Using Graphic Organizers to Access the General Curriculum at the Secondary Level

Abstract

Federal law requires that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum. Specifically, students with disabilities must have access to, be involved in, and make progress in the same standards-based curriculum that students without disabilities receive. Intense demands of secondary settings as well as learning challenges present barriers for successful access for adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). Secondary teachers can use graphic organizers to minimize the barriers and increase the success of adolescents with LD. This article provides an introduction to the barriers experienced by adolescents, an overview of graphic organizers, and suggestions for use with adolescents with LD in secondary classroom settings.

Keywords

intervention academic adolescence age secondary curriculum instruction content area access to general education

In 1997, with the goal of raising expectations and improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) added the requirement that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; IDEA, 1997). In other words, to the maximum extent possible, educators in public schools are responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to, are involved in, and make progress in the same standards-based curriculum that is provided to students without disabilities (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). In addition, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) indicated a preference for the general education classroom as the least restrictive environment in which access to the general education curriculum should occur (Karger, 2005). With an emphasis on involvement (i.e., meaningful participation) and progress (i.e., measurement and outcomes), educational expectations for students with disabilities have become more rigorous (Karger, 2005). However, multiple barriers prevent successful access to the general curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). It is important for teachers to understand these barriers as well as to use effective instructional strategies to minimize the potentially negative impact of these barriers.

The demands of secondary settings for adolescents with LD are very different from those of their previous educational experiences in elementary and middle school. High school students are expected to independently read and comprehend content across academic areas and learn content with less teacher contact time than provided in previous grades (Sabornie & deBettencourt, 2009). However, students with LD may read at levels substantially below their grade levels. As such, they have trouble understanding patterns of expository text and technical vocabulary, limiting their successful access to content area information (Lapp, Flood, & Ranck-Buhr, 1995). Many students with LD also have trouble accessing higher-level mathematics taught in secondary settings because they lack or ineffectively use basic skills, vocabulary, and procedural knowledge (Maccini & Gagnon, 2005). Schools present additional barriers when lecture is primarily used to teach complex mathematical procedures (e.g., finding interior angles) to students who have trouble processing oral language (Steele, 2010). In addition, many adolescents struggle with the complexity of writing and lack effective strategies for planning, writing, and revising processes (Conley, 2008). Given their learning challenges, many students with LD are not successful in meeting the high school academic demands and accessing the general curriculum.

In addition to student barriers, many secondary teachers encounter pedagogical challenges. For example, due to national teacher shortages in secondary content areas such as science (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2011), many teachers are teaching on provisional licenses. As such, they may lack knowledge about effective instructional strategies for struggling students. Consequently, they may rely heavily on the textbook without the use of strategies to support comprehension (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003).

With both student and teacher barriers, secondary teachers need to be able to successfully transform and organize academic content to make it easier for adolescents with LD to learn (Deshler, 2005). Graphic organizers (GOs) are one tool that all teachers can use to help adolescents with LD be more successful in the general curriculum. It is theorized that knowledge is stored in linguistic (i.e., semantic) and nonlinguistic (i.e., imagery) forms (Marzano, Gaddy, & Dean, 2000). In many secondary classrooms, teachers primarily use the linguistic mode, which can present a barrier to students with LD, as well as to many other students. However, using imagery or nonlinguistic strategies can be an effective way to learn and recall information (Marzano, 2003) for all students, including students with LD (Pirozzolo & Rayner, 1979). GOs are nonlinguistic, visual displays that combine the linguistic mode of key words or phrases with arrows and symbols to highlight connections and relationships (Marzano et al., 2000). They enhance content to help students comprehend and retain important information (Lenz, Bulgren, & Hudson, 1990). Through visual displays, GOs help make obscure content more meaningful and accessible by making relationships between facts and concepts more explicit (Hughes, Maccini, & Gagnon, 2003). In addition, by making the abstract more concrete and supporting the connection between prior and new knowledge, GOs can help make learning more meaningful and lasting (Ausubel, 1968). Although the general definition of a GO is fairly consistent across resources, the definitions of the types of GOs are inconsistent (Rice, 1994). Generally speaking, the visual relationships within GOs can be organized as hierarchic, cause and effect, compare and contrast, and cyclic or linear sequences (Ellis & Howard, 2007).

