Defining a Technology Research Agenda for Elementary and Secondary Students with Learning and other High-Incidence Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classrooms

Journal of Special Education Technology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-27

  Marino, Matthew T ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870852973     PISSN: 01626434     EISSN: 23813121     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016264341002500101     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. AccessSTEM (2008). The Alliance for Access to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Stem/disability_type.html.
2. * Akpan J. P., Andre T., (2000). Using a computer simulation before dissection to help students learn anatomy. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(3), 297–313.
3. Alper S., Raharinirina S., (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64.
4. * Alston R. J., Bell T. J., Hampton J. L., (2002). Learning disability and career entry into the sciences: A critical factor analysis of attitudinal factors. Journal of Career Development, 28, 263–275.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2008). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php.
6. Anderson-Inman L., Knox-Quinn C., Szymanski M., (1999). Computer-supported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 185–212.
7. * Annetta L. A., Minogue J., Holmes S. Y., Chen M., (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students' engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53, 74–85.
8. * Azevedo R., Winters F. I., Moos D. C., (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? The dynamics of self-and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215–245.
9. * Barab S. A., Hay K. E., Barnett M., Keating T., (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 297–313.
10. Barab S., Thomas M., Dodge T., Carteaux R., Tuzun H., (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 86–107.
11. * Barnett M., Yamagata-Lynch L., Keating T., Barab S. A., Hay K. E., (2005). Using virtual reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 333–356.
12. Burgstahler S., (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7–19.
13. Carlson R., Chandler P., Sweller J., (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 629–640.
14. * Cawley J., Hayden S., Cade E., Baker-Kroczynski S., (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
15. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009). Universal design for learning (UDL) guidelines, Version 1.0. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines.
16. * Cepni S., Tas E., Kose S., (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers & Education, 46, 192–205.
17. * Cuthbert A. J., Slotta J. D., (2004). Designing a web-based design curriculum for middle school science: The WISE “Houses in The Desert” project. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 821–844.
18. * Dalton B., Morocco C., Tivnan T., Mead P., (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684.
19. * Dunleavy M., Dede C., Mitchell R., (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.
20. * Dymond S. K., Renzaglia A., Rosenstein A., Chun E. J., Banks R. A., Niswander V., (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a universally designed inclusive high school science course: A case study. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 293–308.
21. Edelson D. C., Gordin D. N., Pea R. C., (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–350.
22. Englert C. S., Wu X., Zhao Y., (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 20, 184–198.
23. Fortus D., Dershimer R. C., Krajcik J., Marx R. W., Mamlok-Naaman R., (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110.
24. Gersten R., Edyburn D., (2007). Defining quality indicators for group designs in special education technology research. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(3), 3–18.
25. * Harmer A. J., Cates W. M., (2007). Designing for learner engagement in middle school science: Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in the Schools, 24(1), 105–124.
26. * Harwood W. S., McMahon M. M., (1997). Effects of integrated video media on student achievement and attitudes in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 617–631.
27. * Henderson L., Eshet Y., Klemes J., (2000). Under the microscope: Factors influencing student outcomes in a computer integrated classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(3), 211–236.
28. Hennessy S., Wishart J., Whitelock D., Deaney R., Brawn R., la Velle L., (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, 48, 137–152.
29. Higgins E. L., Raskind M. H., (2000). Speaking to read: The effects of continuous vs. discrete speech recognition systems on the reading and spelling of children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 19–30.
30. Hoffman J. L., Wu H., Krajcik J. S., Soloway E., (2003). The nature of middle school learners' science content understandings with the use of online resources. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40, 323–346.
31. Horney M. A., Anderson-Inman L., (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 127–168.
32. * Jacobson M. J., Archodidou A., (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer for complex knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 145–199.
33. Jonassen D. H., (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Kablan Z., Erden M., (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers & Education, 51, 660–668.
35. Kesidou S., Roseman J. E., (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.
36. * Ketelhut D. J., (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory study of River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.
37. Kim T., Jackson D. F., Yarger D. N., Boysen P. J., (2000). Principles for the design and use of simulations in science learning as exemplified by a prototype microworld. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(3), 237–252.
38. * Kirch S. A., Bargerhuff M. E., Cowan H., Wheatly M., (2007). Reflections of educators in pursuit of inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 663–692.
