Engaging Adolescents With LD in Higher Order Thinking ...maase.pbworks.com/f/Bulgren,+Deshler2007.pdfEngaging Adolescents With LD in ... History Concepts Using Integrated Content Enhancement

Engaging Adolescents With LD inHigher Order Thinking AboutHistory Concepts Using IntegratedContent Enhancement RoutinesJanis Bulgren, Donald D. Deshler, and B. Keith Lenz

AbstractThe understanding and use of historical concepts specified in national history standards pose many challenges to students. These chal-lenges include both the acquisition of content knowledge and the use of that knowledge in ways that require higher order thinking. Allstudents, including adolescents with learning disabilities (LD), are expected to understand and use concepts of history to pass high-stakesassessments and to participate meaningfully in a democratic society. This article describes Content Enhancement Routines (CERs) to illu-strate instructional planning, teaching, and assessing for higher order thinking with examples from an American history unit. Researchon the individual components of Content Enhancement Routines will be illustrated with data from 1 of the routines. The potential useof integrated sets of materials and procedures across grade levels and content areas will be discussed.

increased academic standards incore content areas pose significantchallenges for students at all levels.

These challenges are often greatest foradolescents who have arrived in sec-ondary schools with a large gap be-tween the curriculum demands thatthey are expected to meet and theirability to meet those demands due todeficits that they evidence in key skillsand strategies (Bulgren et al., 2006;Deshler et al., 2001). Whereas the chal-lenges are sizeable now, they are ex-pected to grow even more stringentin coming years. For example, theAmerican Diploma Project Network(Achieve, 2006; see Note) is a coalitionof states committed to significantly in-creasing expectations for high schoolstudents to provide them with agreater chance of succeeding in post-secondary education and the world ofwork.

The pressures to "raise the bar"for adolescents have also been sup-ported by a spate of reports on highschool reform (e.g., National Gover-

nors Association, 2005) and descrip-tions of the unfavorable consequencesfacing the U.S. economy and ulti-mately the quality of life in the UnitedStates due to the explosive gains madein the economies of such countries asChina and India (Friedman, 2005; Na-tional Academies, 2006). As a result,curricular demands that students facein general education classes are be-coming more voluminous and com-plex (Deshler, Schumaker, Bui, & Ver-non, 2006).

As the volume and complexity ofinformation increase, so too do the ex-pectations for students to engage inhigher order thinking and problemsolving (Kame'enui & Carnine, 1998).By the time students reach adoles-cence, they are expected not only toknow-or have the skills to acquire-critical facts and concepts in subjectmatter classes, but also to use thosefacts, concepts, and prior knowledge inways that require higher order think-ing (Kamil, 2003). Higher order thinkinginvolves the manipulation of informa-

tion, such as categorizing, comparingand contrasting, determining causesand effects, weighing options, explain-ing "big ideas" in a subject, and in-quiring into and answering criticalquestions; the generalization of ideasto solve problems using inference orprediction; and the construction ofnew perspectives and understandings.Yet many teachers in secondary inclu-sive content classes are not confidentthat their students can successfullymaster those higher order thinking re-quirements; this is particularly trueof teachers' expectations for studentswith disabilities (Bulgren et al., 2006).

The purposes of this article will beto (a) explain how history standardsestablished by professional associationsand state assessments emphasize higherorder thinking; (b) describe the chal-lenges of engaging adolescents withlearning disabilities (LD) in higher or-der thinking in history; (c) describe acurriculum framework, planning pro-cess, and instructional procedures toenable secondary subject matter teach-

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESVOLUME 40, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2007, PAGES 121-133

IZ/

ers to successfully engage all students(including those with disabilities) inhigher order thinking; (d) provide ex-amples of these instructional practicesfrom a unit on the Civil War in anAmerican history course; and (e) pre-sent a research paradigm and the re-sults of a study designed to test theefficacy of this approach with adoles-cents.

Higher Order Thinking inHistory Standards

In 1996, the National Center for His-tory in the Schools (NCHS) set forthstandards to guide the development ofassessments and the design of historycurricula. These standards call for stu-dents in secondary content classes tothink about complex issues and engagein challenging tasks within the disci-pline of history. Many of these expec-tations involve higher order thinkingin addition to the acquisition of histor-ical facts and concepts. These standardsrequire students to formulate historicalquestions, interrogate historical data,draw comparisons, determine cause-effect relationships, analyze the influ-ence of ideas, and make decisionsbased on various data sets (NCHS,1996). Therefore, these standards callfor a high degree of critical thinkingand reasoning for students in Grades 5through 12. However, even students inkindergarten through fourth grade areasked to engage in tasks that requireestablishing temporal order, drawingon historical and visual data, distin-guishing between past and present,formulating historical questions, com-paring and contrasting, obtaining his-torical data, assessing importance,identifying issues and problems, andreading and constructing historicalnarratives. Knowledge of these stan-dards sharpens our understandingabout what is required of citizens inour world today to be consideredliterate.

The recent writings of curriculumand instruction innovators reflect theNCHS call for engaging learners in

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

higher order work. For example, Daro(2005) has argued that an overarchinggoal of text use across subject matterareas is to shift the emphasis awayfrom the knowledge of isolated facts toan understanding of the nature of in-quiry, the importance of evidence-based claims, and habits of the mindspecific to the discipline.

These processes, of course, re-quire basic decoding and fluency liter-acy; facility with content knowledge offacts, concepts, vocabulary, procedures,principles, and propositions; manipu-lation and generalization of informa-tion; the ability to acquire additionalknowledge from texts, media, andtechnology; and the competent appli-cation of cognitive and metacognitivestrategic inquiry into critical questions.As a result of the extensive literacy de-mands in subject matter courses, it isimportant that subject matter teachersdeliberately teach students how tothink about and process information intheir discipline for use in class, on as-sessments, and in real-life situations.As a result, this often means using con-tent knowledge in ways that expandwhat is basic to being literate. Suc-cessfully teaching average-achieving(AA), high-achieving (HA), and low-achieving (LA) students is a challenge;however, accomplishing this with stu-dents with LD can be especially chal-lenging, particularly in light of the lim-ited planning time for some teachers.However, teachers have indicated thatone of the ways they would likelyspend extra time, if available, would bein activities that directly influence class-room actions, such as planning and re-designing curriculum (Bulgren et al.,2006).

Engaging Students With LDin Higher Order Thinking

Foundational to successfully teachingall students in academically diverseclasses is having an understanding ofthe unique learning challenges associ-ated with adolescents with LD and ofthe instructional context in secondary

schools within which students andteachers function.

