identification and evaluation of museum texts with the goal of
creating meaning is central to learning, and this learning is multitextual and multimodal (HooperGreenhill, 1994; Meng, 2004). This multimodality creates an environment that is experienced
both physically and discursively, through various semiotic resources (Meng, 2004; Ravelli,
2006). For visitors to engage with multiple texts, they must possess multiple literacies, including
"linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial patterns, technological and print-based" (MathewsonMitchell, 2007). Gaining these literacies comes from practice, as Hein (2000) concluded,
"Learning to interpret them [visible things] is as necessary an ability for everyone as learning
how to use numbers or how to speak and listen, but it is far less commonly recognized" (p. 111).
Gaining and practicing these literacies may be challenging, especially for novices (Bain &
Ellenbogen, 2002).

10

For the purpose of this study, historic site texts will be defined as the sources, both
tangible and intangible, for historical inquiry and learning contained in or produced by/within a
historic site that may be explored using the historical method and material culture methods. The
major focus will be on the following types of historic site texts: objects, buildings, tour guide's
words, and labels and signs. Object is defined as a three-dimensional item (e.g., rocking chair).
Building is defined as any structure in an outdoor space designed for particular human or animal
use (e.g., house, barn, and outhouse). Tour guide's words are the verbal communications of a
person who educates visitors and directs their experiences at historic sites. The term tour guide
was used interchangeably with the word docent when interacting with the research study
participants. Labels and signs are defined as written communications at a historic site. Labels
and signs are a common means of conveying information at historic sites, including visitor
orientation and direction and exhibit information.
Theoretical Frameworks
The three major theoretical frameworks framing the study – conceptual development,
intertextual reading theory, and motivation theory – are discussed below.
Conceptual Development
Learners' concepts are the foundations of their knowledge. Concept has been defined as
"a perceived regularity in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a
label" (Novak & Cañas, 2008, p. 1, emphasis original), essentially what people know or believe
about particular things or ideas. People's concepts are the building blocks of their reasoning
systems that expand and become more sophisticated over time (diSessa, 2002). Concepts help to
create systems of reasoning or "set[s] of core principles that define the entities covered by the
domain and support reasoning about those entities" (Carey & Spelke, 1994). These systems are

11

the "interrelated propositions" or "mental models" that Chi and Roscoe (2002) defined as
knowledge (p. 6).
Conceptual development occurs when learners adapt or reorganize their concepts (Carey
& Spelke, 1994; diSessa, 2002), in other words, when learning occurs. Concepts may change
from naïve constructions to constructions more in line with expert thinking. For example,
children may conceptualize a historic document as a primary source but not conceptualize a
historic house in the same way. Changes do not always reflect a direct move from naïve to
expert thinking. Instead, Vosniadou, Vamvakoussi, and Skopeliti (2008) suggested that children
develop an intermediate step of mixed or "synthetic" concepts, by attempting to reconcile their
original naïve concepts with concepts learned via instruction.
Instruction to help produce conceptual change should identify and acknowledge learners'
existing concepts. Brewer (2008) asserted,
Instructional efforts should not try to reduce the variety of knowledge states displayed by
the child in order to adjust to a single view. It should take into account that a variety of
knowledge states are represented in the child's mind in order to deal with task or situation
requirements. On the other hand, instructional programs should encourage children to
provide verbal explanations of a phenomenon, that is, to redescribe their implicit
representations into explicit ones. (p. 168)
Conceptual development approached in this manner reflects a constructivist epistemology. The
learner is actively involved in the construction of knowledge. As Létourneau and Moisan (2004)
suggested, "They [facts] take form gradually, clustering around the original narrative core, which
constitutes a basic matrix to which these young minds attach additional facts as they receive and
collect them" (p. 118), forming and changing their concepts.

12

In this dissertation, Novak and Cañas' (2008) definition of concept ("a perceived
regularity in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a label") will be
employed. Further, conceptual development will be defined as learners adapting or reorganizing
their own concepts (Carey & Spelke, 1994; diSessa, 2002; Létourneau and Moisan, 2004).
The work of Vygotsky (1978) further defines the process of conceptual development.
Vygotsky observed that all children's learning is built on their existing concepts and that learning
should be matched to the learner's current level of conceptual understanding. He suggested,
however, that learners have two developmental levels: actual development level and potential
development level. What the learner can do on her own is the actual level, and what she can do
with the help of a more knowledgeable other (an adult or a peer) is the potential level (Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch, 1984). Determining the difference between these two levels provides a better
measurement of cognitive ability than assessing actual development level alone.
Vygotsky called the difference between these two levels the zone of proximal
development (ZPD). The importance of this concept from a developmental perspective is that, as
Vygotsky (1978) asserted, "What children can do with the assistance of others might be in some
sense even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone" (p. 85).
For example, a child who can count to ten on her own without the aid of a teacher and to twenty
with the teacher's assistance has a counting ability that may be defined in terms of both the actual
level and what she can do in the ZPD. The child's performance in the ZPD illustrates that the she
is moving toward being able to count to twenty on her own and thus conceptual development
may be observed and assessed. Vygotsky (1978) argued, "the only 'good learning' is that which
is in advance of development" (p. 89), in other words, learning that pushes the learner toward
conceptual development.

13

Helping the learner to progress through the ZPD has been called scaffolding (Bruner,
1986; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), a metaphor for the "the temporary support provided for the
completion of a task that learners otherwise might not be able to complete" (van de Pol,
Beishuizen, & Volman, 2010, pp. 271-272). Van de Pol et al. discussed the three components of
scaffolding in the process of learning: contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility to the
learner. Contingency means calibrating the support necessary for learning to the individual
needs of the learner, reflecting Vygotsky's notion that this support be at or slightly above the
learner's actual development level. Fading is the act of gradually withdrawing scaffolding as the
more knowledgeable other recognizes that it is no longer needed, in other words, that
development has taken place. Finally, the more knowledgeable person transfers responsibility to
the learner. Assessing the effectiveness of scaffolding and the resulting conceptual development
is dependent on the outcomes for students (van de Pol et al., 2010).
Intertextual Reading Theory
Intertextual reading theory highlights the need for readers to construct understanding with
and across multiple texts. Goldman (2004) asserted,
Knowledge management entails understanding not only isolated bits of information but
relating these individual bits to one another in meaningful and systematic ways.
Information must be coordinated, understood in relation to other information, and
evaluated with respect to coherence and consistency with large bodies of information,
choices are made about what information to 'trust' and what to question; about what
information to pass on to others and what not to. (pp. 318-319)
The need to read intertextually is especially important in the domain of history (Foltz, Britt, &
Perfetti, 1996; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995; Rouet, Favart, Britt, & Perfetti, 1997;

14

VanSledright, 2002b; Wineburg, 1998). Foltz et al. (1996) observed,
In the domain of history, a reader will typically read multiple accounts of the same
historical event in order to generate an understanding of the event. These texts can
include primary sources, participant's and historian's accounts, and textbooks. The task
for the reader is to then integrate this information into a coherent cognitive
representation. (p. 110)
Various models for cognitive representation in history have been developed, including
Goldman's (2004) textbase/knowledge use description, Wineburg's (1998) model of expert
practice, and the documents' model (Bråten, Strømsø, & Britt, 2009; Britt, Perfetti, Sandak, &
Rouet, 1999; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999).
The documents' model (Bråten, et al., 2009; Britt et al., 1999; Perfetti et al., 1999)
suggests that readers form interconnected models of the multiple documents they read. In Britt
et al. (1999), the authors argued, "Learning historical narratives requires the reader to construct a
model of the situation from many sources and to integrate information from these sources rather
than constructing a separate model of each text" (p. 211). The authors proposed four models of
intertextual reading, which they constructed through analyses of adult students' experiences with
reading multiple history texts. These models included the mush model, situation model,
documents' model, and the tag-all model.
In the mush model, the reader's representation of multiple texts is constructed by giving
information from the sources, but without providing individual identification of the texts or
acknowledging the sources of the knowledge. In other words, the reader mentions information
from individual texts without identifying the source's attributes or addressing its relevance (e.g.,
author, reliability, etc.): "The essential element of this model is that there is no tagging or

15

marking for where the information came from. All information is integrated completely, without
attention to the source of the information" (Britt et al., p. 218).
In the separate representation model, the reader presents and cites information from
multiple sources but does not make connections between individual texts. Information from the
multiple texts is not integrated together. Britt et al. stated, "The defining feature of this model is
that there are two distinct models, one for each text, and they are completely independent of each
other" (Britt et al., p. 216). Readers develop separate mental models of each text, and prior
knowledge from other sources is not applied.
The documents' model integrates the situation model (Kintsch, 1998), in which readers
combine information from the textbase (mental models of textual content and meaning) and prior
knowledge from other texts, with an intertexts model, incorporating information about sources
(e.g., author, source type, and historical context) and how the sources are related to the others
(e.g., agreement, conflict, supplementary information) (Figure 1). Within the documents' model,
the reader "considers the understanding of contents and sources of multiple texts within a unified
framework" (Bråten et al., 2009, p. 7).

=

+
Situation
model

Intertexts
model

Documents'
model

Figure 1. Researcher's graphic representation of the documents' model described by Britt,
Perfetti, Sandak, and Rouet (1999).
When readers' practice follows this model, they use mental models of textual content and
meaning, prior knowledge, awareness of information about multiple sources, and intertextual
16

relationships among multiple sources to create representations of their understanding of a
particular event, topic, or issue.
The tag-all model is one in which identifying and citing sources is key to understanding
of multiple sources. In this model, "each piece of information must be tagged for its source" (p.
219). Britt et al. (1999) suggested that this model, while typical of scholarly practice, places a
high cognitive load on readers. According to the authors, trying to approach intertextual reading
with this model is probably too great a task for disciplinary non-experts.
Of the four models, Britt et al. (1999) argued that the documents' model is "most typical
of a good reader's model of multiple-test learning in history" (p. 220). In their discussion of the
documents' model, Bråten, Strømsø, and Britt (2009) observed,
Unlike the comprehension of single texts, an adequate comprehension of multiple texts
must include information about how the different texts relate to each other (Goldman,
2004; Perfetti et al., 1999). Moreover, adequate comprehension of multiple texts must
include information about the sources themselves and what characterizes those sources
(Perfetti et al., 1999). (p. 7)
In the documents' model, information from and about each individual source is combined with
prior knowledge. Information from sources is not used indiscriminately; rather, what Britt et al.
(1999) called "core event items" or information appearing in multiple sources and thus essential
to understanding the texts together (as opposed to unique or "non-core event items," which occur
in only one text) are identified by the reader. These core event items help to create the reader's
sense of what information in the multiple sources is most important to examine intertextually.
The authors' conclusion was that non-expert readers of history whose reading fits the documents'
model would achieve the best understanding of the information from multiple texts.

17

Reflecting agreement with Britt et al.'s conclusion, in this dissertation, learners' progress
toward attaining the documents' model was considered movement toward a desirable model for
multitextual learning. Further, when compared to the mush and separate representation models,
taking into account the different evidences of intertextual reading in each model calls, I argue
that the documents' model is the most complex of the three. In this study, therefore, learners'
progress toward the documents' model was defined as movement toward additional complexity
(Figure 2).
Mush

Separate Representation

Documents'

Less complex

Tag-all

More complex

Figure 2. Continuum of complexity in the four intertextual reading models.
Regarding the likelihood of attaining a documents' model, Britt et al. (1999) asserted,
"Readers who are knowledgeable about a text's source will be more likely to form a documents'
model" (p. 222). Further, they observed, "A reader would also be more likely to form a
documents' model when the task is to learn the story while keeping texts separate and when the
texts provide conflicting accounts of partially overlapping events" (p. 223). In this study, the
students' use of the intertextual models was explored within this framework.
Motivation Theory
Expectancy x Value motivation theories state that learners' effort motivation is a function
of their expectation and value. Various versions of this theory exist (Atkinson, 1964; Brophy,
2004; Feather, 1982; Pekrun, 1993; Vroom, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). As articulated by
Brophy, the effort learners put forth

18

Is the product of (a) the degree to which they expect to be able to perform a task
successfully if they apply themselves (and thus the degree to which they expect to get
whatever rewards that successful task will bring), and (b) the degree to which they value
those rewards as well as the opportunity to engage in the processes involved in
performing the task itself. (p. 18)
If students encounter the challenges in working with primary sources, as described above, their
expectancy to do well in primary-source-related tasks may be low. For instance, archaic
language in many primary source documents may be difficult for elementary school-aged
children to read and understand, detracting from their ability to move from initial reading tasks to
analysis and interpretation. When using historic site texts as sources for inquiry, children may
encounter a higher degree of success, since "reading" objects and buildings involves different
skills, often not requiring traditional literacy.
Children's value of using historic site texts impacts their use of these sources. For
example, levels of intrinsic motivation (e.g., how interested are they in using sources for inquiry)
impact students' value levels (Waterman, 2005; Waterman, Schwartz, & Conti, 2008). Another
aspect of value the learner's enjoyment of an activity. Learners' enjoyment is related to personal
relatedness and interest, both individual and situational (Brophy, 2004; Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
The instructional sessions, historic site field trips, and activities were designed to encourage and
develop students' interest. Of prime importance was children's pure enjoyment of the experience
and the historic site itself, as Boulotis (2007) explained,
I believe museums and archeological sites provide the most comfortable and productive
access to a three-dimensional understanding of the ancient world, which you visitors can
quite literally enter into and touch, embarking on multiple dialogues with it….First and

19

foremost, we should lead children to love museums and archeological sites voluntarily, as
a wondrous setting where unusual stories can unravel, and where they themselves have a
role to play. In fostering this love, we are undoubtedly laying the groundwork for future
returns to three-dimensional antiquity, as well as for exercising a critical eye. (p. 187)
In the present study, students' levels of value were explored though the student questionnaire and
the classroom sessions.
Literature for Theory Based Analyses
Children's Concepts of the Nature of the Multiple Texts within Historic Sites
No matter what their individual prior experiences or knowledge, children should possess
concepts about the nature of texts within historic sites, developed over time and with instruction
and experience, just as they have concepts in school subject areas, such as science and
mathematics, and general life knowledge areas. Establishing the closeness of children's concepts
of historic site texts to experts' concepts (reflected in the literatures of history, historic
preservation, museum studies, and material culture studies) was of interest in this research study.
No known studies specifically address elementary school-aged students' concepts of the multiple
texts within historic sites.
Children's concepts of the nature of historic site texts are developed gradually, as they
absorb information from many sources in their environments (Létourneau & Moisan, 2004). In
history learning, students' concepts of the purposes of history appear to change as they are
exposed to historical knowledge and instruction in historical methods (Barton, 1997a; Levstik &
Pappas, 1987; Seixas, 1994; Voss, Wiley, & Kennet, 1998). The decisions elementary schoolaged children make about using historic sites as primary sources may be based on what they
believe about the uses of historic sites as primary sources. These beliefs reflect children's

20

exposure to beliefs and philosophies about the definitions and functions of historic sites held by
particular socio-cultural groups, such their local communities. As with all concepts, these beliefs
will inform how and what children communicate about and engage with historic sites.
With classroom instruction and exposure to historic places (through on-site visits and
media, such as photographs, television, and online sources) and narratives about historic places
(through family members, friends, teachers, and media), children may develop concepts about
historic sites that align more closely with expert thinking (i.e., that of historians, historic site
professionals, and geographers). For example, children will understand that historic sites are
"authentic places of history [that] offer opportunities to experience where real history really
happened" (National Park Service, 2009, para. 1) and that "they are symbolic, representing at
least the necessities of one or more persons at a given time and place. They may also carry
messages about the hopes, circumstances, and traditions of those who built them" (Kyvig &
Marty, 2000, p. 172). Between naïve and such expert thinking, children may develop an
intermediate stage involving the creation of synthetic concepts (Vosniadou et al., 2008). For
instance, a child might believe that an artifact may be used as a primary source, but that the
source's accuracy does not need to be questioned because the source is "from the past," and the
child can see and touch it.
Children's Skills and Challenges in Using Primary Sources and Multiple Texts
This literature helps to identify prior research related to the abilities elementary schoolaged children have when working with primary sources and multiple texts. Some of the works
discuss history and social studies curricular expectations for children. Others describe the results
of empirical research with elementary-aged students about their use of sources.
Children's primary source use. Teaching children how to learn history through the

21

historical method by doing the work of historians is an established K-12 practice, and use of
primary sources is central to this method (Barton, 2001a, 2001b; Danzer, 1971; Drake & Nelson,
2005; Keohane, 1946; Schamel, 1998; Zarillo, 2004). Current standards in social studies
education support and encourage this type of teaching (Michigan Department of Education,
2007; National Council for the Social Studies, 1994). Beginning in kindergarten, Michigan
students are expected to be exposed to the practice of using primary sources as a basis for
historical inquiry (Michigan Department of Education, 2007). Use of primary sources provides
tangible links to the past (Gallagher, 1998; Potter, 2003), teaches critical thinking and inquirybased learning (Craver, 1999; Tally & Goldenberg, 2005; Veccia, 2004), and may increase
student motivation for history learning (Barton, 2005).
Various model of practice for evaluation of sources have been advanced. Wineburg's
(1991, 1998) model included the processes of sourcing (attribution of sources), contextualizing
(locating sources in time and place), and corroborating (intertextual comparison of sources).
VanSledright and Afflerbach (2005) defined four cognitive activities necessary for evaluating
sources: attribution (identification of source author or maker), identification (type of source),
perspective (judgments about the author or maker's point of view), and reliability (intertextual
comparison of a source with other sources). Further, the authors highlighted the importance of
prior knowledge and its relationship to the four activities, which is consistent with the emphasis
on prior knowledge in the intertextual documents' model (Britt et al., 1999). These models or
elements of these models have been used in assessing the source evaluation abilities of children,
including early elementary-aged students (James & McVay, 2009).
Students' understanding of what constitutes a primary source and when and how to use
them are challenges for educators (Barton, 1997a; Swan, Hofer, & Locascio, 2008; Zarillo,

22

2004). Cognitive developmental stages may affect students' abilities to work with primary
sources (Foster & Hoge, 1999; Foster & Yeager, 1999; Mackintosh, 1998; VanSledright, 2002a).
Even with instruction, children may have difficulty working with primary sources (Barton,
1997a; Dutt-Doner, Cook-Cottone, & Allen, 2007; Kobrin, 1995). For instance, in one study,
fourth- and fifth-grade students had difficulty using the evidence they examined to support their
own conclusions (Barton, 1997b). Students need to learn not only how and where historians get
historical evidence but also learn to make their own determinations about what constitutes a
primary source and ways to use this type of source.
Although historical inquiry often is discussed as an intellectual exercise, the very fact that
the historical method depends on the use of documents, voice recordings, and other tangible and
intangible sources means children's concepts about uses of primary sources are related to the way
children expect to interact with sources. How learners approach interaction with sources makes
a difference in what concepts they form from or about them (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Paris &
Hapgood, 2002; Prown, 1980). Conceptual development and change is rooted in the sensory
experiences children have in the physically knowable world (Rice & Yenawine, 2002). Thus,
places and objects in the historic site environment create a juncture for new physical experiences.
One factor that affects students' abilities to use primary sources is developmental level.
The ability to make intertextual comparisons with help from more knowledgeable others seems
to be present in elementary school students as young as first grade (James & McVay, 2009).
Age-related developmental differences might exist between third- and sixth-grade students'
abilities to draw conclusions from examining primary sources (Foster & Hoge, 1999).
VanSledright and Afflerbach (2005) found that fourth grade students were capable of
differentiating between primary and secondary sources, but that they were not yet ready to use

23

source based information to make claims about their historical questions. Elementary-aged
children appear to understand that there exists a connection between sources and making
decisions about the past, but children's belief in their own agency to use sources to make
decisions may be limited, especially before fifth grade (Barton, 1997b; Foster & Yeager, 1999).
Further, the ability to judge the validity of sources may develop in the later elementary years
(VanSledright, 2002a; VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005).
The research literature on children's use of primary sources for historical inquiry is not
broad. In a 2009 unpublished literature review of peer-reviewed (Leach, 2009), empirical
research studies on elementary school children's historical thinking published between 19852009, I found that of 25 total studies, 10 (40.0%) focused on children's use of primary and
secondary sources. Much of the research in the area of children's primary source use is
attempting to demonstrate that children are capable of doing what is specifically being asked of
them in most state mandated social studies history education standards. The lack of research in
the area of primary source use in the classroom has created problems for history education, as
Barton (2005) observed. He asserted,
In some cases, scholars who have little experience with historical methods appear to be
passing along mistaken ideas about what historians do. In other cases, the use of primary
sources seems to be driven less by a concern with historical authenticity than by demands
for standards and accountability. The misunderstandings that arise from these practices,
if not addressed, will result in classroom procedures that are not only inauthentic but
irrelevant and ineffective. (para. 4)
As described above, use of sources has become standard practice in teaching historical
inquiry at the elementary school level. Curriculum standards require the use of primary sources

24

for learning history. Certain issues are connected to children's use of primary sources. When
elementary school children use historic sites as sources for historical inquiry, many of the same
issues in using primary sources in general also may be present.
One central issue in children's source use is their conceptual understandings. All new
knowledge is constructed by learners, based on what they already know and understand
(Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, when teaching children to use of historic sites as multitextual sources,
the instruction must be coordinated with their present levels of conceptual understanding.
Assessing children's concepts is important, since what teachers think students believe and what
students actually believe may be entirely different (Barton, 2001a; Barton & Levstik, 1996;
Brophy & Alleman, 2005; Seixas, 1994). Potential mismatches between educators' and
children's concepts about historic sites' identity as multitextual sources or their use as sources for
historical inquiry may potentially limit or negatively impact children's learning when teachers
use school visits to historic sites as social studies learning experiences.
A second issue is the challenges elementary-aged children face when evaluating or using
primary source evidence (Appendix A). For example, many students at this level fail to address
the reliability and validity of sources. They do not seem to understand how to use the evidence
to support their own conclusions (Barton, 1997b). Children often do not recognize and know
how to deal with the "interpretive paradox" of history, meaning that both history and the "rules"
of doing history are constructed (Scott, 1996; VanSledright, 2002a, 2002b), creating
implications for the analysis and interpretation of primary sources. Children's abilities to work
with historic sites as primary sources may be related to general academic ability (Swan et al.,
2008) and race (Foster & Hoge, 1999), as well as other variables.
A third issue is that, as with teaching students to use primary source documents, students

25

need to be taught to use sources from historic sites. Teaching with sources at the elementary
school age should involve helping students learn the skills needed to examine, evaluate, and
apply information from sources. Bråten & Strømsø (2006) observed, "Research indicates that
high-school students hardly profit from the reading of multiple historical source documents, at
least not without some specific instruction in how to integrate information across texts" (p. 459),
an observation which may apply even more to younger students and using multimodal texts.
Instruction in the classroom with primary sources during directed activities has been shown to be
effective in improving students' achievement in reading, analyzing, and interpreting historical
documents (VanSledright, 2000). Goldman (2004) suggested that students in early adolescence
face some difficulties and "need instructional support to develop principled ways of engaging in
comparative and contrastive reading across multiple documents" (p. 343).
The final issue is students' motivation to use primary sources. Although elementary
school children's use of primary sources is usually teacher-directed, certain aspects of use may be
related to motivation in primary source use. One aspect of motivation is children's own
perceived ability to be successful (Brophy, 2004; Feather, 1982; Pekrun, 1993; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Another aspect of children's value of using primary sources for historical inquiry
is enjoyment. A person interested in some content or activity may be motivated to continue
participation based on the enjoyment she or he receives from participation (Brophy, 2004).
Although some studies report children's enjoyment in using primary sources (e.g., VanSledright
& Kelly, 1998), the types of enjoyment children display have not been explored.
Children's intertextual source use. Use of multiple sources in social studies and history
is foundational, as Bråten and Strømsø (2006) proposed, "The ability to build cumulative
representations of historical events from the reading of a series of source documents may be

26

regarded as the sine qua non of expertise" (p. 459). Reading multiple sources requires different
cognitive processes than reading single texts (Bråten & Strømsø, 2006; Foltz et al., 1996;
Goldman, 2004; Hartman & Hartman, 1994), although it is acknowledged that no text is truly a
"single text" (Allen, 2000; Kristeva, 1980). Evaluation of multiple sources should contribute to
an understanding of the whole (Perfetti et al., 1995; Rouet, 2006; Wineburg, 1991).
Few studies of multiple source use (intertextuality) have been conducted with elementary
school-aged participants. Goldman (2004) remarked,
Although the research on the intertextual processes of domain experts is thin, there is
even less research on what children do with multiple texts and on how instructionally to
support the development of these broader literacy competencies in children across the
education spectrum from elementary school to high school. (p. 319)
Existing studies reveal that students have difficulty making connections among multiple texts, in
order to produce a cohesive understanding of an event or topic (Foster & Hoge, 1999; Foster &
Yeager, 1999; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998). In a study with sixth-grade students, Goldman and
colleagues (2004) found that most students (7 out of the 10 participants) showed no
combinations of text or simple combinations that failed to integrate information across texts and
with prior knowledge. Few students (3 participants) displayed what the authors called "complex
combination" when working with multiple texts, that is, "integration of multiple accounts with
recognition of both the commonality of the basic event and the difference in perspectives provide
by each of the authors" (pp. 342-343). In a related study, Wolfe and Goldman (2005) observed
that sixth-grade students' abilities to provide complex explanations about a historical event they
were studying hinged on the amount of effort they put forth to make and explain connections
across multiple texts.

27

Studies with participants of high school or college age have revealed important issues
when working with multiple sources. Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, and Bosquet (1995) noted
that participants had trouble reconciling conflicting information and with using information from
the multiple texts to support their opinions. Further, the authors found that the number of
sources the participants used was important to the outcome of their study: Students' mental
models of the historical information about which they read were more consistent after reading
two sources, but examining additional sources did not improve the consistency of their models.
The practice of modifying and reshaping one's mental model through examinations of additional
sources, as historians do, does not always occur (Perfetti et al., 1995; Wineburg, 1991). Another
challenge is evaluation of the trustworthiness of sources when reading across multiple sources
(Bråten et al., 2009; Sanchez, Wiley, & Goldman, 2006; Stadtler & Bromme, 2007; Wineburg,
1991). Perceptions of bias affect evaluations of sources (Bråten et al., 2009). For example,
undergraduate students in Rouet, Britt, Mason, and Perfetti's (1996) study rated documents
perceived as biased (historians' essays and historical participants' accounts) as less reliable than
primary sources and textbooks, which they viewed as less biased than the other sources.
An addition to being useful for historical inquiry, using multiple texts has other benefits
for learners. First, learners may acquire more flexible information from texts (Perfetti et al.,
1995; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1994), that is, "representations being less tied to
any specific text and more accessible under a variety of circumstances" (Bråten & Strømsø,
2006). In history study, knowledge gained through multiple texts has the potential to create
deeper knowledge of the subject of inquiry than through single, textbook-type sources (Bråten &
Strømsø, 2006; Britt & Aglinkas, 2002; Wiley & Voss, 1999) and increase disciplinary
knowledge (Stahl et al., 1995). Further, learners using multiple texts may develop better

28

"knowledge management" skills, useful in knowledge societies where such skills are an
advantage (Goldman, 2004, p. 319).
Instructing Children to Use Multiple Texts As Sources for Inquiry
Students need to be taught to use historic sites as primary sources for inquiry, just as they
need to be taught to use other types of primary source documents. Teaching about source use at
the elementary school age should involve helping students learn the skills needed to examine,
evaluate, and apply information from sources. Instruction in the classroom with primary sources
during directed activities has been shown to be effective in improving students' achievement in
reading, analyzing, and interpreting historical documents (VanSledright, 2000). Readily
available resources provided by libraries and museums, such as the Library of Congress
(http://www.loc.gov/teachers/) and the Smithsonian Institution (http://www.smithsonian
source.org/), provide teachers free information about teaching with primary source documents
and media. Far fewer resources are available to teach students about how to use historic places
as primary sources (for an example, see http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/twhp/index.htm).
Instructing students to use primary sources as part of social studies instruction allows
them to develop skills during authentic tasks. VanSledright's (2000) study of fifth-grade students
found that through classroom instruction in analyzing and interpreting historical sources,
students improved their skill in reading, analyzing, and interpreting historical documents.
Authentic inquiry is essential, but the type of instruction is important, as Barton (2005) argued.
Teaching students to used sources evidence for historical questions they themselves have asked
is ideal. Although the guidance of teachers is necessary to scaffold students' historical inquiry,
especially at the lower elementary grades, authentic historical questions may be asked by
students within the context of their classroom learning, even in first grade (see example in James

29

& McVay, 2009). For exploring the museum environment, Gazi (2007) suggested that children
be taught to "familiarize themselves with the methods available for knowing about the past,"
"understand the use of various categories of vestiges as historical evidence," and "realize the
subjectivity of all interpretation" (p. 209), something equally applicable to the historic site
environment.
Instructing children to read intertextually is necessary as well. Goldman (2004) observed
that information from multiple texts is complex, reporting, "Information across two (or more)
texts could be consistent and complementary, contradictory, or componential, that is, information
across texts is part of a larger whole not necessarily specified in any one of the texts" (p. 344).
Understanding the relationships between texts is dependent upon being able to determine the
types and characters of the relationships (Lemke, 2004). In studies with high school students,
instruction in using multiple sources was found to improve sourcing (i.e., attribution of sources)
(Britt & Aglinskas, 2002; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker, 2007) and evaluation of sources (Nokes et al.,
2007). Undergraduates who received instruction in multiple source use had better judgment of
trustworthiness (Bråten et al., 2009; Sanchez et al., 2006; Stadtler & Bromme, 2007), gained
conceptual knowledge (Sanchez et al., 2006), and included more information in essays based on
the information learned (Sanchez et al., 2006; Stadtler & Bromme, 2007). Conversely, Graesser
et al. (2007) built on Sanchez et al. (2006) but found that sourcing skills and comprehension
were not improved by instruction.
Various examples of instructional programs have improved students' performance in
intertextual reading. Britt and Aglinskas (2002) described how instruction improved high school
students' performance in historical document sourcing and writing essays based on the
information learned. Nokes et al. (2007) taught high school students using Wineburg's (1991)

30

sourcing heuristic, which resulted in improvement in sourcing ability. Participants using
multiple sources instead of just textbooks learned more content during a three-week intervention.
Instruction resulted in better judgment of trustworthiness of sources by undergraduate students
who read multiple sources about medical topics (Sanchez et al., 2006). Additionally, Bråten et
al. (2009) found that students' sourcing skill (specifically, judgments of trustworthiness)
predicted comprehension about multiple texts when controlling for previous knowledge.
Instructional programs should encourage students to find their own links between texts (Britt et
al., 1999; Hartman & Hartman, 1994). These examples, though they describe results with older
learners, include principles that may be applicable for teaching younger students.
Document Based Questions
A document based question (DBQ) is a type of assessment or learning activity in which
students study primary sources and use them to answer directed historical questions. DBQs
typically include text documents, visual documents (e.g., photographs, maps, or graphic
representations of statistics), a paragraph presenting background information on the topic, and
the question to be answered (Stovel, 2000). The DBQ is a familiar activity to many teachers and
students in American schools. The document based question was introduced to the Advanced
Placement United States History exam in 1973 (Rothschild, 2000). One purpose for the use of
this type of question was to encourage history teachers to use primary sources in addition to
teaching content. DBQs are used in history instruction at the elementary school level as well.
For younger students, the format of the DBQ is similar, but the sources and questions are
simplified. The website "Teaching with Documents" (http://www.edteck.com/dbq/index.htm)
provides many examples and materials for using this tool with elementary school students.
Design templates and scoring rubrics are available from many state and local educational

31

websites (e.g., http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/ss/ and http://www.colquitt.k12.ga.us/).
Document based questions by design require intertextual reading of multiple sources on a
historical topic. Many of the same challenges inherent in other types of intertextual reading,
however, occur when students encounter DBQs. For example, Kotzin (2001) observed in high
school students the "tendency to go through and explain each document rather than look at the
documents collectively within the context of the question being asked" (p. 309). In a study
examining high school students' experiences with DBQs, Young and Leinhardt (1998) found that
only over time did the students progress from "knowledge telling (listing period and document
content as discrete information bits) to knowledge transformation (integrating content as
interpreted evidence for an argument)" (p. 25).
Though some scholars have critiqued the DBQ format as incongruent with disciplinary
practice by experts in history (Barton, 2005; Davis, 2005; Grant, Gradwell, & Cimbricz, 2004), a
more authentic version of this activity might include essay prompts that ask students to construct
their own arguments, student selection of sources, thoughtful evaluation of sources, and group
input on the activity (Grant et al., 2004). In the present study, a "Source Based Question
Activity" (SBQA) (so called because this name reflects an emphasis on intertextual reading of
multiple sources) was employed as a tool for data collection. The SBQA in this study allowed
participants to select and evaluate their own sources as part of an authentic activity (visiting a
historic site and addressing a historical question).
Literature from this review was used to inform the analyses of data in the research study,
including the development of coding schemes in systematic content analyses and interpretation
of quantitative data. Chapter 3 describes how this was done, by outlining the design of the study,
the materials and data used during the project, and the types of analyses conducted.

32

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
This research study focused on how two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade classes
developed and refined their understandings of and abilities to use the multiple texts within
historic sites as sources for historical inquiry. Data was collected in a mixed methods design that
included analyses of classroom discussions, a questionnaire administered to all students before
and after a field trip to a historic site, and two written activities based on the intertextual use of
sources from the historic site. From each grade, one class received focused instruction designed
to enhance their ability to evaluate and use historic site sources, whereas the other two classes
did not receive this instruction.
Research Design
This study employed a concurrent triangulation mixed methods design, which was quasiexperimental (Creswell, 2009). The qualitative and quantitative data were collected and
analyzed independently, and the results of each were compared and used to inform interpretation
of the other data type. Several advantages existed in using a mixed methods approach. First, it
provided opportunities to gain broader perspectives in addressing the research questions by using
multiple data collection and analysis methods. Additionally, it imparted more validity for the
analysis of both types of data, by allowing comparisons and analyses of differences and
convergences between the two types. Finally, it allowed deeper exploration of the participants'
experiences by providing multiple ways for students to express their beliefs about using the
multiple texts within historic sites for historical inquiry and multiple ways for the researcher to
approach understanding these beliefs.
Methodological Frameworks
A methodological framework reflects "the whole system of principles, theories and

33

values that underpin a particular approach to research" (Somekh & Lewin, 2005). This study
was framed by phenomenographic and survey research methodologies.
Phenomenography
Phenomenological studies examine the "lived, human phenomena within the everyday
social contexts in which the phenomena occur from the perspective of those who experience
them" (Titchen & Hobson, 2005, p. 121). A direct phenomenological approach allows
researchers to foreground the experience of the participants (Titchen & Hobson, 2005), by
analyzing and interpreting their discourse and actions, rather than the perspective of the
researcher. Though not necessarily representative of any other cases, this study provided better
understanding of the particular cases involved (Stake, 2004), specifically, the fourth- and fifthgrade student participants.
Distinctions are made among different approaches to phenomenological research
methodologies. This study employs what is known as a phenomenographic frame, in which
representative categories of experience in particular contexts are described (Marton, 1981, 1986;
Van Manen, 1990). Case and Light (2011) suggested that phenomenographic research attempts
to do two things: (1) focus on the ways learners differ, and (2) use the experience as the unit of
analysis. The authors observed, "The analysis aims at identifying the fewest, logically related,
categories required to describe the totality of variation discerned in the pool of experience" (p.
199).
For this study, a phenomenographic approach was appropriate because it allowed
exploration of various aspects of the participants' experiences – the activities of engaging in
source use and historical inquiry – in the environments where it occurred (the historic site and
the classroom). This methodology supplied a means to document the participants' own

34

perspectives, by listening to the authentic voices of children through their discourse and written
work. It also provided a way to describe the complexity of variation in the children's conceptual
understandings and experiences with using historic site texts.
Survey Research
A survey methodology was employed for two reasons: to provide a richer description of
the participants' experiences and understandings and to generalize information from this sample
to a larger population (Creswell, 2009; Fowler, 2009). In this study, the purpose of the survey
methodology was to understand more about the fourth- and fifth-grade participants' concepts of
the multiple texts in historic sites, source use knowledge, and motivation for using sources. This
information was used to answer the research questions for the present study, but it also may be
used to generalize information about later elementary school students' concepts, abilities, and
motivations.
Additionally, the survey methodology allowed the collection of a variety of different
types of information from a large sample in a short amount of time (Fowler, 2009). Although the
phenomenographic methodologies described above provided a good means for understanding
some aspects of the participants' experiences, it was necessary to use a separate approach for
comprehending different aspects, such as the participants' likes, dislikes, and motivations. The
information generated from the large sample made generalizing possible because of statistical
reliability.
For this study, a survey methodology was an appropriate choice, because of the reasons
just discussed. Further, because this is a mixed methods study, the survey research and
phenomenographic methodologies worked well together, because they provided two different but
compatible approaches to understanding the participants.

35

Research Questions
Three major research questions with subquestions were generated to guide this research.
In these research questions, the term multiple texts of historic sites specifically refers to (a)
objects, (b) built and spatial environments, (c) tour guide's words and other oral narrative
communication, and (d) curatorial interpretation (labels and signage).
Question 1: What concepts do students have about the nature of the multiple texts within
historic sites?
•

Question 1.1: How do students identify and define the multiple texts of historic sites?

•

Question 1.2: How do students define the reliability of the multiple texts of historic
sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 1.3: How do students understand the goals and skills for working with the
multiple texts within historic sites?

Question 2: What skills and challenges do children have when using multiple texts to
complete historical inquiry activities?
•

Question 2.1: What are students' skills and challenges when using multiple texts
within historic sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.2: How do students make decisions about evidence and the use of
evidence from historic site texts?

•

Question 2.3: How might grade level be related to students' abilities to use historic
sites texts as sources to support historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.4: How do students describe their ability to reason about the reliability of
historic site texts?
Question 3: How does students' participation in focused instruction about using

36

multiple texts within historic sites as sources for historical inquiry relate to their learning
outcomes?
•

Question 3.1: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' concepts
about the nature of multiple texts within historic sites?

•

Question 3.2: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' skills and
challenges in using multiple texts within historic sites as sources for historical
inquiry?

•

Question 3.3: How does participating in focused instruction influence students' level
of performance on two source use activities?

•

Question 3.4: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' level of
motivation, including perception of ability and value, for using multiple texts within
historic sites as sources for historical inquiry?
Participants and Context

Participants
The participants were fourth- and fifth-grade students from a socio-economically and
racially diverse public elementary school in the city of Jackson, Michigan. In 2006, the
population estimate for Jackson was 34,554 (.34% of the total estimated Michigan population)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Within the city population, people identified by the following
racial categories: White (73.9%), Black (19.7%), Hispanic or Latino (4.0%), American or Alaska
Native (0.6%), Asian (0.5%), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (0%), and two or more
races (3.7%). In Fall 2010, the local school district enrolled 5,960 students in K-12, with 68%
eligible for free or reduced price lunch (Center for Educational Performance and Information,
2011).

