Survey On Teaching Science To K-12 Students With Disabilities - Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes 2014

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:885–910
DOI 10.1007/s10972-014-9406-z
Survey on Teaching Science to K-12 Students

with Disabilities: Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes
Sami Kahn • Anna R. Lewis
Published online: 22 November 2014

The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2014
Abstract Students with disabilities are increasingly included in general education

science classrooms and are expected to demonstrate academic proficiency on
standardized assessments. Teacher preparation and attitudes have been cited as
major factors contributing to either the success or failure of students with disabilities
in science. In order to assess the current state of what could be facilitative or
inhibitory influences, a national online survey to which 1,088 K-12 science teachers
responded was conducted. Mixed methods’ analyses suggest that science teachers
receive little formal training and feel underprepared to teach students with dis-
abilities. Results identify specific gaps in science teachers’ education, as well as
attitudinal and institutional barriers that may inhibit students with disabilities’
success. However, science teachers remain highly receptive to training and col-
laboration. Implications for science teacher education are discussed.
Keywords Science teacher preparation Attitudes Inclusion Disabilities
Introduction
Students with disabilities are increasingly included in general education classrooms

(McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). Approximately 95 % of the
6.5 million school age students with disabilities are educated in regular schools,
S. Kahn (&)
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of South Florida,
4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU105, Tampa, FL 33620-5650, USA
e-mail: samikahn@mail.usf.edu
A. R. Lewis
College of Education, University of South Florida, Coquina Hall, 216D, 140 7th Ave. South,
St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA
123
886 S. Kahn, A. R. Lewis
with a majority of them spending at least 80 % of their day in the general classroom
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). While this emphasis on inclusion confers
many benefits in terms of socialization and curricular access (Baker, Wang, &
Walberg, 1994; Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007), it presents challenges for
teachers who may not be adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities.
Studies have suggested that science teachers feel unprepared to teach students with
disabilities, while special education teachers feel unprepared to teach science
(Irving, Nti, & Johnson, 2007; Norman, Caseau, & Stefanich, 1998).
Advocates for students with disabilities have emphasized the importance of quality
science experiences for students with disabilities (Lederman & Stefanich, 2004;
Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992; Patton & Andre, 1989), even offering it as a moral
imperative (McGinnis, 2003), and key science education reforms, including the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize excellence and equity for all
students (Achieve, 2013). Moreover, legislation such as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) and the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) compel access to the general education curriculum and
more rigorous standards and assessment for students with disabilities. However,
students with disabilities continue to underperform in standardized science assess-
ments (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2011) and adults with disabilities continue to be
underrepresented in STEM careers (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013).
Research suggests that teacher preparation and attitudes can significantly
contribute to successful inclusive environments (Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006;
Jobe, Rust, & Brissie, 1996; Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2001). Although
previous studies in science teacher education assessed significant weaknesses in
these factors (Norman et al., 1998), it is important to accurately gauge current
teachers’ preparation and attitudes regarding inclusive science to keep pace with the
sweeping educational and policy reforms. Therefore, we developed a voluntary,
online national survey which was disseminated through the National Science
Teachers Association’s (NSTA) listservs during the spring of 2012 to assess these
factors. The results of the survey, including implications for teacher education
research and training, are reported in the following sections.
Theoretical Context and Purpose of Study
Our study is premised upon the notion that science educators are influenced by an
evolving educational and political movement that promotes inclusive science and
high standards for all students. In the best of all worlds, science teachers’ education
would reflect this movement and be evidenced by increased teacher preparedness
for and receptiveness toward teaching students with disabilities, as these factors
impact students with disabilities’ learning experiences. These assumptions are
grounded in theories of education change (Fullan, 2007; Fullan & Hargreaves,
2002) which posit that teacher learning, particularly as it relates to beliefs and
attitudes, is critical to the implementation of reform at the classroom level. These
theories recognize that educational change, while often initiated by policies and
legislative mandates that attempt to influence actions (e.g., placement of students in
123
Survey on Inclusive Science Teaching 887
general education classes, participation in statewide assessments, etc.…), ultimately

requires the support and ‘‘buy in’’ of teachers who need to be receptive to, prepared
for, and invested in change, thus becoming change agents. Specifically in science
education, science teacher preparation courses are seen as vehicles for developing
teachers who are prepared to implement educational reforms (Anderson, 1997), a
corollary of which suggests that teacher education programs must alter the way
teachers are prepared to teach science in order to respond to those changes (Kelly,
2000; Stepans, McClung, & Beiswenger, 1995). As our study examines the current
state of teacher preparedness for and attitudes toward inclusive science given an
evolving political and societal landscape, we discuss our assumptions as supported
in the literature on inclusive science and on teacher preparation and attitudes toward
inclusion below.
Science for Students with Disabilities
The education of children with disabilities in the USA has experienced tremendous
transformations over the last several decades. While the first half of the twentieth
century saw persons with disabilities either educated in segregated school settings or
not educated at all (Schroeder, Stefanich, Davison, & Hibbard, 2001), the Civil
Rights movement of the 1950s inspired change that emphasized equal social and
educational opportunities for persons of all abilities (Rothstein, 1995). The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990), stemming from its predecessor
statute, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), represented
sweeping legislation that guaranteed ‘‘free appropriate public education’’ in the
‘‘least restrictive environment.’’ Accordingly, the latter part of the twentieth century
was characterized by the emergence of a continuum of educational settings from
less restrictive (e.g., general education classes for all or most of the day) to more
restrictive (e.g., special education schools), with many varied settings in between
(Yell, 1995). More recently, the introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB, 2002) has prompted greater emphasis on high standards for and assessment
of students with disabilities. Both the IDEA (reauthorized and renamed in 2004 as
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and the NCLB
together have contributed to the fact that approximately 61 % of students with
disabilities now spend at least 80 % of their day in a general education classroom
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
Specifically in science, the inclusion movement is reflected in the policies of
many organizations who have emphasized the importance of ‘‘Science For All
Americans.’’ (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989) and
‘‘All Standards, All Students,’’ a focus of the NGSS (Achieve, 2013). Yet these
goals remain unrealized, as students with disabilities continue to underperform in
standardized assessments (NCES, 2011) and persons with disabilities remain
underrepresented in STEM careers (NSF, 2013). Exacerbating this problem is the
fact that science teachers have little background in special education, while special
education teachers have little or no background in science (Cawley, 1994; Norman
et al., 1998). Norman et al.’s (1998) influential survey of K-12 science educators
and science teacher educators, which utilized data collected in 1994–1995,
123
enumerated several gaps in teachers’ preparation for inclusive science classrooms

including minimal knowledge about how students’ disabilities may impact learning
and lack of familiarity with meaningful accommodations for making science
curriculum, materials, and equipment accessible. In addition, the authors identified
attitudinal barriers including stereotypes that depict students with disabilities as
limited in science, and beliefs that students with disabilities were primarily the
responsibility of special educators. These findings were particularly troubling given
the connection between teacher preparation and attitudes toward inclusion and
students with disabilities’ success in science.
Teacher Preparation and Attitudes Toward Inclusion
A significant body of literature links teacher attitudes and preparation to positive