Learning Challenges

Both the No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) of 2001 and the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)of 2004 (U.S. Department of Education,2004) require that all students meet de-manding standards. The result is oftenthe presence of students representing awide range of academic diversity (in-cluding students with LD) in rigoroussecondary content classrooms to bene-fit from instruction from content ex-perts (Andrews et al., 2000; Bay, Staver,Bryan, & Hale, 1992; Rea, McLaughlin,& Walther-Thomas, 2002). However,these students may have considerabledifficulty with actively manipulatingor transforming information, organiz-ing content information, differentiat-ing major ideas from supporting infor-mation, comparing and contrastinginformation, reading and understand-ing large amounts of content informa-tion, relating their background knowl-edge to new information, holding largequantities of information in memory,and expressing information on testsand in papers (Deshler et al., 2001;Pressley et al., 1992). In fact, Deshleret al. and Pressley et al. suggested thatstudents with LD may tend to focus onirrelevant or only remotely relevant in-formation, rather than on the truly im-portant information that they mustknow to succeed in an increasinglycompetitive world. These learner char-acteristics need to be carefully consid-ered in light of the rigorous curriculardemands that students are expected tomeet. Furthermore, Newman et al.(2005) found that although adolescentswith LD have access to the general ed-ucation curriculum, the number of ac-commodations provided to these stu-dents decreases as they progress frommiddle school to high school. Indeed,Schumaker et al. (2002) found thatmany students with LD were not beingeducated in the context of general ed-ucation classes to receive instruction

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2007123

from content experts to the extent re-quired by NCLB and IDEA.

Instructional Context ofInclusive Secondary ClassesBulgren et al. (2006) reported on the in-structional context of secondary corecontent classes (i.e., math, science, his-tory, foreign language, and English)that included students with disabili-ties. Specifically, this study examinedthe attitudes of subject matter teachers.Among the relevant findings were thatthese teachers (a) preferred to assumeresponsibility for showing students"how to learn" at the same time thatthey taught content, as opposed tohaving another teacher come into theirclassrooms in a co-teaching capacity toteach learning strategies to students;(b) reported that for HA and AA stu-dents, success in their classes de-pended most on mastery of contentknowledge, whereas for students withdisabilities, success depended most ontheir mastery of basic skills and strate-gies that would enable them to succeedin subject matter content; (c) reportedthat they had less confidence that stu-dents with disabilities would meetstate standards than students withoutdisabilities; and (d) held lower expec-tations that students with disabilitieswould be successful in learning con-tent or in generalizing and applyingthe content to solve problems thanwould students without disabilities.

Given the requirement of IDEAthat students with disabilities have ac-cess to the general education curricu-lum, these perceptions and attitudes ofgeneral education teachers underscorethe challenge of this reality being ful-filled. In fact, it is apparent that subjectmatter teachers need to have access toinstructional procedures that are bothpowerful and easy to use-the two cri-teria of effective innovations (Csik-szentmihalyi, 1990). To that end, re-searchers at the University of KansasCenter for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) have engaged in the design andvalidation of instructional proceduresthat meet these criteria. The following

sections will describe instructional pro-cedures associated with Content En-hancement Routines (CERs), providean integrated example of how theseCERs can be applied in teaching a uniton the American Civil War, and discussresearch.

Content EnhancementRoutines

To respond to the challenges just de-scribed, a line of intervention researchon Content Enhancement Routines(CERs) has been conducted for morethan 2 decades at the KU-CRL (e.g.,Bulgren & Lenz, 1996; Bulgren & Schu-maker, 2006; Lenz & Deshler, 2004).The goal of research on individualCERs has been to help all students, in-cluding those with LD, succeed withinthe context of the inclusive contentclass. CERs are based on instructionalprinciples designed to (a) teach aca-demically diverse groups in ways thatmeet both group and individual needs;(b) carry out instruction in active part-nership with students; (c) focus on theteacher as content expert and mediatorof learning who selects critical featuresof the content and transforms them ina manner that promotes learning; and(d) maintain the integrity of the con-tent (Bulgren & Lenz, 1996; Lenz, Bul-gren, & Hudson, 1990; Schumaker etal., 2002).

A series of CERs has been de-signed to provide teachers with flexi-bility as they plan, teach, and assesscritical content. CERs and their atten-dant graphic devices provide ways toaccomplish three important instruc-tional objectives:

1. They ensure that the adequateprior knowledge needed in thecontent area is already present, orthey provide the scaffolding tohelp students acquire the criticalfacts, concepts, vocabulary, princi-ples, procedures, and propositionsthat represent foundationalknowledge.

2. They facilitate the transformationor manipulation of two or more

pieces of information throughcategorizing, comparing andcontrasting, exploring causation,inquiring into critical questions,evaluating options and claims, ormaking decisions.

3. They provide mechanisms forknowledge generalization, whichinvolves predicting, inferring,problem solving, or synthesizinginformation into a main idea thatcan be used in a variety ofsituations.

A common instructional routineused with all CERs emphasizes activestudent engagement, construction ofknowledge, use of graphics, note tak-ing, student interaction, and strategiccognitive and metacognitive approachesto learning. CERs begin with planningthat supports instruction so that all stu-dents can participate in learning andsucceed on assessments.

This planning is a way to selectCERs based on student needs and con-tent demands. CERs contain compo-nents shown to have the potential ofcontributing to the success of studentswith disabilities in inclusive classes.These components include the use ofgraphic organizers (Horton, Lovitt, &Bergerud, 1990); compensation forheavy textbook reading loads, insertedquestions, and checks on and supportfor student engagement and under-standing (Gersten et al., 2006); authen-tic tasks, questions, cognitive strategies,and the opportunity for cooperativegroups (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Okolo,2001); classroom dialogue (Applebee,Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003);advance organizers and procedural fa-cilitators (Wong, Harris, Graham, &Butler, 2003); note-taking scaffolds(Boyle, 2001); and cognitive and meta-cognitive supports (Pressley et al., 1992;Vaughn, Schumm, & Bos, 2000). Posi-tive results for students begin withplanning that guides teachers to use in-struction that incorporates such com-ponents.

Support for this planning is foundin the Slice-of-the-Course-Pie planningfrom the Curriculum Planning frame-

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2007 123

IL/4

work and SMARTER planning steps(Lenz, Bulgren, Kissam, & Taymans,2004). These tools were developed torespond to the difficulties experiencedby teachers as they plan for instructionin inclusive content classes. The condi-tions of high school teaching and thetypes of preservice and inservice pro-fessional development currently of-fered to teachers do little to help teach-ers deal with the types of thinking andcurriculum redesign required to offer amore conceptually based curriculum.A more specific framework is required.

The Curriculum Pie planningframework addresses these issues(Lenz et al., 2004). The metaphor onwhich this framework was developedis one in which a course represents the"whole pie," and each unit representsa "slice of the pie." This framework isaligned with planning frameworksand guidelines proposed by others,such as Schumm, Vaughn, and Leavell(1994), who have proposed the Plan-ning Pyramid as a helpful way to dif-ferentiate between what all, most, andsome students should know; by Wig-gins and McTighe (1998), who devel-oped a model for backward design;and by Kame'enui and Carnine (1998),


who described teaching through "bigideas."

