Science education for students with special needs

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 187-215

  Villanueva, Mary Grace ^a   Taylor, Jonte ^b   Therrien, William ^a   Hand, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; disciplinary literacy; inquiry; science learning; special needs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870478138     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2012.737117     Document Type: Article

References (153)

1. Adamson, L. B., Foster, M. A., Roark, M. L. and Reed, D. B. 1998. Doing a science project: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8): 845-857.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1990. Project 2061: Science for all Americans, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1997. Resources for science literacy: Professional development, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6. Akkus, R., Gunel, M. and Hand, B. 2007. Comparing an inquiry based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?. International Journal of Science Education, 29: 1745-1765.
7. 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.
8. Ball, D. L. and Wilson, S. M. 1996. Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the moral and intellectual. American Education Research Journal, 33(1): 155-192.
9. 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.
10. Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T. and 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.
11. Billingsley, B., Griffin, C., Smith, S., Kamman, M. and Israel, M. 2009. A review of teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions, Gainsville, FL: National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development.
12. Black, P. J. and Wiliam, D. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, London: King's College London School of Education.
13. Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general education teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and the National Center for, Learning Disabilities (NCLD).
14. Bransford, J. D., National Research Council (US). Committee on Developments in the Science 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.
15. Bransford, J. D. and Schwartz, D. L. 1999. Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24: 61-100.
16. Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M. A. 2011. Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4): 223-232.
17. Bybee, R. W. and Fuchs, B. 2006. Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4): 349-352.
18. Caseau, D. and 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.
19. Cavagnetto, A. R. 2010. Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3): 336-371.
20. Cawley, J., Foley, T. and Miller, J. 2003. Science and students with mild disabilities: Principles of universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3): 160-171.
21. Cawley, J. F. and Parmar, R. S. 2001. Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17(2): 105-125.
22. Chanlen, N. and Hand, B. 2011. The impacts of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach on students critical thinking skills, Minneapolis, MN: Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education.
23. Clark, D. B. and Sampson, V. D. 2007. Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3): 253-277.
24. Cole, C. and McLesky, J. 1997. Secondary inclusion programs for students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(6): 1-15.
25. 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.
26. Davis, E. A., Petish, D. and Smithey, J. 2006. Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4): 607-651.
27. Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J. and 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.
28. Dolan, R. P. and Hall, T. E. 2001. Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4): 22-25.
29. Duffy, G. R. and Anderson, L. 1984. Editorial comment: Guest commentary teachers' theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology, 5(1-2): 97-104.
30. Dunlap, G. and Childs, K. E. 1996. Intervention research in emotional and behavioral disorders: An analysis of studies from 1980-1993. Behavioral disorders, 21(2): 125-136.
31. Duschl, R., Maeng, S. and Sezen, A. 2011. Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2): 123-182.
32. Erduran, S., Simon, S. and 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.
33. Farenga, S. J. and 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.
34. Fidler, D. J. and Nadel, L. 2007. Education and children with Down syndrome: Neuroscience, development, and intervention. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(3): 262-271.
35. Ford, C. L. and Yore, L. D. 2012. "Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice". In Metacognition in science education, Edited by: Zohar, A. and Yehudit, J. D. 251-271. New York, NY: Springer.
36. Gerstner, S. and 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.
37. Gorard, S. and See, B. H. 2009. The impact of socio-economic status on participation and attainment in science. Studies in Science Education, 45(1): 93-129.
38. Greenfield, T. A. 1997. Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81(31): 259-276.
39. Griffard, P. B. and Wandersee, J. H. 1999. Challenges to meaningful learning in African-American females at an urban science high school. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6): 611-632.
40. 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.
41. 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 Indianapolis, IN, March 25-29.
42. 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, fromhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr
43. H.R. 4137-110th Congress: Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2007). In Gove.Track.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved April 4, 2012, fromhttp://www.govtrack.us/cogress/bills/110/hr4137
44. Hallahan, D. P. and Kauffman, J. M. 2008. Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education, 11th ed., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
45. Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2002. "On the form of a personal epistemology". In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, Edited by: Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 169-190. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Hand, B. and Keys, C. 1999. Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4): 27-29.
47. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J. and Bintz, J. 2009. Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
48. Hardman, M. L., Drew, C. J. and Egan, M. W. 2011. Human exceptionality: School, community, and family, 10th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
49. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M. and 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.
50. Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D. and Jackson, R. 2002. Providing new access to the general curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2): 8-17.
51. Hodson, D. 1993. In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77(6): 685-711.
52. Hodson, D. 1998. Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a personalized approach, Buckingham: Open University Press.
53. Hodson, D. 1999. Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83(6): 775-796.
54. 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.
55. Houston, L. S., Fraser, B. and Ledbetter, C. 2008. An evaluation of elementary school science kits in terms of classroom environment and student attitudes. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(4): 29-47.
56. Hutchinson, N. L. 1998. Science success for students with disabilities. Science Education, 82(2): 287-289.
57. Johnson, J. W. and 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.
58. Jones, M. G., Howe, A. and Rua, M. J. 2000. Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2): 180-192.
59. Jones, G. M., Robertson, L., Gardner, G., Dotger, S., & Blanchard, M. R. (2011). Differential use of elementary science kits. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21.
60. Kaldenberg, E. R., Therrien, W. J., Watt, S., Gorsh, J. and 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. Science Scope, 35(3): 36
61. Keogh, B. and Naylor, S. 1999. Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 84: 757-792.
62. Kirch, S. A., Bargerhuff, M. E., Cowan, H. and Wheatly, M. 2007. Reflections of educators in pursuit of inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4): 663-692.
63. Kuhn, D. and Udell, W. 2003. The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5): 1245-1260.
64. Lane, K. L. 2004. "Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: 1990 to present". In Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders, Edited by: Rutherford, R. B., Quinn, M. M. and Mathur, S. R. 462-486. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
65. 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.
66. Lee, O. 2005. Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4): 431-440.
67. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L. and Lucas, D. 2008. Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4): 512-529.
68. Lewis, A. and Norwich, B., eds. 2005. Special teaching for special children?, Berkshire: Open University Press.
69. LeRoy, B., Samuel, P., Bahr, P. R., Evans, P. and Deluca, M. 2008. PISA 2006 and the participation of students with special educational needs, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
70. 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.
71. Martin, E. W., Martin, R. and Terman, D. L. 1996. The legislative and litigation history of special education. The Future of Children, 6(1): 25-39.
72. Mason, L. H. and 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.
73. Mastropieri, M. A. and Scruggs, T. E. 1994. Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(72): 84
74. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H. and 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.
75. McCarthy, C. B. 2005. Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3): 245-263.
76. McCleery, J. A. and 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.
77. McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S. and 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.
78. McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., Risen, T., Jameson, M. and 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.
79. McNeill, K. L. 2009. Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2): 233-268.
80. McNeill, K. L. and 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.
81. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. and Marx, R. W. 2006. Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2): 153-191.
82. Meece, J. L. and Jones, M. G. 1996. Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4): 393-406.
83. Mertens, D. M. 1991. Instructional factors related to hearing impaired adolescents' interest in science. Science Education, 75(4): 429-441.
84. 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.
85. 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 Education, 28(13): 1499-1521.
86. Millar, R. and Osborne, J. 1998. Beyond 2000: Science education for the future, London: King's College of London School of Education.
87. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. and 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.
88. Moje, E. B. 2007. Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31: 1-44.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation's report card: Science 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2011451.pdf
92. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
93. National Research Council (Ed.). (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
94. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2012). Position statement: Students with disabilities. Retrieved May 16, 2012, fromhttp://www.nsta.org/about/positions/disabilities.aspx
95. Norman, K., Caseau, D. and Stefanich, G. P. 1998. Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82(2): 127-146.
96. Norris, S. P. and Phillips, L. M. 2003. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2): 224-240.
97. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L. and Wise, K. 2008. Questions, claims and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
98. Olitsky, S., Flohr, L. L., Gardner, J. and Billups, M. 2010. Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10): 1209-1228.
99. Olson, J. L. and Platt, J. C. 2004. Teaching children and adolescents with special needs, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
100. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States, Paris: OECD.
101. 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
102. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10): 994-1020.
103. Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Cutter, J. and Vincent, M. 2002. Supporting guided inquiry instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3): 88-91.
104. Park Rogers, M., Abell, S., Marra, R., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K. and Cole, J. 2010. Orientations to science teacher professional development: An exploratory study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3): 309-328.
