Editor's Comment:

The articles in this special series on curriculum make significant contributions, first, by proposing that
the curriculum employed for all students, including those with learning disabilities, should emphasize
thinking, problem solving, and reasoning, a point few would disagree with, given the complexities of
life in this postindustrial- information age. The authors also provide some evidence that students with
learn- ing disabilities can learn and apply sophisticated concepts, rules, and strategies. Fur- thermore,
the authors describe one instructional process that emphasizes higher order thinking, that is,
"sameness analysis," This process facilitates the integration of con- cepts, rules, strategies, schema,
systems, heuristics, and algorithms. The authors believe that sameness analysis fosters a holistic
understanding of a content area, Over the last several years this journal has contained numerous
articles that cogently argued for a more holistic approach to education. Sameness analysis is one that
lends itself to the holistic approach. Finally, the series of articles quite appropriate- ly addresses the
importance of efficient teaching. Some recent research indicates that students with learning disabilities
may be receiving less instruction than their nonhandicapped peers—this despite the fact that they have
problems in learning, Efficient teaching takes on increased importance with the recent call (by some)
for increased or total integration of students with learning disabilities into general classrooms. — JLW

Curricular Interventions for Teaching Higher Order

Thinking to All Students: Introduction to the Special
Series
Douglas Carnine

T
he rooms composition is becoming of American increasingly class- di- verse. The Regular Education
Initiative, calling for the placement of more stu- dents with handicaps in general educa- tion classrooms,
was but one impetus for this transformation. Another major fac- tor is the changing demographics in U.S.
schools: Minority enrollment is close to or exceeding 50% in five states and the District of Columbia
(GEM Project, 1990).
Educators could argue that, in the face of these changes, maintaining current levels of achievement in
general educa- tion classrooms would be a reasonable goal. The American public would surely reject such
an argument, however, be- cause achievement levels are so low. For example, more than 80% of eighth-
grade-age students in the United States cannot correctly solve modestly difficult
ideas, and begin the much more difficult work of policy design and implementa- tion" (McDonnell, 1989,
p. iv).
The challenge of reform has been made even more formidable with the call for a new curriculum that
teaches higher order thinking. "Although it is not new to include thinking, problem solving, and reasoning
in someone's school curricu- lum, it is new to include it in everyone's curriculum" (Resnick, 1987, p. 7).
Special education teachers react to these new goals with puzzlement and frustration. Their students
struggle to survive the traditional curriculum.
The present series of articles responds to the call for higher order thinking by explaining and illustrating
how curricu- lum can be designed for a full spectrum of students. In fact, the optimal way to organize
curriculum to accommodate atypical learners may also be highly ad- vantageous for teaching higher order
thinking to general education students (though this probably seems paradoxi- cal—that a curriculum could
meet the needs of atypical learners as well as those of mainstream students).
This series of articles explains and il- lustrates the implications of that asser- tion. To be convincing, these
explana- tions have to adequately sample the range of disciplines and thinking skills. To that end, the
articles deal with social science, natural science, spelling, mathematics, composition and comprehension,
reason- problems from their eighth-grade math basal (Anrig & LaPointe, 1989). This 80% failure rate
provides surprising con- firmation of an hypothesis made by Ysseldyke (in press): Eighty percent of U.S.
students could be considered to
ing skills, and problem solving. Most of the authors of the articles have carried out research having to do
with curricular issues; many also have been involved in designing and implementing curricular materials.
have a learning disability by applying one
The series, however, does not dwell on of the various
identification procedures
many of the essential aspects of reform currently in use.
that would have to occur for all students Clearly, massive
educational reforms
to learn higher order thinking skills. The are necessary if students
with learning
scope is fairly narrow, limited to cur- disabilities and at-risk
students are to suc-
ricular issues and, to a lesser extent, in- ceed in school. Those
reforms should in-
struction. Still, the articles respond to the clude increasing
academic-engaged time
public's demands for the teaching of for students, staff
development for
higher order thinking by arguing for teachers, appropriate
curricular materials,
higher academic expectations in the con- administrative support,
and restructur-
text of practical, empirically tested cur- ing. Yet, the prognosis
for implementing
ricular interventions. The importance of reforms is
bleak."Meeting the challenges
high expectations cannot be overempha- inherent in such an
immense endeavor re-
sized. As long as educators believe that quires that the
proponents of restructur-
a learning disability makes a student in- ing now move beyond
selling their good
capable of higher order thinking, they
Volume 24, Number 5, May 1991 261
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 
 
will not search out and implement effec- tive interventions. High expectations and effective interventions
are essential ingre- dients of reform. Either one, alone, is insufficient.
It is important to acknowledge that these articles do not present definitive data in support of the
suggested new directions for curricular reform. The data are adequate, though, for highlight- ing the
importance of curriculum, as both a cause of student failure and a target for reform. The data in Table 1,
on teaching higher order thinking to spe- cial education students, though limited, should encourage
educators to engage in serious debate about teaching higher order thinking to a broader spectrum of
students and about the role of curricular materials in reaching this goal.