inclusive experiences. Attitude can be defined as ‘‘predilections toward behavior’’
(Van Reusen et al., 2001, p. 8), suggesting that a person’s attitude is intertwined
with their behavior and likelihood toward action. Among the factors that contribute
to positive teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities is professional
preparation on the subject. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) found that
student teachers’ feelings of preparedness about teaching students with disabilities
correlated with their attitudes toward inclusion. This buttresses the findings of
Shoho, Katims, and Wilks (1997) who suggested that increased teacher education
on inclusion yields more positive attitudes toward inclusion. Similarly, Rule,
Stefanich, Boody, and Peiffer (2011) found that providing teachers with adaptive
materials and training for teaching science to students with visual impairments had
positive impacts on teacher and student attitudes, and in turn, expanded teachers’
instructional repertoire. Other studies have looked at the effect of teachers’
experience on attitudes toward inclusion, with many finding that positive
experiences in inclusive settings, either through in-service or through pre-service
training, lead to more favorable attitudes (Leatherman & Niemeyer, 2005).
Collectively, these studies suggest that science teacher preparation and experience
have the capability of promoting student success through stronger pedagogy and
positive attitudes.
A Changing Landscape: Purpose of the Study
Since the Norman et al. (1998) study, many educational, policy, and societal
changes regarding inclusion have emerged and demonstrate the capacity for
significantly impacting science teachers’ preparation and attitudes regarding
inclusion. First, the percent of students with disabilities spending more than 80 %
of their day in general education has risen from 45 % at the time of data collection
for the Norman study to over 61 % today (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). In
addition, the NCLB’s (2002) requirement that all students be taught by ‘‘highly
qualified teachers’’ (HQT) has led to an array of instructional settings for science
(Vannest et al., 2009) which include placing more students with disabilities,
including those with severe disabilities, in general education science classes
(Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, & DiBiase, 2011). While these trends no
123
doubt provide science teachers with more opportunities to teach students with a
wider range of disabilities, it is not clear how receptive teachers are to these changes
or whether their pre-service and in-service training and experiences have adequately
prepared them. In addition, the NCLB mandates that students with disabilities, with
few exceptions, participate in state standardized assessments in which they are
expected to meet the same proficiency standards as other students and have their
scores included in the schools’ adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations (Yell,
Katsiyannis, & Shiner, 2006). The impetus to ensure success for students with
disabilities on these tests is particularly keen given the fact that their scores must
also be disaggregated and reported as a subgroup, a requirement aimed at closing
the achievement gap (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2009). There is presently no
data on science teachers’ preparedness for readying students with disabilities for
standardized testing, or on their attitudes about this requirement.
Another major trend impacting classrooms is the emergence of value-added
modeling (VAM) of teachers (Harris & Sass, 2011), which uses econometric models
to evaluate teachers using student performance data. Critics have suggested that
VAM may provide a disincentive for teachers to teach students with special needs
(Baker et al., 2010). There is currently no data available on how science teachers
perceive this approach in light of the increasing number of students with disabilities
in their classrooms. The legislative and educational changes outlined here represent
paradigmatic shifts in how and where students with disabilities are educated and
assessed, and how teachers are evaluated. Since they were implemented after the
Norman et al. (1998) survey, we surmised that science teachers’ preparedness and
attitudes would have changed noticeably to reflect these shifts. Therefore, we
believed that a new portrait of science teacher attitudes and preparedness toward
teaching students with disabilities was needed. To that end, a survey was developed
to address the following questions: (1) From what sources and within what contexts
have science teachers gained training in teaching science to students with
disabilities? (2) Do science teachers feel prepared to teach students with disabilities?
(3) Do science teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities support
an inclusive environment? (4) Do science teachers’ attitudes toward teaching
students with disabilities differ by experience or educational preparation?
Methods
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument used in this study was based upon the work of Norman et al.
(1998) and the earlier work of Stefanich, Norman, and Egelston-Dodd (1996). We
revised the instrument to reflect our emphasis on K-12 science educators alone,
unlike the earlier studies mentioned which investigated perceptions of K-12 and
post-secondary educators. New questions were also added to ascertain teachers’
perceptions regarding standardized assessments and teacher evaluation, and to
capture supplementary demographic information. Response choices on some
questions were also modified to reflect changes in disability terminology. Thus, it
123
should be noted that we were not replicating the Norman study but rather, revisiting
the key findings in regard to teacher preparation and attitudes and expanding upon
them to illuminate the impact of subsequent trends.
To address issues of content validity, all six board members of Science Education
for Students with Disabilities (SESD), a national organization dedicated to the
promotion of science for students with disabilities, and all eight members of the
NSTA Special Needs Advisory Board (SNAB) were contacted and asked to review
the survey for clarity and coverage and revisions were implemented. The board
members of these two organizations represent K-12 science and special education
teachers, university researchers, and teacher educators with specific expertise in
inclusive science education. Two pilot tests were then conducted to address the
construct validity and reliability of the instrument. The first pilot test involved ten
K-12 science teachers from one Florida district (three: elementary, four: middle, and
three: high school teachers) who gathered in one room and took the test on paper.
The teachers who participated had responded to the district science supervisor’s
request for volunteers to assist with a research study. This pilot focused on ensuring
that the questions accurately assessed the specific concepts the instrument was
attempting to address. Each question was thoroughly discussed to ascertain whether
the teachers understood and responded to the questions in the same manner and as
the researchers intended. Through this purposeful discussion, we found the need to
add an on the job training (OJT) response which was not an option on the survey.
The second pilot test involved six science educators attending an open science and
disability meeting at the 2012 NSTA National Conference who volunteered to take
the online survey using SurveyMonkey, an online survey provider. In response to
this pilot test, the survey was shortened and key terms were underlined to increase
clarity. The final survey took approximately 20 min to complete and consisted of 25
questions, six of which were formatted as matrices consisting of multiple subsets of
questions. With regard to investigating the internal consistency of the instrument,
we considered statisticians’ findings that reliability estimates based on a single test
administration, such as Cronbach’s alpha, may not convey much information about
the accuracy of individual test performance (Sijtsma, 2009). Moreover, evidence
suggests that measures such as Cronbach’s alpha and glb can be positively biased
for lower reliability values in samples smaller than (approximately) 1,000 cases, and
test lengths exceeding (approximately) 10 items (Shapiro & Ten Berge, 2000;
Verhelst, 1998). Because our complete data sets and survey length did not fall
within these parameters, tests for internal consistency of the survey were not
conducted.
Participants
A modified snowball sampling (Babbie, 1998) was selected for this investigation.
While snowball sampling may be considered in some instances to be biased, as it is
more likely that participants will share the same traits and characteristics thus
skewing the sample to a less robust representation of the general population, our
modified approach relied on broad interest-based (science education) organizations
to promote and extend the offer to take part in the survey. Therefore, it can
123
reasonably be argued that many of the concerns regarding personal and relationship
biases were mitigated, if not alleviated. Invitations to participate in the survey were
distributed via the NSTA listserv. Surveys were also sent to NSTA Chapter and
Associated Group presidents and to NSTA District Directors. Over a 3 month
period, 1,088 participants took the survey. A total of 836 respondents produced full
data sets resulting in a 76.8 % completion rate. An additional 159 participants,
while not completing the entire survey, yielded sufficient responses to be included
in analyses of items addressing training and attitudes of preparedness (ranging from
916 to 995 responses). Therefore, results are reported utilizing between 836 and 995
responses for a given item. The overwhelming majority of survey participants were
female (81 %) public-school teachers (87 %) with master’s degrees (69 %).
The education certificates and science courses taught by participants spanned the
gamut with fourteen different certifications and courses taught or supervised.
Responses indicated most participants hold multiple certifications and are currently
teaching or supervising multiple science subjects. The most prevalent certification
was General Science (378), and Earth Science (306) was the most often taught
course. A total of 10.2 % of the participants taught or supervised multiple grade
levels and most participants (54 %) had over 13 years teaching experience. There
was good representation for grade levels (PreK–3—22 %; 4–5—22 %; 6–8—22 %;
and 9–12—45 %). The majority of participants teach in the USA (98 %) in suburban
schools, with class sizes of 16–25 students. Although participants represented all
regions of the USA, the largest percentage of participants came from the Southeast
region (43 %), most likely explained by the fact that 12 % of all survey takers were
from Florida, the home state and region of the authors of this study.
Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Question
One open-ended question which asked participants to share their comments and/or
concerns related to teaching science to students with disabilities was included in the
survey. The incorporation of an open-ended question and the use of mixed methods
research (Creswell, 2003) allowed us to collect readily quantifiable data including the
number and types of courses taken, demographics, and attitudinal scales, while
gaining insights into the more ‘‘holistic perspectives’’ (Anderson, 1997, p. 271)
surrounding educational reforms which impact science teacher education. As we
wished to utilize the qualitative data to inform the more prominent quantitative survey
approach taken in this study, greater weighting was assigned to the quantitative
findings in our results, as is indicative of a ‘‘quantitative mixed’’ analysis study
(Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007, p. 124). We conducted parallel analysis of
our data sets (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003), that is, the qualitative data set was
analyzed by the first author and the quantitative data set analyzed by the second author
with findings consolidated and compared only upon entering our interpretation phase
in order to enhance validity, provide breadth, and corroborate findings. A total of 324
participants chose to respond to the open-ended question. We used an inductive
approach using constant comparative method (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010) to
analyze the responses by identifying codes for each of the statements based on
keywords or phrases such as ‘‘need planning time,’’ ‘‘no administrative support,’’ ‘‘co-
123
Table 1 Percentages of educators reporting having taught students with disabilities (N = 995)
Taught students with 2011–2012 Anytime I have never taught any I don’t know or
this type of disability school year during my students this disability remember (%)
(%) career (%) (%)
Motor/orthopedic 21 58 26 30
impairments
Visual impairments 21 62 23 30
Hearing impairments 22 63 18 30
Learning disabilities 70 59 10 \1
Emotional/behavioral 61 62 20 10
disabilities
Speech and language 49 59 10 30
impairments
Intellectual disability/ 29 48 29 50
mental retardation
Autism/Asperger’s 43 58 11 50
syndrome
Other health 71 58 20 10
impairments (includes
ADD/ADHD)
teaching challenges,’’ and ‘‘all students deserve science opportunities.’’ Based on co-
occurring codes (i.e., data coded by multiple codes), we were able to consolidate
several codes into broader themes such as ‘‘training and resources,’’ ‘‘collaboration
with special educators,’’ and ‘‘equity.’’ Analyst triangulation (Patton, 2002) was then
utilized by randomly selecting ten quotes and sending them to two colleagues with
backgrounds in the social sciences but not specifically in education or qualitative
research. We asked them to categorize the quotes within the themes according to their
assessments. Out of the two sets, there were only discrepancies with one quote, and the
codes were revised accordingly. Thus, there was a high inter-rater reliability (i.e.,
95 %). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended question conducted by the authors
resulted in the emergence of eight themes, or critical indicators, related to the teaching
of science for students with disabilities: (1) equity; (2) training and resources; (3)
benefits of having students with disabilities in the general classroom; (4) classroom
challenges; (5) teacher collaboration; (6) assessment; (7) what works; (8) inclusion
and policy regarding students with disabilities. These critical indicators are described
more fully in the ‘‘Results’’ section.
Results
Sources and Contexts of Teacher Training
Ninety-nine percent of survey respondents report having taught students with