Since GOs have the potential to minimize curricular barriers for all students in a classroom, they are considered part of the universal design for learning (UDL) framework (Strangman, Hall, & Meyer, 2003). UDL was included in IDEIA (2004) as a method to promote academic accessibility for all students (Hehir, 2009). Using UDL methods, teachers can remove potential barriers (e.g., difficult to comprehend textbooks, oral presentation of information) by using multiple and flexible instructional strategies. GOs can offer teachers and students an alternative way to understand traditional text. Because of the way they are structured, GOs can help students make connections between prior and new knowledge and more easily identify key information. In addition, GOs can be a flexible way for students to demonstrate their knowledge, allowing an alternative to long written responses (Strangman et al., 2003). Teachers are wise to identify strategies that are effective for both students with and without disabilities when selecting evidence-based strategies to support academic achievement.

How Effective Are Graphic Organizers?

Graphic organizers have been identified as a Go For It instructional practice to use with students with LD (Ellis & Howard, 2007). This means that there is “ample research that documents a solid scientific base” for improving student performance in reading, writing, and thinking and content area learning (Ellis & Howard, 2007, p. 3). GOs have been used successfully with students with LD in resource (Dexter & Hughes, 2011) and general education (Anderson, Yilmaz, & Washburn-Moses, 2004) classrooms. They have been reported to be effective in supporting basic (e.g., facts) and higher-level skill (e.g., inferences) development for students with LD (Dexter & Hughes, 2011).

Teachers should be aware of several factors that appear related to GO effectiveness. First, the effectiveness of GOs has not maintained well over time (e.g., Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004). However, Dexter and Hughes (2011) took a closer look at outcomes by types of GOs. They reported that complex GOs (e.g., semantic feature analysis), which required teacher instruction for students to understand conceptual relationships, appeared to be more effective for immediate factual recall (see Figure 1). However, simpler GOs (see Figure 2) that required little or no teacher instruction to understand how the content is related (e.g., Venn diagram) appeared to be more effective for maintenance and transfer (Dexter & Hughes, 2011). Second, research consistently points to the fact that teachers must explicitly teach their students how to use GOs to maximize the potential effectiveness of this strategy (e.g., DiCecco & Gleason, 2002).

Figure 1.

Semantic feature analysis.

Figure 2.

Venn diagram graphic organizer.

Third, the length of instruction using GOs, particularly with students with LD, is positively correlated to greater effects (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002). Finally, both teacher and student-generated GOs result in strong and positive student outcomes (Kim et al., 2004).

Although GOs have been recommended for use at multiple points during an instructional sequence (i.e., before, during, or after instruction), there has been some suggestion of differential impact according to when a GO is used. Specifically, smaller gains have been reported when used as a prereading instructional activity, with larger gains when GOs were used as a follow-up after students learned the material (Moore & Readence, 1984). In a more recent review of the effectiveness of GOs, this caution was not indicated (Dexter & Hughes, 2011).

What Are General Recommendations for Use?

There are many teacher resources available to support the use of GOs with adolescents with LD (see Table 1). As teachers utilize theses resources, it is important that they select an appropriate GO to fit the purpose of instruction (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). As stated before, many secondary textbooks are poorly organized, which may make it difficult for teachers to determine which specific GO to use. Therefore, we suggest that teachers use standards to help guide the selection of GOs. For example, in a secondary earth science class, teacher and students may be examining the components of the solar system as indicated in the state standard (Tennessee State Board of Education, 2008). Based on this standard, an appropriate objective would be to compare and contrast the earth with other planets in the solar system (Tennessee State Board of Education, 2008). For this objective, either a Venn diagram (if two comparisons are being made) or a semantic feature analysis (if multiple comparisons are begin made) could be used to support student success in meeting the instructional objective.

Table 1.

Web Resources for Graphic Organizers.