INSTRUCTIONAL ORGANIZATION
Although this series of articles is con- cerned primarily with curriculum, curricu- lum is not
independent of instruction. The variation in methods for organizing instruction to improve learning is
strik- ing. On one extreme are child-centered approaches, in which instruction is or- ganized to meet the
needs of each in- dividual child. A major concern with this approach is efficiency. If, for example, a
teacher divides his or her attention among 30 fourth graders across a 4'/2- hour school day, each student
receives less than 10 minutes of individual atten- tion to cover a half-dozen subjects.
The middle of the spectrum for orga- nizing instruction might be called children- centered. Such
instructional approaches would include peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching, and cooperative learning. These
approaches focus on more than one stu- dent, and the students themselves have considerable
responsibility for teaching each other.
At the other end of the spectrum are teacher-centered approaches. Teacher- centered approaches can be
sensitive to the needs of the individual student, as in the Socratic, interactive questioning model. A more
prosaic form of interac- tive teaching is found in direct instruc- tion, active teaching, and so forth. At the
extreme of the continuum of approaches is the lecture-only method, in which the teacher expounds for an
entire class
period. The lecture-only method is prev-
struction by encouraging teachers to at- alent in postsecondary
settings, but also
tend to each child's interests; for exam- is found in many
secondary classrooms.
ple, by identifying books for reading, There is no interactive
teaching, only a
topics for writing, and other projects that few questions from the
students who are
are of interest to the child. confident enough to ask. In the
present
Children-centered activities foster both article, the
teacher-centered approach
academic and social competencies. Al- means interactive
teaching, not a lecture-
though various children-centered ap- only method.
proaches, such as reciprocal teaching and The empirical support
for these various
group process work, are employed in ways of organizing
instruction varies
some of the curricular approaches de- considerably; a review of
that research
scribed in the present series of articles, is beyond the scope of
this article. One
the primary approach is teacher-centered, point is quite relevant,
though: These
interactive instruction. Interactive in- variations are not
mutually exclusive
struction seems to be the best suited to and, in fact, probably
could and should
introducing and explaining new, complex occur every day in
every classroom. A
content, particularly for difficult-to-teach child-centered
perspective enhances in-
students (e.g., White, 1988).
TABLE 1 Research on Closing the Gap Between Special Education and General Education Students
Reasoning
1. On a variety of measures of argument construction and critiquing, high school students with mild handicaps in a
higher-order-thinking intervention scored as high as or higher than high school students in an honors English class
and college students enrolled in a teacher certification program (Grossen & Carnine, 1990b).
2. In constructing arguments, high school students with learning disabilities in a higher- order-thinking intervention
scored significantly higher than college students enrolled in a teacher certification program and scored at the same
level as general education high school students and college students enrolled in a logic course. In critiquing
arguments, the students with learning disabilities scored at the same level as the general education high school
students and the college students enrolled in a teacher certification program. All of these groups had scores
significantly lower than those of the college students enrolled in a logic course (Collins & Carnine, 1988).
Understanding Science Concepts
1. High school students with learning disabilities were mainstreamed for a higher-order- thinking intervention in
science. On a chemistry test that required applying concepts such as bonding, equilibrium, energy of activation,
atomic structure, and organic compounds, the students' scores did not differ significantly from control students' in an
advanced place- ment chemistry course (Hofmeister, Engelmann, & Carnine, 1989).
2. Middle school students with learning disabilities were mainstreamed for a higher- order-thinking intervention in
science. On a test of misconceptions in earth science, the students showed better conceptual understanding than
Harvard graduates interviewed in Schnep's 1987 film, A Private Universe (Muthukrishna, Carnine, Grossen, & Miller,
1990).
Problem Solving
1. On a test of problem solving in health promotion, high school students with mild handi- caps in a
higher-order-thinking intervention scored significantly higher than nonhandicapped students who had completed a
traditional high school health class (Woodward, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988).
2. Middle school students with learning disabilities were mainstreamed for a higher- order-thinking intervention in
science. On a test of earth science problem solving, the students scored significantly higher than nonhandicapped
students who received tradi- tional science instruction (Woodward & Noell, this series).
3. High school special education students were mainstreamed for a higher-order-thinking intervention in math. On a
test of problem solving requiring the use of ratios and propor- tions, the students scored as well as nonhandicapped
high school students who received traditional math instruction (Moore & Carnine, 1989).
4. Middle school students with mild handicaps were mainstreamed for a higher-order- thinking intervention in earth
science. Most of the students with handicaps scored higher than the nonhandicapped control students in problem
solving involving earth science content (Niedelman, this series).
262
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 
 
