2012 - Science For Students With Special Needs - Final

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]
On: 31 July 2014, At: 12:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20
Science education for students with

special needs
a b a
Mary Grace Villanueva , Jonte Taylor , William Therrien &
a
Brian Hand
a
Department of Teaching and Learning , University of Iowa , Iowa
City , IA , 52242 , USA
b
Department of Educational Psychology , Counseling, and Special
Education, Pennsylvania State University , State College , PA ,
16802 , USA
Published online: 06 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Mary Grace Villanueva , Jonte Taylor , William Therrien & Brian Hand (2012)
Science education for students with special needs, Studies in Science Education, 48:2, 187-215,
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2012.737117
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 12:58 31 July 2014
Studies in Science Education
Vol. 48, No. 2, September 2012, 187–215
Science education for students with special needs

Mary Grace Villanuevaa*, Jonte Taylorb, William Therriena and Brian Handa
a
Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA;
b
Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, Pennsylvania
State University, State College, PA 16802, USA
Students with special needs tend to show significantly lower achievement in

science than their peers. Reasons for this include severe difficulties with
academic skills (i.e. reading, math and writing), behaviour problems and limited
prior understanding of core concepts background knowledge. Despite this bleak
picture, much is known on how to significantly improve science achievement
for students with special needs. A recent comprehensive meta-analysis indicates
that inquiry instruction which infuses appropriate scaffolds and supports, can
significantly improve science achievement for students with special needs. This
article will delineate the types of supports and scaffolds that students with
special needs require to be successful in inquiry instruction. It will also provide
concrete examples of how these supports have been successfully applied in an
inclusive third through fifth grade science approach (i.e. the science writing
heuristic).
Keywords: special needs; argumentation; inquiry; science learning; disciplinary
literacy
Introduction
Over the past 30 years, the inclusion of students with diverse and special needs in
the classroom has been a major focus in education. With respect to racial and ethnic
diversity, issues regarding the changing population of learners in British schools
and the educational implications that these changes had on learners and society
were addressed in the Swann Report ‘Education for All’ published in the UK in
1985. Although the focus of this report was on ethnic minority groups, attention to
areas of concern, including inequitable achievement scores, social inclusion in the
classroom and language needs of non-mainstream students, were critical for setting
the stage, not only for ethnic minority students in Britain, but also for areas of edu-
cation which required special learning needs. In the years to follow, the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) issued the
1994 Salamanca Statement which asserted every child’s right to education, ‘regard-
less of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions’.
(UNESCO, 1994). Within that same timeframe, the Science for All movement was
aimed at garnering more scientific interest and understanding from the majority of
students who would be ‘consumers’ of science (as opposed to the small percentage
*Corresponding author. Email: marygrace-villanueva@uiowa.edu
ISSN 0305-7267 print/ISSN 1940-8412 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117
http://www.tandfonline.com
188 M.G. Villanueva et al.
of students who would produce or go into science-related fields) (Millar & Osborne,
1998).
In science, making learning accessible and meaningful for the general populace
of students was, and continues to be, an educational priority (National Research
Council [NRC], 1996). Curriculum projects such as the Twenty First Century
Science in the UK (Millar, 2006; Millar & Osborne, 1998) or the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy
(AAAS, 1993) suggest that all students require a central set of knowledge and skills
to be scientifically literate citizens. Building on those understandings, the twenty-
first Century Skills movement in the USA emphasises core subject knowledge,
alongside learning and innovation skills, and asserts that the established use of tech-
nology in society requires strong complex communication and social skills, infor-
mation, media and technology skills. In addition, life and career skills, adaptability,
non-routine problem solving, self-management/self-development and systems think-

ing are said to be critical to compete in a global economy that demands innovation
(Bybee & Fuchs, 2006). While many of these skills are not new to the goals of
science education, the need for the majority of the population to possess these skills
has become a global imperative. The challenge, however, is for science educators
and various stakeholders to understand the characteristics and needs of students and
‘to accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting those
needs’ (UNESCO, 1994).
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD) (2010), certain countries appear to be working towards gaining a better
understanding of improving science education for traditionally low-achieving stu-
dents. The report, ‘Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education
Reports: Lessons from Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)’,
suggests that top performing countries tend to share the belief that students of all
ranges of ability are capable of achieving high standards. This belief has resulted in
the highest performing countries demonstrating a gradual move to eliminate the
streaming of secondary students into different types of schools. As such, students
attend secondary schools with curricula set to a similar high level of cognitive
demand. While more evidence of academic effectiveness is required, successful
countries, such as Singapore report that this act of inclusion allows for greater
social mobility of its citizens and increased cultural support and value for education
(OECD, 2010).
Science for students with special education needs (SEN)

The terms ‘special education needs’ (SEN) and ‘special needs’ commonly refer to
students who require additional supports for learning and instruction. Although
countries or school districts may have different ways to distinguish SEN, common
designations under this umbrella include: intellectual disabilities, learning disabili-
ties (LD), gifted, emotional or behavioural needs, physically dependent, deaf/blind,
deaf or hard of hearing, visual impairments and chronic health impairments also
referred to as exceptionalities (Hallahan & Kaufman, 2008; Hardman, Drew, &
Egan, 2011). For this article, it would be beyond our scope and expertise to address
the various designations for SEN. Our intent is to focus on students who make up a
significant portion of the SEN population: students with mild to moderate cognitive
and emotional/behaviour disorders (EBD) and, in doing so, ‘special needs’ represent
Studies in Science Education 189
this demographic throughout our research. In cases, where the literature uses ‘spe-
cial needs’ to encompass all groups with some form of barrier to learning, we have
attempted to address this and other semantic nuances.
Science as a vehicle for learning

Researchers contend that the subject of science serves as an effective vehicle for
students with SEN to engage in disciplinary understandings as most students, irre-
spective of achievement level, are able to develop an awareness of, and interest in,
themselves and their immediate surroundings and environment through science.
Additionally, the practical and social aspects of the discipline, e.g. hands-on activi-
ties and working with peers, provide students with opportunities to illustrate ideas
through investigations, and develop an understanding of cause and effect (Qualifica-
tions and Curriculum Authority [QCA], 2001).

Yet, despite these benefits, students with SEN still score significantly below their
peers in science achievement (Steele, 2004) and tend to demonstrate poor perfor-
mance on standardised measures of science (Anderman, 1998; Grigg, Lauko, &
Brockway, 2006; Steele, 2004). On international assessments, such as the PISA
2006, there is an incomplete picture of students’ science proficiencies due to partici-
pating countries’ limited inclusion of students with functional, intellectual or limited
language proficiency (LeRoy, Samuel, Bahr, Evens & Deluca, 2008; OECD, 2009).
However, on national assessments, such as the US National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress, the results from 2009 revealed that students with disabilities in 4th,
8th and 12th grades performed significantly lower than their non-disabled peers
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). In the era of high-stakes
testing, closing the achievement gaps using standardised performance-based
measures as the guide is one of the several challenges which impact the success of
science learning.
Challenges to effective science learning

Researchers have identified a number of factors which contribute to poor achieve-
ment for students with special needs (Cole & McLeskey, 1997). In science, effec-
tive learning for students with special needs appears to be hindered partly because
of issues related to teachers’ experience or ability to make appropriate modifications
based upon the needs of the student, and also in part because of the instructional
methodologies and resources used in most general education classrooms.
Teacher readiness
The practicality of instructional adaptations and inclusion appear to be a consider-
able task for which science teachers are ill-equipped to undertake. In a field where
teachers are criticised for the lack of subject knowledge, the priority in science edu-
cation appears to be increasing the numbers of highly qualified science teachers.
Using the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2011) and the National Science Education Standards
(NSES) (NRC, 1996) to review the core and science-specific standards for new and
experienced teachers, Davis, Petish, and Smithey (2006) posit that teachers are
expected to encompass a wealth of knowledge, such as the content and disciplines
of science, learners, instruction, learning environments and professionalism. In