In Figure 1, the curriculum con-tent in a unit, represented by a "slice ofthe pie," is divided into three verticallevels. As shown on the right side ofFigure 1, the top of the slice representsthe critical content that all studentsshould be expected to know anddemonstrate. At the very center of thisarea is a star indicating that the contentall students must know should beselected based on a critical idea orconcept-similar to Wiggins and Mc-Tighe's (1998) "enduring understand-ing"-that rests at the heart of the dis-cipline. This level has the potential formaking the highest impact on society;the work of students that meets thestated mastery criteria at this levelwould be evaluated as the average orexpected level of performance in ahigh school curriculum.

At the middle level of this pieslice, the amount of information in-creases, but the information here is stillsomewhat limited, because it is im-portant that most students acquire thisinformation. Socially, this level of knowl-edge represents a more moderate in-vestment; the work of students that

Thinking for /Manipulating

Content

meets these criteria represents an above-average-or greater than expected-level of performance in a high schoolcurriculum.

The lowest vertical level of theslice represents what some studentsshould know and demonstrate aboutthe critical idea or concept. The per-centage of information at this level isthe greatest and, to a large degree, ishighly personalized. This level of theslice does not represent informationthat is unimportant or trivial. Rather, itrepresents information that is impor-tant for certain students, at certaintimes, under certain conditions (e.g.,making a report, launching an investi-gation on an issue of interest, exploringan important author, or helping solve alocal issue). Furthermore, whereas theinformation may be interesting, thislevel of content knowledge representsthe least social investment. However,information at this level may have veryhigh individual impact in terms of de-veloping interests or choosing a career.The work of students that meets thestated mastery criteria for the criticalideas and content at all three levelswould represent performance wellabove average or at the highest level ofperformance in a high school curricu-lum.

In addition to the vertical levels,the inner, triangular portions of the pieslice provide further supports forteachers as they plan for teaching andassessment. As explained on the leftside of Figure 1, the innermost core(shown in white) represents the foun-dational facts, vocabulary, concepts,principles, procedures, and proposi-tions needed in the content area. At themiddle layer of the triangle (shown indark gray) are the manipulations thatneed to be performed, such as compar-ing concepts or exploring causations.At the outer triangle (shown in lightgray) are the problem-solving and gen-eralization tasks.

Next, SMARTER planning is usedas a way of incorporating into instruc-tion the insights gained from thinkingabout content demands in light of each"slice of the pie." This planning is car-

FIGURE 1. Sample Slice of the Curriculum Pie, showing layers of thinking andlevels of content in a unit.


ried out in seven steps. The first step inSMARTER is to Shape the Critical Ques-tions. In this step, the teacher reflects onwhat is really critical for all students tounderstand about a course, unit, or les-son; what all students need to remem-ber and be able to use and discuss inthe long term; and how to cast theseoutcomes as critical questions that cap-ture the essence of learning (see theUnit Organizer in Figure 2). Next, theExpanded Unit Organizer (see Fig-ure 3) shows how a question from theUnit Organizer is explored in more de-tail, and the Question ExplorationGuide (see Figure 4) shows how ques-tions from the Unit Organizer becomethe focal point for in-depth inquiry, ex-ploration, and explanation.

Keeping the critical questions inmind, the second step is to Map theCritical Content. The content map is agraphic representation of how the con-tent might be organized. The teacherthinks about how the map might beconstructed relative to describing andorganizing the content to help studentsunderstand the information and an-swer critical questions, as shown inFigures 2 and 3.

Once the critical content has beenstructured in the form of a map, thecontent information associated witheach section of the map is reviewed inthe third step of SMARTER, AnalyzeDifficulties. The purpose of this step isto identify information that might bedifficult for students to learn based ona teacher's knowledge of (a) the field ofstudy and its complexities; (b) previ-ous experiences in teaching the infor-mation; and (c) the characteristics ofthe students in the class. The potentialareas of difficulty presented by theinformation might be based on ab-stractness, organization, relevance, back-ground knowledge, complexity, den-sity, quantity, or relationships to otherinformation.

The fourth step of the SMARTERplanning process is to Reach Enhance-nient Decisions. In this step, the teachermoves from thinking about the contentto making decisions about how theunit will be taught. Materials and ac-

FIGURE 2. Sample Unit Organizer for a unit on "The causes of the Civil War."

FIGURE 3. Sample Expanded Unit Organizer for a unit on "The causes of the CivilWar."

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2, MARCH /APRIL 2007 125

126 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

tivities are selected and organized. De-cisions are made regarding how thedifficulties associated with learning thecritical content should be addressed(e.g., selection of supports for ways toinquire deeply into a critical questionor solve a problem, see Figure 4; un-derstanding a single important con-cept, see Figures 5 and 6; comparingand contrasting concepts, see Figure 7;determining causes and effects, seeFigure 8).

The teacher must also plan howlearning can be achieved through thedevelopment of a learning partnershipamong the teacher and students, withall partners bringing something to thelearning situation. The teacher bringsknowledge of the content, how thecontent might be used, and how to re-late the content to the learning situa-tion; the student brings a context ofprior knowledge and beliefs about thevalue of the knowledge.

The next step in the SMARTERplanning process is to Teach Strategi-cally. Strategic teaching involves (a) ex-plaining, showing, and modeling forstudents how information will be taught

and learned on an ongoing basis;(b) working with students in partner-ships to arrive at learning outcomes;and (c) communicating the value oflearning how to learn to studentsthrough the use of ongoing evaluationand feedback (including grades) abouthow they are learning and workingwith each other. This is accomplishedby a common instructional sequencethat involves cueing the students aboutthe routine and its importance, co-constructing the graphic guided by theembedded strategic steps, and review-ing the content and process of learning.

The Evaluate the Enhancements stepof SMARTER is a self-reflection step inwhich teachers evaluate the enhance-ments used to plan and teach the criti-cal content targeted in the first steps ofSMARTER. In short, the target of theevaluation in this step is the teacherand not the student. Evaluation shouldfocus on reviewing the outcomes ofplanning, teaching, and assessing asfeedback for the teacher regarding fu-ture planning decisions.

The final step of the SMARTERplanning process is to Revisit Outcomes

QUESTION main idea_GENERATION & SUMMARIZATION

'EXPLANATIONPLIAIO

Quetio Exploratio uided0-U. o 0;C[L 2- Darea:

I

FIGURE 4. Sample Question Exploration Guide for the question, "How did differ-ences in the geographical sections of the United States in 1860 set the stage forthe American Civil War?"

at the end of instruction. If an identi-fied learning outcome is critical, thenthat standard should not be compro-mised; if students have not learned thecritical information, additional instruc-tion should be provided. Abandoningthese standards compromises the in-tegrity of the curriculum.

