This research is part of a study on scaling-up middle school science curriculum units in a large, diverse public school system. Chemistry That Applies (CTA), a guided inquiry unit based on conceptual change theory and highly rated according to the Project 2061 Curriculum Analysis, was implemented in five middle schools matched demographically with five comparison schools (N = 2,282 students). Eighth grade CTA students outscored their peers overall and when data were disaggregated, with small to medium effect sizes. Of particular interest are students with disabilities in general education science classrooms (n = 202 students with complete assessment records). Those who used CTA significantly outscored their comparison peers on the posttest, with a small to medium effect size.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2003a). Project 2061 analysis of science and mathematics assessment tasks. Manuscript in preparation.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2003b). Project 2061 development of science and mathematics assessment tasks. Manuscript in preparation.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
CawleyJ. F.HaydenS.CadeE.Baker-KroczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 4, 423–435.
7.
CawleyJ. F.KahnH.TedescoA. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.
8.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32 (6), 3–12.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
DaltonB.MoroccoC. C.TivnanT.MeadP. L. Rawson (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684.
11.
DriverR.GuesneF.TiberghienA. (Eds.). (1985). Children's ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
12.
DriverR. L.AsokoH.LeachJ.MortimerE.ScottP. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.
13.
FletcherJ. M.CoulterW. A.ReschlyD. J.VaughnS. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304–331.
14.
GinsbergH.OpperS. (1979). Piaget's theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
GrossenB. J.CarnineD. W.RomanceN. R.VitaleM. R. (2002). Effective strategies for teaching science. In Kame'enuiE. J.CarnineD. W.DixonR. C.SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D. (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.; pp. 149–175). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
16.
HolahanG.DeLucaC. (1993). The effects of theme-based “hands-on” science instruction on the performance of students with disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.
17.
HowellD. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology, (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
18.
Kame'enuiE. J.CarnineD. W.DixonR. C.SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19.
KesidouS.RosemanJ. 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.
20.
LenzK. B.DeshlerD. D.KissamB. (Eds.). (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
LynchS. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
LynchS. (2006). ISO metaphor and theory for scale-up research: Eagles in the Anacostia and activity systems. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
LynchS.KuipersJ.PykeC.SzeszeM. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse populations: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 912–947.
24.
LynchS.SzeszeM.PykeC.KuipersJ. (in press). Scaling-up highly rated middle school science curriculum units for diverse student populations: Features that affect collaborative research, and vice versa. Forthcoming in SchneiderB. (Ed.) Conceptualizing scale-up: Multidisciplinary perspectives.
25.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.
26.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72–85.
27.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities?. Journal of Special Education, 31, 199–211.
28.
MatonA.HopkinsJ.JohnsonS.LaHartD.WarnerM. QuonWrightD. (1997). Exploring physical science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall School.
29.
McCarthyC. 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.
30.
McCleeryJ. A.TindalG. 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.
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment, mathematics highlights 2003. (NCES Publication No. 2004–458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.
32.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–149.
35.
PalincsarA. S.MagnussonS. J.CollinsK. M.CutterJ. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15–32.
36.
PosnerG.StrikeK.HewsonP.GertzogW. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
37.
PykeC.OchsendorfR. (2004). Conservation of matter assessment manual. Unpublished manuscript, The George Washington University.
38.
RosemanJ.KesidouS.SternL. (1996, November). Identifying curriculum materials for science literacy: A Project 2061 evaluation tool. The colloquium on “Using the National Science Education Standards to Guide the Evaluation, Selection, and Adaptation of Instructional Materials.” National Research Council, Washington, DC.
39.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 15–24.
40.
State of Michigan. (1993). Chemistry that applies. Lansing, MI: Author.
41.
SternL.AhlgrenA. (2002). Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 889–910.
42.
StrikeK. A.PosnerG. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In DuschlR. A.HamiltonR. J. (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
43.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College.
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