1998, Norman, Caseau and Stefanich conducted a survey of international under-
graduate teacher education programmes which reveals that very little time is dedi-
cated to science courses, while even less time is spent addressing the theoretical
ideas and practical skills related to special education. There is little evidence to sug-
gest that much has changed.
The dual, separate tracking of programmes leaves many science educators
unprepared to work with students with disabilities and special educators unprepared
to teach science. General education teachers have expressed that they are not ade-
quately trained to teach students with special needs in inclusive settings (Soodak,
Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Patton, Polloway and Cronin (1990) reported a number
of findings related to science instructions and students with special needs, such as
over two-fifths of special education teachers receive no training in science educa-
tion, over one-third of students with special needs in self-contained classes receive
no science instruction and nearly two-thirds of special education teachers use the
general science education textbook to teach.
In a joint policy brief on preparing general education teachers to improve
outcomes for students with disabilities, the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education and the National Center for Learning Disabilities (Blanton, Pug-
ach, & Florian, 2011) highlight the need for preparation programmes that model
and promote interdisciplinary learning and collaboration. The organisations assert
that an inclusive teacher education agenda can be framed when teacher educators in
the curriculum areas, multicultural education, bilingual education, teaching English
learners and special education come together as active working teams. While these
goals seem ideal for effective instruction, science teacher associations’ attention to
improving science for learners with special needs seems less of an imperative, as
their position states that teachers should, ‘Observe diverse learners’ ideas of science
and prepare teaching plans to help the students develop more meaningful
understanding of science’.
From the perspective of special education, Sindelar, Brownell, and Billingsley
(2010, p. 10) highlight struggles that special education teachers face in their induc-
tion phase, including instructional inclusion for students with LD, collaborating with
general education teachers, pedagogical challenges relating to teaching multiple con-
tent areas, securing materials, conducting assessments and the management of stu-
dent behaviours, as well as their own varied roles in the classroom (Billingsley,
Griffin, Smith, Kamman, & Isreal, 2009). Arguably, these challenges, faced by
beginning teachers, also persist for more experienced special education teachers.
Science textbooks
Traditionally, science instruction relies heavily on textbook and lecture format
(Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007; Steele, 2004), and opportunities for science success
are greatly reduced for students who have difficulty reading technical and linguisti-
cally dense science text or writing to demonstrate understanding (Parmar, Deluca,
& Janczak, 1994; Shepard & Adjogah, 1994; Steele, 2004). In order to identify stu-
dents’ needs and make the necessary instructional adaptations, science teachers need
to be familiar with the range of cognitive disabilities as ‘they all evidence unique
and challenging learning needs of varying degrees of intensity’ (Pisha & Stahl,
2005, p. 69). Fidler and Nadel (2007, p. 268) discuss the limitations associated with
trying to prepare teachers comprehensively to work with students with SEN:
Specific techniques for different children in the classroom would be too unwieldy and
would require too great of personnel demand … [and] specific instructional
approaches would make teacher education programs too lengthy of a process, requir-
ing a mastery of approaches that target any number of the many syndromes and
behavioral disorders present in the student population.
There is a sustained debate whether special needs-specific pedagogies exist (Lewis

& Norwich, 2005). Instead, researchers suggest that there may be specific knowl-
edge about students with special needs that is required to apply common strategies
(Lewis & Norwich, 2005). For instance, to support reading, science teachers would
need to keep abreast of digital or print materials, since there is a lack of suitable
resources for students with SEN, and conventional printed textbooks and other
resources assume a ‘one size fits all’ mindset. The lack of variation greatly impedes
learning for students with SEN from a number of disabilities, such as sensory or
motor disabilities, low cognitive abilities or those with attention and organisational
problems (Pisha & Stahl, 2005; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
With respect to instructional resources, there has been evidence to suggest that
textbooks do not meet the needs of students with disabilities. Cawley and Parmar
(2001) suggest that teachers’ manuals are inadequate resources and that textbook
developers do not provide methodologies for students who require alternative learn-
ing strategies (i.e. students with disabilities). Consequently, Mastropieri and Scruggs
(1994) noted a multitude of difficulties and supports that students with disabilities
are likely to encounter and need when science teaching is mainly textbook driven.
Furthermore, Pisha and Stahl (2005) contend that students with print-related disabil-
ities are unlikely to meet standards-based expectations if they are not provided with
accessible and appropriate instructional materials at the same time as their non-
disabled classmates.
Classroom-based science kits

For a growing number of elementary science classrooms, the primary resources for
instruction are conventional science kits. Researchers suggest that the use of the
kits, which contain print materials for teachers and students and equipment for the
suggested investigations, can improve student achievement on reading and science
(Valdez & Freve, 2001), and promote satisfaction and cohesive classroom environ-
ments (Houston, Fraser, & Ledbetter, 2008). Jones, Robertson, Gardner, Dotger,
and Blanchard (2011, p. 2) suggest that the basic assumption for kit use is that
‘highly structured materials model authentic science more effectively and can help
teachers overcome attitudinal and instructional roadblocks to teaching science’.
Despite these benefits, the use of kits offers additional challenges to effective
science instruction for students and teachers alike. For teachers, Park Rogers et al.
(2010) report that the instructional methods in science kits are implied throughout
the curriculum and offer ‘no explicit instruction of instructional decision-making’
(p. 320). For students, the standard reading and pro forma worksheets included in
many commercial science kits maintain barriers to learning particularly for those
with SEN.
Aims and limitations of this paper

In a book review of Weisgerber and Gallagher’s (1993) Science Success for Stu-
dents with Disabilities, Hutchinson (1998) suggests that the development of
resources for teachers of students with SEN may improve when researchers in the
fields of science education and special education ‘join forces’ (p. 289). Heeding
Hutchinson’s call, we have attempted to establish this collaboration. As such, this
article is not meant to serve as a definitive representation of science instruction for
students with special needs, rather it should be viewed as a platform to engage in
discussion and to share our experiences as science and special education
researchers.
Critical to understanding how to improve science learning for students with spe-
cial needs, the review of research, curricula and policy documents is guided by the
following questions:
(1) What is currently understood by the science and special education research
communities about effective science instruction for students with special
needs?
(2) What insights do current theoretical perspectives in science education offer
for the improvement of science instruction for students with special needs?
In order to address these questions, this article is structured in four sections. The
first section is a review of science education research related to students with spe-
cial needs. In the initial part of this review, we present the field of literature limited
to scholarly work published within science education journals, and later broaden the
search to include the work of special education research that explores science
instruction. The second section is framed within the context of current theoretical
and practical perspectives in science education. Given these understandings, we
present the findings of an argument-based inquiry (ABI) approach that shows
promise to improve science learning for certain demographics of students who
traditionally struggle in science.
Drawing from the literature in science and special education, the third section
delineates the types of instructional supports and scaffolds that students with special
needs may require for successful science learning. Within that section, we also pro-
vide practical examples of how these supports have been applied in grades 3
through five classrooms using an ABI approach. Finally, we examine the implica-
tions the ideas proposed in this article have on research and pedagogical practices
in science education.
Science education research related to students with special needs

Using leading1 science education journals such as Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, Science Education, Studies in Science Education, International Journal of
Science Education and Research in Science Education exclusively, keyword
searches were conducted using the publishers’ online platform to retrieve content-
related articles. The aim of the search was to take a strategically planned ‘snapshot’
of the literature (Webster-Wright, 2009) related to key phrases, such as ‘science for
all’ and ‘special needs’ in science education journals. The year 1990 was selected
as the starting point of the search, since this year marked the renaming of the US
Education for the Handicapped Act to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). The IDEA included amendments which detailed procedural protections
regarding eligibility for special educational services, and required that students learn
in a Least Restrictive Environment (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). Furthermore,
in the field of science education, Science for All Americans was published by the
AAAS in 1989. The report defined scientific literacy and identified what students
need to know and be able to do in science, mathematics and technology (AAAS,
1989). As such, the search period was limited to January 1990–April 2012.
Since the 1990s, there has been a steady body of research related to improving
science for all. In particular, research studies relating to ‘special needs’ have gener-
ally focused on social or cultural moderators to learning, such as socioeconomic
class (Gorard & See, 2009; Griffard & Wandersee, 1999); race (Hodson, 1993,
1998; Mutegi, 2010; Parsons, Tran, & Gomillion, 2008; Rakow & Bermudez, 1993;
Riegle-Crumb, Moore & Ramos-Wada, 2011; Zuniga, Olson, & Winter, 2005),
ethnicity (Barton, 2002; Olitsky, Loman Flohr, Gardner, & Billups, 2010; Siegal,
2002; Varelas, Kane, & Donahue Wylie, 2011), national origin (Piliouras & Evang-
elou, 2012) and language background (Lee, 2004; Lyon, Bunch, & Shaw, 2012;
Salleh, Venville, & Treagust, 2007). Additionally, research related to gender has
also been widely represented (Adamson, Foster, Roark, & Reed, 1998; Farenga &
Joyce, 1999; Greenfield, 1997; Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler, & Shanahan, 2010; Jones,
Howe, & Rua, 2000; Meece & Jones, 1996; Sikora & Pokropek, 2012). Yet, within
the same timeframe, the publication of scholarly articles reflecting the needs of stu-
dents with disabilities, namely with mild or moderate cognitive and emotional/
behaviour disabilities, have been limited.
Of the 13 articles found, there were two reviews: Hutchinson’s (1998) book
review of classroom instruction for students with disabilities and Scruggs, Mastropi-
eri, and Boon’s (1998) review of science education research for students with dis-
abilities. In four studies, students were the primary focus in the level of analyses.
While two studies centred on students with physical disabilities, e.g. hearing
impaired (Mertens, 1991) and students with severe intellectual disability (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1995); the other two studies were directly related to students with mild
to moderate cognitive abilities and/or EBD. For example, Bay, Staver, Bryan, and
Hale (1992) examined the use of direct instruction and discovery teaching on
integrated student peer groups. Peer groups were comprised of a triad of two non-
disabled and one student with a mild disability, the disability being that of LD or
behaviour disorder (BD). The researchers were interested in the effects of the inter-
vention on science achievement, retention of conceptual understandings, generalisa-
tion of science process skills and an attempt to see whether working with
handicapped students impacted student achievement for non-handicapped students.
They found that neither direct nor discovery teaching had an immediate benefit to
any of the students in the study; however, their data suggest that the students in the
discovery learning groups, barring LD students, scored higher in the test of reten-
tion than their direct instruction counterparts. In terms of generalising science pro-
cess skills, students with LD in the discovery learning condition outperformed their
peers with LD who received direct instruction; otherwise, there were no treatment
affects to students with or without disabilities. Contrary to reservations that general
education students would be negatively impacted by the inclusion of SEN students
in science, the researchers’ data suggested that learning was not hindered for
students without disabilities when students with LD or BD were in their group.
McCarthy (2005) compared thematic-based, hands-on science teaching to

