An Opportunity to Learn US History: What NAEP Data Suggest Regarding the Opportunity Gap

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which Opportunity to Learn (OTL), is associated with students’ achievement in US History. Opportunity to Learn stems from the basic premise that there is an important relationship between the quality and frequency of classroom instruction and students’ levels of academic success. The authors examine National Assessment of Educational Progress in U.S. History (NAEP-USH) assessment data in order to better understand the relationship between classroom- and student-level variables associated with historical knowledge as measured in the 12 th grade. Findings document that instructional exposure (OTL) is a factor associated with learning outcomes; however, the OTL in history is not the same for all student populations. An opportunity gap is evident in these results and suggests that Black students are underserved in U.S. History. However, when controlling for poverty and other socio-economic variables, students’ predictive achievement on NAEP is positively associated with instructional exposure; yet, differences were observed for some but not all strategies measured in the full model. In the aggregate and disaggregate models, instructional exposure and motivational factors associated with OTL account for a large and significant percentage of the proportional variance (r 2 ) in NAEP-USH achievement. We contend that instructional exposure is significantly predictor of historical knowledge. Findings from this study indicate: 1) student and school characteristics are significant factors associated with achievement, 2) pedagogical decisions are important and can greatly impact student learning in US History, and 3) culturally congruent instructional decision-making is needed to ensure positive learning experiences for Black students.

An analysis of predictors of history content knowledge: Implications for policy and practice

“…The unidimensional factor loading patterns were similar to previous analysis of NAEP-USH data (Heafner & Fitchett, 2015;Smith and Niemi, 2003). Conceptually, the factors aligned with existing literature surrounding students' learning of history.…”

“…However, those data were not available for the 2010 NAEP-USH. 6 Previous analysis (Heafner & Fitchett, 2015) indicates that this item was not significantly associated with NAEP-USH scores. For the sake of model parsimony, we did not include it in this study.…”

“…They included dummy-codes for gender and graduation, free/reduced lunch status. Previous analyses of NAEP-USH found that students who identified as Black, Hispanic, or Native American followed similar trends on NAEP-USH test performance (Heafner & Fitchett, 2015). Therefore, race identification was dichotomized into a non-White, non-Asian indicator.…”

Gender differences in social studies skills: A Texas, multiyear study

“…In this investigation, boys outperformed girls on the TAKS Exit Level Social Studies Exam for the 2004-2005 to 2011-2012 school years. These results were consistent with researchers [5,17] who have also noted that boys have statistically higher scores on standardized exams in history. By analyzing each of the five objectives of the TAKS Exit Level Social Studies Exam, differences in social skills between boys and girls were also revealed.…”

“…Boys also had statistically significantly higher test scores than girls on the Advanced Placement World History, European History, Government Politics U.S., and Psychology examinations in 2007 and 2011 [5] . In addition, Heafner and Fitchett (2015) [17] analyzed the National Assessment of Educational Progress of United States History and established that Grade 12 boys had statistically significantly higher test scores than Grade 12 girls on standardized United States History exams. Lastly, researchers [15,16] documented that boys had statistically significantly higher test scores on competency-based geography exams than girls.…”