Chapter 12 page 295
Example #1. Improving historical explanations
Beck et al. (1991) rewrote a textbook passage on the Revolutionary War. Their revision was much better
at promoting learning by elementary school students than the original text was. The table below shows the
original text, the revision, and the rationale for the revision.
Original Text, Sentence
by Sentence
Revised Text Rationale for revisions provided by Beck, McKeown,
Sinatra, & Loxterman (1991)In 1763 Britain and the
colonies ended a 7-
year-war with the
French and Indians.
About 250 years ago,
Britain and France both
claimed to own some of
the same land, here, in
North American. This
land was just west of
where the 13 colonies
were. In 1756, Britain and
France went to war to see
who would get control of
this land. Because the 13
American colonies
belonged to Britain, the
colonists fought on the
same side as Britain.
Many Indians fought on
the same side as France.
Because we were fighting
against the French and
Indians, the war has come
to be known as the French
and Indian War. The war
ended in 1763.Two problems with the original: It begins at the end of the
war instead of the beginning. And it is too dense in the
information it contains. (Highly dense sentences are harder
to understand.)
The first sentence contains 5 different ideas:
--there was a French and Indian war.
--the war lasted 7 years
--the war ended in 1763
--the British and their American colonists fought together on
one side
--the French and the Indians fought on the other side
Too much information is implicit.
Also, there is no elaboration that lets readers connect the
ideas to background knowledge. Students might not know
why Britain and the colonies would fight on the same side,
why Britain and France were fighting at all, why the French
and Indians were on the same side. The revision included
all of this information.
The revision stays in chronological order and tries to give
needed background information. It omits an explanation of
why the French and Indians sided together because the
explanation is too complex. Such an explanation would be
a distraction and get in the way of comprehension.
The first sentence in the revision activates a “conflict
schema.”The first sentence in the original seems to set the reader up
to hear about the winner but instead talks about the loser.As a result of this war
France was driven out
of North America.
Britain would now rule
Canada and other lands
that had belonged to
France.
Britain won the war. Now
Britain had control of
North America, including
Canada. The French had
to leave North America.The sentence “Britain won the war” fills an important slot
in the conflict schema: “a winner.” Once students learn
who won, they are told what was gained from winning,
another important slot in the conflict schema. The sentence
about France is more familiar.