CURRICULUM-THE
PERSPECTIVE CONVENTIONAL
Instructional approaches, though cru- cial to the implementation of a curricu- lum, are not central to the articles in
this series. The focus is on how the curricu- lum shapes the teaching of new, complex content. How can academic
content be analyzed and communicated via curricu- lar materials to promote understanding, transfer, and retention
among all stu- dents? A first step in answering this ques- tion is to briefly review two influences on current thinking
about curriculum.
One obvious influence is psychology. Only the viewpoint that most influences curriculum development—the
motiva- tional-developmental perspective — will be touched upon. By presenting develop- mentally appropriate
experiences and motivating students, teachers assume that students will be able to learn what- ever is presented.
Such motivation is thought to result from activities that match the interests and developmental level of the students
and to stimulate learning through choice or discovery. The following quotes from a recent issue of Educational
Leadership illustrate this philosophy:
"Children learn letter names and the sounds they represent as a part of the purposeful reading and writing they do,
not as a set of meaningless fragments of information" (Strick- land, 1990, p. 23).
"The trick is not to have a multitude of tasks for students to do but to know how to 'read' students so that we can
motivate them to em- brace the learning situation. . . . When stu- dents have an investment in what they are doing,
they are motivated, involved, and dedi- cated. That is when learning takes place" (Lovitt, 1990, p. 44).
Prevalent in cognitive psychology is the constructivist perspective, which also supports a discovery orientation;
how- ever, a review of this research points out that the quality of the curriculum design is paramount —not whether
instruction occurs through discovery or explicit teach- ing (Grossen & Carnine, 1990a). The specifics of how to
organize and present the content of a discipline must be care- fully considered if students are to succeed at higher
order thinking. The articles in
this series illustrate why curricular ac- tivities based primarily on developmental and motivational considerations
will be inadequate for many low-achieving students.
A second influence on educators' at- titudes toward curriculum is the text- book, which often defines what and
how content is to be presented. "Textbooks dominate instruction in elementary and secondary schools" (Farr, Tulley,
& Ray- ford, 1984, p. 59). As the primary tool of the teacher, textbooks are not par- ticularly sensitive to the needs
of atypical learners. Tulley and Farr (1985) pointed out that state adoption committees, in an effort to provide a
standardized state cur- riculum, have in fact produced a "uni- formity of curriculum." Because publish- ing
companies construct their textbooks according to the requirements of the large adoption states (California, Texas,
and Florida), textbooks from various publishers are quite similar. Such an ap- proach assumes that all students
"require or benefit from the same instructional goals and sequences," but to the extent that curriculum uniformity is
achieved, "the ability to meet the diverse needs of students is reduced" (Tulley & Farr, 1985, p. 1).
This uniformity might not be so dam- aging, except that members of textbook adoption committees seldom
consider pedagogy or research in selecting text- books (Courtland, Farr, Harris, Tarr, & Treece, 1983; Powell,
1985). As is pointed out in several articles in the series, text- books are very careful to be comprehen- sive in their
coverage of topics, but they are seemingly indifferent to the concep- tual coherence of the content and the
pedagogical effectiveness of activities that are recommended therein. Hurd (cited in Rothman, 1988) described
biology text- books as the world's most beautifully il- lustrated dictionaries. In mathematics, a relatively large
percentage of the topics receive only brief coverage (Porter, 1989). On the average, teachers devoted less than 30
minutes in instructional time across the entire year to 70% of the topics that they covered (e.g., telling time might
receive 25 minutes during all of first grade). This practice, "teaching for exposure," has become commonplace in
American classrooms, largely due to the fact that the practice parallels the rec-
ommendations for topic coverage in mathematics textbooks, which are trying to cover many topics. In reviewing
read- ing basals, Durkin (1978-1979) also found pervasive teaching for exposure, which she called "mentioning."
These two influences—the motiva- tional-developmental orientation and textbooks that teach for exposure—have
the effect of diminishing the importance of curricular materials. Many primary teachers do not consider textbook
activ- ities to be motivating or developmentally appropriate. Intermediate and secondary teachers recognize that
textbooks do not promote higher order thinking in the content areas. The present series of ar- ticles does not
recommend revising inter- mediate and secondary textbooks accord- ing to the motivational-developmental
perspective. Rather, an alternative psy- chological perspective is offered for making curricular materials effective
tools for teaching higher order thinking.

THE THINKING SAMENESSES

FOUNDATION - NOTING
OF
Higher order thinking entails the inte- gration of concepts, rules, strategies, schemas, systems, heuristics,
algorithms, and so forth. A discussion of higher order thinking could define these con- structs and their
interrelationships. An alternative is to deemphasize descriptive terms and focus on the process that underlies the
constructs and the implica- tions of that process for designing cur- riculum. The present series of articles argues that
the process that underlies concepts, rules, strategies, and so forth is noting samenesses. Every concept, rule, strategy,
and so forth is defined by a fundamental sameness. For example, when one learns a concept, such as "big," one
extracts a sameness in quality from several events, then applies it to new, ap- propriate events, such as big houses,
big animals, big people. Because the later ar- ticles illustrate how to organize content around important samenesses
as a means of teaching a broader spectrum of stu- dents, the process of noting samenesses is crucial to the entire
series. This pro- cess will be discussed and illustrated, to foreshadow the upcoming articles.
Volume 24, Number 5, May 1991
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 263 
 
teries during a visit to the Metro Washington Park Zoo in Portland, Oregon, in May, 1984. While observing three
Asian elephant mothers and their new calves, I repeatedly noticed a palpable throbbing in the air like distant thunder,
yet all around me was silent.
Only later did a thought occur to me: As a young choir girl in Ithaca, New York, I used to stand next to the largest,
deepest organ pipe in the church. When the organ blasted out the bass line in a Bach chorale, the whole chapel
would throb, just as the elephant room did at the zoo. Suppose the elephants, like the organ pipe, were the source of
the throbbing? Suppose elephants communicate with one another by means of calls too low-pitched for human
beings to hear? (p. 266)
Obviously, a process as basic as noting samenesses does not always lead to prob- lem-solving insights such as
those of Edi- son and Payne. Nobel-prize-winner Gerald Edelman, who directs the Neurosciences Institute at
Rockefeller University, be- lieves that the noting of samenesses accounts for the moment-to-moment functioning of
the brain. The central pro- cedures in Edelman's (1987) scheme of brain functioning are categorization and
recategorization—in perception, in rec- ognition, and in memory (Rosenfield, 1988). Categorization and
recategoriza- tion, which depend on the learner's capacity to note samenesses, are viewed as the overriding activity
of the brain, serving as the basic mechanism for the various brain functions.
The implication of Edelman's (1987) emphasis on samenesses is quite different from those drawn from the
localization- of-function theories that strongly in- fluenced special education in the past. Rather than trying to
identify strengths and weaknesses at various brain loca- tions, educators can analyze how and why students learn
particular samenesses, some of which are desirable from the educator's perspective, some of which are not.

