Of all the concepts and strategies we have discussed over the course of this class, which one is the most important or valuable to you? How has your thinking about teaching at-risk students changed? How will you use the strategies/concepts going forward in your work with at-risk students?
A Framework for Effective
Inclusive Science Instruction
Lucinda S. Spaulding and Jenny Sue Flannagan
Students with special needs in the
United States are included more in general education classrooms and have
more exposure to the general education
curriculum today than ever before
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006].
This is partly explained by the fact that
federal special education law requires
students with disabilities to have
access to the general education curriculum and to be educated alongside general education peers as much as possible (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2006). In addition, educational reform (i.e.. No Child Left
Behind of 2001, 2006) emphasizes the
use of evidence-based instructional
methods and strategies resulting in a
deeper understanding of how the brain
works and how students learn, providing teachers more methods and strategies for teaching students with varying
abilities (Goswami, 2006).
Further, with the expanding
research base of best practices for
teaching students with special needs,
educational researchers have come to
learn that best practices for instructing
students with special needs are also
very effective with general education
students. Conversely, best practices for
general education students are effective
with students with special needs
E
C
T
Design (Backwards)
Individualization
Scaffolding
• Strategies
Experiential Learning
Cooperative Learning
Teamwork
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001). The knowledge
that ALL students can benefit from the
same tool chest of instructional methods and strategies should provide a
great deal of relief to general and special education teachers concerned
about meeting the needs of diverse
learners in science classes. However,
this knowledge leads to a very essential question: What are best practices
for educating ALL students in science?
Our Experience
As a general education science teacher
and a special education teacher of students with learning disabilities, we
began to grapple with this important
question as we sought to meet the
needs of diverse learners. With the
explosion of educational research in
special education and science over the
last few decades, we had no problem
finding evidenced-based strategies and
6 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
interventions; our challenge was making sense of it all. Some of the questions we grappled with were: How do
we address our students’ varying interests and abilities? How do we provide
the higher intensity of instruction that
our students with disabilities need?
How do we challenge our gifted learners? How do we teach the standards
and curriculum while also leaving
room for discovery, inquiry-based
instruction, and constructivist learning
Step 4: Create learning activities. A
great deal of time is spent in the beginning of the year getting to know our
learners in the science classroom (Step
1). What prior knowledge do they possess? Do they learn best from part to
whole or whole to part? What are their
hobbies and interests? What are their
academic strengths and weaknesses?
What disabilities are represented in the
classroom? Using a variety of interest
inventories (some published online and
What are best practices for
educating ALL students in science?
activities? Perhaps our biggest concern
was how do we co-plan and co-teach
to ensure that the needs of all children
are met?
When we began working together
to ensure that all students were achieving to their greatest potential in our
science class, we felt we needed something to help us structure and focus
our planning, instruction, and assessment. Our research and collaboration
led us to DISSECT. DISSECT is our
acronym for a framework that helps us
systematically ensure we are meeting
the needs of all our students, so all can
develop as scientists and explore and
understand their world.
DISSECT
DISjECT stands for Design (Backwards), Individualization, Scaffolding
and Strategies, Experiential Learning,
Cooperative Learning, and Teamwork.
In the following example, we illustrate
how we use DISjECT when we plan
science units and lessons. A lesson
plan developed using the DIS2ECT
framework can be found in Figure 1.
Design
We designed our instructional plan by
following the Backward Design model
(see Childre, Sands, & Pope, 2009;
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), which suggests the following planning sequence:
Step 1: Identify learners; Step 2:
Identify curricular priorities; Step 3:
Design assessment framework; and
others self-created), we compile this
information and use it when developing groups and designing lessons.
