Strategy Instruction for Middle and Secondary Students with Mild Disabilities: Creating Independent Learners

Books

Greg Conderman, Laura Hedin & Val Bresnahan

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Preface

    You have probably heard of the Chinese proverb: Give me a fish, and I eat for a day; teach me to fish, and I eat for a lifetime. This statement reflects the learning strategies philosophy. The strategies approach teaches students how to learn and be independent learners rather than isolated skills or facts.

    Rationale for the Book

    Special and general educators from all grades and subjects are searching for ways to be more effective and efficient in their teaching. They are looking for ways to help students eat for a lifetime. School administrators and teachers must demonstrate that students are making academic and social-behavioral gains. For various reasons, some students are more challenging to teach, and they require more powerful instructional tools in order to make significant gains. The good news is that years of research—as well as our experiences teaching adolescents with mild disabilities—support the strategies approach.

    Middle and high school students with disabilities are especially well suited for strategy instruction, because they are expected to meet rigorous general education curriculum standards and pass state and district tests. To accomplish these tasks, students need more than exposure to skills, which is an approach that helps them only to eat for a day. Rather, they need powerful and effective methods to help them understand, retain, and apply difficult skills and concepts. Because the strategy approach teaches students a new way of thinking, it requires more deliberate and explicit instruction (especially teacher modeling) and therefore takes more time than other approaches, but the results, we believe, are well worth it.

    Secondary students are also unique because they have only a few more years remaining of their K-12 education. Unless secondary general and special education teachers use powerful instructional approaches, students may not make sufficient growth to meet goals on their individualized education program (IEP) or meet annual yearly progress goals under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) / No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Further, without an approach that emphasizes independent learning, students are at a higher risk for dropping out of school and accepting and maintaining entry-level jobs over the course of their lifetime.

    In addition to identifying a need for powerful instructional strategies, researchers have questioned existing instructional practices at the secondary level. One concern is that resource rooms often function as modified study halls, where students primarily complete homework for their general education classes. This often leaves little time for strategy instruction. Admittedly, students need support to maintain satisfactory progress in their general education classes. The challenge (and not an easy one) is for special educators to find the balance between helping students with their class work and teaching them strategies that help them become more independent in those classes and with future tasks.

    Researchers have also noted confusion about the secondary special education teacher's role in co-taught classrooms. Many secondary special education co-teachers function as assistants in general education classrooms because they have not mastered the content to assume instructional parity with their general education co-teaching partner. The one-teach one-assist model is the most frequently used yet least effective co-teaching approach. This model often does not expose students to powerful instructional strategies. In contrast, special educators in co-taught general education classes can establish themselves as strategy experts by teaching efficient and effective learning, organizational, study, or behavioral strategies to all students in the class.

    How to Use This Book

    With these thoughts in mind, we present this practical book on instructional strategies for secondary (middle and high school) students with mild disabilities. The first two chapters provide the context and background for teaching secondary special education. Chapter 1 introduces the array of instructional approaches used by secondary special educators. Of the approaches discussed in Chapter 1, the strategies approach is the focus of Chapter 2 because many experts in the field recommend this approach for initial skill instruction. Strategy instruction is the focus of this book.

    The remaining chapters are of two kinds: assessment chapters and methods/strategies chapters. Using case studies and the strategies approach, each assessment chapter connects student informal assessment results to IEPs, and in the subsequent corresponding methods/strategies chapter, evidence-based strategies are connected to IEPs. The assessment chapters provide background information about the skill or content, informal assessments, and the student's IEP. Methods/strategies chapters describe strategies teachers taught to meet the student's IEP goals in each case. Therefore, “matching” chapters (e.g., chapters 3 and 4 on vocabulary) make more sense if read together. Many chapters provide ready-to-use forms as well as teacher think-alouds for modeling the featured strategy. Subheadings direct readers to a specific strategy, and end-of-the chapter questions provide application activities. This book is also unique in that rather than providing short descriptions of numerous strategies, chapters provide a more intense look at specific evidence-based vocabulary, reading, writing, study, textbook, self-regulation, math, and science strategies.