THE MISCONCEPTIONS FOUNDATION - OF

NOTING SAMENESSES
The simple fact is that the process is quite indiscriminate, continuing until a seemingly functional sameness is noted.
For the young child, the learning of what might be called "plausible" sameness re- sults in all men being called "da
da," even the mail carrier. For the preschooler, William James (cited in Campbell,
who has learned that an
object retains its 1986) pointed out the importance of
name regardless of its
orientation in sameness in his 1890 work, The Prin-
space, the letter b is still
called "b," even ciples of Psychology. "We do not care
after it is rotated in space
to look like whether there be any real sameness in
this: d. Misconceptions
are also evident things or not, or whether the mind be
at the other end of the
schooling con- true or false in its assumptions of it. Our
tinuum, as demonstrated
by Harvard principle only lays it down that the mind
University graduates at
commencement makes continual use of the notion of
(Schneps, 1987). At some
time in their sameness, and if deprived of it, would
lives, they all had this
"same" experience: have a different structure from what it
The closer they came to a
fire or other has" (p. 60).
heat source, the warmer they
got. When More recent research, contrasting the
asked why summers are
warmer, they an- performance of experts and novices,
swered that it is because
the earth is underscores the importance of organizing
closer to the sun in the
summer. The information around critical samenesses.
students erroneously
assumed that the Feltovich (1981) described the expert's
warmer summer
temperatures have the knowledge structure as more intercon-
same cause as warmer
temperatures from nected and hierarchical than the novice's.
a fire—proximity to the
heat source. The Experts seem to organize this hierarchy
learning of inappropriate
samenesses (or of knowledge around explanatory or
misconceptions) is
anticipated in Edel- causal relationships (Bromage & Mayer,
man's work. "But neither
can one predict 1981; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981). In
what constitutes
information for an mathematics, important samenesses have
organism. The brain must
try as many to do with the solution method (Schoen-
combinations of incoming
stimuli as feld & Herrmann, 1982), while in science,
possible, and then select
those combina- the important samenesses are underlying
tions that will help the
organism relate laws or principles (Silver, 1981). Such
to its environment"
(Rosenfield, 1988, hierarchical organizations of knowledge
p. 149). seem to be more
important in expert problem solving than a repertoire of metacognitive strategies, which usually are assumed to be
needed for higher order thinking.
A final example of naive samenesses will be discussed in a little more detail. These naive samenesses are all applied
to zeros in elementary math problems. The origin of the naive sameness and its ap- The central role that noting
samenesses
plication are described in
Table 2. In all plays can also be illustrated through the
three examples, students
learn how to accomplishments of inventors and scien-
work problems that do not
contain zeros. tists. For example, Thomas Edison ada-
When the students apply
those same pro- mantly opposed the prevailing notion
cedures to problems
containing zeros, about how electricity should be used in
many make mistakes
based on their mis- homes —to feed a single enormous elec-
conceptions. In the first
example in Table tric arc light. He hypothesized a sameness
2 (place value), the initial
problems are between how water was distributed to
all the same in this way:
The students many points in a home via a network of
write a digit for each
stated digit. pipes and how electricity could be dis- tributed via a network of wires. He was instrumental in turning
this vision into
Stated digits: 2 million, 3 hundred 47 thousand, reality.
8 hundred 62 The ability of
Katherine Payne (1989), a biologist, to detect a sameness between vibrations from an organ and those from
elephants led her to discover how ele-
Written digits: 2 3 47 8 62
phants communicate:
In 2,007,862, no digit is stated for hun-
Some senses capacity seems to beyond inform elephants, memory and silently the and five
dred thousands or ten thousands; so the student reponds in this way: tivities from a of distance, other elephants.
of the whereabouts and ac-
Stated digits: I
stumbled on a possible clue to these mys-
2 million, 7 thousand, 8 hundred 62
264
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
 
 Written digits: 2 7 8 62
This misconception would not cause mistakes if the digits were stated in this way:
2 millions, 0 hundred thousands, 0 ten thousands, 7 thousands, 8 hundreds, 62
2 0 0 7 8 62
The second example in Table 2 is renaming. The renaming examples are all the same in this way: Borrow from
the digit to the left. Here are several examples:
3V8 3V8 3^8 3^8 3°^8 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69
However, in the next example, the stu- dents assume that they cannot borrow from zero, so they borrow from the
digit next to the zero, the 3:
V8 -69
The human mind is an incredible de- vice for noting samenesses. It formulates sameness based on memory and
input from the senses but is often insensitive to intentions, even teachers' best inten- tions. This point is difficult for
adults to appreciate, because they are so knowl- edgeable about the content of the school curriculum. As a reminder
of how adults search for samenesses and must rely on what is presented during instruction, you are about to learn
something new: damon. You start with a damon and add damon. Here are some examples:
9 and you add 1. The new damon is 10. 10 and you add 2. The new damon is 12. 3 and you add 4. The new damon is
7. 3 and you add 6. The new damon is 9. The next two are for you to figure out: 4 and you add 11. 9 and you add 7.
Did you answer 15 and 16, respective- ly? If so, you learned an obvious same- ness, but still a misconception. The
cor- rect answers are 3 and 4. This damon example is intended to remind you how it feels to be left hanging—a
familiar
TABLE 2 Origins and Applications of Naive Samenesses Involving Zeros
Origin 1. Place Value
For each stated digit, the student writes a digit. The teacher says, "Write 2, 347, 562." The student writes these digits:
2, 347, 562.
2. Subtraction
714 ^ 2 -2 7 8 5 7 4
Each time the student renames, she rewrites the top digit to the left as a number that is 1 less. In the example above,
5 is rewritten as 4, and 8 is re- written as 7.
3. Division
231 3T693
Each time the student divides, he writes a digit in the answer. In the example above, the answers for the division
prob- lems are 2, 3, and 1.
Application
For each stated digit, the student writes a digit. The teacher says, "Write 2, 007, 862." The student writes 27,862. No
digit is stated for hundred thousands or for 10 thousands, so nothing is written.
Jo12 -2 7 8 5 7 4
Each time the student renames, she rewrites the top digit to the left as a number that is 1 less. In the example above,
the student does not think 0 can be rewritten as a number that is 1 less, so the student skips over to 8 and rewrites it
as 7.
2 8 3)624
Each time the student divides, he writes a digit in the answer. In the example above, he did not divide 3 into 2, so he
did not write anything above the 2. He divided 3 into 24, so he wrote 8 above the 4 in 24.
feeling for too many students. (You can read more about damon later in the article.)
One implication of the sameness anal- ysis is that, as students are constantly seeking out samenesses, they
sometimes fail, as was illustrated with writing num- bers with zeros, renaming with zeros, and explaining why the
earth is warmer in the summer. This is the darker side of the sameness analysis —explaining students' failure.