traditional textbook instruction for middle-school students with serious emotional
disturbances. Using multiple choice and short answer tests, as well as two-
performance-based assessments, the study reported that students who received
hands-on instruction performed significantly better than the textbook group. In
terms of students’ behaviour, the teaching assistants of each group reported
participation and interest in science in favour of the hands-on group; however,
behavioural scores were not statistically significant, t(30) – .211, p – .834, at the
.05 significance level (McCarthy, 2005, p. 257).
The remainder of the studies focused on teacher professional development or
practice related to students with disabilities. The exploratory studies sought to iden-
tify the ‘experiences, preparedness, and attitudes’ K-12 and university science edu-
cators held regarding teaching students with LD (Norman, Caseau, & Stefanich,
1998); use of Science-Technology-Society themes to teach science (Caseau & Nor-

man, 1997); and the effects of a professional development workshop aimed at
addressing disability awareness and training for inclusive science teaching practices
for science and special educators (Kirch, Bargerhuff, Cowan, & Wheatly, 2007).
Zembylas and Isendbarger (2002) case study of a teacher’s interaction with a stu-
dent with foetal alcohol syndrome signalled certain affective characteristics for cre-
ating caring learning environments. In particular, the researcher found that the
teacher’s ‘transcendence of the LD label’, emphasis on positive behaviour reinforce-
ment and high learning expectations were critical in the students’ success in science.
Vannest et al.’s (2009) survey of grade 5 science instructional settings for ‘students
with disabilities’ (authors did not cite specific learning needs) in Texas school dis-
tricts (n = 137) highlighted implications not only for teacher professional develop-
ment, but for student success and evaluation of school learning programmes. Some
of Vannest et al.’s (2009) findings suggest that for science, 14.5% of the surveyed
districts educate all students with disabilities in general education classroom settings
exclusively, while 10.2% of those classrooms are co-taught with a special education
teacher. The researchers also found that the majority of districts (64%) utilise
blended learning settings, e.g. students with disabilities to leave their general
education setting and work with a special education teacher.
What we know from special education research

Although the research for students with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities and
EBD has been limited in science education journals, the field of special education
appears to be paying closer attention to research on science learning for this group
of SEN students. In an effort to expand current understandings about science learn-
ing for students with needs, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice (2011) pub-
lished a special edition highlighting research for students with LD. The two meta-
analyses in the issue examined effective science instruction for students with LD in
grades 4–12 (Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, & Gorsh, 2011), as well as
explored the use of graphic organisers for teaching science to intermediate and sec-
ondary students (Dexter, Park, & Hughes, 2011). The critical role of teachers’ prac-
tice was examined for reading science text (Mason & Hedin, 2011), as well as the
use of validated strategies for teaching students with LD (Brigham, Scruggs, &
Mastropieri, 2011). From the science education perspective, Villanueva and Hand
(2011) suggested that the learning environment in the science classroom (e.g.
environments that call for the evaluation and critique of varying questions, claims
and evidence) is a suitable place for all students to be included. In special education
journals, research on students with LD, EBD and students considered low achieving
has mostly focused on the use of specific intervention strategies and the success of
students in science content performance on curriculum or teacher-based assess-
ments.
Therrien et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis on science interventions for stu-
dents with LD. Based on their analysis, Therrien et al. (2011) reported moderate to
large effect sizes (.42–1.99) for structured inquiry, mnemonics and supplemental
instructional strategies (i.e. peer learning, generated explanations and explicit
instruction) as successful interventions in science classrooms for students with LD.
In their meta-analysis, Therrien et al. (2011) found that only a total of 11 articles
(12 studies), ranging from the dates of 1980–2010, met the criteria for inclusion in
their examination of science achievement studies for students with LD. From the
studies, the authors were able to report medium to large effect sizes for all catego-
rised effect sizes (for list of variables examined, see Table 1). Specifically, the
researchers were able to group interventions into three main categories (structured
inquiry, mnemonics and supplemental interventions – peer learning, generated
explanations and explicit instruction). Structured inquiry was reported as being gen-
eral inquiry-based instructional interventions with added supports for students with
LD and achieved an effect size of .727 which is considered a medium effect size.
The use of mnemonics was found to have an exceptionally large effect size (1.997).
Mnemonics was found to be used as a supplement to science instruction designed
to provide students with LD strategies to help them remember science content. The
other supplemental instructional strategies were grouped together to obtain an effect
size of (.422) which is considered to be a medium effect size. The supplemental
instructional practices were peer-learning, generated explanations and explicit
instruction.
Students with mild and moderate cognitive disabilities have shown that prob-
lems in other academic areas can contribute to lack of student success in science.
As some students with LD may have difficulties in the area of mathematics, prob-
lems in math achievement may correlate with problems in science achievement
(Olson & Platt, 2004). Parmar et al. (1994) and Steele (2004) reported that language
disabilities, particularly in reading and writing, can negatively impact science
achievement for students with SEN. Unfortunately, students with disabilities may
not only have difficulty in academic areas, but also with behavioural issues. As
highlighted by Steele (2004) students’ with LD also have behavioural difficulties in
paying attention, attitude regarding science and social interactions, all of which
influence science performance.
As it relates to students with EBD, interventions have traditionally focused on
non-academic challenges that they exhibit (Dunlap & Childs, 1996; Vaughn, Levy,
Coleman, & Bos, 2002). Extreme internal and external behaviours hinder the ability
of students with EBD to perform in general classroom settings and in most achieve-
ment areas. Interventions geared toward students with EBD are typically designed
to address classroom behaviour in the hope that by reducing extreme inappropriate
behaviours, the student will be able to perform academically as a result. By only
addressing non-academic difficulties, students with EBD have developed significant
gaps in academic achievement which creates a cycle of failure that tends to
continue over time (Lane, 2004). As a result of the lack of focus on academic
Table 1. Study characteristics analysed by Therrien et al. (2011, under review).
Learning disabilities Behaviour disorders

Dependent measures Dependent measures
• Immediate • Immediate
• Delayed/generalised • Delayed
• Generalisation
Intervention types • Behaviour
• Inquiry
• Mnemonic Intervention types
• Supplemental instruction • Inquiry
Peer learning • Mnemonic
Generated explanations • Supplemental instruction
Explicit instruction
Peer learning
Response Cards
Subject characteristics Generated explanations
• Grade level
• IQ reporting Intervention location
Study specific characteristic • Regular education classroom
• Random assignment • Special education classroom
• LD separately reported
Intervention duration
• Short
• Long
Subject specific – grade level

• Kindergarten through 6th grade
• 7th through 12th grade
achievement for students with EBD, recent studies have begun to fill that research
gap. Lane (2004) examined research on academic instruction for students with EBD
in the areas of math, reading and writing. Unfortunately, even with more attention
directed on academic achievement for students with EBD, there has still been very
little research conducted in the area of science achievement.
Examining effective interventions for students with behaviour disorders receiv-
ing science instruction, Therrien, Taylor, Watt and Kaldenberg (2012) reported simi-
lar moderate to large effect sizes based on the interventions (.35–1.80). Therrien
et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis for science instruction for students with
EBD. Their findings were quite similar to that of the LD meta-analysis reported by
Therrien et al. (2011). After searching for relevant articles from dates ranging from
1980 to 2010, the authors were able to include 10 articles with 11 studies. Results
from the meta-analyses were categorised based on the information supplied by the
included articles as deemed appropriate (for list of variables examined, see Table 1).
The authors discussed three intervention types: structured inquiry (the use of hands-
on experimentation with scaffolded instruction), mnemonic devices (teaching
students to use memory aides for retention of science facts) and supplemental
instruction (peer tutoring, discussion and instruction among peer groupings;
response cards, using manipulatives to check students on-going understanding; and

causal explanations, in-depth explanations of science facts to further student under-
standing). While no definitive description was given, the authors categorised those
studies that included supported student experimentation as structured inquiry. The
use of structured inquiry was moderately effective with an effect size of .727. The
use of mnemonics has shown strong results (ES = 1.8) in providing students with
EBD support in science factual recall. Due to the limited number of studies, the
authors aggregated supplemental instruction into one effect size score. Peer tutoring
(students assisting each other with learning science concepts), response cards (using
review cards on science lessons) and generated explanations (teachers or students
elaborating on science facts) had a moderate effective size (.350) aggregated as
supplemental instruction.
Theoretical and practical perspectives in science education