37

Jackson has six public elementary schools and one elementary public school academy.
From a list of the six elementary schools, two schools were randomly selected, and teachers from
the two schools were invited to take part in the study. During the recruitment process, teachers
were informed that participation involved the researcher providing four to five instructional
sessions for their students and that teachers would be involved in a supportive teaching role
during these sessions. Following the sessions, the teachers and students would participate in a
field trip to a local historic site. After the field trip, the students would complete two in-class
activities. No teachers from the first school volunteered to be part of the study, but one teacher
from the second school was enthusiastic about the study and recruited her colleague.
The two fourth-grade classrooms from the selected school received their social studies
instruction from Mrs. Hertel (a pseudonym). She had 32 years experience as a teacher, all at the
elementary level and 12 years at the fourth grade level, the entire time during which she had
taught social studies. Two fifth-grade classrooms received their social studies instruction from
Mrs. Peterson (a pseudonym). She had 11 years experience as a teacher, all at the elementary
level, 10 years of which were at the fifth-grade level (including social studies teaching). Both
teachers were interested and invested in helping their students learn more about primary source
use in historic sites. Students in these classrooms were recruited to take participate in the study.
The student recruitment process involved the teachers sending an informational letter
about the study and the parent or guardian permission form home with the students. Students
were asked to return the signed forms, whether or not their parents/guardians gave permission for
them to participate. To encourage students to return their forms, a small gift (valued at around
$30) was offered to the fourth- and fifth-grade classes that returned their forms to the teacher the
fastest. The two classes that came in second place were offered a small gift (valued at around

38

$25). The teachers' diligence in collecting the forms resulted in an almost 100% return rate.
The final sample consisted of 100 students from two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade
classrooms (Table 1). Student participants received parent/guardian permission to participate
and personally assented to be part of the study. (Note: Some participants' parents/guardians gave
permission for their children to participate only in certain aspects of the study, so the samples for
some results sections below may not sum to 100.) All names for students given below are
pseudonyms. The participants were members of four were intact classrooms, in which the
students were team-taught their subjects by two teachers (Mrs. Hertel taught with another Grade
4 teacher, and Mrs. Peterson taught with another Grade 5 teacher). The students received social
studies instruction four days per week in 50-minute blocks.
Table 1. Attributes of the Participants' Classrooms
Classroom
identifier

Grade

Social Studies
Teacher

Total
Students

Participating
students

Classroom A

4

Mrs. Hertel

29

28

Classroom B

4

Mrs. Hertel

28

28

Classroom C

5

Mrs. Peterson

22

21

Classroom D

5

Mrs. Peterson

25

23

Note. Participating students received parent/guardian permission to participate in the study and
personally assented to participate.
The participants were between 8 and 11 years of age. The average age of the Grade 4
students was 9, and the average for Grade 5 students was 10. When asked to describe their
gender, 45 (45%) students gave responses indicating female gender, 54 (54%) indicated male
gender, and 1 (1%) did not give a response. An open-ended questionnaire item asked
participants to indicate their race. The majority of students (81%) identified themselves as
"American, Caucasian," "Caucasian (white)," or "White." Nineteen percent identified as another
39

race or multiple races, including "African-American" or "Black" (8 responses), "Asian" (3
responses), "Hispanic" (1 response), and "Mixed race" (6 responses). Almost all the participants
had previous historic site and museum visiting experience: 93.7% of the participants indicated
that they had visited a historic site, and 92.6% had previously visited a museum. When asked
about their interest in learning about historic places, 28.0% replied that they were always
interested, 38.0% were usually interested, 23.0% were sometimes interested, and 8.0% were
almost never interested.
Research Study Groups
Participants were not randomly assigned to groups but rather remained grouped by
classroom, a normal grouping method in this research context. Because of the time of day the
participants' social studies classes were taught and the researcher's schedule, Mrs. Hertel and
Mrs. Peterson's classrooms were selected as the instruction group classrooms. In the final
sample of 100 participants, one fourth-grade (Classroom A) and one fifth-grade class (Classroom
C) were assigned to the instruction group (49.0%). These students completed the pre-visit
questionnaire, the in-classroom instruction, the historic site field trip, two source use activities,
and a post-visit questionnaire. The remaining two classes (Classrooms B and D) served as the
non-instruction group (51.0%). Students in the non-instruction group took part in all the same
activities as the instruction group, except for the instructional sessions.
Sites of Data Collection
The study took place in multiple contexts, including the participants' classrooms, the
school grounds, and a local historic site.
Classrooms and school grounds. Part of the study took place in the participants'
classrooms (Appendix B), as the students participated in classroom instruction and activities with

40

the researcher. Both classrooms were cheerfully decorated and filled with books and
instructional aids. The technology available in each room included the teacher's desktop
computer, an LCD projector, document camera, and Internet access. The students were seated at
their individual desks during some activities and moved about the classroom for others. The
classroom teachers remained in the room and assisted the researcher in facilitating the
instructional sessions. Additionally, during Session 2, the students worked outside while
participating in an activity utilizing their school building and grounds.
Historic site. As part of the study, the participants visited the Ella Sharp Museum of Art
and History (hereafter, "the Ella Sharp Museum" or "the historic site") in Jackson, Michigan.
The Ella Sharp Museum is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, listed as a State of
Michigan Landmark, and accredited by the American Association of Museums. The institution's
website (http://www.ellasharp.org/exhibits-historic-site.html) provides this description of the
site:
The Ella Sharp Museum of Art & History sits on a 10-acre campus that was once part of
the 530-acre Merriman-Sharp farm. In her will, Ella Sharp expressed her wish that her
home become a museum and that the majority of her property become a public park
forevermore. Today on the Museum grounds, visitors are invited to tour Ella Sharp's
19th-century Hillside Farmhouse, the Dibble One-Room Schoolhouse, Eli Stilson's Log
House and the Merriman-Sharp Tower Barn. Other exhibits down Farm Lane include a
woodworking shop, doctor's office, general store and print shop. And the farm's original
granary is now Ella's Granary Restaurant. (para. 1-2)
The goal of the visit was to help students use the site of the Merriman-Sharp farm,
including the farmhouse (Figure 3), barn (Figure 4), and other original farm structures as a

41

source to explore the lives of farm children in Michigan in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.
Participation in such activities was not designed to turn elementary school students into
historians but rather to take an activity that many students are doing already (visiting historic
sites) a step further by developing the students' skills and interest in using the intertextual historic
site environment as a source for historical inquiry.

Figure 3. The Merriman-Sharp House at the Ella Sharp Museum of Art and History. Photograph
by the author.

Figure 4. Facade of the horse barn at the Ella Sharp Museum of Art and History. Photograph by
the author.
42

Procedures
Data Collection Instruments
Data collection included administration of the participant questionnaire, audio recordings
of the instructional sessions, and collection of written student artifacts from the in-classroom
sessions and the two post-visit activities. I developed materials for the in-classroom activities
and post-visit activities from July to September 2010. Students completed a standard pre-visit
orientation supplied by the Ella Sharp Museum, but all other materials were developed based on
the literature described in Chapter 2 and readily available materials from places such as the
National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, and several
museums and historic sites.
Participant questionnaire. A 26-item questionnaire was administered to all student
participants in the research study before the classroom sessions began for the instruction group
and again (with the same items and format) after the field trips to the historic site (Appendix C).
The questionnaire was based on literature related to primary source teaching (see Chapter 2) and
on results of the researcher's work with elementary school-aged students who visited a historic
site (Leach, 2011a) and a separate (unpublished) study conducted by the researcher in the
summer of 2010, involving interviews of children in Grades 1 through 5 about their concepts of
the nature of historic sites. A pilot of the questionnaire with four participants (ages 9-11) took
place in August 2010, after which the questionnaire was revised.
The final two-part questionnaire included multiple choice and Likert-type items and was
administered in a pencil and paper format. Part 1 asked three open-ended demographic questions
(age, gender, and race) and two questions about the participants' historic site and museum
visiting experience. It also included one question requesting that students rate their interest in

43

learning about historic places. Part 2 was designed to determine the participants' concepts of the
nature of the multiple texts within historic sites; to assess their knowledge of using these sources;
and to provide self-evaluations of their motivation, interest, and confidence in using sources.
The classroom teachers (Mrs. Hertel and Mrs. Peterson) first administered the
questionnaire to all 100 participating students before the classroom instructional sessions began
(referred to below as the "pre-test"). The questionnaires were completed by the students while in
their regular classrooms during social studies class periods. Mrs. Hertel and Mrs. Peterson
introduced the questionnaire to the students by saying it was part of the planned field trip to the
Ella Sharp Museum. Directions on the questionnaire assured the students that there were no
right or wrong answers and that the purpose of the survey was "to know what you think." The
teachers were asked not to provide the students any help completing the questions except for
defining words or helping students understand what was being asked in the questions, if
necessary. To insure students' understanding of the questions and to aid students who had
difficulty reading, the teachers read the questions aloud to the students as they completed the
questionnaires together as a group. The students were given between 15 and 20 minutes to
complete the questionnaires. The teachers administered the same questionnaire in the same
manner, during the next social studies periods following the historic site field trips (referred to
below as the "post-test").
Focused instruction audiotape and transcripts. The focused instruction sessions for
the instruction group were designed to introduce new and reinforce students' existing concepts
and skills related to historical inquiry and intertextual reading within the historic site
environment. I developed four classroom lesson plans, which focused on helping students to
understand the different types of sources available to aid in historical inquiry (e.g., objects,

44

buildings, people's words, and documents) and teaching them to evaluate these sources. Each
lesson plan included instructions for a 35- to 40-minute classroom session including student
activities. The content presented was based on works about historical methods (Wineburg, 1991,
1998), material culture methods (Prown & Haltman, 2000), historic preservation (Fitch, 1990),
and teaching resources available from the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/teachers/)
and the Smithsonian Institution (http://www.smithsonian source.org/). The individual lesson
topics are described in Appendix D. A practice teaching session using the lesson plans with four
participants (ages 9-11) took place in August 2010, after which the lessons were revised. These
lessons were further modified after consultation with the participating classroom teachers. The
concepts related to each research question presented in the instructional sessions are presented in
Appendix E.
One major component of the instruction was teaching students the Describe - Analyze Compare/Contrast (D-A-C/C) method for evaluating multiple source types (Appendix F). This
process was based in part on intertextual reading theory (Bråten, Strømsø, & Britt, 2009; Brit et
al., 1999; Perfetti et al., 1999), source use for historical inquiry (VanSledright & Afflerbach,
2005; Wineburg, 1991), material culture analysis techniques (Prown & Haltman, 2000;
Schlereth, 1980), and museum object analysis programs (Visual Understanding in Education,
2001). On encountering a source, students were asked to describe the source, including what
type of source it is (document, object, place, someone's words, etc.), identification of who wrote,
made, or spoke the source, and physical characteristics determined through observation.
Analyzing was defined as looking more closely at a source and asking questions, such as What
do I learn from this source? and How does this source help me to answer my historical question?
The compare and contrast step emphasized the idea that historians rarely rely on one source to

45

answer a historical question, unless there is nothing else in the historical record that will help.
Comparing and contrasting sources allows people to make judgments about what one source
adds to the evidence from the other sources, thus allowing intertextual readings. Students were
encouraged to ask questions: Does this source agree or disagree with the other sources? Do I
trust this source to give me correct information? What information does this source provide that
the others don't? The participants' use of this method, including asking these questions, was
scaffolded during the classroom instruction.
Each instructional session was designed to allow for student oral participation and
discussion. I audio recorded the students' interactions with their peers, teachers, and me in the
classroom and on the school grounds with a digital audio recorder and a cassette recorder. The
eight 45-minute audio recorded classroom sessions (four from each class) were transcribed into
text documents for analysis (Appendix G). Information about the participants' concepts of the
multiple sources within historic sites came from the classroom discussion data. Data about the
participants' skills and challenges related to evaluating objects and buildings also came from the
classroom discussion data.
Participant written artifacts. Artifacts produced during the instruction group's sessions
and two source use activities completed by all participants were collected during the study.
Participant journals. The focused instruction sessions included writing activities,
which students completed in a journal. The journals (3-prong portfolios containing 10 sheets of
8.5 by 11-inch wide-ruled paper) were supplied to the students by the researcher. The students
took notes in their journals during activities. For example, in Session 3, I asked students to write
their observations about two different historic site sources. At the conclusion of the study, I
collected the journals.

46

Participant source use activities. In order to seek a balance between the desire
for activities that reflected authentic historical inquiry (Barton, 2005), in which students would
select and evaluate the historic site sources of their choosing, and the need to provide a
standardized format for assessment, I developed two different activities for all the participants to
complete, the Evidence Report Activity and the Source Based Question Activity. The primary
focus of both activities was for students to use their observation and source analysis skills to
answer the historical question "What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?" This
question was based on the content of the sources the participants would encounter during the
field trip. The activities reflected the D-A-C/C source analysis process taught during the
instruction students' sessions.
The Evidence Report Activity was the standardized activity designed to assess the
participants' abilities to evaluate sources intertextually (Appendix H). All students received the
activity instructions and activity items, printed on a single sheet on 11 by 17-inch paper folded in
half. In this activity, students were asked to look at photographs of four sources from the historic
site: a 3-D stereoscope viewer, tour guide's words about getting water, the barn, and an "exhibit
label" about schooling in the 1800s (adapted from a label from the site). Under each photograph,
the students were to describe and analyze each source in writing. These terms were defined in
the instructions. Finally, the students were asked to compare and contrast the four sources,
which involved telling how each source helped them to answer the historical question and
circling stars to indicate how reliable they found each source (4 stars = very, 3 stars = medium
amount, 2 stars = a little, and 1 star = not at all). Following the group sessions and site tour at
the Ella Sharp Museum, I directed the participants to complete the Evidence Report Activity in
the museum gallery. The participants' work from this activity (the activity sheet) was collected

47

by me after the completion of the activity.
Like the Evidence Report Activity, the Source Based Question Activity (SBQA) assessed
the participants' abilities to evaluate sources intertextually (Appendix I). In this activity,
however, the participants selected their own sources to use in addressing the historical question.
The SBQA was based on examples of document based questions, including several samples
produced by Kate Gillan and teachers at the East Irondequoit (New York) Central School
District, provided on the website "Teaching with Documents" (http://www.edteck.com/dbq/
testing/dbq.htm).
The two-page SBQA instructional sheet asked students to do three things. First, they
were asked to look at their historic site notes and drawings from their journals and Evidence
Report Activity. Next, the students made a list of sources they thought helped to answer the
historical question ("What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?"), based on their
notes from these activities, recollections from the visit, and any other sources, such as prior
knowledge. Finally, they used their notes and list of sources to help them write a short essay
(about two paragraphs) answering the historical question. The participants were asked to include
these elements in their essays: "tell what life was like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s," "use
information from your sources," and "sum up your ideas." Students wrote their lists and essays
on blank paper provided by the researcher. I introduced and directed the participants' completion
of the Source Based Question Activity in the school classroom, during the next social studies
period after the historic site field trip. I collected the artifacts from this activity, including
student notes and essays, when the activity as completed.
Though different in design, both the Evidence Report Activity and the Source Based
Question Activity gave the participants opportunities to evaluate sources and to use sources

48

intertextually to address a historical question. Differences did exist in the types and amounts of
source evaluation scaffolding provided on the activities (Bruner, 1986; van de Pol et al., 2010;
Wood et al., 1976). On the first activity (the ERA), all students were provided with definitions
of the source evaluation steps from the D-A-C/C method taught to the instruction group. The
purpose of this scaffolding was two-fold: first, to reinforce the instruction for the instruction
group students, and second, to provide a way to determine what level of source evaluation the
non-instruction group students would be able to produce, even without the instruction. On the
second activity (the SBQA), the participants were not specifically asked to use the steps of the
D-A-C/C method or to include any specific evaluations of sources, other than the directions to
"talk about sources in your answer" and to "use information from your sources" in their writing.
In not providing scaffolding that specifically encouraged the use of the Describe, Analyze, and
Compare/Contrast steps, potential differences between instruction and non-instruction groups
students might be observed.
Role of the Researcher
I fulfilled two roles in this research study: teacher-researcher and traditional observerresearcher. As a teacher-researcher, I developed and tested the instructional materials used in
this study. These materials were used for the instructional sessions for the instruction group and
the post-visit activities for the instruction and non-instruction groups. Next, I worked with the
instruction group students in their classrooms, providing four forty-five minute instructional
sessions for each group before the historic site field trips. Finally, I arranged and facilitated the
field trips and the post-visit activities for all students. As an observer-researcher, I transcribed
data from the classroom and historic site sessions, developed coding schemes for the data, and
analyzed data quantitatively and qualitatively.

49

My background in history, museum studies, philosophies of memory and material
culture, and historic preservation informed my work on the research project (Appendix J). I am a
social constructivist educator with a background in museum education, committed to
understanding more about people’s learning experiences in historic places. I believe that
knowledge is not transmitted but rather learners construct their own knowledge by developing
their individually held concepts in response to their environments, including engagement with
other people. In this research study, I worked within the framework that memory and history are
not fixed phenomena but rather are representations people construct in the present about the past.
These perspectives shaped my interpretations of the data in this study.
Data Analyses
Data from the research study were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods.
As stated above, the concurrent triangulation design allowed the qualitative and quantitative data
were collected and analyzed independently. The results of these analyses were compared and
used to inform interpretation of the other data type.
Qualitative Analyses
Data from the participants' discussions and activities were analyzed using qualitative
methods. Audio recordings of the instructional sessions and student written artifacts from the
instructional sessions (including the instruction group's journals and the two source use
activities) were transcribed into text documents. These documents were then entered into Atlas.ti
software for analysis. Some of the qualitative data were transformed into data to be analyzed
quantitatively.
The data were examined and coded using systematic content analysis. Open coding was
accomplished by naming and describing concepts suggested by the data and creating categories

50

from these concepts, based on the categories and patterns of categories (Bohm, 2000; Glesne,
2006). Additionally, categories addressing the research questions and categories arising from the
data were created. Lists of codes were developed and refined to guide the analysis process and
facilitate comparison with quantitative data. Concepts and categories were reviewed and refined
throughout the process. Once the data were coded, enumerative data analysis was employed for
many of the data, for example, the percentage of participants' who responses fit a particular
category.
In addition to the systematic content analysis, theory based analysis was used to analyze
the data from the classroom discussions and student artifacts. Theories of conceptual
development, intertextual reading, and motivation (see Chapter 2) were used to guide and inform
the interpretation of the study data. Categories reflecting the information gained from these
theories were added to the content analysis categories. These theories were inherently useful and
provided a contrast to the theory driven and directed by the data. This analysis is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 4.
Finally, the participants' writing from the two source based activities was evaluated to
determine the intertextual reading model to which the responses conformed: documents' model,
separate representation model, mush model, and tag-all model (Britt et al., 1999) (see Chapter
2). From each of the four models in Britt et al., the main characteristics of each were used to
create coding schemes, which was used to evaluate the participants' responses. An assistant and I
read each of the responses and applied these codes to the essays: mush, separate representation,
documents', or tag-all. This process is described more fully in Chapter 6.
Quantitative Analyses
Data to be analyzed quantitatively were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social

51

Sciences (SPSS). An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Participants' responses
on the questionnaires, including demographic and item responses, were analyzed descriptively
with the software to show the percentage of participants in each category (e.g., students who
believed objects are a reliable source of information about the past). Comparisons of the
demographic data (especially study group membership and grade level) to the students' responses
on particular items were accomplished using Pearson's chi-square tests (two-sided), paired ttests, and one-way between subjects analysis of variances (ANOVA) tests. Some of the
questionnaire items were grouped together into categories to facilitate analysis (see Chapter 5).
Additionally, to determine if changes occurred over time, the participants' responses on the first
and second questionnaires were compared using repeated measures ANOVAs.
Some results of the systematic content analysis coding processes of the classroom
discussion and participant artifacts were analyzed quantitatively. For example, descriptive
analysis was used to determine the frequency with which certain concepts were mentioned and to
identify correlations with other variables, such as study group or grade level. Transformed data
from the qualitative analyses were evaluated using Pearson's chi-square tests (two-sided) and
one-way between subjects ANOVAs.
The information from the quantitative analyses, together with the qualitative analyses,
helped create a picture of students' experiences when working with multiple texts within historic
sites as sources for historical inquiry. By analyzing these data together, the researcher was able
to address the three guiding research questions (RQs) for the study: What concepts do students
have about the nature of the multiple texts within historic sites (RQ1)? What skills and
challenges do children have when using multiple texts to complete a historical inquiry activity
(RQ2)? How does students' participation in an instruction program about using multiple texts

52

within historic sites as sources for historical inquiry change their learning experiences (RQ3)?
The results of these analyses provided information that produced a clearer picture of the
participants' overall experiences with using multiple texts for historical inquiry.
Research Hypotheses
Based on literature in the areas of children's primary source use and multiple source use,
it was expected that participants in both the instruction and non-instruction groups would exhibit
some of the types of skills and challenges inherent in all source use for historical inquiry (e.g.,
source citation, trustworthiness, comparison, and corroboration). Additionally, many of the
studies of multiple source use were done with adult participants, but it was anticipated that the
fourth- and fifth-grade participants would have at least similar, if not more, difficulties with the
tasks. Both class discussions and artifact data were used as data sources, to make clearer the
concepts and thought processes of the participants. Finally, it was expected that the participants'
descriptions of their abilities to reason about the reliability of historic site texts might vary and
depend on variables such as study group membership and grade level.
It was anticipated that participants in the instruction group would give definitions of these
multiple texts that were more in line with experts' concepts than participants in the noninstruction group. Similarly, it was expected that instruction group participants would show
more skill in using multiple texts as sources for historical inquiry than participants in the noninstruction group. Finally, it was anticipated that instruction group participants would show a
higher level of motivation for using multiple texts within historic sites, including a higher level
of perception of ability and value, than participants in the non-instruction group.
Delimitations and Limitations
This study relied on combining qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate

53

elementary school students' concepts of historic sites as primary sources and their experiences
with using sites for historical inquiry and to investigate the effects of providing instruction in
using historic sites as primary sources on achievement and motivation. With any mixed methods
study, problems may occur, especially with comparing the results of qualitative and quantitative
analyses. This requires additional awareness and the need to collect more data to address any
discrepancies (Creswell, 2009).
To address reliability threats in the proposed study, the researcher monitored codes for
shifts in meaning during coding. In the qualitative portion of this mixed methods study, checks
for intercoder agreement for reliability (a Cohen's kappa level of at least 70.0%) were performed.
Validity was addressed by using triangulation strategies, including triangulating of the qualitative
and quantitative data from participants (Delamont, 2002). For the quantitative parts of the study,
it was acknowledged that the non-random participant selection process may affect perceptions of
generalizability. In this study, the aim was to use qualitative and quantitative data together, to
create a complete picture of the phenomenon under investigation, within the acknowledged
limitations.
The study took place in elementary school classrooms and at a local historic site. Certain
challenges, therefore, resulted from collecting data in these two very different environments. At
the schools, the researcher had to work within constraints related to school, teacher, and student
needs. At the historic site, plans for on-site data collection had to balance the needs of the study
with concern for curatorial protection of the site. Finally, as in any study with children, the
pedagogical, social, and emotional needs of young participants required particular awareness.
Although doing this study in connection with the participants' visits to a local historic site
gave the study ecologically validity, concerns did exist. In this study, it was desirable for

54

students to experience textual reading as it happened during the site visit, something which
cannot be captured by anyone except the person who experiences it (e.g., experiences of the
spatial environment), and to explore their readings of these individually experienced sources.
Doing this study in conjunction with a field trip instead of providing the students with sources in
a laboratory environment meant that the results were more consistent with the actual experiences
of students who visit historic sites on field trips, thus making the activity reflect authentic
historical inquiry (see Barton, 2005 for a critique of primary source packet activities). The need
to preserve the validity the experiment, however, required some concessions. Thus, to address
the validity concerns and to allow students freedom for inquiry, a solution aimed at having "the
best of both worlds" was found by using two different activity types, as described above.
Furthermore, the use of student-produced written artifacts, such as activity worksheets
and journals, as a data collection tool helped illustrate what the participants recalled from their
experiences and provided a means to hear the authentic voices of children through their writing.
One challenge in using written artifacts as data sources, particularly with participants of this age,
is that the ability of children to express their thoughts in this form varies. The Michigan Grade
Level Content Expectations for Grades 4 and 5 states that students will be able to write brief
informational compositions with multiple paragraphs (Office of School Improvement, 2005).
Asking students to write reflectively (often in journal format) is a common educational practice.
Writing two- to three-paragraph essays as part of the post-visit activities is considered a grade
level-appropriate expectation. The students' ability to express themselves in writing, however,
was an acknowledged limitation in using this data collection method.
In the next chapter, the results of data from the instruction group's classroom sessions are
presented. The data sources for these results are particularly engaging, since they captured the

55

voices and thoughts of children as they explored topics related to historic site sources and
historical inquiry. In what follows, the participants' original spelling and grammar from the
written activities were retained. (In some instances, the first words of sentences were capitalized
and punctuation was added for clarity. Also, some students with learning or communications
disabilities dictated their journal entries to the classroom teacher or paraprofessionals who
assisted them in the classroom.) Likewise, grammar and speech patterns in dialogue from the
classroom discussions were unedited. The reason for doing so was to remind readers that the
participants were children, who were striving to express new and often complex ideas.
Presenting the children's speech and writing as it naturally occurred allows the reader to
experience the children's expression of language in the context of the activities and to appreciate
their enthusiastic efforts in the overall learning experience.

56

CHAPTER 4: FOCUSED INSTRUCTION SESSION RESULTS
In four classroom sessions, the instruction group students were introduced to the concepts
of asking historical questions, examining primary and secondary sources (objects, buildings, tour
guide's words, and labels/signs) for evidence to address historical questions, and using sources
intertextually to evaluate information and make decisions about the past. To scaffold the
instruction students' practice of historical inquiry, they were taught the Describe - Analyze –
Compare/Contrast (D-A-C/C) method. These emphases on historical inquiry and personal
engagement in the process of inquiry were consistent threads running throughout all four
sessions.
During each session, the students discussed content related to the session's particular big
idea, and they practiced asking and answering historical questions and evaluating evidence from
sources, by participating in class activities designed around examining objects, their school's
built environment, and exhibit labels and tour videos. In the final session, students practiced
evaluating "evidence reports" written by elementary school children, to critique their
comparisons of multiple sources together to answer a historical question.
The participants' dialogue during classroom discussions and written materials produced
during the sessions in their journals revealed their understandings of these concepts and provided
information about their skills and challenges in using multiple sources for inquiry, addressing
these research questions:
•

Question 1.1: How do students identify and define the multiple texts of historic sites?

•

Question 1.2: How do students define the reliability of the multiple texts of historic
sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 1.3: How do students understand the goals and skills for working with the

57

multiple texts within historic sites?
•

Question 2.1: What are students' skills and challenges when using multiple texts
within historic sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.2: How do students make decisions about evidence and the use of
evidence from historic site texts?

•

Question 2.3: How might grade level be related to students' abilities to use historic
sites texts as sources to support historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.4: How do students describe their ability to reason about the reliability of
historic site texts?

Forty-seven instruction group students, 28 in Grade 4 and 19 in Grade 5 (96% of the
instruction group in the overall sample), participated in the four classroom sessions before
visiting the historic site. (Some students did not have parent/guardian permission to have their
data from the instructional sessions collected by the researcher.) The results and analyses below
are based on data from these 47 students.
The Nature of Primary and Secondary Sources
One of the focuses in the first instructional session was on helping students understand
the certain aspects of the nature of sources, including the function of sources to provide evidence
for addressing historical questions. Since the students would be using both primary sources
(objects and buildings) and secondary sources (tour guide's words, labels, and signs) during their
visit to the historic site, defining the differences between the two types of sources was central to
the discussion. During Session 1, primary source was defined by the researcher as "evidence
from the past," and secondary source was defined as "writing or talking about primary sources,"
that is, commentary about primary sources. Participants' interpretations, and perhaps deeper

58

understandings, of these terms, however, were made more apparent through a close analysis of
their discourse surrounding these terms. During the discussion of primary and secondary
sources, participants' conceptual understandings emerged, which were categorized in four
themes: numeration, re-presentation, origin, and authenticity/realness.
Numeration
Understandings based on the concept of numeration centered on the ordinal relationship
between the two source types. For example, when describing primary source, Brice (Grade 4)
observed, "Primary means something about, it had something to do with the first source, like the
first history." This definition was given prior to the researcher presenting the information that
the word primary is defined as "first in order." When asked about secondary sources, Joshua
(Grade 4) suggested, "Like it's the second thing in order." These answers were discussed during
the first instructional session. No fifth-grade students gave a numerative response for primary or
secondary source during their instructional session. (To discover how prevalent the numerative
understanding and other concepts were among the sample as a whole, two open-ended questions
were asked on the student pre- and post-tests. The results are discussed in Chapter 5.)
Re-presentation
Numerative understanding seemed to extend beyond the distinction between the two
types; it also appeared to influence students' specific understandings of secondary sources. One
concept revealed in the instructional session dialogue concerned the secondary source as a representation of a primary source. Several aspects of re-presentation were observed in the
discussions. First, a specific secondary source was considered to be the same thing as a specific
primary source but just represented in a different way. For instance, the idea of the secondary
source as a copy was prevalent. During the session, Ellen (Grade 5) suggested a secondary

59

source was "like it could be like a copy of a picture or something else" (Transcript 2). Ichiyo
(Grade 4) observed a secondary source is "a photograph or picture of a primary source"
(Transcript 1).
Related to the conceptualization of secondary source as copy is the idea that the
secondary source loses authenticity by virtue of being a copy (Huyssen, 1995), as when several
students discussed primary sources as being "better" than secondary sources. This concept of representing and changing an original into something lesser than the original was present in the
students' dialogue as well. In response to the request for a definition of secondary source, Cody
(Grade 4) asked, "Is a secondary source like making a cartoon?" (Transcript 1), and Lena (Grade
5) observed, "It is something that has been copied or [is] false" (Transcript 2), suggesting that
secondary source is a representation of an original (primary source) that represents the substance
of the original yet is not the original and potentially counterfeit. As a result, the copy is seen as
less authoritative. During the discussions, fourth graders seemed to struggle more than the fifth
graders with understanding that the concept of a secondary source as a copy is inconsistent with
experts' concepts.
Finally, re-presentation was discussed as a means of gaining knowledge. Wyatt gave the
example of a reenactment to define secondary source. He stated, "But they're like, we know
some about the Civil War, but sometimes, lots of times there's reenactments to see what it was
like" (Transcript 1). During the instructional sessions, both primary and secondary sources were
continually emphasized as tools necessary for addressing historical questions, which are asked
about the past, among other reasons, because we cannot directly experience the past. The notion
that sources, particularly secondary sources, provide information through re-presentation is
similar to the concept of secondary source as copy, but highlights a specific purpose for the copy.

60

In all the participants' definitions of secondary sources, re-presentation was always viewed as a
removal from a primary source, not a commentary on a primary source (the actual definition).
Origin
The participants' concepts of sources also encompassed the idea of origin of sources, that
is, knowledge of the genesis or provenance of sources. During the instructional sessions, many
participants defined primary and secondary sources in terms of the origin of sources in the past.
Particularly emphasized were the relationships of sources to the present, as part of the historical
record, in terms of space and time. Students made spatial references to sources as being
"something that was from the past" or "from somebody who was important" (Donovan, Grade 4,
Transcript 1) and a rifle "from the Civil War" (Kevin, Grade 5, Transcript 2). Time references
involved students describing sources' distances in time from the present. Some were nonspecific, such as Naoki's (Grade 4) statement that he "[has] some really old Japanese coins" and
Lila's (Grade 4) sharing that she "[has] coins from that my grandpa's dad had from a long, long
time ago" (Transcript 1). Other time references were specific, such as Dennis' (Grade 5)
reference to "a World War 2 veteran" (Transcript 2).
The students' discussion emphasized the correct notion that primary sources often (but
not always) must be related in time to the focus of a historical question. The dialogue did not
reveal whether the students had a clear understanding that a source does not always have to be
old (e.g., "from a long, long time ago") in order to be considered a primary source. In retrospect,
reinforcing this point more directly during the instruction may have been beneficial.
Authenticity/Realness
Related to the concept of origin is the concept of authenticity. The instructional session
discussions revealed that concepts of authenticity or realness were key to students' concepts of

61

primary and secondary sources, that is, the identity of sources as authentically historic or "true"
artifacts. When asked the definition of primary source, Dennis (Grade 5) related, "Like, a
primary source is like having a World War 2 veteran come in and talk to you about World War
2" and "Because he actually, like, experienced it" (Transcript 2). The authenticity of the person's
experience, as rooted in a historical event, gave credence to the person as a source for
information about history. Concern about judging the authenticity of sources is apparent in
Katie's (Grade 5) question about whether a fake military uniform is a primary source. In
response to this discussion about primary and secondary sources, she asked,
Katie: Um, what about, you said the guy came in and showed his uniform. What would it
be if it was a fake uniform?
Researcher: If it were a fake?
Katie: Like if it was something that was supposed to look like it.
Researcher: Hmm, you know that's a good question. It really wouldn't be a primary
source from the past if it wasn't part of the war, like if somebody just made it yesterday or
something. So for our purposes, we could say it's probably not going to help us answer a
question about history, so we probably wouldn't use it as a primary source for us. But if
you were going to open up a museum of fake uniforms [participants' laughter], then
maybe it could be a primary source. So it's a little bit tricky, but for us, we'll just say, no,
that's probably not going to help us. (Transcript 2)
This question and the researcher's answer emphasized the need to establish authentic
versus non-authentic artifacts during historical inquiry, something that is essential to the process.
A little later in the session, on her own, this same student made a connection between the issue of
source authenticity and active inquiry.

62

Katie: When you told us to answer the question, when you need to look at more than one
thing.
Researcher: Mm-hmm. Right.
Katie: If you had a fake uniform and a real uniform, could you compare them?
Researcher: Ooo, did everybody hear that? Okay, Katie said, 'If you had a fake uniform
and then you had a real primary source uniform, could you compare those together?' I
would say yes, that's a very good way that you could learn about history and to figure out
which one is the right source from history and help you to learn. And we're going to talk
a lot about comparing and contrasting in a few minutes. (Transcript 2)
In this discussion, both the student and the researcher are making a distinction between a "real
primary source uniform" (one that had been established as coming from a particular time and
place in history) and a "fake uniform" (one that had been made to look like the genuine artifact).
For both, being able to say with certainty whether a uniform was "real" made it a primary source.
Thus, realness was synonymous with potential use for historical inquiry.
The concept of realness also seemed connected to the concept of tangibility. Most of the
examples the students provided for sources were tangible objects, such as coins, cartoons, guns,
and uniforms. Students in both grades seemed to have an easier time conceptualizing material
objects as primary sources than non-material things. For instance, during the session with the
fourth grade class, the classroom teacher asked a question about whether a song is a primary or
secondary source, which opened a very interesting line of discussion with the students. In the
following section of dialogue, a student had just asked about whether Internet sources are
primary or secondary.
Researcher: So that's a secondary source. Lots of the things you find online might be

63

primary sources, they show a document or something, but most of it is going to be
writing or talking about it, so secondary.
Mrs. Hertel: How about singing about it?
Researcher: Singing about it?
Mrs. Hertel: Yeah, our kids learned a song about the Erie Canal.
Participants: [a few voices naming the song]: Fifteen miles.
Researcher: That is a great source for history. But here's the tricky thing…The song
itself, like when somebody wrote the song, is that a primary source, because it came to us
from the past?
Participants: [many voices]: Yeah.
Researcher: It is, so it's kind of a weird thing. The song itself is a primary source, but the
words are talking about the Erie Canal, so that makes it a secondary source too. So it's
kind of both, kind of a funny thing. (Transcript 1)
This discussion was difficult, first because it used as an example a source type that could
be considered both primary and secondary, and second because it introduced an intangible source
type: the human voice. Although it was not clear from the discussion whether the fourth-grade
students really understood the potential duality of sources, at least they were introduced to the
idea that primary and secondary sources may be non-material. In later classroom sessions
discussed below, the students received instruction about tour guide's spoken words as a source.
On the participant questionnaire (given before the instructional sessions started and after the
historic site visit), most of the examples given by students in both the instruction and noninstruction groups were material examples. Additionally, the students used phrases like "the real
thing" or "a real object" in their definitions of primary and secondary sources, emphasizing the

64

tangible. This tendency, however, was understandable, given the often greater physical
accessibility of material evidence.
Though the need to establish authenticity through evaluation (including comparison) is
necessary for historical inquiry, one element that the students' discussion did not include was the
notion that "real" and "authoritative" are not the same thing. The realness of an artifact, that is,
its authenticity, does not automatically translate into authority. Although a source may be
authentic, it may not be authoritative when used as a source. For example, a letter written in the
past, though genuinely historical, may not be authoritative as a source in a particular line of
historical inquiry. This type of thinking requires another step toward evaluation of sources,
something these students did not yet spontaneously do. Notably, extended discussion on this
topic took place mostly with the fifth-grade students, indicating that this more sophisticated
discussion about the identity of sources as authentic was more central to their thinking than that
of the fourth-grade students.
Use of the D-A-C/C Source Evaluation Method
In addition to discourse about primary and secondary sources, the participants' discussion
during Session 1 highlighted their understandings of the D-A-C/C evaluative techniques and
their abilities to use them for learning information from sources to answer historical questions.
Describe
Description appeared to be an easy concept for all the participants to grasp. Students at
both grade levels immediately assumed that a central part of description involved identifying the
physical characteristics of sources. For objects and buildings, students eagerly took part in
sharing their observations of physical characteristics (color, size, shape, hardness, and texture),
identity or function, and context (especially for buildings) of sources. For example, when asked

65

to describe the fireplace shown in a photograph of the Abraham Lincoln Home National Historic
Site, Maria (Grade 4) observed, "Um, kind of looks like wood, and part of it underneath looks
like cement" (Transcript 1). In the case of tour guide's words and labels, the participants'
descriptions included far fewer physical characteristics and more restatements of factual
information or relating historical narratives, such as in Adam's (Grade 4) assertion about a label
describing the fireplaces in the historic Robie House (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and
completed in 1910): "The labol said, 'The cheme [chimney] is [made of] the same brick and
limestone'" (Participant Journal).
Although description was the easiest of the D-A-C/C steps for the students to understand
and practice, certain challenges existed. In making their observations, the students discussed
possible ways to use their senses in describing sources. Although all five senses were mentioned
during the sessions, the students' language of description focused almost exclusively on the
senses of sight and hearing. For instance, Samuel (Grade 5) observed about the Lincoln home, "I
think the house is made out of bricks, because you see like right here [indicates by pointing at the
screen], it's just bricks" (Transcript 2). One example of the students describing senses other than
sight and sound during the sessions occurred when they did the outdoor activity about their
school building. During this activity, the students used touch to experience the multiple types of
materials used in the building's construction.
Another area of challenge was helping students understand that description included
identifying the source type and the writer, maker, or speaker (the originator) of the source. This
additional layer, beyond that of physical description, appeared novel to the students, and
performing this task required scaffolding, by use of prompts during the classroom activities and
the design of the source use activities (see Chapter 6). During Session 1 in the fourth grade

66

classroom, the students worked through the process of determining the origin of a museum label
by making educated guesses, as reflected in the following dialogue.
Researcher: But if you don't know for sure, you can always make some educated guesses,
and you're allowed to do that, based on the evidence that you find. Here's a picture here,
it's pretty small, so you might not be able to see it, but it's a label from a museum. Okay?
How many of you have ever seen a museum label? You've been in a museum and you've
seen these signs and things [students raise hands]? Okay, lots of people. Who makes
these labels? Where do they come from? Who do you think makes these labels when
you see them? Let's see, Beth?
Beth: A factory?
Researcher: Okay, it possibly could come from a factory. Where else could they come
from? Daniel?
Daniel: From historians?
Researcher: Yeah, really good, people who work at the museum and know about history.
So do you think they know kind of what they're talking about since they work at the
museum?
Multiple participants: Yes.
Researcher: Okay, so we can guess that this label comes from somebody who works at a
museum. Um, so you can make a guess like that, but sometimes you're not going to
know. You're just going to have to make a guess, and if you base your guess on
evidence, that's okay. That's what historians do. (Transcript 1)
The practice of identifying the source type and the writer, maker, or speaker of the source
was difficult for some students, especially for sources other than objects or buildings. Many

67

students continued to be challenged by this task, even with scaffolding. Grade level made some
difference in students' abilities. For example, when asked during the Session 3 in-class activity
to identify the maker of a label about the Robie House, only 16 of the fourth-grade students
(61.5%) correctly responded "museum worker" in their journals. Other students believed that
Frank Lloyd Wright wrote the label (5 students) or a tourist (1 student). Four students (15.3%)
left this question blank. In contrast, 16 fifth-grade students (84.2%) believed a museum worker
wrote the label, and three students (15.7%) left this question blank.
When asked about the origin of tour guide's words about the Robie House (the students
watched a video of a house tour during the activity), many fourth-grade students failed to
understand the identity of the words themselves as a source, meaning the words came from the
tour guide. Just over half of the fourth graders correctly identified the docent or museum worker
as the source of the information (53.8%), with many (10 students, 38.4%) incorrectly attributing
the words to Frank Lloyd Wright. Conversely, most students at the fifth-grade level seemed to
grasp the idea that the docent as a person was the source of the words. All but one of the fifthgrade students (18, 94.7%) identified a docent or museum work as the source of the words. In a
particularly interesting statement, one fifth-grade student observed, "A docent spoke for the
house and Frank Loyd Wright built it," indicating a thoughtful and interesting understanding of
the role of docent.
Analyze
The participants' understandings of analysis included interpretation of the information
learned during the description process and hypothesizing or deduction from this interpretation.
Explaining his concept of analysis, Wyatt (Grade 4) suggested, "Isn't analyzing to know what it
is? I don't know how to say this, but um, like you can find an answer to it" (Transcript 1). This

68

definition is consistent with the idea that analysis involves "digging deeper" and trying to discern
the originator's purpose, the intended audience, and possible meanings of what was noticed
during description.
During the discussions and related activities, analytical interpretation of source
information involved the participants comparing information from unknown sources to known
sources or prior knowledge. Some analyses were made based on source attributes. For example,
in one activity during Session 2, the participants evaluated an unfamiliar object (a kitchen tool
used to stamp a pattern on bread before toasting), first individually and then as a group.
Commenting on the shape of the tool, Ryan (Grade 4) observed, "It looks like bread" (Transcript
3). Analyses also were made according to known or hypothesized source function. Concerning
the bread stamp, a fifth grade student suggested,
Joanna: It might be a cookie maker.
Researcher: Ooo, it might be a cookie maker. What made you think that?
Joanna: Because you can press it down. (Transcript 4)
These examples show the abilities of participants at both grade levels to analyze sources based
on physical attributes and functions of the unknown source and known sources.
Additionally, participants were able to take the information they learned in the
description step and use this information for hypothesizing or deduction to answer a historical
question. In the following exchange, a fifth grade student acknowledged the need to look more
closely at the object and then explained the process of deduction she might engage in based on
potential evidence.
Researcher: So who made this source? How can we find out about that? Rachel, what do
you think?