    Intended Audience

    Strategy instruction can occur in general, special, and Response to Intervention (RTI) settings and is appropriate for all learners (students with and without disabilities) who are learning common core state standards. Therefore, the informal assessments, suggested IEP goals and objectives, and think-alouds provide templates for you, whether you are teaching in inclusive, resource, or self-contained settings; consulting or co-teaching with general educators; designing RTI approaches; studying special or general education as a preservice teacher; or providing district-level leadership as an administrator, teacher-mentor, curriculum coordinator, or staff development planner. Therefore, regardless of your current position, we trust that you will find the ideas in this book informative as you teach your students to eat for a lifetime.

    Acknowledgments

    Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    • Sally Jeanne Coghlan
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Rio Linda Preparatory Academy, Twin Rivers USD
    • Rio Linda, CA
    • Debi Gartland
    • Professor of Special Education
    • Towson University
    • Towson, MD
    • Cheryl Moss
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Gilbert Middle School
    • Gilbert, IA
    • Catherine Orlando
    • Teacher, Administrator, Adjunct Professor, Consultant
    • Miami-Dade County Public Schools
    • Miami, FL
    • Karen L. Tichy
    • Associate Superintendent for Instruction and Special Education
    • Archdiocese of St. Louis
    • St. Louis, MO

    About the Authors

    Greg Conderman is full professor of special education at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, where he teaches methods and collaboration courses for elementary education, secondary education, and special education majors. He was a middle and high school special education teacher and special education consultant for 10 years before entering higher education. He has authored over 70 articles on instructional methods and collaboration, which have been published in special education and general education journals. He is a frequent presenter at local, state, and national conferences. He has also received numerous teaching awards for excellence in instruction at the college level.

    Laura Hedin is an assistant professor in the Department of Special and Early Education at Northern Illinois University. She teaches instructional methods courses, including reading methods, in both the graduate and undergraduate special education certification programs. Her research interests include reading in the content areas for intermediate and secondary students with disabilities as well as teacher preparation, science instruction for students with disabilities, and co-teaching.

    Val Bresnahan, EdD, is currently a middle school language arts teacher in a Chicago suburb. She has been a speech-language pathologist, special education teacher, general education teacher, and adjunct university instructor. She has authored books on vocabulary instruction and co-teaching as well as articles on study skills. She also has made numerous presentations on vocabulary instruction, co-teaching, and differentiation.

  • Appendices

    Appendix A: Prefixes, Suffixes, Roots, and Combining Forms

    Most Common Prefixes
    PrefixMeaningExample
    innotincorrect
    unnot, opposite ofunhappy
    disnot, opposite ofdistrust
    miswronglymisspell
    forebeforeforefather
    reagainrethink
    dedown, away fromdeplane
    prebeforepretest
    en, emcause to beenable
    nonnotnonskid
    PrefixMeaningExample
    in, imin or intoinput
    overtoo muchovereat
    subundersubway
    interbetweeninterstate
    transacrosstransatlantic
    superabovesuperhero
    semihalfsemicircle
    antiagainstantiwar
    midmiddlemidday
    undertoo littleunderpaid

    All other prefixes (about 100) together account for only 3% of the total number of words containing prefixes.

    Most Common Suffixes
    SuffixMeaningExample
    s, espluralcats, boxes
    edpast tense verbsjumped
    ingverb, present participlerunning
    SuffixMeaningExample
    lycharacteristic ofsadly
    er, orperson connected withjogger, actor
    ion, tion, ation, itionact or processaction
    SuffixMeaningExample
    ible, ablecan be donefixable
    al, ialhaving characteristics offormal
    ycharacterized bymessy
    nessstate of, condition ofkindness
    ity, tystate ofactivity
    mentaction or processenjoyment
    SuffixMeaningExample
    ichaving characteristics ofstrategic
    ous, eous, iouspossessing qualities ofjoyous
    enmade ofgolden
    ercomparativesmaller
    ive, ative, itiveadjective form of nounactive
    fulfull ofhelpful
    lesswithoutheadless
    estcomparativesmallest

    All other suffixes (about 160) together account for only 7% of the total number of words containing suffixes.