Examples of IntegratedContent Enhancement

Routines in History

To demonstrate how CERs and theirassociated graphic devices can be usedto engage students in academically di-verse classes in higher order thinking,a set of integrated examples from aunit on the Civil War is presented. Ex-planatory notations have been addedto each of the figures in shaded ovalsin Figures 2 through 8 as examples ofthese supports. Many of the compo-nents noted may, of course, appear onseveral or all of the devices (e.g., ex-ploration of prior knowledge, summa-rization of learning).

These figures illustrate how con-tent-area teachers can deliver domain-specific content knowledge, supportvarious levels of higher order thinkingassociated with expanded literacy re-quirements, and provide strategic cog-nitive and metacognitive supports forlearning that can also be used withinand across content areas and grades. Itis assumed that in addition to the useof these routines and devices, criticaldomain-specific skills must also betaught in those classes, including theexploration of historical documents,family histories, or historical narra-tives. However, students may wellbenefit from general strategic ap-proaches to higher order thinking incontent-area courses (Alexander &Judy, 1988; Klahr, Chen, & Toth, 2001;Kuhn, 1991; Perkins & Salomon, 1989;Stevens, Wineburg, Herrenkohl, &Bell, 2005).

These CER examples representthe results of planning for instructionand assessment with the CurriculumPie framework and SMARTER steps. It

Swi i•th cS•CCCesioHC did geographic differencer In the 5ectione of the U.S. in 1860contrilutetothesta of the American Civii War?

?Ieography? T he study of the earth, its Iatures and distribution of life

Civil War? A war between people of the 5ame country•nrln•n hP • n1;•92!North. Souh and Wes _______________

What ame 1h SupWorilog Questfts ed awerm?CC•wreteeCrthxaCtogf- AhCe•fertvtn Pif f retjvdfevu : lirh torhe. rer•adthore the'outrfhtd rt .ei'lfrrogeCnthMeWaee.U=? th Wcr:hvd tah-,,nti.edie hadeepan t li g-d

What dffertac dci d feat-ree cau? ý -ifret,Lraductv -- I t r: Nhet Cd JI-p •1r0 -H,- 4, fc--. outh -1 ti.-P GWdu W CCt6•&towac, Copla-,Ve -. W,,t -C4 Ifa-iWsC,-r f- & r-nche' oprodc

C ,ht. ri's ted fSe,diferertpgr ute reP & nC1"terkee? O Diaeern. iCe,s "peoehaŽv ett& nr,, e'-r La,bn t. CCtonfroeCCC&r,ehtCferrk,r.

( ................ w,? Geographic differences can lead to different ways of

living. This can lead to ideas so different that groups will go to war.()5" Cowecanweous Lenmain deo? (• is tWere 0n Osera{I{lga ide s terersa ,eeiveCrid use?

Compare, the differencec cauoed by Describe a conflict in your community orgeography in the U.S. in 1860 to today. state related to geography.

III

VOCABULARY

TaM R.f-- A-6C-

l

pe-1



must be noted that although theteacher fills out a graphic device priorto class as he or she plans, the teacherand all students begin with the appro-priate blank graphic device and con-struct the meaning together in classthrough dialogue; sharing of experi-ences, perceptions, and beliefs; andparticipation in the development ofgraphic devices such as those shown inthe following examples.

Unit Organizer RoutineAt the outset of a unit on the Civil War,a Unit Organizer (Lenz, Alley, &Schumaker, 1987; Lenz, Bulgren, Schu-maker, Deshler, & Boudah, 1994) wouldtypically be developed (see Figure 2).This planning and instructional toolhelps students to see the overall struc-ture of the unit. It guides the develop-ment of the other CERs to help stu-dents explore critical questions orrelationships among chunks of infor-mation within the unit. Note how themap or web in Figure 2 shows the or-ganization of information and how theUnit Relationships box (lower right-hand corner) cues the students as tohow knowledge structures and higherorder thinking will be used in the unit.Figure 2 also includes essential criticalquestions that all students would be ex-pected to answer at the end of the unit.

Expanded Unit Organizer

After an overview of the unit is pro-vided with the Unit Organizer and thecritical questions have been identified(see Figure 2), teachers may use the Ex-panded Unit Organizer (see Figure 3)to help students understand how thedetails discussed in class or covered inreadings are positioned in the largercontext of the unit. Thus, Figure 3 pro-vides importantfacts about events andleaders of the Civil War. Also high-lighted is a critical question related tothe specific details covered at thatpoint in the unit. Introducing criticalquestions as new details are presentedhelps to keep students actively en-gaged in the learning process. Note

how the question requires students tothink even more deeply about the issueof sectionalism written on the Unit Or-ganizer in Figure 2. Another importantinstructional design feature illustratedin Figures 2 and 3 is each line label thatconnects the subject in the oval (e.g.,sectionalism) to the explanatory de-tails. The line labels highlight the mean-ingful connections that provide studentswith the necessary syntax and lan-guage to integrate chunks of informa-tion. Ideally, these connections result ina sentence with a subject, verb and ob-ject (e.g., "Sectionalism was influencedby leaders of change").

Question Exploration RoutineAt this point, teachers begin to developQuestion Exploration Guides to beused with the Question ExplorationRoutine (Bulgren, Lenz, Deshler, &Schumaker, 2001) for each of the ques-tions on the Unit Organizer. Thesequestions may be explored and thegraphics developed incrementallythroughout the course, or they mayserve as culminating activities for sum-

PRIORKNOWLEDGI

,tir

one roti. 00Il

.cial rights

Desert 5tormiit K-it0

HierarchiralE CATEGOZTOORIZTION

Vý

marizing what students have learnedby the end of the unit (see Figure 4).The Question Exploration Guide (QEG)is used to help students systematically"unpack" a critical question, such asone of those that appeared on the UnitOrganizer. To explore the question"How did differences in the geo-graphic sections of the United States in1860 contribute to the start of the CivilWar?" the QEG helps define key vocab-ulary terms and support the unpackingof the critical question with questiongeneration and explanation that resultsin smaller, more manageable questions(e.g., "What were the geographic dif-ferences of the sections?") and their an-swers. Moreover, the QEG illustratesthe ongoing use of summarization of amain idea as a key mechanism to en-hance comprehension. Finally, theQEG engages students in the applica-tion and generalization of that main ideaas a central part of a culminating activ-ity. Students may be engaged in theseprocesses incrementally throughoutthe unit, or the class may develop theQEG near the end of the unit. Much de-pends on the other CERs needed to

DI0SCRIMINATION J~EVALUATIONDIAGRAM

armed Conflict•Preent fiever Present

RfuoltionaryWar

W.rid War

,,eoeen A o od oco o aty wof anned voof lint onggvoopo of c 7irens of a single notion that s nooved liv cenocros about the dism butloo of 000ev

FIGURE 5. Sample Concept Diagram for the concept of "Civil War."

U•uso sof citevos a, 0 _ o a beteennato _

abort d,stribu;t,on of poen et hli¢ 1 . . .

-- --" L -...-.. --d

- - -sa - -l

P.lt' a

United States warhotoeeo the States

Northern trel nd

1990sCrinis othe Balkans


: NALYSISh .cDa I

IV

'La JtJIJt{NAL OF LEARNING DISABILITLES

explorationANALYSISofof similar characteristics tocreate an analogy

__ Anchoring Table ) _........SNew C-nnnpIS6cceion-making VFederalismI n your echool in the U.5.A.

oCharmcl"Itticki of Known cnn.pt IS Chnaft.ac n ShIld al t-r$

165ion5 are ma1CC C-y 1 ! iCný re maif' by otatcamim5trotorF & to hraco. 2 Itcocus n.r' inwclved. ic fational govt.

nom vc •f arittcn or uncl'ct o0 dle5. base Or coOntt•llo.,po o,o lmow Pwoer i65 divicled i Rui•c toil how power ia clivocei. 11 how power j!5 divlml.

m powers bclong to Some vcowcaro org to one m•e powr bolooo toSministratorF, (expel) graoup toral g0vt (wara mon,er).

rlt f e rowcro belong to"cc powera belong to 5ome powero belong to at,C (educationr marriagoeS acioere (give. a rte) the other irouV. ablina).

ome po"erm belong to 1,ot Some orerr belong "o both Cincwrc belong to Loothnake rules, of. pe o•tte, ar•s x, plnish1 CrHmC6).roacI r rot perzfticr). I ,proi rr

bath atto and "Vor ýoirnraatoý Rou!an to Jrciz.t how tic' peor Ia divmded o &at ora r t c'tctito', o ame pow-nra )r,g,. rc oct occ croccy) ic• c ccg 51cr rotl c govti ac.0 cmt h Char pe-,.crr (.•g. ecu at,, ma.rca, gcr bIrj)Ib,lon:j to tihc 5oma powcro (-.,c tcar, p Id cra" ir z) Hbaono c

0 O a c C c". caP OocOnn ccnntocccmc

FIGURE 6. Sample Anchoring Table for the new concept of "Federalism in theUnited States."

provide students with the founda-tional information required, as shownin the following sections.

Concept Mastery Routine

During the planning process, teachersshould identify concepts that are cen-tral for students to know well to havea solid understanding of the unit.Those concepts that are both importantand potentially difficult to learn (e.g.,abstract, dense) should be enhancedwith a Concept Mastery Routine (Bul-gren, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1993; Bul-gren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1988) andits associated graphic device, the Con-cept Diagram. One of the concepts thata teacher may decide students need toknow in depth is the concept of a "civilwar." Figure 5 illustrates one way thata Concept Diagram might be devel-oped and used interactively by theteacher and the students during class.The teacher can confirm vocabularyknowledge and accuracy of students'prior beliefs about civil wars with theexploration of prior knowledge elicited

on the Key Words list. Higher orderhierarchical categorization is introducedand mediated by the teacher to helpstudents understand that the conceptof "civil war" belongs to a larger con-cept class of "armed conflict." Thisthinking pattern of clustering and cat-egorization is one of the repeated usesof higher order thinking in CERs to de-velop understanding of concepts andrelationships. Teachers can use theConcept Diagram to help students inthe analysis of characteristics that de-scribe the concept being studied. In theprocess, students have an opportunityto analyze descriptive informationabout the concept to determine whichcharacteristics are always present,which are only sometimes present, andwhich can never be present in an ex-ample of the concept class. Finally, gen-eralization of students' understandingof a civil war is guided by the teacheras students are prompted to determinewhich events, including current, real-world events, are examples or non-examples of civil wars. This last designfeature engages students in application,discrimination, and evaluation of learning.

Concept Anchoring RoutineA concept that is central to under-standing the American Civil War is"federalism." To help students gain asolid understanding of this concept, ateacher may choose to develop an anal-ogy and use an Anchoring Table and itsassociated Concept Anchoring Routine(Bulgren, Deshler, Schumaker, & Lenz,2000; Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler,1994). The power of this teaching de-vice is that it ties learning about thenew concept (federalism) to a situationabout which students have a good un-derstanding (see Figure 6). Note thatthe exploration of students' prior knowl-edge is again incorporated into this de-vice, as it was in the Concept Diagram.However, in this case, the prior knowl-edge involves using a concept that iswell known to students (i.e., decisionmaking in their school) to ensure thatthe teacher can mediate the co-construction of an analogy to federal-ism in the United States. Again, theanalysis of characteristics to create ananalogy facilitates understanding (e.g.,two groups are involved, rules tell howpower is divided). A final instructionalstep in using this CER is a synthesis ofinformation that results in an explana-tion of students' understanding. This isdisplayed in the box at the bottomof the figure titled "Understanding ofthe New Concept." To state a well-organized and synthesized statementat the conclusion of the lesson necessi-tates a solid grasp of the critical detailsand their relationship to each other.

Comparison RoutineIf the critical information to be taughtrequires students to compare or con-trast important information, teachersmay use a Comparison Table and theConcept Comparison Routine (Bulgren,Lenz, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1995; Bul-gren, Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, &Marquis, 2002). In the example pro-vided in Figure 7, facts are exploredabout the economic conditions of theNorth and South. Then, the identifiedeconomic characteristics are analyzedto determine those that are alike and

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES1 •1 /.. .. . .


those that are different. The Compari-son Table illustrates how strategic ap-proaches to thinking can be promptedthrough the use of CERs. Here, a strate-gic thinking prompt that helps studentsapproach the task and process the in-formation is cued by the acronymCOMPARING; similar prompts andacronyms are found on other devicesshown. Furthermore, students arechallenged to engage in higher levelsof thinking associated with categoriza-tion. This is accomplished by havingstudents identify categories into whichthe Like Characteristics and UnlikeCharacteristics fit. For example, theUnlike Characteristic of "immigrantsin the labor force" (for the North) and"slaves in the labor force" (for theSouth) can be categorized into an over-arching category of "primary sourcesof labor." Teaching students how toprocess information by using catego-rization provides them with the suc-cinct language that can be used torecall, talk about, and use the informa-tion being compared. The importanceof categorical language is highlightedin the summary statement, where thiskind of language (rather than languageof specific details) is used for synthesisand integration of the essential infor-mation being compared.