69

Rachel: You could look around on the chair, probably not a factory made it, since it was a
long time ago. Maybe somebody like took wood and actually handmade it instead of
making it in a factory. (Transcript 2)
Similarly, in the fourth grade session, Demarcus observed, "That it had a lot of handmade
carvings and stuff on the wood," thus interpreting the carvings he saw as "handmade."
In another example, two fifth graders' evaluations of a chair in a photograph of the
Lincoln home led them to draw conclusions to help them answer a question about what the
Lincoln's living room was like when the Lincoln family lived there and reasons for this
appearance.
Researcher: We want to know what the living room was like. What does this chair tell
us? Let's go to Joanna. What do you think?
Joanna: That they had chairs.
Researcher: Yes, perfect. That they had chairs. Maybe this is the kind of chair they had.
Kevin: That they might not have had too much wood.
Research: That they might not have had too much wood, and we can talk about that.
Maybe wood was really expensive…" (Transcript 2)
These fifth-grade students exhibited the process of looking more closely at sources and using the
information from sources to construct deeper understandings.
Fourth-grade students showed the same ability to analyze by drawing conclusions, but
they required more scaffolding than the fifth-grade students. One example of this scaffolding
occurred during the students' evaluation of a photograph of the Lincoln home exterior.
Researcher: What else do we notice? Patrick?
Patrick: It kinda looks like people like to see out the windows.

70

Researcher: Okay. It has windows. How many windows does it have? Let’s count.
Participants and Researcher: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Researcher: And you can’t really see it, but they have more windows over here and more
here and more in the back. Now, did Mrs. Hertel ever talk to you, like back in history,
about how glass didn’t always used to be as cheap as it is today? Have you ever heard
that before? Glass used to be really super expensive in the past. So, if somebody had a
house that had lots and lots of windows like this one does, what does that make you
think? Robin, what do you think, if somebody’s house had lots and lots of windows…
Mrs. Hertel: What does it make you think about the people who were living there?
Robin: They were rich or something.
Researcher: They were rich or something, yeah. They had lots of money. They could
buy this, these expensive things. So, we can start learning a lot of things about the
Lincolns just by sort of reading this building and looking at their house. (Transcript 3)
Although participants at both grade levels seemed able to take the next step beyond
description to analysis, there were fewer examples of analysis than description (see "The Nature
and Evaluation of Specific Source Types" section below). Some students at both grade levels
had difficulty with this step, especially when using tour guide's words and labels as sources
(even with scaffolding). For example, in the journal writing activity about evaluating tour
guide's words, fourth-grade students provided no examples of deduction in their analysis of the
source, and only 2 of 19 fifth-grade students responded with deduction. When asked to analyze a
label in the same activity, no students at either grade level provided a deductive response.
Compare/Contrast
The process of comparing and contrasting, as the researcher presented it to the

71

participants in the D-A-C/C method, was intended to encourage intertextual readings of sources.
The participants were asked to address source agreement, source trustworthiness, and content
differences and similarities among multiple sources, as applied to answering historical questions.
During the sessions, the researcher stressed the idea that people may learn more information
from multiple sources than from one source, as in this puzzle analogy presented to the students.
Researcher: We all know that the puzzle pieces fit together, and they help you to see the
complete picture once it's all put together. We can do the same thing with evidence. If
we find more than one piece of evidence, we can see how they all fit together to give use
a complete picture. Just looking at the rocking chair by itself that might not help us too
much to learn about the Lincoln living room. We might have to look at some other
things…
You can get more information from two sources than you can from one. If we
start looking at more than one source, then we can start putting the complete picture
together. You can also get different kinds of information from each source. Like say we
learn a little bit from the rocking chair, maybe we could learn a little bit from the carpet,
maybe we could learn a little bit from the fireplace. You can use information from one
source to help you understand other sources a little bit better, so there are ways they kind
of play off each other. And even though some sources are really different, you can still
compare and contrast them. (Grade 4 Session, Transcript 1).
The participants' classroom discussion and writing in the journals during the instructional
sessions revealed information about their conceptual understandings of comparing and
contrasting, both how they align with and diverge from the concepts as presented by the
researcher. For example, when asked to discuss the compare and contrast process, the students

72

appeared to have a good understanding of the reasons for comparing and contrasting, as
presented in the D-A-C/C method. At the most fundamental level, comparing and contrasting
was believed to be necessary because "They [the two sources] both give information. They say
different things" (Penny, Grade 4, Participant Journal). Additionally, the notion of looking very
carefully to find differences in sources was clear, as Faith (Grade 5) explained during a review of
the D-A-C/C method in Session 2, "We observed the item, we looked at it very carefully and
then we could, like, see when we compared and contrast two objects" (Transcript 4). She
acknowledged that this is not always an easy process, continuing, "You could, sometimes you
can, it’s easy to find and tell the differences, and sometimes you gotta search."
During the sessions, the students' practice of comparing and contrasting focused on four
areas: the citation of sources, evaluation of the nature of sources, reliability or trustworthiness of
sources, and evaluation of source content. The ability to cite sources, something that is essential
to expert historical practice (Britt et al., 1999; Wineburg, 1991), was evident in the students'
discussion and writing. In Session 3, the participants watched a video of tour at the Robie House
about the fireplace in the house's billiard room and examined a paper copy of an exhibit label
about the fireplace (produced by the researcher with information from the Frank Lloyd Wright
Preservation Trust website). When asked to compare and contrast these sources, Tim's (Grade 4)
response included source citations connected to content. He asserted,
I think that the docent gave us slightly more information. The label tole me that the
fireplace is made of brick and limestone, as did the docent. The docent tole me that there
was a hole in the back of the room where you would dispose ashes from the fireplace, as
the label didn't. (Participant Journal)
Similarly, fifth grader Corinna concluded, "The label told us that the playroom has a fireplace,

73

but the tour guide didn't. The tour guide didn't tell us that the playroom had a fireplace"
(Participant Journal).
Participants also discussed their concepts of the nature of different source types while
comparing and contrasting. The notion that all sources provide information – but that some
provide more or better information – was present. Will (Grade 4) argued, "A docent and a label
are the same because they both give you infermasen. A docent and a label are different because
a docent gives you more infermasen" (Participant Journal). Some students focused on the origin
of the sources when comparing and contrasting, as when Madison (Grade 4) suggested, "Both of
the sources are different. Both of the sources were made by different people" (Participant
Journal). This statement highlights the difference between sources as based on the maker or
speaker. Further, the form a source takes, either tangible or intangible, was part of students'
evaluations while comparing and contrasting, as Micah's (Grade 4) writing showcased, "They
[label and tour guide's words] are different because one you read and the docent you listen to the
Docent" (Participant Journal). As discussed above, the issue of tangibility may reflect students'
beliefs about the way sources can or should be compared, as shown in Dennis' (Grade 5)
statement about the label: "It shows evidence from the fact that it was real" (Participant Journal).
Students also mentioned the trustworthiness of sources, as Rachel stated, "We looked at it
and made a guess of what it was and like how predictable, like how much we could count on it"
(Transcript 4). Here, Rachel was referring to how the students were asked to rate the
trustworthiness of sources to give information to answer historical questions, but always as part
of comparing and contrasting with other sources or with prior knowledge, never sources own
their own. Tim (Grade 4), whose citations of sources were discussed above, ended his
Compare/Contrast comments with "I think they are both good sources" (Participant Journal).

74

Kara (Grade 4) evaluated the label and tour guide's words together and concluded, "The evidence
the docent gives me might not be true" (Participant Journal). Many other students included
similar rating comparisons in their writing and discussion. Whatever the reasons for or ultimate
reliability of these students' judgments, they demonstrate that students at both grade levels were
able to consider and decide about source reliability.
One of the most common examples of comparing and contrasting observed in the
discussions and activities was evaluations of content differences and similarities among sources.
For instance, during Session 1, the students participated in a group activity to practice comparing
and contrasting multiple sources. They evaluated a photograph of the interior of the Lincoln
home and a researcher-developed source, a "letter" written by a hypothetical visitor to the
Lincoln home in 1858, designed to set up opportunities for comparisons when the letter
disagreed in part with what the students would observe in the photograph. During this session,
both fourth- and fifth-grade students referred to the letter's content, in contrast to what they
observed in the photograph, as in this exchange with fourth graders:
Daniel: Well, it's [the letter] telling you, well, like what she saw when she was visiting
the house.
Researcher: Right, exactly. And what did she see? What were some of the things that
she saw?
Cody: By the chairs she saw a cooking stove.
Mrs. Hertel: Do you see it?
Researcher: Where, hmm, is there a cooking stove?
Multiple participants: No. (Transcript 1)
Again, when comparing the Robie House tour video and label, the participants referred to

75

content. Kara (Grade 4) recalled, "The label told us that the playroom has a fireplace, but the
tour guide didn't. The tour guide didn't tell us that the playroom had a fireplace" (Participant
Journal). This student related content knowledge from more than one source. The notion of
building understanding on content knowledge from multiple sources was expressed perfectly by
Hudson (Grade 5), who wrote concerning the label, "It adds to the docents words. Docent tells
about the hole. Lable says four fireplaces" (Participant Journal). As seen in these examples,
focusing on content as part of the Compare/Contrast step of the D-A-C/C method was linked to
citation and source reliability, showing the connection between these aspects of the participants'
understandings of the process of comparing and contrasting.
The Nature and Evaluation of Specific Source Types
Once the D-A-C/C method was introduced to the participants, they were encouraged to
use these steps to analyze the various types of sources they encountered during the instructional
sessions. During the classroom sessions, the participants encountered a variety of different
source types, including objects, buildings, tour guide's words on video, and labels. The
participants engaged in classroom discussions and in-class journal writing about each type of
source. These data revealed various aspects of the students' concepts of the different source
types and their skills and challenges related to evaluating sources using the D-A-C/C method
when evaluating particular sources (Figure 5).
Objects
During the instructional sessions, the participants encountered a variety of objects,
including objects the researcher brought into the classroom, objects the students brought from
home, and historic objects via photographs, such as those from the Lincoln home and the Robie
House. Students at both grade levels performed similar numbers of descriptive object

76

D-A-C/C step

Objects
Grade 4 Grade 5

Buildings
Grade 4 Grade 5

Tour Guide's Words
Grade 4 Grade 5

Labels
Grade 4 Grade 5

Describe
Maker or speaker

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Physical characteristics

•

•

•

•

Function

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Content, factual information

•

•

•

•

Content, historical narrative

•

Character or nature of source

•

Context

•
•

•

•

•

•

Analyze
Interpretation

•

•

•

•

•

Deduction or hypothesis

•

•

•

•

Source citation

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Reliability

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Information or content

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Compare/Contrast

Figure 5. Instruction students' skills in evaluating sources using the D-A-C/C method. Note. • = Skill observed in
students at particular grade levels during instructional sessions.

77

evaluations. Of the 15 evaluative statements about objects made during Session 1 by fourthgrade students, 8 were descriptive (53.3%). Fifth-grade students made 21 evaluative statements,
and of these, 11 (52.4%) were descriptive.
When evaluating objects in the Describe step, participants at both grade levels were able
to attempt to identify the author, maker, or speaker of a source, even if their responses were not
correct. Students readily offered hypotheses about the function of objects, such as describing
what they believed to be the function of the bread stamp. Although consideration of context is
part of the description step, the activities employed objects that were, for the most,
decontextualized (e.g., objects brought from home). As a result, the participants did not describe
context for most of the objects they encountered during the sessions. Discussion of prior
knowledge of factual information or historical narratives related to the objects evaluated was
limited, except when the participants discussed the objects from their homes.
Fewer of the participants' evaluative statements about objects were analytic. One third of
the fourth graders' statements about objects involved analysis. During the fifth graders' session,
38% of their statements were analytic. When analyzing objects, students engaged in discussions
about the maker's purpose, the intended use for the object, and possible meanings of what was
noticed during description. Analysis included comparisons to known items, based on
interpretations of physical materials and function. For example, when discussing an object that
looked like a flat iron, fifth grader Katie reported,
My grandma and grandpa actually do have an old iron. It's like this metal base and you
take the handle and pour water in it and you hold it up to the fire so it will get hot. And it
has like a wooden handle. (Transcript 2)
Deduction or hypotheses about objects based on observations from the Describe step was

78

difficult for some students, but in the discussions and journal writing, more deductive responses
were included for objects and buildings than for tour guide's words and labels.
Comparing and contrasting objects occurred the least often during Session 1. One reason
for this is that fewer opportunities were given for students to compare and contrast during the
discussion and activities. In both classrooms, only two compare and contrast statements were
made, but these examples show that some students at both grade levels were able to evaluate
objects. As described above, in the example of comparing the interior photograph of the Lincoln
home with the hypothetical letter source, students at both grade levels were able to complete this
activity successfully. The participants also addressed source reliability, determined by
comparing multiple objects. In the Lincoln activity, almost all participants agreed that what they
observed in the photograph of the living room, incorporated with knowledge about the history of
the objects in the room learned during the discussion, was more reliable than the letter.
Buildings
Allowing the participants to encounter and evaluate actual buildings during the
instructional sessions was limited. The participants did one activity that allowed them to
evaluate their school building, but due to travel restraints, their exposure to historic buildings as
sources during the sessions was limited to photographs. The school building activity in Session
2 did allow students to experience building evaluation in an authentic manner (e.g., seeing and
touching the materials, experiencing spatial aspects of the building, and so on).
Students' descriptions of buildings incorporated descriptions similar to those for objects,
such as color, size, shape, materials, identity, and function. During Session 2 the students
evaluated exterior photographs of the Swiss Re Building, a London office building, and the
Lincoln home during a group activity. They described the shape of the buildings (e.g., "It kinda

79

looks like, like it's a rocket ship," Demarcus, Grade 4, Transcript 3) and the materials and
designs of the buildings. Unlike objects, however, the students discussed the contexts of
buildings, as in these fourth graders' comments about the London building. The students
observed,
Unidentified participant 1: At the bottom of the building, it looks like it's on another
building.
Researcher: Yes, it does, sort of. This is kind of like a foundation level [indicates on
screen], and then it looks like maybe the street is way down here.
Participant 1: It looks like it's a lot taller than the other buildings.
Researcher: It's really very, very tall.
Unidentified participant 2: That's what I was gonna say. (Transcript 3)
To compare the participants' discussions by grade level, over half (11 of 17, 64.7%)
instances of evaluation of buildings during the fourth grade Session 2 discussion were
descriptive. During the Grade 5 discussion, the vast majority (17 of 20, 85%) evaluations were
descriptive. Descriptions of materials, design, and building shape occurred in similar numbers
for both grades, but fifth graders supplied four comments about context and fourth graders gave
only one.
Participants' analyses of buildings involved both interpretation of the information learned
during the description process and hypotheses and deduction from these interpretations.
Students at both grade levels analyzed information from the buildings in similar ways, but had
different numbers of instances of analysis based evaluations during Session 2. Fourth-grade
students had more instances (6 of 17, 35.3%) than fifth grade students (3 of 20, 15%). For
example, Grade 4 students deduced, from the amount of glass used in the Lincoln home and the

80

price of glass in the nineteenth century, that the people who lived there "were rich or something"
(Transcript 2). Several students used their understandings of the materials and design to interpret
the London building as "modern." Further, the fourth graders hypothesized about possible uses
of the Swiss Re Building based on its shape (e.g., a pickle factory or a paper factory). Similarly,
fifth graders included deductions in their discussion of buildings, but the focus of their
evaluations was slightly different than the fourth graders, moving away from the material aspects
of the Lincoln home to drawing conclusions about the use of the property, as in the following
exchange:
Jonah: That they have like that, it looks like a little shed.
Researcher: Okay, over here?
Jonah: Yeah.
Researcher: That's actually a barn, back behind there, so if we were to walk back…what
would it tell you if somebody has a barn? Tommy, what does it means if somebody has a
barn?
Tommy: They have, they were farmers. (Transcript 4)
A little later in the same discussion, Wayne observed,
Wayne: It looks like he has a big backyard.
Researcher: Okay, right. So the big backyard, that also lets you know that what? What
did they use that for?
Wayne: Looks like they had some animals.
In Session 2, which focused on evaluation of buildings, the participants did not engage in
the Compare/Contrast step to evaluate multiple buildings to address a historical question. Data
about their citation of sources, evaluation of the nature of sources, reliability or trustworthiness

81

of sources, and evaluation of source content in the context of historical questions were not
available for buildings.
Tour Guide's Words
Like the evaluation of buildings, the participants' exposure to tour guide's words as a
source during the instructional session was limited to activities possible to complete within the
classroom space and time available. Due to these restraints, the "tour guide" source was a oneminute video of a tour from Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie House about the fireplace in the billiard
room (available online), which the students watched as a group in the classroom (Session 3).
The students' discussion of tour guide's words as a source stemmed from this activity.
When evaluating this source, the participants' description focused on different areas than
their description of objects or buildings. Physical characteristics, function, and context were not
described. Instead, students related factual information, historical narratives, and information
about the character and nature of the tour guide's words as a means of describing the source.
Factual information included statements about what the tour guide related via the spoken word,
for example, Darren (Grade 4) observed, "The docent said, 'Ther is an ashpit' in the Robie
House" (Participant Journal). Factual information descriptions were the most common
description-related incidents among fourth graders (14 of 22 incidents, 63.6%) but less common
for fifth graders (6 of 17, 35.2%). Fourth-grade students also gave more descriptions of
historical narratives than fifth-grade students (27.2% and 5.8%, respectively), including stories
about the history of the house or the people who lived there.
Analysis of the tour guide's words was very limited compared to the analyses of objects
and buildings. One fourth-grade student made a statement about the number of fireplaces ("They
had a lot of fireplaces."), which may be considered interpretive. Only two fifth-grade students

82

drew conclusions from the evidence they discussed in the Describe step, both deducing that the
fireplaces would keep people warm.
In the Robie House activity, the participants had the opportunity to compare and contrast
tour guide's words about the fireplace with a label about the construction of fireplaces within the
house. The participants were asked to answer a historical question about what the fireplaces in
the Robie House were like. Within the boundaries of addressing this question, students at both
grade levels discussed their beliefs about the character and nature of the tour guide's words as a
source were included in the Compare/Contrast step. (Their discussions revealed that most
students at both grade levels consistently cited the sources to which they referred.) For example,
fifth graders related the following descriptions of the tour guide's words in their participant
journals.
•

"Living, not wood, no writing, talks… (Corinna, Grade 5)."

•

"The docent tells facts and storys from the past that go with that object and other
stuff" (Brice, Grade 4).

•

"A docent and a label are the same because they both give you infermasen" (Will,
Grade 4).

•

"It will tell you all the guide can tell you when you ask a question" (Dennis, Grade 5).

•

"A label and a Docent can both teach you something" (Joshua, Grade 4).

•

"The docent says a lot of stuff that I can understand but the label kinda doesn't"
(Tommy, Grade 5).

•

[In contrast with the tour guide] "The label is very spcifict and never forgets" (Katie,
Grade 5).

These statements revealed that the participants saw the tour guide as a living, personally

83

responding source of information. Information from this source also was viewed as changeable
and limited only by the tour guide's ability to speak, personal knowledge, or memory constraints.
Additionally, tour guide's words may be more understandable than a label.
The participants provided many evaluations of the reliability of the tour guide's words.
For many students, evaluations of reliability hinged on the truthfulness of the speakers words.
For example, Robin (Grade 4) suggested, "Evidence docent gives might not be true" (Participant
Journal). Similarly, her classmate Kara surmised, "The difference between a lable and a docents
words is a docents words may be true or false and a label couldn't" (Participant Journal), thus
showing that she believed that there is a difference between the potential truthfulness of spoken
and written words. Conversely, Wayne (Grade 5) asserted, "Tour guides have to know or else
there not doing there job" (Participant Journal), indicating his belief that tour guide's words have
reliability connected to knowledge. Other students rated the reliability of the sources using terms
like "good" or "not good," such as Tim (Grade 4), who said about tour guide's words and labels,
"I think they are both good sources" (Participant Journal).
Finally, students at both grade levels compared and contrasted information or content that
came from the tour guide's words as a source. Some students focused on the amount of
information given by the tour guide, based on general comparisons with another source. For
instance, Will (Grade 4) stated, "A docent and a label are different because a docent gives you
more infermasen" (Participant Journal). Other observations highlighted the physical limitations
of labels, as opposed to spoken words, such as revealed in Faith's (Grade 5) observation: "The
tour guide tells you more information because a label only has so much room to tell you about
that place or thing" (Participant Journal). Statements related to specific content also were made,
including Cody's response that explained the content each source supplied: "They both told about

84

the fireplace. They are differnt that the docent told about a hole in the floor and the lable that
bricks are limestone" (Participant Journal).
Labels and Signs
Like their evaluations of tour guide's words, participants' description of labels highlighted
factual information and historical narratives from the source. The participants evaluated a label
containing information about the fireplace in the Robie House billiard room. Factual information
statements from the label were described in 15 of 20 instances of description-related evaluations
(75%) by fourth-grade students but only 5 of 14 description-related evaluations (35.7%) by fifthgrade students. As in their descriptions of tour guide's words, only fourth graders mentioned
information related to historical narrative, such as Brice's discussion of how the label related,
"What it's been threw. Why it was built. How it's ben threw it" (Participant Journal). The fact
that fourth-grade students described historical narratives and fifth-grade students did not is of
interest, because this may indicate an age-related preference for this type of information.
Instances of analysis of the label, including discussions about the maker's purpose and the
intended use of the source, were limited at both grade levels to statements about how the label
gave information. For example, Beth (Grade 4) wrote, "The label shares informasion"
(Participant Journal). In all cases, discussions of how or why the label was intended to
communicate this information were absent. Additionally, no students at either grade level
engaged in deduction from the information found during the Describe step, to draw conclusions
about the information and how it related to answering the historical question.
The participants' comparing and contrasting of the label source was similar to their
evaluation of the tour guide's words, consisting mainly of relating content provided in the label.
Regarding the character of the label as a source, the label's identity as a static source was viewed

85

as a potential drawback of using labels for information. Katie (Grade 5), for example, argued,
"The Docent can give you more than one answer" (Participant Journal), and Naoki (Grade 4)
stated, "The docent can give more info if the sign does not have it" (Participant Journal).
Conversely, Faith (Grade 5) saw the label's static nature as a benefit, suggesting, "A label stays
there and tells you the same thing so it can be studied longer" (Participant Journal). Further,
Wayne's (Grade 5) assertion that "Most labels tell you what happend at that exact spot" seemed
to indicate that a label's physical connection to a specific location lends it a documentary
significance not found in tour guide's words.
Source reliability was a central theme for some students in the Compare/Contrast step.
Many students at both grade levels stated that the label gave them either "more," "less," or "the
same" information than the tour guide's words to address the historical question. In only one
instance did a student evaluate the reliability of the label by making a blanket statement about the
character of labels in general. As discussed above, Kara (Grade 4) believed that spoken words
potentially may be untrue, but that labels do not share this characteristic. In her understanding of
reliability, labels will always be a more reliable source than spoken words.
Intertextual Use of Sources for Historical Inquiry
Much of the information about the participants' concepts of intertextual use of multiple
sources was learned from the discussions and journal writing activities about the
Compare/Contrast step of the D-A-C/C method. Session 4, however, was devoted to allowing
the participants to discuss and practice evaluating intertextual use of sources. During this
session, the participants critiqued short "evidence reports" written by elementary-aged children
about their visit to a historic site (Appendix K), to determine whether the writers followed the
D-A-C/C method. This activity allowed the participants to see and evaluate examples of other

86

students' writing about sources and provided the researcher an opportunity to informally assess
the participants' understandings of the D-A-C/C method at the end of the instructional period for
the instruction group. Grade level differences were observed among the participants in two
areas: identification of sources and critiques related to writers' use of the method.
Identification of Sources
When asked to identify the sources used by the writer of Evidence Report 1, the students
at both grade levels correctly identified the one source mentioned in the report – the building –
although the writer obviously communicated information that must have come from other
sources. With scaffolding, both groups of students were able to identify other possible sources
(object, tour guide's words, or label) for Evidence Report 1, when the sources were not explicitly
cited by the writer. In the fourth-grade classroom, this dialogue occurred:
Researcher: Look at John's [Evidence Report 1] again. He says, 'Years ago these people
had ten children.' Where did he get that information?
Unidentified participant: Docents.
Researcher: But does he say that?
Multiple participants: No.
Researcher: No. It could've been from the docent; it could've been from a label. We
don't know.
Madison: It could've been from a parent.
Researcher, Yes, who knows where he got it. But down here, look, Keisha [the writer of
Evidence Report 2] actually says where she got her information from.
Similarly, the fifth-grade students were able to identify possible sources of information the writer
provided but did not cite, as shown in an exchange with Faith and her classmate:

87

Researcher: Where'd he get that information?
Faith: Probably the tour guide or docent.
Researcher: Okay. Maybe from the tour guide or docent. Where else could he have
gotten that information?
Unidentified participant: Maybe like a, maybe there was a paper with information on it.
When evaluating Evidence Report 2, identifying the source types was easier for both
classes, since in this example the source types were clearly cited. Participants mentioned the
building and specifically the "building outside" (exterior). They discussed how the writer
described the windows, exterior brick, and the dining room ceiling. One fifth-grade student
stated that the writer mentioned the age of the house. The discussion revealed that students at
both grade levels were able to correctly identify the multiple sources in Evidence Report 2.
Besides the opportunity this activity gave the students to discuss source citation and the
provision of a model for their writing on the source use activities, this activity revealed important
information about the students' understandings of comparing and contrasting. When discussing
Evidence Report 1, the fourth-grade students identified no specific examples of the writer
comparing and contrasting sources in this example, which is correct, according to the definition
of the Compare/Contrast step given during the instruction. Conversely, the fifth-grade students
provided examples of what they interpreted as the Compare/Contrast step: The writer reports,
that "there was no T.V. and no toy stores." In actuality, this is not an example of intertextual
comparison/contrast of a particular set of historical sources, as presented in the D-A-C/C
method. Rather, it is an example of comparing and contrasting individual sources (in this case,
buildings or places) in the process of analysis. This misconception in the responses had to be
corrected by the researcher.

88

Discussion
The discussions and classroom activities during the instructional sessions provided a
variety of information about the participants' experiences related to using multiple texts as
sources for historical inquiry. Some differences in participants' understandings and abilities
between the grade levels were observed. Below, interpretations of the results highlighting the
students' concepts, skills, and challenges are discussed.
Participants' Concepts of Source Types
The conceptual themes of numeration, re-presentation, origin, and authenticity were
present in the discussion at both grade levels. For some students, the words primary and
secondary appeared to get in the way of understanding the true difference between primary and
secondary sources. These words seem to convey the sense of early versus later, rather than
accurate definitions. During the classroom discussion with the fifth-grade students, numeration
words did not seem to created points for confusion, rather, these students placed more emphasis
on origin and authenticity. Data from the questionnaires, however, showed that students at both
grade levels defined sources numeratively (see Chapter 5). Although numerative concepts are
inherent in understanding the meanings of primary and secondary, it is essential that students be
aided in moving their concepts beyond the numerative elements of these definitions.
A secondary source is correctly defined as a presentation of commentary on a primary
source, leading to a new level of commentary and information. The discussion revealed,
however, that many students conceptualized secondary sources as a different and lesser
presentation of the same thing (e.g., photo, cartoon, or reenactment). The secondary source was
seen as less true than the original and often perceived as potentially misleading or false, which
supports Barton's (2005) finding that novices believe primary sources are more reliable than

89

secondary sources. Further, there appeared to be some sense that some students believe objects
and events are primary and all words are secondary. The idea that secondary sources are
commentary on primary sources seemed to be outside many students' understanding, even after
the instructional sessions (see Chapter 5). The questionnaire data showed that while the
percentage of fourth graders' re-presentation definitions of secondary sources rose on the second
questionnaire, fifth graders' percentages fell, although neither change was statistically significant.
These results indicate that at least some fifth graders changed their minds about the way they
defined secondary source, but the results did not reveal how deeply they understand this concept.
The concept of defining sources in terms of understanding and highlighting their genesis
and knowledge of provenance arose in the discussions, in both the fourth- and fifth-grade
classrooms. The origin of a source in history, that is, its identity as part of the historical record,
is what makes a source primary or secondary. Students appeared to have the understanding that
knowledge of a source's origin gives the evaluator information through which to judge authority
or reliability. This is an accurate reflection of historical inquiry, as long as the fact that historical
origin alone does not convey authority is understood. Additionally, students must understand
that historical age of a material object is not a sole indicator of a source being considered
primary. Some students used age as a factor in determining whether sources were primary or
secondary, with one student suggesting the impossibility of an extant artifact surviving to the
present, making it secondary as a result.
The identity of sources as authentically historic or true artifacts were considered by
students at both grade levels to be important for defining sources. Moreover, the notion that
examination of sources is about being able to establish authenticity was part of the discussions.
The need to consider and establish the authenticity or realness of sources appeared to be

90

appreciated by the students. Acting on the need to consider authenticity or realness and finding
means through which to establish it, however, both hinge on the students' definitions of
authenticity. From the concepts of authenticity and realness that arose from the discussions,
coupled with the understandings of origin and re-presentation, it appears that many students may
define real as accurate, authoritative, authentic, and possibly more tangible, and not real as not
accurate, not authoritative, inauthentic, and possibly less tangible. As discussed above,
authenticity/realness should not be conflated with authority, something that these data did not
indicate whether the participants understood.
Participants' Use of Multiple Sources
Much of the participants' evaluation and decision making work with multiple sources in
the instructional session discussions and activities was exhibited in their use of the D-A-C/C
method. Combating what VanSledright and Kelly (1998) called "straight-forward informationretrieval tasks" (p. 260), in which students accept uncritically what they find in sources, the
D-A-C/C method encouraged participants in the present study to engage sources critically.
The results from the classroom discussions and activities showed that student these grade levels
were capable of examining sources critically, a result which supports Barton (1997b) and
VanSledright's (2000) findings in research studies with students at the same grade levels.
Barton, however, pointed out the participants in his study tended to treat all sources equally.
VanSledright (2002a), in another study, found that fifth-grade students had difficulty dealing
with multiple sources of potentially conflicting evidence, including assessing validity and
reliability. Although observations made in the present study indicated that the participants
experienced the same challenges, the extensive use of scaffolding in this study (in the form of
guided group activities and written materials) made a difference in the participants' consistency

91

in evaluating multiple sources. While it is acknowledged that the participants' assessments of
validity, reliability, and other intertextual judgments may not have been correct in many cases,
their nascent understandings that these processes are essential when dealing with sources and
engaging in historical inquiry were observed in this study. Continued emphasis by the use of the
same D-A-C/C method with multiple types of sources reinforced the need for a consistent
evaluation approach across source types, something the participants in this study used
successfully.
Certain steps of the method appeared easier for participants to learn and use, and other
steps presented challenges. Description (the first step) had some aspects that seemed easy for the
participants. Students at both grade levels were able to describe the physical characteristics,
function, context, and content of sources. These skills, however, were related to the description
of particular types of sources. When describing objects and buildings, students at both grade
levels provided examples of physical characteristics, function, and context. For tour guide's
words, labels, and signs, the students described factual information or historical narratives from
the sources. This difference was not unexpected, given the physical differences in the types of
sources and the design and context of the activities. Students may have, for example, given
physical descriptions of a label or sign they encountered at a historic site (e.g., "a big sign"), if
that information seemed relevant to the evaluation of that source. Further, the use of the
students' senses in description was limited mostly to sight and hearing. This bias, especially
toward a focus on sight, was expected and may have been encouraged inadvertently by some of
the objects selected by the researcher. Helping students focus on engaging all their senses
remained a challenge throughout the instructional sessions and during the museum visit, when
there were many sources that students could not touch, smell, hear, or taste. Despite this

92

limitation, the abilities of students at both grade levels to engage in this aspect of description
were high.
Conversely, however, the need to describe the source type and writer, maker, or speaker
of source (the originator), a key aspect of description presented during the instructional sessions,
provided more of a challenge for the participants. Completing this part of the description process
seemed novel to most students, and scaffolding this part of the process was necessary. In
VanSledright and Kelly's (1998) study, the authors found that students often failed to report the
origins of source evidence, and the present study showed the same result. During the sessions,
students needed to be reminded that description also meant stating the type of source and the
originator of the source. With this scaffolding, most students at both grade levels were able to
identify the source type and almost always correctly, using the terms taught during the
instructional sessions (e.g., object, building, tour guide, and label).
During the discussions, identifying the originator was difficult for some students (such as
when students stated that Frank Lloyd Wright gave the Robie House tour). Although they were
not always correct, most students attempted to state what they believed about the originator.
Source type seemed to make a difference, for example, in the object and building evaluation
activities, most fourth-grade students had no difficulty with correctly identifying the originator of
the sources. In the Robie House activity using tour guide's words and labels as sources, fourthgrade students had more difficulty than fifth-grade students did in correctly identifying the
originator. As discussed above, this difference may be related to the more abstract nature of
describing a speaker as "maker," something the older students were able to grasp more easily,
perhaps due to developmental differences between the students at the two grade levels. Despite
these differences, the most important finding here is that with scaffolding, students at both level

93

were consistently able to attempt to identify the source type and originator.
The process of analyzing sources as part of the D-A-C/C method also revealed additional
student skills and challenges. Analysis involved interpreting information from the description
process (e.g., attributes, function, and context) and hypothesizing or deducing from this
information. Overall, students engaged in analysis less often than they did description, an
anticipated finding (Leach, 2011a). The most likely reason for this difference is that analysis is a
more complex cognitive task, especially when the subject matter of source evaluation became
less tangible and perhaps more abstract (i.e., tour guide's words and labels).
The results showed that students at both grade levels were able to engage in both aspects
of analysis, but again, source type made a difference. When examining objects and buildings,
both fourth- and fifth-grade participants engaged in sharing deeper understandings of
information and drawing conclusions based on information. With scaffolding, students were
able to use evidence from these sources to support their own conclusions, something Barton
(1997b) indicated was a challenge for the fourth- and fifth-grade participants in his study. In
their examinations of objects, similar percentages of fourth and fifth graders gave analysis-based
evaluations. When examining buildings, however, more than twice the percentage of fourthgrade student gave analytical statements. Finally, the participants' work with tour guide's words
and labels during the Robie House activity showed that examples of deduction came only from
the fifth graders, and students at neither grade level drew conclusions about the label. These
results suggest that participants at both grade levels were capable of using both interpretation and
deduction in the source analysis process, but this ability often was source type dependent.
Determining students' abilities, especially related to how they draw conclusions from the
evidence they find in spoken and written sources, needs more attention.