disabilities at some point in their careers. As Table 1 indicates, respondents
encountered students with a range of disabilities, including relatively low-incidence
123
disabilities such as visual, hearing, and motor/orthopedic impairments in their

careers.
When asked whether they had received any training in teaching students with
disabilities, 70 % of respondents indicated that they had received training. It is
important to note that this question did not refer specifically to teaching science to
students with disabilities, nor did it specify formal training. Therefore, the 30 % of
teachers who responded ‘‘no’’ have not received any training in teaching students
with disabilities. Of the 70 % of teachers who did receive training, we next
examined the source and the type of training teachers received. Table 2 shows
where teachers received training on specific disabilities. Informal ‘‘on the job’’
(OJT) training was the most frequently reported source of training for teaching
students with all disabilities except for learning disabilities (LD) and intellectual
disabilities. Perhaps most striking is that, of the 70 % of teachers who reported
receiving any training, only 42 % identified college/undergraduate as a source of
training for any single type of disability, suggesting that teachers’ need to piece
together multiple training sources and rely on OJT.
For those teachers who received training, it is clear from Table 3 that the most
frequently covered topics in school (college and graduate) and through professional
development include mainstreaming, inclusion, modifying lessons for students with
disabilities, and legal concerns. We were surprised to see the relatively low
coverage of testing accommodations, Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs),
and collaboration with special education teachers as topics of focus in college and
graduate programs given their importance in the current educational climate.
Perhaps school districts and teachers recognize these gaps as they were topics of
relatively high coverage in their professional development programs and OJT.
Examination of undergraduate preparation reveals a startling statistic: Inclusion, the
topic receiving the most coverage, was only cited by 40 % of the teachers who
received any training.
We next asked teachers about their sources of learning specifically in regard to
teaching science to students with disabilities. Of the 70 % of survey participants
who received any training, OJT (76 %) was the most prevalent format, followed by
general methods courses on teaching students with disabilities (68 %) and courses
in diversity or exceptionality (64 %). Only 11 % (or 7.7 % of all survey
respondents) experienced a science methods course focused on teaching students
with disabilities. These findings suggest that instruction specific to science for
students with disabilities is lacking in all formal settings. In addition, it should be
noted that science teachers may actually receive less training than indicated by these
results since 16 % of participants hold special education certifications or are
currently special education teachers (10 %).
Teacher Preparedness for Teaching Science to Students with Disabilities
Teachers were asked to rate their level of preparedness to teach science to students
with disabilities using a five-point Likert Scale (Not Prepared, Slightly Prepared,
Prepared, Well Prepared, and Extremely Well Prepared). For clarity of presentation,
we have condensed the results into a three-point scale by combining the two lowest
123
Table 2 Percentages of teachers receiving training to teach students with disabilities by sources and
disability category (N = 995)
Received training in teaching students with disabilities? Yes No
70 % (697) 30 % (298)
Type of disability College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

(%) school (%) school another the job know or
district (%) organization/ training remember
institution (%) (OJT) (%) (%)
Motor/orthopedic 24 18 14 8 37 27
impairments
Visual impairments 23 20 14 8 38 22
Hearing impairments 22 20 14 9 40 20
Learning disabilities 42 41 45 21 31 1
Emotional/behavioral 33 31 34 18 36 6
disabilities
Speech and language 27 23 21 12 36 19
impairments
Intellectual disability/ 31 27 21 13 29 21
mental
retardation
Autism/Asperger’s 21 24 32 20 40 12
syndrome
Other health 30 33 37 20 40 6
impairments
(includes ADD/
ADHD)
PD professional development
(Not Prepared and Slightly Prepared) into a category called, ‘‘Least Prepared’’ and
the two highest (Well Prepared and Extremely Well Prepared) into a category
called, ‘‘Most Prepared.’’ The results can be found in Table 4. Teachers felt most
prepared teaching science to students with LD and other health impairments (OHI)
which were the two most commonly taught disability classifications reported for the
current school year. Teachers felt least prepared to teach students with intellectual
disabilities/mental retardation, and physical disabilities, including motor/orthopedic,
visual, and hearing impairments. Nearly half of the teachers also felt least prepared
to teach students with autism.
Participants were then asked about their feelings of preparedness toward different
tasks associated with teaching science to students with disabilities (Table 5).
Similar to the Norman et al. (1998) survey, areas of least preparedness include
promoting metacognitive strategies (58 %) and working with parents/guardians in
planning appropriate educational programs (45 %). These tasks, in addition to
identifying and selecting assistive technology (66 %) and assisting students with
123
Table 3 Percentages of teachers receiving training to teach students with disabilities by source and topic
(N = 995)
Received training in teaching students with disabilities? Yes No
70 % (697) 30 % (298)
Which of the College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

following topics were (%) school (%) school another the job know or
covered and in which district (%) organization/ training remember
settings? institution (%) (OJT) (%) (%)
Mainstreaming 40 39 43 15 29 4
Inclusion 36 39 47 16 30 3
Modifying lessons for 35 40 47 20 38 2
students with
disabilities
Universal design for 9 15 15 9 10 62
learning (UDL)
Safety concerns 25 24 31 12 36 21
regarding students
with disabilities
Legal concerns 32 36 38 13 27 10
regarding students
with disabilities
Testing 27 31 48 14 46 3
accommodations for
students with
disabilities
Individualized 31 36 50 15 49 2
education programs
(IEPs)
Assistive technology 17 23 22 12 38 24
Collaboration with 20 24 43 13 57 4
special education
teachers
Resources which 13 20 19 18 38 31
provide information
on teaching science
to students with
disabilities
Professional 10 13 11 12 16 56
associations
representing the
different disability
areas
Scientists with 5 6 3 5 12 77
disabilities as role
models
123
Table 3 continued
Which of the College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

following topics were (%) school (%) school another the job know or
covered and in which district (%) organization/ training remember
settings? institution (%) (OJT) (%) (%)
Other: none of the 4 3 2 2 3 90

above
PD professional development
social interactions (52 %), appear to be areas of particular weakness in teachers’

repertoires. Even in areas of relative strength, many teachers remain underprepared
to meet the needs of their students.
Attitudes Toward Students with Disabilities
Survey participants were asked to rate their level of agreement to a series of

statements regarding attitudes toward inclusive science. The majority of participants
indicated that special needs students benefit from science activities (89 %) and that
it is possible for students with disabilities to be active participants in all laboratory
experiences (85 %). These results suggest strong support for full participation of
students with disabilities in science. Yet nearly one-third (32 %) believe that
students are being diagnosed with disabilities when in reality they are just behavior
or discipline problems and nearly half (48 %) of teachers suspect that disability
categories are often used as an excuse for student failure. Additionally, three
quarters (75 %) of participants believe that teachers need special training to
overcome prejudices and emotional barriers in working with students with
disabilities. These attitudes, which were similarly illuminated in earlier studies
(Norman et al., 1998), may preclude students with disabilities from receiving the
educational supports necessary for quality science experiences.
Attitudes regarding inclusion reflect concerns about student achievement, teacher
evaluation, and support. Nearly half (48 %) of participants indicated that preparing
students with disabilities for statewide standardized tests is particularly stressful,
and more than half (55 %) believe that including students with disabilities in
statewide standardized tests makes it more difficult for schools to make AYP.
Insofar as teacher evaluation is concerned, less than half (43 %) of participants feel
they should be evaluated based on the progress of students with disabilities in their
classes. Time seems to be a particular stressor as only 14 % believe that they have
adequate time to prepare for teaching students with disabilities. Addressing these
concerns may prove difficult, however, since only 43 % of teachers felt highly
supported by their school administration in teaching science to students with
disabilities.
Survey results further indicated that most participants believe that it is their
responsibility to attend to and manage the essential educational duties associated
123
Table 4 Teacher preparedness for teaching science to students with disabilities (N = 932)
How prepared do you feel to teach Least prepared (not Prepared Most prepared (well
science to students with the following prepared at all/slightly (%) prepared/extremely
disabilities? prepared) (%) well prepared) (%)
Motor/orthopedic impairments 54 29 17
Visual impairments 54 29 17
Hearing impairments 50 29 22
Learning disabilities 28 31 42
Emotional/behavioral disabilities 41 30 29
Speech and language Impairments 43 33 24
Intellectual disability/mental 62 21 17
retardation
Autism/Asperger’s syndrome 49 26 26
Other health impairments (includes 29 33 39
ADD/ADHD)
with teaching students with special needs. However, 13 % felt that the primary
responsibility for communication concerning students with disabilities should rest in
the hands of the special education teacher, while 16 % feel that science teachers
should not make significant adjustments to serve students with disabilities. These
results represent a very significant shift from the Norman et al. (1998) study, in
which most science teachers placed primary responsibilities for students with
disabilities, including accommodations, on special educators. In addition, 90 %
indicated a desire to learn about teaching students with a variety of disabilities,
while 86 % are willing to participate in supplementary trainings on the subject.
Clearly, teachers want training and collaborative opportunities and are willing to
make the time to participate.
Impact of Teacher Experience and Training on Preparedness and Attitudes
Impact of Teacher Experience
Positive correlations were found between teachers who had 1 or more experiences
teaching students with various disabilities and their level of preparedness as
educators to teach these same students (N = 929, r = .30–.53, q = \.0001 for all
items). The findings indicate that teachers feel significantly more prepared in
teaching all disabilities when they have had experience teaching any student with a
disability. When comparing the mean preparedness with individual types of
disabilities teachers have experienced, teachers of students with motor/orthopedic
impairments are the most highly correlated group to feelings of overall teaching
preparedness (N = 929, r = .53, q = \.0001). Interestingly, no significant corre-
lation was found between teacher experience with students with disabilities and
attitudes regarding teaching and working with students with disabilities.
123
898
123
Table 5 Teacher preparedness for performing tasks associated with teaching science to students with disabilities (N = 916)
Tasks associated with teaching science to students with disabilities Least prepared (not prepared Prepared Most prepared (well prepared/
at all/slightly prepared) (%) (%) extremely well prepared) (%)
Design, select, and/or modify activities for students with disabilities 37 32 30

