This article is the first part of a two-part article focusing on the 35-year journey of a team of researchers as they navigated the research-to-practice road related to the development of the Content Enhancement Routines, instructional routines to be used during inclusive subject-area instruction. Part I tells the story of the first half of that journey and highlights the original validation research studies that were conducted on four Content Enhancement Routines: the Concept Mastery Routine, the Concept Comparison Routine, the Concept Anchoring Routine, and the Question Exploration Routine. Each study utilizes some type of experimental research design to determine the effects of teachers’ use of the routine on the test performance of subgroups of secondary students within inclusive classes. The subgroups included students with disabilities and students without disabilities—high achievers, normal achievers, and low achievers. In all of the studies, the students who participated in the instructional routine earned significantly higher test scores than students who participated in a standard lecture/discussion lesson. Additionally, where significant differences were found, the performance of each subgroup of students that participated in the instructional routine was significantly higher than the performance of their paired subgroup that participated in the lecture/discussion lesson.

中文翻译：

---

从研究到实践的 35 年：对包容性学科领域课程的四种内容增强程序的研究回顾，第一部分

本文是一篇由两部分组成的文章的第一部分，重点介绍一组研究人员 35 年的旅程，他们在与内容增强例程的开发相关的研究到实践的道路上导航，在此过程中使用的教学例程包容性学科领域教学。第一部分讲述了这段旅程的前半部分，并重点介绍了对四个内容增强例程进行的原始验证研究：概念掌握例程、概念比较例程、概念锚定例程和问题探索例程。每项研究都利用某种类型的实验研究设计来确定教师使用常规对全纳班级中学生亚组考试成绩的影响。亚组包括残疾学生和非残疾学生——高成就者、正常成就者和低成就者。在所有研究中，参加教学常规的学生获得的考试成绩明显高于参加标准讲座/讨论课的学生。此外，在发现显着差异的地方，参与教学程序的每个学生亚组的表现显着高于参加讲座/讨论课的配对亚组的表现。参加常规教学的学生比参加标准讲座/讨论课的学生获得了明显更高的考试成绩。此外，在发现显着差异的地方，参加教学程序的每个学生亚组的表现都显着高于参加讲座/讨论课的配对亚组的表现。参加常规教学的学生比参加标准讲座/讨论课的学生获得了明显更高的考试成绩。此外，在发现显着差异的地方，参与教学程序的每个学生亚组的表现显着高于参加讲座/讨论课的配对亚组的表现。