94

Comparing and contrasting was presented in the sessions as intertextual readings of
sources. Participants were asked to address source agreement, source trustworthiness, and
content differences and similarities among multiple sources, in the context of answering
historical questions. Students at both grade levels understood the need and purpose for
comparing and contrasting sources, as shown in the discussion, for example, the students who
expressed the idea of "looking at everything together" and looking very carefully, to find
differences. Most of the students at both grade levels were able to make comparisons when
guided. Again, scaffolding the students' in the Compare/Contrast step helped to remind them to
compare and contrast and to incorporate the various aspects of this step into their source
evaluations, including citation of sources, assessments of reliability and trustworthiness, and
evaluations of source information or content.
Citation also is an integral part of comparing and contrasting. Students at both grade
levels understood and participated in the guided process of source citation, as shown in the
discussion and activities. When discussing and writing about objects and buildings, the students
introduced evaluations with phrases such as "the rocking chair" and "the house." The
participant's ability to cite sources was especially evident in the journal writing activity in which
the students compared and contrasted the Robie House tour guide's words and the label, with
examples like "the tour guide said" and "the label tole me" common among students at both
grade levels.
Students at both grade levels engaged in comparing and contrasting of information or
content from sources. The students were able to compare two sources and judge whether content
information was consistent, as shown in Lincoln house activity. In the Robie House activity, the
students included factual information about the two sources they were comparing. Including

95

historical narrative in the writing, however, occurred exclusively among the fourth-grade
students. This finding may indicate that the younger students were more interested in the
historical narratives (stories) provided in the sources or that they were more interested in
narrative in general. Given the importance of historical narrative in the presentation of
information at historic sites, these students' attention to this information is important. The reason
for the fifth graders' inattention to historical narrative when comparing and contrasting was not
clear from these data, but it is something worth exploring.
The need to evaluate sources by assessing reliability or trustworthiness appeared to be
accepted by students in both grades. The notion that some sources express more or better
information than others surfaced in both the students' discussions and writing activities. Through
the use of scaffolding (guided discussion and a numeric rating system), the participants were
prompted to judge the reliability of the sources they examined. Comparison of the Lincoln living
room photograph and the hypothetical letter (which contradicted the photograph) introduced the
students to the idea that at times sources may not agree. As shown in the results from the
classroom discussions and activities, students at both grade levels were able to rate the reliability
of the sources they used. Although one of the instructional session goals was to help students
understand that the reliability of sources can only occur in the context of comparison, the results
do not show how deeply they understood this concept.
Students' decisions about some sources, such as the Robie House tour guide's words and
label, were based on the students' perceptions of truthfulness of the source. In one case, a
participant suggested, "Evidence docent gives might not be true." In another case, a participant
asserted that tour guide's words may or may not be true, but labels are always true; evaluations of
reliability thus hinged on the truthfulness of the speakers words. When the participants

96

examined objects and buildings, however, their evaluations of truthfulness appeared to be
encapsulated within the judgments of authenticity or realness. A real military uniform, then, was
a true source. Although the continuum VanSledright (2002a) described, ranging from "naïve
trust to overgeneralized suspicion" (p. 1104), probably was present in the students' conceptual
understandings of evaluating reliability, the results from the discussions and activities indicated a
general more middle of the road approach by the students at both grade levels.
The participants' abilities to suggest potential sources for comparison to establish
reliability in the activities, beyond what was suggested by the researcher, differed by grade level.
Fourth-grade students seemed less able than fifth-grade students were to conceive of possible
additional sources for comparison. For example, in the guided Lincoln house activity, a fifthgrade student suggested looking for content about historical availability of popcorn (the letter
source indicated that the Lincoln's and their guest ate popcorn) to compare and use in
establishing the reliability of the letter. Perhaps with additional scaffolding in the discussion the
fourth-grade students might have made more suggestions, but this suggestion making occurred
spontaneously among the fifth-grade students.
The participant critiques of Evidence Reports 1 and 2 showed that students in both
grades were able to apply their understandings of the D-A-C/C method to judging others'
intertextual use of sources for historical inquiry. For the Describe and Analyze steps, the
students were able to support the their ratings examples from the writing. The students'
discussion of the Compare/Contrast step, however, called attention to an important challenge.
The challenge that was observed during this activity (and later during the source use
activities, see Chapter 6) was that many students confused the act of comparing sources during
analysis (e.g., the writer of Evidence Report 1 compared and contrasted because he stated that

97

there was no T.V. and no toy stores) with intertextual comparison and contrasting, as just
described above, during the Compare/Contrast step of the D-A-C/C method. In some ways, the
tendency to confuse these processes was related to grade, with fourth graders more likely to have
this misconception. Moreover, for Evidence Report 2, participants at neither grade level gave
detailed explanations for the Compare/Contrast step. Since this piece of writing was a composite
piece, compiled by the researcher to show the ideal in the process of comparing and contrasting,
the participants' inability to identify good examples of comparing and contrasting further
indicates their misconceptions about this evaluative step.
The reason for this phenomenon may be that like analysis, comparing and contrasting are
more complex cognitive tasks, in which case the participants evidently needed more instruction
and practice in this area. Additionally, the number of aspects to this step may have placed a
larger cognitive load on the participants. Their difficulty may be related to the presence or
absence of scaffolding (as seen in the second source use activity in Chapter 6). Without
scaffolding (e.g., written instructions listing each D-A-C/C step and their meanings), students
may have become overwhelmed by the process and neglected to Compare/Contrast using the
method they were taught and were able to use during the classroom discussions and activities.
Another possible explanation may be purely semantic, meaning that changing the name of the
last D-A-C/C step to something like "judge the sources" or "weigh the evidence" might eliminate
this misunderstanding. Whatever the reason, the participants evidently needed additional
instruction in the Compare/Contrast element of source evaluation.
In the next chapter, the results from the student questionnaires are presented. Since most
of the participants in the study completed both a pre- and post-visit questionnaire, these results
provide an interesting look at the students' concepts and abilities as a whole. Further, integration

98

of the results with information from the classroom discussions and activities helps to
demonstrate how particular conceptual understandings identified in the instruction group were
observed in the entire student sample.

99

CHAPTER 5: PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
The participant questionnaire was administered to all participants in the research study
before the classroom instruction began for the instruction group and again after the field trips to
the historic site. These pre- and post-tests were used to assess the participants' concepts of the
multiple texts within historic sites, their knowledge about how these texts may be used for
historical inquiry, and their motivation (including perceived ability and value) to do so.
Administering the same questionnaire before and after the instructional sessions allowed
comparisons to determine whether participation in the instructional program was associated with
changes in the participants' concepts. The questionnaire contained items that addressed the
following research questions:
•

Question 1.1: How do students identify and define the multiple texts of historic sites?

•

Question 1.2: How do students define the reliability of the multiple texts of historic
sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 1.3: How do students understand the goals and skills for working with the
multiple texts within historic sites?

•

Question 2.4: How do students describe their ability to reason about the reliability of
historic site texts?

•

Question 3.1: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' concepts
about the nature of multiple texts within historic sites?

•

Question 3.4: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' level of
motivation, including perception of ability and value, for using multiple texts within
historic sites as sources for historical inquiry?

All participants who received parent/guardian permission and gave their assent completed

100

the questionnaires. Of the 100 students who participated in the study, 95 completed both the preand post-tests. Forty-nine students (51.6%) were in the instruction group, and 46 (48.4%) were
in the non-instruction group. Fifty-three (55.8%) were Grade 4 students, and 42 (44.2%) were
Grade 5 students. The results and analyses below are based on this sample.
Data Analyses
To conceptualize the questionnaire data more effectively, three categories for data
analysis were created: Source Concepts, Source Use Knowledge, and Motivation.
Source Concepts Category
The Source Concepts category was designed to determine the students' concepts of what
sources exist within historic sites, definitions of primary and secondary sources, how people can
learn from them, the reliability of sources, and students' beliefs about the intertextuality of
sources. This category included six open-ended and multiple choice items (Items 7-10 and 1214), which were entered into SPSS for analysis. For the open-ended responses on Items 7 and 8,
an assistant and I examined the participants' responses and coded the 20% of the sample. This
initial coding resulted in an intercoder agreement level of .71 (Cohen's kappa). A discussion and
resolution process refined the coding scheme before completing this analysis.
Response frequencies were compiled, showing the percentages of students who held
various beliefs about sources, source definitions, and intertextual comparison of sources. The
numbers of participants giving particular responses were compared by study group (instruction
or non-instruction) and grade level (Grade 4 and Grade 5) using Pearson's chi-square tests (2sided) to identify relationships between participant characteristics and concepts of sources.
Additionally, paired t-tests showed potential differences between participants' pre- and post-test
questionnaire responses.

101

Source Use Knowledge Category
The Source Use Knowledge category assessed the participants' knowledge of elementary
concepts about the nature of learning about history and the use of historical sources to answer
historical questions. Six four-point Likert-type scale items were included (Items 15-19 and 22).
The choices strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree were included on these items.
Additionally, the students were given a choice of not sure. The reason for presenting the items
this way was to encourage the students first to make a choice on the four-point scale but also to
include a way to express that they truly were not sure about the question or did not know the
answer. In this study, it was as important to understand the students' types and levels of
uncertainty as their certainty. Descriptive information, including frequencies and particular data
patterns, were included.
Chi-square tests (two-sided) were conducted to determine whether the variables study
group and grade level were related to differences in pre- and post-test scores. Paired t-tests were
used to identify relationships between participant characteristics and some variables. These
analyses provided a sense of the participants' knowledge before the classroom sessions for the
instruction group and for all students after the field trip to the historic site.
Motivation category
The motivation category provided information about the students' interest in and
motivation for examining sources. Items included in this category reflect elements from the
Expectancy x Value = Motivation theory (as articulated by Brophy, 2004), which states that the
effort learners' will put forth in doing a particular activity is a function of how well they expect
to do on the activity multiplied by how much they value the activity. The motivation category
included questionnaire Items 20, 21, and 23 from the pre- and post-tests, about the participants'

102

confidence in their agency to examine sources for information about history, their perceived
ability, and how much they valued these activities (including interest, learning potential, and
enjoyment). A Cronbach's alpha test was conducted to calculate the reliability coefficient of
these six items, ! = .745 (n = 95).
To assess the individual elements of the theory, the participants' expectancy and value
scores were calculated for both the pre- and post-test. To reflect the definition of effort
motivation as reflected in the Expectancy x Value theory, the participants' expectancy and value
scores were multiplied to produce their motivation score. Repeated measures ANOVAs were
used to examine differences in pre- and post-test motivation scores and potential relationships
among the variables study group and grade.
The results from the Source Concepts, Source Use Knowledge, and Motivation categories
are presented below.
Source Concepts Category Results
This category expressed the participants' concepts of the various texts within historic
sites. Within this category, three areas were examined: the identity and nature of historic site
texts; reliability and intertextuality of historic site texts; and concepts of learning from these
texts. Differences in the participants' concepts by study group and grade level were explored.
Identity and Nature of Historic Site Texts
Item 9 on the questionnaire was designed to elicit information about the participants'
concepts of specific texts within historic sites. The students selected the type of things they
believed to be sources available at a historic site to help someone learn about history: objects,
buildings, tour guide's words, written documents, photos, signs, videos, hands-on activities, and
open-ended category, which allowed students to suggest additional types of sources. Learning

103

students' beliefs about what they considered to be sources and what they do not was fundamental
to understanding their beliefs about the intertextuality of sources.
The participants' choices on the pre-test showed what they thought were kinds of sources
available at historic sites, before any contact with the researcher and the visit to the historic site
(Figure 6). These concepts were based on their prior learning and experiences, and for most
students, this included visiting a historic site (89%) or a museum (92%). Selecting certain source
types on the pre- and post-tests generally was not associated with a particular study group or
grade level, so the participants' data together as a whole are presented here. (See Appendix L for
the complete data.) The sources selected by about half the participants included objects and
photographs (each selected by 74.7% of the participants), written documents (58.9%), and signs
(49.5%). The remaining sources (buildings, tour guide's words, videos, outdoor spaces, handson activities, and "other" sources) were selected by less than 49% of the participants.
On the post-test, which occurred after the classroom sessions for the instruction group
and the historic site visit, differences existed in the participants' beliefs about the types of sources
available at a historic site. Increases were observed for all the different source types except
"other." Participants almost universally identified objects (93.6%) and buildings (92.6%) as
sources at historic sites. Buildings had the largest increase at 46.3% over the pre-test percentage.
Other large increases included tour guide's words, which rose to 89.4%, and signs, which rose to
70.8%. The percentage of students choosing photos remained similar and high (85.1%). Smaller
increases were observed for documents, outdoor spaces, and hands-on activities. The number of
students who selected videos remained similar. In general, the sources selected the most
reflected the types of sources that the students encountered most often during the historic site
visit.

104

100
90

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

r
th
e
O

iti
tiv
ac

H

an

ds

-o

n

ut
do
O
All, post-test

Figure 6. Percentage of participants identifying specific historic site sources. (n = 95).

105

es

s
sp
or

e'
id
gu
r
To
u

All, pre-test

ac
e

os
de

s

Vi

ild

w
or

in

ds

gs

s
gn
Bu

cu
do
en

W
ri
tt

Si

ts
m
en

os
ot
Ph

bj
ec

ts

0

O

Percentage of participants

80

In addition to the source types provided in the multiple choice item, the participants
proposed a wide variety of potential sources available at historic sites. Their responses provided
a window on their thinking about sources. Students suggested different types of objects,
including models of bones and bone structures, a log cabin, deerskin blankets, paintings, posters,
and old tools and games. One fifth grader's response seemed to indicate a good knowledge of
museums and historic sites: "Books, maybe experiences, and perhaps some food and artifacts,
displays, markings, and environments, statues, surroundings." Some students mentioned things
that were conceptual, such as dates, location, art, history, and research. Others discussed people
as sources, describing "other tourists," "story tellers," and notably, "historic people." Of
particular interest is the students' mention of historic narratives as sources, such as general
"stories" and the specific example "who died at this house." These often detailed and descriptive
responses showed that most of the suggestions were consistent with what are actually available
as sources at historic sites. They also provide evidence of the breadth of the participants'
expectations about the kinds of sources they believe will help them learn about history.
Primary and Secondary Sources
During the classroom sessions with the instruction group, students were introduced to the
ideas that both primary and secondary sources exist and that they both have functions related to
historical inquiry. Because all the participants would encounter both primary and secondary
sources during the historic site visit, it was important to understand their concepts of these
different source types. Furthermore, because the sessions with the instruction group revealed
particular themes related to definitions of primary and secondary sources – numeration (ordinal
relationship), re-presentation (copy of an original), origin (knowledge of origin/provenance of a
source), and authenticity (realness) (see Chapter 4) – exploring the students' definitions served to

106

confirm the prevalence of these conceptual understandings among the students in the sample as a
whole. Finally, the changes between the students' responses between the pre- and post-tests
demonstrated what students believed at the beginning of the research study and what they
believed at its conclusion.
Two open-ended items (Items 7 and 8) on the pre- and post-tests asked for the
participants' definitions of primary and secondary sources. As during the instruction group's
discussion, a variety of aspects surfaced within the participants' responses. Because of this
variation, it was difficult to label their answers as either merely right or wrong. Instead, the
participants' responses were coded according to the conceptual themes identified in the
classroom discussions (numeration, re-presentation, origin, and authenticity) and an "other"
category to allow for additional types of responses. Further, some students provided no
response, which was useful in determining students' levels of uncertainty about the definitions.
Numerative responses. On the pre-test, numerative answers were given as a definition
for primary source on the pre-test by 23.5% of all participants (Table 2), demonstrating that this
was a common conception. Examples of numerative definitions included "the first source," "the
first one," and "something original." When examined by study group, similar numbers of
instruction students responded this way. Grade level comparison, however, showed a large
difference in the number of fifth graders (over half) responded numeratively. Although these
numbers fell on the post-test, about 15% of students continued to provide a numerative definition
for primary source. None of these differences was statistically significant. Students also
provided numerative definitions for secondary source, but the percentage of those who did so
were much lower than for primary source (about 10% on the pre-test and 6% on the post-test)
(Table 3). Neither study group nor grade level made a difference in the way the participants

107

defined secondary source on the pre- and post tests.

Table 2. Percentage of Participants Who Defined "Primary Source" in Terms of Particular
Conceptual Themes on the Pre- and Post-Tests
Response Theme
Numerative, pre
Numerative, post
Origin, pre
Origin, post
Authenticity, pre
Authenticity, post
Re-presentation, pre
Re-presentation, post
Other, pre
Other, post
No answer, pre
No answer, post

All
23.5
15.3
10.2
24.5
9.2
14.3
3.1
0.0
2.0
12.2
52.0
33.7

Non-instr.

Instruction

27.5
19.6
2.0
9.8
7.8
5.9
5.9
0.0
3.9
7.8
52.9
56.9

19.1
10.6
19.1
40.4
10.6
23.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
51.1
8.5

Grade 4
1.8
10.7
3.6
23.2
3.6
14.3
1.8
0.0
0.0
7.1
89.3
44.6

Grade 5
52.4
21.4
19.0
26.2
16.7
14.3
4.8
0.0
4.8
19.0
2.4
19.0

Note. n = 95.
Table 3. Percentage of Participants Who Defined "Secondary Source" in Terms of Particular
Conceptual Themes on the Pre- and Post-Tests
Response Theme
Numerative, pre
Numerative, post
Origin, pre
Origin, post
Authenticity, pre
Authenticity, post
Re-presentation, pre
Re-presentation, post
Other, pre
Other, post
No answer, pre
No answer, post

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

10.2
6.1
4.1
9.2
1.0
1.0
19.4
16.3
13.3
36.7
52.0
30.6

15.7
7.8
2.0
5.9
2.0
0.0
19.6
13.7
9.8
19.6
51.0
52.9

4.3
4.3
6.4
12.8
0.0
2.1
19.1
19.1
17.0
55.3
53.2
6.4

0.0
8.9
1.8
8.9
0.0
0.0
3.6
12.5
5.4
26.8
89.3
42.9

23.8
2.4
7.1
9.5
2.4
2.4
40.5
21.4
23.8
50.0
2.4
14.3

Note. n = 95.

108

Origin responses. Whether framed as spatial or temporal, origin-related definitions of
primary source and secondary source were observed, especially on the post-test (24.5% of
participants overall). Some participants' examples highlighted origins in time ("a place, thing, or
a human that lived a long time ago"), space ("an object or building from the past"), or combined
both time and space ("a[n] item from the past or from a historic site"). The unifying feature of
origin-related definitions was that participants focused on knowledge of the genesis or
provenance of sources.
The pre-test results revealed that few non-instruction group students gave an originrelated definition for primary source (2.0%) but that nearly 20% of instruction students did. On
the post-test, the percentage of non-instruction students increased only slightly, but the
percentage of instruction students responding this way more than doubled to 40.4%, a significant
difference,

(1, 95) = .36, p < .000. When examined by grade level, significantly more fifth

graders than fourth graders gave origin-related definitions on the pre-test, but this gap closed
between the grades on the post-test.
Overall, fewer students gave an origin response for the definition of secondary source.
On the pre-test, low numbers of non-instruction and instruction group students defined secondary
source this way. The post-test results showed the percentages doubling for both groups, but the
numbers of students remained low. When examined by grade level, more fifth graders than
fourth graders provided an origin-related definition on the pre-test, but again, these numbers
were low. Similar low numbers of students at each grade defined this way on the post-test. No
statistically significant differences were seen in the participants by study group or grade level.
Authenticity/realness responses. The concept of authenticity or "realness" was defined
in Chapter 4 as the identity of sources as authentically historic or "true" artifacts. Although few

109

students overall provided definitions of primary and secondary sources based on authenticity,
this was still a concept that surfaced among the participants' definitions. Authenticity was more
often the basis for definitions of primary source than for secondary source.
On the pre-test, 9.2% of all participants gave an authenticity-related definition for
primary source, with few students in either the non-instruction or instruction groups doing so.
The post-test results showed the percentages of non-instruction students' responses falling to
5.9% and instruction students' responses increasing 23.4%, with instruction students more likely
to give an authenticity-based definition on the post-test,

(1, 95) = .25, p = .013. Interestingly,

although fifth-grade students started out more likely to provide an authenticity-based definition
for primary source on the pre-test, on the post-test both grades were equally likely to define
primary source this way. Very few students defined secondary source in authenticity-based
terms on either test.
Re-presentation responses. Although some students defined primary source using representation-based definitions, this conceptual theme appeared most often in definitions of
secondary source. In the re-presentation-based definitions, the secondary source was viewed as a
removal from something else (i.e., from an unnamed "original" or primary source). Examples
included "a secondary source is a copy of a source" and "a secondary source is something made
of its original like a song." When discussing secondary sources in this way, the secondary
source was defined as a copy, not a commentary on a primary source, the actual definition. This
conceptualization was evident on both the pre- and post-tests.
On the pre-test, 19.4% of all participants defined "secondary source" as a re-presentation.
Similar numbers of non-instruction and instruction group students answered this way. When
examined by grade level, very few fourth graders (3.6%) gave a re-presentation answer, but

110

many fifth graders did (40.5%), a statistically significant difference. Post-test responses
indicated a slight drop in the number of non-instruction students who defined "secondary source"
as a re-presentation (to 16.3%), but the number of instruction students responding this way
stayed the same. More interesting were the changes by grade level on the post-test. Fourth
graders who gave this type of definition increased to 12.5%, while the number of fifth graders
declined sharply from 40.5% to 21.4%, although these changes by grade level were not
statistically significant. These data showed that re-presentation definitions were the most
common conceptual theme for secondary source definitions.
Other definitions. Many students provided definitions for primary source (2% on the
pre-test and 12.2% on the post-test) and secondary source (13.3%, pre-test and 36.7%, post-test)
that did not fit the conceptual themes. One of the most common types of "other" definition was
defining by example. For instance, students wrote that a primary source was "like a book written
about the past" or "The Declaration of Independence." Many more students defined secondary
source by example, especially on the post-test. Some examples included, "a social studies book"
and "an iPod Touch" (definitions were coded as examples, even if they were not correct).
Additional types of "other" responses included giving definitions, such as a secondary source
being a commentary on a primary source (given by six students, all in the instruction group). For
secondary source definitions on the post-test, instruction group students were more likely to give
"other" definition than non-instruction group students,
students,

(1, 95) = .37, p < .000, as were Grade 5

(1, 95) = .24, p = .018.

No response. As described above, it was important for this study to note when the
participants seemed to be unable to answer or exhibited conceptual understandings inconsistent
with the concepts of experts. When asked to define primary source and secondary source on the

111

questionnaires, many students did not provide any response. On the pre-test 52% of participants
did not give a definition of primary source. Non-instruction and instruction group students failed
to answer at a similar rate. When considered by grade level, a high percentage of fourth graders
did not provide a response (89.3%),

(1, 95) = .86, p < .000, but few fifth graders failed to

respond (2.4%). On the post-test, the number of students overall who did not give a definition
for "primary source" dropped to 33.7%. The percentage of non-instruction students who did not
answer remained similar to the pre-test rate, but the number of instruction students who did not
answer fell, revealing a significant difference between the groups,

(1, 95) = .51, p < .000.

When examined by grade, the number of fourth graders not able to provide a response on the
post-test was reduced by more than half, but a significant difference between the grades still
existed,

(1, 95) = .27, p = .008, even with the number of fifth graders who did not provide an

answer increasing (inexplicably) almost eight-fold on the post-test.
Some students also failed to provide a definition for secondary source (52% on the pretest and 30.6% on the post-test). Non-instruction group students omitted responses more often
than their instruction group peers,

(1, 95) = .51, p < 000. Fourth graders were more likely

than fifth graders to omit a definition on both the pre-test,
post-test,

(1, 95) = .86, p < .000, and the

(1, 95) = .3, p = .018.

Learning from Historic Site Texts
Different types of texts within historic sites may be explored in multiple ways to learn
information about history. The participants' responses to Item 10 showed what they believed
about the ways people might learn from each of eight sources types: objects, buildings, outdoor
spaces, tour guide's words, written documents, photos, signs, videos. The choices included ask
someone who knows about history, use the senses, carefully study the source, and compare the
112

source to other sources. Participants were permitted to select more than one option for each
source. In most cases, study group and grade level made no difference in the likelihood of
participants selecting the particular methods through which they believed people might learn
from different types of sources at historic sites. The data for the participants as a whole,
therefore, are considered below.
On the pre-test, study was selected as a learning method most often, followed by ask
someone, use senses, and compare (Table 4). For objects, most participants (74.7%) selected
studying the source. When asked how someone might learn from buildings, the majority of
students thought it was a good idea to study the object (56.8%) or to ask someone (52.6%). The
senses were considered a good method for learning about outdoor spaces (58.9%). To learn from
tour guide's words, asking someone who knows about history was the most often selected
(62.1%). When considering how one might learn from written documents and photographs,
similar percentages of students suggested studying the sources (61.1% and 62.1%, respectively).
Many of the participants asserted that using the senses was a way to learn from videos (54.7%).
The participants most often suggested studying as a method to learn from signs (46.3%).
On the post-test, participants again chose study the most, but use senses came next,
followed by ask someone, with compare remaining the least often selected method. Again, the
most often selected method for learning from objects was studying (76.6%). For buildings,
studying the source (73.4%) continued to be the most suggested method and by a higher
percentage of students. Using senses remained the most often selected method for outdoor
spaces (64.9%). For tour guide's words, using senses (67%) became the most often chosen
method. For documents (77.7%), signs (70.2%), and videos (68.1%), studying the source was
selected most often. Many participants also selected studying the source for photos (78.7%).

113

Table 4. Percentage of Students Suggesting Learning Methods from Sources on the Pre- and
Post-Tests

Source type

% Ask
Pre
Post

% Use senses
Pre
Post

% Study
Pre
Post

% Compare
Pre
Post

Objects

57.4

64.9

45.3

66.0

74.7

76.6

53.7

69.1

Buildings

52.6

70.2

34.7

60.6

56.8

73.4

27.4

53.2

Outdoor spaces

36.8

48.9

58.9

64.9

32.6

53.2

32.6

38.3

Tour guide's words

62.1

59.6

38.9

67.0

23.2

33.0

26.3

44.7

Documents

46.3

56.4

32.6

46.8

61.1

77.7

40.0

51.1

Photos

49.5

64.9

38.9

56.4

62.1

78.7

49.5

59.6

Signs

40.0

45.7

35.8

45.7

46.3

70.2

40.0

56.4

Videos

35.8

54.3

54.7

59.6

46.3

68.1

35.8

44.7

47.6

58.1

42.5

58.4

50.4

66.4

38.2

52.1

Mean %
Note. n = 95.

Differences between the pre- and post-tests for Item 10 indicated that the percentages of
participants who selected particular methods for learning from the eight historic site texts
increased for all four method categories except for tour guide's words, ask. Five source methods
had increases of at least 20% to 24%, including objects, use senses; buildings, use senses;
outdoor spaces, study; signs, study; and videos, study. Two source methods had increases of
25% but less than 29%: tour guide's words, ask and buildings, use senses.
Reliability of Sources
In Item 12, participants described how much they trusted each type of source to provide
"the best information about history." They rated the same sources as in the "Learning Methods"
section above. A reliability value was chosen for each source, based on circling one to four stars.
One star meant you don't trust the source at all, two stars meant you trust the source a little,
three stars meant you trust the source a medium amount, and four stars meant you trust the
114

source a lot. For the sample as a whole, the lowest mean rating was 2.12, and the highest was
3.23 (Figure 7). (See Appendix M for complete table of data.)
When the participants' pre-test responses were examined by study group, the noninstruction group students' ratings of reliability ranged from 2.07 to 3.23. Non-instruction group
students believed documents, objects, photos, and tour guide's words to be the most reliable
sources. Outdoor spaces and signs were deemed the least reliable. Instruction group students'
ratings ranged from 2.02 to 3.06. These students had similar ratings as the non-instruction group
in some cases, but they gave a high rating of trustworthiness only for documents. Like the noninstruction group, instruction students rated signs and outdoor spaces the lowest. According to
the means, no sources were thought to be completely unreliable by either study group.
On the post-test, non-instruction students rated six out of nine sources as highly
trustworthy: objects, photos, documents, buildings, tour guide's words, and videos. Outdoor
spaces continued to be rated the lowest, and asking family/friends decreased from 2.67 to 2.3.
Only signs were in the mid range. On the post-test, instruction group students' ratings ranged
from 1.96 to 3.19. Document remained highly trusted, and objects and buildings moved from a
mid to a high level of trust. Ratings for photos, tour guide's words, and videos remained similar
on the pre- and post-tests. Outdoor spaces were rated at the lowest level of trustworthiness
again, and ratings for ask family/friends decreased sharply by .78. Signs rose from a very low
rating to 2.56 (+.54).
Paired t-tests were conducted, to determine if differences existed in the participants'
reliability ratings on the pre- and post-tests for each kind of source by study group membership.
The only statistically significant change for the non-instruction group was their level of trust in
buildings, t(41) = 2.54, p = .015. For the instruction group, three significant changes in

115

3.5

3

2

1.5

1

0.5

Figure 7. Means of participants' source reliability ratings.

116

All, post-test

ri
e
/f
Fa
m
ily

sp
or
ut
do
O

All, pre-test

nd

s
ac
e

s
gn
Si

os
de
Vi

ds
r

w
or

os
ot

To
u

oc
D

Ph

um
en

gs
Bu

ild

in

ts
bj
ec

ts

0

O

Mean rating

2.5

the students' levels of trust were observed: objects, t(48) = 3.37, p = .001; buildings, t(47) = 2.82,
p = .007; and signs, t(46) = 3.13, p = .003, all of which figured largely in the instructional
sessions for their group.
The participants' reliability ratings also were examined by grade level. On the pre-test,
Grade 4 students' ratings ranged from 2.16 to 3.12. These students believed documents, tour
guide's words, and asking family member or friend to be the most reliable, and signs and outdoor
spaces to be the least reliable. Grade 5 students' ratings spanned from 2.08 to 3.18. Fifth graders
similarly assessed documents to be the most reliable, but unlike the fourth graders, they listed
objects and photos in this category. Like the fourth graders, fifth graders also considered signs
and outdoor spaces to be the least reliable, but they added asking family/friend as a least reliable
source. No students in either grade assessed any source completely unreliable on the pre-test.
On the post-test, the fourth graders' reliability ratings ranged from 2.16 to 3.23. Grade 4
students gave buildings, objects, documents, and photos among highest ratings, and outdoor
spaces and ask family/friend among the lowest ratings. Fifth-grade students also gave buildings,
objects, documents, and photos among the highest ratings, adding tour guide's words to the
sources with the highest ratings. Like the fourth-grade students, outdoor spaces and ask
family/friend were given the lowest reliability ratings. No students in either grade believed any
source to be completely unreliable on the post-test.
The post-test revealed changes in the range of the participants' reliability ratings, when
examined by grade level. The fourth graders' rating ranges (2.16 to 3.12 on the pre-test and 2.16
to 3.23 on the post-test) stayed about the same, but the post-test range was slightly larger (+ .11).
Similarly, the fifth graders' range changed from 2.08 to 3.18 on the pre-test to a broader range of
2.08 to 3.35 on the post-test, showing an increase in the range by .17. It is interesting that the

117

lowest end of the ranges remained the same for both grades on the pre- and post-tests, although
the fourth-grade students' starting mean was slightly higher in both cases.
Paired t-tests demonstrated that differences existed in the participants' reliability ratings
on the pre- and post-tests for each kind of source by grade level. Fourth graders' ratings of the
reliability of buildings, t(47) = 3.94, p < .000, and objects, t(51) = 2.11, p = .039, rose
significantly. Conversely, their rating of the reliability of asking a family member or friend
dropped from high reliability to low, t(49) = 2.541, p < .000. No other significant differences
were observed at this grade level. For the fifth-grade students, changes in their ratings of
objects, t(39) = 2.06, p = .046, and tour guide's words, t(39) = 2.19, p = .035 increased
significantly, while their ratings of asking family/friend, t(38) = 2.06, p = .046 decreased.
Intertextuality of Sources
On questionnaire Items 13 and 14, the participants were asked to consider the nature of
sources as intertextual. Item 13 presented a scenario to the students, in which a girl "wants to
use two sources of information together (an old photo and an old document) to answer one
question about history." The students selected from responses that indicated whether they
believed additional or different knowledge or understanding might be gained from comparing
sources, whether having too much information might cause confusion, if the two sources were
too different to compare, and whether disagreement should be a concern. When responses on the
pre-test were compared by study group, around three quarters of instruction and non-instruction
students believed that more information may be gained from looking at two sources than one
(Table 5). Likewise, similar percentages of students in both groups thought that different types
of information could be gained from each source type. Responses to the question about whether
the girl might use information from one source to help her understand the other source better

118

were more dissimilar. In the instruction group, only about 47% of students chose this answer,
while about 60% of non-instruction students selected the same answer. Few students agreed that
a photo and a document are too different to compare, indicating that most students
conceptualized diverse source types as able to be compared. Regarding the potential for
confusion caused by too much information, instruction and non-instruction students' beliefs were
alike, with slightly less than half of the participants from either group agreeing. Finally, about
70% of instruction students but only about 53% of non-instruction students acknowledged that
the two sources might disagree and that this was a reason why they should not be compared. No
correlations by study group with the students' responses about these intertextual concepts were
observed on the pre-test.
Table 5. Percentage of Participants Indicating Particular Beliefs about Intertextual Use of
Sources
Non-instr.
Pre Post

Instruction
Pre Post

Grade 4
Pre Post

Grade 5
Pre Post

Can get more information
from sources

72.3

82.6

76.6

78.7

79.2

83.0

68.3

77.5

Can get different
information from sources

76.6

71.7

74.5

85.1

81.1

88.7

68.3

65.0

Can use information sources
to understand each other

59.6

60.9

46.8

72.3

56.6

75.5

48.8

55.0

Sources may be too
different to compare

14.9

34.8

14.9

19.1

9.4

26.4

22.0

27.5

Confusion may be caused
by too much information

46.8

37.0

42.6

27.7

49.1

34.0

39.0

30.0

Sources might disagree and
should not be compared

53.2

56.5

70.2

80.9

66.0

73.6

56.1

62.5

Beliefs about intertextual
use of sources

Note. n = 95.
On the post-test, some changes in the participants' responses occurred. Slight increases
and decreases occurred in the percentages of both instruction and non-instruction students who
119

agreed that more information may be gained from looking at two sources than just one, but still
over three quarters of students in both groups believed this statement to be true. When asked
whether they believed different information might be obtained from each source type on the
post-test, the number of non-instruction students who agreed decreased (but remained just over
70%), and the number of instruction students who shared this view increased to about 80%. No
differences existed between the study groups in their likelihood to assert that a person might use
information from one source to help her understand the other source better. On the item that
asked whether a photo and a document are too different to compare, the percentage of instruction
students who agreed remained the same (19.1%), but the non-instruction students who agreed
rose to 34.8%. Further, the percentages of students whose beliefs about potential confusion
caused by too much information decreased for both groups. Finally, the number of students in
both groups who acknowledged that the two sources might disagree and that this was a reason
why they should not be compared rose, significantly for the instruction group, !2 (1, 93) = .26, p
= .011. No other significant differences were observed between the study groups on the other
variables in this category.
When the pre-test results were compared by grade level, some differences between
fourth- and fifth-grade students responses were observed. About 80% of fourth graders and near
70% of fifth graders stated that more information may be gained from looking at two sources
than one. A larger percentage of fourth-grade students (81.1%) than fifth-grade students (68.3%)
believed that different types of information could be gained from each source type. When asked
whether using an additional source might help someone to understand a source better, more
fourth graders (56.6%) agreed than fifth graders (48.8%). Differences of about 10% existed
between the fourth- and fifth-grade students who thought that the two sources may be too

120

different to compare (9.4% versus 22%, respectively), that confusion may be caused by too much
information (49.1% and 39%), and that sources might disagree and therefore should not be
compared (66% and 56.1%).
When the post-test responses were compared by grade, Grade 4 students were more likely
than their Grade 5 counterparts to believe that different information could be gained from each
source and therefore should be compared,

(1, 93) = .29, p = .006, and that using more than

one source can help someone understand both sources better,

(1, 93) = .22, p = .038. Grade 5

students were more apt to believe that the source may disagree and should not be compared,
(1, 93) = .26, p = .013. No other significant grade level differences appeared on the post-test.
Item 14 addressed students' beliefs about the nature and function of disagreement. Given
a scenario that the girl in Item 13 has two sources that disagree, the students were asked to
choose appropriate responses to this challenge, including ignoring the disagreement,
understanding the disagreement, finding new sources that don't disagree (avoidance of
disagreement), and realizing that no source can give more correct information than another. The
participants were permitted to select more than one answer. As on Item 13, the students'
responses first were compared by study group and grade level, and then paired t-tests were
conducted to examine potential changes between their answers on the pre- and post-tests.
The pre-test showed that very few students in either group believed disagreement that
arises from intertextual comparison should be ignored (Table 6). These numbers rose slightly on
the post-test, but not significantly. On the pre-test, the majority of students in both groups
agreed that intertextual comparison was something that should be done to help understand
disagreement, and these numbers increased slightly for the non-instruction group. Conversely,
the percentage of instruction students who thought comparison would help someone understand

121

Table 6. Percentage of Participants Indicating Particular Beliefs about Responding to
Disagreements among Sources

Responses to Disagreement

Non-instr.
Pre Post

Instruction
Pre Post

Grade 4
Pre Post

Grade 5
Pre Post

Ignore the disagreement

10.6

10.9

2.1

6.4

5.7

11.5

4.8

4.8

Try to understand the
disagreement

59.6

65.2

80.9

72.3

71.7

63.5

71.4

76.2

Realize no source's info is
more correct than another's

34.0

37.0

27.7

27.7

34.0

25.0

28.6

38.1

Find new sources that do
not disagree

34.0

21.7

68.1

53.2

41.5

40.4

61.9

31.0

Note. n = 95.
disagreement decreased to 72.3%. Although this decline was not statistically significant, it
indicates that some instruction students' understandings of this aspect of intertextuality were
changed. The concept that no source can give more correct information than another was shared
by 34% of non-instruction students and about 28% of instruction students on the pre-test, and
these percentages remained similar on the post-test. The suggestion that a solution to source
conflicts is to "find new sources that don't disagree" was met with less agreement by noninstruction group students on the post-test than on the pre-test, but the number of instruction
students who agreed rose significantly,

(1, 93) = .36, p = .002.