Modify testing and assessment formats for students with disabilities 36 31 34
Work with parents/guardians in planning appropriate educational programs 45 28 27
for students with disabilities
Work with other professionals in planning appropriate educational 32 34 34
programs for students with disabilities
Co-teach with special educators 30 32 38
Identify and arrange for assistive technology 66 19 15
Work with metacognitive strategies to assist students with disabilities 58 24 18
(i.e., self-awareness, self-questioning, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement)
Assist students with disabilities with social interactions 52 26 22
Communicate comfortably with students with disabilities 22 34 44
S. Kahn, A. R. Lewis
Impact of Teacher Training
In this survey, 30 % of participants responded that to the best of their recollection

they had received no training teaching students with disabilities. We wished to
explore whether this absence of training impacted teachers preparedness to teach
students with disabilities and their attitudes toward special needs students. A Biserial
correlation was conducted between the question, ‘‘Have you had any training?’’ and
questions about preparedness to teach students with selected disabilities and for
specific tasks. Biserial correlations are used instead of Pearson coefficients when
finding correlations between binary (‘‘Have you had any training—Yes/No’’) and
linear variables (‘‘How prepared are you’’—five-point Likert scale). A second
Biserial correlation was conducted between the question, ‘‘Have you had any
training?’’ and a series of questions regarding attitudes toward teaching students
with disabilities. Results showed that any teacher training can be significantly
associated with positive teacher preparedness for specific disabilities (N = 929,
r = .20–.40, q = \.0001 for all items) and tasks associated with teaching science to
students with disabilities (N = 916, r = .20–.36, q = \.0001 for all items). With
regard to teacher attitudes, we found no significant correlation between teacher
training and attitudes toward students with disabilities.
Critical Indicators Regarding Inclusive Science
To enhance our understanding of the issues regarding inclusive science, we asked

