Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs

Theory Into Practice, 52:43–50, 2013 Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online DOI: 10.1080/07351690.2013.743776

J. Randy McGinnis

Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs

A fundamental social justice issue worldwide is how to meet the needs of all learners, especially those with special needs who historically have faced discrimination, exclusion, and oppression due to special needs (physical, cognitive, or behavioral dimensions). This article focuses on the key questions that researchers interested in improving science education for students with special needs have examined empirically and lessons learned in regard to making science more accessible and relevant to them through evidencebased adapted instruction. The most promising

J. Randy McGinnis is a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. I acknowledge the contributions (the demographic information for the of students with special needs in the United States of America, information on universal design for learners, and some additional relevant literature) made by Dr. Susan De La Paz, Department of Counseling, Higher Education and Special Education, University of Maryland. Correspondence should be addressed to J. Randy McGinnis, Science Teaching Center, Department of Teaching, Learning, Policy, and Leadership, Room 2226 Benjamin, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: [email protected]

insights culled from a review of the literature to achieve this goal for curriculum, instruction, and assessment are presented for science teachers at all grade levels, and also for school administrators and policy makers. A call for more research is made, with an emphasis placed on how teachers of science can best conduct and use practitioner research in this topic area.

A

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN of science teachers at all grade levels and contexts is deciding what instructional practices empirical research suggests as effective and/or promising in supporting the learning needs and expected achievement for students across a diverse spectrum of capabilities and challenges. This article focuses on learners with special needs in science who differ substantially in their performances (physical, cognitive, or behavioral dimensions) from typical learner performances and who need additional services and supports. A major emphasis on meeting the instructional requirements of students with special needs is necessary if science teachers are to achieve the field’s longstanding goal of “Science for all

43

Diversity and Equity in Science Education

Americans” (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, p. x). Professional organizations such as the National Research Council (1996), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993), and the National Science Teachers Association (2004) have called for science literacy for all, regardless of any categorization of learners’ abilities (McGinnis, 2000). In addition, in the United States there is an established body of legislation and case law that protects the rights of learners with disabilities (Friend & Bursuck, 1999; Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 1998), as well as ethical and moral obligations for educators to fulfill (McGinnis, 2003), which adds impetus for teachers to achieve this worthy goal. This article focuses on the fundamental questions that researchers interested in improving science education for students with special needs have examined empirically and what has been learned in regard to making science more accessible and relevant to students with special needs through evidence-based adapted instruction. The most promising insights culled from a review of the literature to achieve this goal for curriculum, instruction, and assessment are presented for science teachers at all grade levels, and also for school administrators and policy makers. As a way to ensure that the science teacher evaluates the recommendations as feasible, use of support provided by the school and by the school districts to achieve this goal (such as specialists in special education and curricula resources) is highly encouraged. Also, it must be underscored that although the recommendations for instructional modifications will benefit most students with disabilities, due to the underlying reality that degrees of variations in disabilities exist, additional individual modifications may be required for particular students.

Demographics of U.S. Students With Special Needs Data from the US Department of Education (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009) indicate that 13.4% of all prekindergarten through 12th-grade students (out of a total US student

44

population of almost 50 million) are identified as having some type of disability, and that this number has remained fairly stable since at least 2002. Of this group, most students are identified as having a learning disability (5.2%, or 2,573,000 students). Other high incidence or commonly occurring disabilities include speech or language impairment (3.0%, or 1,456,000 students), mental retardation (1%, or 500,000 students), and emotional disturbance (0.9%, or 442,000 students). Less common so-called low incidence disabilities include, but are not limited to, developmental delay (0.7%, or 358,000 students), autism (0.6%, or 296,000 students), hearing impairment (0.2%, or 79,000 students), and orthopedic impairment (0.1%, or 67,000 students).

Education Policy Considerations The educational rights of students with special needs in the United States are defined and protected by legislation that has evolved over time. The enactment in 1975 of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (passed by the US Congress as PL94-142) started a new educational policy expectation that students with special needs would be included in the least restrictive environment (typically, the regular classroom). Supplementary materials and aids would be employed to meet their learning needs. The most current legislation is Public Law 108-446 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, which supports and extends PL94-142 policy to the posteducation or employment time period (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). In addition, the assessment of students with disabilities has gained much attention due to its prominence in the 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation, in which disaggregated assessment data by subject matter for different student groups, including those with disabilities, are used to define school performance levels (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). Reauthorization of this legislation is under negotiation, with the hope that changes will be beneficial for students with special needs, particularly concerning the equity