When the participants' pre-test responses to Item 14 were examined by grade level, few
students in either grade believed that ignoring disagreement is an acceptable action. About 71%
of students in both grades suggested trying to understand the disagreement. A much lower
number, about one third or fewer, agreed that no source's information is more correct than
another's. Finally, when asked if it might be better to find new sources that do not disagree,
rather than compare two sources with an apparent disagreement, about 40% of fourth graders and
122

about 60% of fifth graders thought this was a good idea.
On the post-test, again, very few students in either grade chose the option to ignore the
disagreement. The majority in both grades suggested that trying to understand disagreement was
a good idea, but while the percentage of fifth graders supporting this idea rose slightly, the
percentage of fourth graders declined. The same type of changes occurred when the students
were asked if they should try to realize no source's information is more correct than another's, but
the percentages of students agreeing was much lower in both grades (25% in Grade 4 and 38.1%
in Grade 5). One of the biggest changes happened in students' responses to the suggesting that
they find new sources that do not disagree: The percentage of fourth-grade students who agreed
remained about the same, but the percentage of fifth-graders decreased by 61.9% to 31%.
Source Use Knowledge Category Results
The Source Use Knowledge category tested the students' knowledge of how sources may
be used for historical inquiry. This category contained six items (Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and
22) from the pre- and post-tests. Students were asked to state their level of agreement with these
statements:
•

Item 15: Historical sources give correct information about what happened in the past
since they were made in the past.

•

Item 16: No one today can know about the past since they were not there.

•

Item 17: Some historical sources provide better information about the past than other
sources.

•

Item 18: All historical sources give correct information.

•

Item 19: Historians can examine sources to see if they provide information about
history.

123

•

Item 22: I think examining historical sources is a good way to learn about the past.

Each question was scored as either correct or incorrect. (On Items 15, 16, and 18
disagree and strongly disagree were considered correct responses. On Items 17, 19, and 22
strongly agree and agree were correct.) Since the percentages of correct responses by study
group and grade level were nearly the same, and no statistical difference were found between the
participants' responses by grade level, only the data for the study groups is presented below
(Figure 8). (For complete data for all participants, see Appendix N).
Participants appeared to have the most difficulty responding correctly to Item 15. On the
pre-test, few students answered this question correctly on the pre-test, and 35.5% left this
question blank or selected not sure. On the post-test, fewer students overall did not give a
definite answer, but only 14.9% of instruction students and 8.7% of non-instruction students
answered correctly on the post-test. This item had the lowest number of correct responses for all
the items in this category.
On Item 16, the number of students overall answering correctly was higher, but the
percentage of non-instruction students answering correctly decreased to 67.4%. Instruction
students answering correctly rose to 93.6% on the post-test, an increase of about 30%, a
significant difference from the non-instruction group, !2 (1, 95) = .33, p = .001.
Similar high numbers of students (over 75%) answered Item 17 correctly, with increases
over their pre-test percentages. A comparable pattern occurred on Item 18, but the overall
percentage of correct answers was lower on the post-test (52.2% for the non-instruction group
and 74.5% for the instruction group). This difference in the groups was significant for Item 18,
(1, 95) = .23, p = .026. Responses on Items 19 and 22 remained high (about 85%) and about
the same for the non-instruction group on both the pre- and post-tests. Conversely, instruction

124

100
90

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Non-instruction

po
st
,
22

pr
e
,
22

po
st
,
19

pr
e
,
19

po
st
,
18

pr
e
,
18

po
st
,
17

pr
e
,
17

po
st
,
16

pr
e
,
16

po
st
,
15

,

pr
e

0

15

Percentage of participants

80

Instruction

Figure 8. Percentage of participants by study group giving correct responses on the Source Use Knowledge questions.
(n = 95).
125

group students' percentages of correct responses rose to over 90% on the post-test for these
items, but the differences with the non-instruction group were not significant.
As stated earlier, the participants' levels of uncertainty in answering the questions on the
pre-and post-tests was of interest, because they give some indication of the degree to which the
content matter was unfamiliar to participants. Changes in levels of uncertainty between the tests,
even for students who provided an incorrect answer, showed how many participants' chose to
answer strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree on the post-test, instead of not sure
or leaving the question blank, as they did on the pre-test. In some cases, membership in the
instruction or non-instruction groups and student grade was correlated with decreased
uncertainty. On three of the six test items in this category, paired t-tests indicated that the
number of students who moved from uncertain to providing certain, though not necessarily
correct, responses were more likely to be in the instruction group: Item 15 ("Historical sources
give correct information about what happened in the past since they were made in the past"),
t(94) = 3.09, p = .003; Item 18 ("All historical sources give correct information"), t(94) = 2.25, p
= .027; and Item 19 ("Historians can examine sources to see if they provide information about
history"), t(94) = 2.68, p = .009.
Motivation Category Results
To reflect the definition of effort motivation as reflected in the Expectancy x Value
theory, the participants' expectancy and value levels were examined. To assess their expectancy
levels, Items 20, 21, and subquestion 23B were each valued at three points, for a total of 9 points
(Appendix O). The total of points for each participant's responses on these items comprised the
expectancy score. To assess the value levels, three subquestions from Item 23 (A, C, and D)
asked about the students' reactions to consider this scenario: "Pretend your teacher asks you to

126

examine sources…to learn about history." The items were each valued at three points, for a total
of 9 points. The value score consisted of the total number of points for these items. Multiplying
the expectancy and value scores produced the effort motivation score.
The participants' motivation scores on the pre-test ranged from 0 to 81 (individual
expectancy and value scores ranged from 0 to 9). Overall, the mean on the pre-test was 29.16
and 32.19 on the post-test (Table 7). A repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically
significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores of the instruction group students F(1,
91) = 6.59, p = .012 (Figure 9). Additionally, motivation scores increased for students based on
their grade level. Grade 4 students had greater increases in their scores than Grade 5 students,
F(1, 91) = 6.46, p = .013 (Figure 10).
Table 7. Participants' Mean Motivation Scores

Test

All
M

SD

Non-instr.
M
SD

Instruction
M
SD

Grade 4
M
SD

Grade 5
M
SD

Pre-test

29.16 19.14 26.73 19.17 31.81 18.96 29.43 19.48 28.81 18.92

Post-test

32.19 22.15 25.33 18.79 39.64 23.28 36.41 23.57 26.57 18.94

Note. n = 95.
Because the motivation score was the result of multiplying the expectancy score and the
value score, it is important to note what these scores were on the pre-test and how they changed
on the post-test. For students in both study groups and grade levels, their value scores were
always higher than the expectancy scores (Table 8). In most cases, expectancy scores increased
between pre- and post-test. One exception was for the Grade 5 students; their expectancy scores
fell slightly on the post-test. Value scores increased for all students, except for the fifth graders,
whose mean scores decreased by 0.57.

127

Figure 9. Differences in the instruction and non-instruction groups' mean motivation scores on the pre- and post-tests.

128

Figure 10. Differences in Grade 4 and Grade 5 students' mean motivation scores on the pre- and post-tests.

129

Table 8. Mean Expectancy and Value Scores on the Pre- and Post-Tests by Study Group and
Grade Level

Participants
Non-instruction
Instruction
Grade 4
Grade 5

Expectancy Score
Pre-test
Post-test
M
SD
M
SD
4.49
2.21
4.55
2.35
4.7
2.25
5.51
2.25
4.43
2.05
5.2
2.14
4.81
2.43
4.76
2.6

Value Score
Pre-test
Post-test
M
SD
M
SD
5.14
2.73
4.82
2.58
6.38
2.26
6.55
2.69
5.95
2.65
6.23
2.92
5.45
2.49
4.88
2.33

Note. Expectancy and value scores ranged from 0 to 9.
Discussion
The results above revealed the participants' definitions and identifications of multiple
sources and their skills and challenges in using sources, including assessing reliability, areas
which reflect the focus of the research questions guiding this study. Further, some correlations
with participation in the instruction group instructional program and grade level were shown to
be present. Below, the findings from the main categories from the participant questionnaire
(Source Concepts, Source Use Knowledge, and Motivation) are discussed.
Source Concepts Category
The participants selected various types of sources they believed were available at historic
sites for learning history, provided definitions for primary source and secondary source, made
suggestions about how people might learn form historic sites, and answered questions about
source reliability and intertextuality. Their initial choices on the pre-test and later choices on the
post-test provide information about the ways students conceptualized these sources. What is
most interesting is how these concepts changed for the students on the post-test.
In their selection of the types of texts available at historic sites, at the outset, nearly threequarters of the participants chose objects and photos and nearly three-fifths selected documents.
130

For the majority of students, these sources were considered available at historic sites for learning
history. All the other sources were chosen by less than half of the students. This may mean that
students were not as sure about these sources or perhaps students did not know if they would be
found at historic sites.
The number of students who selected each source increased on the post-test, except for
the "other" category. Students' certainty about objects and photos as sources increased, and
buildings, tour guide's words, signs, and documents all rose to levels over 75%. In some cases,
the increases were quite large, such as with tour guide's words and buildings, indicating a major
shift in students' thinking about these sources. Only three sources – outdoor spaces, videos, and
hands-on activities – remained around 50% or lower. The post-test choices were consistent with
what is available at historic sites, and these changes showed that students gained in ways that are
valid in terms of learning at historic sites. The sources that were selected most often (objects,
buildings, and tour guide's words) are those that are the most salient when visiting a historic site.
Although outdoor spaces, videos, and hands-on activities are available sources at a historic site,
students did not consider these as important for learning history as other sources. Furthermore,
participants may have had difficultly conceptualizing something non-concrete like an activity as
a source.
No study group differences were observed except in one category (instruction group
students were more likely to choose objects as a source). Thus, the instructional sessions for the
instruction group did not seem to be associated with selecting particular source types. Instead,
all of these increases, especially those for signs, tour guide's words, and buildings, do appear to
reflect all students' awareness of the types of sources experienced at the historic site and the
influence of the site experience. Additionally, grade level made no difference in the participants'

131

beliefs about sources types at historic sites. From this information, it may be concluded that
fourth- and fifth grade students have similar beliefs about what sources they might find at
historic sites.
Although almost all the responses in the "other" category were given on the pre-test and
response numbers did not increase on the post-test, this category interesting because it supplies
insight into students' beliefs about what sources they expect to encounter at historic sites and
what sources they consider to be useful for learning about history. Objects related to history
were mentioned, such as bones, log cabins, and old tools. Because it is consistent with what may
be found at historic sites, this information probably reflects information learned during students'
previous visits to sites or museums. Emphasis on the history and the historical method,
evidenced by their use of words like "artifact," "research," and "dates" also may reflect previous
museum visiting experiences or social studies instruction. Students' discussion of narratives
("stories" and "story tellers") indicates knowledge and value of transmission of historical
narratives, particularly in oral form.
Some of the participants' concepts of historic sites were reflected in their definitions of
primary and secondary sources. Their definitions aligned with the numerative, re-presentation,
origin, and authenticity/realness conceptual themes raised in the students' discussion during the
instructional sessions. The appearance of these themes in the students' responses on the
questionnaire reinforces the presence of these beliefs in the participants.
The students' definitions of primary source included the four aforementioned themes. On
the pre-test, study group did not make a difference in the likelihood of providing answers with
the themes, except that instruction students gave origin-related answers more often. Instruction
students also were more likely to define by example. On the post-test, instruction students were

132

more likely define with origin- and authority-related responses, but no other study group-related
differences occurred. A grade level difference, however, did exist with the fifth graders. Fourth
graders failed to give a response on the pre-test more often than fifth graders. The number of
fourth-grade student who did not provide a response (pre- or post-test) for primary source,
coupled with the results from "no response" on the secondary source definition, suggested that
Grade 4 students started out behind and remained behind their Grade 5 counterpoints in their
ability to respond to the request for an open-ended definitions of primary and secondary source.
Non-instruction students also failed to give a definition for primary source more often than did
their study group counterparts. These results indicate that the instructional sessions appear to
have made a difference in the instruction group's abilities to give definitions (even if they were
not correct) and to give definitions consistent with the origin and authenticity themes, which of
the four themes, are most consistent with experts' thinking about primary sources.
Participants' definitions of secondary source included all four conceptual themes, except
that authenticity seldom occurred. The re-presentation theme surfaced in the students' definitions
of secondary sources more than in the primary source definitions, which was expected according
to the instruction students' discourse in the classroom sessions. On the pre-test, both study group
and grade level made a difference, with more non-instruction and fourth-grade students not
providing an answer. On the post-test, instruction students and fifth graders gave "other"
answers, including examples and correct definitions, more often. Again, non-instruction and
fourth-grade students were more likely to not respond. No differences in the study group or
grade levels occurred in the likelihood of four conceptual themes to be present in students'
definitions of secondary source on the post-test. Although the percentages of responses
including the themes were low, they do show the presence of the themes, as in the participants'

133

primary source definitions.
More students defined secondary source by example than by using any of the conceptual
themes – almost one quarter of the participants. Although some of the students' examples were
incorrect, it is interesting to note that many students attempted to answer using examples, rather
than attempting a descriptive definition. (Very few students gave a correct descriptive definition
of secondary source [i.e., a commentary on a primary source], and all six of these were in the
instruction group, three in Grade 4 and three in Grade 5). This may be because the students felt
uncertain about a descriptive answer or because they believed they could define better by using
an example, but the data do not make the reason clear.
In addition to identifying and defining sources, the participants' identified what they
believed to be the best methods for learning from historic site texts, including ask someone who
knows about history, use senses, carefully study the source, and compare the source to other
sources. Students were permitted to pick multiple methods for each source type. The
percentages of students choosing each method showed increases between 2% to 26%, except for
learning from tour guide's words, which decreased slightly. This indicated more students
selected more of the different method types on the post-test than on the pre-test; in fact, far fewer
students left checkboxes blank on the post-test.
On the both the pre- and post-tests, carefully study the source was selected most often
method for all source types, except outdoor spaces and tour guide's words. The majority of
students recommended using the senses for learning from outdoor spaces and tour guide's words
on the post-test. On the pre-test, ask someone was suggested most for learning from tour guide's
words, but this shifted to use senses on the post-test. Interestingly, on the pre-test participants
advised using the senses to learn from videos but changed to carefully study the source on the

134

post-test. It is clear from these results that the majority of participants believed studying sources
and using the senses to be the best methods for learning from these sources. Compare the source
to other sources was the least selected method by all students on both the pre-test (35.8%) and
post-test (52.1%). Furthermore, the data also indicated no differences between participants in the
particular study groups or grades.
It is especially telling that compare source was the least selected method overall (based
on the mean of the percentages, even by instruction group students. This suggests that fewer
students were confident about selecting comparison as an effective means for learning about
sources. Students' apparent lack of familiarity with intertextual comparison of sources is
consistent with other data discussed above. Of course, because instruction students received
instruction about intertextual comparison, it is surprising that significant differences were not
seen for the instruction group, but this reality points to the need for additional instruction. These
findings also revealed that fourth- and fifth-grade students have similar conceptions of methods
of learning from sources.
The participants' concepts of the reliability or trustworthiness of the historic site texts
they deemed useful for learning about history changed from pre- to post-test. Participants'
ratings of source trustworthiness on the pre- and post-test showed similar changes for both study
groups. At the outset, instruction and non-instruction students viewed documents as highly
trustworthy, and these ratings were consistent with the prior high regard for documents as
sources. The non-instruction group rated photos highly as well. On the post-test levels of trust
in general rose, but for the non-instruction group, only the change in buildings was significant.
Instruction students' ratings of objects, buildings, and signs were significantly higher, again
pointing to a connection with the instructional sessions, including the fact that the sessions did

135

not emphasize documents, videos, and hand-on activities as much as the other sources. Further,
it should be noted that for both groups, the highest mean ratings of trust and related standard
deviations were comparable, indicating that both groups were similarly judicious in their ratings.
Because no variations were seen in students by grade level, it may be inferred that students'
judgments of source trustworthiness are similar for both grades.
All sources listed on the questionnaire were trustworthy sources for learning history, and
the fact that no sources were selected as should not use reflects this understanding. Variance in
the participants' ratings of sources and shifts between the pre- and post-tests showed that they
believed some sources were better for learning history than others. The classroom sessions for
the instruction group focused largely on the role of buildings, objects, signs, and tour guide's
words as good sources for learning about history, and thus appears to have been a factor in the
ratings changes by these students. The non-instruction group's high rating of buildings on the
post-test is most likely related to the students' experiences at the historic site. Likewise, the tour
guide's words remained a trustworthy source. These results reflect the power of the historic site
experience to change students' concepts about the types sources that not only were available able
historic sites for learning history but also were deemed by the students to be trustworthy.
No matter what sources are evaluated, they must be examined and understood in the
context of other sources (Wineburg, 1991), in other words, intertextually. In some ways, the
participants' seemed to have a fairly good understanding of some aspects of intertextuality. Even
on the pre-test close to three-quarters of all students indicated that using more than one source
provides additional and different kinds of information, and these numbers remained similar on
the post-test. This indicates that students know the value of using more than one source in
learning history, which may have been learned in a variety of ways and learning contexts. On

136

the pre-test, most believed that different kinds of sources, like an object and a photo, can be
compared. On the post-test, however, this belief changed significantly for non-instruction group
students, with one third of students asserting that comparison should not be attempted. The
number of instruction students with similar beliefs remained the same (18.4%). This change for
the non-instruction group is puzzling, because the reason for this change is not apparent. It may
be that students, faced with being asked to compare sources at the historic site during the on-site
activity, were confused about this process, given that they had not received the instructional
sessions about comparing sources. Alternately, they may have believed that just these two types
of sources – photo and object – were too difficult to compare. Why the number instruction
students, who received the instruction, did not change their thinking is worth questioning as well.
Only three instruction students maintained their belief that the source should not be compared on
the post-test. The remainder included different students who changed their answers on the posttest. Again, perhaps the instructional sessions encouraged these students to be more thoughtful
about whether a photo and an object, specifically, might be compared.
At the outset, students seemed to question whether information from one source might be
used to understand another source better, that is, intertextual comparison. More instruction
group than non-instruction students believed this was possible, but numbers for neither group
exceeded about 61%. On the post-test, this number rose significantly for the instruction group,
pointing to a relationship with the instruction, since this was a key element in the sessions.
Results for the related question about the potential for confusion caused by having too much
information showed that fewer students in both groups believed this to be an issue on the posttest, but these changes were not significant. These data indicate that all students needed
instruction in this aspect of intertextuality.

137

The number of students in both groups who believed that potential disagreement was
enough to prevent comparison increased, although not significantly. Nearly 58% of noninstruction students (an increase of about 6%) and 80% of instruction students (an increase of
about 13%) believed this was true, meaning the increase in the number of instruction students
was more than double the number of non-instruction students. It is unclear whether students,
especially those in the instruction group, answered this way because they misinterpreted the
question to mean that checking this box meant that they were acknowledging that disagreement
does often exist, a topic that was addressed repeatedly in the instructional sessions. This reason
may account for the change.
Over 60% of students, on both the pre- and post-tests, believed that disagreement should
not be ignored. The rate of non-instruction group students' affirmative responses increased
slightly on the post-test (from 60.9 to 64.4%), but the instruction group students' affirmative
responses decreased (from 81.6% to 73.5%). Although this change was not significant, it
represents a small number of students who thought ignoring disagreement was an acceptable
solution. These results indicate that misunderstanding about appropriate ways to address
disagreement still existed for some students, even after the instructional sessions.
Also interesting was that on the post-test, 51% of instruction group students (as opposed
to 20% of non-instruction students) asserted that if a person's sources disagree, she should find
new, non-conflicting sources. These post-test percentages represent a 16.3% decrease for the
instruction group and a 12.6% decrease for the non-instruction group. Initially, it was
hypothesized that on the post-test, more instruction students should have disagreed with this
statement and that the decrease should have been significant. Upon review of the results, it was
acknowledged that this question may have been confusing for students and interpreted in

138

multiple ways (e.g., Does it mean to avoid conflict by getting new sources, or does it mean that
non-conflicting sources must be used for corroboration?). Alternately, the results may reveal
that one-half of the instruction students believe finding non-conflicting sources to be a good
solution to the problem.
When the responses to questions about intertextuality were compared by grade, there
were few differences, and none pointed to potential differences in instructional needs. The data
suggested that fourth- and fifth-grade students have similar understandings of intertextuality, as
reflected in these pre- and post-test items. Explorations of the data from the two source use
activities (see Chapter 6) inform this conclusion.
Source Use Knowledge Category
The participants' responses in this category revealed their knowledge about using sources
for learning history and answering historical questions. The subject matter of these questions
appeared to be unfamiliar to many students. On three of the six items in this category, at least
one third of students provided incorrect responses. On the remaining three items, the majority of
students provided correct responses. These pre-test responses suggest that for many students the
content being tested was novel enough to allow for learning and potential improvement on the
post-test.
No significant grade-level differences were observed on the post-test, but instruction
students were more likely to give correct responses on the post-test for the questions
contemporary people's ability to know about history and the potential for historical sources to
give correct information about the past. These results suggest a relationship with the material the
instruction students learned in the instructional sessions.
Moreover, on three of the six items, instruction students' uncertainty levels in answering

139

these Source Use Knowledge questions appeared to be reduced in some cases, as evidenced by a
significant increase in the students who at attempted a response on the post-test after answering
not sure or leaving a question blank on the pre-test. Although this change in certainty on the
post-test may be related to familiarity with the questions, a relationship to the instructional
sessions cannot be ruled out. Further, on two of six items, students in the instruction group were
more likely change from an incorrect to a correct response. (These questions were about
historical sources giving correct information and historians examining sources, two topics
covered extensively in the instructional sessions.) One of the primary objectives for this research
project was to increase or enhance the participants' confidence in their abilities to discuss and
work with historical sources, so reductions in levels of student uncertainty helped meet that goal.
Motivation Category
Motivation scores were the product of the participants' expectancy and value scores
(Expectancy x Value = Effort motivation) (Brophy, 2004). They reflected the participants'
confidence in their agency to examine sources for information about history, perceived ability,
and activity value, including interest, learning potential, and enjoyment. Motivation scores
increased significantly between the pre- and post-tests for the instruction group and Grade 4
students, meaning that these students' motivation for historical source use activities increased.
This increase demonstrates that the classroom sessions for the instruction students were
associated with this change for instruction students.
Examining the individual expectancy and value elements within the motivation category
highlighted several noteworthy outcomes. First, although expectancy scores rose for most
participants, the mean fell slightly on the post-test for the Grade 5 students. Despite this one
difference, overall most students' belief in their agency and confidence in their ability to examine

140

historical sources to learn about history increased. The results indicated that fourth graders'
expectancy scores were lower than fifth graders' at the outset, and their scores exceeded the fifth
graders' on the post-test. This large change in the expectancy scores of instruction group
students (+ 0.81) and fourth graders (+ 0.77) revealed a change in the way these students were
thinking about their own abilities to work with sources. It also accounts for much of the change
in the Grade 4 students' overall motivation scores. The ability to feel confident about one's
ability to perform a task and probable success in doing is important for interest development and
subject matter engagement (Brophy, 2004; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). These changes in the
students' beliefs may help them to continue to develop their interest in using sources for
historical inquiry and to foster continuing confidence in their own agency to use sources.
Value scores increased on the post-test for instruction group and Grade 4 students but
decreased for non-instruction and Grade 5 students. The increase in value scores for these
students shows that these students were interested in using historic site sources to learn about
history, believed they might learn about history from sources, and thought they would enjoy the
activity. Students' belief in the usefulness of historical sources for learning about history may
prompt future interest and trust in this learning process. Additionally, a person interested in
some content or activity may be motivated to continue participation based on the enjoyment she
or he receives from participation (Brophy, 2004). The mean value scores showed that most of
the students indicated their beliefs about enjoying using historical resources either stayed the
same or decreased. These results indicate that all students may need more instruction to help
them explore reasons why examining sources and visiting historic sites may be of value to them,
including the values presented in the questionnaires, which were consistent with reasons scholars
find value in these activities. The students' own personal values of using historic site sources for

141

historical inquiry were not assessed on the questionnaires, but this is something that would be
useful to explore in a future study.
The participants' concepts, skills, and knowledge just discussed will be useful to guide
interpretations of the results from the student source used activities presented next in Chapter 6.
By exploring the participants' actual use of historic site sources, this chapter provides more
information about the ways the participants think about sources, how they choose sources to use
for historical inquiry, how they assess reliability, and their abilities to use sources intertextually.
Chapter 6 is similar to Chapter 4, in that it includes the written words of students, thus allowing
the reader to hear the authentic voices of children as they worked with historic site sources.

142

CHAPTER 6: SOURCE USE ACTIVITIES RESULTS
To assess the participants' source evaluation skills and their intertextual use of sources,
the students took part in two source use activities. The "Evidence Report Activity" (ERA)
(Appendix H) and "Source Based Question Activity" (SBQA) (Appendix I) allowed the students
to use a variety of historic site texts for historical inquiry. Both activities addressed these
research questions:
•

Question 2.1: What are students' skills and challenges when using multiple texts
within historic sites as sources for historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.2: How do students make decisions about evidence and the use of
evidence from historic site texts?

•

Question 2.3: How might grade level be related to students' abilities to use historic
sites texts as sources to support historical inquiry?

•

Question 2.4: How do students describe their ability to reason about the reliability of
historic site texts?

•

Question 3.2: How does participating in focused instruction affect students' skills and
challenges in using multiple texts within historic sites as sources for historical
inquiry?

•

Question 3.3: How does participating in focused instruction influence students' level
of performance on two source use activities?

As described in Chapter 3, the ERA and SBQA differed by the approach the students
were asked to take in evaluating sources. In both activities, students used historic site sources to
address the historical question "What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?" One
main difference between the activities was that on the ERA, the students were given four sources

143

to evaluate, and on the SBQA, students selected their own sources. Another difference, related
to the level of scaffolding provided for the activity, was that on the ERA the students were
supplied with instructions that asked them to use the Describe - Analyze - Compare & Contrast
(D-A-C/C) method for source evaluation, and the SBQA did not include this scaffolding (see
Chapter 3 for detailed explanation). The demand for the students to generate their own sources
coupled with the lack of the D-A-C/C scaffolding made the SBQA a more complex and
cognitively demanding task. As described in Vygotsky's work (1978), assessing what learners
are capable of achieving with and without assistance from a more knowledgeable other illustrates
the learner's zone of proximal development. Using scaffolding, in this case, supplying the
D-A-C/C method information on the ERA, showed what the participants were capable of
achieving with this assistance. The lack of scaffolding on the SBQA served to show first, what
students might achieve without this scaffolding and second, whether the instruction group
students would use the source evaluation skills they learned in the classroom sessions when not
specifically prompted to do so. The results from both activities, therefore, illustrated what the
students were capable of doing under these different conditions.
One of the primary methods for determining the participants' abilities to work with
sources in both activities was evaluation of the participants' intertextual reading models, as
described in Britt et al. (1999). Each of the four models the authors described highlights
different relationships between individual texts and intertextuality. The models illustrate how
readers understand and acknowledge individual text attributes (in the present study, as evidenced
through use of the Describe and Analyze steps of the D-A-C/C method), how they make
connections between individual texts (as shown in their used of the Compare/Contrast step of the
D-A-C/C method, which is equivalent to fitting the intertextual documents' model), and how they

144

integrate this information into mental models of the texts.
It should be noted that the skills that exemplify each of these four intertextual models are
learned skills. The models were developed through examination of students' intertextual reading
of history texts. In the discipline of history (and other scholarly disciplines), the ability to read
multiple texts and compare them is essential to building knowledge. As described above,
evaluation of historical texts (sources) does not occur in a vacuum; the authority and reliability
of texts is established through comparison and corroboration of multiple texts and judgment of
new information against personal prior knowledge of the subject matter (expertise). For nonexpert students of history, as most elementary school students are, Britt et al.'s (1999) documents'
model encapsulates the skills necessary to evaluate historical texts successfully: source
identification, integration of prior knowledge, intertextual comparison of sources. These skills,
however, do not come naturally to most readers and must be taught. For instance, although a
reader may very well remember the textual source of some historical event, she may not
acknowledge the source when discussing the text or believe it is important to do so. In the
discipline of history, however, it is important to do so, and students of history are taught these
skills as part of the discipline.
In the present study, the research questions focus on the participants' abilities in using
multiple texts from historic sites as sources for historical inquiry. One evidence of successful
intertextual use of sources is the reading of sources in a manner consistent with the documents'
model, something that was specifically addressed in the instructional sessions for the instruction
group. The skills and challenges of the participants, therefore, were judged against this "good
reader's model of multiple-text learning in history" (Britt et al., 1999, p. 220). Although this
model was developed through work with older students and adults, it was useful for identifying

145

and describing children's progress toward this ideal for multi-textual history learning. Thus,
even nascent exhibition of the skills necessary to the documents' model in the participants'
writing is worth noting.
Students who received parent/guardian permission and gave their assent completed the
source use activities. Ninety-seven students completed the ERA. Of these, 48.0% were
members of the instruction group and 52.0% were in the non-instruction group. Over half
(57.7%) were in Grade 4 and 43.2% were in Grade 5. Ninety-four participants finished the
SBQA. Forty-five students (47.9%) were in the instruction group, and 49 (52.1%) were in the
non-instruction group. Fifty-four (57.4%) were Grade 4 students, and 40 (42.6%) were Grade 5
students. The results and analyses below are based on these individual samples.
Data Analyses
Evidence Report Activity
To evaluate the participants' source evaluation and intertextual evaluation of sources to
answer a historical question, a preliminary coding scheme was developed based on the
instructions for the Evidence Report Activity, including categories for source evaluation
(description, analysis, comparison/contrast). Each participant's responses on the ERA were read
and assigned codes. The smallest unit of analysis was the single word. Some units were doublecoded, such as when a participant both described a source and analyzed it. Some students
incorporated brief discussions of source reliability within their descriptions, and these were
coded as "mentions source reliability." After coding an initial sample of 20 transcripts
(approximately 20%)of the total number , the coding scheme was examined and refined to make
descriptions of categories clear and to reduce redundancies (Appendix P). Intercoder agreement
with an assistant, after this initial coding of the sample, had a Cohen's kappa of .71. A

146

discussion and resolution process refined the coding scheme before completing this analysis.
Once the coding process was completed, data from the codes were imported into SPSS.
For some codes, it was possible to have more than one occurrence in a student's responses, such
as description, analysis, and so on (codes 1-7 and 13-21). The total number of units coded in one
category (e.g., source description) was tallied for each student. From these data, descriptive data,
including the mean number of responses in each of these coding categories, was calculated. The
means were compared with the variables study group and grade level using one-way ANOVAs.
Additionally, some of the variables were transformed to nominal form to allow comparisons
using Pearson's chi-square tests (2-sided).
The students' ratings of the reliability of each source in the activity (stereoscope, tour
guide's words, barn, and label) were analyzed descriptively. The mean ratings for each study
group and grade level were calculated. Additionally, one-way ANOVAs were conducted to
determine whether students' study group or grade were associated with giving higher ratings.
Finally, the participants' ERA responses were evaluated to determine the intertextual
model to which the responses conformed: mush model, separate representation model,
documents' model, and tag-all model. From each of the four models in Britt et al., the main
characteristics of each were used to create a coding scheme, which was used to evaluate the
participants' ERA responses (Appendix Q). An assistant and I read each response and applied
these codes: mush, separate representation, documents, or tag-all (see Appendix R for examples
of essays to which the codes were applied). In the initial coding phase, the intercoder reliability
had a Cohen's kappa level of .45. After discussion and resolution, the kappa level was .76.
Source Based Question Activity
In the Source Based Question Activity, the participants were asked to choose at least four

147

sources they thought would help them to describe what was life like for farm children in the
1850s-1890s, based on what they recalled from the historic site visit and their notes and drawings
from the site. The students listed their sources and then wrote essays to answer the question, in
which they were supposed to talk about their sources.
The SBQA was analyzed in the same manner as the ERA. Each of the participants'
responses on the SBQA source types were categorized and assigned codes (Appendix S). The
smallest unit of analysis was the single word. Some units were double-coded, such as when both
description and analysis were evident in a students' response. Additionally, the coding process
helped determine which intertextual reading models the students' essay responses fit. The
intercoder reliability kappa level for the initial coding phase in which 20% of the SBQA data
were coded was .35. After a discussion and resolution process, the kappa level rose to .83.
Evidence Report Activity Results
In the Evidence Report Activity, students evaluated four sources from the historic site
(stereoscope, tour guide's words, barn, and label) using description, analysis, and intertextual
comparison and contrast (Figure 11). They also rated the reliability of the individual sources.

Figure 11. Writing from Wyatt's (Grade 4, instruction group) Evidence Report Activity.
148

Analyses of the students' writing showed various levels of understanding related to source
evaluation using the D-A-C/C method, perceptions of source reliability, and evidence of
intertextual models in their activities.
The participants' open-ended responses on the ERA varied in length. The overall word
count ranged from 0 to 88 words, and participants wrote between 0 to 8 sentences. The mean
word and sentence counts for the entire sample, the study groups, and grades are shown in Table
9. Although one-way ANOVAs showed no difference between word count and sentence count
by study group, Grade 5 students wrote more words, F(1, 96) = 27.73, p < .000. Analysis of
their writing showed fifth graders wrote longer, more complex sentences, as was anticipated.
Table 9. Word and Sentence Counts from the Evidence Report Activity
All

Counts
Words

Non-instr.
M
SD

Instruction
M
SD

Grade 4
M
SD

Grade 5
M
SD

M

SD

34.4

20.5

32.2

18.3

36.7

22.5

42.7

20.5

23.1

14.1

3.0

1.6

2.84

1.5

3.2

1.7

3.5

1.3

2.4

1.7

Sentences
Note. n = 97.
Source Evaluation

In their analysis of the four individual sources in the ERA, almost all students provided
descriptions of one or more sources (Table 10). The mean number of instances of description for
all students on the four sources was 3.98. Almost all participants were able to describe one or
more of the sources. A slightly lower, but still high, percentage of students analyzed one or more
of the sources. Less than 10% of participants incorporated comparison and contrast in the
evaluation of the sources part of the activity.

149

Table 10. Percentage of Participants Who Used D-A-C/C Methods in the Evidence Report
Activity
Evaluation method
Describe
Analyze
Compare/Contrast

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

91.8
88.8
8.2

86.3
90.2
7.8

97.9
87.2
8.5

96.4
85.7
5.4

85.7
92.9
11.9

Note. n = 97.
The data were examined to determine whether study group membership or grade level
were associated with describing, analyzing, or comparing/contrasting the sources. Instruction
students were more likely to include description in their source evaluations, !2 (1, 98) = .21, p =
.036. No other study group or any grade level correlations were observed.
Below, the participants' use of the D-A-C/C method for each source type is discussed. In
this section, students were asked to describe and analyze each source. (A few students also
included comparison and contrast in this part of the activity.) The participants' use of description
and analysis varied for each source, which provides insight into the ways they chose to evaluate
the sources and types of challenges they appear to have encountered during the activity. (Note:
In what follows, the number of students using description and analysis may not add up to the
number of students in the sample because some students left sections blank or did not describe
and analyze)
Stereoscope. This source had the lowest number of students use only description than
any of the other three. Of those who described and/or analyzed the stereoscope, almost twice the
number of students used "analysis only" for this source than used "description only" (Figure 12).
Anita (Grade 4, non-instruction) provided an excellent example of analysis: "The first thing the
3D picture viewer problube ment somtimes they got to play." More use of analysis may have

150

70

60

Number of participants

50

40

Stereoscope
Barn
Tour words
Label

30

20

10

0
Description only

Analysis only

Description &
Analysis

Comp/Cont

Blank

Figure 12. Percentage of participants who used D-A-C/C methods for specific sources in the Evidence Report
Activity. (n = 97).
151

resulted because many students seemed to be unsure about the purpose of this object, leading to
speculation about its use, which was coded as analysis. This result seems to be related to the
students' need to identify this object, and thus comparing it with a familiar object helped.
Further, almost as many participants (42 students, fairly evenly divided between the study groups
and grades) used description and analysis together as those who used either description or
analysis alone. Few students left this column blank. Neither study group nor grade level made a
difference in students' likelihood to describe or analyze the stereoscope.
Barn. More students (46) used "description only" than "analysis only" (20 students).
Study group did not make a difference in students' likelihood to describe or analyze the barn, but
grade level did. Fourth graders were more likely to describe,
graders were more likely to analyze,

(1, 98) = .36, p < .000, and fifth

(1, 97) = .43, p < .000.

Nineteen students both described and analyzed the barn. Maggie's (Grade 4, noninstruction) evaluation was a good example of description and analysis. She wrote, "The barn
help me learn about they way life like back then and that they used it for milking the cows."
Doyle's (Grade 5, non-instruction) writing showed analysis, not only of the barn but also of the
characteristics of this type of source:
A barn is a great place for cows and horses. Barns can tell alot about whats gone on in
there. There could be carvings on the walls stuff hanging. It could be a realy cool place
to learn about whats gone on in there but it can't speack or right signs to tell you exactly
what happend.
Although the number of students who described and analyzed the barn was higher than the
number who used these evaluations for the tour guide's words or the label, this number was less
than half the number of students who both described and analyzed the stereoscope. These data

152

indicated that, in general, analyzing the barn as a source either was something participants chose
not to do or may have been more difficult for them to do than analyzing the stereoscope. Neither
study group nor grade level was associated with using both description and analysis. No students
compared and contrasted sources in their evaluation of the barn.
Tour guide's words. Like the barn source, the majority of participants (62 students)
used "description only" for this source. Much of this description took the form of relating the
content of the tour guide's words, including factual information and historical narratives. For
example, Toby (Grade 4, instruction) stated, "The tour guide said it was very hard work every
day. Different lives most the time." Fourth-grade students were more likely to describe the tour
guide's words,

(1, 98) = .54, p < .000, and fifth-grade students were more likely to analyze,

(1, 98) = .35, p < .000. Study group made no difference.
Only 23 students (about one third) used analysis, either on its own (14 students) or
together with description (9 students). Brian's (Grade 4, non-instruction) discussion of the tour
guide's words included analysis, with his deeper level of interpretation of factual information
about farm children in history caring for animals: "The tour guide showed us that we don't need
to take of animals like farm kids did." The number of students who used both description and
analysis together was the lowest number for any source except the label. Study group did not
make a difference in which students used both, but the nine students who did were all fifth
graders,

(1, 97) = .37, p < .000. One participant compared and contrasted for this source.

Label. Thirty-two students used "description only," and 31 used "analysis only" for this
source. In description without analysis, students just provided their observations about the
source without drawing any conclusions about what their observations mean, such as when Elise
(Grade 4, non-instruction) wrote, "I learned on this label that kids had a one room school and it

153

started in the 1860s." In analysis without description, the students obviously had to consider
certain pieces of information from which draw conclusions, but they omitted the information
about the source to which their conclusions were linked. For example, when Corinna explained,
"But we don't drop out of school to do farm work, because we need learning more than a farm,"
she was responding directly to the information in the label and analyzing it. Students in both
groups and grades were as likely to describe the label, but Grade 5 students analyzed more often
than Grade 4 students,

(1, 97) = .43, p < .000.

