Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction

Equity and Excellence in Education

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 252-265

  Moriarty, Mary A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34748925894     PISSN: 10665684     EISSN: 15473457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10665680701434353     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. American Psychological Association (2002) Understanding psychology learning goals and outcomes
2. Anfara Jr., V. A., Brown, K. M. and Mangione, T. L. (2002) Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31:7, pp. 28-38.
3. Bianchini, J. A., Whitney, D. J., Breton, T. D. and Hilton-Brown, B. A. (1999) Inclusive science education: Scientists' views and instructional practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Boston, MA
4. (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
5. Brown, K. (1999) Creating community in middle schools: Interdisciplinary teaming and advisory programs, Temple University, Philadelphia
6. Burgstahler, S. (1994) Increasing the representation of people with disabilities in science, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Information Technology for Development, 4:9, pp. 1-8.
7. Constas, M. A. (1992) Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29:2, pp. 253-266.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches,, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
9. Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M. and Gorman, B. S. (1995) A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88:6, pp. 353-362.
10. Dunn, R. and Waggoner, B. (1995) Comparing three innovative instructional systems. Emergency Librarian, 23:1, pp. 9-16.
11. Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, Basic Books, New York
12. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine de Gruyter, Chicago
13. Grubb, W. N. (1999) Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in a community college, Routledge, New York
14. Hahn, H. (1999) The political implications of disability definitions and data. The psychological and social impact of disability,, pp. 3-11. Springer, New York
15. Hall, L. M. and Belch, H. A. (2000) Setting the context: Reconsidering the principles of full participation and meaningful access for students with disabilities. Serving students with disabilities, pp. 5-17. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
16. Jensen, J. M., McCrary, N., Krampe, K. and Cooper, J. (2004) Trying to do the right thing: Faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17:2, pp. 81-90.
17. Kardash, C. M. and Wallace, M. L. (2001) The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93:1, pp. 199-210.
18. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
19. Lawson, A. E. (2002) Using the RTOP to evaluate reformed science and mathematics instruction. Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, pp. 89-100. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
20. (1999) The psychological & social impact of disability,, Springer, New York
21. Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
22. Meyer, A. and O'Neil, L. (2000) Beyond access: Universal design for learning. The Exceptional Parent, 30:3, pp. 59-61.
23. Miglietti, C. and Stranger, C. C. (1998) Learning styles, classroom environment preferences, teaching styles, and remedial course outcomes for underprepared adults at a two-year college. Community College Review, 26:1, pp. 1-19.
24. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000) National postsecondary student aid survey: 2000, Author, Washington, DC
25. National Center for Educational Statistics (2002) National study of postsecondary faculty, Author, Washington, DC
26. National Research Council (2001) Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
27. National Research Council (2003) Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, National Academies Press, Washington, DC
28. National Research Council (2003) National science education standards,, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
29. National Science Foundation (1996) Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, Author, Arlington, VA
30. National Science Foundation (2000) Land of plenty: Diversity as America's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology, Author, Arlington, VA
31. National Science Foundation (2004) Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, Author, Arlington, VA
32. Peterson, P. E. (2003) Ticket to nowhere: In the wake of A Nation at Risk, educators pledged to focus anew on student achievement. Two decades later, little progress has been made. Education Next, 3:2, pp. 39-46.
33. Rose, D. H. and Meyer, A. (2002) Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA
34. Rossman, G. B. and Rallis, S. F. (2003) Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research,, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
35. Sandhu, J. S. (2000) Citizenship and universal design. Aging International, 25:4, pp. 80-87.
36. Sarasin, L. C. (1998) Learning style perspective: Impact in the classroom, Atwood, Madison, WI
37. Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N. M. (1997) Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Westview, Boulder, CO
38. Silver, P., Bourke, A. B. and Strehorn, K. C. (1998) Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31:2, pp. 47-51.
39. Sireci, S. G., Zanetti, M. L., Slater, S. C. and Berger, J. B. (2001) STEMTEC evaluation report for year 4, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
40. Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant observation, Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, New York
41. Stefanich, G. P. and Norman, K. I. (1999) Teaching science to students with disabilities: Experiences of classroom teachers and science educators, Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Washington, DC
42. Sternberg, R. J. and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002) Applying the theory of successful intelligence as a basis for instruction in higher education. Applying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond, pp. 45-54. JosseyBass, San Francisco
43. Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, W., Freeman, L. M., Odell, M., Hodges, J., Edwards, L. and Johnston, R. (2001) Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101:5, pp. 232-245.
44. Taylor, P. C., Gilmer, P. J. and Tobin, K. G. (2002) Introducing transformations. Transforming undergraduate science teaching: Social constructivist perspectives, pp. 183-186. Lang, New York
45. Walczyk, J. J. and Ramsey, L. (2003) Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40:6, pp. 566-584.
46. Wolanin, T. R. and Steele, P. E. (2004) Higher education opportunities for students with disabilities, The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC