This paper provides an analysis of the rationale and theoretical underpinnings of the Genius Discipline-specific Literacy Model and its use of SMARTvisuals, interactive visual devices that employ embedded semantic prompts to cue the use of information-processing skills and strategies and focus attention on essential informational elements of high-frequency topics associated with learning history and the English language arts. Quantitative data validating the impact on high-, typical-, and low-achieving students' breadth, depth, and accuracy of history knowledge acquisition and the impact on high-stakes writing assessments, as well as social validity concerning teacher and student perceptions of the SMART visuals, are reviewed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmbrusterB. B., AndersonT. H., & MeyerJ. L. (1991). Improving content-area reading using instructional graphics.Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 393–416.
2.
BeanT. W., SingerH., SorterJ., & FrazeeC. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students' comprehension in a tenth-grade world history class.Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153–169.
3.
BeckI. L., McKeownM. G., HamiltonR., & KucanL. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing for enhancing student engagement with text.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4.
BoonR. T., ForeC.III, AyresK., & SpencerV. G. (2005). The effects of cognitive organizers to facilitate content-area learning for students with mild disabilities: A pilot study.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 101–117.
5.
BosC. S., & AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students.Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
6.
BowmanL. A., CarpenderJ., & PaoneR. A. (1998). Using graphic organizers, cooperative learning groups, and higher order thinking skills to improve reading comprehension.Chicago, IL: M. A. Research Project, Saint Xavier University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420842)
7.
BoyleJ. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities.Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 5–13.
8.
BoyleJ. R., & WeishaarM. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 228–235.
9.
BrookbankD., GroverS., KullbergK., & StrawserC. (1999). Improving student achievement through organization of student learning. Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, and IRI/Skylight. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435094)
10.
BrownA., & PalincsarA. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In ResnickL. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–432). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., & LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121–133.
12.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., SchumakerJ. B., & LenzB. K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 426–441.
13.
BulgrenJ. A., LenzB. K., SchumakerJ. B., DeshlerD. D., & MarquisJ. G. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms.Journal off Educational Psychology, 94, 356–371.
14.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., & LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121–133.
DeshlerD. D., EllisE. S., & LenzB. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies & methods.Denver, CO: Love Publishing, Inc.
17.
DexterD., & HughesC. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis.Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72.
18.
DiCeccoV. M., & GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.
19.
EllisE. S. (2011a). Toward the identification of essential understandings of high frequency generative topics in history: A pilot study. Manuscript in preparation.
20.
EllisE. S. (2011b). Toward the identification of essential understandings of high frequency generative topics in literature: A pilot study. Manuscript in preparation.
EllisE. S., & WillsS. W. (2011). Effects of discipline-specific SMART visuals on high school students' relational understanding of history. Manuscript in preparation.
23.
GagneE. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning.Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
24.
GardillM. C., & JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities.The Journal of Special Education, 33, 2–17.
25.
GlesneC. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
26.
GriffinC. C., & TulbertB. L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students' comprehension and recall of expository text: A review of the research and implications for practice.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 73–89.
27.
GuastelloE. F., BeasleyT. M., & SinatraR. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders.Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 356–364.
28.
HudsonP. (1996). Using a learning set to increase the test performance of students with learning disabilities in social studies classes.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 78–85.
29.
IdolL., & CrollV. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension.Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–229.
30.
MarzanoR. J., PickeringD. J., & PollockJ. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
31.
National Council for Social Studies (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment.Washington, DC.
32.
NesbitJ. C., & AdesopeO. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
33.
PressleyM., JohnsonC. J., & SymonsS. (1987). Elaborating to learn and learning to elaborate.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 76–91.
34.
RobinsonD. H., & KierwaK. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–476.
35.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A., SchultzS. E., LiM., & ShavelsonR. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278.
SimmonsD. C. (1988). Effects of teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organize instruction on sixth-grade science students' comprehension and recall.Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 15–21.
WillsS. W. (2007). The effect of embedded semantic prompts in graphic organizer Instruction on students' relational understanding of secondary content material. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