Compared to the other sources, fewer participants (7 students) used both description and
analysis in this category, the lowest number for any source. Elise's classmate Jenny's response
provided both description and analysis: "The label told me that we don't go to school in a one
room school house." Three students compared and contrasted, all highlighting the differences
between their lives and the lives of children in the past, but using sources from their prior
knowledge, not the sources in the activity. For the label source, most participants used either
description or analysis alone. One-fifth of the participants (21 students) left this column blank
on the activity, more than any other source. Grade 4 students were more likely than their Grade
5 counterparts to leave this evaluation question blank,

(1, 97) = .35, p < .000.

Source Reliability
The participants rated the reliability of each of the sources from one to four stars (4 =
very reliable, 3 = medium amount, 2 = a little, and 1 star = not at all reliable) (Table 11).
According to the mean ratings for each source, no source was considered not reliable at all, and
most sources had mean ratings higher than 2.3 stars. Overall, participants gave the barn the
highest reliability rating (M = 3.07). The participants found the stereoscope and label to be the
least reliable. When examined by study group, the data showed that instruction group students

154

gave higher reliability ratings to all the sources than non-instruction group students, although
only the difference in ratings for the barn were significant, F(1, 96) = 4.8, p = .031. Comparing
students by grade revealed that Grade 5 students gave lower reliability ratings for all sources but
the label. Though lower, the differences in these means were not significant.
Table 11. Participants' Mean Ratings of Source Reliability

M

SD

Non-instr.
M
SD

Instruction
M
SD

Stereoscope

2.34

1.15

2.18

1.16

2.51

1.14

2.36

1.24

2.32

1.04

Barn

3.07

1.19

2.82

1.42

3.34

.82

3.16

1.20

2.95

1.18

Tour guide

2.67

1.16

2.60

1.26

2.74

1.05

2.70

1.22

2.63

1.09

Label

2.34

1.55

2.30

1.59

2.38

1.51

2.27

1.57

2.44

1.57

Source

All

Grade 4
M
SD

Grade 5
M
SD

Note. n = 97.
Interestingly, the "reliability hierarchies" of sources resulting from the participants'
ratings look remarkably similar, regardless of study group or grade. Both study groups and
grade levels gave the barn the highest rating, followed by the tour guide's words. Instruction
group and Grade 4 students rated the stereoscope as third most reliable, with the label last. Noninstruction group and Grade 5 students put the label in third place, followed by the stereoscope.
In addition to the star ratings the participants assigned to the sources, some students
discussed the reliability of sources in the ERA. For example, Doyle (Grade 5, non-instruction)
wrote, "Tour guides words are great advice and facts. There usualy dependibly but sometimes its
false information." About 30% of the participants mentioned reliability about the sources in their
writing. Of these, similar percentages were in the non-instruction group (31.4%) and the
instruction group (27.7%). When examined by grade level, a higher percentage of fifth graders
(42.9%) than fourth graders (19.6%) mentioned reliability, a statistically significant difference,

155

(1, 98) = .25, p = .012.
Intertextual models in the ERA
Ninety-eight students completed the ERA. Of these, 57.1% had a mush model, 35.7%
had separate representation model, 4.1% had documents' model, and 0% had the tag-all model
(Table 12). Few (3 students) did not complete the writing in this section.
Table 12. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Evidence Report Activity
Essays
Intertextual model
No answer
Mush
Separate representation
Documents'
Tag-all

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

3.1
57.1
35.7
4.1
0.0

5.9
72.5
17.6
3.9
0.0

0.0
40.4
55.3
4.3
0.0

3.6
53.6
37.5
5.4
0.0

2.4
61.9
33.3
2.4
0.0

Note. n = 97.
When examined by study group, the data showed that almost three quarters of noninstruction students had the mush model, while about 40% of instruction students' writing fit this
model. Peter's (Grade 4, non-instruction) writing fits the mush model: "Their life was harder.
They had to do a lot of chores. No bathrooms. No electric. They used lanterns." He integrated
multiple sources of information but does not identify the source of this knowledge or discuss
how the information is relevant for answering the historical question.
Over half of the instruction students had the separate representation model, but only
17.6% of non-instruction students did. In the separate representation model, the reader identifies
individual source attributes or relevance but does not integrate information from the multiple
sources. Hudson's (Grade 5, instruction) essay reflects the separate representation model. He
wrote, "The three D thing is like a magnifiying glass for kids back then. Lables can tell what
156

they acualy did back then. The barn is a building that they could of used."
Less than 5% of all participants' writing fit the documents' model. This model was
observed infrequently in both study groups and at nearly the same rate. Students' whose writing
fit this model integrated information from and about each individual source and combined this
information with prior knowledge, in order to understand information from the multiple sources.
Laura's (Grade 4, non-instruction) writing is an example of what was coded as the documents'
model. She wrote,
I think the 3D picture viewer gave us good information on what kids did a long time ago
because they did not have computers to look at their pictures. The tour guid gave us a
good explanation on what the water buket was. The barn was a good place to look for
information because there were lots buggys and farming tools. The exibit lable was like a
summary of what they think she did.
Although this example is short (as were most of the essays), this student identified her sources,
and described and analyzed at least some of them. The reliability of the sources was assessed:
"The 3D picture viewer gave us good information" and "The barn was a good place to look."
The student integrated prior knowledge by stating that children in the past " did not have
computers to look at their pictures." The entire response attempted to answer the historical
question about what life was like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s.
To determine whether participation in the instructional sessions made a difference in the
instruction students' performance on this source use activity, chi-square tests were conducted.
Instruction group students were more likely than non-instruction group students to have a
separate representation model on the ERA,

(1, 98) = .39, p < .000, and non-instruction

students were likely to have a mush model,

(1, 98) = .32, p = .001. No other correlations

157

with the variable study group were seen.
To reveal how grade level might be related to students' abilities to use historic site texts
as sources to support historical inquiry, the essays also were analyzed according to participant
grade level. In the Evidence Report Activity, similar numbers of students at both grade levels
provided no answer. Additionally, the numbers of students in each grade whose writing fit the
mush, separate representation, or document models were similar. When examined by study
group within the grade level, however, some interesting differences were identified (Table 13).
Among the fourth-grade students, fewer instruction students' writing (42.9%) fit the mush model,
compared to 64.3% of non-instruction group fourth graders. Twice as many (50%) of the
instruction students had the separate representation model compared to 25% of non-instruction
group students. For fourth graders, however, study group made no statistical difference in the
likelihood of having a particular model type, except that separate representation came close to
significance for the instruction group,

(1, 56) = .26, p = .055. At the fifth-grade level, 82.6%

of non-instruction group students' essays fit the mush model versus only 36.8% of instruction
group fifth graders.
Table 13. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Evidence Report Activity
Essay By Group within Grade

Intertextual model
No answer
Mush
Separate representation
Documents'
Tag-all

Grade 4
Non-instr. Instruction
0.0
42.9
50.0
7.1
0.0

7.1
64.3
25.0
3.6
0.0

Grade 5
Non-instr. Instruction
0.0
36.8
63.2
0.0
0.0

4.3
82.6
8.7
4.3
0.0

Note. Grade 4 non-instruction (n = 28), Grade 4 instruction (n = 23), Grade 5 non-instruction (n
= 28), and Grade 5 instruction (n = 19).
158

Source Based Question Activity Results
In the Source Based Question Activity (SBQA), the participants were asked to select at
least four sources they thought would help them answer the historical questions about what life
was like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s, based on what they recalled from the historic site
visit and their notes (Figure 13). They were asked to choose at least four sources but told they
could choose more if they wished. Students were asked to describe their sources (e.g., house,
picture of Ella's father, exhibit label) and label them with the source type (e.g., building, object,
label).

Figure 13. Katie's (Grade 5, instruction group) list of sources from the Source Based Question
Activity.
The students then wrote essays to answer the historical question, in which they were
supposed to reference and discuss their sources. The participants' responses on the SBQA varied
in length. The overall word count ranged from 0 to 235 words, and participants wrote between 0
to 22 sentences. The mean word and sentence counts for the entire sample, the study groups, and
grades are shown in Table 14. One-way ANOVAs showed no difference between word count
and sentence count by study group, but Grade 5 students wrote more words, F(1, 93) = 19.18, p
< .000, and more sentences, F(1, 93) = 30.24, p < .000. Fifth graders wrote longer, more
complex sentences than fourth graders.
159

Table 14. Word and Sentence Counts from the Source Based Question Activity
Counts
Words
Sentences

All

Non-instr.
M
SD

Instruction
M
SD

Grade 4
M
SD

Grade 5
M
SD

M

SD

69.9

37.8

68.9

43.1

70.8

31.7

56.5

25.3

88.3

44.4

5.7

4.1

5.4

4.2

5.9

4.0

3.9

2.3

8.1

4.9

Note. n = 94.
Source Selection
The participants selected a variety of sources, based on what they experienced during the
historic site field trip (Table 15). During the activity, no suggestions were made to students
about the types or specific examples of sources they should choose; students were free and
encouraged to select whatever sources they thought would best help them to answer the historical
question. Many of the sources chosen reflected specific events that occurred while the students
were at the historic site, including the museum educator's demonstration of how laundry was
done by the Merriman-Sharp family (using a laundry tub, hand agitator, and homemade lye soap)
and discussions of objects pointed out during the house tour. In total, there were 380 instances
of source selection by the students, with a mean of four sources per student. Eighteen students
(19%) selected more than four sources, and fourteen students (15%) selected fewer than four.
Grade level and study group made no difference in the number of sources selected.
All of the students were able to consider the sources they experienced at the historic site
and choose sources they believed would help them answer the historical question in the activity.
Overall, a high number of participants selected objects (86%) and buildings (71%). Almost half
of the students selected tour guide's words as a source (45%). Only two participants chose
labels/signs as a source. Within the "other" category, six students (6.5%) chose sources
including the historic property map given to the students during the field trip (2 students),

160

Table 15. Sources Selected by Participants in the Source Based Question Activity

Source name

Source type

Tool, farm
Tool, laundry (e.g., bucket, agitator)
Furniture, house
Transportation
Toy
Well
Tool, kitchen (e.g., stove, icebox)
Soap (e.g., production process, use)
Tool, other (e.g., medicine, wire)
House
Barn
Building, other (e.g., outhouse, museum)
Tour narrative
Label/sign
Other

% Participants
selecting

Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object

35.8
24.2
24.2
23.2
18.9
13.7
9.5

Object
Object
Building
Building
Building
Tour guide's words
Label/sign
Other

5.3
4.2
52.6
44.2
24.2
45.2
2.2
6.5

Note. n = 94.
bedrooms in the house (1 student), the pear orchard (1 student), outdoor spaces (described as "the
neighborhood" by 1 student), and, interestingly, "life experience, self made" (1 student).
Non-instruction and instruction group students were equally likely to select the various
source types (object, building, tour guide's words, label/sign, and "other" category) (Figure 14).
Chi-square tests showed no correlations between the selection of particular source type and study
group membership. Examining the data by grade level, however, revealed that fourth-grade
students were more likely than fifth-grade students to select buildings,
and tour guide's words,

(1, 98) = .23, p = .03,

(1, 98) = .42, p < .000, as their sources for the Source Based Question

Activity.

161

100
90

Percentage of participants

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Object

Building
Non-instruction

Tour Guide
Instruction

Grade 4

Label

Other

Grade 5

Figure 14. Percentage of participants by group and grade mentioning particular source types in the Source Based
Question Activity. (n = 94).
162

Source Evaluation
Not all of the participants who completed the Source Based Question Activity used the
steps of the D-A-C/C method in their evaluations of the sources they selected. Among the
participants, 41.8% described, 32.7% analyzed, and 5.1% compared and contrasted within their
evaluations of the self-selected sources (Table 16). When examined by study group, about the
same percentage of students in the non-instruction and instruction groups provided at least one
instance of description. More students in the instruction group provided analysis than did
students in the non-instruction group. About the same percentage of instruction and noninstruction students compared and contrasted (e.g., compared a selected source to another
selected source or a source for which they had prior knowledge) in their source evaluations. No
differences were observed in the students' likelihood to describe, analyze, and compare/contrast
according by study group membership.
Table 16. Percentage of Participants Using D-A-C/C Methods in the Source Based Question
Activity
Evaluation method
Describe
Analyze
Compare/Contrast

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

41.8
32.7
5.1

41.2
29.4
5.9

42.6
36.2
4.3

30.4
19.6
0.0

57.1
50.0
11.9

Note. n = 94.
When examined by grade level, more Grade 5 students (57.1%) than Grade 4 students
(30.4%) used description, a significant difference,

(1, 98) = .27, p = .007. A similar large

difference occurred in the percentage of students who analyzed (50% in Grade 5 versus 19.6% in
Grade 4),

(1, 98) = .32, p = .001. No fourth graders compared and contrasted, but 11.9% of

fifth graders did, which also was a significant difference,
163

(1, 98) = .27, p = .007. Within the

grade levels, study group membership made no difference.
Source Reliability
After choosing their sources for the Source Based Question Activity, the participants
used one to four stars to describe the level of reliability the sources had, as they did in the
Evidence Report Activity. One star meant I should not use this source at all, two stars meant
this is a least best source, three stars meant this is a medium-best source, and four stars meant
this is one of the best sources. The participants drew stars next to the names of their sources to
indicate the reliability level.
When the number of stars connected to each source type was calculated, the majority of
students considered both objects and buildings highly reliable (between 3 and 4 stars). Tour
guide's words were believed to have a medium level of reliability (2 to 3 stars). Signs and labels
were considered either low or medium level in reliability (1 to 2 stars). These levels of reliability
for each type of source are consistent with the findings from the post-test scores on the
participant survey (see Chapter 5).
Overall, 52% of students gave either 3- or 4-star ratings for all the sources they selected
(coded as "high" rating), and 39.8% of students included 0-star to 2-star ratings among their
ratings (i.e., for one or more sources, but not necessarily all) for their chosen sources (coded as
"low" rating). About 8% of students did not rate their sources. When analyzed by study group
membership, 45.1% of non-instruction group students gave all high ratings to their sources, and
43.1% gave low ratings to some of their sources (Figure 15). About 12% did not rate any of
their sources. In the instruction group, 59.6% of students provided all high ratings, and 36.2%
provided low ratings. Only 4.3% did not rate their sources. When analyzed by grade level,
58.9% of fourth graders gave all high ratings, while 35.7% gave low ratings. 5.4% did not rate

164

70

Percentage of participants

60

50

40
High Rating
Low Rating
No rating

30

20

10

0
Non-instruction

Instruction

4th grade

5th grade

Figure 15. Percentage of participants giving "high," "low," and "no" source reliability ratings on the Source Based
Question Activity. (n = 94).
165

their sources. Among fifth graders, 42.9% gave all high ratings, and 45.2% gave low ratings.
11.9% did not rate their sources.
An interesting occurrence was that about 40% of the students chose sources that they
themselves rated as either a least best source or I should not use this source at all. Of the 380
instances of source selection during this activity, 59 (15.5%) were given a low rating. Objects
received the highest number of low ratings, followed by building and tour guide's words. None
of the students who discussed labels or signs or "other" sources gave them low ratings. Students
in both groups and both grade levels were just as likely to include sources they rated as "low"
within their source evaluations in the Source Based Question Activity. Chi-square tests indicated
that no correlations existed among student ratings and either study group or grade level. Just
over half of the participants (52%) rated all their chosen sources as either medium-best or best
source.
Along with the star ratings, a small number of students (7) discussed the reliability of the
sources they chose in their writing on the SBQA. In one of the most detailed discussions,
Tommy (Grade 5, instruction) wrote,
All the sources that I saw weren't really reliable except the washtub/the bathtub. Also I'm
gonna tell you a source I thought wasn't reliable at all, the apple peeler. Some sources
like the sythe were medium amount on telling me stuff. It also tells me that they didn't
have really good tractors back then.
As in this example, most of the students discussed reliability in terms of the sources' own
character as "good" or "bad." In only one case did a student discuss the reliability of her sources
in relation to her other sources, when describing the house as "one of the best sourses" (Avery,
Grade 4, non-instruction). Of the students who wrote about source reliability, five were in the

166

non-instruction group, and two were in the instruction group. Two were fourth graders, and five
were fifth graders. No correlations with either study group or grade level were observed.
Intertextual Models in the SBQA
Of the 94 students who completed the SBQA activity, 61.2% had a mush model, 25.5%
had separate representation model (10.6% cited only one or two sources but had a strong enough
connection to the content provided in the essay to be considered separate representation), 4.1%
had documents' model, and 0% had the tag-all model (Table 17). Close to 10% of the students
did not complete the writing in this section, almost three times the number of students who did
not complete the writing on the Evidence Report Activity. When the writing of the instruction
and non-instruction groups was compared, the results showed that similar percentages of
students in each study group fit the mush, separate representation, and documents' models.
When chi-square tests were conducted, no differences in the participants were noted by study
group membership.
Table 17. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Source Based Question
Activity Essays
Intertextual model
No answer
Mush
Separate representation
Documents'
Tag-all

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

7.1
63.3
25.5
4.1
0.0

9.8
64.7
21.6
3.9
0.0

4.3
61.7
29.8
4.3
0.0

5.4
83.9
10.7
0.0
0.0

9.5
35.7
45.2
9.5
0.0

Note. n = 94.
When examined by grade level, more than twice the number of fourth-grade students'
writing fit the mush model than that of fifth-grade students,

167

(1, 94) = .5, p < .000. Four times

the number of fifth grade students had a separate representation model,

(1, 94) = .39, p <

.000, and although the percentage was small (9.5%), fifth graders' essays were more likely to fit
the documents' model than their fourth grade counterparts,

(1, n = 94) = .24, p = .018. When

the study group differences were examined within the grade levels, it was found that the
percentage of Grade 4 instruction and non-instruction group students exhibiting each model type
were almost identical (Table 18). Among Grade 5 students, more non-instruction students had
the mush model than instruction students did, and more instruction students exhibited the
separate representation model than non-instruction students. None of these differences, however,
was statistically significant.
Table 18. Percentage of Participants Using Intertextual Models in the Source Based Question
Activity Essay By Group within Grade

Intertextual model
No answer
Mush
Separate representation
Documents'
Tag-all

Grade 4
Non-instr.
Instruction
3.6
85.7
10.7
0.0
0.0

7.1
82.1
10.7
0.0
0.0

Grade 5
Non-instr.
Instruction
5.3
26.3
57.9
10.5
0.0

13.0
43.3
34.8
8.7
0.0

Note. Grade 4 non-instruction, n = 28. Grade 4 instruction, n = 28. Grade 5 non-instruction, n =
23. Grade 5 instruction, n = 19.
Comparisons of Intertextual Models between the ERA and SBQA
The intertextual models the participants' Evidence Report Activity and the Source Based
Question Activity writing fit reflected their levels of skill related to engaging with multiple
sources, as defined within the four Britt et al. (1999) models. Part of the reasoning for using an
activity without the D-A-C/C method scaffolding (the SBQA) was to determine whether the
instruction group students would use the D-A-C/C method, the use of which was reflected in
168

their intertextual model, if they were not specifically asked to do so. Thus, comparisons across
the two activities are informative. These comparisons were made with the acknowledgement
that the two activities differed slightly in design and the cognitive demands placed on the
participants. Ninety-four students completed both source use activities, and the models reflected
in their writing are examined below.
Same Model
Close to half the participants (44 students, 46.8%) retained the same model between the
ERA and SBQA. Of these, 59% were in the non-instruction group and 41% were in the
instruction group. By grade level, 63.6% of fourth grade students kept the same model, while
36.3% of fifth-grade students did. For those who retained the same model, it is important to note
which model was retained most often and by whom (Table 19).
Table 19. Percentage of Participants Retaining Intertextual Models between the Evidence Report
Activity and Source Based Question Activity
Intertextual model
Mush
Separate representation
Documents'
Tag-all

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

77.3
22.7
0.0
0.0

88.5
7.7
0.0
0.0

61.1
38.9
0.0
0.0

89.3
10.7
0.0
0.0

56.2
37.5
0.0
0.0

Note. n = 44.
When the same model was retained, a much higher percentage of students kept the mush
model than the separate representation model (77.3% versus 22.7%, respectively). Noninstruction group students were more likely exhibit the mush model on the ERA (see above) and
more likely to retain it,

(1, 44) = .32, p = .034. Fourth-grade students also retained a mush

model more often than fifth-grade students,

(1, 44) = .38, p = .011. On the ERA, 35.7% of all

169

participants exhibited a separate representation model. Of those who kept this model on the
SBQA, a much higher percentage was in the instruction group,
Grade 5,

(1, 44) = .38, p = .011), and in

(1, n = 44) = .32, p = .035. None of the four students who had a documents' model

on the ERA maintained the model on the SBQA.
Change to a More Complex Model
As discussed in the section on Intertextual Reading Theory in Chapter 2, the participants'
progress toward attaining the documents' model was considered movement toward a more
complex, desirable model for multitextual learning. Of the 50 participants (53.2%) whose
models changed between the activities, 22 (44%) moved to a more complex model (e.g., from
mush model to separate representation or from separate representation to the documents' model).
When examined by study group, the data showed that more non-instruction students than
instruction students moved to a more complex model, but this difference was not statistically
significant. Analysis by grade level showed that fifth-grade students were more likely to change
to a more complex model than their fourth-grade counterparts,

(1, 54) = .52, p < .000. Within

the grade levels, neither instruction nor non-instruction students were more apt to change their
model to a more complex one.
Among the students whose models increased in complexity, a change from the mush
model to separate representation was the most common (16 students, 72.7%). Of these, a similar
number were in the non-instruction and instruction groups, but greater number of fifth graders
(13 students) moved from mush to separate representation than fourth graders (3 students).
When examined for correlations between study group, grade level, and this model change, none
were found. Other changes to more complex model were observed for a very small number of
students: no model to mush model (2 students), mush to documents (2 students), and separate

170

representation to documents (2 students).
Change to a Less Complex Model
Twenty-eight students (56%) changed to a less complex model on the SBQA from the
ERA. Ten students were in the non-instruction group, and 18 were in the instruction group. No
difference was observed between the participants according to their study group membership.
Three times the number of students who moved to a less complex model were in Grade 4,
compared to those in Grade 5 (21 students and 7 students, respectively), a statistically significant
difference,

(1, 54) = .52, p < .000.

The most common change was from the separate representation to the mush model (22
students, 44%). Sixteen of these were instruction group students, and six were in the noninstruction group, with instruction students more likely to change models in this manner,

(1,

54) = .33, p = .018. When examined by grade level, the data showed that more than three times
the number of fourth-grade students changed from separate representation to the mush model
than fifth-grade students (17 versus 5),

(1, 54) = .45, p = .001. Other changes exhibited by

the students included the documents to mush model (4 students), separate representation to no
model (2 students), and mush to no model (4 students).
Attainment of the Separate Representation Model
One of the main goals of the instructional sessions was helping students move toward the
documents' intertextual reading model. Based on the students' prior learning experiences in the
area of historic site source use and the limited classroom time for instruction, expecting students
to exhibit the documents' model was unrealistic. Nevertheless, teaching the instruction students
to use the D-A-C/C method (which included all the elements of the documents' model except
prior knowledge) and providing all students scaffolding including this method on the ERA gave

171

them the tools to move toward reaching a documents' model. Four students' writing fit the
documents' model on the ERA, but no students reached this goal on the SBQA. On both the
ERA and SBQA, however, many students attained the separate representation model, the model
immediately below the documents' model in complexity, which illustrated their abilities in this
area.
Overall, 35.7% of students exhibited the separate representation model on the ERA, and
25.5% did so on the SBQA. On the ERA, more instruction group students than non-instruction
students had this model (17.6% and 55.3%, respectively). On the SBQA, the percentages were
lower, but instruction students still exhibited the model more often than non-instruction (21.6%
and 29.8%). When examined by grade level, similar percentages of Grade 4 (37.5%) and Grade
5 students (33.3%) had the separate representation model on the ERA, but Grade 5 students
surpassed their Grade 4 peers on the SBQA (45.2% and 33.3%, respectively).
Discussion
The participants' performance on the Evidence Report Activity and the Source Based
Question Activity highlighted many of the participants' skills and challenges making decisions
about evidence (as shown in use of the D-A-C/C method and choosing sources), their abilities to
reason about source reliability, and their intertextual use of sources (as identified in their
intertextual reading models). Differences among the participants according to study group and
grade level were observed in some cases. Comparisons of participant performance on the two
activities revealed information about the participants' abilities.
Source Evaluation
In the two source use activities, the students' writing shows that most students in both
study groups and grade levels were able to describe, analyze, and compare/contrast (to a certain

172

extent) during the source evaluation portions of the activities. (Comparison/contrast was not
required on the source evaluation portion of either activity.) Large differences existed, however,
in the numbers of students who exhibited the D-A-C/C steps on the ERA and those who did on
the SBQA. On the ERA, almost all students described but only 41.8% did so on the SBQA, a
50% difference. Similarly, almost 90% analyzed sources on the ERA, but only about 33%
analyzed on the SBQA, for a difference of about 57%. Few students compared and contrasted on
the two activities.
On the ERA, instruction students were more likely to provide description, but no other
differences were observed by study group or grade level. On the SBQA, no differences were
observed in the students' likelihood to describe, analyze, and compare/contrast according by
study group membership. When examined by grade level, however, fifth-grade students were
more likely to describe and analyze than fourth-grade students.
These results, coupled with the fact that almost all students were able to describe and
analyze on the ERA, mean that most students appeared capable of providing description and
analysis, even without instruction. This supports my findings in Leach (2011a), in which thirdgrade students (without any type of instruction) showed a high ability to describe. The
participants in that study were able to analyze as well, but at a much lower rate than observed in
the present study.
That such a low number of students (less than half), including instruction students,
provided description and analysis on the SBQA points to a connection with the withdrawal of the
source evaluation scaffolding on the SBQA. When the participants did not have instructions
specifically asking them to employ the steps of the D-A-C/C method, many did not use the steps.
Further, since both the instruction and non-instruction groups completed the ERA, which

173

included the D-A-C/C steps, it cannot be determined whether the non-instruction students would
have performed as well on the second activity without exposure to the scaffolding on the ERA.
This limitation, though, was anticipated and accepted as a means to determine how instruction
group students would perform on the SBQA (whether they would apply the D-A-C/C method).
Fifth-grade students were more likely to provide description and analysis on the SBQA
than fourth-grade students. Within this grade level, however, no differences according to study
group were found. The fact that fifth graders did more describing and analyzing, may be related
to their grade level and thus different exposures to academic experiences and subject matters in
which drawing conclusions (analysis) was practiced.
In their evaluations of the four sources on the Evidence Report Activity, description and
analysis were used more often by students in particular grades. For most of the sources, Grade 4
students tended to be more likely to describe, and again, Grade 5 students were more likely to
analyze. Description and analysis were not more likely to be used by students in either study
group, which reinforces the finding from above that receiving instruction did not seem to make a
difference in the participants' abilities to describe and analyze the sources.
Furthermore, participants' description and analysis of sources using seemed linked to
particular source types. More students used description for tour guide's words than for any other
source, probably because the content that may be described from tour guide's words are the
historical narratives or factual information, which were related by a large number of students.
The label, however, for which the descriptive information would be largely the same as for the
tour guide's words source, was described about half as often as the tour guide's words. One
reason for this result may be that using the label as a source was difficult for some students, since
one fifth of the participants left this column blank on the activity, more than any other source.

174

Although as a whole, students analyzed less than they described, the stereoscope and label were
analyzed most often. When description and analysis occurred together, the stereoscope was the
source for which this occurred most often, followed by the barn. All these results indicate that
the type of source made a difference in the evaluation methods the students used. Further,
instruction group students, who were exposed to the idea of using description and analysis for all
types of sources, did not do so more consistently or more often than their non-instruction group
peers.
Source Selection
On the Source Based Question Activity, all students were able to consider the sources
they experienced at the historic site and choose sources they believed would help them answer
the historical question in the activity, which is an encouraging finding. There were no
participants who found this process to be an impossible task. During this activity, most students
selected at least three sources. How well the students appeared to understand the task of
selecting sources, as it related to the actual use of sources intertextually for answering a historical
question is a related issue, is discussed below.
The types of sources participants chose showed the attention they paid to the various
types of sources available within the historic site. Objects (86%) and buildings (71%) garnered
similar high levels of attention, which was expected (see Leach, 2011a). Since objects and
buildings were a major part of the students' experience at the historic site, including being the
main focus of the site tours and gallery sessions, it is not surprising that the majority of students
chose objects and buildings as sources for the SBQA. This level of selection of objects and
buildings showed that these were the types of sources the majority of students believed were
most appropriate for answering the historical question. Fourth graders were more likely than

175

fifth graders to select buildings as a source, but no difference was observed between the
instruction and non-instruction group students on this factor.
Almost half of the students (45.2%) included tour guide's words as a source on their
SBQA lists, which means that many students considered the information they received from the
tour guide to be a useful and appropriate source for addressing the historical question. One point
that should be noted is that almost all the students discussed information that came from the tour
guide (historical narratives and factual data) in their essays, but many did not attribute this
information to the tour guide source. The majority of the students' writing in the essay portion of
the SBQA included recounting the tour guide's historical narratives and data about the site (e.g.,
the chores that children had to do, the original plan of the farm, and so on). This result
demonstrates how important a source the tour guide's words were for the students, whether they
formally listed the source or not.
Regarding study group and grade level differences for selecting this source, the only
difference revealed was that fourth-grade students were more likely to cite tour guide's words as
a source in the SBQA. Again, these data revealed no apparent reason for this outcome. The
qualitative data from the instructions group's instructional sessions, however, showed that fourthgrade students especially provided historical narratives about the sources they evaluated (see
Chapter 4), suggesting that these students may be more interested in or pay more attention to tour
guide's words, which often include historical narratives. Finally, the fact that many students
discussed tour guide's words in their writing but did not list them as a source affected this
outcome. If all students who discussed tour guide's words had cited them as a source, the
percentage would have been close to 90%.
Label evaluation challenged the students more than any other source. On the ERA, one

176

fifth of the students left the label column blank, and on the SBQA, a label source was selected by
only 2.2% of participants. When students evaluated the label on the ERA, in general, they either
described or analyzed, but not both. Of the two evaluation types, description probably was easier
for many students, although the step of identifying the originator of the source seldom occurred.
For those students who provided analysis only, it may be that they were unsure about what kind
of description to provide for a label, especially non-instruction group students. Fifth graders
analyzed labels more than fourth graders, but fifth graders did more analysis over all and
especially on the SBQA. One probable reason for the low number of students who selected
labels as a source for the SBQA is that few labels appeared within the historic house, and the
barn had no labels. Another reason may be that remembering the specific text of a label well
enough to discuss it as a source on the activity may have been an issue, although the students
were encouraged to use their field notes to complete the activity.
This issue of remembering may be related to the idea of cognitive load, which learners
experience while doing various tasks. For example, as discussed above, Britt et al. (1999)
suggested that the tag-all model places a high cognitive load on readers, meaning that it includes
multiple elements that readers must constantly monitor and evaluate during the act of reading.
Using scaffolding tools to help students manage these elements may benefit them. For example,
during the instruction group's sessions, cards with the D-A-C/C steps printed on them were used
in the classroom to remind students of the steps. Furthermore, finding the best ways for
individual students to document their sources while at historic sites for later use may enhance
their ability to evaluate sources, as some students may work better from notes, whereas others
prefer visual information, such as photographs.
Moreover, the high number of sources and variety of source types encountered when

177

experiencing a historic site may affect learners' abilities to work with sources. For instance,
Stahl et al. (1995) observed that the number of sources participants used was related to the
consistency of their mental models of the historical information. In that study, reading more than
two sources did not improve the consistency of their models, suggesting that using multiple
sources is a difficult task. The very nature of historic sites as multitextual compels visitors to
navigate a complex textual terrain. This fact was one of the primary reasons for this study; by
helping students improve their ability to identify the sources available at historic sites and to
construct concepts of sources in line with experts' concepts, students might focus their attention
on navigating and evaluating these multiple sources together.
Source Reliability Ratings
The ability of the students to discuss judge the reliability of all types sources (as in the
Compare/Contrast step of the D-A-C/C method) in the Evidence Report Activity and Source
Based Activities demonstrated that children of this age were indeed capable of doing so, as has
been suggested may occur in the later elementary years (VanSledright, 2002a; VanSledright &
Afflerbach, 2005). Although the instruction group was exposed to the idea that they should
assess the validity of sources in comparison/contrast with other sources and not in isolation,
these data did not reveal how deeply they and their non-instruction group counterparts
understood this, the majority of participants agreed that people can use information from
multiple sources to understand each other (Item 13 on the Participant Questionnaire). The ability
to judge source validity correctly and consistently was probably just developing for these
students, but the data show that some skill was present in these participants.
Although they were not specifically asked to do so, about 30% of the participants
mentioned reliability about the sources in their writing on the ERA and SBQA. The ways

178

students discussed the reliability of their sources in their writing on the ERA and SBQA were
consistent with the ways they discussed source reliability in the instructional sessions and on the
participant questionnaire. On the Evidence Report Activity, the participants' ratings of reliability
the four objects aligned, for the most part, with the general participants' ratings of source types
on Item 12 of the questionnaire (see Chapter 5). Additionally, the ratings were very similar
across study groups and grade levels. The barn, a building, and tour guide's words were both
given high reliability ratings. The label was viewed as less reliable than these sources, which
was also consistent with the questionnaire data. Where the ERA ratings diverged was for the
stereoscope, an object, which should have received a high reliability rating. One explanation for
this difference may be the students' difficulty in determining what this object was (as described
above), and thus the students may have been less likely to find the object reliable because of their
inability to state its identity or function.
In general, the language students used to talk about reliability was consistent with the
results from the instruction group's instructional sessions, in which the students evaluated the
dependability of sources or the truthfulness of tour guide's words or labels. Fifth grader Doyle's
discussion about how the tour guide's words may be true or false reflected the way many
students wrote about the reliability of tour guide's words and labels. For both activities, no study
group or grade level was more likely to include writing about source reliability, except that fifth
graders did so more often than fourth graders. Despite these findings, what is interesting is that
very little writing occurred about the reliability of objects and buildings, that is, tangible objects.
When students assessed the reliability of these sources in their writing, they more often used
descriptors like "good" or "bad," not language indicating they thought the source was potential
"lying" or "false." This finding is consistent with Barton's (2005) finding that novices believe

179

primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources.
The participants' selection of their own sources for the SBQA highlighted some particular
issues related to reliability. About 40% of the participants considered their self-selected sources
as unreliable to use as evidence to answer the historical question. Further, of the 38 participants
who gave one or more of their sources low ratings, only 11 students actually discussed these
low-rated sources within their short essays as part of the SBQA, with 7 doing so within the
context of a separate representation model (in which they mentioned the source by name and
compared it with others to address the historical question - see below. This number represents
over one third of the students who used this model.). None of these students discussed the
reliability of these low-rated sources – or any of their sources – in the narrative text of their
essays.
Students' reasons for including sources they considered to have low reliability were not
evident in these data, but this phenomenon definitely reveals a challenge for these students when
evaluating sources. Since about 40% of the participants self-selected what they asserted to be
unreliable sources, it would be interesting to know why they chose them. One explanation may
be that the students truly did find these sources unreliable but felt compelled to use them because
other better sources of the same type were not available. Since, however, 44 out of 59 of the
low-rated sources were objects (hundreds of which were available for use as sources), this seems
unlikely. An alternate explanation may be that the students failed to apply the star rating system
as designed, that is, they applied it as a subjectively interpreted continuum rather than using the
definitions for each rating as stated in the activity instructions (e.g., 1 star = I should not use this
source at all). If this were the case, then the students who gave high ratings to some of their
sources and low ratings to other sources viewed the low-rated sources as simply "not as reliable"

180

as the other sources, although still reliable. This explanation seems more plausible. Regardless
of the explanation for this phenomenon, it is evident that the participants were challenged by the
task of selecting reliable sources for use as evidence to answer a historical question.
A small number of participants (9 students, 5 instruction group and 4 non-instruction
group or about 10% of the study sample) rated the buildings they chose as having a low
reliability level. The fact that buildings received fewer numbers of low ratings than objects (12
versus 44 ratings or just over 25%) among the participants who assigned any low ratings, is
aligned with the level of reliability ascribed to buildings by students in the post-test
questionnaire. That almost an equal number of instruction and non-instruction students gave
buildings low ratings reflects the fact that students in both study groups were just as likely to
give these ratings.
Though a small number of students gave the historic site buildings low ratings on the
SBQA, these participants' beliefs about the reliability level of these particular buildings as
sources are of concern for several reasons. First, buildings (including the historic house and
barn) are central to the historic significance of the site. Why some students did not find these
particular buildings to be appropriately reliable as sources for answering the historical question
asked in the activity is not certain. Second, low reliability ratings may reflect students' beliefs
about the utility of buildings as primary sources for answering historical questions. Although, as
discussed above, both instruction and non-instruction group students rated buildings among the
most reliable of the source types on the post-test, translating this belief into practice, that is, the
actual use of buildings as a source for addressing a historical question, may have prompted
difficulty for some students. Barton (2005) emphasized the difficulty students of this age may
have with applying the evidence they themselves find to supporting their own conclusions, which

181

may have been the case here. Alternately, as stated above, the students may have applied the
ratings system as a subjectively interpreted continuum, wherein buildings were seen as less
reliable than objects.
Unlike some of the other sources, tour guide's words received very few low reliability
ratings (3 out of 44 low ratings). Because 45.2% of students chose tour guide's words as sources
in this activity, this small number of low ratings is encouraging, given that tour guide's words
should ordinarily be viewed as a highly reliable source. In the post-test, non-instruction group
students generally rated tour guide's words as having a medium level of reliability, and
instruction group students rated them high authority; both ratings were coded as "high" reliability
in this analysis. The participants' ratings of the reliability of tour guide's words in the SBQA,
therefore, were consistent with the participants' beliefs on the post-test.
Intertextual Reading Models in the ERA and SBQA
The four intertextual reading models (Britt et al., 1999) observed in the participants'
writing on the ERA and SBQA helped to illustrate their abilities to use evidence for historical
inquiry. Teaching students to attain the documents' model was one of the goals of the
instructional sessions. (The steps of the D-A-C/C method are encapsulated in the documents'
model, along with the incorporation of prior knowledge.) Thus, the models in students' writing
when examined by study group and by grade level showed important differences.
More students' writing fit the mush model than any of the other models, around 60% on
both activities. Non-instruction and fourth-grade students were likely to have a mush model on
the ERA. On the SBQA, there was no difference by study group membership (because many
instruction group students also had this model on the SBQA), but the grade level difference
remained. The mush model was marked by the integration of information into the reader's

182

understanding without citation of sources, meaning that many non-instruction students and fourth
graders were challenged to attribute the origins of the information they conveyed in their essays.
These students attempted to answer the historical question with information from sources, but
they did not supply any documentation for this information. It was anticipated that fewer noninstructional group students' writing would fit this model, because they were not exposed to the
notion of source citation. The grade level difference may be related to younger students being
less able to understand the written directions of the activities.
The separate representation model, in which the reader presents and cites information
from multiple sources but does not make connections between the individual texts, was the
second most common model (25% of students overall). Because students using this model cited
individual sources, this model revealed more complexity in the students' abilities to work with
sources intertextually. Instruction group students were more likely than non-instruction group
students to have a separate representation model on the ERA, but there was no study group
difference on the SBQA. Since more instruction group students had this model on the ERA but
then the number decreased on the SBQA, this indicates a relationship to the level of scaffolding
provided on the second activity. The students were not reminded of the D-A-C/C method
(withdrawal of scaffolding) on the SBQA, and this may have been a factor in this change in
intertextual model. When grade level was considered, there was no difference in the students on
the ERA, but on the SBQA four times the number of fifth-grade students (45%) than fourthgrade students had a separate representation model. In this case, the grade level difference may
be related to older students being more able to understand and follow the activity directions, a
skill that benefited them even without having participated in the instruction. To help more
students be able to produce writing that fits this model, it is essential that the students understand

183

that simply supplying information from their sources is not enough; they also must document the
sources of the information. Having this skill is useful, not only in studying historic site sources
and history in general, but also in all academic areas.
As was anticipated, only a small number of students' writing fit the documents' model. In
this model, the writing had to include source attributions, along with integration of information
among the individual sources and prior knowledge. On both activities, less than 5% of essays fit
this model. No differences between the study groups or grade levels were observed on the ERA,
but grade level did make a difference on the SBQA, with fifth graders' essays more likely to fit
the documents' model. Because the essays were so short, writing that was coded as documents'
model exhibited these traits in a succinct and nascent manner. Although these results suggest
that these students probably have not learned to read historic sources with a documents' model
consistently (although this may be the case), they do demonstrate that attaining a documents'
model was possible for students in fourth and fifth grade. With scaffolding and practice,
students at these grade levels should be able to develop their skill to the documents' model level.
Regarding the differences in the participants' models between the ERA and SBQA, the
results showed that of the 50 (53.2%) participants whose models changed between the activities,
44% moved to a more complex model, about 56% changed to a less complex model. Study
group membership made no difference in the students' likelihood to change models, either to a
more or less complex one. Grade level, however, did make a difference, with fifth graders more
likely to move to a more complex model and fourth graders more apt to shift to a less complex
one. Again, the most plausible explanation for these results is that fourth graders were more
adversely affected by the change in the level of scaffolding on the second activity than fifth
graders.

