History teaching continues to be driven by an overriding emphasis on information coverage. This trend has resulted in a fragmented approach to teaching that privileges the acquisition of facts over in-depth study (Evans 1989; Evans, Avery, and Pederson 1999; Goodlad 1984; Newmann 1988; Onosko 1992, 1996; Onosko and Swenson 1996; Wiggins 1989). Incoherent and fact-driven teaching is exacerbated by the writing and organization of history textbooks. Textbooks present information with little regard for history's controversial issues or debatable questions and offer students scant opportunities to study worthwhile content in any real depth (Loewen 1996; Ravitch 2004; Shaver 1996). Of course, these are not the only reasons why coverage continues to be so popular in history classrooms. Even very dynamic history teachers tend to teach in ways that are familiar and comfortable to them, whereas others often subscribe to the notion that students must acquire extensive content knowledge before exploring historical issues (Shaver 1996). In addition, the growing influence of the standards and testing movement propels some teachers to use coverage-oriented approaches, glossing over important historical questions in an attempt to "get everything in" (some state standards documents demand that students learn an overwhelming amount of information). These are the reasons why expository and superficial coverage continues to characterize the teaching of history.