NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T 25TH ANNIVERSARY•1969–1994

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

NAEP 1994 U.S. History Report Card

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
What is The Nation’s Report Card?

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative and continuing

assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in

reading, mathematics, science, writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to

policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education.

Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their

families.

NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education. The

Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the Commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing reviews, including validation studies and

solicitation of public comment, on NAEP’s conduct and usefulness.

In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The Board is

responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National Education Goals; for setting appropriate student

performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test specifications through a national consensus approach; for designing the

assessment methodology; for developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for

interstate, regional, and national comparisons; for determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring they are free from bias; and for taking

actions to improve the form and use of the National Assessment.

The National Assessment Governing Board

Honorable Roy Romer

Governor of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Honorable Edgar D. Ross

Judge

Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands

Christiansted, St. Croix

U.S. Virgin Islands

Fannie L. Simmons

Mathematics Coordinator

District 5 of Lexington/Richland County

Ballentine, South Carolina

Adam Urbanski

President

Rochester Teachers Association

Rochester, New York

Deborah Voltz

Assistant Professor

Department of Special Education

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

Marilyn A. Whirry

Twelfth-grade English Teacher

Mira Costa High School

Manhattan Beach, California

Dennie Palmer Wolf

Senior Research Associate

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sharon P. Robinson (Ex-Officio)

Assistant Secretary

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC

Roy Truby

Executive Director, NAGB

Washington, DC

Jan B. Loveless

District Communications Specialist

Midland Public Schools

Midland, Michigan

Marilyn McConachie

School Board Member

Glenbrook High Schools

Glenview, Illinois

Jason Millman

Prof. of Educational Research Methodology

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

Honorable Richard P. Mills

Commissioner of Education

State of New York

Albany, New York

William J. Moloney

Superintendent of Schools

Calvert County Public Schools

Prince Frederick, Maryland

Honorable Annette Morgan

Member

Missouri House of Representatives

Jefferson City, Missouri

Mark D. Musick

President

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, Georgia

Mitsugi Nakashima

Chairman

Hawaii State Board of Education

Honolulu, Hawaii

Michael T. Nettles

Professor of Education & Public Policy

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

and Director

Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute

United Negro College Fund

Honorable William T. Randall, Chair

Commissioner of Education

State of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Mary R. Blanton

Attorney

Salisbury, North Carolina

Patsy Cavazos

Principal

W.G. Love Accelerated Elementary School

Houston, Texas

Catherine A. Davidson

Secondary Education Director

Central Kitsap School District

Silverdale, Washington

Edward Donley

Former Chairman

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Honorable James Edgar

Governor of Illinois

Springfield, Illinois

James E. Ellingson

Fourth-grade Classroom Teacher

Probstfield Elementary School

Moorhead, Minnesota

Chester E. Finn, Jr.

John M. Olin Fellow

Hudson Institute

Washington, DC

Michael J. Guerra

Executive Director

Secondary Schools Department

National Catholic Educational Association

Washington, DC
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NAEP 1994 U.S. History Report Card

Findings from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress

Alexandra S. Beatty

Clyde M. Reese

Hilary R. Persky

Peggy Carr

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract

with the National Center for Education Statistics

April 1996
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Jeanne E. Griffith

Acting Commissioner

Education Assessment Division

Gary W. Phillips

Associate Commissioner

April 1996

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For ordering information on this report, write:

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20208-5641

or call 1-800-424-1616 (in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area

call 202-219-1651).

The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the

National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.

Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

Educational Testing Service, ETS, and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

CHAPTER 1. NAEP 1994 U.S. HISTORY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The NAEP 1994 U.S. History Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Themes in U.S. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Periods of U.S. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ways of Knowing and Thinking About U.S. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The NAEP 1994 U.S. History Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Description of School and Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reporting NAEP U.S. History Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

U.S. History Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

U.S. History Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Example Questions from the NAEP 1994 U.S. History Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2. U.S. HISTORY RESULTS FOR THE NATION AND REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . 17

U.S. History Results for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

U.S. History Results for Major Reporting Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Parents’ Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Title I Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

An In-Depth Look at Selected Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Gender and Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Gender and Parental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Type of School (Public and Nonpublic) and Parental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Race/Ethnicity and Parental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

CHAPTER 3. U.S. HISTORY ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

U.S. History Achievement Levels for the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

U.S. History Achievement Levels for Major Reporting Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Parents’ Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i v

Title I Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

CHAPTER 4. CONTEXTS IN WHICH STUDENTS LEARN HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

The Extent of Students’ Social Studies and U.S. History Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Social Studies and History Instruction at Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

U.S. History Course-Taking at Grades 8 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

The Content of Social Studies and History Instruction at Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Instructional Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Use of Textbooks and Other Written Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Using Maps and Globes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Watching Movies, Videos, and Filmstrips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Use of Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Instructional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Incorporating Writing into History or Social Studies Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Homework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Field Trips and Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Students’ Home Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Discussing Schoolwork at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Access to Literacy Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Television Viewing Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

CHAPTER 5. WHAT STUDENTS KNOW AND CAN DO IN U.S. HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Overview of Students’ Performance on the NAEP U.S. History Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Fourth Grade Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Eighth Grade Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Twelfth Grade Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Profiles of Students’ U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Average Performance by Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Parents’ Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Profiling Students’ Performance on the Four Historical Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
v

APPENDICES

A. Overview of Procedures Used in NAEP’s 1994 U.S. History Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B. Describing Students’ U.S. History Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C. Sample Questions from the NAEP 1994 U.S. History Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

TABLES

Table 1.1

Targeted Distribution of Assessment Time Across Historical Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 1.2

Targeted Distribution of Assessment Time Across Historical Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2.1

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Percentile, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2.2

Average U.S. History Scale Scores for the Nation and by Region, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . 19

Table 2.3

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2.4

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Gender, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.5

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Parents’ Highest Education Level,

Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.6

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Type of Location, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.7

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Title I Participation, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.8

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Type of School, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 2.9

Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Male and Female Students

by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.10

Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Male and Female Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 2.11

Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Students Attending Public and

Nonpublic Schools in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level,

Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2.12

Average U.S. History Scale Scores of White, Black, and Hispanic Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level, Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
v i

Table 3.1

U.S. History Achievement Levels for the Nation and by Region, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . 33

Table 3.2

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 3.3

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Gender, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 3.4

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Parents’ Highest Education Level,

Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 3.5

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Type of Location, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 3.6

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Title I Participation, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . 38

Table 3.7

U.S. History Achievement Levels by Type of School, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 4.1

Students’ Reports on Social Studies or History Course-Taking, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 4.2

Teachers’ Reports on Focus of Social Studies/History Teaching, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.3

Students’ Reports on U.S. History Course-Taking, Grades 8 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.4

Students’ Reports on Number of Semesters of

History, Geography, or Social Studies Taken, Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 4.5

Teachers’ Reports on Use of Textbooks, Extra Written Materials,

and Primary Documents, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 4.6

Students’ Reports on Use of Textbooks, Extra Written Materials,

and Primary Documents, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 4.7

Students’ Reports on Use of Maps and Globes, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 4.8

Students’ Reports on Watching Movies, Videos, and Filmstrips, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . 46

Table 4.9

Students’ Reports on Use of Computers in Social Studies or

History Classrooms, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 4.10

Teachers’ Reports on Student Writing of Short Answers or Reports, Grades 4 and 8 . . 48

Table 4.11

Students’ Reports on Writing of Short Answers or Reports, Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . 49
vii

Table 4.12

Students’ Reports on Time Spent on Homework Each Day, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . 50

Table 4.13

Students’ Reports on Time Spent on History Homework Each Week, Grade 8 . . . . . . . 50

Table 4.14

Students’ Reports on Field Trips or Outside Speakers, and Libraries, Grades 4 and 8 . . 51

Table 4.15

Students’ Reports on the Frequency with Which

They Discuss Their Studies at Home, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 4.16

Students’ Reports on the Number of Different Types of

Literacy Material in Their Home, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 4.17

Students’ Reports on the Amount of Time Spent

Watching Television Each Day, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 5.1

Average Scale Scores at Various Percentiles by

Historical Themes, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 5.2

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 5.3

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Gender, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 5.4

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Parents’ Highest Education Level,

Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 5.5

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Type of Location, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 5.6

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Type of School, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table A.1

Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions

by Grade and Historical Theme, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table A.2

Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions

by Grade and Historical Period, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table A.3

Unweighted and Weighted Sample Sizes by Grade,

Public and Nonpublic Schools, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
viii

Table A.4

Percentage of Students Who Reported Not Knowing Their

Parents’ Education Level, by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4, 8, and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table A.5

Correlations Between Students’ and Parents’ Reports of

Parents’ Education Level, by Race/Ethnicity,* Grades 8 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table B.1

Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points to

General Study Habit Questions, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table B.2

Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points to

General Study Habit Questions, Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table B.3

Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points to

General Study Habit Questions, Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

FIGURES

Figure 1.1

NAEP 1994 U.S. History Content Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1.2

Policy Definitions of NAEP Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 1.3

NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2.1

Average NAEP U.S. History Scale Scores by Grade and by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3.1

U.S. History Achievement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 5.1

Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Fourth Graders:

U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 5.2

Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Eighth Graders:

U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 5.3

Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Twelfth Graders:

U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 5.4

Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
i x

Figure 5.5

Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 5.6

Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure A.1

NAEP 1994 U.S. History Content Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure A.2

States Included in the Four Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If policymakers, educators, and concerned citizens

are to improve the United States educational system,

they need valid and reliable information about the

strengths and weaknesses of American students and the

instructional factors that are related to differing levels

of performance. For over twenty-five years, the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has

provided such information. NAEP assessments have

probed student abilities in a variety of subject areas,

reporting both on what students know and can do

and on the relationships between instructional,

institutional, and background variables and differing

levels of educational achievement. As the nation’s

foremost ongoing education survey, NAEP results track

trends in student performance and allow concerned

readers to evaluate whether America’s children are

developing the skills and knowledge essential for

effective participation in the economy and the polity.

In 1994, NAEP conducted national assessments

in reading, geography, and United States history at

grades 4, 8, and 12. The United States history results

included in this Report Card describe students’

achievement at each grade and within

various subgroups of the general population. In

addition, the report discusses the relationships between

student performance and instructional and home

background variables. Taken together, this information

gives educators a context for evaluating the U.S. history

achievement of students, and results that may be used

to guide reform efforts.

Student performance is summarized on the NAEP

U.S. history scale, which ranges from 0 to 500. In

addition, results for each grade are reported according

to three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. These achievement levels are based on

collective judgments about what students should know

and be able to do in U.S. history. The Basic level denotes

partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills

that are fundamental for proficient work at each

grade. The Proficient level represents solid academic

performance and demonstrated competence over

challenging subject matter. The Advanced level signifies

superior performance.

Major Findings for the Nation

© The Proficient achievement level — defined as

signifying solid academic performance and

demonstrated competence over challenging subject

matter — was reached by only 17 percent of fourth

graders, 14 percent of eighth graders, and 11 percent

of twelfth graders.

© Fewer than half the grade 12 students in the

assessment were able to reach the Basic level. At

grades 4 and 8, over 60 percent of assessed students

demonstrated this level of performance.

© On individual assessment tasks, students

demonstrated a range of competencies. For example:

• At grade 4, 87 percent of assessed students

identified Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have A

Dream” speech; 45 percent identified the primary

purpose of the Bill of Rights; 32 percent knew that

New York was one of the colonies that took part in

the American Revolution; and 11 percent described

some ways in which women’s roles in the workforce

have changed over the past 100 years.

• At grade 8, 80 percent of the students knew that

the song “O Freedom” was used by people in the

Civil Rights movement; 71 percent identified

Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration

of Independence; 41 percent associated the LendLease Act, the Yalta Conference, and the dropping

of the atomic bomb with the Second World War;

and 10 percent wrote a description of the debate at

the Constitutional Convention that led to the

Connecticut Compromise.

• At grade 12, 74 percent of the students determined

the impact of the launch of the Soviet Sputnik

satellite on United States politics; 41 percent

identified the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine;

29 percent explained the effect of an economic or

technological change on the nature of farming in

America; and 22 percent successfully compared

Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 and 1937 inauguration

speeches.
x i

Major Findings for

Student Subgroups

© As has been the case in other NAEP assessments,

there were statistically significant differences in the

performance of major subgroups of the population.

For example, at all grades White and Asian students

had higher scores than did their Black and Hispanic

counterparts.

© Consistent with findings in other assessments, there

was a strong relationship between differing levels of

parental education and performance on the NAEP

U.S. history assessment. As a general rule, the more

education students’ parents had received, the better

the students performed on the assessment.

© On the overall U.S. history scale, there were no

statistically significant performance differences

between male and female students at grades 4 and 8.

At grade 12, male students performed at a higher level

than females. However, gender differences were not

consistent across areas of U.S. history. At all grades,

males outperformed females on tasks assessing the

historical theme of “The Changing Role of America in

the World.” On the other hand, eighth- and twelfthgrade females performed better than their male

counterparts on the “Gathering and Interaction of

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas” theme.

© At all three grades, students attending nonpublic

schools performed at a higher level than did students

attending public schools.

Contextual Factors Related to

United States History Performance

A diverse range of home and school factors influence

the ways and extent to which students learn history.

Students who participated in the NAEP assessment were

asked to complete questionnaires about their home and

school experiences related to history learning. Also,

questionnaires about students’ instructional experiences

were completed by their teachers. The results of these

surveys help provide a context for interpreting the

assessment scores, and provide policymakers with

information about variables that are positively and

negatively related to history achievement.

© Over 40 percent of the students at grades 4 and 8

and 25 percent of the students at grade 12 reported

watching four or more hours of television each day. In

most cases, the more television students reported

watching the worse they performed on the U.S.

history assessment.

© Fifty-four percent of the fourth graders, 38 percent of

the eighth graders, and 31 percent of the twelfth

graders reported discussing their studies at home

daily. By contrast, 18, 22, and 25 percent of the

students at each grade respectively reported never or

hardly ever discussing their studies. Students who

reported no regular discussions had lower average

scale scores than all other students.

© United States history instruction was limited for

grade 4 students. Only 7 percent of the fourth graders

assessed had teachers who reported that U.S.

history is the focus of their social studies teaching.

Conversely, most students in grade 8 were taking

a course in U.S. history, and most twelfth graders

had taken such a course in grade 11.

© History homework was also limited at grade 8.

Forty-eight percent of students who were taking U.S.

history reported that they did one-half hour or less

of history homework each week. These students had

lower scores on the assessment than did students who

did one or two hours of homework each week.

© Almost half the students had teachers who reported

using textbooks on a daily basis. Also, 62 percent of the

students at grade 4 and 23 percent of the students at

grade 8 had teachers who reported that they never or

hardly ever use primary documents in their teaching.
xii

About This Report

As the Nation’s Report Card in United States history,

this document provides a broad examination of history

learning. In addition, specific aspects of students’

performance and their experiences at home and school

are reviewed in some depth. As such, this report

provides a portrait of what students know and can

do in history, as well as the contexts in which they

have developed their history knowledge and skills.

Chapter 1 presents the overview of the NAEP 1994

U.S. history assessment — its content framework,

design, and administration. Also included in Chapter 1

are example questions and student responses from the

assessment. Chapter 2 provides overall average scale

score results for the nation, regions, and subgroups of

students. Chapter 3 describes student performance in

terms of achievement levels. Chapter 4 describes

contextual factors related to students’ performance.

Finally, Chapter 5 describes the specific abilities

demonstrated by students in the NAEP 1994 U.S. history

assessment and reports student performance in different

thematic areas of U.S. history.
1

CHAPTER 1

NAEP 1994

U.S. History Assessment

Introduction

“I hope that through my teaching I can open young

people’s eyes about our nation’s past and encourage

them to always ask, ‘Why is X the way it is? How did X

get to be so?’ If I can do that, I’ve helped train a

generation of inquisitive, curious minds which will be

able to pursue achievement in a variety of fields.”1

Knowledge of United States history is an important

component of effective citizenship. A thorough grasp

of our country’s struggles, successes, and failures, and

the skills to interpret them, better enable young people

to make informed and intelligent decisions about

contemporary issues. Nourishing the curiosity children

exhibit about major events, customs and institutions,

and the families and individuals that comprise United

States history, creates a valuable resource for our

nation’s future.

While there is increasingly wide agreement about

the importance of historical study for students, there

has been little consensus about history’s place in the

curriculum or about what should be taught in history

classrooms. During the decades after World War II,

history was frequently pushed aside to make room for

social science classes and for courses designed to help

students cope with issues and problems in their

everyday lives. Many educators believed that history

could be embedded in a wider social studies curriculum.

The inclusion of history in the Goals 2000 list of key

subjects in which American students should be expected

to show mastery by the year 2000 was an important

signal of the education community’s renewed

commitment to history’s importance.2

 Recent evidence

suggests that schools are making their history

curricula more rigorous and that history teachers are

maintaining higher standards.3

 This emphasis on high

expectations — also reflected in the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) U.S. history

assessments — has pushed attempts to improve history

instruction to the forefront of the educational reform

movement. Furthermore, the NAEP 1994 U.S. History

Framework, the guiding document in the preparation of

the NAEP assessments, represents a consensus among

historians and history educators about the rigorous

skills and content knowledge that all students should be

able to demonstrate.

The renewed interest in history instruction

underscores the need for accurate information about

what students know and can do in U.S. history and

about which instructional background factors are

related to high levels of history achievement. The

NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment provides a detailed

portrait of student performance that can serve as a

benchmark for educators, parents, policymakers, and

the general public.

Overview of the 1994 National

Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP)

A project of the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES), NAEP collects information about what students

in the United States know and can do in various school

subjects. Since its initiation by Congress in 1969, NAEP

has carried out its federally supported mandate as the

only ongoing national assessment of student achievement. Public and nonpublic school students in grades 4,

8, and 12 are regularly sampled and assessed in reading,

mathematics, history, geography, and other subject

areas. The assessments are based on frameworks that

prescribe the content of the assessment. The content of

the assessments attempts to maintain a balance among

current instructional efforts, curriculum reform,

research results, and desirable levels of achievement.

The NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment was

administered to national samples of fourth-, eighth-,

and twelfth-grade students attending public and

nonpublic schools. This report presents the results of

this assessment. Each participant was asked to answer a

set of background questions and complete a series of

history exercises. Approximately 22,000 students were

assessed. Students’ performance is described on the

NAEP U.S. history scale ranging from 0 to 500 and in

relation to three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient,

and Advanced. The average performance of students at

each of the three grades and of specific subgroups of the

student population is presented.
2

The NAEP 1994

U.S. History Framework

The structure and content of the U.S. history

assessment were guided by the NAEP 1994 U.S. History

Framework.4

 Although U.S. history was assessed by

NAEP in 1988, a rigorous new framework was developed

for the 1994 assessment. The development of the new

framework, as well as the detailed specifications for the

assessment, were managed by the Council of Chief State

School Officers (CCSSO) under the direction of the

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).

Approximately fifty professional historians, educators,

administrators, and other interested individuals worked

to achieve consensus on the general goals as well as the

specific language for the framework document. In

addition, several hundred educational experts and

interested members of the public contributed to the

process, either by participating in public hearings or by

reviewing drafts of the documents.

The historians and educators involved in the

consensus process believed that an entirely new

framework was needed to address the range of historical

content and skills that students should possess. The

resulting framework, which called for the assessment of

a broad range of outcomes, represented an ambitious

vision both of what students should know and be able to

do in U.S. history, and of the ways in which those

competencies should be tested.

The 1994 framework is organized around three

concepts or dimensions: major themes of U.S. history,

chronological periods of U.S. history, and ways of

knowing and thinking about U.S. history. These

organizing concepts grew out of the goals for the

assessment agreed upon through the consensus process.

As Figure 1.1 illustrates, the themes and periods of

U.S. history function as a matrix; the assessment

addressed the role of each theme in each of the periods.

The framework makes clear that not all themes are

equally important in each period. In addition, the

THEMES

PERIODS

Change and Continuity in

American Democracy:

Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and

Controversies

Three Worlds and Their

Meeting in the Americas

(Beginnings to 1607)

Colonization, Settlement,

and Communities

(1607 to 1763)

The Revolution and the

New Nation (1763 to 1815)

Expansion and Reform

(1801 to 1861)

Crisis of the Union: Civil

War and Reconstruction

(1850 to 1877)

The Development of

Modern America

(1865 to 1920)

Modern America and the

World Wars (1914 to 1945)

Contemporary America

(1945 to Present)

Figure 1.1 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Content Matrix

The Gathering and

Interactions of Peoples,

Cultures, and Ideas

The Changing Role of

America in the World

Economic and

Technological Changes

and Their Relation to

Society, Ideas, and the

Environment
3

framework specified the percentage of the assessment

that was to address each of the themes and periods at

each of the three grade levels, as shown in Tables 1.1

and 1.2. These percentages reflect expectations of the

curriculum coverage at each grade level. Because many

students are not offered U.S. history in grade 4, the

framework also included recommendations for adapting

the assessment for fourth-grade students.

The framework was structured to ensure coverage

of the historical themes, events, and developments

considered most important by the groups that

participated in the consensus process, while allowing

sufficient flexibility to include creative and thoughtprovoking exercises that might not fit neatly into a

more narrowly defined framework.

Themes in U.S. History. Four historical themes are

the core organizing structure of the framework. The

themes were intended to ensure that all major branches

of historical study were covered and that emphasis on

various areas was balanced. The themes are also used to

define the subscales for reporting. Table 1.1 contains the

percentages of assessment time accorded to each theme

by the framework. The themes are as follows:

1. Change and Continuity in American

Democracy: Ideas, Institutions, Practices,

and Controversies

This theme concerns the development of American

political democracy from colonial times to the present.

It covers political events that shaped American

democracy, such as the American Revolution, the Civil

War, and the fight for civil rights, as well as the core

ideas and principles that underlie our institutions. This

theme covers students’ knowledge of the founding

of the nation, the writing of the Constitution, and other

fundamental components of the nation’s political

history. At the same time, it calls for evaluating students’

understanding of the role that major political ideas and

conflicts have played at different points in our history.

2. The Gathering and Interactions of Peoples,

Cultures, and Ideas

The second theme is broadly defined because it covers a

vast component of U.S. history: the interactions among

the people and cultures of many countries, racial and

ethnic groups, and religious traditions that have contributed to the development of American society. This

theme covers the nature and role of immigration

throughout our history, cultural developments, patterns

of social organization, and changing roles of men and

women.

3. Economic and Technological Changes and

Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and the

Environment

This theme focuses on the economic history of the

nation and its development from a rural, agricultural

society to an urban, industrialized superpower.

It covers the roles economic ideas and beliefs have

played in this change as well as the roles of geography

and of developments in science and technology.

4. The Changing Role of America in the World

This theme calls for coverage of the many factors —

physical geography, political ideals, economic interests,

public opinion — that have shaped American foreign

policy. It also addresses specific interactions between the

United States and other nations and the domestic

consequences of developments in foreign policy.

Table 1.1 Targeted Distribution of Assessment Time Across Historical Themes

The Gathering and

Interactions of Peoples,

Cultures, and Ideas

Change and Continuity in

American Democracy:

Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and

Controversies

Economic and

Technological Changes

and Their Relation to

Society, Ideas, and the

Environment

The Changing Role of

America in the World

THEMES

GRADE LEVELS

Grade 4 25% 35% 25% 15%

Grade 8 30% 30% 20% 20%

Grade 12 25% 25% 25% 25%
4

The percentages of assessment time devoted to each

period, as described in the framework, are presented in

Table 1.2.

Ways of Knowing and Thinking About U.S.

History. Finally, the framework considers the ways of

thinking and kinds of knowledge that historical study

requires. These are divided into two general cognitive

domains that were used as a guide in exercise development. The two domains and their definitions are as

follows:

1. Historical Knowledge and Perspective

This domain includes knowing and understanding

people, events, concepts, themes, movements,

contexts, and historical sources; sequencing events;

recognizing multiple perspectives and seeing an era

or movement through the eyes of different groups;

and developing a general conceptualization of

U.S. history.

2. Historical Analysis and Interpretation

This domain includes explaining issues, identifying

historical patterns; establishing cause-and-effect

relationships; finding value statements; establishing

significance; applying historical knowledge;

weighing evidence to draw sound conclusions;

making defensible generalizations; and rendering

insightful accounts of the past.

Periods of U.S. History. Eight periods provide

chronological structure for the many issues included in

the four themes. These periods focus attention on

several major eras of U.S. history. They overlap at some

points because they were conceived to ensure thorough

coverage of major trends and events. The historical

periods are not used as reporting subscales, but rather

were used in the assessment construction process to

ensure appropriate chronological coverage. The periods

are as follows:

1. Three Worlds and Their Meeting in the

Americas (Beginnings to 1607)

2. Colonization, Settlement, and Communities

(1607 to 1763)

3. The Revolution and the New Nation

(1763 to 1815)

4. Expansion and Reform (1801 to 1861)

5. Crisis of the Union: Civil War and

Reconstruction (1850 to 1877)

6. The Development of Modern America

(1865 to 1920)

7. Modern America and the World Wars

(1914 to 1945)

8. Contemporary America (1945 to Present)

Table 1.2 Targeted Distribution of Assessment Time Across Historical Periods

Grade 4 20% 15% 15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 15%

Grade 8 5% 10% 20% 15% 20% 10% 10% 10%

Grade 12 5% 10% 15% 10% 10% 15% 15% 20%

Beginnings 1607 to 1763 to 1801 to 1850 to 1865 to 1914 to 1945 to

to 1607 1763 1815 1861 1877 1920 1945 Present

PERIODS

GRADE LEVELS
5

The NAEP 1994 U.S. History

Assessment Instruments

In keeping with current assessment research, the

framework called for the inclusion of both multiplechoice and constructed-response exercises in the 1994

U.S. history assessment.5

 The framework also required

that students be engaged in some of the activities and

ways of thinking that are part of the study of history.

Thus the assessment included a range of constructedresponse (that is, non-multiple-choice) exercises to

stimulate thinking and a wide array of stimuli,

including texts, maps, photographs, paintings and

drawings, political cartoons, advertisements, posters,

and graphs, charts, and tables.6

Assessment exercises were innovative in other

respects. One limitation of many traditional assessments

is that they frequently present pieces of information or

problems to be solved in isolation. Since students

ordinarily consider individual points within the context

of the classroom or of material they are reading, assessment questions that appear out of context may not elicit

the full range of students’ knowledge and abilities.

Two strategies were adopted in the NAEP 1994 U.S.

history assessment to address this issue. First, many of

the questions appear in sets of two or three, all pertaining to a particular stimulus or issue. In this way,

students are encouraged to consider several different

aspects of the subject and have a greater opportunity to

demonstrate their knowledge and understanding than

they otherwise might.

The second strategy was to develop two longer sets

of exercises, called theme blocks, each focused on a

single historical issue. Both theme blocks contain a

variety of sources and types of tasks. Students to whom

the theme blocks were administered spent all of their

assessment time on them. These students had the

opportunity to demonstrate their ability to work

through many aspects of a historical issue, to work with

a variety of primary and secondary sources, to use

several different sources at once, and to synthesize a

body of information. One theme block was administered

at grade 8 and the other at grade 12.

In addition to multiple-choice questions, the assessment included both short and extended constructedresponse questions. Each constructed-response question

was scored according to a scoring guide, or rubric, that

gave credit for partially correct answers. The exercises

called for a range of responses. Short constructedresponse questions called for a word, a phrase, or a

sentence or two to demonstrate understanding of

specific material. Extended constructed-response

questions called for more developed argument,

gathering of evidence, or interpreting of data. Short

constructed-response questions were scored according

to three-part scoring guides, in which a score of 3

represented an appropriate answer, a score of 2 a

partially correct answer, and a score of 1 an

inappropriate answer. Extended constructed-response

questions were scored according to four-part scoring

guides, in which a 4 was assigned to complete

responses, a 3 to responses that responded to essential

components of the task, a 2 to partially correct

responses, and a 1 to inappropriate answers. Many of

the constructed-response questions were scaffolded;

that is, students were asked to respond first to one

portion of the question and then to another. In a few

cases, they were asked to do other tasks, such as

sequencing events on a time line.

Across the three grades assessed — fourth, eighth,

and twelfth — a total of 268 multiple-choice, 96 short

constructed-response, and 37 extended constructedresponse questions were administered in the 1994

assessment.7

 Some of the questions were administered

at more than one grade. Students spent more than half

the assessment time responding to constructed-response

questions. By grade, the percentage of assessment time

spent on constructed-response questions was 57 percent

at grade 4, 56 percent at grade 8, and 61 percent at

grade 12. Additional information about the assessment

design is included in Appendix A.

Description of School and

Student Samples

As with all NAEP assessments, the schools and students

participating in the 1994 U.S. history assessment were

selected through scientifically designed sampling

procedures. Approximately 22,000 fourth, eighth, and

twelfth graders in 1,500 public and nonpublic schools

across the country participated in the assessment.

The results presented in this report are based on

representative samples of students at each of the three

grade levels. Each school that participated in the

assessment and each student assessed represents a

portion of the population of interest. As a result, the

findings in this report pertain to all fourth, eighth,

and twelfth graders in the nation. For a more detailed

description of the sample and of the sampling

procedures, see Appendix A.
6

Reporting NAEP U.S. History Results

The NAEP U.S. history assessment provides a great deal

of information about the knowledge and abilities of

the nation’s fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students.

To maximize the usefulness of this information to

policymakers, educators, parents, and other interested

parties, the NAEP results are presented not only as

average scores on the U.S. history scale, but also in

terms of the percentages of students attaining NAEP

U.S. history achievement levels. Thus, NAEP results

provide information about what students know and

can do, as well as indicate the extent to which their

achievement meets expectations of what students

should know and be able to do.