With our learners’ interests and
abilities in mind, we turn to designing
the unit plan (Step 2). Using the big
ideas of science and essential questions, we use our state standards and
curriculum resources to identify what
students need to know (knowledge)
and be able to do (skills) at the end of
a unit. We then align these to the big
ideas in science. Next, we design
essential questions that will frame our
lesson and help us create assessments,
which will provide us with information on how our students are doing
(Step 3). Assessments may include
quizzes, tests, performance tasks, or
projects. Last, we develop the daily
lesson plans (Step 4), leading us to
think about our next step in the
DISjECT process—individualization.
¡ndividualization
Individualization is the centerpiece of
special education (IDEA, 2004), and it
is essential for educators in inclusive
environments to focus on meeting the
individual needs of their learners. To
address these needs when planning
lessons, teachers need to be aware of
the difficulties students with learning
challenges typically face. First, they
tend to have difficulty with inductive
and deductive thinking skills, skills
that are associated with scientific reasoning (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Boon, &
Carter, 2001). Second, their independent reading levels are often below
grade level, meaning they will likely
have a difficult time comprehending
their grade-level science textbook
(Cawley, Parmar, Foley, Salmon, & Roy,
2001). Further, students with learning
challenges often have limited independent study strategies and need to
be explicitly taught how to study and
review for tests and quizzes. Finally,
they need significant practice, repetition, feedback, and reinforcement in
order to retain information and generalize skills and concepts (Mastropieri et
al, 2001). Along with information garnered through interest inventories and
formal and informal assessments of
present levels of performance, it is very
important for teachers to keep these
characteristics of students with learning challenges in mind when planning
daily lessons. The needs of individual
students can be met through the next
step—scaffolding and strategy instruction.
Scaffolding
Scaffolds can be viewed as bridges.
Each student comes to class with a certain level of knowledge and understanding on a topic, and each may
have certain obstacles to overcome in
order to learn new concepts. This is
where scaffolding comes into play. By
providing just the right level of support, students can move from their current understanding to higher levels of
understanding (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978).
For example, the state standard may
require fourth-grade students to design
their own science experiment. Students
with learning challenges may struggle
to complete this higher order thinking
problem on their own, but hy working
with a peer or small group, they can be
successful. From this successful experience students gain confidence along
with conceptual understanding and,
with sufficient repetition and reinforcement, can begin to demonstrate the
skill independently.
Although difficult to teach, inductive
and deductive reasoning skills can be
developed through teacher prompting
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 1 JULY/AUG 2012 7
FigHre 1 . Ch, Ch, Changes!
DISjECT:
We start
our plan by
deciding
what we
want our
students to
be able to
do.
Big Ideas of Science: Change Can Be Irreversible
Topic: Matter
DISjECT:
. We keep our individual
learners and their
characteristics in mind
as we begin our plan.
Grade: 8th Grade
Learner Characteristics: 12 general education students; 4 students with LD; 1 student with ADHD;
2 students with ED; 1 student with a visual impairment
National Standard: N.S. 5-8.2 Physical Science: As a result of their activities in Grades 5-8, all
students should develop an understanding of:
• Properties and changes of properties in Matter
Objectives:
Consideration of curricular priorities ‘
The students will know:
• Matter can be described by its physical properties, which include shape, density, solubility, odor,
melting point, boiling point, and color. Some physical properties, such as density, boiling point, and
solubility, are characteristic of a specific substance and do not depend on the size of the sample.
Characteristic properties can be used to identify unknown substances.
• Equal volumes of different substances usually have different masses.
• Matter can also be described by its chemical properties, which include acidity, basicity, combustibility,
and reactivity. A chemical property indicates whether a substance can undergo a chemical change.
Students will be able to:
• Determine the identity of an unknown substance by comparing its properties to those of known
substances.
• Distinguish between physical properties (i.e., shape, density, solubility, odor, melting point, boiling
point, and color) and chemical properties (i.e., acidity, basicity, combustibility, and reactivity) and
identify if a physical change or chemical change has occurred.