McGinnis

issue that relates directly to their ability to earn a high school diploma as determined by successful performance on high-stakes tests. Instructional Practice Models for Students With Special Needs in Science Since passage of PL94-14, learners receiving special education services in the United States increasingly have been served in the general education setting. Although there is no one standard model of collaborative service provided by special educators and regular educators, Bauwens, as long ago as 1991, described three common models: teacher assistance teams, collaborative consultation, and cooperative teaching. Teacher assistance teams consist of teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents who provide support to the classroom teachers with the goal of implementing appropriate opportunities for learners with special needs. Collaborative consultation is an arrangement between the special education teacher and regular education teacher to share expertise while identifying potential problems faced by learners with special needs and to develop solutions. Cooperative teaching (frequently referred to as collaborative or coteaching in the literature) occurs when regular and special educators coordinate their efforts to jointly teach heterogeneous students in integrated settings (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997). Of the three basic models, coteaching has consistently been identified by survey research as the more frequently implemented practice (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Boon, 1998). Results for coteaching in the science classroom, however, are mixed with both benefits and unmet potential (Moin, Magieri, & Zigmond, 2009). Recommendations for Practice Culled From the Literature in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment for Students With Special Needs in Science Curriculum The fundamental research question in regard to science curriculum for students with special


needs is “What science curriculum is most appropriate for students with special needs?” Curricular modifications are often varied according to content and grade level expectations. They can be designed for groups of students and for individual students. Key findings of empirical studies influenced by this line of thought are summarized below. Booth and Ainscow (1998) suggested that one type of curricular modification is allowing students to participate in setting their own learning and social objectives combined with the teachers’ objectives in the same areas. Lynch and colleagues (2007) reported on the results of a quasi-experimental study of the implementation of a science unit (Chemistry That Applies) for learners with special needs in general education classrooms. The results supported claims that science instruction that included guided inquiry, hands-on science, and students working in heterogeneous laboratory groups can be appropriate and effective for students with special needs. In an article that summarized modifications to assist teachers in successfully teaching students with mild learning disabilities who were in high school science courses (biology, Earth science, and chemistry), Steele (2007) reported that the common characteristics for the students with special needs for whom modifications were recommended were problems in processing skills, memory, language, and attention. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are offered to teachers of science who teach students with special needs:

Modify curriculum materials, as needed. For example, adapt readings and activity sheets to match the reading/comprehension level of the student; use written backup for oral directions; shorten the assignment; give directions in small, distinct steps; read the directions to the student; and use a school/home assignment. Coordinate the modifications in curriculum, instruction, and assessment of all the student’s teachers across the school day.

45


Instruction The fundamental research question in regard to science instruction for students with special needs is “Which instructional techniques in science education are most effective, for whom, and for what purpose(s)?” In an attempt to support students with special needs in science, teachers have made accommodations in their practices (a change in some aspect of the instructional delivery that allows students with disabilities to demonstrate competence in achieving the same educational goal that is expected of students who do not have disabilities) and/or modifications (fundamental changes in the nature of the learning situation). Key findings of empirical studies influenced by this line of thought are summarized below. In regard to how general and special educators may work collaboratively on making accommodations and modifications, Golomb and Hammeken (1996) underscored the crucial benefits of the student’s individual education program (IEP) as a framework and reference. When teachers believe that the types of accommodations and modifications are feasible and desirable, they use accommodations and modifications (Johnson & Pugach, 1990; Yesseldyke, Thurlow, Wotruba, & Nania, 1990). In inclusive settings where accommodations and modifications are instituted, Winter (1997) reported that all children learn, feel a sense of belonging, and achieve their educational and social goals. Adjusting the length of assignments and acquiring alternative resources improved academic performances of students at different levels of reading ability, according to a study reported by Lawrence (1988). Johnson and Pugach (1990) reported that classroom teachers’ most feasible instructional accommodations for learners with special needs centered on using positive methods and multisensory techniques that were readily integrated into daily classroom routines. The most desirable classroom accommodations reported by teachers were: identifying alternate ways to manage student behavior, implementing alternative instructional methodologies, using a variety of instructional materials, and using al-

