Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities

Exceptional Children

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 264-280

  Gersten, Russell ^a   Baker, Scott K ^b   Smith Johnson, Joyce ^c   Dimino, Joseph ^a   Peterson, Anne ^c  

^a Instructional Research Group   (United States)

^b Pacific Institutes for Research   (United States)

^c Eugene School District 4 J   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644628374     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290607200301     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318.
2. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65-77.
3. Campione, J., & Brown, A. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment (pp. 82-116). New York: Guilford.
4. Carnine, Steely, D., & Silbert, J. (1996). Understanding U.S. History - Reconstruction to world leadership 2. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
5. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1976). Rapid 'automatized' naming (ran): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.
6. DeVinney, J. A. (Writer/Producer). (1991). Eyes on the prize - America's civil rights years, 1954-1965 [Documentary]. United States: Blackside Inc.
7. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Grouping practice and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399-415.
8. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Andersen, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372.
9. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59.
10. Gersten, R. (2005). Behind the scenes of a research study. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 20, 200-212.
11. Gersten, R., Baker, S., Smith-Johnson, J., Peterson, A., & Dimino, J. (2003). Providing meaningful access to the general curriculum through use of design experiments (Technical Report 03-02). Long Beach, CA: Instructional Research Group.
12. Gersten, R., Fuchs, D., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.
13. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwanz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.
14. Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculumbased oral reading fluency norms for students in grades two through five. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 24, 41-44.
15. Jennings, P., & Brewster, T. (1998). The century. New York: Doubleday.
16. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1994). Making sense of accounts of history: Why young students don't and how they might. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 1-26). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. McTighe, J., & Lyman, F. T., Jr. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-based tools. Educational Leadership, 45, 18-24.
18. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
19. Passe, J., & Seattle, J. (1994). Social studies for students with mild disabilities: A progress report. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 227-233.
20. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
21. Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C. D., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B., & Fletcher, J. (2002). Relationships of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 245-256.
22. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
23. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.
24. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). IDEA proposed regulations, 42 fed. Reg. 55026, 55115, to be codified at 34 c.F.R. §§300.660-662.
25. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). IDEA proposed regulations, 42 fed. Reg. 55026, 55115, to be codified at 34 c.F.R. §§300.660-662.
26. View, J. (2004). Teaching civil rights: Putting the movement back in the story. Education Week, pp. 28-29.
27. Wagner, M., & Blackorby, J. (2002, July). Measuring student outcomes. Paper presented at the 2002 OSEP Research Project Director's Conference, Washington, DC.
28. Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
29. Zigmond, N., Wolery, R., Meng, Y., Flumer, D., & Bean, R. (1994, April). Students with learning disabilities in elementary-level mainstream history classes: What gets taught? What gets learned? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.