U.S. History Scale

Student responses to the NAEP 1994 U.S. history

assessment were analyzed to determine the percentages

of students responding correctly to each multiple-choice

question and the percentage of students performing in

each of the score categories for constructed-response

questions. Item response theory (IRT) methods were

used to produce within-grade scales that summarize

results for each of the four themes described earlier.

Each subscale for grade 4 was linked to the

corresponding subscale for grade 8. Likewise, each

subscale for grade 12 was linked to the corresponding

subscale for grade 8. Then, each linked subscale was

mapped onto a 0 to 500 scale. These separate subscales

were then weighted by the percentages shown in Table

1.1 to produce a composite NAEP U.S. history scale.

Chapters 2, 4, and 5 present results based on the U.S.

history scale. (Please note that the scales for each of the

NAEP subjects assessed in 1994 — reading, U.S. history,

and geography — were developed independently.

Therefore, results should not be compared across

subjects. Details of the scaling procedures are presented

in the NAEP 1994 Technical Report.)

U.S. History Achievement Levels

The 1994 assessment results are also reported using the

U.S. history achievement levels that were authorized by

the NAEP legislation and adopted by the National

Assessment Governing Board. The achievement levels

are based on collective judgments about what students

should know and be able to do relative to the body of

content reflected in the NAEP assessment framework.

Three achievement levels were defined for each grade

level assessed: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The

levels were defined by a broadly representative panel of

teachers, education specialists, and members of the

general public.

For reporting purposes, the achievement levels for

each grade are placed on the NAEP U.S. history scale

defining four ranges — Basic, Proficient, Advanced,

and below Basic. The policy definitions of the three

achievement levels are presented in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Policy Definitions of NAEP Achievement Levels

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of

prerequisite knowledge and skills that

are fundamental for proficient work at

each grade.

Proficient This level represents solid academic

performance for each grade assessed.

Students reaching this level have

demonstrated competency over

challenging subject matter, including

subject-matter knowledge, application of

such knowledge to real-world situations,

and analytical skills appropriate to the

subject matter.

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

 It should be noted that the setting of achievement

levels for the national assessment is relatively new and

in transition. Some evaluations have concluded that the

percentages of students at certain levels may be

underestimated.8

 On the other hand, critiques of those

evaluations have found that such conclusions are not

supported by the weight of the empirical evidence.9
7

The student achievement levels in this report have

been developed carefully and responsibly and have been

subject to refinements and revisions in procedures as

new technologies have become available. Upon reviewing

the available information, the Commissioner of NCES

has judged that the achievement levels are in a

developmental status. However, the Commissioner and

the Governing Board also believe that the achievement

levels are useful and valuable in reporting on the

educational achievement of students in the United States.

Results reported in terms of the U.S. history achievement

levels are presented in Chapter 3 of this report.

Example Questions from the NAEP

1994 U.S. History Assessment

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the NAEP 1994 U.S.

history assessment is a rich collection of exercises

developed to survey the historical knowledge and skills

of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Each student received

a mixture of multiple-choice and constructed-response

questions.

Figure 1.3 presents examples of assessment

exercises. (Additional example questions are included in

Appendix C.) The tables accompanying the exercises

present two types of percentages: (1) the overall

percentage of students within a grade who successfully

answered the question, and (2) the percentage of

students within each of the achievement level intervals

— Basic, Proficient, Advanced, and below Basic — who

successfully answered the questions. (A fuller

description of the achievement levels at each grade can

be found in Chapter 3. Note also that at all three grades,

the percentages for students within the Advanced

achievement level interval are not presented because of

small sample sizes.)

The first exercise in Figure 1.3 is a multiple-choice

question administered at grade 4, based on an excerpt

from a Martin Luther King Jr., speech. The table shows

that the majority (87 percent) of all fourth graders

correctly answered this question. Seventy-two percent

of fourth graders who scored below the Basic

achievement level answered the question correctly,

compared to 93 percent for students who scored within

the Basic level. Almost all the fourth graders (99

percent) who scored within the Proficient achievement

level interval answered the question correctly.

The second exercise shown in Figure 1.3 is a short

constructed-response question administered at grade 8.

The stimulus material for this exercise is a reproduction

of an historical print depicting the Boston Tea Party.

The question is “scaffolded,” meaning that students are

first asked to identify the event depicted and then to

describe the importance of the event. A sample response

for a student who received a score of “Appropriate” (as

defined by the scoring rubic) on this question is also

provided. As the table accompanying this exercise shows,

almost one-fifth (19 percent) of all eighth graders wrote

answers rated as “Appropriate.” For those eighth graders

who scored below the Basic achievement level, only

2 percent wrote answers rated as “Appropriate,”

compared to 20 percent within the Basic level.

Approximately two-thirds (64 percent) of the eighth

graders who scored within the Proficient achievement

level interval wrote responses rated as “Appropriate.”

The third exercise shown in Figure 1.3 is an extended

constructed-response question administered at grade

12. The question was part of a grade 12 theme block on

the Depression and required students to integrate

information from a variety of sources. (A description of

the NAEP U.S. history theme blocks appears earlier in

this chapter.) Sample responses for students who

received scores of “Essential” and “Complete” are

provided. For this extended constructed-response

question, one-fifth (20 percent) of all twelfth graders

provided answers rated “Essential” or better. For those

twelfth graders who scored below the Basic achievement

level, 6 percent provided answers rated “Essential” or

better, compared with 27 percent of students within the

Basic level. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of twelfth

graders who scored within the Proficient achievement

level interval provided answers rated “Essential” or

better.
8

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of

former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be

judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream that one day ... little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with

little White boys and girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

The speech was given by

A Abraham Lincoln

B Gloria Steinem

C George Bush

© D Martin Luther King Jr.

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: Contemporary America

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies (1945 to Present)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions

Example of a Grade 4 Multiple-Choice Question

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

87 (1.0) 72 (2.6) 93 (1.2) 99 (0.7) ***
9

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Example of a Grade 8 Short Constructed-Response Question

Identify the event that is portrayed in the picture above.

Why is the event important in United States history?

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: The Revolution and the

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies New Nation (1763 to 1815)

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, and 3) Appropriate.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

THE DESTRUCTION OF TEA AT BOSTON HARBOR

The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor, N. Currier

1846. Museum of the City of New York, The Harry T.

Peters Collection.

Percentage “Appropriate” within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Appropriate 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

19 (1.2) 2 (0.7) 20 (2.1) 64 (4.1) ***
1 0

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Appropriate response (score of 3) correctly identifies the event as the Boston Tea Party and

explains that the event is important because it showed colonial resistance to British policies,

that in turn led to the American Revolution.
1 1

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Example of a Grade 12 Extended Constructed-Response Question

The next three documents (Documents J-L) were produced by people who believed either

that the New Deal had done too much or that it was not doing enough to end the Depression.

Document J - Portion of a campaign song for Senator Huey Long of Louisiana, 1935

Every Man a King

Why weep or slumber America

Land of brave and true

With castles and clothing and food for all

All belongs to you

Ev’ry man a King, ev’ry man a King

For you can be a millionaire

But there’s something belonging to others

There’s enough for all people to share

Document K - Excerpt from a speech given by Huey Long, March 7, 1935

So it has been while millions have starved and gone naked and while babies have cried

and died wanting milk; so it has been while people begged for meat and bread to eat.

Mr. Roosevelt’s administration has sailed merrily along, plowing under and destroying

the things to eat and wear, with tear-dimmed eyes and hungry souls made to chant for

this New Deal so that even their starvation dole is not taken away from them, and

meanwhile the food and clothes craved by humanity for their bodies and souls go to

destruction and ruin.
1 2

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Document L - Two Anti-Roosevelt Cartoons

What criticisms of Roosevelt are being made in the cartoons?

Identify the ways that the cartoons differ from the Huey Long passages

(Documents J-K) in their criticisms of Roosevelt.

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: Modern America and

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies the World Wars (1914 to 1945)

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, and 4) Complete.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Essential” or Better within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Essential or Better 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

20 (1.2) 6 (1.2) 27 (3.1) 64 (6.5) ***
1 3

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Essential response (score of 3) explains the criticisms of Roosevelt made in the cartoons,

and fails to offer or offers a general comparison of the cartoons and Long documents.
1 4

Figure 1.3 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Sample Questions (continued)

Sample Response (Score of 4)

A Complete response (score of 4) correctly explains the criticisms of Roosevelt made in the

cartoons, and compares the cartoons with the left-wing criticisms made in the Long documents.
1 5

Endnotes

1. Anonymous teacher quoted in “Engaging the Past,”

Alice Almond Shrock and Randall Shrock. (1994).

Journal of American History, 81(3), 1093-98.

2. The National Educational Goals Report: Building a

Nation of Learners. (1994). (Report of the National

Education Goals Panels: U.S. Government Printing

Office).

3. Social studies education: Kindergarten-grade 12.

National survey. Council of State Social Studies

Specialists (1986). (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. 289800).

4. U.S. History framework for the 1994 National

Assessment of Educational Progress. (Washington,

DC: National Assessment Governing Board).

5. Cornbleth, Catherine. (1986). Assessing skills and

thinking in social studies. Study Group on the

National Assessment of Student Achievement. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279671).

Fraenkel, Jack R. (1986). The assessment of social

studies knowledge [Draft]. Study Group on the

National assessment of Student Achievement. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279676).

Nickell, Pat. (1993). Alternative assessment:

Implications for social studies. ERIC Clearinghouse

for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 219).

Wiggins, Grant. (1989). A true test: Toward more

authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta

Kappan, 70(9), 703-713.

6. NCSS Position Statement on Testing and

Evaluation of Social Studies Students: Position

Statement and Guidelines. (National Council for the

Social Studies, Washington, DC, 1991).

7. NAEP assessments are organized in a “BIB-spiral”

design, which means that each individual student

receives only a subset of the total pool of questions

for his or her grade. The questions are arranged

in “blocks,” which are assigned to booklets in a

way that ensures that each student will complete

50 minutes worth of questions, and that the blocks

will be distributed throughout the assessment

population. Thus, complete coverage of the content

is possible without overburdening students and

schools.

8. Education achievement standards: NAGB’s

approach yields misleading interpretations. (1993).

(United States General Accounting Office Report to

Congressional Requestors. Washington, DC: United

States General Accounting Office).

Setting Performance Standards for Student

Achievement. A Report of the National Academy of

Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP

Trial State Assessment: An Evaluation of the 1992

Achievement Levels. (Stanford, CA: National

Academy of Education, 1993).

9. Technical report on setting achievement levels on

the 1992 National Assessment of Educational

Progress in mathematics, reading, and writing.

(1993). American College Testing (Washington, DC:

National Assessment Governing Board).

Cizek, G., (1993). Reactions to National Academy of

Education report. (Washington, DC: National

Assessment Governing Board).

Kane, M., (1993). Comments on the NAEP evaluation

of the NAGB achievement levels. (Washington, DC:

National Assessment Governing Board).

NAEP Reading revisited: An evaluation of the 1992

achievement levels descriptions. (1995). American

College Testing (Washington, DC: National

Assessment Governing Board).
1 7

CHAPTER 2

U.S. History Results

for the Nation and Regions

This chapter presents the NAEP U.S. history scale

scores of students in grades 4, 8, and 12, reported

using a scale that ranges from 0 to 500. Findings are

presented for the nation, for regions of the country,

and for selected subgroups of students. (For a visual

representation of student performance on each thematic

subscale — also ranging from 0 to 500 — see pages

66-71 in Chapter 5 of this report.)

The results provided in this chapter address

statistically significant differences that were found

between reporting subgroups. In other cases, score

estimates for various subgroups may appear to differ,

but these differences are not statistically significant.

(Significant differences are those that are unlikely to be

due to sampling variability or chance.)

In addition, the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment

results are explored in more depth by examining the

interactions among several major reporting variables.

Average U.S. history scale scores are examined for

subgroups of students within various demographic

populations. By doing so, it is possible to determine

if general patterns of U.S. history performance for

certain groups of students are related to additional

background characteristics.

U.S. History Results

for the Nation

Table 2.1 presents the average U.S. history scale scores

of students nationwide.

© The average score of students in grade 4 was 205.

The bottom 10 percent of the population scored at

or below 147 and the top 10 percent scored at or

above 253.

© At grade 8, the average score was 259. The bottom

10 percent of the population scored at or below 217,

while the top 10 percent scored at or above 299.

© The average score of students in grade 12 was 286.

The bottom 10 percent scored at or below 243 and

the top 10 percent scored at or above 326.

Average 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

Grade Levels Scale Score Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile

Grade 4 205 (1.0) 147 (2.4) 180 (1.3) 210 (0.9) 234 (1.2) 253 (1.2)

Grade 8 259 (0.6) 217 (1.0) 239 (0.9) 261 (0.8) 282 (0.8) 299 (0.8)

Grade 12 286 (0.8) 243 (1.0) 265 (0.9) 288 (0.8) 309 (1.0) 326 (0.8)

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 2.1

Average U.S. History Scale Scores by Percentile

Grades 4, 8, and 12

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment
1 8

Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2 present results for the nation

as well as the four regions of the country: Northeast,

Southeast, Central, and West. The composition of the

regions is described in Appendix A. At all three grades,

students in the Central region had higher average scores

than did students in the Southeast. At grade 4, students

from the Central region also outperformed students

from the West.

At grade 8, several other differences were

significant. Students from the Southeast were

outperformed by students from the Northeast and the

West. Also, eighth graders from the West were

outperformed by their counterparts from the Central

and Northeast regions.

At grade 12, students from the Northeast had higher

average scores than did those from the Southeast.

U.S. History Results for

Major Reporting Subgroups

Tables 2.3 through 2.8 present the average U.S. history

scale scores for major subgroups of the fourth-, eighth-,

and twelfth-grade student populations.

Cautions in Interpretations. In viewing the results

presented in this section, the reader is cautioned against

making simple or causal inferences about subgroup

membership or about the effectiveness of Title I

programs or public and nonpublic schools. Average

performance differences between groups of students

may result from socioeconomic, home background, or

other factors. For example, performance differences

observed among racial/ethnic subgroups are almost

certainly associated with a broad range of socioeconomic

and educational variables. Similarly, performance

differences between public and nonpublic school

students may be better understood after factors such as

composition of the student body, parents’ education

levels, and parental involvement are considered.

Figure 2.1 Average NAEP U.S. History Scale Scores by Grade and by Region

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

 0

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

 SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment. 

286

282

288 286

259 266

256

202

205

289

266

204

Nation Northeast Southeast Central West

500

251

201

212
1 9

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Region

Northeast 22 (0.7) 204 (2.4)

Southeast 23 (1.0) 201 (1.9)

Central 25 (0.8) 212 (2.6)

West 30 (0.6) 202 (2.1)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Region

Northeast 20 (0.8) 266 (1.7)

Southeast 25 (0.9) 251 (1.3)

Central 24 (0.6) 266 (1.3)

West 31 (0.8) 256 (1.1)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Region

Northeast 20 (0.5) 289 (1.9)

Southeast 23 (0.8) 282 (1.4)

Central 27 (0.7) 288 (1.4)

West 30 (0.7) 286 (1.6)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 2.3 Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Race/Ethnicity

White 69 (0.3) 215 (1.2)

Black 15 (0.1) 177 (1.6)

Hispanic 11 (0.2) 180 (2.7)

Asian 2 (0.2) 209 (4.6)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 200 (5.9)

American Indian 2 (0.3) 190 (6.1)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Race/Ethnicity

White 69 (0.2) 267 (0.8)

Black 15 (0.1) 239 (1.4)

Hispanic 11 (0.1) 243 (1.3)

Asian 2 (0.1) 270 (3.6)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.3) ! 252 (7.1) !

American Indian 1 (0.3) ! 246 (3.7) !

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Race/Ethnicity

White 74 (0.4) 292 (0.8)

Black 12 (0.2) 265 (1.5)

Hispanic 9 (0.3) 267 (1.6)

Asian 3 (0.2) 287 (4.0)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 280 (3.9)

American Indian 1 (0.2) ! 279 (4.0) !

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding or, in the case of the race/

ethnicity variable, because some students categorized themselves as “other.”

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for

accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

Average U.S. History Scale Scores

for the Nation and by Region

Grades 4, 8, and 12

TABLE 2.2

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

Race/Ethnicity. Results are presented for students in

different racial/ethnic groups based on the students’

self-identification of their race/ethnicity according to

the following mutually exclusive categories: White,

Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American

Indian (including Alaskan Native). Average scale

scores for students in various racial and ethnic groups

are shown in Table 2.3. The performance of these

groups varied significantly. Evident at all three grades

was the finding that White and Asian students had

higher average U.S. history scores than did Black and

Hispanic students.

At the fourth grade, Pacific Islander students had

higher scores than did Hispanic or Black students. Also,

White students had a higher average history score than

did American Indian students.

At grade 12, Pacific Islander students had higher

scores than did Hispanic or Black students. In addition,

White students outperformed Pacific Islander students.

For the American Indian student samples at grades

8 and 12, and for the Pacific Islander student sample at

grade 8, the nature of the samples does not allow

accurate determination of the standard errors. For this

reason, differences among these samples and other

racial/ethnic subgroups are not discussed.
2 0

Gender. Scale score results by gender are presented in

Table 2.4. Only one statistically significant difference

was found in these data: at grade 12, males had higher

average U.S. history scores than did females.

students.1

 Nevertheless, across NAEP assessments,

increasing levels of parents’ education corresponded

with higher average scores.

At all three grades, each additional increment

of reported parental education corresponds to a

significantly higher level of student performance.

The only exception to this pattern occurred at grade 4.

There was no significant difference in performance

between fourth graders who reported that a parent had

completed college and those who reported that a parent

completed some education after high school.

Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Gender

Male 50 (0.8) 203 (1.5)

Female 50 (0.8) 206 (1.1)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Gender

Male 50 (0.5) 259 (0.8)

Female 50 (0.5) 259 (0.7)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Gender

Male 50 (0.8) 288 (0.8)

Female 50 (0.8) 285 (0.9)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

Parents’ Level of Education. Students were asked to

identify the level of education completed by their

parents or guardians: did not finish high school,

graduated from high school, had some education after

high school, or graduated from college. (Those who did

not have this information chose the response option “I

don’t know.”) The highest level reported for either

parent was used in this analysis.

The level of education that a parent had reportedly

completed shows a consistent relationship to student

performance on the assessment. Table 2.5 presents these

results. It is important to note in reviewing these results,

however, that 34 percent of fourth graders and 9 percent

of eighth graders reported that they did not know what

level of education their parents had completed. Furthermore, some existing research has questioned the accuracy of student-reported data among similar groups of

TABLE 2.5 Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 43 (0.9) 216 (1.2)

Some Education After High School 8 (0.4) 214 (2.1)

Graduated High School 12 (0.5) 197 (1.8)

Did Not Finish High School 4 (0.3) 177 (3.3)

I Don’t Know 34 (0.8) 195 (1.4)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 42 (1.0) 270 (0.8)

Some Education After High School 19 (0.5) 264 (0.8)

Graduated High School 23 (0.8) 251 (0.8)

Did Not Finish High School 7 (0.4) 241 (1.3)

I Don’t Know 9 (0.4) 238 (1.4)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 45 (1.0) 296 (0.9)

Some Education After High School 25 (0.7) 287 (1.2)

Graduated High School 20 (0.7) 276 (1.1)

Did Not Finish High School 7 (0.4) 263 (1.4)

I Don’t Know 3 (0.2) 256 (2.7)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 2.4
2 1

Type of Location. Table 2.6 presents the average scores

of students attending schools in each of three major

types of locations: central city, urban fringe/large town,

and rural/small town. These categories indicate the

geographic locations of the schools and are not intended

to indicate or imply social or economic meanings for

location types. These categories are based on U.S. Bureau

of the Census definitions of standard metropolitan

statistical areas, population size, and density. (The type

of location classifications are described in Appendix A.)

The results for grades 4 and 8 show the same pattern,

with students attending school in urban fringe/large

towns having higher average scores than students

attending either central city or rural/small-town

schools. At grade 12 the pattern was slightly different.

On average, both students attending urban fringe/large

town and those attending central city schools outperformed students attending rural/small-town schools.

Title I Participation. Staff members at each school that

took part in the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment

were asked to identify which of the students participated

in Title I programs or received services funded by Title I

grants.2

 The Title I legislation provides funds to state

and local educational agencies to support programs

aimed at assisting disadvantaged students (those who

are failing or are at risk of failing) in low-income

communities.

Table 2.7 presents the U.S. history assessment

results for students who received Title I services and for

those who did not. Differences in performance between

these recipients and nonrecipients should not be viewed

as indicative of the success or failure of Title I programs.

Title I services are intended for students who typically

score poorly on assessments.

As can be seen from the NAEP 1994 U.S. history

results, the percentage of students receiving Title I

Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Type of Location

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Type of Location

Central City 35 (2.1) 198 (2.0)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 43 (2.4) 211 (1.6)

Rural/Small Town 22 (2.1) 203 (2.8)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Type of Location

Central City 36 (2.4) 257 (1.3)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 38 (2.9) 262 (1.2)

Rural/Small Town 26 (1.8) 258 (1.3)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Type of Location

Central City 31 (2.2) 286 (1.3)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 43 (2.7) 289 (1.2)

Rural/Small Town 26 (2.0) 281 (1.0)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of Students

Average

Scale Score

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Title I Participation

Yes 14 (1.3) 162 (2.2)

No 86 (1.3) 211 (1.1)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Title I Participation

Yes 7 (1.0) 232 (1.8)

No 93 (1.0) 261 (0.7)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Title I Participation

Yes 2 (0.5) ! 254 (2.1) !

No 98 (0.5) 287 (0.8)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for

accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Title I Participation

Grades 4, 8, and 12

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 2.6 TABLE 2.7
2 2

services is greatest in the elementary grades (14 percent

at grade 4) and decreases as students progress through

middle school (7 percent at grade 8). At grades 4 and 8,

the average scale score of students receiving Title I

services was significantly lower than that of students

not receiving Title I services. (Differences for twelfth

graders are not discussed here because the nature of the

grade 12 sample does not allow for accurate estimation

of the variability of the percentages of Title I recipients.)

Type of School. The average scale scores by type of

school are presented in Table 2.8. At all three grades,

students attending nonpublic schools outperformed

public school students.

An In-Depth Look at Selected

Background Characteristics

One way to take a closer look at the performance of

students within selected demographic populations

is to see if the magnitude of the differences between

groups of students varies when other background

characteristics are taken into account. This section

presents NAEP 1994 U.S. history results for subgroups

of students within various demographic populations.

Three specific background characteristics are explored:

gender, race/ethnicity, and parents’ highest level of

education. In addition, type of school (public and

nonpublic) results conditioned on parents’ education

are examined.

Gender and Race/Ethnicity. As reported earlier in this

chapter, the average U.S. history scores for males and

females at grades 4 and 8 tended to be similar. Only

at grade 12 was there a significant difference, with males

outperforming females. At all grades, White students

displayed higher average U.S. history scores than Black

or Hispanic students. (Asian, Pacific Islander, and

American Indian students are not included in this

section because, for the purposes of this analysis, their

sample sizes are insufficient.) One question that might

be asked is whether or not the pattern in male and

female students’ scores holds regardless of race/

ethnicity. Was the difference in performance between

male and female students larger in some racial/ethnic

subgroups than in others?

Average U.S. History Scale Scores

by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Average

Scale Score

Grade 4

Nation 100 205 (1.0)

Type of School

Public Schools 90 (0.8) 203 (1.2)

Nonpublic Schools 10 (0.8) 222 (1.9)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.7) 221 (2.5)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.5) 224 (3.1)

Grade 8

Nation 100 259 (0.6)

Type of School

Public Schools 90 (0.9) 257 (0.7)

Nonpublic Schools 10 (0.9) 278 (1.1)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.6) 279 (1.5)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.6) 277 (2.1)

Grade 12

Nation 100 286 (0.8)

Type of School

Public Schools 89 (1.1) 284 (0.8)

Nonpublic Schools 11 (1.1) 299 (1.3)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.9) 298 (2.2)

Other Nonpublic Schools 5 (0.6) 299 (2.2)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994

U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 2.8

Percentage

of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment
2 3

Table 2.9 presents results of analyses carried out to

answer these questions. Average scores of male and

female students and the differences between these

averages are presented separately for three racial/ethnic

subgroups. As displayed in the table, the overall grade

12 difference between male and female students was

significant only for Hispanic students. For all three

racial/ethnic groups, the average scores for male

students at grade 12 were higher than those of females,

but only the 9 point difference for Hispanic students was

significant. In addition, for Black fourth graders (unlike

the overall results at grade 4 that indicated no

significant difference between male and female

students) female students outperformed male students.

A comparison of the magnitude of the score

differences between male and female students yielded

little or no evidence that these differences vary significantly across racial/ethnic groups of students. The only

significant difference is at grade 4, where the male/female

difference for Black students is greater than that for

White students.

TABLE 2.9 Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Male and Female Students

by Race/Ethnicity

 Grades 4, 8, and 12

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Hispanic

Grade 4

Female 206 (1.1) 215 (1.1) 183 (2.4) 182 (3.3)

Male 203 (1.5) 215 (1.8) 170 (1.9) 178 (3.4)

Female - Male = 2 (1.9) 0 (2.1) 13 (3.1)* 3 (4.7)

Grade 8

Female 259 (0.7) 266 (0.8) 240 (2.1) 243 (2.2)

Male 259 (0.8) 267 (1.0) 236 (1.5) 243 (1.5)

Female - Male = 0 (1.0) -1 (1.3) 4 (2.6) 0 (2.7)

Grade 12

Female 285 (0.9) 291 (1.0) 263 (1.7) 262 (1.7)

Male 288 (0.8) 293 (0.9) 267 (2.1) 271 (2.4)

Female - Male = -3 (1.2)* -2 (1.3) -4 (2.6) -9 (2.9)*

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the average scale scores and the standard errors of the differences appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Differences were calculated prior to rounding.

* Indicates either an overall significant difference, or a significant difference between gender subgroups of students within a specified racial/ethnic subgroup.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Overall White Black
2 4

Gender and Parental Education. An analysis of gender

differences in U.S. history performance in relation to

parents’ highest level of education is presented in Table

2.10. Average scores of male and female students and

the differences between these averages are presented

separately for the different levels of parental education

reported by students. Were differences in average U.S.

history scores between male and female students

evident for students at all levels of parental education?

Further, were gender differences greater at some

parental education levels than at others?

No significant differences in the performance of

male and female fourth and eighth graders were found

at any level of parental education. Consistent with the

overall gender results, average scores for male twelfth

graders were higher than those for female twelfth

graders across all levels of parental education. However,

unlike the overall results, none of these male/female

differences were significant.

TABLE 2.10

Grade 4

Female 206 (1.1) 181 (5.3) 200 (2.6) 218 (2.6) 216 (1.3)

Male 203 (1.5) 173 (4.5) 194 (3.0) 211 (3.7) 215 (1.8)

Female - Male = 2 (1.9) 9 (7.0) 6 (4.0) 7 (4.6) 1 (2.2)

Grade 8

Female 259 (0.7) 242 (1.7) 250 (1.0) 265 (1.1) 270 (0.9)

Male 259 (0.8) 240 (2.2) 251 (1.3) 263 (1.3) 270 (1.0)

Female - Male = 0 (1.0) 2 (2.8) -2 (1.6) 2 (1.7) 0 (1.3)

Grade 12

Female 285 (0.9) 262 (1.8) 274 (1.4) 285 (1.5) 295 (1.2)

Male 288 (0.8) 265 (1.8) 278 (1.6) 288 (1.4) 297 (0.8)

Female - Male = -3 (1.2)* -3 (2.6) -4 (2.1) -3 (2.1) -2 (1.4)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

Please note that 34 percent of fourth graders and 9 percent of eighth graders reported that they did not know what level of education their parents had completed.

The standard errors of the average scale scores and the standard errors of the differences appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Differences were calculated prior to rounding.

* Indicates either an overall significant difference, or a significant difference between gender subgroups of students within a specified level of parents’ education.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Graduated

College

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

High School

Less than

Overall High School

Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Male and Female Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12
2 5

Type of School (Public and Nonpublic) and Parental

Education. As stated earlier in this chapter, students

attending nonpublic schools had significantly higher

average scores at all grades than did those attending

public schools. Is this difference in U.S. history

performance between nonpublic and public school

students evident at all reported levels of parental

education? Further, was the difference in performance

greater for some levels of parental education than

for others?

Table 2.11 presents results of analyses carried out to

address these questions. One striking finding is that the

sample sizes for students attending nonpublic schools

whose parents did not graduate high school were too

small to estimate an average score. Therefore, discussions

of public/nonpublic differences at this level of parental

education are not possible. As with the overall results,

students attending nonpublic schools in each grade had

higher average scores than their public school

counterparts across all levels of parental education.

The exception was fourth graders who reported that at

least one parent had some education after high school.

Here, the difference (though consistent with the pattern

of differences within other groups) was not significant.

A comparison of the magnitude of the score

differences between nonpublic and public school

students yielded little or no evidence that these

differences varied significantly across levels of

parental education.

