BulgrenJ. A.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. 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.
2.
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(3), 426–441.
3.
BulgrenJ. A.LenzB. K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In DeshlerD. D.EllisE. S.LenzB. K. (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 409–473). Denver: Love.
4.
BulgrenJ. A.LenzB. K.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2001). The content enhancement series: The question exploration routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
5.
BulgrenJ. A.LenzB. K.MarquisJ. G.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.DavisB. (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.
6.
BulgrenJ. A.LenzB. K.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.MarquisJ. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356–371.
7.
BulgrenJ. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17.
8.
DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K.BulgrenJ.SchumakerJ. B.MarquisJ. (2004). Adolescents with disabilities in high school settings: Student characteristics and setting dynamics. Learning Disabilities Contemporary Journal, 1(2), 30–48.
9.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.LenzB. K.BulgrenJ. A.HockM. F.Knight (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96–108.
10.
Kame'enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (1998). Effective strategies for accommodating students with diverse learning and curricular needs. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
11.
LenzK. B.AlleyG. R.SchumakerJ. B. (1987). Activating the inactive learner: Advance organizers in the secondary content classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(1), 53–67.
12.
LenzK. B.EhrenB. J.DeshlerD. D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(6), 60–63.
13.
National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles: University of California.
14.
National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts: A project of International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
16.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.BulgrenJ. A.DavisB.LenzB. K.GrossenB. (2005). Access of adolescents with disabilities to general education curriculum: Myth or reality?. In SkrticT. M.HarrisK. R.ShrinerJ. G., Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction, and social challenges (pp. 129–155). Denver, CO: Love. (Reprinted from Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(3), 1–16, 2002).
18.
WagnerM.BlackorbyJ.HebbelerK. (1993). Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performance of students with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.