Materials:
16 oz. empty plastic soda bottle (preferably with a
narrow neck such as those made by Coca-Cola);
1/2 cup 20-volume hydrogen peroxide (20-volume
is 6% solution, purchased from a beauty supply
store) ; squirt of Dawn dish detergent; 3-4 drops of
food coloring; 1 teaspoon yeast dissolved in 2
tablespoons very warm water; funnel; foil cake
pan with 2-inch sides; lab goggles; lab smock
Essential Questions:
• How do substances combine or change (react)
to make new substances?
• How does a scientist characterize and explain
these reactions and make predictions about
them?
DISjECT:
Scaffolds & Strategies
Cooperative Learning:
• Team Investigation
• One Stray (Kagan, 1994)
• Small Group and Class Discussion
\
Cooperative learning
Scaffolding for Students:
• Building on prior knowledge
• Experience: students need a concrete experience that does not involve a color change—this
is often mistaken for “chemical change.”
• Cooperative learning strategies
• Graphic organizers
continues
8 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Figure 1 . Continued
We create learning activities only after we have
identified our learners and curricular priorities.
By assessing prior knowledge,
we build student interest and
connection. We are also able to
individualize the lesson from this
pre-assessment.
DiSJCt:
Because
this lesson
is about
learning to
identify I
chemical
changes, it
is important
to provide
students
with a
concrete,
simple
example of
a chemical
change
before
introducing
or reading.
Engage
Ask students what they know about hydrogen peroxide.
“Have you ever put hydrogen peroxide on a cut? What “*
happens when it comes in contact with the cut?” (it bubbles)
Tell students that they are going to do an activity today that uses
hydrogen peroxide and will be looking to see how things change.
Explore
Team Project: Assign lab roles: Principal Investigator who directs others to follow procedures; Materials ‘
Manager who does experiment; Reporter who records data; Timekeeper/Clean Up Captain who keeps time
and helps clean up. Distribute lab reports and materials.
1. At each student’s place: cake pan, plastic bottle. Dawn in small cup,
food coloring, funnel, goggles, 1/2 cup peroxide, yeast.
2. Have students make observations of each material they have—in other
words, have them generate words that a scientist would use in order to
describe the objects.
a. Dawn soap
b. Food coloring
c. Peroxide
d. Yeast
Inform students they are going to observe changes that occur when two
materials are mixed together.
Have students follow these procedures:
a. Stand up bottle in the center of the cake pan.
b. Put funnel in opening. Add 3-4 drops of food coloring to the peroxide
and pour the peroxide through the funnel into the bottle.
c. Add the Dawn detergent to the peroxide in the bottle.
d. Pour the yeast mixture into the bottle and quickly remove the funnel.
e. Make observations once they mix the materials together. Allow them
to touch the bottle to feel any changes that take place.
f. Have the recorders for each group post the observations they collected.
Ask students to develop an explanation for what happened.
1
/
DISjECT:
Assigning student roles
helps to build a sense
of community and
gives each student a
purpose.
DIS2EÇT:
Cooperative learning
Explain
Use the cooperative learning strategy One Stray to have recorders go to at
least 3 different groups to share what their group observed and learn what
other groups observed. Have students share as a class their findings.
Introduce the term chemical change through reading. Use the strategy
Frayer’s Model of Vocabulary to define the term chemical change. Be sure
to point out the differences between chemical and physical changes.
Once students have defined the term, give them some simple examples of
changes that can happen in the world and have them identify if they think
they are physical or chemical changes. For those students who might struggle,
give them the hint cards to help them.
SAFETY!!
Be sure to remind
students that in order
to smell, they need to
waft! Remind students
they shouid not
taste anything!
continues
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN JULY/AUG 2012 9
Figure 1 . Confínwecf
DISgECT:
Teaming: Both
the general
education and
the special
education
teacher take an
active role in
the planning,
delivery, and
assessment of
the lesson.
Extend
Each team has a bag filled with a mystery powder. Their job is to try to identify how many
powders have mixed together in the bag. Here are the responsibilities for group work:
1. Materials Managers should get a bag of mystery powders for each team.
2. Recorders: Instruct your team to observe your powders carefully.
In your log notebook, have teammates:
• Observing: How many different powders do you think are in the bag?