AROUND DESIGNING SAMENESSES

IMPORTANT
CURRICULUM
The bright side can lead to success. If sameness is the psychological key for organizing curriculum, the content
itself must be the lock. The mechanism that allows the key and the lock to function is the organization of content in
ways that highlight important samenesses. This operationalizes what Flavell (1971) called building "cognitive
structures":
The really central and essential meaning of "cognitive structure" ought to be a set of cognitive items that are
somehow interrelated to constitute an organized whole or totality; to apply the term "structure" correctly, it ap- pears
that there must be, at minimum, an ensemble of two or more elements together with one or more relationships
interlinking these elements, (p. 443)
As implied by the math problems with zeros and the interviews with the Har- vard graduates about why summer
is warmer, building appropriate cognitive structures is not easy. First, competing, inappropriate structures develop
through the mind's unceasing search for same- nesses. Second, the more crucial same- nesses within a discipline are
not nec- essarily obvious and are seldom given prominence through developmentally appropriate, motivating
experiences or through conventional textbooks.
Consider a topic as seemingly simple, yet hotly contested, as beginning reading. A phonics curriculum highlights
impor- tant samenesses by selecting words in which the same letter always represents the same sound, such as the
short a in
Volume 24, Number 5, May 1991 Downloaded from
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 265 
 
is the area of the base times the height (B»h). For figures that come to a point (pyramid with a rectangular base,
pyra- mid with a triangular base, and a cone), the volume is not the area of the base times the height, but rather the
area of the base times Vi of the height (B« lA*h). The sphere is a special case—the area of the base times 2A of the
height (B»2/3«h)— where the base is the area of a circle that passes through the center of the sphere, and the height
is the diameter. The same- ness analysis makes explicit the core con- cept that volume equals base times height. This
core concept is obscured in math textbooks that present seven different formulas.
The articles in this series briefly review the criticisms of conventional curricular materials and then illustrate how
impor- tant samenesses can serve as a framework for organizing the curriculum. The ar- ticles are somewhat unusual
in the degree to which they deal with the specifics of a curriculum. This depth is a natural outgrowth of a shift in
emphasis from the psychology of the child as an end in itself, to identifying and teaching the core concepts of a
discipline. For example, the article on social studies (Kinder & Bur- suck) illustrates how major events in U.S.
history can be explained through a prob- lem-solution-effect model, with prob- lems usually stemming from
economics, though occasionally from concerns about religious freedom or human rights. Solu- tions are more
variable: for example, fighting, moving, inventing, making an accommodation, or tolerating a problem. In the article
on science, Woodward and Noell explain causal models in earth science (e.g., based on convection) and in chemistry
(e.g., based on equilibrium) that integrate a variety of seemingly unrelated phenomena. Each of the other content
articles (mathematics and spell- ing) describes important samenesses that provide a framework around which cur-
riculum for higher order thinking can be organized. The articles exemplify Bruner's (1960) claim: "The basic ideas
that lie at the heart of all science and mathematics and the basic themes that give form to life and literature are as
simple as they are powerful" (p. 12).
It is important to remember that the sophistication of learning garnered by noting important samenesses is not be-
man, sat, dad. Selecting words in this
yond the grasp of students
with learning way restricts the types of stories that can
disabilities or at-risk
students (cf. Table be composed for early first grade. These
1). All of the articles in
this series (ex- restrictions, which appear to inhibit
cept the one concerning
teacher training meaning, interest, real-life relevance, and
by Simmons, Fuchs, &
Fuchs) demon- so forth, offend educators concerned
strate that students with
special needs can with motivation. The issue appears to be
learn and apply
sophisticated concepts, this: Do the complexities of beginning
rules, and strategies.
These findings reading for the 6-year-old justify re-
justify higher expectations
for students strictions on what he or she reads in
who typically are not
taught higher order school? In other words, does preserving
 thinking skills. phonic
samenesses justify the use of
Organizing curriculum
around impor- highly constrained stories in very early
tant samenesses also has
implications for reading instruction? It seems so, accord-
the organization of
instruction. The ing to the latest research review man-
quality of learning in
children-centered dated by Congress, Beginning to Read:
activities such as
cooperative learning, Thinking and Learning About Print
reciprocal teaching, and
peer tutoring (Adams, 1990). Interpreting the research
can be constrained by the
quality of text- on beginning reading is not the point. The
books, as is illustrated in
later articles in issue is, For what content and to what ex-
this series. For example,
children-centered tent should curricular materials be
activities based on texts
that touch upon organized around important samenesses?
many topics superficially, as
unrelated The contribution of a sameness anal-
fragments, might improve
student recall ysis can be illustrated in geometry,
of the fragments but not
build cognitive wherein students learn equations, first
structures that lead to
higher order think- for surface area and later for volume of
ing. In contrast,
children-centered activ- various figures. Students are typically
ities applied to content
organized around expected to learn seven formulas to
important samenesses
foster higher order calculate the volume of 7 three-dimen-
thinking. For example,
one of the chil- sional figures:
dren-centered approaches
used in the Rectangular prism: Nw»h = v Wedge: !/2»Nw»h = v Triangular pyramid: 1/6»l»w«h = v Cylinder:
7r»r2«h = v Rectangular pyramid: 1/3«l»w«h = v Cone: !/3»7r»r2»h = v Sphere: 4/3»7r»r3 = v
These equations do not prompt higher order thinking about volume, just the need to memorize formulas. The
same- ness analysis reduces the number of for- mulas students must learn from seven to slight variations of a single
formula— area of the base times the height (Bxh) — which brings conceptual coherence to exercises involving
volume.
social studies intervention (Kinder & Bur- suck) is reciprocal teaching. In the com- position and comprehension
intervention (Englert & Mirage), instruction includes a peer work group.
The inference is that children-centered activities are strongly influenced by the curricular content of the activities.
Ac- tivities that are like real life, or that lead children to discover, do not necessarily make salient the fundamental
samenesses in a discipline. As noted earlier with be- ginning reading, the identification of important samenesses, as
in phonics instruction, may even conflict with "meaningfulness."
The conflict between
naturally occur- Rectangular
ring organizations of curricular
material Prism Wedge Cylinder
(e.g., literature in beginning reading) and
B*h B*h B*h
organizations based on a sameness anal- ysis (phonically constrained stories for
Pyramid Rectangular Triangular Cone Sphere
beginning reading) accounts for one criti- cism of the sameness analysis. Another criticism is that making important
same- B^/s-h B-!/
3
*h B./s^hB.^.h
nesses explicit in general education class- rooms will "hold back" above-average For the regular figures
—rectangular
students. Some recent
reviews of research prism (box), wedge, cylinder—the volume
indicate that this is not the case for prob-
266 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 
 