TABLE 2.11 Average U.S. History Scale Scores of Students Attending Public and Nonpublic Schools

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nonpublic 222 (1.9) *** 212 (4.2) 223 (4.4) 229 (2.3)

Public 203 (1.2) 176 (3.5) 196 (1.9) 213 (2.3) 214 (1.5)

Nonpublic - Public 19 (2.2)* *** 16 (4.6)* 10 (5.0) 15 (2.7)*

Grade 8

Nonpublic 278 (1.1) *** 267 (1.8) 276 (2.3) 282 (1.4)

Public 257 (0.7) 240 (1.3) 249 (0.9) 263 (0.8) 268 (0.9)

Nonpublic - Public 21 (1.3)* *** 18 (2.0)* 13 (2.5)* 14 (1.7)*

Grade 12

Nonpublic 299 (1.3) *** 289 (2.1) 293 (1.6) 305 (1.2)

Public 284 (0.8) 262 (1.5) 275 (1.1) 286 (1.3) 295 (1.0)

Nonpublic - Public 14 (1.5)* *** 14 (2.4)* 7 (2.0)* 10 (1.5)*

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

Please note that 34 percent of fourth graders and 9 percent of eighth graders reported that they did not know what level of education their parents had completed.

The standard errors of the average scale scores and the standard errors of the differences appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Differences were calculated prior to rounding.

* Indicates either an overall significant difference, or a significant difference between public and nonpublic subgroups of students within a specified level of parents’ education.

*** Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A)

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Graduated

College

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

High School

Less than

Overall High School
2 6

Race/Ethnicity and Parental Education. Racial/ethnic

differences in twelfth-grade average U.S. history scores

are presented in relation to parental education levels in

Table 2.12. The average scores of White, Black, and

Hispanic students and the differences between those

scores are presented separately for the different levels of

parents’ education reported by students.One question

that can be answered with these data is whether or not

the differences in average U.S. history scores among

White, Black, and Hispanic students were evident for

students at all levels of parental education. Also, were

the performance differences between racial/ethnic

groups greater at some parental education levels than

at others?

TABLE 2.12 Average U.S. History Scale Scores of White, Black, and Hispanic Students

in Relation to Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grade 12

Grade 12

White 292 (0.8) 271 (2.3) 281 (1.3) 291 (1.3) 300 (0.9)

Black 265 (1.5) 251 (3.0) 258 (2.3) 269 (2.2) 273 (2.1)

Hispanic 267 (1.6) 256 (2.2) 264 (3.6) 277 (2.4) 277 (2.4)

White - Black = 27 (1.7)* 20 (3.8)* 23 (2.6)* 22 (2.5)* 27 (2.3)*

White - Hispanic = 26 (1.8)* 14 (3.2)* 17 (3.9)* 14 (2.7)* 23 (2.6)*

Black - Hispanic = -2 (2.2) -6 (3.7) -7 (4.3) -8 (3.2)* -4 (3.2)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the average scale scores and the standard errors of the differences appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within

plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Differences were calculated prior to rounding.

* Indicates either an overall significant difference, or a significant difference between racial/ethnic subgroups of students within a specified level of parents’ education.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Graduated

College

Some Education

after High School

Graduated

High School

Less than

Overall High School
2 7

At the twelfth grade, the average scores of White

students were significantly higher than that of Black or

Hispanic students across all levels of parental education.

In addition, Hispanic twelfth graders whose parents

had some education after high school outperformed

Black students whose parents had some education

after high school. (Data for fourth and eighth graders

are not presented in this tabulation because of wide

variation among these groups in the accuracy of

reporting parental education. See discussion in

Appendix A under “Parents’ Education Level” for further

details.)

At the twelfth grade, the magnitude of the difference

in U.S. history performance among ethnic/racial groups

showed little or no variation across levels of parental

education.

The data in Table 2.12 show that the racial and

ethnic differences in average U.S. history scores persist

across different levels of parental educational

attainment. This runs somewhat counter to previous

findings from other studies. The National Education

Longitudinal Study of 1988, with more complete

measures of socioeconomic status, found substantial

reductions in achievement differences associated with

racial/ethnic group membership after accounting for

family resources.3 In addition, the College Board has

found that racial differences on the Scholastic Aptitude

Test are diminished somewhat when family income

differences are taken into account.4

 So, the NAEP

findings should be interpreted carefully in relation to

these other results.

In interpreting theses findings, it is important to

understand that student achievement is a result of

multiple factors including educational experiences,

resources from the home, and the larger social

environment. These factors may also differ depending

on the students’ racial/ethnic groups and thus

contribute — along with parents’ educational level — to

achievement differences. Such factors might contribute

to reasonable explanations for why parents’ educational

levels might be associated differently with student

achievement for different racial/ethnic groups.

Summary

The NAEP U.S. history assessment showed patterns of

performance among reporting subgroups, some of

which consistently performed better than others on the

composite scale. These patterns of performance were

also evident in interactions among those reporting

subgroups.

© Among the different regions of the nation, students’

scores varied at each grade level. Grade 8 students

from the Southeast, for example, had lower scores

than did grade 8 students from the other regions.

© Generally, the higher the level of parental education,

the higher the level of student performance.

© At all grades, White and Asian students had higher

scores than did Black and Hispanic students. The

differences between White twelfth graders and their

Black and Hispanic peers were significant across

parental education levels.

© At grade 12, males scored higher than females. No

significant differences between males and females

were found at grades 4 and 8.

© Students in nonpublic schools outperformed public

school students. These differences were generally

significant regardless of parental education levels.

Endnotes

1. Looker, E.D. (1989). Accuracy of proxy reports of

parental status characteristics. Sociology of

Education, 62(4), 257-276.

2. As a result of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act reauthorized by Congress in 1994,

the federal program formerly referred to as “Chapter

One” was renamed “Title I.”

3. Green, P.J., Dugone, B.L., Ingels, S.J., & Camburn, E.

(1995). A profile of the American high school senior

in 1992. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics, NCES 95-384.

4. College Entrance Examination Board and

Educational Testing Service (1995). College bound

seniors national profile report: SAT program test

takers 1995. Additional unpublished tables.
2 9

CHAPTER 3 Three U.S. history achievement levels — Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced — were established by the

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) for use

in reporting NAEP results. As described in Chapter 1,

the Basic level denotes partial mastery of the knowledge

and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at

each grade. The Proficient level represents solid

academic performance and competency over challenging

subject matter. The Advanced level signifies superior

performance. A more detailed description of the

achievement levels is presented in Figure 3.1.

The National Education Statistics Act of 1994

requires that the National Assessment Governing Board

develop “appropriate student performance levels” for

reporting NAEP results. The NAEP law requires that

these levels be “used on a developmental basis until the

Commissioner of Education Statistics determines . . .

that such levels are reasonable, valid, and informative

to the public.” It requires the Commissioner and the

Governing Board to make clear the developmental

status of such levels.

The student achievement levels in this report have

been developed and adopted by the National Assessment

Governing Board, NAEP’s independent policymaking

body, with contributions from a wide variety of

educators, business and government leaders, and

interested citizens. These levels of student achievement

have been established to help Americans answer two

questions that are important to parents and to all

citizens in the communities and nation in which we

live. These questions are: “What should students know

and be able to do as they progress and graduate from

school?” and “How good is good enough in terms of

student achievement on NAEP?” Answering these

questions obviously involves judgments. The NAGB is

not suggesting that there is a single answer to these

questions. Rather, the Board is trying to put forward

reasonable judgments that can inform citizens across

America — information they can use to answer these

questions in their own schools and communities.

Developing carefully considered judgments about

“what students should know and be able to do” and

“how good is good enough” is both difficult and

controversial. The Governing Board believes that these

questions are so important that answers must be sought

in an informed, responsible way. The process is subject

to revision and refinement as appropriate.

U.S. History

Achievement Levels

Introduction

The average U.S. history scores of our nation’s students,

presented in the previous chapter, can be explored

further by considering the percentage of students who

attained specific levels of achievement. Viewing

students’ performance from this perspective provides

some insight into the adequacy of students’ knowledge

and skills and the extent to which they achieved

expected levels of performance.
3 0

Figure 3.1 U.S. History Achievement Levels

GRADE 4

BASIC Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to identify and describe a few of the most

(195) familiar people, places, events, ideas, and documents in American history. They should be able to explain the

reasons for celebrating most national holidays, have some familiarity with the geography of their own state and

the United States, and be able to express in writing a few ideas about a familiar theme in American history.

PROFICIENT Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to identify, describe and comment on the

(243) significance of many historical people, places, ideas, events, and documents. They should interpret information

from a variety of sources, including texts, maps, pictures, and timelines. They should be able to construct a simple

timeline from data. These students should recognize the role of invention and technological change in history.

They should also recognize the ways in which geographic and environmental factors have influenced life and work.

ADVANCED Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should have a beginning understanding of the relationships

(276) between people, places, ideas, events and documents. They should know where to look for information, including

reference books, maps, local museums, interviews with family and neighbors, and other sources. They should be

able to use historical themes to organize and interpret historical topics, and to incorporate insights from beyond

the classroom into their understanding of history. These students should understand and explain the role of

invention and technological change in history. They should also understand and explain the ways in which

geographic and environmental factors have influenced life and work.

GRADE 8

BASIC Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to identify and place in context a range of

(252) historical people, places, events, ideas, and documents. They should be able to distinguish between primary and

secondary sources. They should have a beginning understanding of the diversity of the American people and the

ways in which people from a wide variety of national and cultural heritages have become part of a single nation.

Eighth-grade students at the basic level should also have a beginning understanding of the fundamental political

ideas and institutions of American life and their historical origins. They should be able to explain the significance

of some major historical events.

PROFICIENT Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to explain the significance of people,

(294) places, events, ideas, and documents, and to recognize the connection between people and events within historical

contexts. They should understand and be able to explain the opportunities, perspectives and challenges associated

with a diverse cultural population. They should incorporate geographic, technological, and other considerations in

their understanding of events and should have knowledge of significant political ideas and institutions. They should

be able to communicate ideas about historical themes while citing evidence from primary and secondary sources to

support their conclusions.

ADVANCED Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should recognize significant themes and movements in

(327) history and begin to understand particular events in light of these themes and movements. They should have an

awareness of continuity and change over time and be able to draw relevant analogies between past events and

present-day situations. They should be able to frame questions about historical topics and use multiple sources to

develop historical generalizations and interpretations. They should be able to explain the importance of historical

themes, including some awareness of their political, social, and economic dimensions.

GRADE 12

BASIC Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to identify the significance of many people,

(294) places, events, dates, ideas, and documents in U.S. history. They should also recognize the importance of unity

and diversity in the social and cultural history of the United States, and an awareness of America’s changing

relationships with the rest of the world. They should have a sense of continuity and change in history and be able to

relate relevant experience from the past to their understanding of contemporary issues. They should recognize that

history is subject to interpretation and should understand the role of evidence in making an historical argument.

PROFICIENT Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should understand particular people, places, events, ideas,

(325) and documents in historical context, with some awareness of the political, economic, geographic, social, religious,

technological, and ideological factors that shape historical settings. They should be able to communicate reasoned

interpretations of past events, using historical evidence effectively to support their positions. Their written

arguments should reflect some in-depth grasp of issues and refer to both primary and secondary sources.

ADVANCED Twelfth-grade students achieving at the Advanced level should demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of

(355) events and sources of U.S. history. Recognizing that history is subject to interpretation, they should be able to

evaluate historical claims critically in light of the evidence. They should understand that important issues and

themes have been addressed differently at different times and that America’s political, social, and cultural traditions

have changed over time. They should be able to write well-reasoned arguments on complex historical topics and

draw upon a wide range of sources to inform their conclusions.
3 1

The student achievement levels in this report,

approved by the Governing Board, are the result of

countless hours of work. The levels are based on

preliminary descriptions developed as part of the

national consensus process to determine the assessment

design and content. The Board’s contractor, American

College Testing (ACT), which has extensive experience

in standard setting in many fields, designed the

achievement level-setting process. This process was

reviewed by scores of individuals, including

policymakers, professional organizations, teachers,

parents, and other members of the general public. To

develop the levels, ACT convened a cross section of

educators and interested citizens from across the nation

and asked them to recommend what students should

know and be able to do in U.S. history. Prior to adopting

these levels of student achievement, the Board engaged

a large number of persons to comment on the

recommended levels and to review the results.

The result of the achievement level-setting process

is a set of achievement level descriptions, a set of

achievement level cut points on the 500-point NAEP

scale, and exemplar questions. The cut points are

minimum scores that define Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced performance at grades 4, 8, and 12. At

present, evaluations conducted on the level-setting

process and critiques of those evaluations have provided

mixed reviews. Therefore, both the Governing Board

and the Commissioner of Education Statistics regard

the achievement levels as developmental; they should

not be interpreted as statistically conclusive. Because

these levels are still considered developmental, the

reader of this report is advised to consider that status

when interpreting the results. The reader should

recognize that the results are based on the judgments of

panels, approved by the Governing Board, of what Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced students should know and be

able to do in each subject assessed, as well as on their

judgments regarding what percent of students at the

borderline for each level should answer each test

question correctly. The latter information is used in

translating the achievement level descriptions into cut

points on the NAEP scale. NCES uses these levels in

reporting NAEP results, but it does not currently

adjudicate the reliability or validity of these achievement

levels. Rather, they are reported directly as adopted by

the Governing Board.

The U.S. history results presented here for grades

4, 8, and 12 illustrate one of the difficulties of setting

achievement levels. The Governing Board is concerned

about the discrepancy between actual student

performance described in this report and the

expectations for performance that are contained in the

achievement levels. Simply stated, students are not

performing as well on the NAEP U.S. history assessment,

particularly at grade 12, as the Governing Board and the

many panelists and reviewers think these students

should perform. For example, most students take at

least one high school course in U.S. history by the end

of the eleventh grade. Yet the achievement levels

indicate that more than half (57 percent) of twelfth

graders are performing below the Basic level, with 1

percent scoring at the Advanced level. In contrast, data

from the College Board show that about 2.4 percent of

all graduating seniors score well enough on the

Advanced Placement exam in U.S. history to be

considered qualified for college credit.

Since NAEP is a cross-sectional survey of student

achievement, it cannot readily identify cause and

effect relationships to explain why students scored

high or low. Although one hypothesis is that students’

performance was found to be too low because the

achievement levels are set too high, NAGB does not

believe that this is the case. At present, studies on these

achievement levels, conducted by ACT, have pointed

in opposite directions — one suggested the levels

were too high, the other that they were too low.

The Governing Board intends to look carefully at this

gap between expected and actual performance, and

encourages others to do so as well.

Nevertheless, there are several other hypotheses

that might account for this gap between actual student

scores and the achievement levels. Motivation,

particularly at grade 12, is a perennial question in an

assessment like NAEP for which there are no stakes or

rewards for students to do well. (However, it is not clear

why students should be less motivated in taking this

history assessment than other NAEP assessments in

which higher percentages of students reached the

various cutpoints.) There may be differences between

what is taught in the broad array of U.S. history classes

and the content of this NAEP assessment. A lack of

consistency between the grade levels at which the

subject is taught and the NAEP assessment of grades

4, 8, and 12 could account for some of this discrepancy.

The judges for the twelfth-grade levels may have had

relatively higher expectations than judges for the

other grades. Finally, the difference between more

conventional testing practices in some classrooms

and the NAEP assessment questions may be another

factor. NAEP includes a variety of questions, from

multiple-choice questions to constructed-response

tasks that require students to apply knowledge and

demonstrate skills by writing their answers.
3 2

Many of these factors, or a combination of all of

them, could explain the gap between standards for

student performance contained in the NAGB achievement

levels and the actual performance on the NAEP 1994

U.S. history assessment. The National Assessment

Governing Board urges all who are concerned about

“what students should know and be able to do” and

“how good is good enough” to read and interpret these

performance levels recognizing that this is a developing,

judgmental process and is subject to various

interpretations. The decision to include the levels in

NAEP reports is an attempt to make the assessment

results more useful for parents, educators, and

policymakers by providing performance standards

against which to measure educational progress.

The U.S. history achievement levels attained by

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students in the NAEP

assessment are presented in this chapter. Results are

displayed for the nation, regions of the country, and

major reporting subgroups. The same cautions stated in

Chapter 2 are warranted when interpreting performance

differences among subgroups.

U.S. History Achievement Levels

for the Nation

The percentages of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade

students who performed at or above the three U.S.

history achievement levels are shown in Table 3.1.

This table provides the results for the nation as a whole

and by region. The majority of students at grade 4

(64 percent) and grade 8 (61 percent) performed at or

above the Basic achievement level. However, at grade

12, more than half of the students (57 percent)

performed below the Basic level. The Proficient level,

which is described as representing solid academic

performance, was reached by 17 percent of fourth

graders, 14 percent of eighth graders, and 11 percent of

twelfth graders. Few students at any grade were at the

Advanced level: 2 percent at grade 4, and 1 percent at

grades 8 and 12.

Overall, few of the achievement level differences

in performance by region are statistically significant.

No significant differences were observed at the fourth

grade or among students reaching the Advanced level

at any grade.

The largest number of significant differences was

observed among eighth-grade students performing

at or above the Basic and Proficient levels. Higher

percentages of eighth graders in the Central and

Northeast regions reached the Basic and Proficient

levels than in the Southeast or West. The percentage of

grade 8 students in the West at or above the Basic level

was also higher than that in the Southeast.

At the twelfth grade, the only significant difference

was that the percentages of students at or above Basic

in both the Northeast and Central regions were higher

than the percentage in the Southeast.

This performance in terms of achievement levels

represents a lower level of attainment than has been

observed in other NAEP surveys. This discrepancy is

greatest at grade 12. For example, on the 1994

geography assessment, 70 percent of students scored

at or above the Basic level, 27 percent at or above

Proficient, and 2 percent at Advanced. This compares

with U.S. history results of 43 percent at or above

Basic, 11 percent at or above Proficient, and 1 percent

at Advanced.
3 3

These differences at the Proficient level mean that

students were less likely to exhibit what independent

panels of judges viewed as solid grade-level performance

in U.S. history than they did in geography and other

subjects. This difference may be the result of actual

weakness in student achievement in U.S. history.

However, when interpreting cross-subject differences

readers should note that the achievement levels for each

subject are set independently of work in other subjects,

and that no attempt is made to make the levels

statistically similar across subjects. Judges charged with

setting achievement levels do work with common policy

definitions (see page 6). However, the subject-specific

definitions vary. Finally, judges in different subjects may

bring different assumptions, expectations, and standards

to the process of setting levels, and these may lead to

variations across subjects.

At or Above

Proficient

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Region

Northeast 22 (0.7) 3 (0.7) 18 (2.1) 63 (2.4) 37 (2.4)

Southeast 23 (1.0) 2 (0.5) 15 (1.5) 61 (2.3) 39 (2.3)

Central 25 (0.8) 3 (1.0) 20 (2.6) 71 (2.8) 29 (2.8)

West 30 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 16 (1.8) 61 (2.5) 39 (2.5)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Region

Northeast 20 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 19 (1.7) 69 (2.0) 31 (2.0)

Southeast 25 (0.9) 0 (0.2) 9 (0.8) 51 (1.9) 49 (1.9)

Central 24 (0.6) 1 (0.4) 17 (1.2) 69 (2.3) 31 (2.3)

West 31 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 11 (1.2) 58 (1.3) 42 (1.3)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Region

Northeast 20 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 13 (1.5) 46 (2.4) 54 (2.4)

Southeast 23 (0.8) 0 (0.3) 8 (1.4) 37 (1.9) 63 (1.9)

Central 27 (0.7) 1 (0.5) 11 (1.2) 45 (2.0) 55 (2.0)

West 30 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 10 (1.2) 43 (2.3) 57 (2.3)

U.S. History Achievement Levels

for the Nation and by Region

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Percentage of Students

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero (and standard errors reported as 0.0) are actually nonzero, but rounded to zero when reporting to the nearest integer (or nearest tenth in the case of the standard errors).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 3.1

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic
3 4

Race/Ethnicity. The percentages of students in each

group who performed at or above each achievement

level are presented in Table 3.2. Statistically significant

differences in performance among racial/ethnic groups

were found more often at grades 4 and 8 than at grade 12.

At grades 4 and 8, the percentage of White students

reaching the Advanced level was higher than the

percentages of Black or Hispanic students, though it is

U.S. History Achievement Levels

for Major Reporting Subgroups

In this section, variations in performance among the

major reporting subgroups are discussed. Again, the

discussion is confined to those differences that are

statistically significant.

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

TABLE 3.2 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Race/Ethnicity

White 69 (0.3) 3 (0.5) 22 (1.4) 74 (1.1) 26 (1.1)

Black 15 (0.1) 0 (0.1) 4 (1.0) 36 (1.8) 64 (1.8)

Hispanic 11 (0.2) 1 (0.4) 6 (1.2) 41 (3.6) 59 (3.6)

Asian 2 (0.2) 4 (2.6) 22 (5.1) 64 (4.7) 36 (4.7)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 3 (2.9) 16 (4.7) 59 (7.1) 41 (7.1)

American Indian 2 (0.3) 0 (1.1) 9 (2.7) 51 (6.9) 49 (6.9)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Race/Ethnicity

White 69 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 17 (0.8) 71 (1.1) 29 (1.1)

Black 15 (0.1) 0 (0.1) 4 (0.6) 33 (2.3) 67 (2.3)

Hispanic 11 (0.1) 0 (0.1) 5 (0.7) 41 (2.3) 59 (2.3)

Asian 2 (0.1) 2 (1.2) 23 (4.2) 72 (5.1) 28 (5.1)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.3) ! 1 (0.8) ! 11 (4.4) ! 52 (8.7) ! 48 (8.7) !

American Indian 1 (0.3) ! 0 (0.0) ! 5 (2.6) ! 42 (5.8) ! 58 (5.8) !

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Race/Ethnicity

White 74 (0.4) 1 (0.2) 13 (0.8) 50 (1.2) 50 (1.2)

Black 12 (0.2) 0 (0.1) 2 (0.8) 17 (1.6) 83 (1.6)

Hispanic 9 (0.3) 0 (0.3) 4 (0.7) 22 (2.1) 78 (2.1)

Asian 3 (0.2) 2 (1.1) 16 (4.6) 46 (5.4) 54 (5.4)

Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 1 (0.6) 7 (3.8) 33 (6.4) 67 (6.4)

American Indian 1 (0.2) ! 0 (0.0) ! 5 (2.3) ! 30 (7.6) ! 70 (7.6) !

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding or, in the case of the race/ethnicity variable, because some students categorized themselves as “other.”

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero are actually nonzero, but round to zero when reporting to the nearest integer.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
3 5

percentage of Black students. (Again, however, only

1 percent of the total population reached this level, so

the practical significance of this difference is slight.)

The percentages of White students at or above the Basic

and Proficient levels were higher than the percentages

of Black or Hispanic students. Finally, the percentage of

Asian twelfth graders at or above the Basic level was

higher than the percentages of their Black and Hispanic

counterparts.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the natures of the

grades 8 and 12 American Indian student samples and

the grade 8 Pacific Islander student sample do not allow

accurate determination of standard errors. For this

reason, differences among those samples and other

racial/ethnic groups are not discussed.

Gender. The percentages of males and females reaching

each of the achievement levels are presented in Table

3.3. Two significant differences were evident: the

percentages of twelfth-grade males at or above the

Proficient and Basic levels were higher than the

percentages of females.

important to note that only 1 or 2 percent of the total

population at these grades reached this level. Also, the

percentages of White students at or above the Proficient

level at both grades were higher than those of Black or

Hispanic students, and higher than those of American

Indian students at grade 4. At both grades, the

percentages of Asian students were higher than those of

Black or Hispanic students who reached that level.

The largest number of differences was evident at or

above the Basic level, although the pattern was similar

to that shown at the other two levels. At both grades 4

and 8, the percentages of White and Asian students at or

above the Basic level were higher than the percentages

of Black or Hispanic students. In addition, at the fourth

grade, a higher percentage of White students than

American Indian students, and a higher percentage of

Pacific Islander students than Black students, were at or

above the Basic level.

At grade 12 there were fewer differences, but they

followed a similar pattern. The percentage of White

students at the Advanced level was higher than the

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

TABLE 3.3 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Gender

Male 50 (0.8) 2 (0.4) 18 (1.4) 62 (1.6) 38 (1.6)

Female 50 (0.8) 2 (0.4) 16 (1.1) 65 (1.4) 35 (1.4)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Gender

Male 50 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 15 (0.8) 61 (1.0) 39 (1.0)

Female 50 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 13 (0.8) 61 (1.3) 39 (1.3)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Gender

Male 50 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 12 (0.7) 45 (1.2) 55 (1.2)

Female 50 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 9 (0.8) 40 (1.4) 60 (1.4)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
3 6

Parents’ Level of Education. As shown in Table 3.4,

parental education and student achievement are

positively related. This finding mirrors the average

scale score results discussed in the previous chapter.

At grades 4 and 8, the percentages of students who

reported that at least one parent had graduated from

college and who reached the Advanced level were higher

than the percentages of their counterparts who reported

that their parents graduated from high school. At grade

12, the percentage of students who reported that at least

one parent graduated from college and who reached the

Advanced level was higher than that of twelfth graders

who reported that their parents had a high school or

lower level of education.

At the Proficient and Basic levels, the patterns

were similar. At all grades, the percentages of students

at or above both the Basic and Proficient levels who

reported that their parents had achieved a given level of

education were higher than those who reported lower

levels of parental education. For example, at grade 8, the

percentage of students who reported that at least one

parent graduated from college and who were at or above

the Proficient level was higher than that of students

who reported that at least one parent had achieved some

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

TABLE 3.4 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 43 (0.9) 4 (0.6) 25 (1.7) 74 (1.2) 26 (1.2)

Some Education After High School 8 (0.4) 3 (1.0) 21 (2.6) 74 (2.8) 26 (2.8)

Graduated High School 12 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 10 (1.3) 57 (2.7) 43 (2.7)

Did Not Finish High School 4 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.2) 37 (4.1) 63 (4.1)

I Don’t Know 34 (0.8) 0 (0.3) 10 (0.9) 55 (1.7) 45 (1.7)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 42 (1.0) 1 (0.3) 22 (1.1) 74 (1.2) 26 (1.2)

Some Education After High School 19 (0.5) 0 (0.2) 14 (1.1) 68 (1.3) 32 (1.3)

Graduated High School 23 (0.8) 0 (0.1) 7 (0.9) 50 (1.4) 50 (1.4)

Did Not Finish High School 7 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.7) 37 (2.2) 63 (2.2)

I Don’t Know 9 (0.4) 0 (0.1) 3 (1.1) 36 (2.2) 64 (2.2)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 45 (1.0) 1 (0.4) 17 (1.0) 56 (1.3) 44 (1.3)

Some Education After High School 25 (0.7) 1 (0.3) 8 (1.1) 42 (1.9) 58 (1.9)

Graduated High School 20 (0.7) 0 (0.1) 4 (0.8) 29 (1.5) 71 (1.5)

Did Not Finish High School 7 (0.4) 0 (0.2) 1 (0.6) 15 (1.9) 85 (1.9)

I Don’t Know 3 (0.2) 0 (0.2) 1 (0.9) 12 (3.5) 88 (3.5)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero are actually nonzero, but round to zero when reporting to the nearest integer.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
3 7

education after high school. The latter group had a

higher percentage of students at or above the Proficient

level than that of students who reported that at least one

parent graduated from high school. These students, in

turn, showed higher achievement than those who

reported that neither parent had finished high school.

The exception to this rule is at grade 4, where there

were no significant differences in the achievement level

attainments of children who reported that at least one

parent graduated from college and those who reported

that at least one parent had some education after

high school.

As shown in Table 3.4, one-third of fourth graders

and nearly one-tenth of eighth graders did not know

their parents’ level of education. Also, the accuracy of

student self-reported data may be open to some

question, as previously noted. Nonetheless, the positive

relationship between parental education and

achievement in U.S. history remains striking.

Type of Location. Achievement level results by type

of location are shown in Table 3.5. Type of location

categories indicate the geographic locations of students’

schools and are not intended to indicate or imply social

or economic meanings for these location types. At the

fourth grade, the only statistically significant differences

were observed at the Basic level. The percentage of

students attending schools in urban fringe/large town

locations who were at or above the Basic level was

higher than those of students in the other two locations.

At grade 8, the only significant difference was that the

percentage of students at or above the Basic level

attending schools in urban fringe/large-town locations

was higher than that of their central city counterparts.

At grade 12, a pattern was evident at both the Proficient

and the Basic levels; the percentages of students attending schools in rural/small town locations who were at

or above both the Basic or Proficient levels were lower

than those of students in the other two categories.

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

TABLE 3.5 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Type of Location

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Type of Location

Central City 35 (2.1) 2 (0.6) 15 (1.4) 57 (2.2) 43 (2.2)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 43 (2.4) 3 (0.6) 20 (1.5) 70 (1.7) 30 (1.7)

Rural/Small Town 22 (2.1) 1 (0.7) 15 (2.3) 62 (2.7) 38 (2.7)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Type of Location

Central City 36 (2.4) 1 (0.3) 14 (1.0) 57 (1.9) 43 (1.9)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 38 (2.9) 1 (0.2) 15 (1.1) 65 (1.7) 35 (1.7)

Rural/Small Town 26 (1.8) 0 (0.2) 11 (1.0) 61 (2.3) 39 (2.3)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Type of Location

Central City 31 (2.2) 1 (0.4) 11 (1.1) 43 (1.8) 57 (1.8)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 43 (2.7) 1 (0.2) 12 (1.0) 47 (1.5) 53 (1.5)

Rural/Small Town 26 (2.0) 0 (0.3) 7 (0.8) 36 (1.7) 64 (1.7)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero (and standard errors reported as 0.0) are actually nonzero, but rounded to zero when reporting to the nearest integer (or nearest tenth in the case of the standard errors).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
3 8

Title I Participation. Table 3.6 presents the

achievement levels for each grade by students’

participation in Title I programs. At grade 4, the

percentages of students who do not receive Title I

services who were at each achievement level were

higher than those of students who do receive Title I

services. At grade 8, the differences between the two

groups were significant for the percentages of students

at or above the Basic and Proficient levels. Grade 12

differences are not discussed here because the nature of

the grade 12 sample does not allow for accurate

estimation of the variability of the percentages for Title I

recipients.

