BennettK.ReichowB.WoleryM. (2011). Effects of structured teaching on the behavior of young children with disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 143–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088357611405040.
2.
BogganM.HarperS.WhitmireA. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3, 1–6.
3.
BowmanS.PlourdeL. A. (2012). Andragogy for teen and young adult learners with intellectual disabilities: Learning, independence, and best practices. Education, 132, 789–798.
4.
CarnahanC. R.HumeK.ClarkeL.BordersC. (2009). Using structured work systems to promote independence and engagement for students with autism spectrum disorders. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41 (4), 6–14.
5.
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2012). Common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
6.
DettmerS.SimpsonR.MylesB.GanzJ. (2000). The use of visual supports to facilitate transitions of students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 163–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108835760001500307.
7.
GrouwsD. A.CebullaK. L. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics, part 1: Research findings. ERIC Digest. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463952).
HumeK.OdomS. (2007). Effects of an individual work system on the independent functioning of students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1166–1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0260-5.
10.
HumeK.ReynoldsB. (2010). Implementing work systems across the school day: Increasing engagement in students with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 228–237.
11.
KeelJ. H.MesibovG. B.WoodsA. V. (1997). TEACCH-supported employment program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 3–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025813020229.
12.
MesibovG. B.SheaV.SchoplerE. (2005). The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
13.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
OzonoffS.CathcartK. (1998). Effectiveness of a home program intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 25–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026006818310.
16.
PaneraiS.FerranteL.CaputoV. (1997). The TEACCH strategy in mentally retarded children with autism: A multidimensional assessment. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 345–347.
17.
PaneraiS.FerranteL.ZingaleM. (2002). Benefits of the treatment and education of autistic and communication handicapped children (TEACCH) program as compared with a non-specific approach. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 318–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00388.x.
18.
PaneraiS.ZingaleM.TrubiaG.FinocchiaroM.ZuccarelloR.FerriR.EliaM. (2009). Special education versus inclusive education: The role of the TEACCH program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 874–882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0696-5.
19.
SchoplerE.MesibovG.HearseyK. (1995). Structured teaching in the TEACCH system. In SchoplerE.MesibovG. (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 243–268). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
20.
TaylorK.PreeceD. (2010). Using aspects of the TEACCH structured teaching approach with students with multiple disabilities and visual impairment: Reflections on practice. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 28, 244–259.
WilsonS. M.PetersonP. L. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they mean for educators? Best Practices National Education Association Research Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495823.pdf.