Cause-Effect Routine

A Cause-Effect Table is used to learnabout the causes of the American CivilWar (Bulgren, Deshler, & Schumaker,1998). One way of exploring causationinvolves identifying a sequence of events.As shown in Figure 8, a situation be-ginning with the Constitution in 1776is finally played out as a crisis from1861 to 1865. This device also high-lights the key vocabulary words thatare foundational to understanding andapplying the content in this unit, forexample, secede, civil, and federal. Athorough explanation of causes of theAmerican Civil War, including social,economic, and political causes, is ex-plored, resulting in an explanation ofeffects. By configuring the informationin an easy-to-follow graphic, students

(2)ýT PROMPT~T CAS'ISl5STRAEGIC - GITO CIN7TEGRATION

Somparison Table(Doerail Con-ept

Ecor ýmic Causes of Sectionalism in the U.S. in 1860SEooi,0 Cendeeonin h ot• " ( i C oepi

rxrtdi t Economic cond4tionln the NSouth

Good porti Good portsGood natural reeources Good natural r,sourceslmmigrrantn in labor force Slaver in labor forceProfit from industritee 'rofit from growing cottonGood land transportation Poor land transportationGood credit with other countrieo Good credit with other countries

Good portsGood natural re6ourGes

Good credit with other countries

(i) Un1ike Ch.a-cristics 0 Unlike Characteristics

Immigrants in labor force Slaves in labor forceProfit from industries Profit from growing cottonGood land transportation Poor land transportation

& I -

A-.1nebl LIkU Ca-vgorlR1,-•J Un1 k, Ch-11¢i'li,i

IStudy the economic conclition5of t.he We5t in 1860, and

create a list of characteristicsto be compared to the North &South.

(L.ike (ategories

Quality of portsQuality of natural rerourceoQuality of credit

( Unlike C.twgonrie

Primary source of laborSource of profitsQuality of land transportation

(a) SummaryEconomic conditions in the North and 5outh in 1660 were alike because both had good natural resources, ports, andcredit, Their primary sources of labor and profits were different, as was the quality of their land trjnsportatien

-E

*

FIGURE 7. Sample Comparison Table: "Economic causes of sectionalism in theUnited States in 1860."

can understand how information isarranged and processed to determinesequential cause-effect relationships.Finally, summarization reinforces thecritical content learning.

When teachers use CERs in an in-tegrated fashion, as illustrated withthis history unit, students' mastery ofcritical content is enhanced, as is theirawareness of how to think about andprocess information. In the develop-ment of these graphic devices to me-diate understanding of a unit on theCivil War, the planning supports inthe Curriculum Pie framework and theSMARTER steps are continuously andcyclically applied to ensure the selec-tion of appropriate scaffolds to medi-ate student learning.

Research Paradigm

Research over the past 2 decades hasprovided support for the potential ofindividual CERs to help students learn.Collectively, the attributes associated

with this line of research enable us tostudy the degree to which the targetedCER is effective in changing how stu-dents process information and per-form on academic tasks. To illustratethis research paradigm, an investiga-tion of a Cause-Effect Routine will bebriefly summarized (Bulgren, Deshler,& Schumaker, 1998; see Figure 8 for theassociated graphic device).

Attribute 1: Fidelity andEase of Use

Data are collected on the ease withwhich teachers can learn to use theroutine and the fidelity with whichthey implement the routine. In thiscase, teachers learned the routinequickly and implemented it at masterylevels.

Attribute 2: Effects onSubgroups of Students

One of the most challenging aspects ofinclusive teaching is to design instruc-

0


I


ýEýlnpaneonolCause and Effect Table CAUSESDate Unit:

Q o oestio- / . I Key Word ..... -o with•aw Ciil relaeed to citizeroWhy did the [ivil War in America happent Iin 1 mf-.t roe W a r,...

3 SOUOfCO~ 7 51% -~1L365

Different interpretationsof the Constitution led todisagreements betweenNorth and South.Disagreements were:

1.) Social (slavery)

2.) Economic (tariffs toprotect industries )

3.) Political (extent ofstates' rights versusfederal rights)

Eleven Southern statesdecided to secede fromthe Union and form theConfederate States ofAmerica.

However, the federalgovernment in the Northbelieved the South couldnot leave the Union.

both sides were willing tofight for their beliefs.

(D Conclusion:Complex issues and interpretations led to the American Civil War.

0 2004 Bulgren KU-CRL/IEI

R•uit(s)

TheAmericanCivil War

wasfought

betweenthe Nort;h9nd South.

FIGURE 8. Sample Cause-Effect Table for the question, "Why did the Civil War inAmerica happen?"

tional procedures that are responsiveto the major subgroups of studentstypically included in academically di-verse classes. In order for classroomteachers to embrace a CER, they mustbe convinced that it is effective for stu-dents in each of these subgroups. In thecase of the investigation of the Cause-Effect Routine, 166 seventh-grade stu-dents participated in the study on thisroutine, and for students in each sub-group (HA, AA, LA, and LD), the re-sults were disaggregated and analyzedaccording to this subgrouping as wellas for the total group.

Attribute 3: Validation Studiesto Determine Effects onStudent Performance

Research on the routines presented hereincluded validation studies of varioustypes. In some cases, experimentallycontrolled studies were conducted inwhich a researcher delivered instruc-tion in a setting other than the stu-dents' usual classrooms to studentsrandomly assigned to either experi-

mental or control conditions or, insome cases, to randomly assigned in-tact classes. Furthermore, validationstudies are often conducted in whichinclusive content-area teachers are ran-domly assigned to either experimentalor control conditions; they then teachregularly scheduled content to all theirstudents in intact classes using eitherthe targeted routine or regular instruc-tion, and they give common assess-ments.

In this study, after each of the sixgeneral education teachers had usedthe routine to teach regularly sched-uled content at least three times, theirstudents were asked to read an articleabout environmental problems associ-ated with the use of pesticides andwrite an essay explaining a sequence ofevents, identifying causes, and ex-plaining effects associated with the useof pesticides in the modern world. Stu-dents in the experimental group signif-icantly outscored students in the con-trol group on a measure designed toassess their ability to explore and ex-plain causes and effects.

SM0alon

The U. S.Constitution gaverights to both thistates and thefederalgovernment. SomSouthernersMelieved that anystate could refusto obey an act ofCongress itconsideredunconstitutional.

4-


Attribute 4: Measurement ofComponents Associatedwith CERsTo determine the impact of a CER onthe academic performance of students,measures are often taken on other in-structional components. As permittedby time and experimental design, thesemeasures have included assessment ofthe quality and quantity of students'notes, assessment of students' knowl-edge of the embedded steps of thestrategic approach, students' ability togeneralize the strategic approach to adifferent content area than the one inwhich students received instruction,and correlational studies.

