Many accommodations, though designed to ensure success of adolescents with learning disabilities in content area classes, water down the curriculum by reducing opportunities to learn and emphasizing memorization of facts. This article explores how watering up the curriculum to create "thought-full" classrooms can facilitate achievement of learning and development of deep knowledge structures. six basic principles associated with making knowledge construction more meaningful and robust are examined, and examples of specific instructional techniques particularly appropriate for use in inclusive classroom settings are provided. These techniques focus on teaching big ideas, promoting elaboration, relating to real-world contexts, and integrating thinking skills and strategies into the curriculum.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anders, P. L. & Bos, C. S. (1984). In the beginning: Vocabulary instruction in content classrooms. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 3(4), 53–65.
2.
Anderson, T. H., Armbruster, B. B., & Kantor, R. N. (1980). How clearly written are children's textbooks? or, of bladderworks and alfa (Reading Education Report No. 16). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
3.
Bean, R. M., Zigmond, N., & Hartman, D. K. (1994). Adapted use of social studies textbooks in elementary classrooms: views of classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 216–226.
4.
Bos, C. S. (1995, November). Inclusive education for linguistically and culturally diverse students with learning disabilities: Issues and best practices. Paper presented at the 11th annual Learning Disorders Conference: Making Classrooms Work---The Challenges of Inclusion, Cambridge, MA.
5.
Bryson, M. (1993). "School-based epistemologies"? Exploring conceptions of how, what, and why students know. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 299–316.
6.
Chambliss, M. J. (1994). Evaluating the quality of textbooks for diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 348–362.
7.
Cushman, K. (1994). Less is more: The secret of being essential. Horace, 11(2), 1–12.
8.
Deshler, D. D. & Lenz, B. K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 36, 203–224.
9.
DiSibio, M. (1982). Memory for connected discourse. A constructivist view. Review of Educational Research, 52, 149–174.
10.
Ellis, E. S. (1994a). Integrating content with writing strategy instruction: Part 1---Orienting students to organizational devices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 169–179.
11.
Ellis, E. S. (1994b). Integrating content with writing strategy instruction: Part 2---Writing processes. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 219–228.
12.
Ellis, E. S. (in press). The concept clarifying routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
13.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Harber, J. (1983). The effects of illustrations on the reading performance of learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 55–60.
15.
Hudson, P., Lingugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 2, 106–126.
16.
Hughes, C. A., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Mercer, C. (1988). The test-taking strategy. Lawrence, KS: Excel Enterprises.
17.
Joint Committee on Teacher Planning for Students with Disabilities. (1995). Planning for academic diversity in America's classrooms: Windows on reality, research, change, and practice. Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
18.
Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
Lenz, B. K., Alley, G. R., Beals, V. C., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1981). Teaching LD adolescents a strategy for interpreting visual aids. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
20.
Lovitt, T. C. (1991). Preventing school drop-outs: Tactics for at-risk, remedial, and mildly handicapped adolescents. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21.
Marzano, R. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22.
Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.
23.
Parks, S. (1995, November). Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction in heterogeneously grouped classrooms. Paper presented at the 11th annual Learning Disorders Conference: Making Classrooms Work-The Challenges of Inclusion, Cambridge, MA.
24.
Passe, J., & Beattie, J. (1994). Social studies instruction for students with mild disabilities: A progress report. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 227–233.
25.
Patzelt, K. E. (1991). Increasing homework completion through positive reinforcement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 306)
26.
Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1–41.
27.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.
28.
Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., & Symons, S. (1987). Elaborating to learn and learning to elaborate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 76–91.
29.
Reid, D. K., Kurkjian, C., & Carruthers, S. S. (1994). Special education teachers interpret constructivist teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 267–280.
30.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 7–28.
31.
Scanlon, D., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 41–57.
32.
Schlichter, C., & Brown, V. (1985). Application of the Renzulli Model for the education of the gifted and talented to other areas of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 6(5), 49–55.
33.
Schlichter, C., & Palmer, R. (1993). Thinking smart: A primer of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
34.
Schumaker, J. B. (in press). TOWER: The theme writing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
35.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A. G. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, 608–615.
36.
Sitlington, P. L., & Frank, A. R. (1993). Dropouts with learning disabilities: What happens to them as adults?Learning Disabilities Reasearch and Practice, 8, 244–252.
37.
Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 260–270.
38.
Tindal, G., Rebar, M., Nolet, V., & McCollum, S. (1995). Understanding instructional outcome options for students with special needs in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(2), 72–84.
39.
Wansart, W. L. (1995). Teaching as a way of knowing: Observing and responding to students' abilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 166–177.
