The understanding and use of historical concepts specified in national history standards pose many challenges to students. These challenges include both the acquisition of content knowledge and the use of that knowledge in ways that require higher order thinking. All students, including adolescents with learning disabilities (LD), are expected to understand and use concepts of history to pass high-stakes assessments and to participate meaningfully in a democratic society. This article describes Content Enhancement Routines (CERs) to illustrate instructional planning, teaching, and assessing for higher order thinking with examples from an American history unit. Research on the individual components of Content Enhancement Routines will be illustrated with data from 1 of the routines. The potential use of integrated sets of materials and procedures across grade levels and content areas will be discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achieve. (2006). Closing the expectations gap 2006: Annual 50-state progress report on alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research , 54, 375—404.
3.
Andrews, J., Carnine, D., Coutinho, M., Edgar, E., Forness, S., Fuchs, L., et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 258—260.
4.
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English . American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685—730.
5.
Bay, M., Staver, J., Bryan, T., & Hale, J.B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction vs. discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555—570.
6.
Boyle, J.R. (2001). Enhancing the note-taking skills of students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 221—224.
7.
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., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1998). Reasoning strategies and teaching routines for use in mainstream content classrooms. Final research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Special Education Services .
10.
Bulgren, J.A., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Lenz, B.K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 426—441.
11.
Bulgren, J.A., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 409—473). Denver: Love.
Bulgren, J.A., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Marquis, J.G. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 356—371.
15.
Bulgren, J.A., Marquis, J.G., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Davis, B., et al. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers' instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39—65.
16.
Bulgren, J.A., & Schumaker, J.B. (2006). Teaching practices that optimize instructional access. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 79—120). New York: Corwin Press.
17.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes . Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 3—17.
18.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
19.
Daro, P. (April , 2005). Reading and writing in the subject matter disciplines. Discussion document presented to the Strategic Education Research Partnership with the Boston Public Schools on Middle School Literacy, Boston.
20.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Bui, Y., & Vernon, S. (2006). High schools and adolescents with disabilities: Challenges at every turn. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 1—34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96—108.
22.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
23.
Ferretti, R.P., MacArthur, C.D., & Okolo, C.M. (2001). Teaching for understanding with students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59—71.
24.
Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Smith-Johnson, J., Dimino, J., & Peterson, A. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 264—280.
25.
Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12—22.
26.
Kame'enui, E.J., & Carnine, D.W. (1998). Effective strategies for accommodating students with diverse learning and curricular needs. Columbus, OH : Merrill.
27.
Kamil, M.L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Educational Excellence.
28.
Klahr, D., Chen, Z., & Toth, E.E. (2001). Cognitive development and science education: Ships that pass in the night or beacons of mutual illumination. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 75—119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Lenz, B.K., Alley, G.R., & Schumaker, J.B. (1987). Activating the inactive learner: Advance organizers in the secondary content classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 53—67.
31.
Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J., & Hudson, P. (1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122—165). New York: Springer Verlag.
32.
Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Kissam, B.R., & Taymans, J. (2004). SMARTER planning for academic diversity. In B. K. Lenz & D. D. Deshler (Eds.), Teaching content to all (pp. 47—78). Boston: Pearson.
33.
Lenz, B.D., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Boudah, D.J. (1994). The content enhancement series: The unit organizer routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises .
34.
Lenz, B.K., & Deshler, D.D. (2004). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Revisiting “the educator's enigma.” In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 535—564). New York: Academic Press.
35.
National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
National Center for History in the Schools. ( 1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles: University of California.
37.
National Governors Association. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor's guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
Newman, L., Marder, C., & Wagner, M. (2005). Instruction of secondary students with disabilities in general education academic classes. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, National Longitudinal Transition Study 2.
39.
40.
Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive stills context-bound?Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16—25.
41.
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91—109.
42.
Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203—222.
43.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Bulgren, J.A., Davis, B., Lenz, B.K., & Grossen, B. (2002). Access of adolescents with disabilities to general education curriculum: Myth or reality?Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(3), 1—16. Reprinted in T.M. Skrtic, K.R. Harris, & J.G. Shriner (2005). Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction, and social challenges (pp. 129—155). Denver : Love.
44.
Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A.G. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. ReadingTeacher, 47, 608—615.
45.
Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L.R., & Bell, P. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research , 75, 125—157.
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved August 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/regulations.html
47.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Bos, C. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
48.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
49.
Wong, B.Y.L., Harris, K.R., Graham, S., & Butler, D.L. (2003). Cognitive strategies instruction research in learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383—402). New York: Guilford Press.