46

ternative grouping practices (Yesseldyke et al., 1990). To the extent that inquiry tasks are developmentally appropriate and carefully structured, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Butcher (1997) reported that learning might be more successful for students with mild disabilities. To the extent, however, that students are expected to discover new rules and generalizations on their own with little or no special support, learning was likely to be less successful. In a study conducted in an informal science education context outside the school, Brooke and Solomon (2001) examined the extent to which students with developmental delays (Down syndrome) learned science. The researchers found that the students could manipulate materials independently (an interactive exhibit), demonstrated concentration, and engaged in a search for causation to explain observed phenomenon. In an influential study, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Magnusen (1999) reported the findings of several extended classroom investigations in science education that included students with special needs. In all cases, certified teachers implemented the science instruction over extended time periods to their students with and without disabilities. Additionally, the science curricula were adapted as necessary to promote the successful participation and learning of students with disabilities. Activities-based curriculum materials were used solely, in combination, or in comparison with textbook-based curriculum materials. Findings across all classroom implementation indicated that students with special needs successfully learned more when taught with the adapted activities-based science curriculum materials. Additionally, students with special needs overwhelmingly reported enjoying the activities-oriented instruction more than textbook instruction. Teachers noted that during activities-oriented instruction, students appeared more motivated to learn and to participate in class, and demonstrated more on-task behaviors. However, teachers also reported that activitiesoriented instruction involved considerably more teacher preparation time, behavior management skills, and organizational skills than traditional

McGinnis

textbook instruction. Zembylas and Insenbarger (2002) also found evidence in support of an activity-oriented science curriculum but noted that the presence of a caring teaching construct (respecting students’ talents and strengths) enhanced the effectiveness of the approach. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are offered to teachers of science who teach students with special needs: Teach science, at least at times, in an activityoriented, inquiry approach rather than in a content-oriented approach. Although scientific information is important, placing an emphasis in science instruction on scientific practices better portrays authentic science, which better prepares students to engage in science, succeed in science, and be competitive for careers in science. However, monitoring closely the quality of the learning experience for students with developmental delays is advised due to the mixed research results. Make instructional accommodations a regular feature of your practice. For example, reteach vocabulary; use manipulatives; demonstrate concepts; tape lectures for playback; use small group instruction; permit peer coaching during lessons; use a multimodal teaching approach that includes auditory, visual, and tactile modes; use a parallel curriculum; check often for understanding; have the student repeat directions; and plan for activity-oriented lessons. Assessment The fundamental question concerning assessment of content and performance in science for students with special needs is “What assessment is most appropriate for students with special needs?” A fundamental standard to meet, according to the legal system, is that educational facilities must be accessible and usable by all students. Practically, this means that acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of assessments, qualified readers or interpreters, appropriate modification in training materials and/or


policies, extended time, and other similar modifications must be made for individuals with special needs whose disabilities are legally documented (42 USC 12/11, Section 101[9]). Key findings of empirical studies influenced by this line of thought are summarized below. In a study that examined the implementation of a science project designed to include junior high school students with severe emotional disturbances or diagnosed learning challenges into the general education science classroom, Cawley, Hayden, Cade, and Baker-Kroczynski (2002) found that accommodations for the students by the teachers were guided by their IEPs. Academic performance was measured by a districtwide science test and final grade. The academic success of the students with special needs was comparable to the passing rate of the general education students. That is, 11 of the 16 students in special education (69%) passed the district exam, which is equal to the rate at which the general education students passed the exam. The behavior of the special education students posed no problem in the science class, and the behavior of the general education students was not affected in a negative way by the presence of the special education students. The behavior of the general education students was better during science, and in one case, a class had 50% fewer discipline referrals than a class not having special education students as members. How students with special needs (serious emotional disturbances) learned science in two different instruction environments (traditional textbook approach and a hands-on, thematic approach) was examined by McCarthy (2005). Overall, students in the hands-on instructional program performed significantly better than the students in the textbook program on two of three measures of science achievement, a hands-on assessment and a short-answer test. The students did not differ on a multiple choice format test. Mastropieri, et al. (2006) investigated assessment in high-stakes testing with students with special needs. The study compared two instructional strategies, differentiated hands-on activities and teacher-directed, for students with mild disabilities in inclusive 8th-grade science

47


classes. Results showed that collaborative handson activities significantly facilitated learning of science content on posttests and on state highstakes tests for all students. The students also indicated that they enjoyed using the activities. The results suggested that students in inclusive science classes could work with each other in critical content area materials, and that their content area learning improved at a rate greater than that attained through traditional instruction. Recently, Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkely, and Graetz (2009) conducted a literature review of empirical studies of students with diverse learning needs in content area classes. In science, explicit instruction that employed differential practice time and levels and cognitive strategies (e.g., peer tutoring and embedded strategic information) enhanced students’ learning of content, which increased student performance on highstakes tests. It should be noted that the assessment of students with special needs in science and other content areas often leads to controversy (McGinnis & Stefanich, 2007). Much of the controversy associated with educational assessment exists because individuals and professional associations (see the National Center for Educational Outcomes and the Council for Exceptional Children) have different views on the validity and reliability of standardized assessments; concerns about how assessment results will impact the students being tested; concerns about how assessment results will be used to evaluate those giving instruction or delivering programs; concerns about how legislative bodies will use the assessment information in funding and evaluating schools; and concerns about the use of assessment results in labeling and categorizing students. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are offered to teachers of science who teach students with special needs: Modify the assessment procedure and grading system, as appropriate within the individual science teachers’ classroom responsibilities to match the student’s IEP. When direct instruction is practiced, include strategies such as differential practice time and

48

levels, peer tutoring, and embedded strategic information.