lem solving in computer science (Dalley & Linn, 1985), in learning to design scientific experiments (Ross,
1988), or in logical and analogical reasoning (Grossen & Carnine, 1990a). It might be more ac- curate to say
that using a curriculum organized around important samenesses is not as important for less cognitively
complex topics with above-average stu- dents. For below-average students, in- cluding students with learning
disabilities and at-risk students, making important samenesses explicit is fairly important at all levels of
cognitive complexity. These hypothesized relationships are displayed in Figure 1.
The basis for the hypothesized rela- tionships in Figure 1 lies in the findings from the brain research cited
earlier — the noting of samenesses. Students who are facile, intuitive learners (i.e., above- average students)
note important same- nesses fairly readily. They categorize and recategorize at a rapid rate and in a flex- ible
manner, without need for an instruc- tional environment that emphasizes im- portant samenesses and, in
effect, warns the learner about misconceptions. With content that is not highly complex, these students can
"figure out" important same- nesses without getting seriously misled. Less capable students benefit when
these important samenesses are made ex- plicit. Kail (1984) reviewed several studies showing significantly
longer memory search times for individuals with handi- caps. This slower rate could reflect ineffi- cient
processes for identifying samenesses. By making important samenesses explicit, the curricular interventions
illustrated in this series might compensate for such in- efficient processing. This is a possible ex- planation for
why these students benefit from a curriculum designed according to the sameness analysis (White, 1988).

THE INSTRUCTION
NEED FOR EFFICIENT
The articles in this special series illus- trate how the sameness analysis leads to a holistic understanding of a
content area, rather than fragmented knowledge. That is the overriding purpose of the sameness analysis: to
foster coherent schemata of important bodies of knowl- edge. At a simplistic level, the notion is to "teach
smart." However, the realities
Great

•SEV
HBAV Importance of Organizing Information
Around Important
parents at home.
Because special needs students have fewer learning opportunities, the time that is available for instruction
must be used very efficiently. Students should be engaged as much as possible in academic activities that
produce rapid learning. There are two central aspects of efficient teaching: Structure academic activities so
that they are as productive as possible, and minimize wasted time. An example of an unproductive activity is
teaching students to use manipulatives to divide with two-digit divisors. A lot of time can be wasted in passing
out and collecting manipulatives. Moreover, even when the students are actively using manipulatives to work
a dozen problems, such as 21)178, the time is not being productively used. The activity consumes too much
time in mindless manipulation (breaking one block of 100 cubes and seven blocks of 10 cubes into individual
cubes) and in tedious counting (forming groups of 21). The other central aspect of efficient
teaching—reducing wasted time—can be achieved through teaching techniques (frequent questions,
constructive feed- back, active monitoring, etc.). These techniques were given prominence by Rosenshine
(1976) and continue to re- ceive attention (e.g., Christenson, Yssel- dyke, & Thurlow, 1989). Most of the
curricular interventions described in ar-
Volume 24, Number 5, May 1991 Downloaded from
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 267 