    Sources:

    Blevins, W. (2001). Teaching phonics and word study in the intermediate grades. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.
    Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
    Yoshimoto, R. (1997). Phonemes, phonetics, and phonograms; Advanced language structures for students with learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 29 (3),
    Most Common Latin Roots
    RootMeaningExample
    portcarrytransport
    ruptto tear apartdisrupt
    scrib, scriptto writetranscribe
    tractpulldistract
    cept, ceivetake, catchaccept
    spectsee, watch, observeinspect
    jectthrowreject
    structbuildconstruct
    dicttell, speakdiction
    mis, mitsendtransmission
    RootMeaningExample
    flect, flexto bendinflect
    credbelievecredible
    duc, ductleadconduct
    pendhang, weighsuspend
    peldrive, pushexpel
    fac, fectmake, dofactory
    vers, vertto turn, changeconvert
    formto shapereform
    aud, audito hear, listenaudible
    vid, visseevisible
    Common Greek Combining Forms

    Greek word parts are referred to as combining forms because several Greek word parts combine to form a word. Some examples are telegraph, geology, and photography. Many of these words are specialized words used in science and mathematics.

    Combining formMeaningExample
    microsmallmicroscopic
    scopeseetelescope
    photolightphotocopy
    graphwritten downgraphic
    telefar off, distanttelegraph
    phonsoundphonograph
    geoearthgeography
    Combining formMeaningExample
    metermeasurediameter
    ologystudy ofbiology
    autoselfautograph
    biolifebiography
    chronotimechronometer
    bibliobookbibliography
    hydrowaterhydrant

    Sources:

    Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
    Henry, M. (2010). Words: Integrating decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and word structure. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    Kieffer, M., Lesaux, N. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61 (2), 134–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.3
    Moats, L. (2003). Speech to print workbook: Language exercises for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Appendix B: Test-Taking Tips

    For Objective-Type Questions

    Skim the whole test to get an idea of length and sections.

    Read each question carefully and slowly and note special words such as not, except, all but, et cetera.

    Answer known questions first.

    Mark questions for which you are unsure of the answer with a bullet or dot and return to those later.

    Eliminate answers that are identical, silly, or unrelated to the question.

    Carefully read all options. Put a check mark by each option after you read it.

    Immediately write on the test any formulas or mnemonics that serve as prompts.

    After reading the question, anticipate the answer and look for that answer in the choices.

    If one answer choice in a multiple choice question is “all of the above,” and more than one choice is correct, pick “all of the above.”

    Change an answer only if you are sure.

    If you do not know the answer, pick (B) or (C), as those tend to be used most frequently as correct answers or pick the longest and most detailed response.

    Generally, if a true/false question uses absolute terms (all, always, every, only, none, never), the answer is “false.”

    Generally, if a true/false question uses terms such as sometimes, mostly, many, often, usually, or generally, the answer is “true.”

    All parts of the true/false item must be true for the answer “true” to be correct.

    If you are unsure of a true/false answer, answer “true,” as “true” tends to be used more frequently as the correct answer.

    Check the test for clues to help you answer challenging questions.

    For Subjective-Type Questions

    Read the question or prompt slowly and several times.

    Underline key terms in the question or prompt.

    Pay attention to the “writing word” in the prompt. Are you being asked to describe, compare, compare and contrast, contrast, analyze, define, illustrate, explain, or defend? Each of these has a different meaning.

    Note special considerations in the prompt such as the number of items to be explained and if the prompt wants you to use information from the text, class notes, et cetera.

    Spend a few minutes thinking about and planning your response by making an outline, graphic organizer, or bulleted list.

    Write the first topic sentence as a direct reply to the prompt by using some words in the prompt.

    Spend most of your writing time on the body of your essay, which includes details and facts. Spend considerably less time writing the introduction and conclusion.

    If you cannot think of a response specific to the prompt, write something on the topic that you remember. Reading through the test might help you remember some concepts for your response. You might still get partial credit.

    Proofread for spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

    Appendix C: Tips for Developing Effective Study Guides

    Develop a study guide that matches unit objectives such as the following:

    • two-column study guides that have factual questions listed in the left column and their corresponding answers in the right column
    • flip flop study guides (two-column guides with definitions or examples in the right column and their corresponding key concepts or terms in the left column)
    • compare-and-contrast study guides for analyzing similarities and differences between items or groups
    • summative study guides for indicating vocabulary terms, short-answer questions, and review questions likely to appear on the exam
    • textbook activity study guides for noting main ideas and details and for providing a place for students to indicate if they understand or do not understand the material
    • interactive study guides that allow students to collaboratively complete the study guide and discuss responses with a partner
    • sequential or cause and effect study guides that provide items in a graphic organizer with some cells empty that students complete as they read

    Write questions in the same order that the corresponding concepts are presented in the chapter.

    To differentiate study guides, include page numbers where answers can be found for students who need this.

    If students are writing on their guide, leave adequate space for answers.