National Center on Accelerating Student Learning	http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/powtree.html
	POW + TREE graphic organizer plus lesson plan examples for teaching this graphic organizer strategy
The Access Center	http://www.k8accesscenter.org/index.php/category/graphic-organizers/
	Examples of graphic organizers and information across a variety of categories (e.g., computer-assisted instruction, English language learners, differentiated instruction)
Thinkfinity	http://www.thinkfinity.org/
	Graphic organizer templates and standards-based lesson plans that incorporate graphic organizers
Scholastic	http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=2983
	Teaching resources and free downloads of graphic organizers
TeacherVision	http://www.teachervision.fen.com/graphic-organizers/printable/6293.html
	Free access to graphic organizers organized by grade level and content area

Next, students must be taught how to use the GO. Teacher instruction in how to use GOs has been associated with better outcomes (Kim et al., 2004). In using explicit pedagogical practices, teachers should model how to use the GO, provide multiple opportunities for students to use it, and then guide and coach students to become more independent in using the GO (Ellis & Howard, 2007). It is also important to provide a rationale for using the GO, specifying how it works and the different contexts and ways in which it can be used (Ellis & Howard, 2007)

After students become capable of completing teacher-generated GOs successfully, instruction should be provided to scaffold students’ use of GOs until they can generate GOs independently. First, students can be taught how to (a) identify the main idea and key points, (b) identify the information to be placed in the GO, and (c) select the appropriate GO. Second, teachers can scaffold instruction by (a) providing students with partially completed GOs, (b) allowing students to create GOs in cooperative learning groups, and (c) having students explain why they developed the GO (Larkin, 1996).

How Can Secondary Teachers Use Graphical Organizers?

Reading Comprehension

In secondary settings, the focus is on reading to learn and no longer on learning to read. As indicated previously, many adolescents with LD are still struggling with learning to read but are nevertheless expected to read and comprehend large quantities of content specific expository text (Gajria et al., 2007). The good news is that struggling adolescent readers do benefit from interventions focused on improving reading comprehension at both the word and text levels (Scammacca et al., 2007). Teachers can use GOs to organize and present expository text, making it more meaningful and accessible to students with LD.

Graphical organizers can be used easily in pre- and postreading activities. Before reading a text, GOs could be used to activate students’ prior knowledge. Students can then use the same GO after reading to add additional details (Sabornie & deBettencourt, 2009). For example, before students read about branches of the federal government in their textbook, a teacher could use a descriptive map GO to quickly assess what students already know about the topic. The term U.S. government could be in the middle or at the top of the GO with the three branches of government as subordinate headings (i.e., legislative, executive, and judicial). Before reading the text, the teacher could prompt students to brainstorm supporting details for each subordinate heading. After reading, the teacher and students could return to the GO to fill in and/or correct with other details and information.

Graphical organizers can also be used during a lecture. Using the previous example, a teacher could provide students with a partially completed GO for a lecture on the three branches of government. The main and subordinate headings could be filled in with blank spaces or lines for supporting details and information. The teacher would begin the lecture with an advanced organizer, give an overview of the GO and its purpose, define the overarching concept (e.g., democracy as a balance of power), and then prompt students to think about key concepts, vocabulary, and details from the chapter. During the lecture, students would fill in the missing information (Hughes et al., 2003).

Another way to use GOs to increase reading comprehension is to introduce students to the different types of expository text structures they will encounter in their textbooks using a GO for each structure. Students who understand the different types of structures are likely to learn more from the text (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). These structures include descriptive (see Figure 3), compare and contrast (see Figure 2), cause and effect (see Figure 4), problem and solution (see Figure 5), and sequences (see Figure 6; Akhondi, Malayeri, & Samad, 2011). Akhondi and colleagues (2011) presented their example for teaching text structure. First, they recommend teaching one expository organizational structure at a time (e.g., three to four sessions per structure) by providing short passages for each text structure. When teaching each one, emphasize signal words and phrases that are used with each specific structure. While teaching the key words and phrases, work with the students to write short paragraphs using some of the signal words and phrases for the text structure being taught. After teaching words and phrases, present the students with a completed GO for each structure as a model. Teachers then guide the students in practicing how to use the GO for each text structure to identify main ideas and supporting details. The eventual goal would be for students to be able to complete a blank GO template as they are reading.

Figure 3.

Descriptive map graphic organizer.

Figure 4.

Cause and effect graphic organizer.

Figure 5.

Problem and solution graphic organizer.

Figure 6.

Sequence of events graphic organizer.

