Research on students with disabilities has only recently begun to investigate the challenges that teachers face when they include these students in standards-based curricula and instruction focused on goals of understanding in complex domains. This article presents the mission and conceptual framework of the REACH Institute, which is engaged in a five-year program of research on teaching for understanding with students with disabilities. The institute is investigating the premise that students with disabilities will improve their understanding when they engage in instruction that reflects a rigorous application of four research-based principles of teaching for understanding: instruction designed around authentic tasks, opportunities to develop cognitive strategies, learning that is socially mediated, and engagement in constructive conversations. In addition to discussing these principles, this overview describes several common features of the institute research strands in social studies, language arts, science, and mathematics, together with emerging themes in the research findings. This overview frames the four articles that follow, each of which describes research on teaching for understanding in a major content area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlytheT. (and the teachers and researchers of the Teaching for Understanding Project). (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
2.
Boix-MansillaV. (1995). Rethinking knowledge in schools: The recovery of meaning in disciplinary understanding. ATLAS Seminar, Harvard Project Zero: Harvard University.
3.
BransfordJ.D.SherwoodR.HasselbringT.KinzerC.WilliamsS. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In NixD.SpiroR. (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BrownA.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 142–178.
5.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
6.
CarnineD. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261–269.
7.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.
8.
CuocoA.GoldenbergE.P.MarkJ. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375–402.
9.
EchevarriaJ. (1995). Interactive reading instruction: A comparison of proximal and distal effects of instructional conversations. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 536–552.
10.
EnglertC.S.GarmonA.MariageT.RozendalM.TarrantK.UrbaJ. (1995). The early literacy project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(4), 253–275.
11.
FerrettiR.P.OkoloC.M. (1996). Authenticity in learning: Multimedia design projects in the social studies for students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 450–460.
12.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.P.NorrisB.HamlettC.L.KarnsK. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 604–620.
13.
GardnerH. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
14.
GerstenR.BakerS.LloydJ.W. (2000). Designing high quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 218.
15.
GoldenbergC. (1992-93). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316–326.
16.
John-SteinerV.MahnH. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206.
17.
KendallJ.S.MarzanoR.J. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing standards-based districts, schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
18.
KlingerJ.VaughnS.HughesM.SchummJ.ElbaumB. (1998). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 153–161.
19.
MacArthurC.SchwartzS.GrahamS.MolloyD.HarrisK. (1996). Integration of strategy instruction into a whole language classroom: A case study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 168–176.
20.
MaloneL.D.MastropieriM.A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270–279.
21.
McLeskeyJ.HenryD.AxelrodM.I. (1999). Inclusion of students with learning disabilities: An examination of data from reports to congress. Exceptional Children, 6(1), 55–66.
22.
MontagueM. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 164–172.
23.
MoroccoC.C.Clark-ChiarelliN. (1998). The teacher's voice in case study methodology. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
24.
MoroccoC.C.ZorfassJ. (1996). Unpacking scaffolding: Supporting students with disabilities in literacy development. In WargerC.PugachM. (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform: Refocusing the conversation (pp. 164–178). New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
NewmanD. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.
26.
NewmannF.M.WehlageG.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison: Document Service, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
27.
PalincsarA.S.BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
28.
PalincsarA.S.CollinsK.M.(in press). Learning skills. In HusenT.PostlewaiteN. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research studies2. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
29.
PalincsarA.S.MagnussonS.J.MaranoN.L.FordD.BrownN. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GIsML community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 519.
30.
PalincsarA.S.Rupert-HerrenkohlL. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In O'DonnellA.KingA. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
31.
PerkinsD. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.
32.
PressleyM.El-DinaryP.B.GaskinsI.SchuderT.BergmanJ.L.AlmasiJ.BrownR. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555.
33.
RogoffB. (1997). Cognition as a collaborative process. In SieglerR.S.KuhnD. (Eds.), Cognition, perception, & language: Vol. 2. Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679–744). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
34.
RoseberryA.S.WarrenB.ConantR.R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classroomsJournal of Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94
35.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
WongB. (1997). Research on genre-specific strategies for enhancing writing in adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 140–159.
38.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ. (1996). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373–388.
39.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.ScheelC. (1997). It's what you take for granted when you take nothing for granted. In ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disorders, Vol. 11 (pp. 199–234). New York: JAI Press.
40.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 15–24.
41.
ZigmondN.JenkinsJ.FuchsL.DenoD.FuchsD.BakerJ.JenkinsL.CouthinoM. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540.