HsHjfl
•BAV
lijjjJAJIjji!!
Samenesses
AA Moderate

|jjj|JAl||j|j|
AA
Slight
LOW Cognitive Complexity
High
Figure 1. Relationship between importance of organizing information around important samenesses and cognitive complexity for
above-average (AA), average (A), below-average (BA), and special educa- tion (SE) students.
of schools force another priority upon educators—"teach efficiently." Sameness analyses can lead to certain
efficiencies. For example, when students analyze his- tory with a problem-solution-effect model and are
familiar with common causes (economics and human rights) and typical solutions (fighting, moving, in-
venting, making an accommodation, or tolerating a problem), the students can more quickly come to
understand new historical events. In addition, hierarchi- cally organized information is easier to remember
than randomly organized in- formation. Finally, the number of terms and isolated facts required of students
can be reduced because they are learn- ing higher order organizations that sub- sume many of these bits and
pieces.
However, even greater efficiencies are required for at-risk students and students with learning disabilities.
As Haynes and Jenkins (1986) reported, students with learning disabilities in an eclectic resource room
program ended up getting no more instructional time than their nonhandi- capped peers in the general
classroom. Allington and McGill-Franzen (1989) reported that students with handicaps ac- tually received
less instruction than their nonhandicapped peers. In addition, stu- dents with special needs, particularly those
from disadvantaged backgrounds, typically received less help from their
possibly tides in the series employed efficient
more efficient learning of lower teaching techniques.
Whatever is going
order skills. to be taught, whether subtraction facts
In fact, the lack of efficient teaching or problem solving in
science, efficient
techniques might explain, in part, the instruction is very
important, particularly
relative failure of more than 100 cur- for students with learning
disabilities.
riculum development projects funded by There is too little time
to meet all the in-
the National Science Foundation be- dividual needs of students;
efficient in-
tween 1956 and 1975: "These projects struction allows more of
these needs to
stressed the learning of fundamental con- be met.
cepts over facts and the use of discovery It is important to note that
these tech-
methods, student inquiry, and multi- niques are usually used with
traditional
media materials to supplement textbooks" textbooks. For a
comparatively simple
(McDonnell, 1989, p. 40). The child- topic, such as subtraction
facts, the out-
centered approaches (i.e., discovery and come would be fairly
reasonable. The
inquiry) might have impeded the learn- teacher would present
facts at a rapid
ing of fundamental concepts. rate, give feedback, monitor
students'
If special needs students are to learn responses, and so forth.
Students could
higher order thinking skills, new curricu- memorize the
subtraction facts as un-
lar materials must be developed, such as related pieces of
information and could
those organized around important same- be successful.
nesses. Moreover, educators must believe Efficient teaching
techniques can also
that these students are capable of higher improve student scores
in more advanced
order thinking. Finally, educators must topics. For example, in
many science
be efficient if these students are to receive courses, students are
tested on terminol-
sufficient intensive instruction to become ogy. Efficient teaching
techniques can
proficient. Orchestrating these three re- facilitate the rote learning
of science
quirements — curriculum, expectations, vocabulary. The
disadvantage is that the
and techniques —is extremely difficult, students can get a good
grade and still
yet absolutely necessary. come away with little understanding of
science.
For more conceptually demanding ac-

OVERVIEW OF THE SERIES

tivities, such as learning science concepts
The series is presented in two parts; (not just terminology) and
analyzing
one appears in this issue and one in the word problems, efficient
teaching prac-
next. The first part covers major content tices may not be
sufficient (Moore &
areas: Carnine, 1989). In fact, when students are taught to
analyze word problems ac-
Social Science by Kinder and Bursuck cording to
recommendations from tradi-
Natural Science by Woodward and Noell tional textbooks (e.g.,
read, analyze,
 Spelling by Dixon plan, and solve), the lack of a strategy
Mathematics by Engelmann, Carnine, based on a sameness
analysis can lead to
and Steely frustration. Darch, Carnine, and Gersten (1984)
found that efficient teaching prac-
The second part covers the tools of tices, such as frequent
assessment with
higher order thinking and staff develop- extra instruction, were
not beneficial and
ment, and includes a commentary and a possibly were harmful.
When students in
conclusion: the traditional treatment failed a forma- tive
assessment, they received more in-
Problem Solving and Transfer by Niedel- struction in reading,
analyzing, planning,
man and solving. Because this strategy was
Composition and Comprehension by not specific enough to be of
much help,
Englert and Mariage the extra practice problems just brought
Reasoning by Grossen extra frustration. The students' perfor-
Staff Development by Simmons, Fuchs, mance and attitudes
deteriorated. In
and Fuchs short, efficient teaching techniques by
Commentary by Jenkins, Stein, and themselves do not
necessarily lead to the
O'Connor acquisition of higher order thinking, just
Conclusion by Kameenui

CONCLUSION
It is important to note that the inter- ventions described in the following arti- cles are illustrations of
how the curricu- lum can be organized around important samenesses. Many other organizations are
possible, and some would quite like- ly be superior. In any case, efficient teaching techniques, cooperative
learn- ing, and metacognition are wasted, to some degree, when curricular material presents higher order
content in a frag- mented manner that is most amenable to rote learning. The problem of fragmented
knowledge is particularly acute for at-risk students and students with learning dis- abilities who are not
typically offered alternative, richer organizations by fami- ly or peers. These students require cur- ricular
material that is organized to model higher order thinking and is taught efficiently (by the teacher and by
other children).
There are several justifications for such an approach. First, there is a reasonable amount of data in
support of such an ap- proach, although the results are far from conclusive. Second, the research on ex-
pert knowledge underscores the role of hierarchically organized knowledge based on important
samenesses. Third, the ap- proach may compensate for a potential processing deficit (Kail, 1984) by mak-
ing important samenesses explicit. Fourth, the approach addresses a salient charac- teristic of students
with learning dis- abilities by reducing the memory load required by the curriculum. Finally, the approach
addresses the practical con- straints of the classroom; it can be implemented in an efficient, practical
manner.
Although learning important same- nesses in complex content probably bene- fits above-average
students, it is essen- tial for at-risk students and students with learning disabilities, whether the goal is
merely to keep them from dropping out of school or, a higher goal, that they thrive in school.