For example, in this study (Bul-gren et al., 1998), analyses were con-ducted to determine differences innotes taken by students in the experi-mental and control groups. Differenceswere found between experimental andcontrol conditions in favor of the ex-perimental group on quality and quan-tity of note taking. Then, analyseswere conducted to determine students'knowledge of embedded steps in thestrategic approach used in the routineand shown on the graphic device.Analyses indicated significant differ-ences in favor of the experimentalgroup relative to knowledge of thestrategic approach. In addition, signif-icant correlations were found in favorof the experimental group betweenknowledge of strategy steps and per-formance on the task designed to as-sess ability to explore and explaincauses and effects.

Attribute 5: Teacher and StudentSatisfaction with the CERAlthough improving student outcomesis the first priority of any instructionalendeavor, it is recognized that the in-structional practice must be one that ispalatable for classroom teachers to useand incorporate into their ongoing in-structional routine. Similarly, it is im-portant that students in an academi-cally diverse class find that the newCER enhances their learning and per-formance. Therefore, satisfaction, mo-

tivation, and confidence surveys maybe administered. In this study, teacherswere satisfied with the feasibility andvalue of using the routine, and they in-dicated that they expected to continueusing the procedure. Students in theexperimental condition were moreconfident than students in the controlcondition in the correctness of theirstrategic approaches and the correct-ness of their answers.

ConclusionEducators are faced with the challeng-ing goal of substantially improving theeducational outcomes of all adoles-cents in academically diverse subjectmatter classes that include studentswith LD and students at risk for schoolfailure as well as average- and high-achieving students. This article ad-dresses some of the issues involved insuccessfully including students withLD in rigorous courses, such as thosein history, at the secondary level.Analyses of curricular demands andstandards clearly indicated that stu-dents are expected to successfullylearn facts and concepts and engage inhigher order thinking to meet existingexpectations. In spite of these expec-tations, secondary teachers have re-ported concerns that students with LDmay not be able to successfully masterthe critical subject matter contained inlarge volumes of content informationthat must be taught in relatively shortperiods of time. Therefore, one of theparamount challenges in inclusiveclasses is teaching critical elements ofthe curriculum content to all students,including struggling learners who maylack the strategic approaches they needto learn the content material.

For more than 2 decades, re-searchers at the University of KansasCenter for Research on Learning haveinvestigated the viability of ContentEnhancement Routines (CERs) as in-structional tools to support planning,teaching, and assessing that can beused in rigorous subject matter coursescontaining academically diverse stu-dents. CERs have been designed to

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2007

teach content information in the formof facts and concepts as well as the ma-nipulation of content information andgeneralization of learning to all stu-dents, including those who may lackproficiency in critical skills and strate-gic approaches to learning. This re-search has repeatedly shown that stu-dents in academic classes can mastercritical content elements and improvetheir outcome performance when teach-ers systematically incorporate CERs intheir classes and teach them explicitlyto their students. However, teachersmay need support in the developmentand implementation of integrated setsof CERs, and more research is neededto determine the power of such inte-grated sets of routines not only withina specific content area, such as Ameri-can history, but also across contentareas and grade levels within schools.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Janis Bulgren, PhD, is an associate researchprofessor at the University of Kansas Center forResearch on Learning and Courtesy Professor inthe Department of Special Education. The focusof her research has been on the design and vali-dation of interventions to help adolescents, in-cluding those with disabilities, succeed in in-clusive general education classes. Donald D.Deshler is professor of special education and di-rector of the Center for Research on Learning atthe University of Kansas. The focus of his re-search has been on the design and validation ofinterventions for adolescents with LD and thereform of secondary schools to better accommo-date struggling adolescent learners. B. KeithLenz, PhD, is an associate professor in the De-partment of Special Education at the Universityof Kansas and a senior scientist with the Uni-versity of Kansas Center for Research on Learn-ing. The focus of his research has been on learn-ing strategies and instructional practices to helpstudents with disabilities succeed. Address:Janis Bulgren, University of Kansas Center forResearch on Learning, 514 J. R. Pearson Hall,1122 W. Campus Road, Lawrence, KS 66045.

AUTHORS' NOTE

For more information on Content EnhancementRoutines and associated professional develop-ment sessions, contact the director of profes-sional development at the KU Center for Re-search on Learning (tel. 785/864-4780; e-mail:[email protected])

131

NOTE

Achieve, Inc., was created by the nation's gov-ernors and business leaders in 1996. It is abipartisan, nonprofit organization that helpsstates raise academic standards, improve assess-mients, and strengthen accountability to preparestudents for postsecondary education and work.

REFERENCES

Achieve. (2006). Closing the expectations gap2006: Annual 50-state progress report onalignment of high school policies with the de-mands of college and work. Washington,DC: Author.

Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The in-teraction of domain-specific and strategicknowledge in academic performance. Re-view of Educational Research, 54, 375-404.

Andrews, J., Carnine, D., Coutinho, M.,Edgar, E., Forness, S., Fuchs, L., et al.(2000). Bridging the special education di-vide. Remedial and Special Education, 21,258-260.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand,M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing under-standing: Classroom instruction and stu-dent performance in middle and highschool English. American Educational Re-search Journal, 40, 685-730.

Bay, M., Staver, J., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B.(1992). Science instruction for the mildlyhandicapped: Direct instruction vs. dis-covery teaching. Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 29, 555-570.

Boyle, J. R. (2001). Enhancing the note-taking skills of students with mild dis-abilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,36, 221-224.

Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker,J. B. (1993). The content enhancement series:The concept mastery routine. Lawrence, KS:Edge Enterprises.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler,D. D. (1994). The content enhancement se-ries: The concept anchoring routine. Law-rence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker,J. B. (1998). Reasoning strategies and teach-ing routines for use in mnainstream contentclassrooms. Final research report submit-ted to the U.S. Department of Education,Special Education Services.

Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker,J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (2000). The use and ef-fectiveness of analogical instruction in di-verse secondary content classrooms. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 92, 426-441.

132

Bulgren, J. A.; & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Strate-gic instruction in the content areas. InD. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz(Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learningdisabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.,pp. 409-473). Denver: Love.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., &Schumaker, J. B. (1995). The content en-hancement series: The concept comparisonroutine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., &Schumaker, J. B. (2001). The content en-hancement series: The question explorationroutine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B.,Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2002).The use and effectiveness of a compari-son routine in diverse secondary contentclassrooms. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 94, 356-371.

Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Deshler, D. D.,Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Davis, B.,et al. (2006). The instructional context ofinclusive secondary general educationclasses: Teachers' instructional roles andpractices, curricular demands, and re-search-based practices and standards.Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Jour-nal, 4(1), 39-65.

