SOME EDUCATORS (e.g., Ravitch, 1992) have suggested that students use multiple source documents to study history. Such documents could be primary sources, such as legislative bills or eyewitness accounts; secondary sources, such as editorials; or tertiary sources, such as textbooks. This study examined the processes used when high school students were presented documents about a controversial incident in U.S. history, the Tonkin Gulf Incident and its aftermath. These students were asked to read these either to describe or develop an opinion about the incident or the Senate action on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. We were interested in (a) whether students could develop a rich, mental model of a historical event, (b) what they would do with the document information, (c) how the task influenced their processing of information, (d) how students integrated information across texts, and (e) whether students engaged in corroborating, sourcing, and contextualizing in evaluating historical materials. We found that the mental models created by these students were more internally consistent after reading at least two documents, but did not become more consistent after that. When compared to knowledgeable readers, they failed to make any growth after a first reading. Examining their notes, we found that students tended to rake literal notes, regardless of the final task, suggesting that they were using the initial readings to garner the facts about the incident or the resolution If students were asked for a description, they tended to stay close to the text. If asked for an opinion, however, they tended to ignore the information in the texts they read, even though they may have taken copious notes. Our observations suggest that high school students may not be able to profit from multiple texts, especially those presenting conflicting opinions, without some specific instruction in integrating information from different texts.