184

Forty-four students (46.8%) retained the same model between the two activities. Of
these, more students retained the mush model (about 77%) than the separate representation
model (about 23%), with non-instruction group students and fourth graders more likely to do so.
Retaining the mush model shows no development of skills evidenced by a move to the separate
representation or documents' models. For those students who kept the separate representation
model, statistically higher percentages were in the instruction group and in Grade 5. Although
many students in the instructional group moved from the separate representation model to the
mush model, it was encouraging to see that some instructional students retained this model.
Again, this shows that some students either learned or developed their intertextual source use
skills to the level that they consistently cited their sources and integrated information
intertextually on both activities. Since a correlation to membership in the instruction group, the
instructional sessions did make a difference. Additionally, grade level also was a factor in
retaining the separate representation model, possibly because fourth graders needed the
withdrawn scaffolding more than fifth graders.
The results indicated that the separate representation model was the most complex model
used most often in the students' writing. The fact that it appeared as often as it did is an
encouraging finding, because this shows that students of these grade levels are capable of using
and retaining this intertextual model in their use of multiple sources. For all the students in this
study, reaching and attaining the level of skill associate with the separate representation model
was a good outcome.
In the final chapter, the outcomes of the research study as a whole are considered. The
participants' discussions, source concepts and knowledge, motivation, and intertextual use of
sources provided multiple "ways in" to understand their thinking. The lessons learned from the

185

study and where to go forward from here in developing more understanding about this topic are
discussed.

186

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research study was to explore fourth- and fifth-grade students' use of
the multiple texts within historic sites for historical inquiry. Within this broad goal, I sought to
learn more about the participants' concepts, abilities, and motivation to use historic site sources.
The results of this study and the accompanying discussions in the previous chapters provided
information that addressed each of these areas. Below, conclusions based on this work are
presented.
The first section of this chapter addresses responses to the research questions that guided
this dissertation: participants' concepts of multiple historic site texts (Research Question 1), their
skills and challenges in using multiple texts (Research Question 2), and the relationship of
participating in the classroom instructional sessions to using these texts (Research Question 3).
The second section describes the significance of the study for researchers and educators. Finally,
the third section discusses the limitations of this study and directions for future research.
Responses to the Research Questions
In this section, the research questions are addressed by highlighting the key findings of
the study: (a) varying degrees of difficulty in concepts existed, (b) students' skills and challenges
were related to both study group and grade level, (c) the importance of scaffolding and pre-visit
preparation, and (d) need for theorization in the areas of intertextual reading and primary and
secondary source terminology.
Challenges in Concept Development Existed
The ideas the participants encountered during the study reflected varying degrees of
difficulty. Participants used this information to construct new concepts and modify existing
ones. The results of the study showed which ideas were easier and which were more difficult for

187

the students to understand. One of the most fundamental yet simpler ideas was the connection
between sources and the production of history. The notion that history results from using
evidence to answer historical questions, at least in the context of the study activities, was one that
most students seemed to comprehend without difficulty. How well this understanding might
transfer to students' evaluations in other historical activities, such as reading their social studies
books or watching history programs on television, is uncertain. This study showed, however,
that students of these ages were capable of understanding this concept.
Another relatively simple idea for the participants was the identity of the sources within
historic sites for learning about history. All students were able to identify historic site sources, in
many cases probably by basing their responses on prior visits to historic sites and museums.
Furthermore, the students' expectations about the sources available at historic sites changed after
visiting the historic site, which showed gains in this area of understanding by reflecting what is
actually available at historic sites.
Students' concepts about methods of learning from sources reflected in their responses on
the questionnaires revealed that they were able to make good judgments about what methods
were most appropriate for particular sources. Among all students, regardless of study group or
grade level, carefully study the source was the method chosen most often on both pre- and posttests, which demonstrated that even before the visit to the historic site, the students understood
the value of studying something in order to learn. Conversely, however, compare the source
chosen least often by all students on the pre- and post-tests. This indicated a problem with the
participants' understanding of the value of intertextual comparison of sources in the process of
learning.
When asked to consider how to use sources intertextually, most students seemed to

188

understand that some sources provided more or better information than others and that source
examination was the proper method for making this determination. Likewise, most students had
a good grasp of how to deal with potential disagreement among sources. The majority of
students' had conceptual understandings that aligned in many ways with experts' thinking, even
before the classroom sessions for the instruction students and the historic site visits (e.g., trying
to understand the disagreement).
Some ideas seemed more difficult for the participants. For example, the differences
between tangible and intangible sources, as sources of information, appeared to challenge many
of the students. Viewing tour guide's words as a source that might be examined and evaluated
like tangible sources was a novel idea for most of the participants. Another challenge for the
students was the idea that even though a historical source was made in the past, it may not
provide correct information to answer a historical question. Another idea that gave students
difficulty was the understanding that secondary sources are commentaries on primary sources.
This definition is important because it helps students understand the role of interpretive
perspective in assessing the reliability of sources.
Students' abilities to use historic site sources appeared to be related to their conceptual
understandings of sources. The results of this study demonstrated that the participants had
varying degrees of challenge in their conceptual development associated with encountering ideas
related to historic site sources. Although the participants achieved gains in their abilities to use
sources, as described below, some of the skill limitations they experienced were related
limitations in their conceptual understandings. More focused instruction in the specific areas
described above as difficult may produce results in students' improved use of sources for
historical inquiry.

189

Students' Skills and Challenges Related to Both Study Group and Grade Level
At the outset, one of the primary focuses of this study was examining the potential effects
of participation in the instructional sessions with changes in the participants concepts, skills,
performance on the source use activities, and motivation, especially perceptions of ability and
value. It soon became clear that although the instruction group's participation in the classroom
sessions was related to some outcomes, differences related to the students' grade level also were
important. In some cases, grade level made more of a difference than study group membership.
This realization allowed the focus to encompass exploration of differences related to grade level.
Although claims may be made based on the relation of study group to certain outcomes,
observations about potential developmental differences between fourth- and fifth-grade students
that were associated with their skills and challenges cannot be ignored.
Much of the participants' source use centered on employing the Describe - Analyze Compare/Contrast (D-A-C/C) method. In general, the participants seemed to understand the
need for this evaluation method, and they used this same method to evaluate different types of
sources (instruction group students during the classroom sessions and all students on the two
source use activities). Most students exhibited the skill to describe and analyze sources, though
fifth-grade students did more analysis overall. Most were able to cite their sources (as shown in
the instruction group's discussions and all students' writing on the source use activities).
The one area relating to using the D-A-C/C method in which all participants, regardless
of study group or grade level, exhibited the greatest challenge was with the definition of the
Compare/Contrast step. In many cases, students misunderstood this step to mean generic
comparing and contrasting of a source to other information, including prior knowledge, rather
than deliberate intertextual comparison of a certain set of selected sources chosen for their value

190

in addressing a historical question. This misconception demonstrated a need for more instruction
and practice in this area for all students. Most students showed skill in being able to use the
D-A-C/C method on the Evidence Report Activity (the more scaffolded activity), even those who
had not received the classroom instruction. Although differing levels of ability were observed,
the students were able to use this tool to guide their evaluation of historic site sources.
Additionally, in general, students also exhibited skill in being able to select their own
sources to address the historical question on the Source Based Question Activity. Again, various
ability levels were observed, but almost no students failed to provide a self-selected list of
sources on the activity. The ability to recall, make judgments, and select sources from among a
large body of potential sources was demonstrated by the students. One challenge for students
related to this activity, however, was that many students selected sources they themselves rated
as having low reliability. Activities focused on helping students to learn to discriminate among
sources and to defend their choices based on evidence should be included in future instruction.
Most students were able to make judgments about the reliability of sources, as shown in
the classroom instruction sessions, the participant questionnaires, and the two source use
activities. Contrary to what was expected based on literature about children's primary source
use, the language the students used to talk about reliability in their writing reflected comparison,
such as "good" and "bad" in terms of supplying information. There was little use of words like
"lying" or "false." Another skill related to assessing reliability was that the participants, as a
whole, gave high reliability ratings for objects, buildings, and tour guide's words, reflecting the
actual nature of the historic site experience, in which these sources normally are highly reliable.
One aspect of the students' understandings of reliability that is still not certain is how deeply they
understand that reliability occurs only within the context of intertextual comparison.

191

One of the major elements of the study was determining which intertextual reading
models would be exhibited in students' writing on the two source based activities. The students'
performance on these activities clearly demonstrated that the three models described by Britt et
al. (1999), especially the documents' model, were exhibited. Some students' attainment of the
documents' model showed that this achievement is possible by students at these grade levels, and
that with additional instruction and practice, more students may have been able to attain the
documents' model. Also important is that 44% of the 50 students who changed models between
the two source use activities changed to a more complex model, showing that improvement in
this area was possible and did occur.
Being in the study group that received the focused instruction sessions made a difference
in these students' skills in a number of important ways. Instruction group students were less
likely than non-instruction group students to fail to respond when asked to define primary source
and secondary source, and they also more often provided origin- and authenticity-based
definitions for primary source, which are conceptual themes that align with expert definitions.
On certain Source Use Knowledge questionnaire items, instruction students answered correctly
more often than non-instruction students and moved from uncertainty to providing answers more
often. Instruction students had higher motivation scores, with higher expectancy and value
scores than their non-instruction group peers. Participants in the instruction group also were
more likely to exhibit a separate representation model on the Evidence Report Activity and to
retain it on the Source Based Question Activity. Conversely, non-instruction group students
were more likely to fail to provide definitions for primary and secondary source. Noninstruction students exhibited the mush model on the Evidence Report Activity and retained it on
the Source Based Question Activity. These differences demonstrate that in areas central to the

192

main goals of the research study – conceptual development, source use skill, performance on the
source based activities, and increased motivation – membership in the instruction group made a
difference.
In addition to these study group outcomes, differences did exist among students by grade
level in their abilities to use multiple sources for historical inquiry. Regarding challenges, Grade
4 students were more likely to fail to provide definitions for primary source and secondary
source. In a related area, they struggled with the idea that a secondary source is not a copy of a
primary source but is rather a commentary. Further, fourth-grade students in general had trouble
conceptualizing non-tangible sources as sources, in terms of being able to evaluate them in the
same manner as other sources. They also were more likely to retain the mush model on the
Source Based Question Activity and to move to a less complex model when their models did
change.
Fourth-grade students showed good improvement in certain skills during the study.
When asked about intertextual source use, they were more likely than their fifth-grade peers to
suggest that using multiple sources provided different information and that using more than one
source was advantageous. Fourth graders had higher motivation scores than fifth graders and
showed greater gains in both their expectancy and value scores, meaning that more Grade 4
students expected to perform better on historical source use activities and that their value of this
type of activity increased. Additionally, fourth-grade students seemed more interested in relating
historical narratives on the source use activities than fifth-grade students, demonstrating a grade
level connection to this type of interest, something worth exploring more deeply.
Fifth-grade students seemed more adept at using the D-A-C/C method, providing more
analysis on the activities in general and being more likely to compare and contrast correctly on

193

the Source Based Question Activity. Because of this ability, fifth graders' writing was more
likely to fit the documents' model on this activity. Likewise, more fifth graders kept the separate
representation model between the two source use activities, and when they did change models, it
was to a more complex one. Grade 5 students also discussed reliability on the Evidence report
Activity, more often than their Grade 4 peers. In general, fifth-grade students were able to write
longer and more complex sentences, which may have helped them to complete complex tasks,
such as writing the essay on the Source Based Question Activity more successfully.
The Importance of Scaffolding and Pre-visit Preparation
Another valuable outcome of this study was finding that scaffolding and pre-visit
preparation appeared to make a great difference in the students' conceptual development and
skills improvement. In particular, using the D-A-C/C method for the students' evaluation of
sources helped them to realize that this process might be applied to all types of sources.
Encouraging students to use this method consistently by providing scaffolding in the form of
cards with steps printed on them helped during the classroom activities for the instruction group.
Structuring the Evidence Report Activity around the D-A-C/C steps reinforced the use of the
method by instruction group students and supported non-instruction group students' completion
of the activity. The fact that less use of the D-A-C/C method occurred on the Source Based
Question Activity when this scaffolding was withdrawn showed the value of this scaffolding.
The entire aim of the instruction was to prepare the participants for their encounter with
the multitextual historic site environment. The nature of this preparation, therefore, was very
important. In contrast to many types of pre-visit preparation students often receive before visits
to historic sites, the preparation these students received was focused on teaching them about each
of the main historic site sources, how to evaluate them, and guided practice comparing them

194

intertextually. In addition, structuring the visit around the purpose of going to the historic site to
investigate a particular historical question allowed the students to focus their attention while at
the site while still enjoying the wonder of the environment (Boulotis, 2007).
Another area in which scaffolding appeared to be important was the use of images in the
Evidence Report Activity. Giving the students photographs and icons provided them with
prompts for memory and salient tools for evaluation. In the Source Based Question Activity, in
which students had to rely more on their memories and their notes and drawings from the site,
more of a burden was placed on them during the source evaluation task. Furthermore, overall,
more description and analysis occurred when the students had the images before them than when
they did not (on the ERA versus the SBQA). The value of supporting students' memories and
encouraging deeper engagement with sources through the presence of actual sources or
appropriate representations is indicated by these results. Although the ideal situation may be that
teachers use objects and buildings as part of their classroom teaching, the reality is that this is not
always possible. A good intermediate solution is the use resources, such as photographs and oral
history recordings (available online from museums and libraries), as a way to put sources in front
of students and to teach multimodal text evaluation skills.
Developing an Intertextual Reading and Comprehension Model
Another important outcome of this study was a new way to conceive of intertextual
reading based on my evaluation of the intertextual reading models described by Britt et al.
(1999). Their models were developed through research with college-aged students. When the
models were applied in the present study to describe the intertextual work of students in fourthand fifth-grade, it became apparent that the Britt et al. models did not fully differentiate the
intermediate stages of development present in students at these elementary grade levels, which

195

were identified in the students' writing.
Based on the outcomes of this study, I found that the Britt et al. intertextual models did
not adequately reveal the learning progressions of the child participants in this study.
Specifically, learner development between the mush and separate representation models needs to
be differentiated in greater detail. For example, in the mush model, the participants provided
content but no source citations and did not consider the ultimate relevance of each source to the
question. In the separate representation model, along with content, the sources were cited but not
read intertextually.
In the present study with fourth- and fifth-grade students, it was often difficult to decide
whether participants' writing on the Evidence Report Activity and the Source Based Question
Activity fit a mush or separate representation model, and these categories did not seem adequate
to capture intermediate levels of writing. For example, about 10% of participants whose writing
was labeled "separate representation" provided source citation and discussion for only one or two
sources. In these cases, the link between citation and the students' discussion in the writing was
present but was somewhat tenuous. These results suggest that a category between mush and
separate representation is needed, to reflect the students' development beyond the mush model
that is not ideally described as separate representation. This distinction would have been useful
for me both instructionally as I taught these students and empirically as I coded my data.
Although not formally tested in the present study since the Britt et al. (1999) models were used
in designing the classroom instruction, I now conclude that a developmental step between the
separate representation and documents' models exists for some students. Understanding more
about this developmental step will be helpful in designing instruction appropriate for students
zone of proximal development and thus should be explored in future studies.

196

Further, the present study showed the value in evaluating students' intertextual use of
sources by assessing their intertextual reading models, not only for assessing students' present
levels of abilities, but also for mapping progress toward increasing model complexity. Teachers,
therefore, may make use of these models as classroom tools for the same purposes. The
discussion of the models in Britt et al. (1999), though accessible to disciplinary experts and
researchers, may be difficult for teachers to use and communicate to students at these grade
levels. The names of the models and the language describing them need to be accessible, in
order to make the theory more accessible in the context of teaching.
Based on the results of the present study, I have developed the Children's Historical
Sources Reading and Comprehension (CHSRC) model (described below) jointly with Elizabeth
Heilman. This model is designed to distinguish intermediate levels of development and capture
the learning progressions of younger, school-aged learners. We have found that it resolves my
concerns with using the Britt et al. (1999) models to understand the data from this study and
addresses Heilman’s concerns in her work on the use of distinctive texts and types of
understanding in social education (Heilman, 2010) when teaching and learning specifically about
historical texts. This model includes a place for a fifth category of students’ thinking and also
provides research-based definitions of distinctions among approaches that reflect how children
engage with historical sources. Additionally, the CHSRC model uses language that both more
accurately describes each level of student thinking and is also labeled with more intuitive names
than the existing Britt et al. (1999) models, which will help clarify distinctive ways of reading
and learning from about historical sources. Finally, in our model, the focus is on the distinctive
and multiple interpretive goals involved in the reading of historical sources. While students
seemed generally to develop in a linear manner from the less complex to the most complex in the

197

act of reading historical texts, some students appeared to master these ways of reading
differently. For example, a student may successfully connect a single historical text to a valid
historical narrative before she is able to compare, connect and integrate multiple texts.
The CHSRC model includes the following levels of development that signal movement
toward fully integrated interpretation and critical comprehension.
•

Isolated descriptive comprehension: Content from historical sources is described, but
they are described in isolation from other sources.

•

Emergent interpretive comprehension: Content from some historical sources is
described and limited citations for sources of the information are provided, showing
emergent but not mastered understanding of the idea that historical texts are
inherently highly contextual and require interpretation beyond that which is suggested
by the immediate signifiers in the object or text itself. In this phase, students attempt

to connect historical sources to important historical concepts and events, and they
also may begin to try to connect meaning between different sources, but their
interpretive connections are limited or inaccurate. At this phase, students may use
historical sources to make a point addressing a historical question, but either the way
the source is understood or the way the historical importance is described is
inaccurate.
•

Mastered interpretive comprehension in isolation: Students integrate their
understanding of relevant multiple historical sources and show their understanding of
how the multiple sources relate to each other. Students connect some historical
sources to each other, and they have developed interpretive meaning between and
across different sources. Students cannot yet connect meaning from these multiple

198

historical sources to a valid historical narrative.
•

Integrated interpretive comprehension: Students integrate their understand of multiple
historical sources showing their understanding of how multiple sources relate to each
other, including multimodal sources. Students connect sources to each other, and
they have developed interpretive meaning between and across different sources.
Additionally, they are also able to connect meaning from these multiple historical
sources to a valid historical narrative.

•

Integrated interpretive and critical comprehension: At this level, students demonstrate
all of the previous levels and also are able to compare, contrast, and evaluate multiple
historical narratives. Students are able to connect the development of their own
historical interpretations and narrative to other interpretations and narratives through
critical meta-analysis. Students understand not only that historical sources require
interpretation but also that historical narratives are acts of interpretations that may
be/should be critically analyzed.

This new model is important because it emphasizes the need to characterize learners'
development when using sources intertextually and the use of multiple types of sources. In the
Britt et al. (1999) model and many other intertextual reading models, the focus is on using text or
photographs, but this model emphasizes applications to "reading" all types of historical sources,
including objects, buildings, and intangible sources like oral communications. A model that
highlights such an expanded view of historical sources in conjunction with the need for historical
interpretation and comprehension will provide a tool to help teachers broaden their scope of what
is seen as useful for teaching history. Additionally, the sensitivity of this model, based on the
developmental levels of elementary school children and their needs in the zone of proximal

199

development, will provide a practical teaching and assessment tool.
The results of this study also showed the importance of scaffolding students' experiences
while learning how to evaluate sources and practicing these skills. Sharing the above
information about possible intertextual reading and comprehension with students and allowing
students to work with, critique, and attempt to emulate examples of the most desirable level
(Integrated Interpretive and Critical Comprehension) will make very plain the goals of the
learning activities. Furthermore, using examples of the levels themselves, in the form of real
students' writing (perhaps critiquing and revising their own writing and the writing of others),
may provide opportunities to engage in higher order thinking skills centered on understanding
the skills necessary to exhibit integrated interpretation and critical comprehension. Teachers
need the elements of the theoretical models to be translated into lesson plans with practical
examples (appropriate for grade levels) that students can use to build their own understanding.
Alternate Terms for Primary Source and Secondary Source
The classification of sources as either primary or secondary is determined not by
examining the source in isolation, but rather by examining the sources' function as historical
evidence (see Barton, 2005). A single source, therefore, may function in multiple ways,
depending on what type of evidence or information it provides. For example, in the fifth-grade
instruction group's discussion of the classification of a fake military uniform, we concluded that
such a source would not give us primary source evidence of the historical war, but the uniform
would be a primary source in a museum of fake uniforms. As the results of this study showed,
helping students to understand that the terms primary source and secondary source really are
about the functions of "evidence from the past" and "talking or writing about primary sources"
(as defined in the instruction group's classroom sessions) was challenging. Nevertheless, the

200

need for students to understand these terms is imperative, because of the use of the terms in
social studies curriculum standards and textbooks. (For instance, the Michigan Social Studies
Grade Level Content Expectations, 2007, state that third-grade students should be able to
"Explain how historians use primary and secondary sources to answer questions about the past,"
p. 29.)
The focus in this study was on listening to children's discourse and learning how children
conceptualize primary source and secondary source. Although many empirical studies about
children's use of primary sources and history and social studies education resources discuss
teaching elementary school-aged students to define these terms, few studies deeply explore
students' concepts of the terms before or during instruction about using sources for historical
inquiry. It is clear from the results of the present study that specific student conceptions and
misconceptions about the definitions of these terms existed, and the terms commonly in use
clearly contribute to children’s confusion rather than clarifying how to distinctions among
historical sources.
One of the most important factors in the students' understandings of the terms was
language. The terms primary and secondary seemed to shape the students' thinking about these
terms, especially for secondary source. Thinking in terms of "first" and second" – what the
words primary and secondary convey in ordinary English – was the basis for the large number of
(incorrect) responses coded as numerative and re-presentation. The fact that instruction group
students were more likely to define primary source with origin- or authenticity-based definitions
demonstrated that specific instruction was necessary to help students modify their concepts of
primary source away from the notion of numeration. To combat such confusion, Barton's (2005)
proposal to creating an "original historical sources" category that included all sources that

201

function as evidence from the past (para. 31) was a good one. Based on the results of the present
study, however, using a term like "original" creates a concern, because it appears to set up for
children the binary original/copy (as reflected in their understanding of the words), rather than
the binary original/commentary, as for experts. Using the term "historical sources" is probably
sufficient to invoke in children recognition (in and through common understandings of language)
that such sources have their genesis of sources in historical time and therefore are historically
authentic, as the instruction group students did in this study.
To complement Barton's (2005) "historical sources" definition for primary sources, I
suggest the term interpretation source or meaning-making source instead of the term secondary
source for students at the elementary school level. Despite some students' participation in
instruction, 11 participants (of the 67 who provided an answer) still struggled with the idea that a
secondary source is not a copy or other restatement of a primary source. Additionally, many
students chose to define by example on the post-test, which shows they could identify a
secondary source but does not explain the reasoning behind the choice. In the instruction
sessions, secondary source was defined as talking or writing about primary sources, a definition
that should help students to develop understandings of secondary source that do not include rerepresentation.
Using the historical sources and interpretation sources terminology might eliminate the
tendency for children to adopt a numerative conception for both primary and secondary sources
and encourage correct conceptualizations of the nature and function of secondary sources. In
future work on students' concepts of primary and secondary sources, it would be useful to
highlight more assertively the fact that in doing primary source evaluation activities at the
interpretive level, the students themselves are creating secondary sources.

202

Alternately, since the confusing terms primary source and secondary source are so
ubiquitous in teaching standards and teaching resources, another option is for teachers to
explicitly teach the definitions and distinctions. Historical thinking involves multiple dimensions
of interpretation and abstraction and using the word "source" for two conceptually distinct texts
that require different types of reading is inherently problematic. More accurate and
pedagogically sound is to explain that sources for historical understanding include primary things
and secondary commentary, for example, primary sources as the "what" (tangible or intangible
source) and secondary sources as the "why" (people's commentary, interpretation, or meaningmaking about the "what").
Future research might present students with a series of "test" items in a semi-structured
survey or interview format, where examples of what historians would clearly consider primary or
secondary were presented. Students would choose the category into which they would put this
example and write a brief open-ended explanation of their choice. This would serve both as an
assessment and as an instructional resource.
Significance of the Study
This research study was necessary first step in understanding more about fourth- and
fifth-grade students' use multiple historic site texts for historical inquiry. As discussed in the
Introduction, empirical research on this topic is limited. By using multiple data collection
instruments and analysis methods, this study provided a rich description of the participants'
concepts, abilities, and motivation to use historic site sources. The most significant outcome of
this study is this understanding. This study adds to the literature on children's primary source use
(Barton, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Foster & Hoge, 1999; Foster & Yeager, 1999; VanSledright &
Afflerbach, 2005) by showing that the children in this study experienced some of the same

203

challenges using the multiple texts within historic sites as children in studies using documents
and photographs. In this study, however, since the participants used multiple types of sources
and experienced many of them in an ecologically valid setting, some of the findings about the
participants' source use are unique and therefore useful to scholars.
Related to understanding more about students' use of sources, this study demonstrated the
need children at these grade levels have for instruction and scaffolding. The design of the
focused instruction for the instruction group, the historic site experience, and the source use
activities for all students helped to highlight the skills and challenges of students. Another
benefit of working through the instructional concepts and activities with the students was that it
allowed the researcher to see how the participants understood these activities, how much they
enjoyed them, and where the activities might be improved to benefit students at these grade
levels. The process of learning about sources and using sources was a critical process, not an
"information retrieval" process (VanSledright & Kelly, 1998; VanSledright, 2000).
Additionally, the contributions this study makes to the fields of history and historic site
education cannot be overlooked. The information and perspectives provided here may aid
classroom and historic site educators teaching fourth- and fifth-grade students to use multiple
sources for learning about the past, by supplying information to inform the development of
pedagogies and instructional materials. Models of scaffolding and pre-visit preparation in the
study may provide examples for designing historical inquiry experiences for students that allow
in-depth exploration of multiple types of sources. The theorization about intertextual reading
and terminology for teaching about primary and secondary sources will aid educators as well.
Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research
The main limitation of this study was the challenge to balance the instructional needs of

204

the students with the time available for classroom instruction. Although the classroom teachers,
Mrs. Hertel and Mrs. Peterson, were very accommodating and supportive during the project,
only so much time was available to devote to the special lessons designed for the study. As
discussed above, more instruction and sustained practice in intertextual source use would have
benefited the students and deepened their understandings.
Another limitation was the short amount of time spent at the historic site. The students
spent half of a school day at the site, and some of that time had to be devoted to orientation and
group logistics. If this study were repeated, I would plan for a full day at the historic site, the
second half of which would be spent doing more practice with source evaluation, perhaps
following a workshop or fieldwork model. Designing this study around the students' visits to the
historic site provided the students with experiences that cannot be duplicated elsewhere, and so
maximizing the impact to the time spent on-site is imperative.
Finally, using students' written artifacts as data sources was an acknowledged limitation
of the study. As was anticipated, the ability of children at these grade levels to express their
thoughts in writing varied. The written activities used permitted the collection of large amounts
of data from nearly 100 students, but data collection in the form of think alouds during
intertextual source use (VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005) may have provided more detailed
information about the participants' intertextual reading models, by eliminating the need for
students to write.
This study points to future directions in research using the results of this study as a basis.
One of the areas of exploration most needed concerns the cognitive load produced by the
multitextual historic site environment. As demonstrated in this study, the participants
encountered a complex environment with a variety of source types. Most students did not know

205

how to approach these sources individually and less so how to approach them intertextually. A
study focusing on students' attention and interest (building on Leach 2011a) may be useful to the
history, historic site education, and educational psychology communities.
Another suggested area of focus is learning more about children's understandings of
sources' historical origin (i.e., artifacts from the past) and the need for sources to be evaluated
and judged in the historical inquiry process. One misconception observed in some studies is that
novices tend to generalize things that "look old" (Barton & Levstik, 1996; Foster & Hoge, 1999).
Ascribing authority to sources based on solely age is not consistent with the practice of experts in
the field of history. Discussions with children around this topic may produce interesting and
informative results.
Based on the results of this study, more understanding of children's intertextual use of
multiple historic site texts is needed. Continued refinement of the Children's Historical Sources
Reading and Comprehension model will be pursued, and the model will be empirically tested. In
the classroom or historic site, one area of research in teaching may involve students using their
own writing and the writing as tools to encourage conceptual and skills development. For
example, as done in a limited way during the classroom instructional sessions, students may
evaluate examples (like the Evidence Report Activity) of intertextual source use and critique the
evaluation of sources. Additionally, this type of critique may help students recognize higher
order thinking skills, such as analysis and comparison/contrasting. Educators may use this skill
of recognition as a springboard to following desirable models of these higher order thinking
skills.
Finally, as expressed in Chapter 5, understanding more about children's motivation,
especially academic and personal value, for engaging in multitextual reading and study of

206

sources is needed. Developing personal interest is one path to sustained engagement with
history, but for most learners, different types of interests and motivations are present. Helping
students to develop understandings of their own motivations may encourage long-term
appreciation for historical inquiry and historic sites, and with this appreciation, lifelong history
learning in whatever form it takes.

207

APPENDICES

208

Appendix A
Elementary School-aged Children's Skills and Challenges
When Working with Primary Sources
Skills
I. Concepts
A. Nature of primary sources
•
•
•

Understands differences between primary and secondary sources (James & McVay,
2009; VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005)
Separates content and textual form in discussion of sources (VanSledright & Kelly,
1998)
Identifies and describes perspective with no trouble (Foster & Yeager, 1999)

B. Nature of primary source evaluation/use
•
•

Accepts that "history is a thoroughly interpretive subject" (VanSledright, 2002a, p.
1104-1105)
Understands the complexity in the procedures of constructing historical knowledge
(Foster & Yeager, 1999)

II. Critical evaluation
A. Procedural
•
•
•

Examines sources critically, but rarely spontaneously (Barton, 1997b)
Engages in critical evaluation of source type (VanSledright, 2000)
Understands that sources are imperfect and can be questioned (Foster & Yeager,
1999)

B. Comparing multiple sources
•

Engages in intertextual comparison to other document assignments (VanSledright,
2000)

C. Contradiction in/among sources
•

Discusses of contradiction in sources (Foster & Yeager, 1999; James & McVay,
2009)

D. Reliability and validity
•

Identifies examples of why sources reliable or unreliable (Foster & Yeager, 1999)
209

III. Connection making
A. Using sources as evidence to address historical questions
Provides rationales for what they conclude about sources (Barton & Levstik, 1996)
Has "valid, common sense ideas" (Barton, 1997b, p. 418)
Quotes sources to support hypotheses (Foster & Yeager, 1999)

•
•
•

B. Connecting to historical knowledge/framework
Has developed historical knowledge, no difficulty in answering preliminary factual
questions (Foster & Yeager, 1999)

•

C. Connecting information from sources to real life
Makes connections from information learned in sources to contemporary life (James
& McVay, 2009)

•

IV. Interest
Students' interest prompts learning (VanSledright & Kelly, 1998)

•

V. Affective responses
Enjoys the activity (Barton, 1997b)
Enjoys using multiple texts (VanSledright & Kelly, 1998)

•
•

Challenges
I. Concepts
A. Nature of primary sources
•
•

Has tendency for presentism in discussion of source purpose (Foster & Hoge, 1999)
Views artifacts as transmitting information directly to the present (Barton, 2001b)

B. Nature of primary source evaluation/use
•
•

Does not understand the function of evidence (Barton, 2001b)
Views source work as "information retrieval" process, not requiring critical
evaluation (VanSledright & Kelly, 1998; VanSledright, 2000)

C. Nature of history
•

Fails to see connection between their work on documents and how history is
produced (Barton, 1997b)
210

•

Believes history is passed down via word of mouth (Barton, 1997b)

II. Critical evaluation
A. Procedural
•
•
•

Examines sources critically, but rarely spontaneously (Barton, 1997b)
Needs extensive assistance and scaffolding to perform tasks (James & McVay, 2009)
Reads cues from sources incorrectly, e.g., the nature of the physical evidence gets in
the way of or shaped students' evaluations (Barton & Levstik, 1996)

B. Comparing multiple sources
•

Fails to understand differences in texts influence the ways texts used as sources
(VanSledright & Kelly, 1998)

C. Reliability and validity
•
•
•

Ignores considering reliability of sources (Barton, 1997b)
Limits validity assessment to the "naïve relativist position," in which all perspectives
are considered valid (Barton, 1997b; VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005, p. 15)
Does not judge perspectives against others to determine validity (a "criterial
position," characteristic of experts) (VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005, p. 15)

III. Connection making
A. Using sources as evidence to address historical questions
•
•

Fails to use source-based information to make claims about their historical questions
(Barton, 1997b; VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2005)
Misses the connections between conclusions and evidence (Barton, 1997b)

B. Connecting to historical knowledge/framework
•
•
•
•

Exhibits problems in dating abilities, generalizing things that "look old" (Barton &
Levstik, 1996; Foster & Hoge, 1999)
Fails to use historical knowledge to inform/support hypotheses (Barton & Levstik,
1996; Foster & Hoge, 1999)
Has an incomplete historical framework, e.g., student knows about events but does
not know dates (Barton & Levstik, 1996)
Gives references to the past that are vague and general (Barton & Levstik, 1996)

IV. Other
•

Rarely transfers skills in evaluating reliability or conflicting sources to other school
activities (Barton, 1997b)
211

Appendix B
Diagrams of Instruction Group Classrooms

Empty

Classroom Door

Teacher's Desk

Windows

Empty

White Board

Media
Cart

Figure 16. Diagram of the Grade 4 instruction group classroom.

212

P40
Empty

Media
Cart
Work
Table

White Board

Figure 17. Diagram of the Grade 5 instruction group classroom.

213

Windows

Empty

Classroom Door

Teacher's Desk

Appendix C
Participant Questionnaire

PART 1
1. Age ______
2. Gender ___________________________________
3. Race ______________________________________________________
4. Have you ever visited a historic site (like a historic house, a fort, or a place where a
historic event took place)?
Yes

No

5. Have you ever visited a museum?
Yes

No

6. How interested are you in learning about historic places?
I’m almost never interested.
I’m sometimes interested.
I’m usually interested.
I’m always interested.

214

PART 2
7. What is a primary source?
___________________________________________________________________________
8. What is a secondary source?
___________________________________________________________________________
9. Tim is going on a field trip to a historic site with his class. What sources of
information might Tim find at the historic site to help him learn about history? (It's
okay to check more than one answer.)
Objects

Videos

Buildings

Hands-on activities

Outdoor spaces

Other things? List on lines below

Tour guide's words

_______________________________

Written documents

_______________________________

Photos
Signs
10. Tim isn't sure how he can learn about history from each of these sources. Check all
the boxes that tell ways you think Tim can learn about each type of source.
Ask someone
who knows
about history

Use his
5 senses
(see, hear,
touch, etc.)

Object
Building
Outdoor space
Tour guide's words
Written document
Photo
Sign
Video

215

Carefully
study the
source

Compare
the source to
other
sources

11. Circle the number of stars to show which sources you think would give you the best
information about a historic site.

!!!!
!!!
!!
!

means this is one of the best sources
means this is a medium-best source
means this is a least best source
means I should not use this source at all

Object
Building
Outdoor space
Tour guide's words
Written document
Photo
Sign
Video
Ask a family member or friend

12. Circle the number of stars to show how much you trust each kind of source to give
the best information about history.

!!!!
!!!
!!
!

means you trust the source a lot
means you trust the source a medium amount
means you trust the source a little
means you don't trust the source at all

Object
Building
Outdoor space
Tour guide's words
Written document
Photo
Sign
Video
Ask a family member or friend
216

13. Tim's friend Sue wants to use two sources of information together (an old photo and
an old document) to answer one question about history. Check all the reasons that
you think apply in each column about Sue's idea.
Good Idea

Bad Idea

Sue could get more information from
two sources than from one.

Sue could get confused by having too
much information.

Sue could get different types of
information from each source.

A photo and a document are too
different to compare.

Sue could use information from one
source to help her understand the other
source better.

The two sources might disagree.