Equity in science learning
In order for all students to have equitable opportunities to engage in science there
is a need for classroom practices which remedy injustices or provide access to
material resources and instructional support (NRC, 2011). According to Lee (2005),
equitable learning opportunities take place when school science values and respects
the experiences that students bring from informal settings, articulates their prior
knowledge with science disciplines and provides adequate resources and support
comparable to mainstream students. Villanueva and Hand (2011) pose similar ideas,
but also suggest that, in order to achieve science literacy for all, the learning envi-
ronments for which students are expected to engage in and about science must be
non-threatening. To explore the idea of non-threatening environments in science, we
examine notions of equity, socially just pedagogy and science learning within the
current frameworks of science education. Given these perspectives, we hope to
illustrate how current instructional practices in science education lend success for
all students.
Socially Just pedagogy

Building on Ball and Wilson’s (1996) argument for ‘integrity of teaching’, Moje
(2007) offers an additional perspective on equity relating to pedagogical practices
that are socially just:
Teaching in socially just ways and in ways that produce social justice requires the rec-
ognition that learners need access to the knowledge they deemed valuable by the con-
tent domains, even as the knowledge they bring to their learning must not only be
recognised but valued. (p. 1)
Moje’s (2007) attention to domain-specific knowledge and the recognition of

students’ current understandings are two of four ideas that frame socially just sub-
ject-matter pedagogy. In addition to providing student access to: (1) expert subject-
matter knowledge; (2) disciplinary knowledge they care about, generated in
response to their own everyday concerns and interests, pedagogical practices that
provide opportunities to learn; (3) disciplinary knowledge and ways of knowing that
are useable in everyday life; and (4) disciplinary ways of producing knowledge via
oral and written texts afford students opportunities to learn (Moje, 2007, p. 6).
When these ideas are used in the subject matter of science, it suggests that students
are afforded opportunities to learn conceptual ideas of interest, as well as under-
stand how scientific knowledge is constructed, critiqued and communicated. These
epistemic practices are socially just because they provide students access to ideas
for which they are interested by understanding and using tools that allow them to
engage in the science discourse communities (Moje, 2007; Norris & Phillips, 2003).
While these pedagogical practices appear to be socially just, they also reflect
ideas similar to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Orkwis & McLane,
1998). Adopted from the universal design of buildings and other products, UDL
asserts learning goals that maximise accessibility for all users. Researchers contend
that in order for all students to access the curriculum, learning goals should be
appropriately challenging, and supported by materials, methods and assessment that
are diverse, flexible and responsive to the learning needs and opportunities of stu-
dents (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002). Along these lines, Black and
William’s (1998, p. 16) ‘assessment for learning’ approach encourages this accessi-
bility by encouraging teachers to work out the answers to some of the practical
problems in their classroom, ‘… reformulate the issues, perhaps in relation to fun-
damental insights, and certainly in terms that make sense to their peers in ordinary
classrooms.’
Given accessible learning conditions, views from the learning sciences suggest
that students require practice in expert ways of thinking, particularly in knowledge-
rich environments (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Research suggests that
environments which promote disciplinary understandings over discreet content mat-
ter provide students with opportunities to build connections from their current ideas
of natural phenomenon to the core ideas in science, as well as to help construct a
scientifically acceptable framework (Hodson, 2009; Norton-Meier, Hand, Hocken-
berry, & Wise, 2008). Researchers such as Ford and Yore (2012) contend that our
current understanding about the theories related to cognition and learning (Brans-
ford, National Research Council (US). Committee on Developments in the Science
of Learning, & Educational Practice, 2000), namely critical thinking, reflection and
metacognition (e.g. ‘thinking about thinking’ or personal accountability of our
thoughts and judgments) require a convergence of frameworks. When students
engage in reasoning, thinking critically and reflecting on new understandings, cog-
nitive processes and skills are not discrete, but are interdependent constructs of
learning.
Furthermore, as educators, we recognise that students bring an existing set of
ideas to the classroom and that their prior knowledge serves as an anchor and a
starting point from which to consider, connect and challenge new ideas. Using the
ideas gleaned from UDL, Dolan and Hall (2001) equate the universal design of
architecture to learning, insofar as the design for buildings or learning considers the
needs of all possible users and maximises the potential usage for all. For example,
to maximise learning in the classroom, the materials and instructional methodology
should accommodate the diverse needs to the students (Cawley, Foley, & Miller,
2003). What appears to be important is that, theoretically and pragmatically, the
frameworks of socially just pedagogy, UDL, learning sciences and science educa-
tion, exercise similar overarching ideas to produce better outcomes in learning.
Attention to students’ prior knowledge and engagement in knowledge-rich environ-
ments provide benefits to all students in two distinct ways: (1) it provides flexibility
in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate

knowledge and skills and in the ways students are engaged and (2) reduces barriers
in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports and challenges, and
maintains high achievement expectations for all students (Higher Education Oppor-
tunity Act, 2007).
Embedded and immersion instruction

From special education and science education, use of embedded and immersive
instruction reflects these knowledge-rich environments whereby the technical
aspects of a discipline are taught in conjunction with the content (Simpson, Hynd,
Nist, & Burrell, 1997). Several studies have suggested that the use of embedded
instruction can work for students with various types of needs and disabilities, e.g.
developmental disabilities (Johnson & McDonnell, 2004), moderate disabilities

(McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002) and extensive support needs
(McDonnell et al., 2006). In each of these studies, the students were able to learn
specific targeted skills through embedded instruction in general education
classrooms.
Ideas regarding embedded instruction, or what Cavagnetto (2010) referred to as
being ‘immersed’ in the discourse practices of science, are critical for understanding
effective science instruction as students with special needs (along with their nondis-
abled peers) are required to engage not only in understanding the content areas of
science (e.g. life processes and living things, materials and their properties and
physical properties), but are also required to understand and engage in aspects of
scientific inquiry such as planning, obtaining, presenting and evaluating evidence
(Metz, 2008). However, from classroom to classroom, the implementation of
inquiry and the use of argument vary in orientation and approach (Tsai, 2007). Duf-
fy and Anderson (1984) suggest that the differences stem from teachers’ personal
beliefs about learning and science, and to what extent those beliefs influence the
opportunities that they create for students to appropriate new ideas and practices.
The variations of inquiry are recognisable when we consider the levels at which
students, teachers or instructional materials (i.e. science kits) direct learning
(Bransford, 2000). For example, Tsai (2007) found that teacher-centred classrooms
which utilised tutorial problems in science tended to be led by teachers with
positivist-aligned scientific epistemic views (SEVs), whereas, teachers with con-
structivist-oriented SEVs allotted more time for discussion, inquiry and conceptual
understanding. While teachers may employ a number of instructional strategies in
the classroom, there is a growing body of research that suggests that teachers’
instructional practices influence students’ scientific explanation (McNeill & Krajcik,
2008) and that students develop richer arguments and get a better understanding
about scientific argumentation if they are able to negotiate their ideas from an
authentic experience (Sandoval, 2003; Sawyer, 2006).
In a review of interventions which promote scientific literacy, Cavagnetto (2010)
focused on the disciplinary practice of argumentation. Fifty-four articles were
reviewed and the criteria for assessing scientific literacy included: (a) when
argument is used in the intervention, (b) for what the interventions are designed to
stimulate, and (c) what aspects of science are present in the interventions. The
results from the analyses yielded three distinct categories of pedagogical
orientations utilised to teach argument in the classroom: (1) ‘Structure’, instruction
on the structure of argument to learn and apply scientific argument (e.g. IDEAS
project: Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004;
Claims, evidence and reasoning structure: McNeill, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik, 2008;
McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006); (2) ‘Immersion’, immersion in science
for learning scientific argument (e.g. Concept cartoons: Keogh & Naylor, 1999; Per-
sonally seeded discussions: Clark & Sampson, 2007; Science Writing Heuristic
(SWH): Hand & Keys, 1999); and (3) ‘Socioscientific’, emphasis on the interaction
of science and society (e.g. Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004).
According to Cavagnetto (2010), all three approaches have merit in developing
communication skills, critical thinking and metacognition; however, the immersion
approaches appeared to offer students the opportunity to understand the culture,
practice and discourse of science. Duschl, Maeng and Sezen (2011) highlight com-
parable research programmes (e.g. Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas, 2008; Metz, 2008)
which emphasise ‘instruction-assisted development of learning’ (Duschl et al., 2011,

p. 137). Immersion is a critical feature of this approach to learning, along with an
emphasis on the
centrality of big ideas in the practices; entwining of content and process; curiosity as a
drive for doing science; discovery and explanation as top level goals; challenge of
making sense of the ill-structured; and the social nature of scientific knowledge –
building practices. (p. 137)
Similarly, in immersive ABI approaches, students learn how scientists work when
their own investigations and arguments are fundamental to understanding a scien-
tific principle. Cavagnetto (2010) asserts that ‘by using scaffolds as a guide for
completing science inquiry, students are required to both construct understanding
and build their understanding around an argument framework’ (p. 137). Aligned
with socially just pedagogy, as well as theoretical constructs in science education,
immersion instruction provides students access to disciplinary knowledge as well as
expert subject-matter knowledge; two forms of understanding which are critical for
engaging all students in the discourse community of science and empowering them
to think and act critically about issues that affect their personal lives (Pearson,
Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). The implications for SEN students are nested in the idea
of equipping all students with the tools to critically engage in science as a necessity
of functional living and life experiences.
Successful approaches to achieve ‘science for all’