Collaboration Integrated Model

on an
Providing such a school environment, where secondary students who are at risk or have learning
disabilities learn higher
268 Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 Journal of Learning Disabilities 
 
order skills, is extremely difficult. In fact, the various curricular interventions de- scribed in this series
have always been im- plemented in isolation. The interventions have never been combined in a single
classroom to determine the additive effect of focusing on higher order thinking in science, social studies,
math, spelling, composition, and so forth. Setting up model classrooms that integrate several of these
interventions would be very challenging. For one thing, the students would need to have received
reasonable instruction in elementary grades, so that they possessed rudimentary reading, writing, and
math skills. Second, a suf- ficient number of students would have to be in school consistently. Finally,
teachers would need to be willing to be involved in an intense learning experience, stem- ming from the
content of the interven- tions and their implementation.
Note on damon: A simple explanation activates a familiar schema, rendering damon embarrassingly
simple. Damon is clock time, involving addition with base 12:
10 and add 1. The new damon is 11. 11 and add 1. The new damon is 12. 12 and add 1. The new damon is
1. 12 and add 2. The new damon is 2. 6 and add 8. What's the new damonl 6 and add 9. What's the new
damonl
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Douglas Carnine is a professor of special educa- tion at the University of Oregon. His interests in- clude curriculum design and
educational policy. Ad- dress: Douglas Carnine, University of Oregon, 805 Lincoln St., Eugene, OR 97401.
AUTHOR'S NOTE
Readers who might be interested in exploring the possibility of collaborating in establishing a model classroom may write to
Professor Carnine.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allington, R.L., &
McGill-Franzen, A. (1989).
School response to reading failure: Instruction for Chapter One and special education students in grades two, four, and eight.
Elementary School Journal, 89, 529-542.
Anrig, G.R., & LaPointe, A.E. (1989). What we know about what students don't know. Educa- tional Leadership, 47(3), 4-9.
Bromage, B.K., & Mayer, R.E. (1981). Relation- ship between what is remembered and creative problem-solving performance in
science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 451-461. Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New
York: Vintage. Campbell, J. (1986). Winston Churchill's afternoon
nap. New York: Simon & Schuster. Chi, M.T., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. Christenson, S., Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1989).
Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5),
21-31. Collins, M., & Carnine, D. (1988). Evaluating the field test revision process by comparing two ver- sions of a reasoning
skills CAIprogram. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 375-379. Courtland, M.C., Fan, R., Harris, P., Tarr, J., & Treece, L.
(1983). A case study of the Indiana state reading textbook adoption process. Bloom- ington, IN: Center for Reading and
Language Studies. Dalley, J., & Linn, M.C. (1985). The demands and requirements of computer programming: A liter- ature
review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(3), 253. Darch, C, Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1984). Ex- plicit
instruction in mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 350-359. Deny, S.J. (1989). Strategy and
expertise in solv- ing word problems. In C.B. McCormick, G.E. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From
basic research to educational applications (pp. 269-302). New York: Springer Verlag. Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom
observa- tion reveals about reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. Edelman, G. (1987). Neural
Darwinism: The theory
of neuronal group selection. New York: Basic Books. Fan, R., Tulley, M., & Ray ford, L. (1984). Local district adoption practices
in the nonadoption states. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana Univer- sity, Bloomington. Feltovich, P.J. (1981). Knowledge-based
compo-
nents of expertise in medical diagnosis (Tech. Rep. No. PDS-2). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and
Development Center. Flavell, J.H. (1971). Stage-related properties of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 421-453.
GEM Project. (1990). Education that works: An action plan for the education of minorities. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990a). Generalization and transfer of reasoning skills. Unpublished manuscript. Grossen, B., &
Carnine, D. (1990b). Diagramming a logical strategy: Effects in difficult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 13(3), 168-182. Hofmeister, A., Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1989). Developing and validating science educa-
tion videodiscs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 665-677. Kail, R. (1984). The development of memory in
children. New York: W.H. Freeman. Lovitt, Z. (1990). Rethinking my roots as a teacher.
Educational Leadership, 46(6), 43-46. McDonnell, L. (1989). Restructuring American schools: The promise and the pitfalls.
New York: Institute on Education and the Economy. Moore, L., & Carnine, D. (1989). Evaluating cur- riculum design in the
context of active teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 28-37. Muthukrishna, N, Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & Miller,
S. (1990). Children's alternative frame- works: Should they be directly addressed in science? Unpublished manuscript,
University of Oregon, Eugene. Payne, K. (1989). Elephant talk. National Geo-
graphic, 176, 264-277. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The
case of elementary school mathematics. Educa- tional Research, 18(5), 9-15. Powell, D. (1985). Selection of reading textbooks
at the district level: Is this a rational process? Book Research Quarterly, 24-35. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to
think.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Rosenfield, I. (1988). The invention of memory.
New York: Basic Books. Rosenshine, B. (1976). Recent research on teaching
behavior and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 61-64. Ross, J. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-
analysis of training studies. Review of Educational Research, 58, 405-437. Rothman, R. (1988). Student proficiency in math is
"dismal," NAEP indicates. Education Week, 1, 23-26. Schneps, M.N. (Producer, Director). (1987). A private universe [Film].
Boston: Harvard Univer- sity and Smithsonian Institute. Schoenfeld, A.H., & Herrmann, D.J. (1982). Prob- lem perception and
knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 8, 484-494. Silver, E.A. (1981). Recall of mathematical problem
information: Solving related problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 54-64. Strickland, D.S. (1990).
Emergent literacy: How young children learn to read and write. Educa- tional Leadership, 47(6), 18-23. Tulley, M.,&Farr, R.
(1985). The purpose of state level textbook adoption: What does the legisla- tion reveal? Journal of Research and Development
in Education, 18(2), 1-6. White, W.A.T (1988). A meta-analysis of the ef- fects of direct instruction in special education.
Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 364- 374. Woodward, J., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). Teaching problem solving
through a computer simulation. American Educational Research Jour- nal, 25(1), 72-86. Ysseldyke, J.E. (in press). Classification
of handi- capped students. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research
and practice. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Volume 24, Number 5, May 1991
Downloaded from 
ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 2, 2015 269