• Describing: Describe the physical properties of each powder.
DIS ECT’
Once teams have made their observations, have recorders report out to the class their
Inform the students that next they are going to learn a little more about their mystery
next activity, they are going to see what happens when they mix their powder with a
Direct students to do the following:
1. Empty the bag of powders into a dry beaker.
2. Fill the graduated cylinder to the 20-ml line with vinegar.
3. Pour the vinegar into the beaker and make observations. You should record
your observations.
• Observing: What happened? Give a description of the change and the result.
• Making inferences: What experiences can you draw upon that might help
you explain what you just observed? Do you think this is a physical or
chemical change and what is your evidence?
group’s findings,
powders. In this
liquid (vinegar).
i DISjECT:
If students are
struggling with I I
identifying chemical
changes, use the
“hint cards” as a
scaffold.
In teams, design a method to identify your mystery powder:
• Now that you have observed your mystery powder, your team now must identify
the mystery powder.
• Using the following materials only, design a methodology to identify your powder.
• Before you hegin, share your plans and get approval from one of your teachers.
• For each new combination you try, write down the name, observation of what the
powder looks like, and predict what you think will happen when added to the vinegar.
This data will help you identify your mystery powder!
Materials:
Baking soda
Alum
Plain gelatin
White vinegar
Beaker
Hand lens
Evaluate
Students will define the difference between chemical and physical change.
• Students with special needs: Students will be given six pictures of concrete examples
of physical and chemical changes. Students will explain orally and use their graphic
organizers to assist them in explaining with evidence the type of change that has occurred.
• Gifted: Students will be presented with more abstract examples of chemical and physical
changes. For example, for chemical change, students will be given a physical metal object
that has rust on it and a description of how rust forms. Students will have to justify
with evidence what type of change it falls under.
continues
10 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Figure 1 . Ceiifinwecf
Hint Card
Ask yourselves these questions to help determine if you have a chemical change:
Question
Did you see the production of a
gas?
Did you feel or collect a
temperature change?
Did you see a precipitate form?
Did you see a color change?
Note. Not the best indicator
What You Might
Have Observed
Bubbles from mixing
The container got warm or if a
temperature probe was used there
was a change in reading.
Clear liquid would become cloudy.
In the case of two liquids, a solid
suddenly formed.
Color appears when two colorless
liquids were mixed or colored
materials become colorless or one
color changes to another.
What Is Going On
The gas is a product formed from
the two substances reacting.
Chemical energy is being released
(in the form of heat) or being
removed (cold)
Two things come together to make
something that is not able to be
dissolved in the liquid.
Materials are combining in such
a way that it affects how much
energy it takes to move electrons
around.
Definition Characteristics
Exampies
Word:
Chemical
Change
Nonexampies
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JULY/AUG 2012 11
and questioning, also referred to as
coached elaborations and guided
inquiry (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Okolo,
2008). For example, young children
often have the misconception that the
moon “glows” and transmits light just
like the sun does. However, after a
simple scientific inquiry using a flashlight, a globe, and a tennis ball, teachers can guide students to accurate
understanding through a series of simple questions.
To address varying levels of reading
proficiency, finding alternative texts
and leveled nonfiction hooks provides
opportunities for students to read independently while still learning the necessary concepts. If we design a standards-based lesson (e.g., chemical and
physical changes in matter) around
student interest, and we know that
after providing guided practice with
peers we want students to research a
topic independently, we then realize
that we have to provide books at various reading levels. We would love it if
our students could all read on the
same level, but our experience is that
our students read at various levels,
some above, some on, others below,
and some far below. We work with the
librarian and reading specialist to
ensure we can provide an assortment
of nonflction texts, all addressing content, hut at students’ independent or
instructional reading levels rather than
at their frustration level (e.g., Gickling
& Havertape, 1981).