As a goal of science literacy, students should be able to use science knowledge to
think critically about important decisions that affect their well-being in and out of
the school context. Yet, how students develop proficiency in science and engage in
thinking that centres on questioning and critiquing information largely depends on
the type of learning opportunities students are afforded in the classroom. An exam-
ple of an approach to science learning which incorporates principles of socially just
pedagogy, UDL and immersive ABI is the SWH. An ABI approach, such as the
SWH, allows students to practice and engage in expert ways of thinking through
asking questions, conducting investigations, developing claims and evidentiary
explanations.
The SWH is an immersive, ABI approach that has demonstrated success in

terms of both teacher implementation and student achievement (Hand & Keys,
1999). Stemming from writing-to-learn research, scientific argument and embedded
language opportunities are critical practices of the approach. In US studies (Akkus,
Gunel, & Hand, 2007; Rudd, Greenbowe, & Hand, 2007), students’ gains in con-
ceptual understanding, students’ critical thinking skills, teachers’ inquiry implemen-
tation (Akkus et al., 2007), as well as students’ efficacy (Putti, 2011), were
attributed to the epistemic practices of developing scientific arguments from inquiry
investigations and engaging in multiple opportunities to defend and debate the
outcomes of these investigations. Similarly, international studies point to growth in
students’ conceptual ideas through ABI writing tasks in Korea (e.g. Nam & Kil,
2012) and responses to open-ended test questions in Turkey (e.g. Gunel, Akkus,
& Ozer-Keskin, 2012). Collectively, these studies demonstrate a growth in science
understanding from students who are engaged in epistemic practices such as gener-
ating questions, design procedures, collect and interpret data, generate claims and
evidence, as well as the practices of critique, such as challenging of ideas through
discussion, comparing ideas to alternative sources, analyse contributions of others,
and reflecting on changes to ideas.
Throughout the learning process, students are required to negotiate their under-
standings of the conceptual idea or ‘big idea’ across multiple representations, such
as pictures, text, graphs or equations, as well as negotiate across multiple situations.
Additionally, knowledge is negotiated by the constitutive act of writing and critical
reflection. The creation of a classroom environment where students are expected to
critique and question the ideas of their classmates is an essential aspect of the peda-
gogy (Villanueva & Hand, 2011). Students should be provided with opportunities to
engage in posing questions, gathering data, making claims based on evidence, and
checking their assertions across against current scientific norms. Small groups are
often used to prepare material for public whole class negotiation. At the whole class
level, students are required to present and defend/debate their claims and evidence.
SWH research and SEN students

Recent studies have examined the use of the SWH approach for students with dis-
abilities. The SWH’s effect on science achievement and critical thinking skills for
students with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities has been the focus thus far.
Analysis regarding science achievement for students with mild cognitive disabilities
(Taylor et al., 2012) and critical thinking skills (Chanlen & Hand, 2011; Taylor,
Chanlen, Therrien, & Hand, under review) for low-achieving students and students
with disabilities has been promising.
Academic achievement
Beyond specific classroom content, Taylor et al. (under review) examined the effec-
tiveness of the SWH approach on students with disabilities, as identified by the
school district as having Individual Education Programmes (IEPs) on standardised
science achievement proficiency scores over multiple grades in school year and lon-
gitudinally for students tracked over six years. The authors focused on one school
district that had been using the SWH approach in grades 3 through 10 for 10 years.
Comparing science proficiency scores with reading and math proficiency scores,
respectively, Taylor et al. (under review) reported that mean scores for students with
disabilities were higher in science achievement than reading and math achievement
for grades 3 through 8 in 2009–2010 school year. The researchers also reported that
when comparing proficiency differences in reading/science and math/science for
IEP and non-IEP students, respectively, IEP students displayed larger differences in
five out of seven grades for both comparisons.
Longitudinally, the authors examined the science proficiency scores of 23 stu-
dents with IEPs from the target SWH school tracked over six years (grades 3
through 8). Their scores were compared to the science proficiency scores of IEP
students at the state level over the same period. In four of the six years, the authors
reported that students with IEPs at the SWH target group reached higher proficiency
scores in science achievement than students with IEPs at the state level.
Critical thinking skills

Research regarding the use of the SWH approach and how it impacts critical think-
ing has begun to take shape with two recent studies. Chanlen and Hand (2011)
examined how critical thinking skills, as measured by the Cornell Critical Thinking
exam, are affected by students immersed in the SWH approach over the course of
three years. In reporting their findings, the authors differentiated the effects by spe-
cific subgroups including students with IEPs identified as having disabilities. Using
a 2 2 analysis of variance, a significant interaction effect was found between
group (SWH treatment and control) and time (pre-test and post-test) for the first of
the three years. Post-hoc analyses for the first year interaction significance found a
main effect for time but not group. Examining simple effects for pre- and post-test
gains, the researchers found that students with disabilities in SWH classrooms had
significant gain scores and medium effect sizes for all three years (see Table 2).
Taylor et al. (under review) studied the effects of the SWH approach improving
pre- and post-test scores on a critical thinking exam (Cornell Critical Thinking)
comparing high-achieving and low-achieving students. Low-achieving students were
identified as those scoring at 40% percentile or less and high-achieving students
were those scoring at 90% percentile or higher on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
reading subscale. In the quasi-experimental design, the researchers compared gain
scores for low-achieving and high-achieving students in a treatment group (SWH
classrooms) and low-achieving treatment and low-achieving control groups. The
study revealed that in all examined areas of the Cornell Critical Thinking exam
(overall and four subscale scores: induction, deduction, observation and assump-
tion), both low-achieving and high-achieving treatment group students made signifi-
cant gains from pre-test to post-test. Low-achieving students in the control group
had significant gains in only one subscale area (induction) at the .05 level. In their
Table 2. Students with disabilities pre- and post-test gain analyses in SWH classrooms.
Analyses
F (df, n) p Cohen’s d
Year 1 22.099 (1, 50) .001 .765 Medium
Year 2 7.001 (1, 52) .011 .430 Medium
Year 3 8.554 (1, 48) .005 .467 Medium
final analyses, Taylor et al. (2012) compared pre- and post-test effect sizes for low-
achieving treatment and control groups as well as the high-achieving treatment
group on the Cornell Critical Thinking overall scores and subscale scores. The
authors reported that students in the low-achieving treatment group had comparable
effect sizes to the high-achieving treatment group and much higher scores than the
low-achievement control group.
Research regarding the SWH approach and its effectiveness for students with
disabilities is still emerging from a variety of researchers. Evidence emerging from
the described studies provides growing support for the use of the SWH for students
with disabilities and those students considered low achieving. More research is
needed to better understand what components of the SWH approach provide stu-
dents with the scaffolds they need and what other components and strategies can be
used in conjunction with the SWH to make it more effective. The current research
is encouraging for supporting the continued use of the SWH for students with dis-
abilities and the progression of research agendas associated with the SWH.
Shifting ideas about the practice of teaching and learning is a major focus of the
SWH. A number of diverse student populations have experienced improved science
achievement through the use of the SWH approach. Students with special needs,
particularly students with cognitive and behavioural disabilities have shown some
levels of success in SWH classrooms.
Instructional supports and scaffolds for successful science learning

Previous research on students with disabilities performance in science has suggested
strategies, theories and practices that incidentally align with the SWH approach. As
reported by Therrien et al. (2011, 2012), there are a number of strategies that seem
to be effective for student with cognitive and behavioural disabilities (i.e. LD and
EBD) in science learning. As a part of the approach, the SWH uses structured
inquiry and supplemental instructional strategies (e.g. peer-assisted learning and stu-
dent-generated explanations) that previous research studies have found to be suc-
cessful for students with SEN (see Table 3).
Structured inquiry
As suggested by major professional science organisations and the NRC, inquiry-
based instruction should be used to encourage the learning of science content and
the practices of science in general (AAAS, 1997; NRC, 1996). Inquiry-based
instruction allows students to investigate through experimentation, problem-solving
through negotiation, and extends learning beyond simple content instruction (Min-
ner, Levy, & Century, 2010). For students with disabilities, Scruggs and Mastropieri
(2007) recommended the use of inquiry-based instruction as a means of achieving
depth of learning for science content. The SWH approach uses inquiry at its core
and has shown to have an impact on improving science achievement outcomes for
students with disabilities (Taylor et al., under review). By using an embedded
instructional practice and teacher and student templates (see Table 4), the SWH
allows for a more structured approach to inquiry for teaching students with
disabilities as suggested by previous researchers (Scruggs, Mastropieri, Brigham, &
Bakken, 1993; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Magnusen, 1999; Scruggs, & Mastropieri,
2007).
Table 3. Alignment of evidence-based practices and the SWH approach.
Evidence-based practices SWH components