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Title I Participation

Yes 14 (1.3) 0 (0.2) 1 (0.4) 22 (2.6) 78 (2.6)

No 86 (1.3) 2 (0.4) 20 (1.1) 71 (1.2) 29 (1.2)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Title I Participation

Yes 7 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.6) 24 (3.1) 76 (3.1)

No 93 (1.0) 1 (0.2) 14 (0.7) 64 (1.0) 36 (1.0)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Title I Participation

Yes 2 (0.5) ! 0 (0.3) ! 1 (0.5) ! 9 (2.4) ! 91 (2.4) !

No 98 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero are actually nonzero, but round to zero when reporting to the nearest integer.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 3.6 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Title I Participation

Grades 4, 8, and 12
3 9

Type of School. Results for nonpublic and public school

students are presented in Table 3.7. At all three grades,

the percentages of nonpublic school students at or

above both the Basic and Proficient levels were higher

than the percentages of students attending public

schools. At the eighth grade, nonpublic school students

were also more likely to reach the Advanced level than

were public school students.

As noted earlier, the reader is cautioned against

using these data to make simplistic inferences about the

relative effectiveness of public and nonpublic schools.

Differences between the two types of schools are in part

related to socioeconomic factors and sociological factors,

such as levels of parental involvement.

At or Above

Proficient

Percentage of Students

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

of All Students At Advanced At or Above Basic Below Basic

TABLE 3.7 U.S. History Achievement Levels

by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4

Nation 100 2 (0.3) 17 (1.0) 64 (1.1) 36 (1.1)

Type of School

Public Schools Only 90 (0.8) 2 (0.3) 16 (1.1) 62 (1.2) 38 (1.2)

Nonpublic Schools Only 10 (0.8) 3 (0.7) 26 (1.9) 82 (2.1) 18 (2.1)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.7) 2 (0.7) 24 (2.3) 81 (2.6) 19 (2.6)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.5) 5 (1.4) 29 (3.9) 83 (4.0) 17 (4.0)

Grade 8

Nation 100 1 (0.1) 14 (0.6) 61 (0.9) 39 (0.9)

Type of School

Public Schools Only 90 (0.9) 1 (0.1) 12 (0.6) 59 (1.0) 41 (1.0)

Nonpublic Schools Only 10 (0.9) 2 (0.6) 28 (1.8) 84 (1.2) 16 (1.2)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.6) 2 (0.8) 29 (2.3) 85 (1.7) 15 (1.7)

Other Nonpublic Schools 4 (0.6) 2 (0.8) 26 (3.4) 83 (2.8) 17 (2.8)

Grade 12

Nation 100 1 (0.2) 11 (0.7) 43 (1.1) 57 (1.1)

Type of School

Public Schools Only 89 (1.1) 1 (0.2) 10 (0.7) 41 (1.2) 59 (1.2)

Nonpublic Schools Only 11 (1.1) 1 (0.4) 18 (1.3) 59 (2.2) 41 (2.2)

Catholic Schools 6 (0.9) 1 (0.4) 18 (2.0) 57 (3.8) 43 (3.8)

Other Nonpublic Schools 5 (0.6) 2 (0.8) 19 (2.7) 61 (2.9) 39 (2.9)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
4 0

© Generally, higher percentages of White and Asian

students reached the Basic and Proficient levels than

did Black and Hispanic students.

© At grade 12, the percentages of males at or above the

Basic and Proficient levels were higher than those of

females. (There were no significant differences at

grades 4 and 8 between males and females.)

© Generally, the higher the level of parental education,

the greater the percentage of students reaching a

given achievement level.

© Higher percentages of nonpublic school students

reached the Basic and Proficient levels than did

percentages of public school students.

Summary

The performance of students on the NAEP 1994

U.S. history assessment reflected the ambitious nature

of the framework that guided the development of the

assessment, and the challenging expectations based on

the achievement levels. For the most part, performances

of reporting subgroups reflected patterns of average

scale scores noted in Chapter 2 of this report.

© For the nation as a whole, few students reached the

Proficient level.
4 1

CHAPTER 4

Contexts in Which

Students Learn History

Classroom instruction is at the core of history

education, but history learning can take place in

a variety of settings both inside and outside the

classroom. Many teachers use trips to historical sites

or museums, multimedia presentations, and a variety

of teaching strategies to enhance history learning.

Outside of school, students are exposed to history in

many forms. Children may learn history from television,

film documentaries or dramas, extracurricular books,

newspapers and magazines, and from conversations with

family members or other adults. Family and regional

history are often learned informally. Previous chapters

of this report have examined what students know and

can do in history; if we wish to gain an understanding of

why they know what they do, we must examine some of

the various contexts in which history learning occurs.

The Extent of Students’ Social

Studies and U.S. History Instruction

As part of the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment,

students were asked a series of questions concerning

the nature of the social studies or history instruction

they had received. In addition, information concerning

social studies or history instruction was collected from

the teachers of fourth- and eighth-grade students

participating in the assessment. The results illustrate the

nature of U.S. history instruction in the nation’s schools.

Social Studies and History Instruction at Grade 4.

The NAEP 1994 U.S. History Framework that served as

the blueprint for the assessment recognized that most

fourth graders do not have a formal class in U.S. history.

(Attention was paid in the framework to ensuring

coverage of material that is likely to be addressed in

fourth-grade classrooms, such as state history.)

However, the majority of fourth graders did report

having regular social studies or history classes.

Approximately two-thirds (69 percent) of fourth graders

reported having a social studies or history class at least

three times a week. Only 7 percent reported never or

hardly ever having had such classes. Table 4.1 presents

the percentage of students and average scale scores

according to the frequency with which they have taken

social studies or history classes.

Percentage

Average

Scale Score

Students’ Reports on Social Studies

or History Course-Taking

Grade 4

How often do you usually have social

studies or history class in school?

Almost Every Day 44 (1.9) 209 (1.3)

3 to 4 Times a Week 25 (1.1) 213 (1.4)

1 to 2 Times a Week 19 (1.1) 200 (1.8)

Less than 1 Time a Week 6 (0.5) 184 (4.0)

Never or Hardly Ever 7 (0.6) 182 (3.4)

Have you ever studied the history

of the United States in school?

Yes 79 (0.8) 208 (1.0)

No 21 (0.8) 194 (1.9)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 4.1 CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Students who reported having social studies or

history class every day or three to four times a week had

higher average scores than did those reporting having

such classes less frequently. In addition, students who

reported having classes once or twice a week

outperformed, on average, those who reported having

such classes less than weekly or never or hardly ever.

When specifically asked if they have ever studied

U.S. history, the majority of fourth graders, 79 percent,

reported that they had (see Table 4.1). Those students

who reported studying U.S. history had a significantly

higher average score than did those who reported never

having studied the subject.
4 2

When the teachers of the fourth graders were asked

about the focus of their social studies classes, it was

evident that few students were currently taking social

studies classes that focused primarily on U.S. history.

Approximately half of the students had teachers whose

classes focused on either social studies (25 percent) or

social studies integrated with other subjects (24

percent). Another third (36 percent) had classes that

focused on state history. Only 7 percent had classes for

which the teacher reported that the focus was U.S.

history. Table 4.2 presents the teachers’ reports and the

students’ average scale scores.

Frequent social studies or history classes and some

exposure to U.S. history in the classroom are positively

related to scores on the NAEP U.S. history assessment,

even though fourth graders are not currently involved

in focused study of the subject.

U.S. History Course-Taking at Grades 8 and 12.

Students in grades 8 and 12 were asked whether they

were currently taking a U.S. history class or if they had

taken such a class previously. Even though NAEP

assessed U.S. history at grades 8 and 12, background

questionnaire responses indicate that the subject is

typically taught in grades 8 and 11. When eighth and

twelfth graders were asked if they were currently taking

a U.S. history course, the majority of eighth graders

(83 percent) said they were, while only a third of

twelfth graders (34 percent) said they were taking

such a course.

Table 4.3 presents the percentage and average scale

scores of eighth graders currently taking a U.S. history

course. The table also presents the results for twelfth

graders who reported they are currently taking a U.S.

history course and results for those who reported they

took such a course in grade 11.

Percentage

Average

Scale Score

State History 36 (2.8) 207 (2.0)

United States History 7 (1.6) 209 (6.7)

Social Studies 25 (2.8) 205 (2.8)

Social Studies Integrated with

Other Disciplines 24 (2.7) 198 (2.2)

Geography 6 (1.2) 212 (4.5)

Other 2 (0.7) 225 (8.1)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Teachers’ Reports on

Focus of Social Studies/

History Teaching

Grade 4

Except for the “other” category, no significant

differences in average scores were evident among

students of teachers reporting different foci. (The

average score for “other” was significantly higher than

that for the “social studies integrated with other

disciplines” focus.)

Examined together, the results of the NAEP

questions concerning fourth-grade students’ in-school

exposure to U.S. history indicated that

© the majority of fourth graders reported taking social

studies or history classes, and

© over three-quarters of fourth graders also said they

have had some exposure to U.S. history, but

© according to their teachers, most students are not

currently exposed to social studies/history classes that

focus on U.S. history.

TABLE 4.2

Percentage

Average

Scale Score

Grade 8

Currently Taking a U.S. History Course

Yes 83 (1.6) 261 (0.7)

No 17 (1.6) 253 (1.6)

Grade 12

Currently Taking a U.S. History Course

Yes 34 (1.6) 283 (1.3)

No 66 (1.6) 288 (0.9)

Took a U.S. History Course in Grade 11

Yes 79 (1.5) 288 (0.8)

No 18 (1.5) 287 (1.6)

I Don’t Know 3 (0.3) 261 (3.2)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 4.3

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Students’ Reports on

U.S. History Course-Taking

Grades 8 and 12

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment
4 3

At grade 8, the average score of students currently

taking a U.S. history class was significantly higher than

that of students not taking such a class. At the twelfth

grade, the reverse is true — students currently taking a

U.S. history course had significantly lower performance,

on average, than those not taking such a course. However,

when twelfth graders who reported taking a U.S. history

course in eleventh grade are compared to those reporting

that they did not, no significant differences in average

scale scores are seen.

At the middle and high school levels, the relationship

between course-taking behaviors and scale scores varies.

In grade 8, where the assessment coincides with the

majority of students taking a class in the subject, a

positive relationship between course-taking and

performance is seen. At grade 12, where the majority of

students are not taking a U.S. history class, a negative

relationship is seen. Given that the twelfth graders

taking U.S. history classes in their senior year are not

following the course-taking pattern of the majority of

their peers, it is possible that students taking U.S.

history in grade 12 have different characteristics from

the majority of students.

A closer look at the amount of potential historyrelated course work completed by twelfth graders

presents more predictable results. Table 4.4 shows that

as the number of semesters of history, geography, or

social studies taken increased, so did students’ average

scale scores.

The Content of Social Studies and

History Instruction at Grades 4 and 8

As was discussed in the previous section, the majority of

fourth graders have frequent social studies classes,

although the classes, for the most part, do not focus on

U.S. history. The majority of eighth graders, over 80

percent, reported they were currently taking a U.S.

history class. In order to better understand students’

experiences in these classes, this section provides a

closer look at the instructional practices and materials

used for history learning. (Given the small percentage of

twelfth graders taking a U.S. history class —

approximately one-third — the results on instructional

practices and materials for grade 12 are minimal and are

not presented.) All fourth- and eighth-grade students

taking the NAEP U.S. history assessment and their

teachers were asked about activities and materials used

as part of studying history or social studies in school.

Instructional Materials

Many teachers use a wide variety of materials in their

social studies and history classes. Studies have shown

that incorporating a variety of teaching methods and

materials can help to engage students with different

learning styles. Furthermore, the richness of history as

a subject can best be conveyed through the inclusion of

a variety of materials.1

 In addition to standard textbooks,

teachers utilize other reading materials (such as

primary documents, biographies, or historical fiction),

maps and globes, movies, or computers as part of their

daily instruction.

As presented in the following discussion, some

discrepancies exist between student — and teacher —

reported frequencies for some of the instructional

materials and practices examined. It is not possible to

offer conclusive reasons for these discrepancies or to

determine which report most accurately reflects fourthand eighth-grade classroom activities. The reports

presented represent students’ and teachers’ impressions

of the frequency of various activities in their classrooms.

Students’ Reports on

Number of Semesters of History,

Geography, or Social Studies Taken

Grade 12

TABLE 4.4 CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Percentage

Average

Scale Score

None 0 (0.1) ***

1 or 2 7 (0.5) 263 (2.1)

3 or 4 28 (0.7) 278 (1.2)

5 or 6 30 (0.9) 295 (1.1)

7 or More 35 (1.3) 300 (1.0)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

Students were asked to indicate how many semesters of course work they had taken from the beginning of

the 9th grade through the end of the current school year.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero are actually nonzero, but round to zero when

reporting to the nearest integer.

*** Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.
4 4

Instructional materials and strategies may be

chosen for a variety of purposes. Consequently, the

relationship between frequency of use of various

materials and practices and scores on the NAEP U.S.

history assessment cannot be interpreted in a causal

fashion. The design of the assessment does not allow for

the evaluation of the effectiveness of different strategies.

The initial ability of the students, the particular topics

being taught, and the complexity of the subject matter

all need to be controlled before cause-and-effect

statements can be made, and such experimental

methods were not possible in a large-scale assessment.

Use of Textbooks and Other Written Material.

According to both teachers and students, the use of

textbooks and other written material such as historical

fiction and biographies is common at both the fourth

and eighth grades.

Teachers of fourth and eighth graders were asked

questions about the frequency of use of textbooks, other

materials such as biographies and historical fiction, and

primary documents. While there are no significant

relationships between student average scale scores and

teacher-reported frequency of use of these materials, the

frequencies themselves are informative. As is evident

from Table 4.5, teachers of over 80 percent of students

at grades 4 and 8 reported using textbooks at least once

or twice a week. Teachers of slightly more than onethird of fourth and eighth graders reported using extra

written materials, such as biographies or historical

fiction, at least once a week. Over 60 percent of fourthand eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who

reported using such extra materials once or twice a

month or less. Further, only 9 percent of fourth graders,

and 22 percent of eighth graders, were taught by

teachers who reported using primary documents at least

once a week. Teachers of 62 percent of fourth graders

reported never or hardly ever using primary documents,

while teachers of 23 percent of eighth graders reported

never or hardly ever using such documents.

As presented in Table 4.6, 71 percent of fourth

graders and 84 percent of eighth graders reported

reading textbooks at least once a week as part of social

studies or history classes. Over a third reported reading

extra written material at least once a week. Primary

document use was less common; 27 percent of fourth

graders and 19 percent of eighth graders reported using

such documents at least once a week.

Teachers’ Reports on

Use of Textbooks, Extra Written

Materials, and Primary Documents

Grades 4 and 8

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.5

Use of Textbooks

Almost Every Day 43 (2.6) 45 (3.6)

207 (2.2) 259 (1.3)

Once or Twice a Week 44 (2.6) 42 (3.2)

204 (1.3) 259 (1.5)

Once or Twice a Month 8 (1.4) 8 (1.4)

204 (4.6) 266 (2.1)

Never or Hardly Ever 5 (0.9) 5 (1.8)

204 (5.0) 265 (3.6)

Use of Extra Written Materials

Almost Every Day 6 (1.2) 3 (0.6)

208 (4.4) 254 (4.5)

Once or Twice a Week 33 (2.2) 32 (2.8)

205 (1.9) 258 (1.5)

Once or Twice a Month 46 (2.5) 47 (2.4)

204 (1.9) 263 (1.2)

Never or Hardly Ever 15 (1.7) 17 (2.2)

208 (3.2) 258 (2.5)

Use of Primary Documents

Almost Every Day 1 (0.4) 2 (0.7)

*** 268 (9.4)

Once or Twice a Week 8 (1.2) 20 (2.2)

201 (4.5) 260 (2.0)

Once or Twice a Month 29 (1.9) 55 (2.3)

208 (2.1) 261 (1.1)

Never or Hardly Ever 62 (2.0) 23 (1.9)

205 (1.3) 258 (1.6)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

*** Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
4 5

A positive relationship between reading textbooks

and NAEP U.S. history scores is evident at both grades 4

and 8. At grade 4, students who reported that they read

a textbook at least once a week had a higher average

score than those who reported doing so less frequently.

Students who reported reading a textbook once or twice

a month had an average score that was not significantly

different from the average scores of students who

reported reading a textbook a few times a year, but was

significantly higher than the score of those who

reported never reading a textbook as part of social

studies or history study. At grade 8, students who

reported reading a textbook at least once a week had a

higher average score than those who reported doing so

infrequently (a few times a year) or never. As with grade

4, eighth graders who reported reading a textbook once

or twice a month had an average score that was not

significantly different from that of students who

reported reading a textbook a few times a year, but that

was significantly higher than the average score of those

who reported never reading a textbook as part of social

studies or history study.

The relationship between average U.S. history scores

and reading extra written materials, such as biographies

and historical fiction, as part of social studies or history

classes is the opposite of that observed for reading

textbooks. At grade 4, students who reported reading

extra written materials monthly outperformed those

who reported doing so more frequently. However,

students who reported reading extra written materials

monthly or a few times a year had higher average

scores than those who reported reading such materials

about every day or never. Eighth graders who reported

reading extra written materials monthly or a few times

a year also outperformed those who reported doing so

more frequently and those who reported never reading

such materials.

The pattern for the use of writings of historical

people is similar. Students who reported using such

documents monthly or less frequently performed better

than students who reported using them more often, at

both grades 4 and 8. (Also at grades 4 and 8, students

who reported weekly use of writings of historical people

outperformed those who reported daily use.) But eighth

graders who reported using writings of historical people

once or twice a month or a few times a year performed

better than students who reported never using such

documents. (Those who reported using such materials a

few times a year outperformed those who reported doing

so once or twice a month.)

Students’ Reports on Use of

Textbooks, Extra Written Materials,

and Primary Documents

Grades 4 and 8

TABLE 4.6

Read Textbooks

Almost Every Day 46 (1.5) 51 (1.3)

215 (1.5) 262 (0.7)

Once or Twice a Week 25 (0.8) 33 (1.1)

207 (1.2) 260 (0.9)

Once or Twice a Month 8 (0.5) 8 (0.6)

198 (3.1) 258 (2.4)

A Few Times a Year 8 (0.6) 5 (0.5)

191 (3.0) 249 (2.9)

Never 13 (0.8) 3 (0.3)

183 (2.3) 242 (3.8)

Read Extra Written Material

Almost Every Day 12 (0.5) 10 (0.5)

198 (2.3) 254 (1.5)

Once or Twice a Week 29 (0.9) 28 (0.8)

206 (1.6) 256 (1.0)

Once or Twice a Month 19 (0.6) 25 (0.6)

213 (1.6) 265 (0.9)

A Few Times a Year 15 (0.6) 19 (0.6)

210 (1.6) 267 (1.1)

Never 24 (0.8) 17 (0.6)

200 (1.8) 253 (1.4)

Use Writings of Historical People

Almost Every Day 10 (0.5) 6 (0.3)

187 (2.0) 242 (2.2)

Once or Twice a Week 17 (0.6) 13 (0.5)

195 (1.9) 253 (1.1)

Once or Twice a Month 19 (0.7) 21 (0.6)

208 (1.8) 262 (1.0)

A Few Times a Year 17 (0.8) 24 (0.7)

211 (1.8) 268 (1.0)

Never 38 (0.9) 35 (0.8)

213 (1.2) 259 (0.8)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
4 6

It should be noted that there are some discrepancies

between student- and teacher-reported frequencies of

use of written materials. It is not possible to offer

conclusive reasons for these discrepancies or to

determine which report most accurately represents

activities in the classrooms. The reports represent the

impressions of students and teachers.

Using Maps and Globes. Maps and globes are common

instructional aides in fourth- and eighth-grade

classrooms. Over one-half of fourth graders (53 percent)

and 44 percent of eighth graders reported using maps

and globes in social studies or history classes at least

once a week. Only 8 percent of fourth graders and 10

percent of eighth graders reported never using these

materials.

As shown in Table 4.7, the relationships between the

frequency of use of maps and globes in social studies

or history classes and average NAEP U.S. history scores

indicates that some use of these materials is associated

with higher scale scores. At grades 4 and 8, students

who reported never using maps or globes had the lowest

average scores. Fourth and eighth graders who reported

weekly use of maps and globes had higher average

scores than those who reported infrequent (a few times

a year) use. At grade 8, students who reported monthly

use of maps and globes had higher average scores than

those who reported using these materials only a few

times a year. However, the average scores for fourthand eighth-grade students who reported using these

materials daily were significantly lower than those of

students who reported weekly or monthly use of maps

and globes.

Watching Movies, Videos, and Filmstrips. The

frequency of use of movies, videos, and filmstrips to

augment the information presented through written

material or teachers’ lessons differs between the fourth

and eighth grades. At grade 4, nearly half (48 percent) of

students reported watching a movie, video, or filmstrip

at least once a week. At grade 8, however, movies, videos,

and filmstrips were used less frequently — only onethird (33 percent) reported watching these materials at

least weekly.

As with the use of maps and globes, some use of

these materials is associated with higher scale scores

(see Table 4.8). At both grades 4 and 8, students who

reported watching these materials daily and those who

reported never watching them had lower average scores

than those who reported watching them weekly,

monthly, or a few times a year. (The average scores for

students who reported watching these materials daily

and those who reported never watching them were not

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.7 Students’ Reports on

Use of Maps and Globes

Grades 4 and 8

Almost Every Day 21 (0.9) 14 (0.7)

204 (1.5) 257 (1.6)

Once or Twice a Week 32 (0.9) 30 (0.7)

213 (1.7) 264 (0.8)

Once or Twice a Month 25 (0.7) 30 (0.8)

210 (1.4) 263 (0.9)

A Few Times a Year 14 (0.6) 17 (0.7)

205 (2.2) 258 (1.2)

Never 8 (0.6) 10 (0.5)

188 (3.1) 250 (1.5)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

Almost Every Day 18 (0.7) 9 (0.5)

194 (1.6) 246 (2.0)

Once or Twice a Week 30 (1.1) 24 (1.1)

207 (1.7) 260 (1.1)

Once or Twice a Month 32 (0.8) 41 (0.9)

218 (1.5) 264 (0.8)

A Few Times a Year 15 (0.7) 18 (0.9)

208 (2.4) 264 (1.1)

Never 6 (0.4) 8 (0.6)

189 (2.9) 249 (1.9)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Students’ Reports on

Watching Movies, Videos,

and Filmstrips

Grades 4 and 8

TABLE 4.8

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
4 7

significantly different.) At grade 4, monthly viewing of

these materials was associated with a higher average

score than less frequent (a few times

a year) or weekly viewing. At grade 8, students who

reported watching these materials weekly had a lower

average score than those who reported watching such

materials a few times a year or once or twice a month.

Use of Computers. The use of computers in fourthgrade social studies or history classrooms appears to be

common and frequent. Table 4.9 presents students’

reports of how often they use computers in their social

studies or history classes and related average NAEP U.S.

history scores. Approximately one-half (54 percent) of

fourth graders reported using a computer at least once a

week. At grade 8, however, computers were not used as

frequently. About one-half (52 percent) of eighth-grade

students reported never using computers in their social

studies or history classroom.

The relationship between use of computers in the

classroom and scores on the NAEP U.S. history

assessment is negative for both grades 4 and 8. At grade

4, the only significant differences associated with

computer use were that students who reported using a

computer about every day had a lower average score

than those who reported using a computer weekly or

those who reported infrequent use (a few times a year)

or never using a computer in their social studies or

history classroom. At grade 8, a negative relationship

between frequency of computer use and average NAEP

U.S. history scores was observed. As the reported

frequency of computer use increased, the average scores

for those students decreased. The only exceptions were

no significant difference between daily and weekly use,

and between infrequent use (a few times a year) and

never using a computer in the social studies or history

classroom.

Again, the relationship between use of instructional

materials such as computers and scores on the NAEP

U.S. history assessment cannot be interpreted in a

causal fashion. A variety of factors, including student

ability level and the nature of the material being taught,

influence a teacher’s decision to use a particular method.

Almost Every Day 19 (1.2) 8 (0.6)

199 (2.3) 246 (2.1)

Once or Twice a Week 35 (1.6) 11 (0.5)

208 (1.5) 248 (1.4)

Once or Twice a Month 14 (0.7) 13 (0.7)

207 (2.0) 258 (1.6)

A Few Times a Year 11 (0.6) 17 (0.8)

213 (2.5) 264 (1.2)

Never 22 (1.0) 52 (1.4)

211 (1.8) 264 (0.8)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.9 Students’ Reports on

Use of Computers in Social Studies

or History Classrooms

Grades 4 and 8

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
4 8

Instructional Activities

Teachers of social studies and history augment typical

classroom lectures or discussions with a wide variety of

activities. Many teachers may ask students to communicate their historical knowledge and understanding

through short or extended writing assignments. Homework or extended projects may be designed to reinforce

classroom lessons. Finally, field trips or outside speakers

may be aimed at bringing history to life for students.

As part of the NAEP assessments, teachers and

students were asked to report on a wide array of

instructional activities that might take place in their

social studies or history classrooms. As with the

previous section, the discussion of selected activities

will focus on grades 4 and 8.

Incorporating Writing into History or Social Studies

Instruction. The importance of writing in the history

curriculum has been stressed by many contemporary

observers.2

 Teachers have long believed that the ability

to write clearly about a subject demonstrates genuine

understanding of it. In addition, writing has been

associated with critical thinking and with self-motivated

learning.3

 Teachers and students in grades 4 and 8

reported how often students were asked to write short

answers (a paragraph or less) to questions and reports,

as part of their social studies or history study. The

results are presented in Tables 4.10 and 4.11. Students

and their teachers reported fairly frequent writing of

short answers, and less frequent writing of reports.

Table 4.10 presents the teacher-reported data for

frequency of students’ writing of short answers or

reports. As with teacher data about use of materials,

generally there were no significant relationships

between student scores and frequency of writing short

answers or reports. (The exception occurs at grade 4,

where weekly writing of reports was associated with a

lower average scale score.) Further, as was discussed

previously, there are also discrepancies between

student- and teacher-reported data.

The frequencies of writing activities are of interest.

Teachers of 68 percent of fourth-grade students reported

having students write short answers to questions at least

once or twice a week. The percentage was higher for

eighth graders; teachers of 79 percent of eighth graders

reported having their students write short answers to

questions at least weekly. The teachers of only 7 percent

of fourth graders and 4 percent of eighth graders

reported never or hardly ever having students write

short answers. Perhaps predictably, given the greater

time and effort involved, writing of reports occurred less

frequently at both grades than writing short answers to

questions. Teachers of only 6 percent of fourth graders

and 4 percent of eighth graders reported having their

students write reports weekly. The teachers of the

majority of students (63 percent at fourth grade and

66 percent at eighth grade) reported having students

write reports once or twice a month. Thirty-one percent

of fourth graders and 30 percent of eighth graders had

teachers who reported never or hardly ever having

students write reports.

Write Short Answers

Almost Every Day 9 (1.4) 17 (2.1)

202 (3.3) 258 (1.9)

Once or Twice a Week 59 (2.1) 62 (2.7)

207 (1.5) 261 (0.9)

Once or Twice a Month 25 (1.9) 17 (1.9)

204 (2.2) 263 (2.2)

Never or Hardly Ever 7 (1.2) 4 (1.3)

203 (4.9) 260 (7.3)

Write Reports

Almost Every Day 0 (0.0) 0 (0.2)

*** ***

Once or Twice a Week 6 (1.2) 4 (0.9)

188 (4.2) 256 (4.0)

Once or Twice a Month 63 (2.3) 66 (2.5)

207 (1.4) 261 (0.9)

Never or Hardly Ever 31 (2.1) 30 (2.6)

205 (2.1) 259 (1.6)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

The estimates of population percentages reported as zero (and standard errors reported as 0.0) are actually

nonzero, but rounded to zero when reporting to the nearest integer (or nearest tenth in the case of the

standard errors).

*** Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (see Appendix A).

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 4.10 Teachers’ Reports on

Student Writing of Short Answers

or Reports

Grades 4 and 8

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment
4 9

Write Short Answers

Almost Every Day 35 (0.8) 33 (1.0)

209 (1.4) 259 (0.9)

Once or Twice a Week 35 (0.8) 40 (0.8)

213 (1.4) 263 (0.8)

Once or Twice a Month 15 (0.5) 16 (0.6)

202 (1.9) 262 (1.4)

A Few Times a Year 8 (0.4) 5 (0.4)

189 (2.9) 250 (2.8)

Never 8 (0.4) 6 (0.4)

187 (2.8) 249 (1.9)

Write Reports

Almost Every Day 8 (0.5) 4 (0.3)

180 (2.8) 240 (2.9)

Once or Twice a Week 16 (0.8) 10 (0.6)

193 (1.7) 245 (1.7)

Once or Twice a Month 40 (0.9) 38 (1.0)

215 (1.4) 260 (0.9)

A Few Times a Year 26 (1.1) 35 (1.2)

216 (1.8) 269 (0.9)

Never 11 (0.6) 14 (0.7)

198 (2.2) 255 (1.4)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

As can be seen in Table 4.11, students’ reports of TABLE 4.11

writing activities in their social studies or history classes

differ from those of their teachers. For example, 35

percent of fourth graders reported writing short answers

about every day compared to only 9 percent based on

their teachers’ reports. At least 70 percent of students

in grades 4 and 8 reported writing short answers to

questions at least once a week. Less than 10 percent

reported never doing so.