In science, it is very important for
students to develop understandings of
interrelationships between concepts
(e.g., organisms and their habitats) as
well as to develop conceptual understandings of scientific laws and principles [e.g., force and motion). Graphic
organizers, text organizers, and semantic maps help students acquire, organize, and recall information, as well as
understand relationships between facts
and concepts (Dexter, Park, & Hughes,
2011). When we plan together, we keep
in mind that not all students need the
same map or graphic organizer. In fact,
some students can create their own,
rather than he given one. With elementary students who are reading well
below grade level, we might create a
12 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
version of the same graphic organizer
but with picture cues in place of or
alongside words. This creates a simpler design, making the content accessible to all students. If the standard is
for all students to know characteristics
of various organisms and be ahle to
classify them, then students with
learning challenges may do this by
modifying and individualizing the
organizer.
Strategies
Similar to scaffolding, strategy instruction involves teaching students
approaches for solving problems and
organizing information. Strategy
instruction is well supported by
research (e.g., Fuchs et al, 2003;
Santangelo, Harris, & Graham, 2008)
and can involve teaching students selfmonitoring and self-regulation [e.g.,
self-scoring problems, charting daily
scores, setting goals and monitoring
progress), self-questioning [asking
“Does this make sense?”), main idea
and summarization strategies, and
repeated reading. Students can learn
study strategies by making a simple
hoard game with review questions, or
covering up sections of an outlined
note page to recall covered material.
Mnemonics are highly effective devices
for helping students recall difficult-torememher facts through relating them
to pictures, acronyms, pegwords, and
keywords [Fontana, Scruggs, &
Mastropieri, 2007; Therrien, Taylor,
Hosp, Kaldenberg, & Gorsh, 2011).
Mnemonics can be differentiated, in
that some students can be given a
mnemonic, some co-create them with
the teacher, and others can he challenged to create their own. Even in science, reading strategies should be
taught and reinforced, such as predicting, sequencing, summarizing, questioning, and identifying the main idea
and supporting details. Although all of
these strategies are effective and applicable for students with and without
learning challenges, students who may
need more intense instruction can
work in smaller groups and receive
additional instructional time (Foorman
&Torgesen, 2001).
Ixperiential Learning
The way to ensure that all students are
successful in science is to focus on
designing structured lessons based on
experiential learning principles (Therrien et al., 2011}. Therefore, design the
lessons to first engage students, providing opportunities for discovery and
exploration. In other words, content is
seldom discussed first. Students must
have an opportunity to experience
something in order to make sense of it
[Scruggs et al., 2008). For example, in
one of our lessons students examine
how matter can change chemically and
how scientists recognize a chemical
change. Instead of reading the text or
even giving students a definition or
vocabulary words, present students
with the task of observing what occurs
when two materials—peroxide and
yeast—are mixed together in a soda
bottle. Students observe changes with
their senses. Students are excited when
they see a light foam begin to rise out
of the bottle. Even with their excitement, remind them to write down what
they see with their eyes and what they
feel with their hands. Groups document
their findings and then use the cooperative learning structure One Stray
(Kagan, 1994) to have the reporter for
each group go to another group and
share what they found and record any
new information from the group they
“strayed” to visit. When we asked each
group if they felt a change occurred,
the answer was always “yes. ” When
asked to elaborate on what evidence
they used to say “yes,” students often
said, “We saw bubbles, we saw a difference substance. ” It is only after students have had an experience with the
concepts of chemical change that they
then open their science texts, and we
introduce the content and begin defining factors chemists use to identify
chemical changes.
This structured yet inquiry-based
approach to science instruction is well
supported by research (Therrien et al.,
2011). Scruggs and Mastropieri (2007)
reported, “Advantages to the constmctivist approach Include an emphasis on
concrete, meaningful experiences; an
emphasis on depth of learning; less
emphasis on rote verbal learning; and
use of performance assessment rather
than paper-and-pencil tests” (p. 59).