39. Lange A. A., McPhillips M., Mulhern G., Wylie J., (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.
40. Lee M., Erdogan I., (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327.
41. * Lee H., Plass J. L., Homer B. D., (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.
42. * Limniou M., Roberts D., Papadopoulos N., (2008). Fully immersive virtual Cave in chemistry education. Computers & Education, 51, 584–593.
43. * Liu M., (2006). The effect of a hypermedia learning environment on middle school students' motivation, attitude, and science knowledge. Computers in the Schools, 22(3), 159–171.
44. * Liu M., Bera S., (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5–21.
45. * Liu M., Bera S., Corliss S. B., Svinicki M. D., Beth A. D., (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive process as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 309–334.
46. * Lynch S., Taymans J., Watson A. W., Ochsendorf R. J., Pyke C., Szesze M. J., (2007). Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 73, 202–223.
47. Maccini P., Gagnon J. C., Hughes C. A., (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247–261.
48. * Marino M. T., (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-base tools. Exceptionality, 17, 88–102.
49. Mastropieri M. A., Scruggs T. E., (2004). Science and schooling for students with LD: A discussion of the symposium. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 270–276.
50. Mastropieri M. A., Scruggs T. E., Graetz J. E., (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
51. * Mastropieri M. A., Scruggs T. E., Norland J. J., Berkely S., McDuffie K., Tornquist E. H., (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137.
52. Mayer R. E., Moreno R., (2002). Animation as an aide to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.
53. McCarthy C. B., (2005). Effects of thematic-based hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263.
54. * 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, 7–18.
55. McNamara D. S., Shapiro A. M., (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 1–29.
56. * Monaghan J. M., Clement J., (1999). Use of computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 921–944.
57. * Moreno R., (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.
58. * Moreno R., Mayer R. E., (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.
59. * Moreno R., Mayer R. E., (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128.
60. * Moriarty M. A., (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40, 252–265.
61. Mull C. A., Sitlington P. L., (2003). The role of technology in the transition to postsecondary education of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 26–32.
62. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005). The Nation's Report Card Science. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006466.
63. National Education Technology Standards (2008). NETS for Teachers. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS.
64. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65. National Science Foundation. (2002). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
66. * Nelson B. C., (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.
67. * Palincsar A. S., Collins K. M., Marano N. L., Magnusson S. J., (2000). Investigating the engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 240–251.
68. * Palincsar A. S., Magnusson S. J., Collins K. M., Cutter J., (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15–32.
69. * Pallant A., Tinker R., (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 51–65.
70. Pei-Chen S., Tsai R. J., Finger G., Chen Y., Dowming Y., (2008). What drives successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183–1202.
71. Quintana C., Reiser B. J., Davis E. A., Krajcik J., Fretz E., Duncan G. D., (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.
72. * Robinson S., (2002). Teaching high school students with learning and emotional disabilities in inclusion science classrooms: A case study of four teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 13–26.
73. Rose D. E., Meyer A., Hitchcock C., (2005) The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
74. Rutherford F. J., Ahlgren A., (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
75. * Samsonov P., Pedersen S., Hill C. L., (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students: A case study. Computers in the Schools, 23(1), 111–124.
76. Schroeder C. M., Scott T. P., Tolson H., Huang T., Lee Y., (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436–1460.
77. Schwarz V. C., Meyer J., Sharma A., (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges for using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 243–269.
78. Smith T. J., Dittmer K. I., Skinner C. H., (2002). Enhancing science performance in students with learning disabilities using cover, copy, and compare: A student shows the way. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 417–426.
79. Snyder T. D., (2008). Mini-Digest of Educational Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
80. Swanson L. H., (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331–378.
81. Sweller J., (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
82. Wagner M., Newman L., Cameto R., Levine P., (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
83. Waight N., Abd-El-Khalick F., (2007). The impact of technology on the enactment of “inquiry” in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 154–182.
84. Wehmeyer M. L., Argan M., Hughes C., (2000). A national survey of teachers' promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.
85. * Winn W., Stahr F., Sarason C., Fruland R., Oppenheimer P., Lee Y. L., (2005). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared to direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 25–42.
86. White B. Y., Frederiksen J. R., (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
87. Williams D., Coles L., Wilson K., Richardson A., Tuson J., (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 307–320.
88. * Yerrick R.K., (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.