participants to share their comments or concerns on this topic. Teacher comments
from the open-ended question were consolidated into eight themes, or ‘‘critical
indicators’’ which are described, along with exemplars, in Table 6.
We envision these themes as ‘‘critical indicators’’ of teachers’ attitudes, as each
carries crucial implications for policy and pedagogy that shape inclusive science. Of
particular note in synthesizing these indicators is the apparent dichotomy between
teachers’ agreement with the goals of inclusive science in theory, and their concerns
about its impacts in practice. Teachers cited the importance of scientific literacy for
all citizens, whether they pursue science careers or not, as typified by the second
exemplar under ‘‘Inclusion and Policy.’’ They also mentioned the importance of
affording all students the opportunity to achieve in science, particularly noting that
many students with disabilities excel in science. Yet the ‘‘Challenges’’ indicator was
replete with concerns about the high costs of educating students with disabilities,
lack of parental involvement, safety issues in the laboratory, and lack of planning
time. When combined with several comments similar to the first exemplar under
‘‘Expectations and Assessment’’ which denotes a perceived lowering of standards
due to inclusion, reluctance about the implementation of inclusive science becomes
apparent. These findings are consistent with literature suggesting that general
education teachers support the philosophy of inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2000) but
may also have reservations about its practice, particularly when they believe it will
impact the quality of the learning in their classrooms (Van Reusen et al., 2001).
From our results, it seems that many teachers are concerned about what they believe
is a confounding of equity and equality; students with disabilities may be entitled to
123
Table 6 Critical indicators, exemplars, and explanations emerging from qualitative analysis
900
Critical indicators Exemplars of teacher comments Explanation
123
Equity A society cannot afford to insist that ALL students, regardless of These comments reflect teachers’ attitudes about the goal of
disability, be afforded equal opportunities because that is an ‘‘science for all’’ insofar as both access and ability
impossible goal
…not everyone is ‘‘wired’’ to be good at science
Training and resources I had a blind student 1 year, and I couldn’t find a way to teach him Teachers expressed remorse and frustration over their inability to
physics…I feel sad about this and wish I had the skills/training to meet students with disabilities’ needs due to lack of training,
be successful with him time, and other resources
I feel like I’m not doing justice to teaching science [to students
with disabilities]
Benefits of having students My proudest day was when one of my students with MS walked Teachers’ comments in this theme indicated that teaching science
with disabilities in the across the stage to get her diploma. She was going to become a to students with disabilities was rewarding and contributed to
science classroom scientist! their professional growth
Teaching students with disabilities requires you to think more
about how you teach
Challenges of having students I have students who cannot even do multiplication in a high school Teachers described the challenges in differentiating instruction for
with disabilities in the physics class… I feel like I have to prepare twice for each class a wide range of abilities in their classrooms, as well as difficulties
science classroom because of the huge difference in skill level of my students with classroom management particularly relating to the severity
Asperger’s is one thing but just autistic is difficult to monitor labs of students’ disabilities
safely. You never know if they are going to sweep things off
cabinets or stab someone
Collaboration/interactions I found special education staff to be supportive, but basically Teachers indicated that while they benefit from and enjoy
with special education clueless about the nature of science. This was especially collaboration, special educators and aides frequently are
teachers and aides challenging when I had a blind student in my class. I was really unfamiliar with science content and process
on my own to try to create materials to make science real and
hands-on for her. It was exhausting
S. Kahn, A. R. Lewis
Table 6 continued
Critical indicators Exemplars of teacher comments Explanation
Expectations and assessment We have to stop dropping the expectations in our coursework if we Many teachers emphasized the importance of maintaining high
are to stay competitive in the world standards for all classes, yet expressed concerns that assessments
Teachers are pressured to make all students excel in the same types are stressful for teachers who can become scapegoats when
of assessments. This is stressful for both the teacher and student, students do not succeed
especially when the teacher’s evaluations depend upon student
‘‘success’’
What works in the Having a background in special education has helped enormously Teachers listed several attributes and experiences that they believed
classroom—strategies and to include all students in science investigations and modifying were helpful in supporting inclusive science including
situations that impact assessments educational and personal backgrounds
Survey on Inclusive Science Teaching
success The only reason I’m at all proficient at working with students with
visual impairments is because I myself am legally blind…
Inclusion and policy regarding What some people fail to understand is that even if students with Teachers’ comments exposed a dichotomy regarding attitudes
students with disabilities in disabilities do not choose to become scientists they still need to toward inclusive science; while most teachers seemed to support
science be informed voters! it philosophically, many cited frustration and resentment
If I had the talent or desire to teach students with disabilities, I regarding its implementation
would have majored in special education
901
123
a level playing field insofar as access, but they do not necessarily have or express
skills commensurate to students without disabilities in science. To further illustrate
this point, we present the following two contrasting comments from the
Expectations and Assessment critical indicator that each address ‘‘success’’ in
science:
Students with mental retardation… do NOT belong in a lab and I do not
believe they should be in a general high school science class when they have
first to third grade reading, writing and math skills. Science is a synthesis of
reading, writing and math so those abilities must be at grade level for success
in science.
I’ve had special-needs students who couldn’t read/write/do basic math who
COULD understand difficult science concepts. In fact, science is the place
where many of these same students found their first academic success.
While the schism between these views may be indicative of epistemological conflict
regarding the goals of science education and not necessarily emanating from
experiences with inclusion, it may be exacerbated by current policies that expect
students to demonstrate success equally, a goal that was fervently disputed by
teachers’ comments in the ‘‘Equity’’ theme. Expanding upon one teacher’s
observation that, ‘‘Success is not the same for everyone!’’ suggests that success
may not look the same for all students (which is arguably the case regardless of
ability or disability), but it is not disability in itself that inherently excludes students
with disabilities from participation and accomplishments in science.
Another key observation is that science teachers appear to be overwhelmed by
the challenge of differentiating their instruction to meet the needs of an increasingly
diverse student body. Many teachers discussed difficulties determining appropriate
curriculum, accommodations, and assessment goals for a wide range of abilities and
disabilities, citing lack of meaningful training as a critical factor. The challenge of
balancing the goals of inclusion with meeting the individual needs of every student
was apparent in teacher comments. We were particularly struck by the manner in
which our qualitative results revealed convergent between-method triangulation
(Denzin, 1978) with quantitative results on all key issues related to adequacy of
teacher preparation, desire for additional training, benefits and challenges regarding
inclusive science, and the apparent dichotomy between philosophical support versus
practical implementation of inclusive science. These consistent findings bolster our
confidence in the discussion and implications of our findings in the following
section.
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of this study was to examine teacher preparedness and attitudes
regarding teaching science to students with disabilities. We have organized our
discussion and implications for science teacher education around our research
questions.
123
Research Question 1 From what sources and within what contexts have science
teachers gained training in teaching science to students with disabilities?
The results of this survey indicate that nearly one-third of participants received
no training in teaching students with disabilities, and of those who did, the most
commonly cited source of training was OJT. These data suggest that for many
science teachers, the first opportunity to think about or familiarize themselves with
methods and materials specific to teaching students with disabilities was when
confronted by such issues for the first time in their classrooms. This is a troubling
finding, in that it would add to the already steep learning curve for new science
teachers in their pursuit of quality teaching which includes learning about science
content, learners, instruction, learning environments, professionalism and survival
(Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Luft, 2007). Both quantitative and qualitative
results suggest that science teachers gain some knowledge about teaching students
with disabilities from a variety of sources, including college and graduate school
preparation and district PD. However, college preparation, the cornerstone of
teacher education, appeared to be no more prominent a source for teachers than
other formal or informal settings. These findings confirm past results suggesting that
undergraduate science teacher preparation demonstrates minimal commitment to
educating students about inclusive science strategies, thereby leaving little
opportunity for science teachers to become agents of change for inclusive reforms.
Perhaps this minimal emphasis on inclusive strategies in teacher preparation courses
stems from science teacher educators’ own lack knowledge of these strategies
(Norman et al., 1998). To counteract this, McGinnis (2003) has described successful
teacher preparation courses in which a science educator co-teaches and consults
with a university special educator, while student interns are encouraged to consult
with special educators at their internship sites. Such courses would no doubt provide
both teacher educators and students with insights into different perspectives that
may exist between science and special education, while also extending their
repertoire of pedagogical approaches. Science teacher educators can also familiarize
themselves with readings and professional development opportunities on inclusive
practices (Steele, 2005, 2007a, 2007b; Stefanich, Gabriele, Rogers, & Erpelding,
2005), resources such as websites on accommodating students with disabilities in
science (National Science Teachers Association, 2013), and professional organiza-
tions such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) from which they can learn
and also refer their students. Finally, the current literature gives us no guidance as to
the specifics of OJT learning in relation to inclusive science, nor do we have
information as to the sources or accuracy of the information gleaned. Yet OJT is the
predominant source of learning about this topic. The nature and transmission of this
knowledge seems to be a fertile ground for understanding gaps in science teachers’
training on inclusive practices.
Research Question 2 Do science teachers feel prepared to teach students with
disabilities?
Science teachers’ lack of training seemed to translate to feelings of under
preparedness, as survey participants reported feeling ‘‘least prepared’’ to teach
123
students with all disabilities except LD and OHI. Perhaps the relative comfort with
students with these disabilities relates to the fairly high incidence of these
disabilities (NCES, 2011) as well as the fact that they seemed to be included in
coursework and professional development more than most other disabilities.
Nonetheless, our findings suggest that science teachers encounter students with a
range of disabilities during their careers and are apparently unprepared to do so.
Teachers need to implement a variety of adaptations in order to effectively
differentiate the science curriculum for students with special needs (Finson,
Ormsbee, & Jensen, 2011; McGinnis & Stefanich, 2007). Topics identified of
particular need include assistive technology in STEM (Moon, Todd, Morton, &
Ivey, 2012), Universal Design for Learning (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; McGinnis,
2013), and identifying metacognitive strategies to support student learning
(Berkeley, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2011; Rosenzweig, Krawec, & Montague,
2011). Incorporating these research-based strategies into pre-service and in-service
training would help to fill significant gaps in knowledge.
In addition, science teachers report lack of preparedness with assisting students
with disabilities with social interactions. As social interaction is also a key goal of
inclusion (Odom, 2002), enhancing science teachers’ abilities to foster social
interaction would prove beneficial. Training in cooperative learning for inclusion
(Putnam, 2006), as well as professional development programs that emphasize
collaboration between science and special educators (Van Garderen, Hanuscin, Lee,
& Kohn, 2012), and providing teachers with parent involvement strategies (Bennett,
DeLuca, & Bruns, 1997) could all contribute to reaching this goal. All of these
recommendations are made with the understanding that such changes in science
teacher education may be difficult due to constraints in time, administrative support,
and political pressures (Anderson, 1997), yet they are nonetheless necessary if
significant inclusive reforms are to take root and flourish in our science classrooms.
Research Question 3 Do science teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with
disabilities support an inclusive environment?
Both quantitative and qualitative results suggest that science teachers support the
philosophy of inclusion but simultaneously experience attitudinal and institutional
barriers to its implementation, a finding in concert with Norman et al. (1998). For
example, survey participants support the notion of including students with
disabilities in hands-on, laboratory, and field-based learning, approaches supported
by several studies (Mastropieri et al., 1998; McCarthy, 2005). However, participants
also report not having the time or materials to prepare adequately, particularly due
to difficulties in scheduling with co-teachers. Robinson’s (2002) case study of four
high school science teachers reported that simply expecting teachers to co-teach
without planning time to develop a vision for the collaboration will not work, yet
such supports would likely have a positive impact on attitudes toward inclusion as
well (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Our findings are consistent with Hargreaves
(2005) observation that attempts at educational change are often poorly resourced
and ‘‘built on the backs of teachers, who cannot bear it for long without additional
support’’ (p. 1). Science teacher educators, therefore, can themselves be agents of
change by not only developing teachers imbued with inclusive strategies and
123
mindsets, but by also working collaboratively with school administrators to