Generally, students’ reports of some writing bears a

positive relationship to average U.S. history scale scores.

At both grades, students who reported writing short

answers to questions a few times a year or never scored

significantly lower, on average, than did those who

reported doing so at least once a month. At grade 4,

students who reported writing short answers at least

once a week had higher average scale scores than did

those who reported doing so once or twice a month. At

grade 8, students who reported writing short answers to

questions once or twice a week as part of their social

studies or history classes outperformed those who

reported doing so about every day.

As for written reports, the vast majority of students

said they write reports during the course of the school

year. Nearly two-thirds of fourth graders (64 percent)

and slightly more than one-half of the eighth graders

(52 percent) reported writing reports at least once or

twice a month. Fourth- and eighth-grade students who

reported writing reports once or twice a month or a few

times a year outperformed those who reported doing

so more frequently (daily or weekly) and those who

reported never writing reports. With one exception,

students who reported writing reports about every day

had lower average history scale scores than all other

groups, including those who reported never writing

reports; grade 8 students who reported weekly use did

not outperform those reporting daily use. Also at grade

8, students who reported writing reports a few times a

year outperformed those who reported doing so once or

twice a month, and students who reported never writing

reports had a higher average score than did those who

reported writing reports once or twice a week.

Students’ Reports on

Writing of Short Answers or Reports

Grades 4 and 8

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
5 0

Homework. Teachers frequently reinforce the lessons

taught in their classrooms with homework. As part of

the NAEP assessment, students at all three grades were

asked to indicate the amount of time they usually spend

on homework each day. This question was not restricted

to social studies or history homework but referred to

homework across all subject areas. Table 4.12 presents

the results for fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders.

Overall, there is a positive relationship between

spending some time on homework (i.e., homework

assigned for any class, not just social studies or history)

and average U.S. history scale scores.

Students’ Reports on

Time Spent on Homework

Each Day

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Don’t Usually 13 (1.1) 7 (0.6) 13 (0.6)

Have Any 209 (3.3) 245 (1.8) 272 (1.4)

Usually Don’t 3 (0.3) 8 (0.4) 8 (0.4)

Do It 180 (3.4) 244 (1.4) 279 (1.6)

1/2 Hour or Less 39 (1.2) 22 (0.8) 23 (0.6)

204 (1.4) 257 (1.2) 287 (1.0)

1 Hour 30 (0.8) 36 (0.7) 29 (0.5)

209 (1.5) 262 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

More than 16 (0.8) 27 (0.9) 26 (0.7)

1 Hour 200 (1.7) 266 (0.9) 295 (1.2)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

homework each day was significantly less than that for

those who reported spending one hour. At grade 8,

average scale scores increased significantly with each

incremental increase in the time spent on homework. At

grade 12, the average scale score for students who

reported spending more than one hour on homework

each day was significantly more than that for those who

reported spending one hour or less.

Eighth graders were also asked about how much

history homework they did each week. The results for

students who reported that they were taking a U.S.

history class are presented in Table 4.13. Students who

reported spending no time on history homework had

the lowest average scale scores and students who

reported that they spent two hours a week on history

homework had the highest average scale scores. Within

this range, each increase in time spent on history

homework was related to an increase in average score.

For the 12 percent of the students who reported

spending more than two hours a week on history

homework, the average score was higher than that of

students who spent one-half hour or less, but significantly

lower than that of students who spent two hours.

Percentage

Average

Scale Score

Students’ Reports on Time Spent

on History Homework Each Week

Grade 8

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.13

For Grade 8 Students Currently

Taking a U.S. History Course

None 14 (0.9) 253 (1.5)

1/2 Hour 34 (0.9) 258 (1.1)

1 Hour 26 (0.8) 263 (0.9)

2 Hours 15 (0.6) 269 (1.4)

More than 2 Hours 12 (0.8) 264 (1.4)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

At all grades, between 7 and 13 percent of the

students indicated that they did not usually have

homework assigned. For students who indicated that

they usually had homework assigned, those reporting

that they spent some time on homework significantly

outperformed those who reported they did not usually

do their homework. At grade 4, the average score for

students who reported spending more than one hour on
5 1

Field Trips and Libraries. Many teachers can supplement their social studies or history instruction by

including field trips and outside speakers. Having

students work in the library is another way of augmenting the resources available in the classroom. Table 4.14

presents fourth- and eighth-grade students’ reports of

how often they go on field trips or have outside speakers, and how often they work in the library. As with

most of the other variables discussed thus far, moderate

frequencies of these activities are positively related to

student performance.

The use of field trips or outside speakers, though

not frequent at either grade, is more common at grade 4

than at grade 8. At grade 4, only 14 percent reported

never being exposed to those activities in the context of

a social studies or history class. At grade 8, almost half

the students reported never going on field trips or

having outside speakers (45 percent).

At both grades 4 and 8, students reporting field trips

or outside speakers at least weekly had lower average

scores than those students reporting such activities

occurring once or twice a month or a few times a year.

However, for both grades students reporting these

activities occurring a few times a year performed better

than students who reported going on field trips or

having outside speakers once or twice a month or never.

Additionally, at grade 8 students who reported these

activities once or twice a month outperformed those

reporting these activities never occurred.

As for working in the library as part of their social

studies or history classes, the majority of students at

grades 4 and 8 reported working in the library at least a

few times a year. At grade 4, 41 percent of the students

reported that they work in the library as part of their

social studies or history classes at least once a week.

In comparison, 15 percent of eighth graders reported

working in the library at least once a week.

Fourth-grade students who reported working in

the library once or twice a month outperformed both

those students who reported working in the library

every day and those students who reported never

working in the library. Students who reported working

in the library about every day had a lower average scale

score than those who reported doing so a few times a

year or never. Eighth-grade students who reported

working in the library once or twice a month, a few

times a year or never outperformed those students who

reported working in the library at least weekly, and

grade 8 students who reported working in the library a

few times a year outperformed those students who

reported working in the library once or twice a month

or never.

Go On Field Trips or

Have Outside Speakers

Almost Every Day 4 (0.3) 2 (0.2)

164 (2.9) 228 (3.1)

Once or Twice a Week 6 (0.4) 3 (0.3)

169 (3.3) 231 (2.6)

Once or Twice a Month 24 (0.9) 11 (0.6)

208 (1.5) 249 (1.5)

A Few Times a Year 51 (1.1) 38 (1.0)

215 (1.2) 266 (1.0)

Never 14 (0.7) 45 (1.4)

203 (1.7) 262 (0.8)

Work in the Library

Almost Every Day 7 (0.4) 4 (0.3)

184 (2.5) 242 (2.8)

Once or Twice a Week 34 (1.1) 11 (0.7)

209 (1.5) 249 (1.7)

Once or Twice a Month 19 (0.7) 28 (1.0)

215 (1.7) 261 (1.0)

A Few Times a Year 14 (0.6) 28 (1.1)

210 (2.4) 267 (1.0)

Never 26 (1.0) 30 (1.4)

203 (1.6) 259 (0.8)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.14 Students’ Reports on

Field Trips or Outside Speakers,

and Libraries

Grades 4 and 8

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
5 2

Students’ Home Support

Home support for learning is as important in social

studies and history as it is for other subjects surveyed in

NAEP assessments. Variables related to the students’

home environment frequently show a strong relationship

to performance.4

 The following section examines some

of these variables and their relationship to NAEP U.S.

history scores.

Discussing Schoolwork at Home. One indication that

schoolwork is a priority for students and their families is

the extent to which it is discussed at home. When

students discuss their schoolwork at home, they

establish an important link between home and school.

Several recent studies have documented the increased

achievement of students whose parents are involved in

their schooling.5

 Fostering this valuable link has

become a major objective of many recent education

reform efforts, including Goals 2000,

6

 which seeks to

increase the cooperation between parents and schools.

Students in the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment

were asked how frequently they discussed their studies

at home. (This question was not restricted to discussing

social studies or history studies at home but referred to

all subject areas.) Their responses are summarized in

Table 4.15. There is a positive relationship between

frequency of discussion and average scale scores. At

grade 4, 18 percent of the students reported never or

hardly ever discussing their studies at home. At grades 8

and 12, the lack of such discussion was reported by

22 and 25 percent of the students, respectively.

The majority of students at each grade reported

discussing schoolwork at home at least sometimes. At

grade 4, over three-fourths of the students (76 percent)

reported daily or weekly discussions. At grades 8 and 12,

daily or weekly discussions were reported by more than

60 percent of the students.

Almost Every Day 54 (1.0) 38 (0.7) 31 (0.7)

208 (1.1) 266 (0.7) 292 (1.0)

Once or Twice 22 (0.7) 29 (0.6) 30 (0.5)

a Week 207 (1.4) 262 (1.1) 290 (0.9)

Once or Twice 6 (0.3) 11 (0.4) 14 (0.5)

a Month 206 (2.7) 259 (1.2) 285 (1.4)

Never or 18 (0.5) 22 (0.6) 25 (0.5)

Hardly Ever 192 (1.7) 252 (1.2) 278 (1.0)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.15

Students’ Reports on the Frequency

with Which They Discuss

Their Studies at Home

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

At all grades, students who reported they never or

hardly ever discussed schoolwork at home had lower

average scores than did those who reported having some

regular discussions. Fourth graders’ average U.S. history

scores did not vary with the frequency of these regular

discussions. However, eighth graders who reported daily

discussions outperformed those who reported less

frequent discussions, and twelfth graders who reported

daily or weekly discussions outperformed those who

reported monthly discussions.
5 3

Access to Literacy Material. Students can also be

exposed to historical information through a variety of

written sources outside of school. Moreover, parents

who read regularly model a pattern of curiosity and

lifelong learning that is important for their children’s

academic success.7

 As part of the NAEP assessments,

students are asked about the presence of four different

types of literacy material in their homes — magazines,

newspapers, encyclopedias, and at least 25 books. The

percentages of students reporting that their families

have all four types, only three types, or two or fewer

types of literacy material are presented in Table 4.16. In

general, students who reported having more types of

literacy material in their homes also had higher average

U.S. history scores.

Television Viewing Habits. Past NAEP assessments

have highlighted the national concern over the amount

of time students spend watching television. For

example, the 1992 and 1994 NAEP reading assessments

found a negative relationship between the amount of

television viewing and reading performance. One major

concern has been that time spent watching television

may be displacing time that could be spent on schoolwork

or reading activities.

Students’ reports of their television viewing habits

are presented in Table 4.17. Clearly, a large amount of

students’ time is devoted to watching television. The

percentages of students who reported watching four or

more hours of television each day were 42 percent at

grades 4 and 8, and 25 percent at grade 12.

At all grades, more frequent television viewing was

associated with lower U.S. history scores. Students who

reported watching television three hours or less per day

outperformed, on average, those who reported watching

four or more hours daily. In addition, at grade 12,

students who reported watching television one hour or

less per day had a higher average score than did those

reporting two to three hours of daily viewing. Across the

three grades, students who reported watching four to

five hours daily had higher average scale scores than did

those who reported watching television six or more

hours a day.

Students’ Reports on the

Number of Different Types of

Literacy Material in Their Home

Grades 4, 8, and 12

4 Items 37 (1.0) 50 (0.9) 56 (0.7)

219 (1.5) 267 (0.8) 293 (0.7)

3 Items 33 (0.7) 30 (0.7) 27 (0.5)

206 (1.3) 258 (0.9) 285 (1.2)

2 or Fewer Items 30 (0.8) 21 (0.7) 17 (0.5)

187 (1.4) 243 (1.0) 269 (1.2)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 4.16 CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score Average Scale Score

Students’ Reports on the

Amount of Time Spent

Watching Television Each Day

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1 Hour or Less 20 (0.7) 13 (0.5) 27 (0.7)

210 (1.8) 266 (1.3) 293 (0.9)

2 to 3 Hours 38 (0.7) 45 (0.8) 47 (0.7)

212 (1.2) 264 (0.7) 288 (0.9)

4 to 5 Hours 21 (0.7) 27 (0.7) 18 (0.5)

205 (1.4) 257 (0.9) 280 (1.0)

6 Hours or 21 (0.8) 15 (0.5) 7 (0.3)

More 185 (1.7) 245 (1.3) 267 (1.8)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages and average scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be

said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is

within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 4.17

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and

Average Scale Score Average Scale Score Average Scale Score
5 4

Endnotes

1. Mahood, Wayne. (1995). Bringing the American Civil

War to the classroom: Suggestions and sources.

Social Education, 59(1), 17-22.

Nelson, Jennifer T. (1994). Voices from the past:

Quotations. Southern Social Studies Journal, 19(2),

45-54.

Van Middendorp, Judy E. and Lee, Sharon. (1994)

Literature for children and young adults in a history

classroom. Social Studies, 85(3), 117-20.

Wilson, Don W. (1993). Teaching for the future by

reaching into the past. Teaching History: A Journal

of Methods, 18(1), 3-13.

2. Gilstrap, Robert L. (1991). Can writing be used to

improve learning and thinking? Social Studies

Review, 31(1), 26-32.

Moore, Ellen E. (1990). Writing to learn in the

social studies classroom. New Mexico English

Journal 5(2), 15-18.

Wills, Howard. (1993). Writing is learning: Strategies

for math, science, social studies, and language arts.

Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.

3. Capps, Kline, and Vocke, David E. (1991). Developing

higher-level thinking skills through American

history writing assignments. OAH Magazine of

History 6(2), 6-9.

Risinger, Frederick C. (1987). Improving writing

skills through social studies. ERIC Clearinghouse for

Social Studies/Social Science Education, ERIC Digest

40. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research

and Improvement.

4. Christenson, S.L. (1992). Family factors and student

achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success.

School Psychology Quarterly, 7(3), 178-206.

5. Christenson, S.L. (1992). Ibid.

Heller, L.R., and Fantuzzo, J.W. (1993). Reciprocal

peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent

involvement make a difference? School Psychology

Review, 22(3), 517-34.

6. The National Educational Goals Report: Building

a Nation of Learners.(1994). (Report of the National

Education Goals Panels: U.S. Government Printing

Office).

7. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking:

Cognitive development in social context. (New York,

NY: Oxford University Press).

Summary

The picture of social studies and history education and

student performance gained from an examination of

background variables relating both to course work and

classroom practices is quite varied. Encouragingly,

exposure to U.S. history was associated with higher

average scale scores for students in grades 4 and 8.

While grade 12 students who indicated that they were

currently taking U.S. history had lower scores, the more

semesters of potential history-related coursework done,

the higher the scores.

Aside from textbooks, no single instructional

material appeared to have widespread frequent use at

grades 4 and 8. Despite the call from history educators

for the use of primary historical sources in the

classroom, few students and teachers reported using

primary source materials. Generally, some (as opposed

to frequent) use of instructional materials, such as maps

and globes, was associated with higher scale scores,

although computer use was negatively related to scores.

Similarly, results related to instructional practices, such

as library use, for the most part suggested a positive

relationship between moderate frequencies and average

scale scores.

For those eighth graders who reported that they

were currently taking U.S. history, average scale scores

increased incrementally in relation to more time spent

on history homework (up to more than two hours, at

which point scores decreased).

Performance associated with home support variables

is consistent with educational research findings.

Discussion of schoolwork at home and literacy materials

in the home were both associated with higher scores,

while frequent television-watching was associated with

lower scores. (Given the number of factors the NAEP

assessment cannot control for, the reader is again

cautioned against drawing causal inferences.)
5 5

CHAPTER 5

What Students Know and

Can Do in U.S. History

This chapter provides additional perspectives on what

students know and can do in U.S. history, by examining

the specific knowledge and skills demonstrated by

students at various points on the composite history

scale, and the four subscales (the subscales correspond

to the four U.S. history themes, around which the

assessment was organized).

An overview of the U.S. historical knowledge and

abilities demonstrated by students within three

performance ranges on the U.S. history scale, and

information on their self-reported study habits, is

included. Average scale score results are presented

for the nation and for selected subgroups of students

based on the four subscales. Finally, selected illustrative

questions are displayed in item maps, which indicate

the types of questions that were likely to be answered

successfully by students scoring at particular levels on

the thematic subscales.

Overview of Students’ Performance

on the NAEP U.S. History Scale

The NAEP U.S. history scale, ranging from 0 to 500,

summarizes the overall scores of students at the fourth,

eighth, and twelfth grades. The following descriptions of

students’ abilities are based on sets of questions that

were answered successfully by students performing in

three ranges on the scale. These ranges represent lower,

middle, and higher performance based on percentile

distribution. The sets of questions identified in each of

the three ranges on the scale were analyzed by history

education experts to characterize the nature of students’

history knowledge and abilities. The procedures used to

generate this portrait of students are described in

Appendix B.

Fourth Grade Profile. Fourth graders who were

near the 25th percentile (scale range 171 to 187)

demonstrated that they could recall major figures and

events that are very well known in American culture,

such as those connected with national holidays or

landmark events. They recognized direct clues from

pictorial sources, and most of their recall was tied to

such sources.

Fourth graders who were near the 50th percentile

(scale range 205 to 215) were able to recall some major

historical figures and events as well as some concepts,

such as the goals of major reform movements. These

students also used several types of sources, such as

drawings, time lines, and texts, to make simple historical

inferences, such as connecting clues in a photograph

to knowledge of its context. They demonstrated a

developing ability to grasp historical concepts such

as the relationships between geography and human

settlement, or comparisons across time.

Fourth graders who were near the 90th percentile

(scale range 246 to 263) were able to recall a range of

major historical figures, events, and concepts. These

students also had some ability to use their knowledge

to make historical connections, such as comparisons

across time or connections between prior knowledge

and new information. They could comprehend information from a variety of primary and secondary sources,

including time lines, diaries, pictorial sources, and texts.

In addition, they displayed rudimentary map-reading

skills; for example, they could use maps together

with prior knowledge to answer a historical question.

These students had a developing sense of how primary

sources might be used and a developing awareness of

cause-and-effect relationships.

Eighth Grade Profile. Eighth graders who were near

the 25th percentile (scale range 233 to 244) could recall

some major historical figures and events, such as a site

of U.S. military involvement or the cause associated

with a famous individual. These students had some

grasp of the appropriate use of primary and secondary

historical sources. In addition, they could use clear

clues found in pictorial documents, such as photographs

or engravings, to draw direct inferences.

Eighth graders who were near the 50th percentile

(scale range 257 to 265) could recall historical figures,

events, and concepts, and could identify some details of

the context of what they recalled, such as the general

chronology of important events. These students could

combine knowledge with clues from both visual and

written historical sources to draw direct historical

inferences. They could identify or recognize cause-andeffect relationships and demonstrated some ability to

understand and interpret charts and graphs presenting

numerical information. They also demonstrated a

limited ability to recognize a point of view in primary

source material.
5 6

Eighth graders who were near the 90th percentile

(scale range 292 to 308) could recall a fairly broad range

of political, social, and economic events, topics, and

themes. The knowledge demonstrated went beyond

the surface level in many cases. These students

demonstrated some understanding of historical context

and chronology and could apply their knowledge to

make connections to historical generalizations,

patterns, or themes. Given data, these students could

draw cause-and-effect and comparative relationships.

They could understand and interpret a variety of maps,

charts, graphs, and draw conclusions from some of

them. They were able to use a variety of primary sources

to answer historical questions and could generally

recognize the point of view evident in these sources.

Twelfth Grade Profile. Twelfth graders who were near

the 25th percentile (scale range 259 to 270) could recall

major historical figures and events and were familiar

with a few landmark documents. They were able to draw

straightforward inferences from a variety of documents,

particularly texts and pictorial sources, and could read

and understand straightforward data tables. These

students had some grasp of chronology and historical

concepts such as cause and effect; in some cases these

students could make historical connections for

themselves.

Middle-performing twelfth graders who were near

the 50th percentile (scale range 284 to 292) demonstrated knowledge of general historical chronology,

particularly for the twentieth century. They were able

to extract information from a wide range of documents,

including political cartoons, maps, texts, and pictorial

sources. They showed some ability to analyze the point

of view evident in various kinds of documents. These

students were also able in some cases to bring a base of

historical knowledge to bear on interpreting a source.

They demonstrated a beginning understanding of

historical concepts, such as the ability to compare and

contrast situations across time and to identify causeand-effect relationships.

Twelfth graders who were near the 90th percentile

(scale range 319 to 335) showed a working knowledge

of a broad range of events, movements, policies, and

concepts in U.S. history. Their knowledge covered

political, social, economic, and foreign policy questions,

and was strongest for the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries. Their understanding frequently went

beyond the surface level. For example, these students

demonstrated some understanding of the impact

of major religious and social movements. They

were able to connect new material provided in the

question to prior knowledge, to make inferences and

generalizations, and to draw conclusions.

Higher-performing twelfth graders also could work

with a wide variety of historical sources and were able to

evaluate points of view. They were able to comprehend

and interpret fairly complex primary sources, including

some written in formal, archaic language. These students

showed an ability to evaluate connections between

events and policies, to use historical reasoning in

considering a historical issue, and to grasp historical

significance.

Profiles of Students’ U.S. History

Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits

The following three figures (5.1, 5.2, and 5.3) represent

profiles of the lower-, middle-, and higher-performing

students. The profiles link the knowledge and abilities of

these students with their self-reported study habits. The

knowledge and abilities presented in these figures

summarize the performance descriptions from the

previous section. The study habits presented in the

figures are based on students’ self-reports concerning

three activities: number of pages read per day in school,

hours per day spent on homework, and frequency of

discussing studies at home.

By examining all three profiles, a common pattern

emerges at each grade with one exception: at the

fourth-grade 90th percentile. Students performing

at the higher range of the scale were more likely to

read more pages per day in school, spend more time

on homework, and more frequently discuss their studies

at home.1
5 7

Figure 5.1 Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Fourth Graders: U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits

25th Percentile

Study habits of fourth graders who were

near the 25th percentile:

© 33 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 43 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 71 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Fourth-grade students who were near the

25th percentile could:

© recall famous historical figures

© recall events connected to national holidays

© recognize pictorial sources

90th Percentile

Study habits of fourth graders who were

near the 90th percentile:

© 44 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 46 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 82 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Fourth-grade students who were near the

90th percentile could:

© connect prior knowledge and new information

© interpret information from primary sources

such as diaries and maps

© begin to grasp cause-and-effect relationships

50th Percentile

Study habits of fourth graders who were

near the 50th percentile:

© 38 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 47 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 76 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Fourth-grade students who were near the

50th percentile could:

© recall some major concepts

© use various sources, such as time lines and

texts, to make simple historical inferences

© begin to grasp historical concepts, such

as relationships between geography and

human settlement

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
5 8

Study habits of eighth graders who were

near the 25th percentile:

© 16 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 58 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 61 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Eighth-grade students who were near the

25th percentile could:

© recall major historical figures and events

© make basic use of primary and secondary

historical sources

© make direct inferences from pictorial sources

Study habits of eighth graders who were

near the 50th percentile:

© 21 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 65 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 66 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Eighth-grade students who were near the

50th percentile could:

© place people, events, and concepts in general

historical context

© make direct historical inferences from text and

visual sources

© recognize cause-and-effect relationships

Eighth-grade students who were near the

90th percentile could:

© recall a broad range of topics and themes

© apply knowledge of historical context and

chronology to make connections to historical

patterns and themes

© use data to infer cause-and-effect and

comparative relationships

Study habits of eighth graders who were

near the 90th percentile:

© 25 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 71 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 76 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

25th Percentile

90th Percentile

50th Percentile

Figure 5.2 Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Eighth Graders: U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
5 9

Study habits of twelfth graders who were

near the 25th percentile:

© 18 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 49 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 55 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Twelfth-grade students who were near the

25th percentile could:

© recognize some major historical documents

© make direct inferences from a variety of

documents

© draw simple cause-and-effect relationships

Study habits of twelfth graders who were

near the 90th percentile:

© 41 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 64 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 73 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Twelfth-grade students who were near the

90th percentile could:

© show knowledge of a wide range of

movements, policies, and concepts, including

19th and 20th century economic and foreign

policy issues

© grasp the impact of major social and religious

movements

© interpret and evaluate points of view in

various historical sources

© evaluate connections between events and

policies

Study habits of twelfth graders who were

near the 50th percentile:

© 25 percent read more than 15 pages each day

in school and for homework

© 56 percent spent one or more hours each day

on homework

© 62 percent discussed studies at home at least

once or twice a week

Twelfth-grade students who were near the

50th percentile could:

© show general knowledge of historical

chronology, especially 20th century history

© interpret a wide range of historical documents,

including cartoons, maps, and texts

© show some grasp of point of view in documents

© apply prior knowledge to source interpretation

25th Percentile

90th Percentile

50th Percentile

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Figure 5.3 Profiles of Lower-, Middle-, and Higher-Performing Twelfth Graders: U.S. History Knowledge, Abilities, and Study Habits
6 0

Average Performance by Theme

As described in Chapter 1, the NAEP 1994 U.S. history

assessment was organized around four themes, designed

to ensure coverage of the major branches of historical

study. The themes were envisioned as broad categories

that would necessarily overlap at times. The historical

skills outlined in the NAEP 1994 U.S. History Framework

cut across all the themes.

1. Change and Continuity in American Democracy:

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies

This theme concerns the development of American

political democracy from colonial times to the present.

It covers political events that shaped American democracy,

such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, and

the fight for civil rights, as well as the core ideas and

principles that underlie our institutions. This theme

ensures that students’ knowledge of the founding of

the nation, the writing of the Constitution, and other

fundamental components of the nation’s political

history will be assessed. At the same time, it calls for

evaluating students’ understanding of the role that

major political ideas and conflicts have played at

different points in our history.

2. The Gathering and Interactions of Peoples,

Cultures, and Ideas

The second theme is broadly defined because it covers a

vast component of U.S. history: the interactions among

the people and cultures of many countries, racial

groups, and religious traditions that have contributed to

the development of American society. This theme covers

the nature and role of immigration throughout our

history, cultural developments, patterns of social organization, and changing roles of men and women.

3. Economic and Technological Changes and

Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and the

Environment

This theme focuses on the economic history of the

nation and its development from a rural, agricultural

society to an urban, industrialized superpower. It covers

the role that economic ideas and beliefs have played in

this change as well as the roles of geography and of

developments in science and technology.

4. The Changing Role of America in the World

This theme calls for coverage of the many factors —

physical geography, political ideals, economic interests,

public opinion — that have shaped American foreign

policy. It also addresses specific interactions between the

United States and other nations and the domestic

consequences of developments in foreign policy.

Table 5.1 presents the average scores by thematic

subscale for grades 4, 8, and 12. The reporting metrics

for the four subscales were created independently of one

another and are not generally comparable. Therefore,

statements involving comparisons across subscales

(i.e., fourth graders performed better on Theme 1 than

on Theme 2) are not necessarily meaningful. The reader

is referred to Appendix A (page 81) for a more extensive

discussion of the U.S. history scaling procedures.

As one might expect, the patterns of performance

among subgroups on the composite scale were also

generally evident for the thematic subscales.
6 1

TABLE 5.1

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4

Peoples, Cultures, Economic and

Composite American Democracy and Ideas Technological Changes World Role

Grade 4

Average Score 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

10th Percentile 147 (2.4) 156 (2.7) 137 (2.1) 139 (2.0) 156 (1.8)

25th Percentile 180 (1.3) 185 (1.6) 174 (1.4) 177 (1.6) 182 (1.3)

50th Percentile 210 (0.9) 212 (1.4) 208 (1.4) 210 (1.6) 207 (1.6)

75th Percentile 234 (1.2) 235 (0.8) 236 (1.5) 238 (1.4) 229 (1.4)

90th Percentile 253 (1.2) 253 (1.1) 258 (1.8) 259 (2.2) 247 (1.1)

Grade 8

Average Score 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

10th Percentile 217 (1.0) 212 (1.3) 221 (1.1) 217 (1.2) 209 (1.6)

25th Percentile 239 (0.9) 234 (0.9) 243 (0.8) 239 (1.0) 234 (1.2)

50th Percentile 261 (0.8) 258 (0.7) 265 (0.9) 261 (0.9) 260 (0.9)

75th Percentile 282 (0.8) 280 (0.9) 286 (0.7) 280 (0.7) 284 (1.0)

90th Percentile 299 (0.8) 299 (1.0) 303 (0.8) 297 (1.1) 305 (1.3)

Grade 12

Average Score 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

10th Percentile 243 (1.0) 229 (1.4) 249 (1.0) 248 (1.1) 240 (1.6)

25th Percentile 265 (0.9) 258 (1.7) 267 (1.0) 268 (0.7) 263 (1.4)

50th Percentile 288 (0.8) 288 (1.3) 286 (0.8) 289 (0.7) 289 (1.0)

75th Percentile 309 (1.0) 316 (1.4) 303 (0.7) 307 (0.8) 313 (1.0)

90th Percentile 326 (0.8) 339 (1.5) 316 (0.9) 322 (0.9) 333 (1.0)

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

Average Scale Scores at Various Percentiles by Historical Themes

Grades 4, 8, and 12
6 2

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Race/

Ethnicity. Table 5.2 displays the subscale results as well

as the overall average scale score results for racial/

ethnic groups. (Racial/ethnic classifications are based on

self-reported information provided by students.)