Structured inquiry
• Involves supported student experimen- • Uses inquiry-based instruction
tation or hands-on instruction • Provides templates for teachers and
• Allows students to connect broad sci- students
ence concepts • Includes experimentation
• Focuses on the ‘big ideas’
Supplemental instructional strategies

(a) Peer tutoring/peer assisted learning
• Uses tiered materials based on indi- • Student directed classrooms
vidualised levels of support • Whole class and small groups discus-

• Peers assist each other in learning sions
content • Student interaction essential
(b) Generated explanations

• Elaboration of science concepts • Multiple representation and styles
• Critical thinking of instruction and required for science understanding
learning required • Uses argument/negotiation to promote
critical thinking
Table 4. Student and teacher template for the science writing heuristic approach.
Student template Teacher template

Beginning What are my questions? Exploration of pre-instruction understanding
Ideas through individual or group concept mapping
or working through a computer simulation
Tests What did I do? Pre-laboratory activities, including informal
writing, making observations, brainstorming,
and posing questions
Observations What did I see? Participation in laboratory activity
Claims What can I claim? Negotiation phase I – writing personal
meanings for laboratory activity
Evidence How do I know? How can I Negotiation phase II – sharing and
support my claim comparing data interpretations in small
groups
Reading How do my ideas compare Negotiation phase III – comparing science
with others ideas? ideas to textbooks for other printed resources
Reflection How have my ideas changed? Negotiation phase IV – individual reflection
and writing
Writing What is the best explanation Exploration of post-instruction understanding
to describe what I have through concept mapping, group discussion
learned? or writing a clear explanation
Broader outcomes, which intended with the use of the SWH approach include
the notion that students understand functional science (science literacy) and are able
to perform the process of thinking scientifically (critical thinking). Science literacy

for all students, including those with disabilities, involves making science relevant
for personal use (AAAS, 1993). As it relates to critical thinking skills, the SWH
teaches students to connect background knowledge with the new learned informa-
tion to make reasoned arguments. As suggested by Palincsar, Magnusson, Cutter
and Vincent (2002), inquiry-based instruction allows students to connect the big
ideas of science and develop reasoning skills.
Traditional science classes tend to require heavy doses of memorisation of facts
and concepts. Students with disabilities have difficulty with accessing large amounts
of information intended to be recalled from memory. As such, focus on teaching
students the ‘big ideas’ of science has been encouraged by science educators. Big
ideas are the understandings that teachers want students to conceptualise internally
by the end of the instructional unit (Hand, Norton-Meir, Staker & Bintz, 2009;
Kaldenberg, Therrien, Watt, Gorsh, & Taylor, 2011). Hand et al. (2009) recommend
the use of teaching students science content using big ideas as a means of equip-
ping them with science understandings that can be accessed anytime and used over
a lifetime. For students with disabilities, big ideas can be used to connect concepts,
ideas and vocabulary in meaningful ways allowing for better probability of informa-
tion retention. Using concept or big idea-based instruction (e.g. SWH) has been
supported through research with students with disabilities in science classrooms.
McCleery and Tindal (1999) and Gerstner and Bogner (2010) both used concept-
based instruction and found that students who received the intervention performed
better than those students who did not.
Supplemental instructional practices

Therrien et al. (2011, 2012) reported moderate effects for the use of supplemental
instructional methods for students with LD (.42) and EBD (.35), respectively. The
identified supplemental instructional methods included: (1) peer-assisted learning,
(2) explicit instruction (LD students only), (3) response cards (EBD students only),
and (4) student generated explanation. The SWH approach incorporates the use of
peer-assisted learning and student-generated explanations, two supplemental instruc-
tional strategies that have shown to be effective interventions in science classrooms,
as components of the instructional practice.
Peer-assisted learning. The SWH is designed to be a student-directed approach
to teaching and learning science. Teachers in SWH classrooms are encouraged to
allow students to help each other build upon their individual prior knowledge and
to construct new knowledge together. Mastropieri et al. (2006) were able to docu-
ment some success in improving science achievement for students with disabilities
by providing a combination of tiered materials based on individualised levels of
support and a peer-assisted learning strategy. The SWH approach uses peer-assisted
learning experiences for students to build science knowledge. SWH classrooms use
both large group and small group instruction as essential components to the
approach. In both settings, student interaction, collaboration and assistance are
essential to advancing the science lesson through discussion. Teachers using the
SWH approach learn to move instruction from whole group to small group situa-
tions, but only as a means of providing students with more opportunities to work
and help instruct each other. And while the SWH approach does not require the use
of tiered instructional materials as suggested by Mastropieri et al. (2006), it does
ask teachers to recognise differential levels of students’ prior knowledge and

provides teachers and collaborators with opportunities to create supports for stu-
dents as needed based on individual student needs.
Student-generated explanations. As reported by Therrien et al. (2011, 2012), the
supplemental instructional practice of students’ or teachers’ generated explanations
is a moderately effective strategy for classroom teaching. The SWH has a similar
component that is essential to the approach. As the SWH is considered as an ABI
approach and consists of the practice of questioning and argumentation, these pro-
cesses are indirectly associated with teacher or student explanations of science con-
tent. Kuhn and Udell (2003) describe argumentation as reason between two or more
individuals. SWH classrooms provide students with opportunities for whole class
and small group debates. Teachers are asked to guide those debates through ques-
tioning and suggestion, but are also asked to ‘take a back seat’ in leading the debate
and discussion process. Erduran et al. (2004) suggest that argumentation plays an
important role in building scientific explanations. The NSES (NRC, 1996) noted
that students should learn how to develop theories and explanations and how to
argue about those explanations. Based on the NRC recommendations, SWH class-
rooms give students room to develop questions related to big idea, write scientific
claims regarding those questions and the opportunity to support those claims with
providing evidence. In the midst of the questions, claims and evidence process, stu-
dents are allowed to question or support the information provided by their fellow
classmates. Consequently, in SWH classrooms, the students are generating the lines
of argumentation (discussion and debate) which allows them to be active partici-
pants in the learning process.
Ultimately, the SWH provides students with disabilities with opportunities to
learn science using a variety of evidence-based strategies all in one approach. Using
strategies explored by previous researchers and synthesised by Therrien et al. (2011,
2012), SWH classrooms both directly and indirectly employ these strategies, varia-
tions of these strategies or practices that mimic the purposes of the strategies. Theo-
retically, by incorporating more than one effective strategy, the SWH approach has
been gaining quantifiable success for students with special needs in the areas of sci-
ence achievement and additionally in critical thinking ability.
Implications for research and pedagogical practices in science education

As science and special education research communities, it is critical that we con-
tinue to question the theoretical and practical considerations of the classroom.
While science teachers and educators have cited practical barriers to achieving
greater inclusion and equity in science classrooms, such as inadequate equipment,
communication difficulties, insufficient numbers of instructional assistants and tools
in the classroom and lack of overall administrative support, there appears to be
other issues worthy of consideration. This review of literature and the outcomes of
the research on the SWH highlight the importance of engaging students in science
discourse and practice, yet it also raises challenges regarding fulfilling the
cognitive, epistemic and linguistic goals of school science and addressing the
needs of the SEN learners. For instance, more empirical studies are required to
understand how all students, particularly students with special needs, engage in
holistic approaches to science learning. In other words, how are effective strategies
conceptualised, used and aligned to support certain pedagogical approaches to

learning science?
This paper highlights many research studies regarding effective strategies that
afford greater participation for SEN students in science and, as suggested by the
theoretical perspective of UDL, there may be multiple ways in which teachers and
students of all abilities use these tools to achieve the universal goals for learning.
The use of scaffolds and supports, opportunities to represent understandings in
multi-modes, modifications based on prior knowledge and experiences, systematic
feedback and non-threatening environments are aligned to theories of epistemologi-
cal development which suggest that an individual’s beliefs about knowledge and
knowing may be derived and used according to epistemological resources that are
environmentally contextual (Hammer & Elby, 2002). As such, it may be beneficial
for researchers to investigate what strategies or suite of strategies should be used or
developed to assist teachers and students in the immersive experience. As govern-