Childre et al. (2009) affirmed these
observations, noting that “learning
should be driven by student efforts to
answer essential questions and problems posed through unit activities and
assessments” (p. 10). In addition, this
approach to learning “moves students
out of passive roles into active learning
roles more supportive of learning for
students with disabilities, because
learning is hands-on and meaningful”
(p. 10). Perhaps the most significant
research finding related to inquirybased, constructivist science classrooms is that “many students with
high-incidence disabilities will perform
similarly to typically achieving students
on a constructivist science task, even
though they are far behind in reading
and math achievement” (Mastropieri et
al., 2001, p. 135). As the research suggests, when provided experiential
learning opportunities, students with
learning challenges can be contributing
members of a group and can even help
their normally achieving peers make
sense of new information, which is the
next step in the DIS2ECT process—
cooperative learning.
Cooperative Learning
During the chemical change lesson
described earlier, a variety of cooperative learning strategies were used.
Cooperative learning is a great tool to
ensure all students are active, engaged,
and communicating about the content.
Cooperative learning has academic as
well as social benefits (Vaughn,
Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Social benefits include increased self-confidence,
improved self-esteem, and improved
attitudes about school and high levels
of self-responsibility (Scruggs &. Richter, 1985). Cooperative learning
arrangements can involve students
Effective teamwork and co-teaching
between general education science
teachers and special education teachers
is critical. The definition of co-teaching
is quite simply, “two or more people
working toward a common goal” (Snell
& Janney, 2000, p. 3). Collaboration is
grounded in the common goal of
ensuring all students learn science.
Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Graetz (2005)
identified effective science co-teaching
partners as those who (a) work well
together, (b) are excited about teaching
science, (c) set time aside for co-planning, (d) use appropriate curriculum
materials, (e) are skilled instructors,
and (f) adapt instruction to meet the
needs of individual students.
There are several different teaming
strategies; the most common are team
teaching, parallel teaching, alternative
teaching, and station teaching (Snell &.
Janney, 2000). Team teaching is when
both teachers deliver the instruction
content together Parallel teaching is
when the class is divided into two sections and both teach the same content
at the same time, just to smaller
groups. Alternative teaching is when
one teacher leads an activity or investiCooperative learning is a great tool to ensure all students
are active, engaged, and communicating about the content.
working with one partner or several
group members. Depending on the
content, homogenous (e.g., grouping
students according to similar reading
levels) or heterogeneous (mixed ability) groups can be created. Again, this
is why it is crucial to know the students’ skills and abilities. It is important to note that some social skills
training and regular monitoring are
important elements of cooperative
learning, and that measures need to be
in place to hold each member of the
group accountable for contributing
(e.g., team roles such as materials
manager, recorder, etc.). Although it is
the last letter in our acronym, teamwork is truly the foundation of our
work together
gation, and the other follows up by
teaching the concepts and vocabulary
related to the experience. Station teaching is when the teachers develop learning stations (centers) and both monitor
and facilitate the learning activities.
The type of teaming strategy selected
for any particular lesson is dependent
on the lesson’s learning objective and
the best approach for guiding the students to independent mastery of this
objective.
Final Thoughts
From our experience, the DISjECT
framework provides an effective tool
for ensuring ALL students have access
to the general education science curriculum and are provided the opportuTEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JULY/AUG 2012 13
nity to explore and understand the natural world around them. However, as
we conclude, there are two significant
points we need to make.
First, simply placing students with
special needs in a general education
setting does not equate to inclusion.
Inclusion is educating students with
special needs alongside their general
education peers. Sadly, research suggests that oftentimes the inclusion
classroom is “a setting essentially
devoid of special education,” (Kavale &
Forness, 2000, p. 283) and that placement (inclusion vs. self-contained) has
only a modest influence on academic
achievement (Murawski & Swanson,
2001). Effective inclusion involves
intentional planning to meet the varied
and individualized needs of each student in the classroom.