 For the most part, the significant differences

among racial/ethnic groups on the composite U.S.

history scale were also significant on each of the

subscales. For example, White and Asian students

outperformed their Black and Hispanic peers at all

three grades.

However, not all the significant differences among

racial/ethnic subgroups observed with the composite

NAEP U.S. history scores were observed for each of the

four subscales. At all three grades, different results were

observed across some racial/ethnic subgroups when

average scale scores were examined for the historical

themes.

© At grade 4, Hispanic students outperformed Black

students on the fourth theme, World Role. On the

other three thematic subscales and on the

composite U.S. history scale, the performance of

the two groups was not significantly different. Also,

Theme 3

Economic and

Technological Changes

Grade 4

Total 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

Race/Ethnicity

White 215 (1.2) 216 (1.2) 214 (1.5) 217 (1.5) 213 (1.2)

Black 177 (1.6) 190 (1.9) 171 (2.0) 172 (2.1) 177 (1.9)

Hispanic 180 (2.7) 184 (2.8) 177 (3.2) 175 (3.2) 188 (2.5)

Asian 209 (4.6) 213 (4.1) 206 (6.2) 206 (6.2) 211 (3.4)

Pacific Islander 200 (5.9) 206 (5.6) 196 (7.5) 197 (7.4) 204 (6.5)

American Indian 190 (6.1) 190 (7.5) 188 (6.9) 190 (6.0) 195 (4.9)

Grade 8

Total 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

Race/Ethnicity

White 267 (0.8) 263 (0.8) 270 (0.9) 266 (1.0) 267 (1.0)

Black 239 (1.4) 238 (1.6) 244 (1.6) 238 (1.6) 231 (2.2)

Hispanic 243 (1.3) 240 (1.6) 249 (1.5) 239 (1.6) 241 (1.6)

Asian 270 (3.6) 268 (3.8) 271 (3.4) 268 (3.6) 271 (4.7)

Pacific Islander 252 (7.1) ! 249 (8.6) ! 256 (6.7) ! 247 (6.9) ! 252 (7.8) !

American Indian 246 (3.7) ! 242 (3.9) ! 250 (3.9) ! 245 (3.3) ! 246 (4.8) !

Grade 12

Total 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

Race/Ethnicity

White 292 (0.8) 293 (1.3) 289 (0.7) 293 (0.7) 294 (1.0)

Black 265 (1.5) 262 (2.4) 269 (1.3) 267 (1.4) 262 (2.0)

Hispanic 267 (1.6) 258 (1.9) 269 (1.5) 270 (1.4) 269 (2.3)

Asian 287 (4.0) 287 (5.7) 284 (3.5) 286 (3.6) 292 (4.6)

Pacific Islander 280 (3.9) 272 (5.5) 278 (3.6) 283 (3.9) 286 (4.5)

American Indian 279 (4.0) ! 276 (5.6) ! 278 (3.8) ! 281 (3.7) ! 283 (5.2) !

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

! Interpret with caution any comparisons involving this statistic. The nature of the sample does not allow for accurate determination of the variability of this value.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 5.2

Theme 4

World Role

Theme 2

Peoples, Cultures,

and Ideas

Theme 1

American Democracy

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Composite
6 3

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Gender. Male

and female students’ performance on the four thematic

subscales is presented in Table 5.3.

The performance differences between males and

females varied by subscale. On the composite scale, the

only significant difference observed was at grade 12,

where males outperformed females. When performance

is examined at the subscale level, however, more

differences emerge.

© At grades 4, 8, and 12, males outperformed females

on the World Role theme.

© At grades 8 and 12, females outperformed males on

the People, Cultures, and Ideas theme. At grade 8,

females outperformed males on the Economic and

Technological Changes theme.

© At all three grades, no significant differences were

observed between males and females on the

American Democracy theme.

the differences in performance between Asian and

Hispanic students on the composite and other

subscales were not in evidence for the World Role

theme. Finally, American Indian students

outperformed Black students on the World Role

theme. The difference between Pacific Islander and

Hispanic students noted on the composite scale was

significant only for the American Democracy

subscale, where Pacific Islander students

outperformed Hispanic students. However, Pacific

Islanders outperformed Blacks on all scales except

the American Democracy subscale.

© At grade 8, Hispanic students outperformed Black

students on the World Role theme.

© At grade 12, the differences between Pacific Islander

and Black and Hispanic students noted on the

composite scale were significant only for the

Economic and Technological Changes and World

Role subscales. In addition, White students

outperformed Pacific Islander students only on the

American Democracy subscale.

Grade 4

Total 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

Gender

Male 203 (1.5) 207 (1.4) 201 (1.9) 202 (1.7) 207 (1.7)

Female 206 (1.1) 209 (1.3) 205 (1.4) 207 (1.5) 202 (1.1)

Grade 8

Total 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

Gender

Male 259 (0.8) 256 (0.9) 261 (0.9) 256 (1.1) 263 (1.0)

Female 259 (0.7) 256 (0.8) 265 (0.7) 261 (0.8) 253 (0.9)

Grade 12

Total 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

Gender

Male 288 (0.8) 287 (1.2) 282 (0.8) 287 (0.8) 294 (1.1)

Female 285 (0.9) 284 (1.2) 286 (0.8) 287 (0.9) 281 (1.0)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE 5.3

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Gender

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Theme 3

Economic and

Technological Changes

Theme 4

World Role

Theme 2

Peoples, Cultures,

and Ideas

Theme 1

Composite American Democracy
6 4

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Parents’ Level

of Education. Performance by student-reported

parental education level on the four thematic subscales

is presented in Table 5.4.

For the most part, the positive relationship between

parents’ level of education and performance noted with

the composite U.S. history scale was also evident with

each of the four thematic subscales. As the level of

parental education increased, average scale scores

increased. The one exception to this pattern that was

noted for the composite scale was at grade 4, where

there was no significant scale score difference between

students who reported that at least one parent had

graduated from college and those who reported that at

least one parent had some education after high school.

The same pattern at grade 4 was observed on each of the

subscales.

Grade 4

Total 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 216 (1.2) 218 (1.2) 214 (1.6) 217 (1.4) 213 (1.2)

Some Education after High School 214 (2.1) 216 (2.3) 212 (2.8) 216 (3.2) 210 (2.0)

Graduated High School 197 (1.8) 201 (2.7) 195 (2.1) 195 (2.8) 200 (2.4)

Did Not Finish High School 177 (3.3) 184 (4.3) 169 (4.0) 174 (3.9) 188 (2.8)

I Don’t Know 195 (1.4) 198 (1.3) 193 (1.7) 194 (1.8) 196 (1.6)

Grade 8

Total 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 270 (0.8) 268 (0.9) 273 (0.8) 269 (1.0) 270 (1.1)

Some Education after High School 264 (0.8) 262 (0.9) 267 (1.0) 263 (1.2) 263 (1.1)

Graduated High School 251 (0.8) 246 (1.0) 255 (1.0) 252 (1.0) 249 (1.4)

Did Not Finish High School 241 (1.3) 239 (1.8) 246 (1.4) 241 (1.9) 237 (2.1)

I Don’t Know 238 (1.4) 234 (1.5) 244 (1.4) 237 (1.5) 237 (2.1)

Grade 12

Total 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

Parents’ Education Level

Graduated College 296 (0.9) 299 (1.2) 292 (0.9) 295 (1.0) 298 (1.1)

Some Education after High School 287 (1.2) 287 (1.7) 285 (1.0) 288 (1.0) 287 (1.4)

Graduated High School 276 (1.1) 272 (1.5) 276 (0.9) 279 (0.9) 277 (1.7)

Did Not Finish High School 263 (1.4) 255 (2.7) 266 (1.4) 266 (1.3) 265 (1.7)

I Don’t Know 256 (2.7) 246 (4.0) 258 (2.1) 260 (2.9) 259 (3.6)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 5.4

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Parents’ Highest Education Level

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Theme 3

Economic and

Technological Changes

Theme 4

World Role

Theme 2

Peoples, Cultures,

and Ideas

Theme 1

Composite American Democracy
6 5

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Type of

Location. Table 5.5 displays the subscale results as well

as the overall average scale score results by type of

school location.

For the most part, the significant differences among

students attending schools in central city, urban fringe/

large town, and rural/small town locations on the

composite U.S. history scale were also significant on

each of the subscales. The exceptions were:

© At grade 4, there was no significant difference

between urban fringe/large town students and rural/

small town students for the Peoples, Cultures, and

Ideas theme.

© At grade 8, there were no significant differences for

the Economic and Technological Changes theme.

Also, urban fringe/large town students did not

outperform rural/small town students on the

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas theme, as they did on

the composite scale.

© At grade 12, the difference between rural/small town

students and central city students noted for the

composite scale was not evident for the Economic

and Technological Changes theme.

Grade 4

Total 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

Type of Location

Central City 198 (2.0) 204 (2.0) 195 (2.4) 196 (2.4) 199 (1.6)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 211 (1.6) 213 (1.6) 209 (2.0) 212 (1.8) 210 (1.5)

Rural/Small Town 203 (2.8) 204 (3.2) 203 (3.8) 202 (3.1) 202 (2.4)

Grade 8

Total 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

Type of Location

Central City 257 (1.3) 255 (1.5) 262 (1.3) 256 (1.5) 255 (1.6)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 262 (1.2) 260 (1.3) 266 (1.2) 260 (1.4) 263 (1.3)

Rural/Small Town 258 (1.3) 254 (1.5) 261 (1.4) 260 (1.5) 256 (2.2)

Grade 12

Total 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

Type of Location

Central City 286 (1.3) 287 (1.9) 285 (1.0) 287 (1.2) 287 (1.7)

Urban Fringe/Large Town 289 (1.2) 289 (1.5) 286 (1.1) 289 (1.2) 291 (1.3)

Rural/Small Town 281 (1.0) 280 (1.4) 280 (1.0) 284 (1.0) 282 (1.4)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 5.5

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Type of Location

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Theme 3

Economic and

Technological Changes

Theme 4

World Role

Theme 2

Peoples, Cultures,

and Ideas

Theme 1

Composite American Democracy
6 6

Performance on Thematic Subscales by Type of

School. Table 5.6 displays the subscale results as well as

the overall average scale score results by type of school

(public and nonpublic). As with the composite scale,

students attending nonpublic schools outperformed

those attending public schools on all four thematic

subscales.

Grade 4

Total 205 (1.0) 208 (1.1) 203 (1.3) 204 (1.3) 204 (1.1)

Type of School

Public Schools 203 (1.2) 206 (1.3) 201 (1.4) 202 (1.5) 203 (1.2)

Nonpublic Schools 222 (1.9) 226 (2.0) 219 (2.3) 224 (2.3) 219 (1.9)

Catholic Schools 221 (2.5) 224 (2.4) 216 (3.4) 225 (2.8) 217 (2.4)

Other Nonpublic Schools 224 (3.1) 229 (3.3) 224 (4.1) 222 (3.9) 223 (2.6)

Grade 8

Total 259 (0.6) 256 (0.7) 263 (0.7) 259 (0.7) 258 (0.9)

Type of School

Public Schools 257 (0.7) 254 (0.8) 261 (0.8) 257 (0.8) 256 (0.9)

Nonpublic Schools 278 (1.1) 276 (1.4) 280 (1.4) 277 (1.5) 278 (1.6)

Catholic Schools 279 (1.5) 277 (1.9) 280 (1.9) 280 (1.8) 278 (2.0)

Other Nonpublic Schools 277 (2.1) 275 (2.4) 280 (2.2) 274 (2.2) 277 (2.7)

Grade 12

Total 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1) 284 (0.7) 287 (0.7) 287 (1.0)

Type of School

Public Schools 284 (0.8) 284 (1.2) 283 (0.8) 286 (0.8) 286 (1.1)

Nonpublic Schools 299 (1.3) 303 (1.9) 295 (1.2) 297 (1.2) 300 (1.7)

Catholic Schools 298 (2.2) 301 (3.2) 295 (1.8) 296 (2.1) 301 (2.6)

Other Nonpublic Schools 299 (2.2) 305 (3.2) 295 (1.9) 298 (1.8) 299 (3.1)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated scale scores appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the

estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE 5.6

Theme 3

Economic and

Technological Changes

Theme 4

World Role

Theme 2

Peoples, Cultures,

and Ideas

Theme 1

Composite American Democracy

Average Scale Scores in Themes by Type of School

Grades 4, 8, and 12
6 7

Profiling Students’ Performance on

the Four Historical Themes

To illustrate the range of assessment tasks that students

were asked to perform, this section provides a visual

representation of each thematic subscale, called an

“item map.” The item map shows tasks in the order of

their difficulty for the population assessed. Each task is

identified by a brief description. Clearly, not all the tasks

in the assessment could be presented in these figures.

Instead, sample tasks were selected to illustrate the

range of abilities across the subscales and to

demonstrate the types of tasks that students with

different subscale scores could typically answer

correctly.

The item maps identify where, on each thematic

subscale, individual tasks are answered correctly by

approximately two-thirds (65 percent) of the students.

(The criterion was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice

questions to adjust for the possibility of students answering

correctly by guessing.) The point on the subscale item

map at which a task is positioned represents the subscale score attained by students who had a 65-percent

probability of successfully performing the task. Thus it

can be said for each task and its corresponding subscale

score that at least 65 percent of students at or above

that point on the subscale have adequately performed

that task.

For example, looking at the fourth-grade American

Democracy Item Map (Figure 5.4), at least 65 percent

of fourth graders with a score of 236 or better on the

American Democracy subscale were able to identify

Rosa Park’s role in the Civil Rights movement. Fourth

graders who scored higher than 236 on this subscale

were even more likely to be able to answer this question,

while students who scored lower on the subscale were

less likely to do so. In interpreting the item map information, it should be kept in mind that students at

different grades demonstrated these abilities with gradeappropriate materials.
6 8

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

Figure 5.4 Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 4

Each U.S. history question was mapped onto the NAEP U.S. history theme subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the map

represents the subscale score attained by students who had a 65-percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its corresponding

subscale score that students with scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65-percent chance of successfully answering the question, while those below that point on the

subscale have a less than 65-percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item map information, it should be kept in mind that

students at different grades demonstrated these abilities with grade-appropriate materials.

THEME 1

Change and Continuity in American

Democracy: Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and Controversies

25th

Percentile

(185) ©

90th

Percentile

(253) ©

THEME 2

The Gathering and Interactions of

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas

50th

Percentile

(208) ©

25th

Percentile

(174) ©

90th

Percentile

(258) ©

(273) Identify causal significance of Columbus’

voyages for Europe

(271) Describe why Pilgrims celebrated first

Thanksgiving

(268) Place immigrant quotation in historical context

(268) Infer from drawing of American Indian village

how inhabitants got food

(256) Identify American Indian tribe that followed the

Trail of Tears

(252) Identify Oregon Trail

(247) Locate birthplace of slaves on world map

(244) Identify significance of Drinking Gourd song

sung by slaves

(242) Read timeline to infer seasonal difficulties

confronted by Pilgrims

(230) Describe how American Indian group got food,

clothing, shelter

(213) Recognize symbolic value of Statue of Liberty

(203) Recognize cultural significance of totem poles

(194) Read timeline to identify how American Indians

helped Pilgrims

(154) Identify one crop American Indians taught

settlers to grow

(275) Identify purpose of Bill of Rights

(266) Recognize result of Boston Tea Party

(262) Identify one of the 13 colonies that fought

Revolution

(259) Interpret and identify historical context for

African American voter registration charts

(258) Provide accurate facts about famous figure in

American history charts

(251) Recognize reason why Pilgrims and Puritans

came to America

(247) Place House Divided Speech in historical

context

(242) Identify purpose of Underground Railroad

(240) Identify major cause of Civil War

(239) Relate segregation photos to need for Civil

Rights laws

(236) Identify Rosa Park’s role in Civil Rights

Movement

(214) Connect Susan B. Anthony to correct cause

(198) Use historical photograph to make inference

about suffragists’ goals

(177) Recognize author of “I Have a Dream” speech

50th

Percentile

(212) ©
6 9

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

25th

Percentile

(177) ©

THEME 3

Economic and Technological Changes

and Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment

THEME 4

The Changing Role of America in the World

90th

Percentile

(247) ©

25th

Percentile

(182) ©

50th

Percentile

(207) ©

(256) Interpret appeal of army recruiting poster

(246) Identify Columbus’ intended destination in 1492

(245) List three important facts about famous site

(234) Use map to identify last state added to U.S.

(214) Place Neil Armstrong quotation in historical

context

(269) Infer from diary entry differences between 18th c.

and contemporary children’s lives

(267) Recognize purpose of labor unions

(263) Explain how modern inventions would change life

described in 18th c. diary

(261) Analyze how electronic inventions changed lives

(247) Understand why early mills were built on water

(247) Recognize what product label says about U.S.

economy

(242) Identify how railroad affected Chicago

(235) Identify why child labor was allowed

(230) Recognize how most people made living in

colonial south

(229) Identify most recent invention in list

(211) Analyze changes in 19th c. transportation

(116) Recognize use of feather in pioneer schools

(114) Recognize first moon landing from photograph

90th

Percentile

(259) ©

(260) Distinguish Vietnam as longest war on list

50th

Percentile

(210) ©

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
7 0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

THEME 1

Change and Continuity in American

Democracy: Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and Controversies

THEME 2

The Gathering and Interactions of

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas

(305) Recognize appropriate primary source for

studying immigration patterns

(301) Identify contribution of Mexicans to Western

development

(293) Read Native American document and infer

motive of British policy

(279) Read data table and determine use of 18th c.

census information

(275) Identify first permanent English settlement in

North America

(275) Identify reason for Mormon migration to Utah

(267) Infer from quotation the role of state government in Little Rock school desegregation

incident

(263) Interpret political cartoon about immigration

law

(260) Detect symbolism used in early painting of

George Washington

(258) Read bar graph to identify changes in 20th c.

immigration pattern

(258) Identify 19th c. restrictions on children of

slaves

(243) Use pie charts to draw conclusion about

changes in colonial population

(238) Place civil rights song in historical context

Figure 5.5 Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 8

Each history question was mapped onto the NAEP history theme subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the map represents

the subscale score attained by students who had a 65-percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its corresponding subscale score

that students with scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65-percent chance of successfully answering the question, while those below that point on the subscale have a

less than 65-percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item map information, it should be kept in mind that students at

different grades demonstrated these abilities with grade-appropriate materials.

25th

Percentile

(234) ©

90th

Percentile

(299) ©

90th

Percentile

(303) ©

50th

Percentile

(265) ©

(321) Understand Connecticut Compromise

(305) Identify importance of first census

(305) Identify what happened at New England town

meetings

(295) Recognize importance of slave population debate

at 1787 Constitutional convention

(295) Understand why people wanted a bill of rights

(292) Identify who was President during World War II

(290) Recognize what rights are protected by First

Amendment

(290) Identify why Roger Williams was forced to leave

colony

(289) Recognize excerpt from Declaration of Independence

(269) Identify author of House Divided speech

(268) Interpret quotation to identify 19th c. tension

between state and federal authority

(264) Interpret House Divided speech to identify

historical context

(258) Identify former slave states on U.S. map

(258) Identify major author of Declaration of Independence

(242) Recognize important Civil Rights events

(240) Place Gettysburg Address in historical context

(237) Recognize causal significance of Montgomery

Boycott

50th

Percentile

(258) ©

25th

Percentile

(243) ©
7 1

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

THEME 3

Economic and Technological Changes

and Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment

THEME 4

The Changing Role of America in the World

(312) Recognize events of World War II

(308) Describe important occurrence in 1776

Philadelphia

(305) Create time line of important colonial events

(305) Describe important colonial advantage in

American Revolution

(297) Analyze 19th c. grocery list to identify U.S.

foreign trade pattern

(295) Use world map to explain reasons for sending

U.S. troops to two locations

(283) Recognize provision of 1783 Treaty of Paris

(283) Recognize which American Indian tribe lived in

15th c. Mexico

(281) Identify from which country U.S. acquired

Florida

(279) Identify where U.S. dropped World War II atomic

bombs

(271) Describe important British advantage in

American Revolution

(260) Place Pearl Harbor poster in historical context

(255) Interpret purpose of 1943 World War II poster

90th

Percentile

(297) ©

50th

Percentile

(261) ©

25th

Percentile

(234) ©

90th

Percentile

(305) ©

25th

Percentile

(239) ©

(297) Recognize movement inspired by Rachel Carson’s

Silent Spring

(296) Identify reason for New Deal

(294) Use population graph to describe changes in U.S.

life between 1790 and 1970

(292) Recognize main effect of cotton gin

(290) Understand three useful sources for report on work

during American Revolution

(286) Describe effects on West of building of railroad

(278) Use map to infer purpose of water supply in 19th c.

town

(276) Use map to identify colonial trade route

(269) Recognize U.S. produced product from 19th c.

grocery list

(251) Identify union strategy against factory owners

(250) Recognize effects of introduction of barbed wire

(247) Identify which invention most changed work life

(237) Recognize consequence of Gold Rush

(229) Infer report topic relevant to 19th c. social protest

photographs

50th

Percentile

(260) ©

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
7 2

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NOTE: In this graphic illustration, the locations of scale points are necessarily approximate for questions clustered closely together.

(339) Interpret Bryan’s argument in Cross of Gold speech

(337) Place Hamilton criticism of Articles of Confederation in historical context

(334) Infer from quotation why Madison preferred large

republics

(332) Recognize long-term effect of 14th Amendment

(331) Recognize and explain context of civil rights

cartoon

(324) Interpret Thoreau quotation on individual’s relation

to government

(321) Understand political crisis caused by Missouri’s

application for statehood

(318) Identify causal significance of The Great Awakening

(317) Explain advantage of the South in Civil War

(297) Infer reason for liquor industry’s opposition to

woman suffrage

(296) Recognize contribution of third parties to U.S.

politics

(292) Infer political meaning of George Washington

painting

(284) Infer from quotation why Antifederalists thought

small republics better

(264) Recognize rights protected by 14th Amendment

(261) Identify colonists’ attitude toward Stamp Act

(319) Explain differences between White and Native

American attitudes toward land ownership

(318) Recognize theme common to Lost Generation

writers

(315) Recognize enterprise of the muckrakers

(315) Recognize causal significance of the Second

Great Awakening

(312) Analyze 1635 passenger list to infer contrasts

between Southern and New England colonies

(311) Recognize group most affected by Japanese

evacuation

(310) Read birthrate graph to recognize correct

generalization

(308) Infer from 1950’s job survey social attitudes

toward women

(307) Identify belief central to 19th c. Social

Darwinists

(299) Recognize achievements of the Harlem

Renaissance

(299) Recognize social consequence of Prohibition

(296) Identify purpose of Reconstruction Era Black

Codes

(276) Identify cause of 19th c. urban population

explosion

(270) Read excerpt to identify Brown v. Board of

Education Supreme Court decision

(266) Understand purpose of style in painting of

George Washington

THEME 2

The Gathering and Interactions of

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas

THEME 1

Change and Continuity in American

Democracy: Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and Controversies

Figure 5.6 Map of Selected Items on the History Theme Subscales for Grade 12

Each history question was mapped onto the NAEP history theme subscale based on students’ performance. The point on the subscale at which a question is positioned on the map represents

the subscale score attained by students who had a 65-percent probability of successfully answering the question. Thus, it can be said for each question and its corresponding subscale score

that students with scores above that point on the subscale have a greater than 65-percent chance of successfully answering the question, while those below that point on the subscale have a

less than 65-percent chance. (The probability was set at 74 percent for multiple-choice questions.) In interpreting the item map information, it should be kept in mind that students at

different grades demonstrated these abilities with grade-appropriate materials.

25th

Percentile

(258) ©

90th

Percentile

(339) ©

25th

Percentile

(267) ©

90th

Percentile

(316) ©

50th

Percentile

(286) © 50th

Percentile

(288) ©
7 3

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

NAEP

Scale

500

325

300

275

250

225

200

0

THEME 3

Economic and Technological Changes

and Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment

THEME 4

The Changing Role of America

in the World

(333) Explain John F. Kennedy quotation relating

China and Vietnam

(332) Recognize purpose of Monroe Doctrine

(331) Infer information about presidential election

from Vietnam graph

(329) Recognize motive in U.S. support of Marshall

plan

(327) Analyze Woodrow Wilson quote about postWorld War I peacekeeping

(323) Interpret message of Theodore Roosevelt

foreign policy cartoon

(321) Identify factor in U.S. World War I involvement

(320) Recognize U.S. foreign policy goal, 1945-1990

(320) Analyze target of Harding campaign poster

(318) Interpret and place Soviet policy cartoon in

historical context

(314) Recognize reason for British support of

Confederacy

(313) Analyze message of avenge Pearl Harbor poster

(313) Identify energy crisis as threat to U.S. economy

(310) Interpret anti-League of Nations cartoon

(304) Recognize Cuban Missile Crisis as source of

U.S./Soviet tension

(334) Explain factor in changed nature of farming

(333) Compare F.D. Roosevelt’s 1933 and 1937 inauguration

speeches

(315) Explain factor in suburban growth

(314) Identify Upton Sinclair’s book critiquing meat-packing

industry

(311) Infer Civil War damage to urban South from news

report

(310) Identify 19th c. supporters of gold standard

(309) Use map to identify important product from colonial

trade route

(303) Recognize views of New Deal supporters

(300) Recognize importance of development of mail-order

business

(298) Place quotation about 19th c. textile workers in

historical context

(291) Analyze document to identify cause of preDepression prosperity

(290) Identify Virginia’s 18th c. main cash crop

(286) Interpret cartoon to identify U.S. response to Soviet

space exploration

(282) Identify motivation for European voyages of

exploration

(277) Interpret photograph of women workers to identify

pro-union protest

(275) Identify affect of small pox and measles vaccinations

(258) Interpret documents to identify F.D. Roosevelt’s New

Deal goals

90th

Percentile

(322) ©

25th

Percentile

(268) ©

90th

Percentile

(333) ©

25th

Percentile

(263) ©

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

50th

Percentile

(289) ©

50th

Percentile

(289) ©
7 4

Summary

Examining specific knowledge and skills demonstrated

by students at various points on the composite scale

reveals a variety of patterns in student performance.

Generally, students across grades in the higher percentiles

exhibited greater abilities to analyze, draw inferences,

work with primary documents, and think critically.

Perhaps predictably, these students were more likely to

read more pages per day in school, spend more time on

their homework, and discuss their studies at home

more frequently than their lower-performing peers.

(See endnote 1.)

Illustrating student performance on specific tasks

on item maps for each subscale helped place the

assessment results in perspective. Clearly, students

found the assessment challenging. For each subscale at

grades 4, 8, and 12, the majority of tasks mapped above

the 50th percentile, in many cases exceeding the 90th

percentile. This indicates that many students had a less

than 65-percent chance of performing well on these

questions. The NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment was

rigorous; many tasks demanded knowledge of complex

events and concepts, and abilities to analyze and

interpret.

Patterns of student subgroup performance on

the four subscales for the most part reflected those

evidenced on the composite scale. For example, across

the four subscales, as on the composite scale, White and

Asian students had higher average scale scores than

their Black and Hispanic peers. Also, there was a

positive relationship between levels of parental

education and student scores across subscales. However,

there were some interesting variations in subscale

performance as compared to that on the composite

scale, the most notable being that, at grades 8 and 12,

females outperformed males on the People, Cultures,

and Ideas theme.

Endnotes

1. It should be noted that results for pages read in

school and time spent on homework are based on

collapsed data. The data do not necessarily imply

a direct, positive linear relationship between student

performance on the NAEP U.S. history assessment,

and students’ reports of pages read in school and time

spent on homework.
7 5

CONCLUSION

The NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment was constructed

to be challenging. It required students to marshal

bodies of complex knowledge, as well as to show their

abilities to analyze, to explore points of view, and to

think critically about U.S. history. A variety of stimuli,

such as photographs, cartoons, and primary documents,

were used. Also, a large percentage of assessment time

was devoted to constructed-response questions for

which students had to write their own answers.

Student performance on the assessment reflected

its challenging nature. Many students found the

assessment difficult. For the nation as a whole, few

students reached the Proficient achievement level —

defined as signifying solid grade-level performance —

and only 1 or 2 percent reached the Advanced achievement level. This shows a much lower level of attainment

than has been seen in other subjects assessed by NAEP.

Moreover, when student performance on specific tasks is

illustrated on item maps for each NAEP thematic subscale,

many tasks fell well above the 50th percentiles for each

subscale, indicating that only top-performing students

could successfully respond to these questions on a

consistent basis.

Some of the patterns in performance, however, are

characteristic of those seen in other NAEP assessments,

such as reading and geography. For example, White and

Asian students generally had higher average scale scores

than did Black and Hispanic students. Also, as seen in

other NAEP assessments, students who reported that

their parents had higher levels of education outperformed their peers who reported lower levels of

parental education, and students attending nonpublic

schools outperformed those in public schools.

Male students outperformed female students

only at grade 12 on the U.S. history composite scale.

However, subscale performances did not necessarily

mirror performances on the composite scale. For

example, female students at grades 8 and 12 outperformed males on the People, Cultures, and Ideas

subscale.