Conclusions The review of the science education research has resulted in multiple recommendations for teachers of science to meet the needs of their students with special needs. Another ongoing initiative that strives to achieve the same results for students with special needs without adaptation or specialized design is referred to as universal design or universal design for learners (UDL; Trundle, 2008). The goal of UDL is to design upfront and on-the-spot interactions, environments, products, services, and resources to be accessible by all learners, to the greatest extent possible (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Kurtts, Matthews, & Smallwood, 2009). A hope held by many is that rigorous and systematic studies in UDL may be supported with significant resources as a way to lead to major breakthroughs in meeting the needs of students with special needs across the content areas, including science. Finally, even though the recommendations culled from the literature are promising and provide guidance for effective science education for all, the discerning classroom teacher of science may recognize that much remains to be studied to improve science education for students with special needs in science classrooms, especially regarding equity concerns (for example, what are the consequences of excluding students with special needs from enriched science education courses due to ability level conditions?). Therefore, a final recommendation is that teachers of science engage in practitioner research (Mills, 2011) in their practices to investigate how to meet the needs of students with special needs in their immediate science education contexts. Practitioner research places an emphasis on teachers identifying meaningful questions, systematically collecting data to answer the questions, and analyzing and interpreting such data as a way to promote evidence-based actions. Consequently, teachers prepared to teach science, which is

McGinnis


conducted in a like manner, are particularly well situated to carry out practitioner research for the benefit of students with special needs in science education.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. Bauwens, J. (1991, March). Blueprint for cooperation teaching. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Special Education Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA. Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1997, April). Cooperative teaching: Portraits of possibilities. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London, UK: Routledge. Brooke, H., & Solomon, J. (2001). Passive visitors or independent explorers: Responses of pupils with severe learning difficulties at an interactive science centre. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 941–953. 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. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Golomb, K., & Hammeken, P. (1996). Grappling with inclusion confusion? Learning, 24, 48–51. Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 8–17. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446. Retrieved May 28, 2011, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute. html. Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1990). Classroom teacher’s views of intervention strategies for learning and behavior problems: Which are reasonable and how frequently are they used? Journal of Special Education, 24, 69–84. Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E., & Smallwood, T. (2009). (Dis)solving the differences: A physical

science lesson using universal design. Intervention in school and clinic, 44, 151–159. Lawrence, P. (1988). Basic strategies for mainstreaming integration. Academic Therapy, 23, 335–349. Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W. A., Ochsedorf, 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. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 31, 199–211. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Magnusen, M. (1999). Activities-oriented science instruction for students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 240–249. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., Conners, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effect of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263. McGinnis, J. R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry for students with disabilities. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 425–433). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive verses exclusive settings: Preparing teachers to teach students with developmental disabilities in science. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 195–216). Dordrecht: Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. McGinnis, J. R., & Stefanich, G. (2007). Special needs and talents in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research in science education (pp. 287–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press. Mills, G. (2011). Action research: A Guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson. Moin, L., Magieri, K., & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 7, 677–697.

49

Diversity and Equity in Science Education National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). Table 50. Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976– 77 through 2007–08. Retrieved from http://nces.ed. gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_050.asp? referrerDlist National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association position statement. (2004). Science education for students with disabilities. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http:// www.nsta.org/about/positions/disabilities/aspx. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved May 29, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ esea02/index.html. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkely, S., & Graetz, J. E. (2009). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content?: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449.

50

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 32, 21–44. Smith, T. E., Polloway, E., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (1998). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Steele, M. (2007). Students with learning disabilities. Science Teacher, 3, 24–27. Trundle, K. G. (2008). Inquiry-based science instruction for students with disabilities. In Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Washington, DC: NSTA Press. Winter, S. (1997). “SMART” planning for inclusion. Childhood Education, 73, 212–218. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M., Wotruba, J., & Nania, P. (1990). Instructional arrangements: Perceptions for general education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22, 4–7. 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, 55–79.

Copyright of Theory Into Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.