prioritize and implement supports for inclusive science practice.
Safety is still a concern for science teachers, as nearly 30 % of participants felt
that students with disabilities can present special safety problems for both
themselves and others. This uneasiness was also expressed in the open-ended
question, where several teachers reported worries about laboratory safety, partic-
ularly when dealing with students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Greater
familiarity with modified laboratory equipment and safety accommodations is
important in developing more positive views of students with disabilities in the
laboratory (Neely, 2007). Moreover, adequate teacher training in accommodating
students with disabilities in science activities can reduce concerns regarding student
behavior, even for students with severe emotional disabilities (Cawley, Hayden,
Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002).
Preparing students with disabilities for assessments appears to be a particular
stressor for science teachers. Given that most students with disabilities are expected
to perform on statewide high-stakes testing, providing science teachers with models
that emphasize academic performance as well as social skills for all students is
warranted. One such promising model is class-wide peer tutoring (Mastropieri et al.,
2006). In their study, the authors found that the combination of peer-mediated
tutoring (via mixed-ability dyads) with differentiated hands-on science activities
statistically increased middle school students’ performance on statewide high-stakes
tests as well as their enjoyment of science activities when compared to more
traditional, teacher-directed teaching. Ongoing progress monitoring (McLeskey,
Waldron, & Redd, 2012) that provides data to guide instruction and allocate
resources to meet individual student needs may also prove a valuable tool for
science teachers. We make these suggestions while recognizing that considerable
disagreement exists regarding the effectiveness of using standardized testing as a
means of promoting equity in science (Aydeniz & Southerland, 2012), particularly
since science teachers’ approaches to increasing student performance may run
counter to best practices in inclusive science, such as thematic, hands-on inquiry
(McCarthy, 2005). Misconceptions about the limitations of persons with disabilities
in STEM fields, a barrier that appeared here and in prior surveys (Alston &
Hampton, 2000; Norman et al., 1998), may be countered by incorporating
connections with mentors and role models with disabilities (Dunn, Rabren, Taylor,
& Dotson, 2012) in teacher education programs to convince both teachers and their
students of the feasibility of science career opportunities for persons with
disabilities and impart an understanding of the genuine challenges and triumphs
that persons with disabilities face.
Research Question 4 Do science teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with
disabilities differ by experience or educational preparation?
The survey results indicated that experience with students with any disability
and/or training of any kind regarding teaching students with disabilities added to
teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach students with disabilities. This finding
supports the work of Kirch, Bargerhuff, Cowan, and Wheatly (2007), who found
professional development that provides science teachers with the opportunity to
123
work through laboratory experiences in partnership with students with disabilities

positively impact teachers’ feelings of preparedness. Surprisingly, we did not find
that experience or training correlated strongly with attitude. This may be due to the
intractability of attitudes, which are closely related to beliefs and are resistant to
change even when presented with reason or factual information (Gregoire, 2003;
Nespor, 1987). These tightly held beliefs can deflect or undermine any influence that
education courses and field experiences might have on altering prospective science
teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Pajares,
1992). It is also worth considering that experience with teaching students with
disabilities does not necessarily imply receptive attitudes (Stephens & Braun, 1980);
rather, positive in-service and pre-service experiences, combined with adequate
preparation and school support, may be key (Leatherman & Niemeyer, 2005).
Further research on the nature of pre-service and in-service science teachers’
experiences with students with disabilities in their classrooms, particularly
considering the nature and severity of students’ disabilities which can strongly
influence teacher acceptance (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002), seems warranted.
Limitations
While this study illuminated numerous critical issues regarding inclusive science,
several limitations existed. The use of snowball sampling, even via a modified
approach using science teacher listservs, is susceptible to sampling bias, as was
evidenced by our somewhat skewed data set insofar as geographic representation
and gender. In addition, a voluntary survey such as this one tends to attract
participants who feel strongly one way or another with no analysis of non-
responders, again contributing to sampling bias. Since the survey was distributed
online, we may have missed hard-to-reach populations. It is also possible that
participants answered differently than their true feelings and beliefs would reflect.
Further, it is important to note the distinction that exists between behavior intentions
and actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), the latter of which may not be
reflected regardless of attitude or intent. We also relied on teachers’ reporting
regarding the sources and content of trainings. It is quite possible that participants
may have confused sources, or forgotten material that was covered. For these
reasons, we must be cautious about generalizing to a larger population beyond the
survey participants.
Summary
We undertook this project to determine whether science teachers’ preparation for

and attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities reflect current educational
policies that compel inclusion and high standards for all. While we found that
teachers make considerable efforts to piece together training on this topic and that
they generally support the goals of inclusion, significant gaps in their training
regarding the effects of students’ disabilities on learning as well as strategies for
successful inclusive teaching exist. Lack of preparation and support, as well as
123
pressures associated with student and teacher assessment, may diminish teachers’
positive attitudes about teaching students with disabilities. The overwhelming
majority of science teachers want training; in fact, most feel it should be required.
Teacher education programs must respond to the changing face of K-12 classrooms
by embracing practices and pedagogies that promote quality SESD. For in-service
teachers, this means providing meaningful, science-specific learning opportunities
covering a range of disabilities and emphasizing collaboration. For pre-service
teachers, ensuring internship placements that include students with a variety of
disabilities, revamping science methods courses to include context-specific
accommodations, and increasing the number of teacher preparation programs that
dually certify science education and special education would begin to address the
pervasive gaps in pedagogy that exist in science classrooms today. With increased
commitment to inclusive science research and practice, science teacher educators
can markedly contribute to advancing the worthy goal of ‘‘science for all.’’
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Jeffrey D. Kromrey, Gregory P. Stefanich, and Dana L.
Zeidler for their assistance with the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, the authors are grateful to
the science coordinator and teachers from the pilot district as well as all of the survey participants who
made this research possible.
References
Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards: Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and
partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alston, R., & Hampton, J. (2000). Science and engineering as viable career choices for students with
disabilities: A survey of parents and teachers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43, 158–164.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (1997). The science methods course in the context of the total teacher education
experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 269–282.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, J. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the
inclusion of children with special educational needs in ordinary school in one local educational
authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the
literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.
Aydeniz, M., & Southerland, S. A. (2012). A national survey of middle and high school science teachers’
responses to standardized testing: Is science being devalued in schools? Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 23, 233–257.
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., … & Shepard, L.
A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. EPI Briefing Paper#
278. Economic Policy Institute.
Baker, E., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational
Leadership, 52(4), 33–35.
Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and
parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115–131.
123
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Reading comprehension strategy instruction
and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning and other mild disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44, 18–32.
Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science
teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.
Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008). Universal design in higher education: From policy to
practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cawley, J. F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 67.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into
the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 432–435.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 607–651.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: What makes it a good education
for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 32, 16–30.
Dunn, C., Rabren, K. S., Taylor, S. L., & Dotson, C. K. (2012). Assisting students with high-incidence
disabilities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 48, 47–54.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). P.L. 94–142, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.
Elhoweris, H., & Alsheikh, N. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal of
Special Education, 21(1), 115–118.
Finson, K. D., Ormsbee, C. K., & Jensen, M. M. (2011). Differentiating science instruction and
assessment for learners with special needs, K-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teacher development and educational change. London, UK:
Routledge.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and
appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 147–179.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Extending educational change. Dordrecht and New York: Springer.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of
public economics, 95, 798–812.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. 20 U.S.C. 1400–1485.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647.
(2004).
Irving, M., Nti, M., & Johnson, W. (2007). Meeting the needs of the special learner in science.
International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 109–118.
Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities
into regular classrooms. Journal of Education, 117, 148–154.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.
Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and
informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755–777.
Kirch, S. A., Bargerhuff, M. E., Cowan, H., & Wheatly, M. (2007). Reflections of educators in pursuit of
inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 663–692.
Leatherman, J. M., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing
classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 23–36.
Lederman, J. S., & Stefanich, G. P. (2004). Addressing disabilities in the context of inquiry and nature of
science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science
(pp. 55–74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 532–537.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational
Research, 62, 377–411.
123
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos, P. Y., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S.
(1998). ‘‘A place where living things affect and depend on each other’’: Qualitative and quantitative
outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., &
Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science
effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach
for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263.
McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive verses exclusive settings: Preparing teachers to teach
students with mental disabilities in science. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on
socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 196–215). Boston: Kluwer.
McGinnis, J. R. (2013). Teaching science to learners with special needs. Theory into Practice, 52, 43–50.
McGinnis, J. R., & Stefanich, G. P. (2007). Special needs and talents in science learning. In S. K. Abell &
N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 287–317). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating
students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140.
McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., & Redd, L. (2012). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive elementary
school. The Journal of Special Education. doi:10.1177/0022466912440455
Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D. L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Center for Assistive Technology and
Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://advance.cc.lehigh.
edu/sites/advance.cc.lehigh.edu/files/accommodating.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2009 (NCES
2011-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF
13-304. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
National Science Teachers Association. (2013). Website on science for students with disabilities. www.
nsta.org/disabilities
Neely, M. B. (2007). Using technology and other assistive strategies to aid students with disabilities in
performing chemistry lab tasks. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1697–1701.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19,
317–328.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat.1425. (2002).
Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science
classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82, 127–146.
Odom, S. L. (2002). Narrowing the question: Social integration and characteristics of children with
disabilities in inclusion settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 167–170.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research
(pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review
of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, J. R., & Andre, K. E. (1989). Individualizing for science and social studies. In J. Wood (Ed.),
Mainstreaming: A practical approach for teachers (pp. 301–351). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Putnam, J. W. (2006). Cooperative learning for inclusion. In P. Hick, R. Kershen, & P. Farrell (Eds.),
Psychology for inclusive education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 81–95). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Robinson, S. (2002). Teaching high school students with learning and emotional disabilities in inclusion
science classrooms: A case study of four teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13, 13–26.
Rosenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2011). Metacognitive strategy use of eighth-grade students
with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving a think-aloud analysis.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 508–520.
Rothstein, L. (1995). Special education law (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
123
Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2009). ‘‘Proficiency for all’’: An oxymoron. In M. A. Rebell &
J. R. Wolff (Eds.), NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement
gap (pp. 134–162). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rule, A. C., Stefanich, G. P., Boody, R. M., & Peiffer, B. (2011). Impact of adaptive materials on teachers
and their students with visual impairments in secondary science and mathematics classes.
International Journal of Science Education, 33, 865–887.
Schroeder, M. A., Stefanich, G., Davison, J., & Hibbard, M. (2001). Historical and legal foundations. In
G. Stefanich (Ed.), Science teaching in inclusive classrooms: Theory and foundations (pp. 45–57).
National Science Foundation (Grant Numbers HRD-953325 and HRD 9988729). Cedar Falls, IA:
Woolverton Printing Company.
Shapiro, A., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2000). The asymptotic bias of minimum trace factor analysis, with
applications to the greatest lower bound to reliability. Psychometrika, 65, 413–425.
Shoho, A. R., Katims, D. S., & Wilks, D. (1997). Perceptions of alienation among students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and resource settings. The High School Journal, 81, 28–36.
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha.
Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.
Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based
practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1–2), 62–75.
Steele, M. (2005). Teaching science to middle school students with learning problems. Science Sampler,
29, 50–51.
Steele, M. (2007a). Helping middle school students with learning disabilities pass the federally mandated
science tests: Science instruction, study skills, and test-taking strategies. Science Scope, 31, 74–80.
Steele, M. (2007b). Science success for students with special needs: Strategies for helping all students
master science standards. Science and Children, 45, 48–51.
Stefanich, G. P., Gabriele, A. J., Rogers, B. G., & Erpelding, C. (2005). Improving educator attitudes
about inclusive science through dissemination workshops. Journal of Science Education for Students
with Disabilities, 11(1), 6–24.
Stefanich, G. P., Norman, K. I., & Egelston-Dodd, J. (1996). Teaching science to students with
disabilities: Experiences and perceptions of classroom teachers and science educators. Pittsburgh,
PA: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
Stepans, J. I., McClung, P. A., & Beiswenger, R. E. (1995). A teacher education program in elementary
science that connects content, methods, practicum, and student teaching. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 6, 158–163.
Stephens, T., & Braun, B. L. (1980). Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudes toward
handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 292–294.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Digest of Education
Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d13/tables/dt13_204.60.asp
Van Garderen, D., Hanuscin, D., Lee, E., & Kohn, P. (2012). QUEST: A collaborative professional
development model to meet the needs of diverse learners in K-6 science. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 429–443.
Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2001). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion.
The High School Journal, 84(2), 7–20.
Vannest, K. J., Mason, B. A., Brown, L., Dyer, N., Maney, S., & Adiguzel, T. (2009). Instructional
settings in science for students with disabilities: Implications for teacher education. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 20, 353–363.
Verhelst, N. D. (1998). Estimating the reliability of a test from a single test administration. Measurement
and Research Department Report 98-2. Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO National Institute for
Educational Measurement.
Yell, M. L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and students with disabilities: A legal
analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 389–404.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly
progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32–39.
123
Copyright of Journal of Science Teacher Education is the property of Springer Science &
Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Survey On Teaching Science To K-12 Students With Disabilities - Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survey On Teaching Science To K-12 Students With Disabilities - Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:885–910

Survey on Teaching Science to K-12 Students

Sami Kahn • Anna R. Lewis

Published online: 22 November 2014

Abstract Students with disabilities are increasingly included in general education

Keywords Science teacher preparation Attitudes Inclusion Disabilities

Students with disabilities are increasingly included in general education classrooms

Theoretical Context and Purpose of Study

general education classes, participation in statewide assessments, etc.…), ultimately

Science for Students with Disabilities

enumerated several gaps in teachers’ preparation for inclusive science classrooms

Teacher Preparation and Attitudes Toward Inclusion

A significant body of literature links teacher attitudes and preparation to positive

A Changing Landscape: Purpose of the Study

Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Question

Sources and Contexts of Teacher Training

Ninety-nine percent of survey respondents report having taught students with

disabilities such as visual, hearing, and motor/orthopedic impairments in their

Teacher Preparedness for Teaching Science to Students with Disabilities

Type of disability College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

Which of the College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

Which of the College Graduate PD from PD from Informal/on I don’t

Other: none of the 4 3 2 2 3 90

social interactions (52 %), appear to be areas of particular weakness in teachers’

Attitudes Toward Students with Disabilities

Survey participants were asked to rate their level of agreement to a series of

Impact of Teacher Experience and Training on Preparedness and Attitudes

Impact of Teacher Experience

Design, select, and/or modify activities for students with disabilities 37 32 30

Impact of Teacher Training

In this survey, 30 % of participants responded that to the best of their recollection

Critical Indicators Regarding Inclusive Science

To enhance our understanding of the issues regarding inclusive science, we asked

Critical indicators Exemplars of teacher comments Explanation

Critical indicators Exemplars of teacher comments Explanation

Discussion and Implications

mindsets, but by also working collaboratively with school administrators to

work through laboratory experiences in partnership with students with disabilities

We undertook this project to determine whether science teachers’ preparation for

You might also like