Key, Bradley, and Bradley (2010) provided an example of how to use a postreading GO in social studies. They recommended a template, similar to a concept map (see Figure 7), called “history memory bubbles” (p. 119), that highlights the cause–effect and problem–solution content that are the typical structures of historical information. They suggested that teachers prompt students to look for cause–effect and problem–solution relationships as well as key terms and supporting details before reading. After reading, the teacher models use of the history memory bubble through these steps. First, ask the students for the main idea (e.g., attack on Pearl Harbor) that is written in the center bubble (i.e., circle) of the concept map. Second, in a surrounding bubble, write the word problems, prompting students to identify problems that lead to the main idea or event. The problems should lead to details discussed in the next bubble that is labeled as who or what. The third and fourth bubbles are labeled solutions (i.e., resolutions to the problem) and changes (i.e., what happened as a result of the resolution). These ideas for improving reading comprehension can be supported by the following ideas for using GOs to support vocabulary and concept development.

Figure 7.

Concept map graphic organizer.

Vocabulary and Concepts

Reading is one of the main ways that students gain vocabulary. However, since students with LD have difficulty reading, they possess limited academic vocabulary (Foil & Alber, 2002). In addition, secondary textbooks contain technical vocabulary that is difficult to comprehend. Consequently, vocabulary must be taught. Vocabulary development can be facilitated through instruction that (a) utilizes a variety of methods, (b) actively involves students, (c) allows students to visualize how vocabulary words relate and build on other words, and (d) offers multiple practice opportunities (Foil & Alber, 2002). GOs can actively involve students, assist students in linking new vocabulary to prior knowledge, and make explicit connections between vocabulary and concepts.

First, concept maps (see Figure 7) can be used to explore definitions of vocabulary. The vocabulary word is put in the center of the map surrounded by subordinate categories that include “what is it,” “what is it like,” and examples (Foil & Alber, 2002). Johnson and Johnson (n.d.) provided the example of teaching the word carnivore. With the term in the center of the map, the students can research or the teacher can lead a brainstorm discussion of the subordinate categories (i.e., what is it, what is it like) followed by additional brainstorm to identify examples and nonexamples. After completion of the map, the teacher models how to write a definition using the information in the map. Semantic maps (see Figure 7), which are similar to concept maps, can be used in a similar fashion to help students understand the relationships between words. Sabornie and deBettencourt (2009) provided the example of teaching the term emancipate (p. 139). With the term placed at the top of the page, antonyms and synonyms are used as subordinate categories. Guided by their teacher, students can brainstorm words that fall under both of those categories.

Teachers can use semantic feature analysis (SFA) GOs (see Figure 1) to compare and contrast similarities and differences in content specific concepts. For example, Metsisto (2005) provided a mathematics example using an SFA GO to examine different quadrilaterals. On the left side of the grid, the terms for different quadrilaterals (i.e., parallelogram, rectangle, rhombus, scalene quadrilateral, square, and trapezoid) can be listed. Across the top, the attributes (i.e., characteristics) can be listed (i.e., sides equal, angles equal, opposite sides equal, opposite sides parallel, one pair of parallel sides, four sides). Cells in the grid can then be marked with an “X” when a term aligns with an attribute (Metsisto, 2005). Teachers can also use Venn diagrams to teach the similarities and differences of key concepts. Johnson and Johnson (n.d.) used a Venn diagram to compare and contrast the concepts of poetry and prose.

Written Language

The writing performance of students with LD can be improved using well-designed instructional methods (Schumaker & Deshler, 2003). Although many validated instructional methods and strategies are available, recent research indicates the importance of focusing on completing coherent, organized writing rather than focusing on the mechanics of writing (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2003). The use of GOs is a validated and commonly used strategy that supports students in creating structured and articulate essays.

The aforementioned GOs can also be used to facilitate different types of writing (Johns & Lenski, 2010). First, writers can use the cause and effect GO (see Figure 4) to explain reasons why events happen. Second, the descriptive GO (see Figure 3) can be used to organize characteristics, features, and examples to describe a subject. Concept maps (see Figure 7) are also useful to organize nonhierarchical ideas to support a main idea. Teachers can also use GOs for comparative writing. With Venn diagrams students can compare and contrast. A final GO used in writing is sequence. In sequence writing, students use GOs (see Figure 6) to list events in chronological order.