105. Parmar, R. S., Deluca, C. B. and 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.
106. Parsons, E. R. C., Tran, L. U. and 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.
107. 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.
108. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. and Greenleaf, C. 2010. Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977): 459-463.
109. Piliouras, P. and 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.
110. Pisha, B. and Stahl, S. 2005. The promise of new learning environments for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(1): 67-75.
111. 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.
112. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2001). Science. Planning, teaching and assessing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. London: OCA.
113. Rakow, S. J. and Bermudez, A. B. 1993. Science is "ciencia": Meeting the needs of Hispanic American students. Science Education, 77(6): 669-683.
114. Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C. and Ramos-Wada, A. 2011. Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents' future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95(3): 458-476.
115. Rose, D. H. and Meyer, A. 2002. Teaching every student in the digital age, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
116. Rudd, J., Greenbowe, T. and Hand, B. 2007. Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of general equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12): 2007-2011.
117. S. 250-111th Congress: Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2009 (US). (2009). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved July 4, 2012, fromhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s250
118. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. and 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.
119. Salleh, R., Venville, G. and 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.
120. Sampson, V., Enderle, P. and Phelps Walker, J. 2012. "The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation". In Perspectives on scientific argumentation, Edited by: Khine, M. 235-264. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
121. Sandoval, W. A. 2003. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1): 5-51.
122. Sawyer, R., ed. 2006. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
123. Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M. A. 1995. Science and students with mental retardation: An analysis of curriculum features and learner characteristics. Science Education, 79(3): 251-271.
124. Scruggs, T. E. and 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.
125. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A. and Boon, R. 1998. Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32(1): 21-44.
126. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Brigham, F. J. and 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.
127. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A. and Magnusen, M. 1999. Activities-oriented science instruction for students with disabilities. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 22: 240-249.
128. Shepard, T. and Adjogah, S. 1994. Science performance of students with learning disabilities on language-based measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(4): 219-225.
129. Siegel, H. 2002. Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of common ground. Science Education, 86(6): 803-820.
130. Sikora, J. and Pokropek, A. 2012. Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2): 234-264.
131. Simpson, M. L., Hynd, C. R., Nist, S. L. and Burrell, K. I. 1997. College academic assistance programs and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 9(1): 39-87.
132. Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T. and Billingsley, B. 2010. Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1): 8-24.
133. Soodak, L., Podell, D. and Lehman, L. 1998. Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4): 480-497.
134. Steele, M. M. 2004. Teaching science to students with learning problems in the elementary classroom. Preventing School Failure, 49(1): 19-21.
135. Taylor, J. C., Chanlen, N., Therrien, W., & Hand, B. (under review). Improving low-achieving elementary students' critical thinking skills through an argument-based inquiry approach to science.
136. Taylor, J. C., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S., Chanlen, N. and 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.
137. Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S., & Kaldenberg, E. (under review). Science instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
138. Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R. and Gorsh, J. 2011. Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4): 188-203.
139. Tsai, C. 2007. Teachers' scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students' views. Science Education, 91(2): 222-243.
140. UK Department for Education. 2011. Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability-A consultation, London: The Stationary Office Limited.
141. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
142. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics Assessment. Arlington, VA: NAEP.
143. Valdez, J. and Freve, Y. 2001. The effect of inquiry-based teaching on standardized reading scores, Fresno, CA: Fresno Unified School District-Urban Systemic Program.
144. Vannest, K., Mason, B., Brown, L., Dyer, N., Maney, S. and Adiguzel, T. 2009. Instructional settings in science for students with disabilities: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4): 353-363.
145. Varelas, M., Kane, J. M. and Donahue Wylie, C. 2011. Young African American children's representations of self, science, and school: Making sense of difference. Science Education, 95(5): 824-851.
146. Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M. and Bos, C. S. 2002. Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1): 2-13.
147. Villanueva, M. G. and Hand, B. 2011. Science for all: Engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4): 233-240.
148. Wallace, C. S., & Narayan, R. (2002). Acquiring the social language of science: Building science language identities through inquiry based investigations. Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic and Pedagogical Considerations of Language and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada.
149. Weisgerber, R. A. and Gallagher, J., eds. 1993. Success for students with disabilities, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
150. Webster-Wright, A. 2009. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2): 702-739.
151. 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.
152. Zembylas, M. and 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.
153. Zuniga, K., Olson, J. K. and 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.