Performance associated with home support and

other background variables also was consistent with

that found in other NAEP assessments. Frequent

television watching was associated with lower scale

scores, while having literacy materials and discussing

studies at home were associated with higher scores. It is

encouraging to note that exposure to U.S. history is

associated with higher scores for grades 4 and 8

students, and the more semesters of potential historyrelated coursework done by twelfth graders, the better

their performance.

While the NAEP results presented in this report

cannot be used to draw causal inferences, they

nevertheless do point out interesting characteristics

and patterns of student performance. Future research

and other projects and analyses can utilize NAEP data to

shed more light on relationships between performance

and background data, that in turn can be used by

policymakers, educators, and citizens to bring change

to the United States educational system.
7 7

APPENDIX A

Overview of Procedures

Used in NAEP’s 1994

U.S. History Assessment

Introduction

The conduct of a large-scale assessment of educational

progress entails the successful coordination of a

multitude of projects, committees, procedures, and

tasks. This appendix provides an overview of the NAEP

1994 U.S. history assessment’s primary components —

framework, development, administration, scoring, and

analysis. A more extensive review of procedures and

methods utilized in the assessment will be included

in a subsequent technical report: The NAEP 1994

Technical Report.

NAEP’s U.S. History Assessment

Framework

The framework underlying the NAEP 1994 U.S. history

assessment reflects current consensus among educators

and researchers about the study of U.S. history.

The framework’s purpose was to provide a view of

U.S. history on which to base the NAEP assessment.

Developing this framework and the specifications that

guided development of the assessment involved the

critical input of hundreds of individuals across the

country, including representatives of national education

organizations, teachers, parents, policymakers, business

leaders, and the interested general public. This

consensus process was managed by the Council of Chief

State School Officers for the National Assessment

Governing Board.

The framework sets forth a broad content matrix

that describes U.S. history in terms of historical themes

and periods. Figure A.1 summarizes this content matrix.

Three Worlds and Their

Meeting in the Americas

(Beginnings to 1607)

Colonization, Settlement, and

Communities

(1607 to 1763)

The Revolution and the

New Nation (1763 to 1815)

Expansion and Reform (1801

to 1861)

Crisis of the Union: Civil War

and Reconstruction

(1850 to 1877)

The Development of

Modern America

(1865 to 1920)

Modern America and the

World Wars (1914 to 1945)

Contemporary America

(1945 to Present)

Change and Continuity in

American Democracy:

Ideas, Institutions,

Practices, and

Controversies

THEMES

PERIODS

Figure A.1 NAEP 1994 U.S. History Content Matrix

The Gathering and

Interactions of Peoples,

Cultures, and Ideas

The Changing Role of

America in the World

Economic and

Technological Changes and

Their Relation to Society,

Ideas, and the

Environment
7 8

The assessment framework specified not only the

particular aspects of U.S. history to be measured, but

also the percentage of assessment time that should be

devoted to each. The target percentage distributions of

historical themes and historical periods as specified in

the framework, along with the actual percentage

distributions in the assessment, are presented in Tables

A.1 and A.2. The actual content of the assessment was

consistent with the targeted distribution.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE A.2

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Historical Periods Target Actual* Target Actual* Target Actual*

Three Worlds and Their Meeting in the Americas (Beginnings to 1607) 20% 15% 5% 3% 5% 2%

Colonization, Settlement, and Communities (1607 to 1763) 15% 13% 10% 7% 10% 8%

The Revolution and the New Nation (1763 to 1815) 15% 12% 20% 20% 15% 10%

Expansion and Reform (1801 to 1861) 15% 10% 15% 10% 10% 7%

Crisis of the Union: Civil War and Reconstruction (1850 to 1877) 10% 8% 20% 13% 10% 10%

The Development of Modern America (1865 to 1920) 5% 9% 10% 13% 15% 15%

Modern America and the World Wars (1914 to 1945) 5% 5% 10% 12% 15% 29%

Contemporary America (1945 to Present) 15% 15% 10% 11% 20% 20%

* Actual period percentages do not add up to 100 percent, due to the classification of some items in more than one period, or generally applied across historical periods.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

TABLE A.1

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Historical Themes Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: 25% 24% 30% 28% 25% 29%

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies

The Gathering and Interactions of Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas 35% 32% 30% 30% 25% 23%

Economic and Technological Changes and Their Relation to 25% 25% 20% 23% 25% 26%

Society, Ideas, and the Environment

The Changing Role of America in the World 15% 19% 20% 19% 25% 21%

Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Historical Theme

Grades 4, 8, and 12

Target and Actual Percentage Distribution of Questions by

Grade and Historical Period

Grades 4, 8, and 12
7 9

takes each portion of the assessment. Individual students

were required to take only a small part; however, the

aggregate results across the entire assessment allow for

broad reporting of U.S. history abilities for the targeted

population.

In addition to matrix sampling, the assessment

design used a procedure for distributing booklets that

controlled for position and balance effects. Students

received different blocks of questions in their booklets

according to a specific design. Balanced incomplete

block (BIB) spiraling was used to assign blocks of

questions in a manner that balanced the positioning

of blocks across booklets and balanced the pairing of

blocks within booklets. The spiraling aspect of this

procedure cycles the booklets for administration so that

typically only a few students in any assessment session

receive the same booklet.

Teacher and School Questionnaires

One of the most important parts of NAEP’s efforts to

document the nature of students’ achievement is the

collection of contextual information regarding students’

school experiences. As a part of the 1994 U.S. history

assessment, NAEP administered a questionnaire to

teachers responsible for teaching social studies or

history to students who participated in the fourth- or

eighth-grade assessments. In addition, the principals or

other administrators of sampled schools at all grades

were asked to complete a school questionnaire. These

questionnaires were developed in consultation with an

expert panel. These instruments focused on five areas:

instructional content, instructional practices and

experiences, teacher characteristics, school conditions

and contexts, and conditions outside the school (i.e.,

home support, out-of-school activities, and attitudes).

The fourth- and eighth-grade social studies and

history teacher questionnaires were composed of two

sections each. One section contained questions about

teachers’ background, education, and resources.

Another section posed questions to teachers about their

recent exposure to training in various areas of history

education, the structure and nature of their classroom

instruction, and the types of materials and approaches

they use in teaching history.

Because the sampling of teachers for the teacher

questionnaires was based on participating students, the

teachers’ questionnaire responses do not necessarily

represent all fourth- and eighth-grade teachers

in the nation. Rather, they represent teachers of the

representative sample of students in the assessment.

The Assessment Design

Each student in the assessment received an assessment

booklet containing general background questions, U.S.

history questions, a set of background questions specific

to social studies or history, and a set of questions that

determined students’ motivation and familiarity with

the assessment tasks. The U.S. history questions and

their stimulus material were arranged into blocks.

Students were given either two 25-minute blocks or one

50-minute block. At the fourth grade, only 25-minute

blocks were used.

The grade 4 assessment consisted of six 25-minute

blocks, two of which were also administered to eighthgrade students. Each block contained single questions

and sets, a variety of stimulus material, and a

combination of multiple-choice and constructedresponse questions. One of the constructed-response

questions in each block required an extended response.

A total of 63 multiple-choice questions, 26 short

constructed-response questions, and six extended

constructed-response questions were administered at

grade 4.

The grade 8 assessment consisted of eight 25-minute

blocks (including two also administered at grade 4 and

two also administered at grade 12), and one 50-minute

block. The 25-minute blocks followed the same pattern

as those for grade 4, except that some included more

than one extended constructed-response question.

The 50-minute block included questions all focusing

on a particular theme, and contained three extended

constructed-response questions. A total of 102 multiplechoice questions, 37 short constructed-response

questions, and 12 extended constructed-response

questions were administered at grade 8.

The grade 12 assessment consisted of eight 25-minute

blocks (including two also administered at grade 12),

and one 50-minute block. These blocks followed the

same pattern as those for grades 4 and 8, except that

all blocks included two extended constructed-response

questions. The 50-minute block included questions

all focusing on a particular theme, contained four

extended constructed-response questions. A total of

103 multiple-choice questions, 33 short constructedresponse questions, and 19 extended constructedresponse questions were administered at grade 12.

The assessment design allowed for maximum

coverage of the domain of U.S. history at each grade,

while minimizing the time burden for any one student.

This was accomplished through the use of matrix

sampling, in which a representative sample of students
8 0

Consequently, these findings portray the nature of

students’ instructional experiences and the background

of their teachers.

It is important to note that in this report, as in all

NAEP reports, the student is the unit of analysis —

even when information from teacher or school

questionnaires is being reported. Using the student as

the unit of analysis makes it possible to link students’

performance with their instructional and background

experiences, thus providing a rich source of relevant

information for educators and researchers. Although

this approach may provide a different perspective from

other studies that simply report information about

teachers or schools, it is consistent with NAEP’s goal of

providing information about the educational context

and performance of students.

Some students selected for the assessment were

judged by school authorities to be incapable of

meaningful participation in the assessment because they

had limited English-language proficiency, were mentally

challenged, or were functionally disabled. (See Limited

English Proficient and Individualized Education Plan

section in this appendix.) For each student excluded

from the assessment, schools were required to complete

a questionnaire about the characteristics of that student

and the reason for exclusion.

NAEP U.S. History Samples

The results presented in this report are based on

nationally representative probability samples of fourth-,

eighth-, and twelfth-grade students. The samples were

selected using a complex multistage sampling design

involving the sampling of students from selected schools

within selected geographic areas across the country. The

sample design had the following stages:

1) selection of primary sampling units (PSUs) —

geographic areas defined as counties or groups of

counties);

2) selection of schools (both public and nonpublic)

within the selected areas; and

3) selection of students within selected schools.

Each selected school that participated in the

assessment, and each student assessed, represents a

portion of the population of interest. To make valid

inferences from the student samples to the respective

populations from which they were drawn, sampling

weights are needed. Sampling weights account for

disproportionate representation due to oversampling of

nonpublic schools and of students attending schools

with high concentrations of Black and/or Hispanic

students. Lower sampling rates for very small schools

must also be accounted for with the sampling weights.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

Unweighted Sample Size (and Percent of Total)

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Nation 5,499 (100.0%) 8,767 (100.0%) 7,818 (100.0%)

Region

Northeast 1,334 ( 24.3%) 1,614 ( 18.4%) 1,770 ( 22.6%)

Southeast 1,440 ( 26.2%) 2,664 ( 30.4%) 2,168 ( 27.7%)

Central 1,241 ( 22.6%) 1,821 ( 20.8%) 1,575 ( 20.1%)

West 1,484 ( 27.0%) 2,668 ( 30.4%) 2,305 ( 29.5%)

Weighted Sample Size (and Percent of Total)

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Nation 3,527,794 (100.0%) 3,449,193 (100.0%) 2,545,898 (100.0%)

Region

Northeast 767,788 ( 21.8%) 692,421 ( 20.1%) 517,336 ( 20.3%)

Southeast 818,785 ( 23.2%) 878,674 ( 25.5%) 582,651 ( 22.9%)

Central 887,761 ( 25.2%) 820,691 ( 23.8%) 683,496 ( 26.8%)

West 1,053,461 ( 29.9%) 1,057,406 ( 30.7%) 762,415 ( 29.9%)

Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.

TABLE A.3 Unweighted and Weighted Sample Sizes by Grade

Public and Nonpublic Schools

Grades 4, 8, and 12
8 1

Table A.3 provides a summary of the weighted and

unweighted student sample sizes for the U.S. history

assessment. The numbers reported include both public

and nonpublic school students.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

and Individualized Education Plan

(IEP) Students

It is NAEP’s intent to assess all selected students.

Therefore, every effort is made to ensure that all

selected students who are capable of participating in the

assessment are assessed. However, some students

sampled for participation in NAEP can be excused from

the sample according to carefully defined criteria.

Specifically, some students identified as having Limited

English Proficiency (LEP) or having an Individualized

Education Plan (IEP) may be incapable of participating

meaningfully in the assessment. These students are

identified as follows:

Students classified as LEP may be excluded from the

assessment if

© the student is a native speaker of a language other

than English; AND

© the student has been enrolled in an Englishspeaking school less than two years; AND

© the school staff most familiar with the student have

judged the student to be incapable of taking part in

the assessment.

Students classified as IEP may be excluded if

© the student is mainstreamed less than 50 percent of

the time in academic subjects and is judged to be

incapable of taking part in the assessment, OR

© the IEP team has determined that the student is

incapable of taking part meaningfully in the

assessment.

When there is doubt, the student is included in

the assessment.

For each student excused from the assessment,

school personnel complete a questionnaire about the

characteristics of that student and the reason for

exclusion.

Data Collection

The NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment was conducted

from January through March 1994, with some makeup

sessions in early April. As with all NAEP assessments,

data collection for the 1994 assessment was conducted

by trained field staff. For the U.S. history assessment,

this was accomplished by Westat, Inc., staff.

Scoring

Materials from the 1994 assessment were shipped to

National Computer Systems in Iowa City for processing.

Receipt and quality control were managed through a

sophisticated bar-coding and tracking system. After all

appropriate materials were received from a school, they

were forwarded to the professional scoring area where

the responses to the constructed-response questions

were evaluated by trained staff using guidelines prepared

by NAEP. Each constructed-response question had a

unique scoring guide that defined the criteria to be used

in evaluating students’ responses. The extended

constructed-response questions were evaluated with

four-level rubrics, and many of the short constructedresponse questions were rated according to three-level

rubrics that permitted partial credit to be given.

For the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment,

approximately 375,000 student responses were scored.

This figure includes a 25 percent rescore to monitor

interrater reliability. The overall percentages of

agreement between scorers for the 1994 reliability

samples were 90 percent at grade 4, 90 percent at

grade 8, and 89 percent at grade 12.

Data Analysis and IRT Scaling

Subsequent to the professional scoring, all information

was transcribed to the NAEP database at ETS. Each

processing activity was conducted with rigorous quality

control. After the assessment information had been

compiled in the database, the data were weighted

according to the population structure. The weighting

for the samples reflected the probability of selection for

each student as a result of the sampling design, adjusted

for nonresponse. Through stratification, the weighting

assured that the representation of certain subpopulations

corresponded to figures from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census and the Current Population Survey.1
8 2

Analyses were then conducted to determine the

percentages of students who gave various responses to

each U.S. history and background question. In

determining these percentages for the U.S. history

questions, a distinction was made between missing

responses at the end of a block (i.e., missing responses

subsequent to the last question the student answered)

and missing responses prior to the last observed

response. Missing responses before the last observed

response were considered intentional omissions.

Missing responses at the end of the block were

considered “not reached” and treated as if the questions

had not been presented to the student. In calculating

response percentages for each question, only students

classified as having been presented the question were

included in the denominator of the statistic.

It is standard ETS practice to treat all nonrespondents

to the last question in a block as if they had not reached

the question. For multiple-choice and short constructedresponse questions, this practice produces a reasonable

pattern of results in that the proportion reaching the

last question is not dramatically smaller than the

proportion reaching the next-to-last question. However,

for blocks that ended with extended constructedresponse questions, the standard ETS practice would

result in extremely large drops in the proportion of

students attempting the final question. A drop of such

magnitude seemed somewhat implausible. Therefore,

for blocks ending with an extended constructed-response

question, students who answered the next-to-last question

but did not respond to the extended constructedresponse question were classified as having intentionally

omitted the last question.

Item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate

average U.S. history scale scores for the nation and for

various subgroups of interest within the nation. IRT

models the probability of answering a question in a

certain way as a mathematical function of skill. The

main purpose of IRT analysis is to provide a common

scale on which performance can be compared across

groups such as those defined by grades and characteristics,

including race/ethnicity and gender.

Because of the BIB-spiraling design used by NAEP,

students do not receive enough questions about a

specific topic to provide reliable information about

individual performance. Traditional test scores for

individual students, even those based on IRT, would lead

to misleading estimates of population characteristics,

such as subgroup means and percentages of students at

or above a certain achievement level. Consequently,

NAEP constructs sets of plausible values designed to

represent the distribution of scores in the population.

A plausible value for an individual is not a scale score for

that individual but may be regarded as a representative

value from the distribution of potential scale scores

for all students in the population with similar

characteristics and identical patterns of item response.

Statistics describing performance on the NAEP U.S.

history scale are based on the plausible values. They

estimate values that would have been obtained had

individual performances been observed — that is, had

each student responded to a sufficient number of

cognitive questions so that performance could be

precisely estimated.2

For the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment, withingrade scales were created to report performance for

each subscale (i.e., historical theme). Similar scaling

procedures were used to establish each of the four

subscales. Specifically, three within-grade subscales

(one for each grade) were established for each of the

U.S. history content areas. The within-grade subscales

for grades 4 and 12 were then linked to the grade 8

subscale to form a common reporting metric. This

common reporting metric, which runs from 0 to 500 for

each of the subscales, was established so that the mean

scores across all three grades is 250 and the standard

deviation of the scores is 50.

The composite NAEP U.S. history scale was

produced as a weighted average of the subscales, the

weights being given by the target percentages shown in

Table A.1. The reporting metric of the composite scale,

which also runs from 0 to 500, was again established so

that the mean score across all three grades is 250. No

constraints were imposed on the standard deviation of

the cross-grade composite scores.

It may be helpful here to provide some guidance to

the reader of this report about the types of cross-grade

and cross-scale inferences that are appropriate. The use

of a common cross-grade metric for the subscales and

the composite scale was motivated primarily by issues of

convenience in the reporting of results. In producing

the subscales, IRT parameters for questions common

across the grades were not constrained to be equal.

Furthermore, as is evident in Table A.1, the weights

used to combine the subscales into the composite U.S.

history scale differ by grade. As a result of these two

scaling conventions, cross-grade comparisons of scale

score averages, both at the subscale level as well as for

the composite scale, may not be meaningful. Similarly,

scale score differences (e.g., between subscale or
8 3

composite scale averages for males and females) should

probably not be compared across grades. The reader is

best served by focusing on within-grade group

comparisons and inferences.

The use of a common scaling procedure for each

of the subscales does provide for some within-grade

normative meanings across subscales. For example, at

grade 4, a score of 200 is one cross-grade standard

deviation unit below the cross-grade average for each of

the U.S. history subscales. Similarly, a score of 210 is

four-fifths of a cross-grade standard deviation below the

cross-grade average for each of the scales. A group,

for example males, scoring 200 on the American

Democracy subscale and 210 on the Economic and

Technological Changes subscale did indeed perform

“better” on the latter than on the former in a crossgrade normative sense. However, other inferences about

relative performance in, say, a percent-correct metric do

not necessarily follow. For example, a score of 200 on

the American Democracy subscale may imply a higher

expected percent-correct score on the collection of

assessment exercises that define that scale than is implied

by a score of 210 on the Economic and Technological

Changes subscale. Thus, continuing with the current

example, performance on the American Democracy

subscale was better in the percent-correct sense than

performance on the Economic and Technological

Changes scale.

In Chapter 5, performance across subscales is

compared by examining patterns of subgroup differences

(i.e., patterns of statistical significance between subgroups

across the four subscales). These patterns are discussed

separately for each of the three grades. Within-grade

inferences based on such comparisons are defensible

given the limited degree of comparability that exists in

the subscale reporting metrics. As noted above, other

types of inferences (e.g., inferences involving subscale

score differences) may be less defensible.

The subscales summarize student performance

across all three question types in the assessment

(multiple-choice, short constructed-response, and

extended constructed-response). In producing these

subscales, two IRT models were used. Multiple-choice

questions were scaled using the three-parameter logistic

(3PL) model; and short constructed-response questions

rated according to a three-level rubric, as well as

extended constructed-response questions rated on a

four-level rubric, were scaled using a generalized

partial-credit (GPC) model.3

 Developed by ETS and first

used in 1992, the GPC model permits the scaling of

questions scored according to multipoint rating

schemes. The model takes full advantage of the

information available from each of the student response

categories used for these more complex constructedresponse questions.

The U.S. history scale is composed of two types of

questions: multiple-choice and constructed-response

(scored according to a partial-credit model). One natural

question about the scale concerns the amount of

information contributed by each type of question.

Unfortunately, this question has no simple answer

for the NAEP U.S. history assessment, due to the

complex procedures used to form the composite U.S.

history scale.

The information provided by a given question is

determined by the IRT model used to scale the question

and is a function of proficiencies.4

 Thus, the answer to

the query “How much information do the different types

of questions provide?” will differ for each level of U.S.

history proficiency. When considering the composite

U.S. history scale, the answer is even more complicated.

The U.S. history data are scaled separately by the

historical themes. As discussed on the previous page,

the composite scale is a weighted combination of these

subscales. IRT information functions are only strictly

comparable when they are linked on a common scale.

Because the composite scale is based on four separate

calibrations, without any common item-linking, there is

no direct way to compare the information provided by

the questions on the composite scale.

NAEP Reporting Groups

Findings from the NAEP 1994 U.S. history assessment

are presented for groups of students defined by shared

characteristics. Data are reported for subgroups only

where sufficient numbers of students and adequate

school representation are present. There must be at

least 62 students in a particular subgroup, and these

students must come from at least six different PSUs (see

description of sampling design on page 80). Data for all

students, regardless of whether their subgroup was

reported separately, were included in computing overall

national and regional results.

The reporting subgroups presented in this report

include: region, race/ethnicity, gender, parents’

education level, type of school, and school’s type of

location. Definitions of these subgroups are provided on

the following page.
8 4

Region. Results are reported for four regions of the

nation: Northeast, Southeast, Central and West. States

included in each region are shown in Figure A.2. All

50 states and the District of Columbia are listed. U.S.

territories were not assigned to a region.

Race/Ethnicity. The race/ethnicity variable is an

imputed definition of race/ethnicity, derived from up to

three sources of information. This variable is used for

race/ethnicity subgroup comparisons. Two items from

the student demographics questionnaire were used in

the determination of derived race/ethnicity:

Demographic Item Number 2:

2. If you are Hispanic, what is your Hispanic

background?

j I am not Hispanic.

j Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano

j Puerto Rican

j Cuban

j Other Spanish or Hispanic background

Students who responded to Item Number 2 by

filling in the second, third, fourth, or fifth oval were

considered Hispanic. For students who filled in the

first oval, did not respond to the item, or provided

information that was illegible or could not be

classified, responses to Item Number 1 were

examined in an effort to determine race/ethnicity.

Item Number 1 read as follows:

Demographic Item Number 1:

1. Which best describes you?

j White (not Hispanic)

j Black (not Hispanic)

j Hispanic (“Hispanic” means someone who is

Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano,

Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Spanish or

Hispanic background.)

j Asian (“Asian” means someone who is Chinese,

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or other Asian

background.)

j Pacific Islander (“Pacific Islander” means

someone who is from a Filipino, Hawaiian, or

other Pacific Island background.)

j American Indian or Alaskan Native (“American

Indian or Alaskan Native” means someone who is

from one of the American Indian tribes, or one of

the original people of Alaska.)

j Other

Students’ race/ethnicity was then assigned to

correspond with their selection. For students who filled in

the seventh oval (“Other”), provided illegible information

or information that could not be classified, or did not

respond at all, race/ethnicity as provided from school

records was used.

Derived race/ethnicity could not be determined for

students who did not respond to demographic items 1

or 2 and for whom race/ethnicity was not provided by

the school.

Figure A.2 States Included in the Four Regions

*Note that the part of Virginia that is included in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area is

included in the Northeast region; the remainder of the state is included in the Southeast region.

NORTHEAST

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia*

SOUTHEAST

Alabama

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia*

West Virginia

CENTRAL

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

WEST

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Oregon

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wyoming
8 5

Gender. Results are reported separately for males

and females.

Parents’ Education Level. The parents’ education level

variable is derived from responses to two questions in

the student demographic questionnaire. Students were

asked to indicate the extent of their mother’s education

(How far in school did your mother go?) by choosing

one of the following:

j She did not finish high school.

j She graduated from high school.

j She had some education after high school.

j She graduated from college.

j I don’t know.

Students were asked to provide the same information

about the extent of their father’s education (How far in

school did your father go?) by choosing one of the

following:

j He did not finish high school.

j He graduated from high school.

j He had some education after high school.

j He graduated from college.

j I don’t know.

The information was combined into one parental

education reporting category as follows: if a student

indicated the extent of education for only one parent,

that level was included in the data. If a student indicated

the extent of education for both parents, the higher of

the two levels was included in the data. For students

who did not know the level of education for both parents

or did not know the level of education for one parent

and did not respond for the other, the parental

education level was classified as unknown. If the student

did not respond for both parents, the student was

recorded as having provided no response.

It should be noted that approximately one-third of

fourth graders and almost one-tenth of eighth graders

reported not knowing the education level of either of

their parents. The percentages of students who reported

not knowing their parents’ education level were larger

for fourth-grade Hispanic students and for eighth-grade

Black and Hispanic students compared to their White

counterparts. (See Table A.4.)

Percentage of Students Who

Reported Not Knowing

Their Parents’ Education Level,

by Race/Ethnicity

Grades 4, 8, and 12

1994 U.S. History Assessment

TABLE A.4

Total White Black Hispanic

Grade 4 34 (0.8) 32 (1.0) 31 (1.3) 43 (2.1)

Grade 8 9 (0.4) 7 (0.5) 11 (0.8) 20 (1.5)

Grade 12 3 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 5 (0.8) 8 (0.8)

The standard errors of the percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for

each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of

the estimate for the sample.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1994 U.S. History Assessment.

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

In addition, evidence from other NCES surveys that

gather data from students and parents indicates larger

discrepancies between students’ and parents’ reports for

Black and Hispanic students compared to White students.

These differences between racial/ethnic groups are more

evident at grade 8 than grade 12. As shown in Table A.5,

the correlations between students’ and parents’ reports

of parental education were lower for Black and Hispanic

students than for White students at both grades 8 and 12,

although all correlations were higher in twelfth grade.

Correlations Between Students’ and

Parents’ Reports of Parents’ Education Level,

 by Race/Ethnicity*

Grades 8 and 12

White Black Hispanic

Grade 8

Father’s Education 0.84 0.67 0.75

Mother’s Education 0.79 0.62 0.65

Grade 12

Father’s Education 0.90 0.80 0.85

Mother’s Education 0.87 0.78 0.74

* These results are from NCES surveys other than NAEP.

SOURCE: For grade 8 – P. Kaufman and R.A. Rasinski, Quality of Responses of Eighth-Grade Students in

NELS: 88, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 91-487; For grade 12 – W. F. Fetters,

P.S. Stowe, and J.A. Owings, Quality of Responses of High School Students to Questionnaire Items, Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 84-342.

TABLE A.5
8 6

Type of School. Results are reported by the type of

school that the student attends: public or nonpublic.

Nonpublic schools include Catholic and other nonpublic

schools. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and

domestic Department of Defense (DoD) schools are not

included in either the public or nonpublic categories

but are included in the overall national results.

Type of Location. Results are reported for students

attending schools in three mutually exclusive location

types: central city, urban fringe/large town, and rural/

small town:

Central City: This category includes central cities of

all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(SMSAs).5

 Central City is a geographic term and is

not synonymous with “inner city.”

Urban Fringe/Large Town: The urban fringe category

includes all densely settled places and areas within

SMSAs that are classified as urban by the U.S. Bureau

of the Census. A Large Town is defined as a place

outside a SMSA with a population greater than or

equal to 25,000.

Rural/Small Town: Rural includes all places and

areas with populations of less than 2,500 that are

classified as rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

A Small Town is defined as a place outside a SMSA

with a population of less than 25,000 but greater

than or equal to 2,500.

As described earlier, the NAEP U.S. history scale

makes it possible to examine relationships between

students’ performance and a variety of background

factors measured by NAEP. However, the fact that a

relationship exists between achievement and another

variable does not reveal the underlying cause of the

relationship, which may be influenced by a number of

other variables. Similarly, the assessment does not

capture the influence of unmeasured variables. The

results are most useful when they are considered in

combination with other knowledge about the student

population and the educational system, such as trends

in instruction, changes in the school-age population,

and societal demands and expectations.

Estimating Variability

Because the statistics presented in this report are

estimates of group and subgroup performance based on

samples of students, rather than the values that could be

calculated if every student in the nation answered every

question, it is important to account for the degree of

uncertainty associated with the estimates. Two components

of uncertainty are accounted for in the variability of

statistics based on scale scores: 1) the uncertainty due to

sampling only a relatively small number of students,

and 2) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively

small number of questions. The variability associated

with the estimated percentages of students with certain

background characteristics or who answered a certain

cognitive question correctly is accounted for by the first

component alone.

In addition to providing estimates of percentages of

students and their average scores, this report provides

information about the uncertainty of each statistic.

Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures,

conventional formulas for estimating sampling

variability that assume simple random sampling are

inappropriate. NAEP uses a jackknife replication

procedure to estimate standard errors. The jackknife

standard error provides a reasonable measure of

uncertainty for any information about students that can

be observed without error. However, each student

typically responds to so few questions within any

content area that the score measurement for any single

student would be imprecise. In this case, using plausiblevalues technology makes it possible to describe the

performance of groups and subgroups of students, but

the underlying imprecision that makes this step

necessary adds an additional component of variability to

statistics based on NAEP scale scores.6

The reader is reminded that, like findings from all

surveys, NAEP results are also subject to other kinds of

errors including the effects of imperfect adjustment for

student and school nonresponse, and other unknowable

effects associated with the particular instrumentation

and data collection methods. Nonsampling errors can be

attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain

complete information about all selected schools in the

sample (some students or schools refused to participate,

or students participated but answered only certain

questions); ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give

correct information; mistakes in recording, coding, or
8 7

scoring data; and other errors of collecting, processing,

sampling, and estimating missing data. The extent of

nonsampling error is difficult to estimate. By their

nature, the impact of such errors cannot be reflected in

the data-based estimates of uncertainty provided in

NAEP reports.

Drawing Inferences from the Results

The use of confidence intervals, based on the standard

errors, provides a way to make inferences about the

population means and percentages in a manner that

reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample

estimates.

An estimated sample mean ± 2 standard errors

represents a 95-percent confidence interval for the

corresponding population quantity. This means that

with approximately 95-percent certainty, the average

scale score for the entire population of interest is within

± 2 standard errors of the sample mean.

As an example, suppose that the average score of

students in a particular group was 256, with a standard

error of 1.2. A 95-percent confidence interval for the

population quantity would be as follows:

Mean ± 2 standard errors

256 ± 2 3 1.2

256 ± 2.4

253.6, 258.4

Thus, one can conclude with 95-percent certainty

that the average scale score for the entire population of

students in that group is between 253.6 and 258.4.

Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for

percentages, provided that the percentages are not

extremely large (greater than 90) or extremely small

(less than 10). For extreme percentages, confidence

intervals constructed in the above manner may not be

appropriate. However, procedures for obtaining accurate

confidence intervals are quite complicated. Thus,

comparisons involving extreme percentages should be

interpreted with this in mind.

To determine whether there is a real difference

between the mean score (or percentage of a certain

attribute) for two groups in the population, one needs

to obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty

associated with the difference between the means or

percentages of these groups for the sample. When

comparing two independent estimates, this estimate of

the degree of uncertainty — called the standard error of

the difference between the groups — is obtained by

taking the square of each group’s standard error,

summing these squared standard errors, and then

taking the square root of this sum.

SE SE SE AB A B = + 2 2

Similar to the manner in which the standard error

for an individual group mean or percentage is used,

the standard error of the difference can be used to help

determine whether differences between groups in the

population are real. The difference between the mean

scale score or percentage of the two groups ± 2 standard

errors of the difference represents an approximate 95-

percent confidence interval. If the resulting interval

includes zero, there is insufficient evidence to claim a

real difference between groups in the population. If the

interval does not contain zero, the difference between

groups is statistically significant (different) at the .05 level.

The procedures described in this section, and the

certainty ascribed to intervals (e.g., a 95-percent confidence interval) are based on statistical theory that

assumes that only one confidence interval or test of

statistical significance is being performed. When one

considers sets of confidence intervals, statistical theory

indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set

of intervals is less than that attributable to each individual

comparison from the set. If one wants to hold the

certainty level for a specific set of comparisons at a

particular level (e.g., 95), adjustments (called multiplecomparisons procedures) need to be made. A more

complete discussion of the multiple-comparisons procedures is presented in the NAEP 1994 Technical Report.

The standard errors for means and percentages

reported by NAEP are statistics and subject to a certain

degree of uncertainty. In certain cases, typically when

the standard error is based on a small number of students (or when the group of students is enrolled in a

small number of schools), the amount of uncertainty

associated with the standard errors may be quite large.

Throughout this report, estimates of standard errors

subject to a large degree of uncertainty are designated

by the symbol “!”. In such cases, the standard errors —

and any confidence intervals or significance tests involving

these standard errors — should be interpreted cautiously.
8 8

3. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model:

Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological

Measurement, 16(2), 159-176.

4. Donoghue, J. R. (1994). An empirical examination of

the IRT information of polytomously scored reading

items under the generalized partial credit model.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(4), 295-311.

Muraki, E. (1993). Information functions of the

generalized partial credit model. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 351-363.

5. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as

defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

6. For further details, see Johnson, E.G., & Rust, K. F.

(1992). Population inferences and variance estimation

for NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics,

17(2), 175-190.

Endnotes

1. For additional information about the use of weighting

procedures in NAEP, see Johnson, E. G. (1989).

Considerations and techniques for the analysis of

NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics,

14(4), 303-334.

2. For theoretical and empirical justification of the

procedures employed, see Mislevy, R. J. (1988).

Randomization-based inferences about latent

variables from complex samples. Pyschometrika,

56(2), 177-196.

For computational details, see Mislevy, R.J. (1990).

Scaling procedures. In E.G. Johnson & R. Zwick, in

collaboration with N. Allen, et al. Focusing the new

design: The NAEP 1988 technical report. Princeton,

NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress,

Educational Testing Service. See also Mislevy, R.J.

(1992). Scaling procedures. In E.G. Johnson &

N. Allen, The 1990 NAEP technical report. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
8 9

APPENDIX B

Describing Students’

U.S. History Performance

This appendix contains detailed information about

the procedures used for describing students’ U.S. history

knowledge and abilities and profiling students’ study

habits. The results of these procedures are presented in

Chapter 5 of this report.

Performance Descriptions Based on

the U.S. History Composite Scale

A procedure known as scale anchoring was used to

develop descriptions of student performance at selected

points on the NAEP U.S. history composite scale. The

scale points that were selected for anchoring reflect

three levels of history knowledge and abilities

corresponding to lower-, middle-, and higherperforming students. These levels correspond to the

25th, 50th, and 90th percentile points on the composite

scale as established by the performance of students in

1994 — the first assessment administered under NAEP’s

current U.S. history framework.

Around each percentile point, a band was built to

define a range of scale scores. Students described as

being at a particular level were within a five percentile

point range on either side of the specified scale point.

For example, the 50th percentile was defined as the

region between the 45th and 55th percentile points

on the scale. A question was identified as anchoring

at a percentile point on the scale if it was answered

successfully by at least 65 percent of the students within

that percentile band. (The criterion was set at 74

percent for multiple-choice questions to correct for the

possibility of answering correctly by guessing.)

After defining the bands of the scale to be anchored,

the next step in the process was to identify: (1) questions

answered correctly for dichotomously scored questions,

or (2) questions answered at a particular score level for

partial credit constructed-response questions. Because

the extended constructed-response questions were

scored according to four levels of performance, each

extended constructed-response question was treated as

three distinct questions corresponding to scores of

Partial or better, Essential or better, and Extensive.

These distinct score levels were then analyzed in the

same manner as questions scored dichotomously, as

either correct or incorrect. Thus, for example, an

extended constructed-response question might anchor

at the 50th percentile for Partial or better responses and

at the 90th percentile for Essential or better responses.

A committee of U.S. history education experts,

including teachers for the grades involved, college

professors, state curriculum supervisors, and researchers,

was assembled to review the sets of questions identified

for each percentile band. The committee was divided

into three groups, one for each grade. Each group

examined and analyzed questions that anchored at the

25th, 50th, and 90th percentiles to determine the

specific U.S. history knowledge and abilities associated

with each question.

Committee members were also provided with the

sets of questions at each grade that “did not anchor” to

inform their decisions about what students could do by

seeing examples of what they could not do. Drawing on

their knowledge of U.S. history, committee members

were asked to summarize student performance by

describing the knowledge, skills, and abilities

demonstrated by students in each of the score bands.

The performance descriptions are cumulative; that

is, the abilities described for the lower performing

students are considered to be among the abilities of

students performing at higher points on the scale.

Therefore, the full description of students’ U.S. history

knowledge and abilities in the middle scale band would

include those abilities described at the lower band.

Similarly, the abilities of students performing at the

higher scale band include the U.S. history abilities

described for students at the middle and lower bands.

Profiling Students’ Study Habits

Using the scale bands defined for the anchoring process

described above, the profiling of students’ study habits

was accomplished by examining the responses of

students within those bands to selected background

questions. A complete presentation of students’ responses

to the three background variables highlighted in

Chapter 5 are presented in Tables B.1 to B.3. The

percentages that appear in the tables are conditional

on the anchor scale point. That is, they are percentages

of students who scored within a five percentile point

range on either side of the specified scale point.
9 0

Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points

to General Study Habit Questions

Grade 4

TABLE B.1

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

25th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

Scale Range 171-187 Scale Range 205-215 Scale Range 246-263

Time Spent Each Day on Homework

More Than 1 Hour 18 (2.2) 16 (2.9) 12 (2.2)

One Hour 25 (3.0) 31 (3.6) 34 (2.7)

One Half Hour or Less 41 (3.9) 38 (2.6) 37 (2.6)

Assigned/Don’t Usually Do 4 (1.5) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0)

Not Usually Assigned 12 (2.3) 13 (3.3) 15 (3.2)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 50 (3.8) 53 (5.2) 59 (3.0)

Once/Twice a Week 21 (2.4) 23 (3.8) 24 (2.2)

Once/Twice a Month 8 (2.0) 6 (1.4) 6 (1.6)

Never/Hardly Ever 21 (2.8) 18 (4.1) 11 (2.2)

Pages Read Each Day in School

and for Homework

More Than 20 19 (2.7) 22 (2.9) 26 (2.8)

16 to 20 14 (2.2) 17 (3.7) 18 (2.2)

11 to 15 13 (1.9) 15 (3.2) 16 (2.9)

6 to 10 24 (2.9) 23 (3.0) 25 (2.8)

5 or Fewer 30 (3.4) 23 (3.0) 15 (2.3)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
9 1

TABLE B.2 Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points

to General Study Habit Questions

Grade 8

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

25th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

Scale Range 233-244 Scale Range 257-265 Scale Range 292-308

Time Spent Each Day on Homework

More Than 1 Hour 22 (1.8) 27 (2.2) 33 (3.3)

One Hour 35 (2.8) 38 (3.4) 38 (2.0)

One Half Hour or Less 23 (2.1) 20 (2.6) 21 (2.4)

Assigned/Don’t Usually Do 11 (1.6) 8 (1.1) 4 (1.0)

Not Usually Assigned 8 (1.5) 7 (1.9) 4 (1.0)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 32 (2.7) 36 (2.1) 47 (2.4)

Once/Twice a Week 29 (2.1) 30 (2.0) 29 (2.2)

Once/Twice a Month 12 (1.7) 11 (1.8) 11 (1.2)

Never/Hardly Ever 27 (3.0) 23 (2.0) 14 (1.8)

Pages Read Each Day for School

and Homework

More Than 20 9 (1.6) 11 (2.0) 13 (1.8)

16 to 20 7 (1.0) 10 (1.6) 13 (1.8)

11 to 15 13 (1.5) 15 (2.1) 19 (2.1)

6 to 10 27 (2.1) 29 (2.7) 31 (1.9)

5 or Fewer 44 (3.0) 35 (2.5) 25 (2.6)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
9 2

Responses of Students Near Selected Percentile Points

to General Study Habit Questions

Grade 12

TABLE B.3

CARD

REPORT

THE NA ION’S T

1994


U.S. History Assessment

25th Percentile 50th Percentile 90th Percentile

Scale Range 259-270 Scale Range 284-292 Scale Range 319-335

Time Spent Each Day on Homework

More Than 1 Hour 20 (2.3) 25 (2.7) 37 (2.4)

One Hour 30 (2.6) 31 (2.1) 27 (2.9)

One Half Hour or Less 23 (2.1) 24 (2.4) 24 (2.5)

Assigned/Don’t Usually Do 9 (1.1) 7 (1.3) 7 (1.5)

Not Usually Assigned 19 (2.8) 13 (2.1) 5 (1.1)

Discuss Studies at Home

Daily/Almost Daily 27 (2.7) 32 (3.7) 38 (2.6)

Once/Twice a Week 28 (2.3) 31 (2.3) 35 (2.0)

Once/Twice a Month 13 (1.9) 14 (1.8) 12 (2.1)

Never/Hardly Ever 32 (2.8) 24 (2.2) 15 (2.3)

Pages Read Each Day for School

and Homework

More Than 20 10 (1.5) 13 (1.6) 29 (2.1)

16 to 20 9 (1.9) 12 (1.7) 12 (1.9)

11 to 15 11 (1.9) 15 (2.2) 16 (1.8)

6 to 10 25 (1.8) 26 (3.0) 21 (2.2)

5 or Fewer 46 (2.2) 35 (3.0) 22 (2.7)

Differences between the groups may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95-percent certainty that, for each population of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus

two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentages of students in the subgroups may not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1994 U.S. History Assessment.
9 3

Some additional support for the dual conventions

adopted by NAEP was provided by Huynh (1994).1

 He

examined the IRT information provided by questions,

according to the IRT model used in scaling NAEP

questions. (“Information” is used here in a technical

sense. See the NAEP 1994 Technical Report for details.)

Following Bock (1972),2

 Huynh decomposed the item

information into that provided by a correct response

[P (u) *I (u)] and that provided by an incorrect response

[(1-P (u)) *I (u)]. Huynh showed that the item information provided by a correct response to a constructedresponse question is maximized at the point along the

U.S. history scale at which two-thirds of the students get

the question correct (for multiple-choice questions,

information is maximized at the point at which 74

percent get the question correct). It should be noted,

however, that maximizing the item information I (u),

rather than the information provided by a correct

response [P (u) *I (u)], would imply an item mapping

criterion closer to 50 percent.

Endnotes

1. Huynh, H. (1994, October). Some technical aspects

of standard setting. Paper presented at the Joint

Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale

Assessment, Washington, DC.

2. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and

latent ability when responses are scored in two or

more latent categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.

Item Mapping Procedures

In order to map questions to particular points on the

NAEP U.S. history subscales, a response probability

convention had to be adopted that would divide those

who had a higher probability of success from those

who had a lower probability. Establishing a response

probability convention has an impact on the mapping

of assessment questions onto the U.S. history subscales.

A lower boundary convention maps the U.S. history

questions at lower points along the U.S. history scales,

and a higher boundary convention maps the same

questions at higher points along the scales. The

underlying distribution of U.S. history skills in the

population does not change, but the choice of a response

probability convention does have an impact on the

proportion of the student population that is reported as

“able to do” the questions on the U.S. history scales.

There is no obvious choice of a point along the

probability scale that is clearly superior to any other

point. If the convention were set with a boundary at 50

percent, those above the boundary would be more likely

to get a question right than get it wrong, while those

below that boundary would be more likely to get the

question wrong than right. While this convention has

some intuitive appeal, it was rejected on the grounds

that having a 50/50 chance of getting the question right

shows an insufficient degree of mastery. If the convention

were set with a boundary at 80 percent, students above

the criterion would have a high probability of success

with a question. However, many of the students below

this criterion show some level of U.S. history ability that

would be ignored by such a stringent criterion. In

particular, those in the range between 50 and 80 percent

correct would be more likely to get the question right

than wrong, yet would not be in the group described as

“able to do” the question.

In a compromise between the 50 percent and the

80 percent conventions, NAEP has adopted two related

response probability conventions: (1) 74 percent for

multiple-choice questions (to correct for the possibility

of answering correctly by guessing), and (2) 65 percent

for constructed-response questions (where guessing is

not a factor). These probability conventions were established, in part, based on an intuitive judgment that they

would provide the best picture of students’ U.S. history

knowledge and skills.
9 5

APPENDIX C

Sample Questions

from the NAEP 1994

U.S. History Assessment

This appendix presents additional sample questions and

student responses selected for each grade to exemplify

the range of exercises included in the NAEP 1994 U.S.

history assessment.(A different set of sample questions

and student responses are presented in Chapter 1, and

an entire sample block of questions can be found in the

NAEP 1994 U.S. History: A First Look report, pages 29

to 54.) For each question, the historical theme and

historical period being addressed is indicated. For

multiple-choice questions, the correct answer is marked

(©). For constructed-response questions, an abbreviated

scoring rubic is provided. The sample student responses

have been reproduced from assessment booklets and

represent typical student performance.

The table accompanying each sample question

presents two types of percentages: (1) the overall percentage of students within a grade who answered the

question successfully, and (2) the percentages of students within each of the achievement level intervals —

Basic, Proficient, and Advanced — who answered the

question successfully. The percentages for students

within the Advanced achievement level interval are not

presented, however, because of the small sample sizes.

The percentages of students below Basic who successfully answered the questions are also included in the

tables. (Sample size criteria for reporting results are

described in Appendix A.)
9 7

GRADE 4 Sample Questions and

Student Responses

What is the main reason the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America?

© A To practice their religion freely

B To make more money and live a better life

C To build a democratic government

D To expand the lands controlled by the king of England

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions of Colonization, Settlement, and

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas Communities (1607 to 1763)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

41 (1.3) 20 (2.0) 44 (2.8) 73 (4.9) ***
9 8

Your teacher has asked you to teach your classmates about ONE of these famous

places where an important event in American history happened:

the Alamo

Pearl Harbor

Gettysburg

Roanoke Island

My famous place in American history is______________________________

Write down three facts about the place that you have chosen that will help you

teach your classmates about that place.

Historical Theme: Historical Periods:

The Changing Role of America in the World Three Worlds and Their

Meeting in the Americas

(Beginnings to 1607)

Expansion and Reform

(1801 to 1861)

Modern America and the

World Wars (1914 to 1945)

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, and 4) Complete.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Essential” or “Complete” within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Essential or Complete 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

19 (1.4) 2 (0.8) 17 (2.4) 57 (4.2) ***
9 9

Sample Response (Score of 3):

An Essential response (score of 3) gives two facts that are relevant to the particular place and

that would help another person understand the place.

Sample Response (Score of 4):

A Complete response (score of 4) gives three facts that are relevant to the particular place and

that would help another person understand the place, such as that the bombing of Pearl

Harbor caused the U.S. to enter WWII, or that the battle of Gettysburg was a turning point in

the Civil War.
100

Which of these was one of the thirteen colonies that fought the American

Revolution against the British?

A Illinois

B California

© C New York

D Texas

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Changing Role of America in the World The Revolution and the

New Nation (1763 to 1815)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

A To say how much Americans should pay in taxes

© B To protect freedoms like freedom of speech

C To describe the jobs of the President and Congress

D To make Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: The Revolution and the

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies New Nation (1763 to 1815)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range.***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

32 (1.5) 22 (2.1) 28 (2.3) 59 (4.7) ***

Percentage “Essential“ or Complete within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

45 (1.4) 32 (2.2) 46 (1.9) 65 (4.8) ***
101

Name two kinds of work women do today that they could not do 100 years ago.

1. ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Explain why the kinds of work women do today are different from the kinds of

work women did 100 years ago.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions of The Development of Modern

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas America (1865 to 1920)

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, and 3) Appropriate.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Appropriate” within

Grade 4 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Appropriate 194 and below* 195-242* 243-275* 276 and above*

11 (0.9) 1 (0.6) 11 (1.1) 30 (3.7) ***
102

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Appropriate response (score of 3) identifies two types of work, and shows some understanding

of the fact that women have more opportunities today.
103

GRADE 8 Sample Questions and

Student Responses

Between 1960 and 1990, what invention most changed the way people in the

United States worked?

A The typewriter

©B The computer

C The superconductor

D The radio

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Economic and Technological Changes Contemporary America

and Their Relation to Society, Ideas, and (1945 to Present)

the Environment

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Correct 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

78 (1.2) 65 (2.6) 83 (1.6) 94 (2.2) ***
104

Look at the magazine cover. What historical events would have led this question

and picture to appear on the cover of a popular magazine in 1876?

What attitudes displayed toward American Indians by other Americans are

suggested by this magazine cover?

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions The Development of Modern

of Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas America (1865 to 1920)

Philadelphia Museum of Art:

Purchased: Lola Downin Peck Fund.
105

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, and 4) Complete.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Essential response (score of 3) answers both parts of the question, although one part gives

a general statement without providing any specifics. For instance the response may state that

the issue is addressed on a magazine cover because “there were lots of arguments between the

government and the Indians then”; or, the response may describe the attitude of many other

Americans by saying “they did not like the Sioux Indians.”

Percentage “Essential“ or “Complete“ within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Essential or Complete 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

25 (1.2) 6 (1.4) 32 (2.0) 59 (4.4) ***
106

Sample Response (Score of 4)

A Complete response (score of 4) answers both parts of the question and provides specifics. It

may, for example, discuss disputes about western lands, and the issue of reservations vs.

assimilation.
107

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are

instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that,

whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of

the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.

—— 1776

The primary author of the document was

A George Washington

B John Marshall

C Robert E. Lee

©D Thomas Jefferson

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: The Revolution and the

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies New Nation (1763 to 1815)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

71 (1.6) 55 (2.4) 79 (2.2) 93 (2.0) ***
108

During the Constitutional Convention, there was an important debate between

large and small states about representation. What were the main issues in this

debate?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

How did the Connecticut (or Great) Compromise resolve this debate?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Change and Continuity in American Democracy: The Revolution and the

Ideas, Institutions, Practices, and Controversies New Nation (1763 to 1815)

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, and 4) Complete.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Essential” or “Complete” within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

 Essential or Complete 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

10 (1.1) 0 (0.3) 6 (1.6) 43 (4.7) ***
109

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Essential response (score of 3) identifies the debate about representation, but does not

fully explain the mechanism of the resolution.
110

Sample Response (Score of 4)

A Complete response (score of 4) fully explains the debate about representation, and the

solution of the bicameral legislature.
111

The Lend-Lease Act, the Yalta Conference, and the dropping of the atomic bomb

on Hiroshima are all associated with the

A First World War

©B Second World War

C Korean War

D Vietnam War

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Changing Role of America in the World Modern America and the

World Wars (1914 to 1945)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

41 (1.3) 29 (2.2) 43 (2.4) 69 (3.5) ***
112

O Freedom!

O Freedom!

O Freedom over me!

And before I’d be a slave,

I’d be buried in my grave,

And go home to my Lord and be free!

The song was associated with

A the temperance movement

©B the civil rights movement

C pioneers on the Oregon Trail

D farmers in the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions of Contemporary America

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas (1945 to present)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 8 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 251 and below* 252-293* 294-326* 327 and above*

80 (1.1) 67 (2.2) 86 (1.8) 93 (2.6) ***
113

The Great Awakening of the 1730’s was important because it led people in the

American colonies to

A increase toleration for Roman Catholics

B examine the different positions of men and women in society

C reaffirm that God gave kings their right to rule

©D question the authority of church and government leaders

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions of Colonization, Settlement, and

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas Communities (1607 to 1763)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

GRADE 12 Sample Questions and

Student Responses

Percentage Correct within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

56 (1.5) 42 (2.2) 74 (2.5) 80 (4.4) ***
114

“Our reconstruction measures were radically defective because they failed to give the

ex-slaves any land.”

—— Frederick Douglass

Describe briefly the way in which Douglass’s statement helps explain the rise

of sharecropping in the South after the Civil War. In your answer, be sure to

define the term sharecropping.

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Gathering and Interactions of Crisis of the Union: Civil War and

Peoples, Cultures, and Ideas Reconstruction (1850 to 1877)

Responses to this question were scored according to a four-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, 3) Essential, and 4) Complete.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage “Essential” or “Complete” within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Essential or Complete 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

18 (1.4) 5 (0.8) 27 (3.0) 57 (5.9) ***
115

Sample Response (score of 3)

An Essential response (score of 3) correctly defines sharecropping, and links it to difficult

economic conditions faced by slaves.
116

Sample Response (score of 4)

A Complete response (score of 4) correctly defines sharecropping, and links it to Reconstruction

policies, or links the failure to give slaves land to a cycle of poverty that led to sharecropping.
117

Document G - Excerpt from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address (1933)

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of

all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless,

unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into

advance.

A host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally

great number toil with little return.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is not an unsolvable problem

if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting

by the Government itself, . . . accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and

reorganize the use of our natural resources.

— Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address (1933)

Document I - Excerpt from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural Address (1937)

We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is

bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality

has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to

wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning

an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

Let us ask again. Have we reached the goal of our vision of that fourth day of March,

1933? Have we found our happy valley?

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural

resources.

But here is the challenge to our democracy. In this nation I see tens of millions of its

citizens a substantial part of its whole population who at this very moment are denied

the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country’s

interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful, law-abiding group within our

borders as superfluous.

— Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural Address (1937)

Reread Roosevelt’s 1933 and 1937 inaugural speeches. Would you characterize

Roosevelt as more pessimistic or more optimistic in 1937 than in 1933? Explain

why. Be sure to refer to the documents to support your answer

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Economic and Technological Changes and Their Modern America and the

Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment World Wars (1914 to 1945)
118

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, and 3) Appropriate.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Sample Response (score of 3)

An Appropriate response (score of 3) defends either point of view, with specific references to

the documents. The student may, for example, cite either Roosevelt’s description of

accomplishments, or his questioning of America’s moral fiber.

Percentage “Appropriate” within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Appropriate 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

22 (1.5) 9 (1.4) 31 (3.6) 57 (5.7) ***
119

The Monroe Doctrine was intended to

A promote United States trade with China

B help keep the peace in Europe

©C discourage European involvement in the Americas

D protect United States business in Japan and Korea

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

The Changing Role of America in the World Expansion and Reform

(1801 to 1861)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

41 (1.5) 27 (1.9) 54 (3.2) 80 (4.2) ***
120

What did the United States government do in response to the event referred to

in the cartoon and headline?

A The government decided to seek peace immediately and to end

the Cold War.

B The government banned civilian contact between United States and

Soviet citizens.

©C The government decided to spend more on both scientific education

and the military.

D The government requested that the United Nations prohibit Soviet

space exploration.

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Economic and Technological Changes and Their Contemporary America

Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment (1945 to Present)

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

Percentage Correct within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Correct 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

74 (1.4) 61 (2.2) 90 (2.2) 99 (0.9) ***
121

Summarize the changes shown in the table above.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Explain how one invention or development helped cause the changes you have

described.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Historical Theme: Historical Period:

Economic and Technological Changes and Their The Development of Modern

Relation to Society, Ideas, and the Environment America (1865 to 1920)

Responses to this question were scored according to a three-level rubric as

1) Inappropriate, 2) Partial, and 3) Appropriate.

*NAEP U.S. history composite scale range. ***Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate (See Appendix A).

The standard errors of the estimated percentages appear in parentheses. It can be said with 95 percent certainty that for each population

of interest, the value for the whole population is within plus or minus two standard errors of the estimate for the sample.

AVERAGE FARM SIZE AND TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS

Year Farm Size Number of Farms

1900 150 acres 6,250,000

1980 425 acres 2,225,000

Percentage “Appropriate” within

Grade 12 Achievement Level Intervals

Overall Percentage Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Appropriate 293 and below* 294-324* 325-354* 355 and above*

29 (1.5) 16 (1.5) 41 (3.3) 58 (4.1) ***
122

Sample Response (Score of 3)

An Appropriate response (score of 3) indicates that there are fewer, larger farms, and offers an

acceptable reason for this. Students may, for example, refer to the growth of agribusinesses or

changes in technology.
9 7

The NAEP 1994 United States history assessment was a

collaborative effort among staff from the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National

Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), Educational

Testing Service (ETS), Westat, and National Computer

Systems (NCS). The program benefited from the

contributions of hundreds of individuals at the state and

local levels — governors, chief state school officers,

state and district test directors, state coordinators, and

district administrators — who tirelessly provided their

wisdom, experience, and hard work. Most importantly,

NAEP is grateful to students and school staff who made

the assessment possible.

The assessment was funded through NCES, in the

Office of Educational Research and Improvement of

the U.S. Department of Education. The NCES staff —

particularly Jeanne Griffith, Gary Phillips, Steve

Gorman, Susan Ahmed, Peggy Carr, Sharif Shakrani,

Larry Ogle, Sahar Akhtar, and Maureen Treacy —

worked closely and collegially with ETS, Westat, and

NCS staff and played a crucial role in all aspects of the

program. The NAEP 1994 assessments and reports also

benefitted from the consistent support and guidance of

Emerson Elliott, past commissioner of NCES. The

members of the National Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB) and the NAGB staff provided invaluable advice

and guidance throughout. NAEP also owes a debt of

gratitude to the numerous panelists and consultants

who provided their expertise and worked so

conscientiously on developing the assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The NAEP project at ETS is directed by Paul

Williams and resides in the Center for the Assessment of

Educational Progress (CAEP), managed by Archie

Lapointe and Paul Williams. Steve Lazer managed test

development activities, and Alexandra Beatty and Hilary

Persky worked with the United States History Item

Development committee to develop the assessment

instruments. Jules Goodison managed the operational

aspects together with John Olson, and sampling and

data collection activities were carried out by Westat

under the direction of Rene Slobasky, Nancy Caldwell,

and Keith Rust. Printing, distribution, scoring, and

processing activities were conducted by NCS, under the

supervision of Judy Moyer, Brad Thayer, Mathilde

Kennel, Linda Reynolds, and Barbara Price.

Statistical and psychometric activities for the

assessments were led by Eiji Muraki under the direction

of Eugene Johnson, John Mazzeo, and Jim Carlson.

Bruce Kaplan and Jim Ferris performed the United

States history analyses. Karen Miller and John Mazzeo

contributed substantially to report design activities.

Mary Michaels and Sharon Davis-Johnson oversaw the

production aspects, and Loretta Casalaina, James Rura,

Roderick Rudder, and Sheri Barnes provided further

design and composition assistance.

Many thanks are due to the numerous reviewers,

both internal and external to ETS and NCES. The

comments and critical feedback provided by the

following reviewers are reflected in the final version of

this report: John Patrick, Phoebe Speck, Mary Lyn

Bourque, Larry Feinberg, Mary Frase, Gary Phillips,

Sharif Shakrani, Aurora D’Amico, Shi-Chang Wu,

Andrew Kolstad, Susan Ahmed, Bruce Kaplan, Karen

Miller, Nada Ballator, Steve Lazer, and John Mazzeo.

Beverly Cisney and Alice Kass provided the excellent

desktop publishing skills essential to the project.
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20208-5653

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300