    Include clear and specific directions.

    Reduce the number of items by including only the most critical content or use the same study guide for all students but mark questions that are most important.

    Simplify the language of the question without sacrificing the objective. Reduce unnecessary wordiness.

    Minimize writing demands by including more true/false, matching, or fill-in-the-blank questions rather than short-answer or essay items, especially for students who struggle with written expression.

    When including vocabulary items, provide the definition and have students provide the word; this reduces unnecessary copying of definitions.

    Use only one or two different formats.

    When writing true/false items, make sure each question assesses only one concept, is clearly true or false, is not copied word-for-word from the text, avoids tricky words, and does not include the word not just to make an obviously true statement false.

    When writing fill-in-the-blank questions, include one blank per question, place the blank at the end of the sentence, provide blanks of the same length, ensure that the blank is an important concept, and include enough detail in the sentence so only one response is correct.

    (For example, “Our president is________” is too vague. “The last name of the current U.S. president is________” is much more clear.)

    When writing matching questions or sections, include no more than 10 items per section, use only homogeneous items, write the longer phrases in the left column, and include lines for students to write the letter of their choice rather than having students connect lines from one column to the other.

    When writing short-answer or essay questions, provide context for the question, indicate a general length, note the learning objectives, and include the point value.

    References

    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2008). Facts for families: Teen suicide. Retrieved from http://aacap.org/page.ww?name=Teen+Suicide&section=Facts+for+Families
    Bear, G., Kortering, L., Braziel, P. (2006). School completers and non-completers with learning disabilities: Similarities in academic achievement and perceptions of self and teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 293–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050401
    Berk, L. (2003). Child development. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Berry, G., Hall, D., Gildroy, P. (2004). Teaching learning strategies. In B. K.Lenz, D. D.Deshler, B. R.Kissam (Eds.), Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools (pp. 258–278). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. The American Educator, 25 (1), 24–28.
    Blachowicz, C. (2004). Reading fluency reader (Level H). New York, NY: Jamestown Education/Glencoe.
    Bos, C., Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (
    6th ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Boyle, J., Scanlon, D. (2010). Methods and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    Brigham, F., Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (4), 223–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00343.x
    Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D., Schumaker, J. (1993). The concept mastery routine. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
    Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. (2001). Instructional practices designed to promote success for students with disabilities in inclusive secondary content classrooms: A review of the literature(research report). Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
    Bursuck, W., Damer, M. (2007). Reading instruction for students who are at risk or have disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Cancio, E., West, R., Young, K. (2004). Improving mathematics homework completion and accuracy of students with EBD through self-management and parent participation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12 (1), 9–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10634266040120010201
    Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing process of high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4126974
    Choike, J. (2000). Teaching strategies for “Algebra for All.”Mathematics Teacher, 93 (7), 556–560.
    Clark, F., Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Allen, G., Warner, M. (1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written materials. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (3), 145–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221948401700304
    Common core state standards initiative. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
    Conderman, G., Bresnahan, V. (2010). Study guides to the rescue. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45 (3), 169–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451209349532
    Conderman, G., Elf, N. (2007). What's in this book? Engaging students through a textbook exploration activity. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23 (1), 111–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560600681372
    Conderman, G., Hartman, P., Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Mnemonics to the rescue: Strategies for memory and recall. LD Forum, 6–8.
    Conderman, G., Hedin, L. (2011). Cue-cards: A self-regulatory strategy for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46 (3), 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451210378745
    Conderman, G., Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (3), 169–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230030501
    Conderman, G., Pedersen, T. (2007). Twenty ways to avoid the tutoring trap. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 (4), 234–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512070420040801
    Conderman, G., Pedersen, T. (2010). Preparing students with mild disabilities for taking state and district tests. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45 (4), 232–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451209353446
    Deshler, D., Ellis, E., Lenz, K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love.
    Deshler, D., Schumaker, J. (2005). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Dyck, N., Pemberton, J. (2002). A model for making decisions about text adaptations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512020380010401
    Ellis, E. (2011). Makes sense strategies. Retrieved from http://www.graphicorganizers.com/edwin-ellis-ph-d.html
    Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., Mariage, T., Oxer, T. (1994). Lessons talk as the work of reading groups: The effectiveness of two interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 171–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949402700305
    Fountas, I., Pinnell, G. (2011). Benchmark assessment system (