Bulgren, J. A., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006).Teaching practices that optimize instruc-tional access. In D. D. Deshler & J. B.Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescentswith disabilities: Accessing the general edu-cation curriculum (pp. 79-120). New York:Corwin Press.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler,D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a conceptteaching routine in enhancing the perfor-mance of LD students in secondary-levelmainstream classes. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 11, 3-17.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psy-chology of optimal experience. New York:Harper and Row.

Daro, P. (April, 2005). Reading and writing inthe subject matter disciplines. Discussiondocument presented to the Strategic Ed-ucation Research Partnership with theBoston Public Schools on Middle SchoolLiteracy, Boston.

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Bui, Y., &Vernon, S. (2006). High schools and ado-lescents with disabilities: Challenges atevery turn. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schu-maker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with dis-abilities: Accessing the general education cur-riculum (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.


Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K.,Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J.,et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learn-ing by secondary students with learningdisabilities. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 16, 96-108.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: Abrief history of the twenty-first century. NewYork: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo,C. M. (2001). Teaching for understandingwith students with disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 24, 59-71.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Smith-Johnson, J.,Dimino, J., & Peterson, A. (2006). Eyes onthe prize: Teaching complex historicalcontent to middle school students withlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children,72, 264-280.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, I. C., & Bergerud, D.(1990). The effectiveness of graphic orga-nizers for three classifications of sec-ondary students in content area classes.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12-22.

Kame'enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998).Effective strategies for accommodating stu-dents with diverse learning and curricularneeds. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy:Reading for the 21st century. Washington,DC: Alliance for Educational Excellence.

Klahr, D., Chen, Z., & Toth, E. E. (2001).Cognitive development and science edu-cation: Ships that pass in the night orbeacons of mutual illumination. In S. M.Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition andinstruction (pp. 75-119). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lenz, B. K., Alley, G. R., & Schumaker, J. B.(1987). Activating the inactive learner:Advance organizers in the secondarycontent classroom. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 10, 53-67.

Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J., & Hudson, P. (1990).Content enhancement: A model for pro-moting the acquisition of content by in-dividuals with learning disabilities. InT. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), In-tervention research in learning disabilities(pp. 122-165). New York: Springer Verlag.

Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Kissam, B. R., &Taymans, J. (2004). SMARTER planningfor academic diversity. In B. K. Lenz &D. D. Deshler (Eds.), Teaching content to all(pp. 47-78). Boston: Pearson.

Lenz, B. D., Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B.,Deshler, D. D., & Boudah, D. J. (1994). The

content enhancement series: The unit orga-nizer routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enter-prises.

Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Ado-lescents with learning disabilities: Revis-iting "the educator's enigma." In B. Y. L.Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning dis-abilities (3rd ed., pp. 535-564). New York:Academic Press.

National Academies. (2006). Rising above thegathering storm: Energizing and employingAmerica for a brighter future. Washington,DC: Author.

National Center for History in the Schools.(1996). National standards for history. LosAngeles: University of California.

National Governors Association. (2005).Reading to achieve: A governor's guide toadolescent literacy. Washington, DC: Au-thor.

Newman, L., Marder, C., & Wagner, M.(2005). Instruction of secondary studentswith disabilities in general education acade-mic classes. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Re-search Institute, National LongitudinalTransition Study 2.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6310 et seq.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Arecognitive stills context-bound? Educa-tional Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E.,Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992).Encouraging mindful use of prior knowl-edge: Attempting to construct explana-tory answers facilitates learning. Educa-tional Psychologist, 27, 91-109.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for stu-dents with learning disabilities in inclu-sive and pullout programs. ExceptionalChildren, 68, 203-222.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Bulgren,J. A., Davis, B., Lenz, B. K., & Grossen, B.(2002). Access of adolescents with dis-abilities to general education curriculum:Myth or reality? Focus on Exceptional Chil-dren, 35(3), 1-16. Reprinted in T. M.Skrtic, K. R. Harris, & J. G. Shriner (2005).Special education policy and practice: Ac-countability, instruction, and social chal-lenges (pp. 129-155). Denver: Love.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A. G.(1994). Planning pyramid: A frameworkfor planning for diverse student needsduring content area instruction. ReadingTeacher, 47, 608-615.

Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L. R.,& Bell, P. (2005). Comparative under-


standing of school subjects: Past, present,and future. Review of Educational Research,75, 125-157.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Act. Re-trieved August 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov /policy/speced / reg/regulations.html

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Bos, C. (2000).Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk stu-dents in the general education classroom.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Under-standing by design. Alexandria, VA: Asso-ciation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Teaching Mathematics toLearning Disabilities-Fc

Nancy S. Bley and Carol A. Tf

The fourth edition of Teaching Mathematics to Students withLearning Disabilities, like previous editions, is aimed at help-ing teachers in general and special education settings adaptthe mathematics curriculum to meet the needs of studentswith learning disabilities. The book reflects and incorporatesthe ongoing changes in the world of mathematics.

Material in this newest edition continues to emphasizeproblem solving and real-world applications and also incor-porates some of the changes presented in the most recentedition of Principles and Standards of School Mathematics(published by NCTM). It is intended to be an adjunct tomaterial used in a variety of school mathematics texts andprovides a number of ways to individualize instruction andpractice. To this end, specific techniques, examples, and care-fully sequenced activities have been included and, in manycases, updated to address the expanded availability and useof technology.

PRO-ED,~ In.80 SolCee ld51/5 260 fax 800/XRE 0 6 A

Students with)urth Editioniornton

Wong, B. Y. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., &Butler, D. L. (2003). Cognitive strategiesinstruction research in learning disabili-ties. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, &S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning dis-abilities (pp. 383-402). New York: Guil-ford Press.

TeachingMathematics

to Students with I .... to Di-abiliti.

The material has also beenreorganized to more clearly ad- (dress some of the sequences de-scribed throughout the book.The chapter on technology now ' 0 C.includes an appendix listingcommercial and shareware pro- $ %

grams that can be adapted and

used with students who have learning disabilities, along withpublisher and Internet addresses. Other topics include timeand money; concepts and computation involving whole num-bers, rational numbers, and percentages; and some hard-to-learn upper-grade topics, such as ratio, proportion, integers,exponents, and scientific notation.

#9178, 2001479 pages, paperback

ISBN 0-89079-857-5$45.00

6 Asin, 0ea 0000006897 - p800/8730 or.


COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Engaging Adolescents With LD in Higher OrderThinking About History Con

SOURCE: Journal of Learning Disabilities 40 no2 Mr/Ap 2007PAGE(S): 121-33

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.proedinc.com/

Documents

Engaging Adolescents With LD in Higher Order Thinking ...maase.pbworks.com/f/Bulgren,+Deshler2007.pdfEngaging Adolescents With LD in ... History Concepts Using Integrated Content Enhancement