14. What should Sue do if her two sources of information disagree? (It's okay to check
more than one answer.)
Ignore the disagreement
Try to understand the disagreement
Realize that no source can give more correct information than another
Find new sources that don't disagree
None of the above
15. Historical sources give correct information about what happened in the past since
they were made in the past. (Check 1 box for each question.)
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

16. No one today can know about the past since they were not there.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

17. Some historical sources provide better information about the past than other
sources.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

Strongly disagree

Not sure

18. All historical sources give correct information.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

217

19. Historians can examine sources to see if they provide information about history.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

20. I can examine sources to see if they provide information about history.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

21. I feel confident about my ability to examine sources to see if they provide
information about history.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

22. I think examining historical sources is a good way to learn about the past.
Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not sure

23. Pretend your teacher asks you to examine sources like Sue did, to learn about
history.
How excited would you be about doing this activity?
Very excited

Sort of excited

Not very excited

How well do you think you would do on this activity?
Very well

Okay

Not very well

How much do you think this activity would help you learn about history?
A lot

Medium amount

Not very much

How fun would this activity be for you?
Very fun

Sort of fun

Not very fun

24. When you learn at school, how are you most likely to learn best?
Hearing information
Seeing/reading information
Doing an activity
Watching someone else

218

25. Pretend your teacher said you would be going to a historic site like Tim.
How excited would you be about going?
Very excited

Sort of excited

Not very excited

How much do you think this activity would help you learn about history?
A lot

Medium amount

Not very much

How fun would this activity be for you?
Very fun

Sort of fun

Not very fun

26. If you went to a historic site, how would you be most likely to learn best?
Hearing information
Seeing/reading information
Doing an activity
Watching someone else

219

Appendix D
Classroom Sessions for the Instruction Group
Session 1: "Learning to Examine Sources"
• Big Idea: Sources provide information about the past. Objects may be used as sources of
historical information. People may examine and use sources to answer historical
questions.
• Objective: Students will be able to use the D-A-C/C (Describe, Analyze,
Compare/Contrast) process to access objects.
Session 2: "Learning to Examine Sources: Buildings and Environments"
• Big Idea: Buildings and environments may be used as sources of information. Historic
buildings and environments provide information about the past.
• Objectives: Students will be able to use the D-A-C/C process to analyze photographs of
historic buildings and their school building and spatial environment.
Session 3: "Learning to Examine Sources: Written and Oral Interpretation"
• Big Idea: Written and oral communication at historic sites may be used as sources of
information about the past.
• Objectives: Students will be able to use the D-A-C/C process to analyze written (labels
and signs) and oral (tour guide's words) communication from a historic site.
Session 4: "Learning to Examine Sources: Reading Multiple Texts"
• Big Idea: Reading multiple texts together provides information to answer historical
questions.
• Objectives: Students will be able to critique essays written by elementary school students
who visited a historic site, to determine whether the writers followed the D-A-C/C
method and evidence report writing steps.

220

Appendix E
Concepts Related to Research Questions Discussed in the Instruction
Group Classroom Sessions
Session
1

Session
2

Session
3

Q7: Primary source definition

•

•

•

Q8: Secondary source definition

•

•

•
•

•
•
•

Research question

Q9: Sources of information to help learn
about history
Objects
Buildings
Outdoor spaces
Tour guide's words
Written documents
Photos
Signs
Videos
Hands-on activities
Q10: Ways to learn about each type of
source
Ask person who knows about history
Use five senses
Carefully study the source
Compare sources

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•

Session
4

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Q12: Assessing source reliability

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

•

•

Q13: Comparing sources
More information from multiple
sources than one
Different information from each
sources
Use information from sources to
understand each better
Confusion may be addressed and
resolved by comparison

221

•
•

All sources may be compared
Dealing with sources that disagree

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Q14: Addressing disagreement of sources
Do not ignore disagreement
Try to understand disagreement
Judge information in sources
Comparing sources is possible
Q15: Not all historical sources give
correct information about the past.
Q16: It is possible to learn about the past,
even though we weren't there.
Q17: Some historical sources provide
better information about the past than
others. historical sources do not provide
Q18: All
correct information.
Q19: Historians examine sources to learn
information about history.
Q20: Students can examine sources to
learn information about history.
Q22: People learn about the past by
examining historical sources.

•

•
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Figure 18. Concepts related to the research questions discussed in instruction group classroom
sessions.
Note. The symbol " • " means the concept was presented in the classroom sessions.

222

Appendix F
D-A-C/C Source Evaluation Method Teacher Information Sheet
The Describe - Analyze - Compare/Contrast process is designed to give students a single
method to examine multiple types of sources. The process is based on primary source teaching
materials from the Library of Congress and works by Wineburg (1991) and VanSledright and
Afflerbach (2005). The D-A-C/C process may be used to examine documents, objects, places,
oral histories and other spoken communications, and so on. Students should be encouraged to
understand and memorize the D-A-C/C process steps. Teachers may wish to have students
create a memory aid to scaffold their use of the method. One option is to ask students to write
the letters D-A-C/C and what they stand for on a 3x5 index card for use in any classroom or
other educational activities.
Describe
The first step when encountering a source is to "Describe" what type of source it is. Is it
a document? An object? A place? Someone's words? Who wrote, made, or spoke this source?
Answering historical questions requires evidence. To find evidence, you must make
observations. Making observations means closely examining primary sources. Ask, What do I
notice first? What do I notice that I didn’t expect? What do I notice that I can’t explain?
Observations will help people to decide which sources to use to answer their historical questions
and when/how to use multiple sources. No matter what the sources is (a document, an object, a
house, or whatever), the senses may be used to help make observations.
Analyze
The second step is to "Analyze" by looking more deeply at the information learned in the
Describe step. Part of analyzing sources is gathering information about the author or maker of a
source. Look at the source and answer the following questions: What was the author or maker's
purpose? Who is the intended audience for this source? Sometimes it may be difficult or
impossible to determine the author, purpose, and audience. It may be necessary to make
educated guesses to answer these questions. Analyzing also involves drawing conclusions based
on evidence. Ask questions such as What do I learn from this source? and How does this source
help me to answer my historical question ?
Compare/Contrast
The last step is to compare and contrast the source you have examined to other sources.
Historians rarely rely on one source to answer a historical question, unless there is nothing else
in the historical record that will help. Comparing/contrasting allows people to make judgments
about what one source adds to the evidence from the other sources. Do you trust this source to
give you correct information? Does this source agree or disagree with the other sources? What
information does this source provide that the others don't? How do the sources work together to
help you answer your historical question?

223

Appendix G
Descriptions of Transcripts from the Instructional Sessions

Transcript 1
Session 1, Grade 4. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Hertel, and 28 student participants
Transcript 2
Session 1, Grade 5. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Peterson, and 19 student participants
Transcript 3
Session 2, Grade 4. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Hertel, and 27 student participants
Transcript 4
Session 2, Grade 5. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Peterson, and 19 student participants
Transcript 5
Session 3, Grade 4. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Hertel, and 28 student participants
Transcript 6
Session 3, Grade 5. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Peterson, and 18 student participants
Transcript 7
Session 4, Grade 4. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Hertel, and 28 student participants
Transcript 8
Session 4, Grade 5. Speakers included Researcher, Mrs. Peterson, and 19 student participants

224

Appendix H
Evidence Report Activity

Ella Sharp Museum
Evidence Report Activity
Directions: Look at the 4 sources inside. Under each picture,
describe and analyze each source. On the last page, compare and
contrast what you learned from the sources.
1. DESCRIBE means write down your observations about the
source.
2. ANALYZE means tell what you learned from the source.
3. COMPARE AND CONTRAST means tell how each source
helps you to answer the historical question.
STARS mean circle how reliable you think the source is.
!!!!
!!!
!!
!

225

= very
= medium amount
= a little
= not at all

3-D PICTURE VIEWER

TOUR GUIDE'S WORDS
ABOUT GETTING WATER

Describe and analyze this source
below.

Describe and analyze this source
below.

!!!!

!!!!
226

Schooling in the 1800s
It is believed that the Merriman
children started school at the oneroom brick school built in the mid1860s. At this time, many children
lived on farms. Children were
excused from school during the
months when they were needed to
work in the fields.

BARN

EXHIBIT LABEL

Describe and analyze this source
below.

Describe and analyze this source
below.

!!!!

!!!!
227

COMPARE AND CONTRAST
WHAT INFORMATION DOES EACH SOURCE GIVE YOU TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION:

What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
All photographs by the author

228

Appendix I
Source Based Question Activity

Ella Sharp Museum
SOURCE ACTIVITY
What You Will Do
1. Part A: Look at your notes from the Observation Packet and Evidence Report.
2. Part B: Make a list of sources to answer the historical question.
3. Part C: Write a journal entry using sources to answer the historical question.
Historical Information
The Merriman-Sharp family came to Jackson in the middle 1800s. Their farm had 530acres. They built a house, barns, and other buildings. In the past, farm children's lives
were different than today. We can use sources to learn about their lives.
Your Historical Question
What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?

Part A
Directions: Look at your notes. Think about the sources you found. How do the sources help
you answer the historical question? When you are done, go on to Part B.

Part B
Directions: Which sources are the best to answer the historical question? Open your folder.
Make a list of at least four sources in your folder. When you are done, go on to Part C.

229

Part C
Directions: Write a journal entry. Use your notes and your list from Part B to help you. Answer
this historical question:
What was life like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s?
!Be sure to:
•
•

Include an introduction, body, and conclusion.
Talk about sources in your answer.

!You can use this outline for your journal entry.
Introduction: Write 1 paragraph.
•
•

Tell what historical question you will answer.
Use your own words and ideas.

Body: Write at least 1 paragraph. You can write more if you want to.
• Tell what life was like for farm children in the 1850s-1890s.
• Use information from your sources.
Conclusion: Write 1 paragraph.
•

Sum up your ideas.

!When you are done, follow these steps.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Make sure you have an introduction, body, and conclusion.
Make sure your sentences make sense.
Put your worksheets inside your folder.
Give the folder to your teacher.

230

Appendix J
Researcher Identity Memo
My interest in historic objects and places has been lifelong. Since childhood, I have had
a deep love of history and visiting historic places. I remember visiting a historic house on a
school field trip, thinking about what I was experiencing in that place and imagining how life
would have been for the people who lived there long ago. I touched the woodwork, looked
through the wavy-paned glass in the windows, and saw my reflection in 100-year-old mirrors. I
was in the place historical people had been and perhaps experiencing it as they did. Since then, I
have always enjoyed speculating about how the physical environment can connect people to
knowledge of history.
My personal desire to help others learn about/from historic places has motivated my
educational and career goals. I have been working in or with museums, historic sites, and
historic preservation since 2001. Through theoretical research, I have come to the conclusion
that museum place and historic place are qualitatively different (Leach, 2007). Museum place is
the union of physical place (including museum buildings, objects, and exhibits) with the
intangible "place" created within the walls of museums by the articulation of memories. Historic
place is defined as any physical location that becomes "historic" in the memories of individuals
or groups, with or without human-made objects connected to it.
My views about the definition of historic place have led to assumptions about the need to
examine historic place as a particular learning environment. If a historic place is a special type
of learning environment, then practitioners and scholars must understand the unique types of
learning that happen there. My main interest is in describing the characteristics of historic place
and researching the experiences people have there. It has become important for me to link

231

theoretical and empirical research results with applications for practitioners (such as classroom
and historic site educators), in ways that involves practitioners in shaping these applications,
rather than merely providing prescriptions from researchers.
These views and goals shape the way I approach my research, many theoretical works
appear not to have been tested by empirical study. Although theoretical work is important, at
some point, determining how to apply theory and evaluating the results must occur. Further,
much that is current in historic site educator practice is based on the museum education
literature, which may or may not be appropriate for education at historic sites (e.g., by the
American Association of Museum's definition, zoos, gardens, and historic sites are all considered
museums, and professionals who work in these institutions employ the same museum visitor
studies literature based on common theory). Current practice needs to be evaluated using
empirical study to determine if elements of learning particular to historic places are being
addressed.
The potential advantages of my experiences and goals are a deep concern for addressing
the needs of one particular type of environment (historic places) that has been under studied and
the desire to create links between theory and practice for practitioners. Potential disadvantages
include the need to understand a variety of interdisciplinary literatures and approaches (history,
museum studies, geography, and place studies) and the reality that others may not share my
personal interest in historic places and desire to experience them. I need to find the best ways to
balance my zeal to share the exciting things about historic places with an understanding that
some people may have less intrinsic interest in historic places. In the end, the most important
thing for me is to see people engaged in dialogue around the subject of historic places.

232

Appendix K
Short Essays Critiqued by Instruction Group Students in Session 4
Note: Evidence Report 1 was written by an elementary school student after a field trip to a
historic house. Evidence Report 2 is a composite of two elementary school students' essays from
the same field trip, adapted by the researcher.
Evidence Report 1
When I went to the house I remembered that it was 151 years ago. It is a historical place now.
Years ago these two people had ten children.
There was a ballroom. Master bedroom, a boy and girl room. That was upstairs. There was not
any T.V. There wasn't a toy store, so that means they had to make up games like toys and other
stuff.
Evidence Report 2
At the Turner Dodge House I saw the building and many objects. I think from things I know the
Turner Dodge house is an exciting way to learn how people lived 151 years ago.
The docent told us that the dining room ceiling has gold on it. It was shiny and looked like real
gold. They must have had a lot of money.
We went outside. I think the outside of the house looks old. It is made of orange brick. It has a
lot of windows. The docent said that glass costs a lot of money back then. The house and docent
words are reliable sources.
Things inside and outside are very rich. Together my sources helped me to learn how people
lived 151 years ago. But not all people because some people did not have a big house with
things like this. If I could see examples of poor people houses from 151 years ago I could tell
how people's lives were different.

233

Appendix L
Table 20. Percentage of Participants Selecting Sources on Questionnaire Item 9
Source Type
Objects
Photos
Written documents
Signs
Buildings
Tour guide's words
Videos
Outdoor spaces
Hands-on activities
Other

% Participants
who selected
on pre-test
74.7
74.7
58.9
49.5
46.3
45.3
45.3
29.5
24.2
21.1

Note. n = 95.

234

% Participants
who selected
on post-test
93.6
85.1
75.5
79.8
92.6
89.4
47.9
53.2
57.4
7.4

% Difference
between preand post-test
+ 18.9
+ 10.4
+ 16.6
+ 30.3
+ 46.3
+ 44.1
+ 2.6
+ 23.7
+ 33.2
- 13.7

Appendix M
Table 21. Participants' Mean Source Reliability Ratings from Questionnaire Item 12

Source type and test

All

Control
M
SD

Treatment
M
SD

Grade 4
M
SD

Grade 5
M
SD

M

SD

Objects, pre

2.90

1.02

3.20

.92

2.62

1.03

2.81

.99

3.02

1.05

Objects, post

3.23

.85

3.27

.86

3.19

.85

3.13

.99

3.35

.62

Buildings, pre

2.58

.99

2.62

1.04

2.54

.96

2.50

1.01

2.68

.97

Buildings, post

3.12

.84

3.10

.76

3.15

.92

3.23

.83

3.00

.85

Outdoor spaces, pre

2.21

.96

2.07

.88

2.35

1.02

2.16

.94

2.28

.99

Outdoor spaces, post

2.28

1.00

2.37

.98

2.20

1.03

2.31

1.00

2.25

1.00

Tour words, pre

2.87

1.06

2.89

1.10

2.85

1.02

3.02

.97

2.68

1.14

Tour words, post

2.91

.99

3.00

1.12

2.83

.84

2.75

.98

3.12

.97

Documents, pre

3.14

.89

3.23

.86

3.06

.92

3.12

.84

3.18

.96

Documents, post

3.07

.85

3.11

.84

3.02

.87

3.10

.88

3.02

.83

Photos, pre

2.88

.92

3.00

.96

2.76

.87

2.86

.95

2.90

.90

Photos, post

3.02

.81

3.18

.82

2.87

.78

3.08

.75

2.95

.88

Signs, pre

2.20

.91

2.38

.91

2.02

.89

2.19

.94

2.21

.89

Signs, post

2.52

.83

2.48

.80

2.56

.87

2.50

.92

2.54

.72

Videos, pre

2.71

1.00

2.77

1.00

2.65

1.02

2.60

1.07

2.85

.92

Videos, post

2.70

.93

2.91

.94

2.50

.89

2.74

.87

2.65

1.00

Family/friend, pre

2.71

.98

2.67

1.06

2.74

.91

2.94

1.02

2.41

.85

Family/friend, post

2.12

1.06

2.30

1.12

1.96

.99

2.16

1.08

2.08

1.06

Note. n = 95.

235

Appendix N
Table 22. Percentage of Participants' Giving Correct Responses in Source Use Knowledge
Category

Item and test

All

Non-instr.

Instruction

Grade 4

Grade 5

Correct 15, pre

5.4

8.7

2.1

3.8

7.5

Correct 15, post

11.8

8.7

14.9

13.2

10.0

Correct 16, pre

68.8

73.9

63.8

62.3

77.5

Correct 16, post

80.6

67.4

93.6

77.4

85.0

Correct 17, pre

74.2

67.4

80.9

71.7

77.5

Correct 17, post

81.7

76.1

87.2

81.1

82.5

Correct 18, pre

54.8

47.8

61.7

50.9

60.0

Correct 18, post

63.4

52.2

74.5

62.3

65.0

Correct 19, pre

77.4

84.8

70.2

71.7

85.0

Correct 19, post

91.4

84.8

97.9

90.6

92.5

Correct 22, pre

90.3

87.0

93.6

90.6

90.0

Correct 22, post

88.2

84.8

91.5

90.6

85.0

Note. n = 95.

236

Appendix O
Scoring Procedure for Motivation Category
Expectancy Score = 9 points possible
•

•

•

Items 20: The five choices for each item were collapsed into four categories for
analysis: strongly agree = 3 points, agree = 2 points, disagree/disagree strongly = 1
point, and not sure or missing data = 0 points.
Item 21: The five choices for each item were collapsed into four categories for
analysis: strongly agree = 3 points, agree = 2 points, disagree/disagree strongly = 1
point, and not sure or missing data = 0 points.
Item 23B: The three choices were scored as very well = 3 points, okay = 2 points, not
very well = 1 point. Missing data were scored as 0 points.

Value Score = 9 points possible
•
•
•

Item 23A: The three choices were scored as very excited = 3 points, sort of excited =
2 points, not very excited = 1 point. Missing data were scored as 0 points.
Item 23C: The three choices were scored as a lot = 3 points, medium amount = 2
points, not very much = 1 point. Missing were was scored as 0 points.
Item 23D: The three choices were scored as very fun = 3 points, sort of fun = 2 points,
not very fun = 1 point. Missing data were scored as 0 points.

237

Appendix P
Coding Categories for the Evidence Report Activity
Part 1: Sources (3-D viewer, tour guide's words about getting water, barn, and label about
schooling in the 1800s)
1. Description: Tells type of source or physical characteristics of source, relating
information about source
2. Analysis: Provides conclusions about the use of source or maker of source, based on
evidence from the source
3. Comparison/contrast: Provides evaluation of source against others, reliability of
source, and differences in information provided by each source to address the
historical question
4. Materials: Mentions physical materials, such as wood, metal, etc.
5. Sense: Mentions a physical sense in connection to evaluating a source
6. Related narrative: Mentions a narrative transmitted to the participants by the docent
or narrative of participants' prior knowledge
7. Reliability: Mentions the level of trust participant places in source
8. Other: Information not fitting into other categories
9. Source 1 blank: No answer in "3-D viewer" section
10. Source 2 blank: No answer in "tour guide's words" section
11. Source 3 blank: No answer in "barn" section
12. Source 4 blank: No answer in "label" section
Part 2: Intertextuality
13. Description: Tells type of source or physical characteristics of source, relating
information about source
14. Analysis: Provides conclusions about the use of source or maker of source, based on
evidence from the source
15. Comparison/contrast: Provides evaluation of source against others, reliability of
source, and differences in information provided by each source to address the
historical question
16. Source, 3-D viewer: Mentions "3-D viewer"
17. Source, tour guide's words: Mentions "tour guide's words"
18. Source, barn: Mentions "barn"
19. Source, label: "label"
20. Related narrative: Mentions a narrative transmitted to the participants by the docent
or narrative of participants' prior knowledge
21. Reliability: Mentions the level of trust participant places in source
22. Other: Information not fitting into other categories
23. Intertextuality blank: No answer in "compare/contrast" section
24. Intertextuality, low: Evaluates 0-1 source(s)
25. Intertextuality, high: Evaluates 2-4 sources

238

Appendix Q
Intertextual Reading Model Coding Scheme
Based on Britt, Perfetti, Sandak, & Rouet (1999)
Documents' model
•
•
•

Discusses author, source name or type, or historical context
Provides statements reflecting prior knowledge
Considers how sources are related (e.g., agreement, conflict, and supplementary
information)

Separate representation model
•
•

Identifies an author, source name or type, or historical context accurately
No integration of this information with the knowledge from the sources (situation)

Mush model (Opposite of the separate representation model. Lacks source marking.)
•
•

Does not discuss author, source name or type, or historical context
Knowledge from the sources (situation) stands alone

Tag-all model
•
•

Discusses all authors, source names or types, or historical contexts
Integrates this information with the knowledge from the sources (situation)

239

Appendix R
Examples of Essays with Mush, Separate Representation, and Documents' Models
(Britt, Perfetti, Sandak, & Rouet, 1999)
From Participant Essays in the Evidence Report Activity and Source Based Activity
Mush Model Example
In this example, the student combined information from all his sources together, without
discussing individual source types or attributes.
Life was like for farm children was hard because they would have to collect eggs and
milk in the morning and have clean the staules. They would also have to use portipoties
and I think that it would be very uncomterful. So that is my report on life for farm
childeren in 1850s-1890s. Also there were ton's of washing to do. Life was very tough
for childeren and here are some ideas of how hard it was. (Foster, Grade 4, Evidence
Report Activity)
Separate Representation Model Example
In the separate representation model, the reader identifies but does not make connections
between individual texts, meaning she does not integrate information from multiple sources.
A well tell us some info about the 1800s because it tells that they probably didn't have
fausets. Alot of people probably had wells because that was the only water source
besides rivers and streams.
Chamber pots are like toilets that u can bring anywhere. They would of used this if they
didn't want to go outside in there outhouse when it was dark or had bad weather. (Jenna,
Grade 5, Source Based Activity)
Documents' Model Example
Each source is identified by name or type, and the reliability of the source may be
discussed. In other words, information from and about each individual source is combined with
prior knowledge, in order to understand information from multiple texts.
In this writing, I will ansewer this question what was life like for children in the 1850s to
the 1890s?
I know that the stuffed and wooded birds wooden birds were built by Ella's brother. I
also learned that Ella had a brother that liked birds. I learned Ella's dad had a beard by
looking at his portrat. I learned that Ella had a dad that is white, not black.
I learned that Ella's brother was in the union. I also learned that he was very brave in the
240

union. Ella must of liked dolls, because there was lots of dolls in her room. Lastly I
learned that Ella had a doll house in her room.
I had a fun field trip, learned a lot, and ansewered the question. Now I know what life
was like for children during the 1850s to the 1890s. (Faith, Grade 5, Source Based
Activity)

241

Appendix S
Source Based Question Activity Codes
Object
1. Well
2. House furnishing (portrait, sculpture, chamber pot, washbowl, piano, mirror,
furniture, grandfather clock, vase)
3. Farm tool (pitch fork, calf weaner, hay cutter, hay raiser, hay shoot, potato planter,
seed spreader, ax, scythe, steam tractor, animal trough)
4. Laundry tool (washtub, scrub board, bucket, laundry basket)
5. Kitchen furnishing/tool (pump, scale, icebox)
6. Soap
7. Transportation (buggy, carriage, wagon, sleigh, automobile)
8. Recreation (dollhouse, victrola, book, stereoscope, checkers)
9. Other (animals, map, gun, medicine, clothing)
Tour guide
10. Tour guide, words
Building
11. House
12. Barn/garage
13. Other (schoolhouse, outhouse, general store, museum)
Place
14. Milking parlor
15. Orchard/fruit trees
Other, general
16. Student's life experience
17. Chores

242

REFERENCES

243

REFERENCES

Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality: The new critical idiom. London: Routledge.
Atkinson, J. W. An introduction to motivation. Oxford, England: Van Nostrand.
Bain, R., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2002). Placing objects within disciplinary perspectives:
Examples from history and science. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered
learning in museums (pp. 153-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bal, M. (1992). Telling, showing, showing off. Critical Inquiry, 18, 556-594.
Barton, K. C. (1997a). "Bossed around by the queen": Elementary students' understanding of
individuals and institutions in history [Electronic HTML version]. Journal of Curriculum
and Supervision, 12(4), 290-314.
Barton, K. C. (1997b). "I just kinda know": Elementary students' ideas about historical evidence.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 407-430.
Barton, K. C. (2001a). Primary children's understanding of the role of historical evidence:
Comparisons between the United States and Northern Ireland. International Journal of
Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 1(2), 21-30.
Barton, K. C. (2001b). "You'd be wanting to know about the past": Social contexts of children's
historical understanding in Northern Ireland and the USA. Comparative Education,
37(1), 89-106.
Barton, K. C. (2005). Primary sources in history: Breaking through the myths. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(10), 745-753.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (1996). "Back when God was around and everything":
Elementary children's understanding of historical time. American Educational Research
Journal, 33(2), 419-454.
Bohm, A. (2000). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. von
Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 270-275). London:
SAGE.
Boland, B. M. (2002). Historic places: Common ground for teachers and historians. OAH
Magazine of History, 16(2), 19-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163503
Boulotis, C. (2007). Museums and archeological sites as the setting for wondrous tales. In N.
Galanidou & L. H. Dommasnes (Eds.), Telling children about the past: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 187-199). Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in
Prehistory.

244

Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H.I. (2006). Effects of personal epistemology on the understanding of
multiple texts. Reading Psychology, 27(5), 457-484.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H.I., & Britt, M. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source
evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading
Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28.
Brewer, W. F. (2008). Naïve theories of observational astronomy: Review, analysis, and
theoretical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on
conceptual change (pp. 155-204). New York: Routledge.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinkas, C. (2002). Improving students' ability to identify and use source
information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485-522.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source
separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van
den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor
of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2005). Primary grade students' knowledge and thinking about
transportation. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(2), 218-243.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A.
Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition
and culture (pp. 169-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging methodologies in engineering education research.
Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186-210.
Center for Educational Performance and Information. (2011). District free and reduced lunch
counts – Fall 2010. State of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/cepi/
0,1607,7-113-21423_30451_36965---,00.html
Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In
M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and
practice (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Craver, K. W. (1999). Using internet primary sources to teach critical thinking skills in history.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

245

Danzer, G. A. (1971). Primary sources and history teaching. The History Teacher, 5(1), 66-69.
Datel, R. E. (1985). Preservation and a sense of orientation for American cities. Geographical
Review, 75(2), 125-141.
Davis, O. L., Jr. (2005). Foreword. In E. A. Yeager & O. L. Davis, Jr. (Eds.), Wise social studies
teaching in an age of high-stakes testing: Essays on classroom practices and
possibilities. Research in Curriculum and Instruction Series. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Delamont, S. (2002). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls, and perspectives (2nd
ed.). London: Routledge.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In M. Limón & L. Mason
(Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29-60).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Donnelly, J. F. (Ed.). (2002). Interpreting historic house museums. American Association for
State and Local History Book Series. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Drake, F. D., & Brown, S. D. (2003). A systematic approach to improve students' historical
thinking. The History Teacher, 36(4), 465-489.
Drake, F. D., & Nelson, L. R. (2005). Engagement in teaching history: Theory and practices for
middle and secondary teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dutt-Doner, K. M., Cook-Cottone, C., & Allen, S. (2007). Improving classroom instruction:
Understanding the developmental nature of analyzing primary sources. Research in
Middle Level Education, 30(6), 1-20.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Farmer, J., Knapp, D., & Benton, G. M. (2007). The effects of primary sources and field trip
experience on the knowledge retention of multicultural content. Multicultural Education,
14(3), 27-31.
Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectancy value approaches: Present status and future directions. In N.
T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp.
395-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fertig, G. (2005). Teaching elementary students how to interpret the past. The Social Studies,
96(1), 2-8.
Fink, L. (2001). New tidings for history education, or lessons we should have learned by now.
The History Teacher, 34(2), 235-242.
Fitch, J. M. (1990). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world.
246

Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Foltz, P. W., Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Reasoning from multiple texts: An automatic
analysis of readers' situation models. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.) Proceedings of the
Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 110-115). La Jolla,
CA.
Foster, S. J., & Hoge, J. D. (1999). Thinking aloud about history: Children's and adolescents'
responses to historical photographs. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27, 179214.
Foster, S. J., & Yeager, E. A. (1999). "You've got to put together the pieces": English 12-yearolds encounter and learn from historical evidence. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 14(4), 286-317.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gallagher, G. W. (1998). Using historical sites to help teach United States survey. Teaching
History, 23(2), 77-80.
Gazi, A. (2007). Exhibiting the past to children. In N. Galanidou & L. H. Dommasnes (Eds.),
Telling children about the past: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 203-225). Ann
Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.
Gelman, S. A., & Frazier, B. A. (2007). Children's understanding of authenticity. In N.
Galanidou & L. H. Dommasnes (Eds.), Telling children about the past: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 81-99). Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in
Prehistory.
Glassberg, D. (1996). Public history and the study of memory. The Public Historian, 18(2), 7-23.
Glassberg, D. (2001). Sense of history: The place of the past in American life. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA:
Longman.
Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple
texts. In N. Shart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and
educational research (pp. 317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O'Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK
Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption.
Metacognition and Learning, 2(2-3), 89-105.
Grant, S. G., Gradwell, J. M., & Cimbricz, S. K. (2004). A question of authenticity: The
document-based question as an assessment of students' knowledge of history. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 19(4), 309-337.
247

Hartman, J. A., & Hartman, D. K. (1994). Arranging multi-text reading experiences that expand
the reader's role. Technical Report No. 604. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Heilman, E. E. (2010). What to teach, when, and why: The thoughtful construction of the
curriculum unit. In E. E. Heilman (Ed.), Social studies and diversity education: What we
do and why we do it (pp. 316-319). New York: Routledge.
Hein, H. (2000). The museum in transition: A philosophical position. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). A new communication model for museums. In E. Hooper-Greenhill
(Ed.), The educational role of the museum (pp. 17-26). London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, and performance.
Museum Meanings Series, E. Hooper-Greenhill & F. Kaplan (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Huyssen, A. (1995). Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. New York:
Routledge.
James, J. H., & McVay, M. (2009). Critical literacy for young citizens: First graders investigate
the first Thanksgiving. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 347-354.
Keohane, R. E. (1946). The use of primary sources in the teaching of local and state history in
high school. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 33(3), 455-460.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kobrin, D. (1995). Let the future write the past: Classroom collaboration, primary sources, and
the making of high school historians. The History Teacher, 28(4), 503-512.
Kotzin, D. (2001). The Internet as an opportunity for students to create their own documentbased question. The History Teacher, 34(4), 487-496.
Kristeva, J. 1980. Desire in language. A semiotic approach to literature and art (T. Gora,
Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Kyvig, D. E, & Marty, M. A. (2000). Nearby history: Exploring the past around you (2nd ed.).
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Leach, D. B. (2007). In place of memory: Museums and historic resources as distinct place types
(MA thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No.
1448496)
Leach, D. B. (2009). Elementary school children and historical thinking: A review of the
248

research literature. Unpublished manuscript.
Leach, D. B. (2011a). Children's recollections of a historic house visit: Recall of experiences and
use of cognitive tools. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 34-47.
Leach, D. B. (2011b, April). Historic site websites: Engaging and educating online visitors.
Round table session presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shart-Faris & D. Bloome
(Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 3-15).
Létourneau, J., & Moisan, S. (2004). Young people's assimilation of a collective historical
memory: A case study of Quebeckers of French-Canadian heritage. In P. Seixas (Ed.),
Theorizing historical consciousness (pp. 109-128). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Levstik, L. S., & Pappas, C. C. (1987). Exploring the development of historical understanding.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(1), 1-15.
Limón, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.),
Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 259-290).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Macdonald, S. (1996). Introduction. In S. Macdonald & G. Fyfe (Eds.), Theorizing museums:
Representing identity and diversity in a changing world (pp. 1-18). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mackintosh, M. (1998). Learning from photographs. In S. Scoffham (Ed.), Primary sources:
Research findings in primary geography (pp. 18-19). Sheffield, England, The
Geographical Association.
Martin, A. (1990). Social studies in kindergarten: A case study. The Elementary School Journal,
90(3), 305-317.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - Describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different
understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28- 49.
Mason, R. (2006). Cultural theory and museum studies. In Sharon Macdonald (Ed.), A
companion to museum studies (pp. 17-32). Companions in Cultural Studies Series.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mathewson-Mitchell, D. (2007). Multiliteracies in non-school contexts: Museums as cultural
texts. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Fremantle, November 25-29, 2007.
249

Meng, A. P. K. (2004). Making history in From Colony to Nation: A multimodal analysis of a
museum exhibition in Singapore. In K. L. O'Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse
analysis: systemic-functional perspectives (pp. 28-). London; New York: Continuum.
Michigan Department of Education. (2007). Social studies grade level content expectations.
Lansing, MI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-14028753_33232---,00.html
National Center for History in the Schools, UCLA [NCHS]. (2004). Historical thinking. Los
Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://nchs.ucla.edu/Standards/standards-forgrades-k-4/developing-standards-in-grades-k-4/historical-thinking
National Park Service. (2009). History and culture: Places. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.nps.gov/history/places.htm
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum
Standards for Social Studies. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/strands
Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (2000). The makings of the magical mind: The nature and function of
sympathetic magical thinking. In K. S. Rosengren, C. N. Johnson, & P. L. Harris (Eds.),
Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children (pp. 134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics
while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(30), 492-504.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct
and use them. Technical Report. IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01, Rev. 01-2008. Pensacola,
FL: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved from
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
Office of School Improvement. (2005). English language arts grade level content expectations
across the grades: Writing K-8. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Writing_x-grade_12_144927
_7.12.05
Paris, S. G., & Hapgood, S. E. (2002). Children learning with objects in informal learning
environments. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums
(pp. 37-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents' academic motivation: A longitudinal expectancy-value
approach. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 8) (pp. 139-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & M. C. Georgi. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: studies
in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

250

Perfetti, C.A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M.A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation.
In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations
during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Potter, L. A. (2003). Connecting with the past: Uncovering clues in primary source documents.
Social Education, 67(7), 372-376.
Prown, J. D. (1980). Style as evidence. Winterthur Portfolio, 15, 197-210.
Prown, J. D., & Haltman, K. (2000). American artifacts: Essays in material culture. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Ravelli, L. (2006). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Rice, D., & Yenawine, P. (2002). A conversation of object-centered learning in art museums.
Curator, 45, 289-293.
Rothschild, E. (2000). The impact of the document-based question on the teaching of United
States history. The Historic Teacher, 33(4), 495-500.
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of
evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478-493.
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple
documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1),
85-106.
Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source
reliability during Internet research tasks. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey
(Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on the learning sciences (pp.
662-666). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schamel, W. B. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching with documents: Using primary sources from the
National Archives. Washington, DC: National Archives Trust Fund Board.
Schell, S. B. (1992). On interpretation and historic sites. In S. K. Nichols (Ed.), Patterns in
practice: Selections from the Journal of Museum Education (pp. 102-111). Washington,
DC: Museum Education Roundtable.
Schlereth, T. J. (1980). Artifacts and the American past. Nashville, TN: American Association
for State and Local History.
Schlereth, T. J. (1985). Material culture research and historical explanation. The Public
Historian, 7(4), 21-36.

251

Scott, J. W. (1996). After history? Common Knowledge, 5(3), 9-26.
Seixas, P. (1994). Students' understanding of historical significance. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 22(3), 281-304.
Silverstone, R. (1994). The medium is the museum: On objects and logics in times and spaces. In
R. S. Miles & L. Zavala (Eds.), Towards the museum of the future: New European
perspectives (pp. 161-176). London: Routledge.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. London: SAGE.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1994). Cognitive !exibility
theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell, M.
R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 602–
615). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of
metacognition in the formation of documents' models. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3). 191-210.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1995). What happens
when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Report No.
45. National Reading Research Center, Universities of Georgia and Maryland.
Stainton, C. (2001). Voices and images: Making connection between identity and art. Museum
Learning Collaborative Technical Report # MLC-07. Retrieved from
http://www.museumlearning.org/mlc-07.pdf
Stake, R. (2004). Qualitative case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.) (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stovel, J. E. (2000). Document analysis as a tool to strengthen student writing. The History
Teacher, 33(4), 501-509.
Swan, K. O., Hofer, M., & Locascio, D. (2008). The Historical Scene Investigation (HSI)
project: Examining the use of case based historical instruction in the fifth grade social
studies classroom. International Journal of Social Education, 22(2), 70-100.
Tally, B., & Goldenberg, L. B. (2005). Fostering historical thinking with digitized primary
sources. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 1-20.
Tilden, F. (1957/1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Titchen, A., & Hobson, D. (2005). Phenomenology. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research
methods in the social sciences (pp. 121-130). London: Sage.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2009). Annual summary report for 2008. Washington, DC:
252

National Park Service. Retrieved from http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm
United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county QuickFacts for Jackson, Michigan.
Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2641420.html
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction:
A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
VanSledright, B. (2000, August). Can ten-year-olds learn to investigate history as historians do?
OAH Newsletter [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/
2000aug/vansledright.html
VanSledright, B. (2002a). Confronting history's interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders
to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1089-1115.
VanSledright, B. (2002b). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary
school. New York: Teachers College Press.
VanSledright, B. A., & Afflerbach, P. (2005). Assessing the status of historical sources: An
exploratory study of eight US elementary students reading documents. In R. Ashby, P.
Gordon, & P. Lee (Eds.), Understanding history: Recent research in history education,
Vol. 4, International Review of History Education (pp. 1-20). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
VanSledright, B. A., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple
sources of six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 239-265.
Veccia, S. H. (2004). Uncovering our history: Teaching with primary sources. Chicago:
American Library Association.
Visual Understanding in Education. (2001). What is VTS? Brooklyn, NY: VUE. Retrieved from
http://www.vue.org/whatisvts.html
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the
problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Eds.), International handbook of
research on conceptual change (pp. 3-34). New York and London: Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group.
Voss, J. F., Wiley, J., & Kennet, J. (1998). Student perceptions of history and historical concepts.
In J. F. Voss and M. Carretero (Eds.), International review of history education, Vol. 2:
Learning and reasoning in history (307-330). Portland, OR: Woburn Press.
Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Original work
published 1964)

253

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M.
Cole, V. Joh-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Waterman, A. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for
personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 165-188.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two concepts of
happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 41-79.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New
Directions for Child Development, 23, 7-18.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that
promote understanding and not just memory for texts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(2), 301-311.
Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the
evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(1), 73-87.
Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of
historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319-346.
Wineburg, S. (2010, Winter). Thinking like a historian. Teaching with Primary Sources
Quarterly, pp. 2-4. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/teachers/tps/quarterly/pdf/
TPSQuarterlyWinter10.pdf
Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and
reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467-502.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89-100.
Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in
history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25-68.
Zarillo, J. J. (2004). Teaching elementary social studies: Principles and applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

254