mental agencies and school administrators move to performance-based measures of
student achievement, what type of outcome measures are useful and appropriate to
measure SEN learner progress?
The collaboration between science and special education educators has been
cited as a critical step in achieving greater science success for all students. Yet, little
is known about how science and special education teachers ‘join forces’ that make
way for socially just science pedagogy. More examples which describe the suc-
cesses and challenges of these collaborations may help the education community
address these realities in the science classroom. Moreover, it would be useful to
understand how science and special education teachers work together to modify,
accommodate and provide resources for students with special needs. As the commu-
nication and evaluation of evidence is emphasised in the teaching and learning of
science, our communities require a greater understanding of SEN students’ achieve-
ments and limitations to engage in these disciplinary practices of knowledge pro-
duction. While there are instruments that attempt to measure episodes and overall
quality of argumentation (e.g. Sampson, Enderle, & Phelps Walker, 2012), to our
knowledge, these measures have not been widely used with SEN students. Lastly,
the initial results from the SWH research highlight that immersive, ABI approaches
benefit all learners. However, we recognise the need to have a richer and deeper
understanding of the mechanisms of success.
Conclusion
In order for all students to be engaged in science, where argumentation is a core
component, they need to learn to use language, think and act in ways that enable
them to be identified as members of the scientifically literate community and partic-
ipate in the activities of that community (Wallace & Narayan, 2002, p. 4). Students
with special needs – as with all students – are able to achieve these goals, yet given
current perspectives on science education and learning, it is critical that the ideas
that students bring to the classroom are understood and valued. When students are
immersed in the discourse practices of inquiry and argument, they test their own
questions and determine what data they need to generate evidence. This process
provides students with the opportunity to critically examine their work, critique
their peers and discuss their explanations in a meaningful way. In traditional science
classrooms, students rarely have opportunities to discuss, debate and construct argu-
ments for their ideas. However, the SWH and other embedded approaches empha-
sise the teacher’s role in establishing space for students to engage in learning
though activities and reflection in small groups and whole-class settings. In particu-
lar, the teacher is responsible for setting the expectation that all students will publi-
cally defend, debate and challenge their ideas in and about science.
For science learning to be equitable, all students need to be engaged in appropri-
ating the language, culture, practice and dispositions of science in environments
where, as an established part of the classroom culture and norms, students are
required to pose questions, make claims based on evidence and do so in a multitude
of forums (Moje, 2007; Villanueva & Hand, 2011).
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US
Department of Education, through Grants R305A090094 and R305B10005 to The

University of Iowa. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent
views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.
Note
1. Science education journals with the highest impact factors for Education and Educational
Research, Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences Edition (2010).
Notes on contributors
Mary Grace Villanueva is an institute for education sciences postdoctoral research scholar at
the University of Iowa. Her research interests include the role of language and literacy in
science education, argument-based inquiry and professional learning for science teachers.
Jonte Taylor is an assistant professor at the Pennsylvania State University. His research
interests include science instruction for students with mild cognitive disabilities focused on
task engagement and innovative teaching practices.
William Therrien is an associate professor and co-director of the center for disability
research and education at the University of Iowa. His current research interests include
science and reading instruction for students with LD.
Brian Hand is a science education professor at the University of Iowa. His research interests
include writing to learn approaches to science and implementing science argumentation
approaches to the learning of science.
References
Adamson, L. B., Foster, M. A., Roark, M. L., & Reed, D. B. (1998). Doing a science pro-
ject: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35
(8), 845–857.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all
Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Project 2061: Sci-
ence for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for sci-
ence literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1997). Resources for sci-
ence literacy: Professional development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry based approach known as
the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differ-
ences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.
Anderman, E. M. (1998). The middle school experience: Effects on the math and science
achievement of adolescents with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 128–138.
Ball, D. L., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the
moral and intellectual. American Education Research Journal, 33(1), 155–192.
Barton, A. C. (2002). Urban science education studies: A commitment to equity, social
justice and a sense of place. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 1–37.
Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly
handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 29(6), 555–570.
Billingsley, B., Griffin, C., Smith, S., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of teacher
induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions. National
Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development,
Gainsville, FL.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through class-
room assessment. London: King’s College London School of Education.
Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general education teachers
to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Associa-
tion of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and the National Center for, Learning
Disabilities (NCLD).
Bransford, J. D., National Research Council (US). Committee on Developments in the Sci-
ence of Learning, & National Research Council (US). Committee on Learning Research
and Educational Practice. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 223–232.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in sci-
ence and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352.
Caseau, D., & Norman, K. (1997). Special education teachers use science-technology-society
(STS) themes to teach science to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 8(1), 55–68.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument inter-
ventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.
Cawley, J., Foley, T., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and students with mild disabilities:
Principles of universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 160–171.
Cawley, J. F., & Parmar, R. S. (2001). Literacy proficiency and science for students with
learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17(2), 105–125.
Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2011). The impacts of the science writing heuristic (SWH)
approach on students critical thinking skills. Paper presented at the International Meeting
of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Minneapolis, MN
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online
argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.
Cole, C., & McLesky, J. (1997). Secondary inclusion programs for students with mild dis-
abilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(6), 1–15.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate teacher assessment and support
consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue.
Washington, DC: CCSSO.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review
of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.
Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of graphic
organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications
for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 26(4), 204–213.
Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale
assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22–25.
Duffy, G. R., & Anderson, L. (1984). Editorial comment: Guest commentary teachers’
theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology, 5(1–2), 97–104.
Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. E. (1996). Intervention research in emotional and behavioral disor-
ders: An analysis of studies from 1980–1993. Behavioral disorders, 21(2), 125–136.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences:
A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments
in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science
Education, 88(6), 915–933.
Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science
courses in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83(1),
55–75.
Fidler, D. J., & Nadel, L. (2007). Education and children with Down syndrome: Neurosci-
ence, development, and intervention. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities

Research Reviews, 13(3), 262–271.
Ford, C. L., & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition,
and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and class-
room practice. In A. Zohar & J. D. Yehudit (Eds.), Metacognition in science education
(pp. 251–271). New York, NY: Springer.
Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Cognitive achievement and motivation in Hands-on
and teacher-centred science classes: Does an additional hands-on consolidation phase
(concept mapping) optimise cognitive learning at work stations? International Journal of
Science Education, 32(7), 849–870.
Gorard, S., & See, B. H. (2009). The impact of socio-economic status on participation and
attainment in science. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 93–129.
Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and partici-
pation. Science Education, 81(31), 259–276.
Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (1999). Challenges to meaningful learning in African-
American females at an urban science high school. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 21(6), 611–632.
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Gunel, M., Akkus, R., & Ozer-Keskin, M. (2012). The effect of the SWH implementation in
Turkish school system: Results from a scale up research project. Paper presented at the
National Association for Research in Science Teacher Education conference in Indianap-
olis, IN, March 25–29.
H.R. 1350––108th Congress: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004. (2003). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved July 4, 2012,
from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr
H.R. 4137––110th Congress: Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2007). In Gove.Track.us
(database of federal legislation). Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.govtrack.us/
cogress/bills/110/hr4137
Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2008). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special
education (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer &
P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge
and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical
role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hardman, M. L., Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W. (2011). Human exceptionality: School, com-
munity, and family (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. (2010). Connecting high school
physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice:
A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the gen-
eral curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Edu-
cation, 77(6), 685–711.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a personalized approach.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical
action. Science Education, 83(6), 775–796.
Hodson, D. (2009). Put your money where your mouth is: Towards an action-oriented
science curriculum. Journal for Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(1), 2–15.
Houston, L. S., Fraser, B., & Ledbetter, C. (2008). An evaluation of elementary school sci-
ence kits in terms of classroom environment and student attitudes. Journal of Elementary
Hutchinson, N. L. (1998). Science success for students with disabilities. Science Education,
82(2), 287–289.
Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of

embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabilities.
Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1), 46–63.
Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences,
interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.
Jones, G. M., Robertson, L., Gardner, G., Dotger, S., & Blanchard, M. R. (2011). Differen-
tial use of elementary science kits. International Journal of Science Education, 1–21.
Kaldenberg, E. R., Therrien, W. J., Watt, S., Gorsh, J., & Taylor, J. C. (2011). Three keys to
success in science for students with learning disabilities – learn how to use big ideas,
mnemonics, and graphic organizers to empower students with learning disabilities. Sci-
ence Scope, 35(3), 36.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An
evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 84, 757–792.
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(4),
663–692.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74
(5), 1245–1260.
Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emo-
tional/behavioral disorders: 1990 to present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R.
Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–
486). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction
with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65–93.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 431–440.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology
of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529.
Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (Eds.). (2005). Special teaching for special children? Berkshire:
Open University Press.
LeRoy, B., Samuel, P., Bahr, P. R., Evans, P., & Deluca, M. (2008). PISA 2006 and the partic-
ipation of students with special educational needs. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Lyon, E. G., Bunch, G. C., & Shaw, J. M. (2012). Navigating the language demands of an
inquiry-based science performance assessment: Classroom challenges and opportunities
for english learners. Science Education, 96(4), 631–651.
Martin, E. W., Martin, R., & Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of
special education. The Future of Children, 6(1), 25–39.
Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. R. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with
learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 26(4), 214–222.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum:
Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(72), 84.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, 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(3), 130–137.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a text-
book approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(3), 245–263.
McCleery, J. A., & Tindal, G. A. (1999). Teaching the scientific method to at-risk students
and students with learning disabilities through concept anchoring and explicit instruction.
Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 7–18.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded
instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(4),
363–377.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., Risen, T., Jameson, M., & Kercher, K.
(2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes

with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125–138.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific
arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating
the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ con-
struction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Meece, J. L., & Jones, M. G. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in sci-
ence: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 393–406.
Mertens, D. M. (1991). Instructional factors related to hearing impaired adolescents’ interest
in science. Science Education, 75(4), 429–441.
Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary
school science classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation
of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 28(13), 1499–1521.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London:
King’s College of London School of Education.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction? What is
it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the liter-
ature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.
Mutegi, J. W. (2010). The inadequacies of “science for all” and the necessity and nature of a
socially transformative curriculum approach for African American science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 248(3), 301–316.
Nam, J., & Kil, H. (2012). The impacts of writing in argument-based inquiry on science
learning. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teacher
Education conference in Indianapolis, IN, March 25–29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Science 2009.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2011451.pdf
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (Ed.). (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2012). Position statement: Students with
disabilities. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/disabili-
ties.aspx
Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in
inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82(2), 127–146.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to
scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims and evi-
dence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Olitsky, S., Flohr, L. L., Gardner, J., & Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradiction, and
the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
47(10), 1209–1228.
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. C. (2004). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Strong perform-
ers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States.
Paris: OECD.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles
for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP Special Project
on Interagency Information Dissemination. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED423654). www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
accno=ED423654
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in
school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Cutter, J., & Vincent, M. (2002). Supporting guided
inquiry instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 88–91.
Park Rogers, M., Abell, S., Marra, R., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K., & Cole, J. (2010). Orienta-
tions to science teacher professional development: An exploratory study. Journal of Sci-
ence Teacher Education, 21(3), 309–328.
Parmar, R. S., Deluca, C. B., & Janczak, T. M. (1994). Investigations into the relationship
between science and language abilities of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 15(2), 117–126.
Parsons, E. R. C., Tran, L. U., & Gomillion, C. T. (2008). An investigation of student roles
within small, racially mixed science groups: A racial perspective. International Journal
of Science Education, 30(11), 1469–1489.
Patton, J., Polloway, E., & Cronin, M. (1990). A survey of special education teachers relative to
science for the handicapped. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Unpublished manuscript.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service
of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.
Piliouras, P., & Evangelou, O. (2012). Teachers’ inclusive strategies to accommodate 5th
grade pupils’ crossing of cultural borders in two Greek multicultural science classrooms.
Research in Science Education, 42(2), 329–351.
Pisha, B., & Stahl, S. (2005). The promise of new learning environments for students with
disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(1), 67–75.
Putti, A. (2011). High school students’ attitudes and beliefs on using the science writing heuristic
in an advanced placement chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(4), 516–521.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2001). Science. Planning, teaching and assessing
the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. London: OCA.
Rakow, S. J., & Bermudez, A. B. (1993). Science is “ciencia”: Meeting the needs of His-
panic American students. Science Education, 77(6), 669–683.
Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in
science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rudd, J., Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic to improve
students’ understanding of general equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12),
2007–2011.
S. 250––111th Congress: Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2009 (US). (2009). In Gov-
Track.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved July 4, 2012, from http://www.gov-
track.us/congress/bills/111/s250
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the
nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(4), 387–409.
Salleh, R., Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (2007). When a bilingual child describes living
things: An analysis of conceptual understandings from a language perspective. Research
in Science Education, 37(3), 291–312.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Phelps Walker, J. (2012). The development and validation of
the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation proto-
col: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. In M.
Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 235–264). New York, NY:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explana-
tions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

Sawyer, R. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Science and students with mental retardation:
An analysis of curriculum features and learner characteristics. Science Education, 79(3),
251–271.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case
for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal,
15(2), 57–74.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for students with
disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 21–44.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Brigham, F. J., & Bakken, J. P. (1993). Reading versus
doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science
learning in special education classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1–15.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Magnusen, M. (1999). Activities-oriented science
instruction for students with disabilities. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 22, 240–249.
Shepard, T., & Adjogah, S. (1994). Science performance of students with learning
disabilities on language-based measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9
(4), 219–225.
Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of com-
mon ground. Science Education, 86(6), 803–820.
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in
50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264.
Simpson, M. L., Hynd, C. R., Nist, S. L., & Burrell, K. I. (1997). College academic assis-
tance programs and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 39–87.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher
education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 33(1), 8–24.
Soodak, L., Podell, D., & Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as pre-
dictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4),
480–497.
Steele, M. M. (2004). Teaching science to students with learning problems in the elementary
classroom. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 19–21.
Taylor, J. C., Chanlen, N., Therrien, W., & Hand, B. (under review). Improving low-achiev-
ing elementary students’ critical thinking skills through an argument-based inquiry
approach to science.
Taylor, J. C., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2012).
Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with
disabilities: Snapshot and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students
with Disabilities, 15(1), 27–39.
Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S., & Kaldenberg, E. (under review). Science instruction
for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science
instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(4), 188–203.
Tsai, C. (2007). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction
and students’ views. Science Education, 91(2), 222–243.
UK Department for Education. (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special
educational needs and disability – A consultation. London: The Stationary Office
Limited.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Sal-
amanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics
Assessment. Arlington, VA: NAEP.
Valdez, J., & Freve, Y. (2001). The effect of inquiry-based teaching on standardized reading
scores. Fresno, CA: Fresno Unified School District – Urban Systemic Program.
Vannest, K., Mason, B., Brown, L., Dyer, N., Maney, S., & Adiguzel, T. (2009). Instruc-
tional settings in science for students with disabilities: Implications for teacher education.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 353–363.
Varelas, M., Kane, J. M., & Donahue Wylie, C. (2011). Young African American children’s
representations of self, science, and school: Making sense of difference. Science Educa-
tion, 95(5), 824–851.
Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students
with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 36(1), 2–13.
Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2011). Science for all: Engaging students with special needs
in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 233–240.
Wallace, C. S., & Narayan, R. (2002). Acquiring the social language of science: Building
science language identities through inquiry based investigations. Ontological, Epistemo-
logical, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy:
Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Weisgerber, R. A., & Gallagher, J. (Eds.). (1993). Success for students with disabilities.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all-more than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C.
D. Tan, & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving
forward (pp. 5–23). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
Zembylas, M., & Isenbarger, L. (2002). Teaching science to students with learning
disabilities: Subverting the myths of labeling through teachers’ caring and enthusiasm.
Research in Science Education, 32(1), 55–79.
Zuniga, K., Olson, J. K., & Winter, M. (2005). Science education for rural Latino/a students:
Course placement and success in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42
(4), 376–402.

2012 - Science For Students With Special Needs - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2012 - Science For Students With Special Needs - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

2012 - Science For Students With Special Needs - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]

On: 31 July 2014, At: 12:58

Studies in Science Education

Science education for students with

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Science education for students with special needs

Students with special needs tend to show signiﬁcantly lower achievement in

*Corresponding author. Email: marygrace-villanueva@uiowa.edu

ISSN 0305-7267 print/ISSN 1940-8412 online

non-routine problem solving, self-management/self-development and systems think-

Science for students with special education needs (SEN)

Science as a vehicle for learning

tions and Curriculum Authority [QCA], 2001).

Challenges to effective science learning

of science, learners, instruction, learning environments and professionalism. In

There is a sustained debate whether special needs-speciﬁc pedagogies exist (Lewis

Classroom-based science kits

Aims and limitations of this paper

Science education research related to students with special needs

McCarthy (2005) compared thematic-based, hands-on science teaching to

1998); use of Science-Technology-Society themes to teach science (Caseau & Nor-

What we know from special education research

Table 1. Study characteristics analysed by Therrien et al. (2011, under review).

Learning disabilities Behaviour disorders

Subject speciﬁc – grade level

response cards, using manipulatives to check students on-going understanding; and

Theoretical and practical perspectives in science education

Socially Just pedagogy

Moje’s (2007) attention to domain-speciﬁc knowledge and the recognition of

in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate

Embedded and immersion instruction

developmental disabilities (Johnson & McDonnell, 2004), moderate disabilities

which emphasise ‘instruction-assisted development of learning’ (Duschl et al., 2011,

Successful approaches to achieve ‘science for all’

The SWH is an immersive, ABI approach that has demonstrated success in

SWH research and SEN students

Critical thinking skills

Instructional supports and scaffolds for successful science learning

Table 3. Alignment of evidence-based practices and the SWH approach.

Evidence-based practices SWH components

Supplemental instructional strategies

vidualised levels of support • Whole class and small groups discus-

(b) Generated explanations

Student template Teacher template

to perform the process of thinking scientiﬁcally (critical thinking). Science literacy

Supplemental instructional practices

ask teachers to recognise differential levels of students’ prior knowledge and

Implications for research and pedagogical practices in science education

conceptualised, used and aligned to support certain pedagogical approaches to

developed to assist teachers and students in the immersive experience. As govern-

Department of Education, through Grants R305A090094 and R305B10005 to The

ence, development, and intervention. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities

Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of

(2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes

tions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

You might also like