Harris and Graham (1996) used GOs in their writing strategy, self-regulated strategies development for writing (SRSD). For persuasive writing, teachers can use Harris and Graham’s concept map GO to help students organize supporting details (see Figure 7). After being provided background knowledge concerning the SRSD strategy, students are given a GO as they discuss elements of a persuasive essay. Students explore the elements of a good essay using the mnemonic POW + TREE. In this mnemonic, students are taught to Pick my idea, Organize my notes, Write and say more. Within organize my notes, students are taught Topic sentence, Reasons, Explanation, Ending. TREE is presented in a GO to assist students in recognizing essential elements in an essay and later in brainstorming and organizing these elements for their own essays (see http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/casl/powtree.html for this GO). After students discuss the elements of a good essay by finding the elements in sample writings and writing these elements on the GO, the teacher uses the GO to model how to brainstorm essay elements to write a persuasive essay.

For example, a teacher can present the prompt, “Should high school students be allowed to use cell phones in class?” The teacher would model Pick an idea by saying and writing, “High school students should be allowed to use cell phones in class” in the center circle of the concept map. Using the GO to Organize the notes, students could supply supporting details in surrounding circles, such as, “Student engagement will increase if they are allowed to use cell phones to research and contact experts.” After adding at least three supporting details to the concept map, the teacher would show the students how to use the GO to Write and say more in an essay format. Completion of the GO is gradually moved from teacher directed to student directed until the students are able to complete the GO independently. Throughout this process, the teacher works with the students on memorizing the mnemonic to promote independence, generalization, and maintenance of the skills taught. Students use the GO for the prewriting process until they demonstrate consistent mastery of the skill. The GO is then removed, and students are shown how they can create it in note form as they plan to write essays. This process promotes independence as students learn to create their own GO to use in multiple settings and situations. Students are given ample time to independently practice the skill until mastery is reached. The concept map GO used in SRSD persuasive writing is just one of many examples of GOs used to improve the writing skills of students with LD. For another example of GOs used in writing, see Troia and Graham (2002).

Math Calculations

In addition to teaching mathematics vocabulary, GOs have been used to teach math computational processes and procedures. Ives and Hoy (2003) presented a sequence-of-events GO (see Figure 6) to teach the process of solving linear equations in three variables. The GO is presented as a matrix with three columns (labeled left to right as III, II, and I) and two rows. Students load the linear equation with three variables into the upper left-hand box of the GO. Teachers talk through the process as they model how to isolate variables and whittle the linear equation down to a one-variable equation. As variables are isolated, the equation is moved from column III to column II and eventually to column I, where the equation can be solved. Teachers then walk the students backward in the second row to solve for the other variables. As teachers discuss out loud how to solve the variables, they reference the GO and explain the labels for each column and the process to solve any type of three-variable linear equation using this GO.

Sequence of events GOs (see Figure 6) can also be used to remind students of specific learning strategies they have been taught. For example, a teacher can work with students with a GO of the STAR strategy (Maccini & Hughes, 2000). This learning strategy uses the mnemonic STAR to remind students of the sequential steps to solve word problems that involve integers. These steps include Search the word problem, Translate the problem, Answer the problem, and Review the solution. After a teacher has taught the strategy to students, students can use the sequence chart as a reminder to complete each step.

Final Thoughts on Graphic Organizers

Expected academic outcomes have increased for students with disabilities with the requirement that all students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum. Given the intense demands in secondary settings that intersect with the learning challenges of adolescents with LD, there are concerns about meaningful access to the general curriculum (Hughes et al., 2003). GOs are an empirically validated instructional tool that secondary teachers can use to support meaningful access to the general curriculum. Teachers should remember that there are no quick fixes for improving educational outcomes for adolescents with LD, but with careful and intentional planning and implementation, teachers can facilitate meaningful participation and improved outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Akhondi

Malayeri

Samad

(2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 64(5), 368–372. doi:10.1598/RT.64.5.9

Anderson

Yilmaz

Washburn-Moses

(2004). Middle and high school students with learning disabilities: Practical academic interventions for general education teachers—A review of the literature. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 19–38.

Ausubel

D. P.

(1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baker

Gersten

Graham

(2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109–123.

Conley

M. W.

(2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 84–106.

Deshler

D. D.

(2005). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Unique challenges and reasons for hope. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 122–125.

Dexter

D. D.

Hughes

C. A.

(2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72.

DiCecco

V. M.

Gleason

M. M.

(2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.

Ellis

Howard

(2007). Graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Current Practice Alerts, 13, 1–4. Retrieved from http://teachingld.org/alerts#graphic-organizers

10.

Foil

C. R.

Alber

S. R.

(2002). Fun and effective ways to build your students’ vocabulary. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(3), 131–139.

11.

Gajria

Jitendra

A. K.

Sood

Sacks

(2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

12.

Hardman

M. L.

Dawson

(2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5–11.

13.

Harris

Graham

(1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Brookline Books.

14.

Hehir

(2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In Gordon

D. T.

Gravel

J. W.

Schifter

L. A.

(Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp. 35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

15.

Hughes

C. A.

Maccini

Gagnon

J. C.

(2003). Interventions that positively impact the performance of students with learning disabilities in secondary general education classes. Learning Disabilities, 12(3), 101–111.

16.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).

17.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).

18.

Ives

Hoy

(2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 36–51.

19.

Johns

J. L.

Lenski

S. D.

(2010). Improving reading: Interventions, strategies, and resources. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

20.

Johnson

(n.d.). Why teach vocabulary? Retrieved from http://eps.schoolspecialty.com/downloads/articles/Why_Teach_Vocabulary.pdf

21.

Karger

(2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities: A discussion of the interrelationship between IDEA ’04 and NCLB. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/interrelations_idea04_nclb

22.

Key

L. V.

Bradley

J. A.

Bradley

K. S.

(2010). Stimulating instruction in social studies. Social Studies, 101, 117–120. doi:10.1080/00377990903283932

23.

Kim

Vaughn

Wanzek

Wei

(2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118.

24.

Lapp

Flood

Ranck-Buhr

(1995). Using multiple text formats to explore scientific phenomena in middle school classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11(2), 173–186.

25.

Larkin

(1997). Graphic organizers. The Collaborator, 5(2), Spring 1997. Retrieved from http://www.ttac.odu.edu/articles/graphic.html

26.

Lenz

B. K.

Bulgren

J. A.

Hudson

(1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities. In Scruggs

T. E.

Wong

B. L. Y.

(Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122–165). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

27.

Maccini

Gagnon

(2005). Math graphic organizers for students with disabilities. Retrieved from www.k8accesscenter.org

28.

Maccini

Hughes

C. A.

(2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10–21.

29.

Marzano

R. J.

(2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

30.

Marzano

R. J.

Gaddy

B. B.

Dean

(2000). What works in classroom instruction. Retrieved from https://c1.livetext.com/folder/7826068/rZK2ngUJ_Marzano_What_Works.pdf

31.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Graetz

(2003). Reading comprehension for secondary students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.

32.

Metsisto

(2005). Reading in the mathematics classroom. In Kenney

J. M.

Hancewicz

Heuer

Metsisto

Tuttle

C. L.

(Eds.), Literacy strategies for improving mathematics instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/105137/chapters/Reading_in_the_Mathematics_Classroom.aspx

33.

Moore

D. W.

Readence

J. F.

(1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–17.

34.

Pirozzolo

F. J.

Rayner

(1979). Cerebral organization and reading disability. Neuropsychological, 17, 485–491.

35.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

36.

Rice

G. E.

(1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology, 15, 39–67.

37.

Sabornie

E. J.

deBettencourt

L. U.

(2009). Teaching students with mild and high-incidence disabilities at the secondary level (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

38.

Scammacca

Roberts

Vaughn

Edmonds

Wexler

Reutebuch

C. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

(2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

39.

Schumaker

J. B.

Deshler

D. D.

(2003). Can students with LD become competent writers? Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 129–141.

40.

Steele

M. M.

(2010). High school students with learning disabilities: Mathematics instruction, study skills, and high stakes tests. American Secondary Education, 28(3), 21–27.

41.

Strangman

Hall

Meyer

(2003). Graphic organizers with UDL. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/graphic_organizers_udl

42.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2008). Secondary 9–12 science. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/education/ci/sci/index.shtml

43.

Troia

G. A.

Graham

(2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.

44.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2011, March). Teacher shortage area nationwide list. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html