REFERENECES
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal
learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the
learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63, 267-272.
Alvermann, D. E. (1982). Restructuring text facilitates written
recall of main ideas. Journal of
reading, 25, 754 - 758.
Alvermann, D. E. & Boothby, P. R. (1983). A preliminary
investigation of the differences in
children's retention of «inconsiderate» text.
Reading psychology, 4, 237 - 246.
Baxendell, W. B. (2003). Consistency, coherent, creative: the 3
c' s of graphic organizers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(3),
46-53.
Bromley, K., Irwin-DeVitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995).
Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for
active learning. New York: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Bergerud, D. Lowitt, T. C., & Horton, S. V. (1988), The
effectiveness of textbook adaptations in
life science for high school students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21(2), 70-76.
Deshler, D. D. (1978). Psychological aspects of learning disabled
adolescents. In L. Mann, L. Goodman, & J.L. Wiederholt (Ed.), Teaching
the learning-disabled adolescent (pp. 47- 74): Boston: Houghton
Miffin.
Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area
material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53,
240-246.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell. G. S. (2001). Guiding readers
and writers grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content
literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fisher, J. B., & Schumaker, J. B. (1995). Searching for
validated inclusive practices: A review
of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28,4,
1-20.
Fearon, G. (2001). Pre-Algebra. Pearson Prentice Hall,
Inc., New Jersey
Guastello, E. F. Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra. R. C. (2000).
Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension and recall of
expository texts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89.
Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995).
Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal
of Educational Research, 89, 98-107.
Griffin, C.C., & Tulbert, B. L. (1995). The effect of
graphic organizers on students' comprehension and recall of expository texts.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89.
Horton, V. S., Lovitt, C. T., & Bergerud, D. (2001). The
effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary
students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
23, 12-29.
Herber, H. L., & Riley, J. D. (Eds.). (1979). Research in
reading in the content areas: Fourth year
report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and
Language Arts Center.
Herber, H. L., & Sanders, P.L. (Eds.). (1969). Research in
reading in the content areas: First
year report, Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and
Language Arts Center.
Heber, H. L., & Vacca, R. T. (Eds.). (1977). Research in
reading in the content areas: Third year
report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language
Arts Center.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoff, K., & Beck, M. M. (1999). Teaching
middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using
a schema-based approach. Remedial and
Special Education, 20, 50-64.
McEneany, J. E. (1990). Do advance organizers facilitate
learning? A review of sub-sumption
theory. Journal of research and Development in
Education, 23, 89-96.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. F. (1984). A quantitative and
qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational
Research, 78, 11-17.
Smith, D. D., & Luckasson, R. (1992). Introduction to
Special Education Teaching in the Age of
Challenge. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Seymour, R. (1988). Earth Science Workshop 1. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Torgesen J. K. (1985). Memory process in reading disabled
children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 350-357.
Zigmond, N., Vallecorsa, A., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). Reading
instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language
Disorders, 1, 89-98.
--------(2003). New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher' s
Guide. Revised September.
--------(1999). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of
1975, Pub. L. No. 105-17, Federal
Register, Vol. 64. 48.
.
.
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Rubric
The study's scoring rubric has one dimension: Performance
(including level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information, building
connections, integrating new information, and level of independence in
completing graphic organizers).
PERFORMANCE IN USING GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS
|
SCORE
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
Level of Accuracy in Focusing on Relevant Information in the
Text
|
The student
demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most
significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 80-100% accuracy.
|
The student
demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most
significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 60-79% accuracy.
|
The student
demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most
significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 30-59% accuracy.
|
The student
demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most
significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 0-29% accuracy.
|
|
Level of Accuracy in Building Connections
Among Ideas in the Text
|
The Student demonstrates
skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of
80-100% accuracy.
|
The Student demonstrates
skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of
60-79% accuracy.
|
The Student demonstrates skills in Building connections among
ideas with an average of 30-59% accuracy.
|
The Student demonstrates skills in Building connections among
ideas with an average of 0-29% accuracy.
|
|
Level of Accuracy Integrating New Information
|
The student demonstrates
skills in integrating new information with an average of 80-100%
accuracy.
|
The student demonstrates
skills in integrating new information with an average of 60-79%
accuracy.
|
The student demonstrates skills in integrating new information
with an average of 30-59% accuracy.
|
The student demonstrates skills in integrating new information
with an average of 0-29% accuracy.
|
|
Perform
Independently
|
The student seldom requires cues or prompts when completing
graphic organizers.
(80-100% Independence)
|
The student requires limited cues or prompts when completing
graphic organizers.
(60-79% Independence)
|
The student requires extensive cues or prompts when completing
graphic organizers.
(30-59% Independence)
|
The student requires constant cues or prompts when completing
graphic organizers.
(0-29% Independence)
|
Comments:
Source: NYSAA, 2003
| 