    2nd ed.
    ). Chicago, IL: Heinemann.
    Friend, M., Bursuck, W. (2012). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Gallagher-Landi, M. (2001). Helping students with learning disabilities make sense of word problems. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (1), 13–18, 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345120103700103
    Gartland, D. (2007). Reading instruction. In P. J.Schloss, M. A.Schloss, C. N.Schloss (Eds.), Instructional methods for secondary students with learning and behavior problems (
    4th ed.
    ) (pp. 233–254). Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Gore, M. (2004). Successful inclusion strategies for secondary and middle school teachers: Keys to help struggling learners access the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Graham, S., Harris, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L.Swanson, K. R.Harris, S.Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C. (2006). Explicitly teaching struggling writers: Strategies for mastering the writing process. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, (5) 290–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512060410050601
    Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
    Gunning, T. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Haenisch, S. (2004). Algebra. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
    Harris, M., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D. (2008). The word mapping strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
    Hoover, J., Patton, J. (2007). Teaching study skills to students with learning problems. A teacher's guide for meeting diverse needs (
    2nd ed.
    ). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    Hughes, C., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D. (2005). The essay test taking strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
    Hughes, C., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., Mercer, C. (1988). The test-taking strategy. Lawrence, KS: EXCELLenterprises.
    Impecoven-Lind, L., Foegen, A. (2010). Teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46 (1), 31–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451210369520
    Jacobson, L., Reid, R. (2010). Improving the persuasive essay writing of high school students with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 76 (2), 157–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600202
    Jitendra, A., Hoppes, M., Yin, P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400302
    Joseph, L., Konrad, M.2009. Have students self-manage their academic performance. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44 (4), 246–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451208328834
    King-Sears, M., Bonfils, K.1999. Self-management instruction for middle school students with LD and ED. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35 (2), 96–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345129903500206
    King-Sears, M., Duke, J.2010. Bring your textbook: Using secondary texts to assess reading demands and skills required for students with high-incidence disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45 (5), 284–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451209359079
    Klingner, J., Vaughn, S. (2002). Using collaborative strategic reading. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/
    Knight-McKenna, M.2008. Syllable types: A strategy for reading multisyllabic words. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40 (3), 18–24.
    Langer, J.1981. From theory to practice: A prereading plan. Journal of Reading, 25 (2), 152–156.
    Lee, S., Simpson, R., Shogren, K. (2007). Effects and implications of self-management for students with autism: A meta-analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 2–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220010101
    Lenz, B., Deshler, D., Kissam, B. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Lenz, K., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., Beals, V. (1984). Learning strategies curriculum: The word identification strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
    Leslie, L., Caldwell, J. (2008). Qualitative reading inventory-4. New York, NY: Longman.
    Maag, J. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    Maccini, P., Hughes, C. (2000). Effects of a problem solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_2
    Martin, J., Mithaug, D., Cox, P., Peterson, L., Van Dycke, J., Cash, M.2003. Increasing self-determination: Teaching students to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust. Exceptional Children, 69 (4), 431–447.
    Mason, L. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.283
    Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. (2010). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiated instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
    Mather, N., Wendling, B., Roberts, R. (2009). Writing assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    McKenzie, R. G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32 (4), 379–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888406409346241
    Mercer, C., Jordan, L., Miller, S. (1996). Constructivistic math instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 147–156.
    Mercer, C., Pullen, P. (2008). Students with learning disabilities (
    7th ed.
    ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Miller, K., Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., Mitchem, K., Hollingsead, C.2007. Kid tools: Self-management, problem-solving, organizational, and planning software for children and teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (1), 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430010201
    Montague, M.1996. Assessing mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (4), 238–248.
    Montague, M. (2003). Solve It! A mathematical problem-solving instructional program. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations.
    Morningstar, M., Kim, K., Clark, G.2008. Evaluating a transition personnel preparation program: Identifying transition competencies of practitioners. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31 (1), 47–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088840640803100105
    Myles, B., Simpson, R. (2003). Asperger syndrome: A guide for educators and parents (
    2nd ed.
    ). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    Nagel, D., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D. (1986). The first-letter mnemonic strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
    National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
    Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
    Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. In K. D.Muth (Ed.), Children's comprehension of text (pp. 205–223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Palincsar, A., Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
    Peterson, C., Caverly, D., Nicholson, S., O'Neal, S., Cusenbary, S. (2000). Building reading proficiency at the secondary level: A guide to resources. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
    Power notes. (2011). International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/power-notes-30759.html
    Pressley, M., Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Raphael, T., Au, K. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59, 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.3.1
    Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading?Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49 (1), 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3
    Rasinski, T., Padak, N., Newton, R., Newton, E. (2008). Greek and Latin roots: Keys to building vocabulary. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. Retrieved from http://www.turuz.info/Sozluk/0330-Qreek-Latin%20Roots-Key%20to%20building%20Vocabulary.pdf
    Reid, R., Lienemann, T. (2006). Strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    Reid, R., Trout, A., Schartz, M.2005. Self-regulation interventions for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71 (4), 361–377.
    Ricketts, C., Brice, J., Coombes, L.2010. Are multiple choice tests fair to medical students with specific learning disabilities?Advances in Health Science Education: Theory and Practice, 15 (2), 265–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9197-8
    Rooney, K. (2010). Strategies for learning: Empowering students for success, grades9–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Sabornie, E., deBettencourt, L. (2009). Teaching students with mild and high-incidence disabilities at the secondary level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Saenz, L., Fuchs, L.2002. Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (1), 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300105
    Salend, S. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Sammons, R., Davey, B. (1993/94). Assessing students' skills in using textbooks: The textbook awareness and performance profile (TAPP). Journal of Reading, 37 (4), 280–286. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017435?seq=1
    Santa, C., Havens, L., Valdes, B. (2004). Project CRISS. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
    Sayeski, K., Paulsen, K. (2010). Mathematics reform curricula and special education: Identifying intersections and implications for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46 (1), 13–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451210369515
    Scavo, T. (1997). Geoboards in the classroom. Retrieved from http://mathforum.org/trscavo/geoboards/intro3.html
    Schumaker, J. (2003). Learning strategies curriculum: Fundamentals in the theme writing strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
    Schumaker, J., Denton, P., Deshler, D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
    Schumaker, J., Nolan, S., Deshler, D. (1985). Learning strategies curriculum: The error monitoring strategy. Lawrence: The University of Kansas.
    Schumaker, J., Sheldon, J. (1985). Learning strategies curriculum: The sentence writing strategy. Lawrence: The University of Kansas.
    Schumm, J., Vaughn, S., Leavell, A. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, 608–615.
    Scott, B., Vitale, M.2003. Teaching the writing process to students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38 (4), 220–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345120303800404
    Scott, V., Compton, L.2007. A new trick for the trade: A strategy for keeping an agenda book for secondary students. Intervention in School and Clinic42 (5), 280–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512070420050301
    Shanker, J., Cockrum, W. (2009). Locating and correcting reading difficulties (
    9th ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Shinn, M., Shinn, M. (2002). Aimsweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
    Spinelli, C. (2011). Linking assessment to instructional strategies. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Stahl, K., Bravo, M. (2010). Contemporary classroom vocabulary assessment for content areas. The Reading Teacher, 63 (7), 566–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.4
    Stauffer, R. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
    Stefanich, G. (1998, March). Curriculum development in teaching science to students with disabilities. Paper presented at CSUN Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
    Swanson, H. L., Sachs-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300201
    Therrien, W., Taylor, J., Hosp, J., Kaldenberg, E., Gorsh, J.2011. Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26 (4), 188–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x
    Thurlow, M., Rogers, C., Christenson, L. (2010). Science assessments for students with disabilities in school year 2006–2007: What we know about participation, performance, and accommodations(Synthesis Report 77). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
    Vaughn, S., Bos, C. (2009). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Vaughn, S., Bos, C. (2012). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (
    8th ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Pearson.
    Vaughn, S., Bos, C., Schumm, J. (2003). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Weber, E. (1999). Student assessment that works: A practical approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Wilkinson, L.2008. Self-management for children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (3), 150–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451207311613
    Wilson, C. (1963). An essential vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 17 (2), 94–96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20197722
    Yore, L. D., Craig, M., Maguire, T. (1998). Index of Science Reading Awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4–8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 27–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2736%28199801%2935:1%3C27::AID-TEA3%3E3.0.CO;2-P
    Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J.ZimmermanD. H.Schunk, (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Corwin: A SAGE Company

    The Corwin logo—a raven striding across an open book—represents the union of courage and learning. Corwin is committed to improving education for all learners by publishing books and other professional development sources for those serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to carry out the promise of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website