The second point we want to
emphasize is that administrative support for inclusion is integral (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 2004). Lack of common
planning time and administrative support are two of the greatest challenges
to co-teaching reported by teachers
(Carter, Prater, Jackson, & Marchant,
2009). It is important for administrators
to understand that schedules need to
be coordinated to ensure common
planning times, and it is essential for
general and special education teachers
to have time to plan, reflect, and analyze assessment data together (Carter
et al., 2009). Our experience shows us
that the number one way to ensure
administrative support for inclusion is
to demonstrate that ALL students are
learning, and we have found that
DISjECT is an effective framework for
reaching this important goal.
References
Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., &
Marchant, M. (2009). Educator’s perceptions of collaborative planning processes
for students with disabilities. Preventing
School Failure, 54(1), 60-70.
Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Foley, T., Salmon, S.,
& Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance
of students: Implications for standards
and programming. Exceptional Children,
67, 311-328.
Childre, A., Sands, J. R., & Pope, S. T.
(2009). Backward design: Targeting depth
of understanding for all learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(5), 6-14.
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),
201-213.
Fontana, J. L., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri,
M. A. (2007). Mnemonic strategy instruction in inclusive secondary social studies
classes. Remedial and Special Education,
28(6), 345-355.
Foorman, B. & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical
elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all
children. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles
for the prevention and intervention of
mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 86-95.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch,
M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., & Schroeter, K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving
with self-regulated learning strategies.
Joumal of Educational Psychology, 95(2),
306-315.
Gickling, E. E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice
Training Network.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406-413.
Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA), Public Law
108—446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004),
[Amending 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq.]
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning.
San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative
Learning.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Analysis of the
inclusion debate. Remedial and Special
Education, 21, 279-296.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E, Boon, R.,
& Carter, K. B. (2001). Correlates of
inquiry learning in science: Constructing
concepts of density and buoyancy.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(3),
130-137.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E, & Graetz,
J. (2005). Cognition and learning in
inclusive high school chemistry classes.
In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri
(Eds.). Cognition and learning in diverse
settings: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 18, pp. 108-118).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Murawski, W. W,. & Swanson, H. L. (2001).
A tneta-analysis of co-teaching research:
Where are the data? Remedial and
Special Education, 22(5), 258-267.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 20 U.S.C.
§ 6301 et seq. (2006).
Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S.
(2008). Using self-regulated strategy
development to support students who
have “trubol giting thangs into werds.”
Remedial and Special Education, 29(2),
78-89.
Scruggs, T E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2004).
Science and schooling for learning disabilities. Joumal of Learning Disabilities,
37, 270-276.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007).
Science learning in special education:
The case for constructed vs. instructed
learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57-74.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Okolo,
C. M. (2008). Science and social studies
for students with disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 41, 1-23.
Scruggs, T E., & Richter, L. (1985). Tutoring
learning disabled students: A critical
review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8,
286-298.
Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. (2000). Collaborative teaming. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C, Hosp, J. L.,
Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011).
Science instruction for students with
learning disabihties: A meta-analysis.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
26(4), 188-203.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006).
Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress
on the Implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 2004.
Volume 1. Retrieved from http://www2
.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2004
/26th-vol-l.pdf
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J.
(2000). The underlying message in LD
intervention research: Findings from
research syntheses. Exceptional Children,
67, 99-114.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005).
Understanding by design (2nd ed).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lucinda S. Spaulding (Virginia CEC),
Assistant Professor, School of Education,
Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia: and
Jenny Sue Flannagan, Assistant Professor,
School of Education, Regent University,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Lucinda Spaulding, Liberty University,
TE 112, 1971 University Blvd., Lynchburg,
VA 24502 (e-mail: lsspaulding@liberty.edu).
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 44,
No. 6, pp. 6-14.
Copyright 2012 CEC.
14 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.