This article presents a conceptual framework for refining instruction in science for students with disabilities. We review the concept of situated cognition as a way to address difficulties students have in retention and generalization, a perennial issue in special education. If a goal for students is real world use of problem-solving strategies, students must have opportunities for contextual learning. The proposed framework suggests that integration of explicit instruction in critical concepts, with cognitively based approaches that emphasize problem-solving skills on real world tasks may allow students with disabilities to be successful The implications this framework has in terms of policy, professional development, and the creation of learning environments that promote retention and transfer are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelmontJ. M., & ButterfieldE. C. (1977). The instructional approach to developmental cognitive research. In KailR., & HagenJ. (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 437–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.*
2.
BosC. S., & AndersP. L. (1990). Interactive teaching and learning: Instructional practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge. In ScruggsT. E., & WongB. Y. L. (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 166–185). New York: Springer-Verlag.*
3.
BottgeB., & HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes.Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
4.
BrownJ. S., CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
5.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. B. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement routine and strategies in inclusive secondary classes.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(4), 198–208.
6.
ButterfieldE. C., SlocumT. A., & NelsonG. D. (1993). Cognitive and behavioral analyses of teaching and transfer: Are they different? In DettermanD. K., & SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction (pp. 192–257). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
CarnineD. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 130–141.
8.
CarnineD., JonesE., & DixonR. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners.School Psychology Review, 23(3), 406–427.
9.
CawleyJ., MillerJ., SentmanR., & BennettS. (1993). Science for all children.Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
10.
CawleyJ. F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 67–71.
11.
DaltonB., MoroccoC. C., TivnanT., & MeadP. R. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 670–684.
12.
DarchC., & CarnineD. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students.Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246.
13.
Education Development Center, Inc. (1991). Insights: A hands-on science module (K-6 curriculum unit).Newton, MA: Improving Elementary Urban Science Project.
14.
EnglertC. S., RaphaelT. E., AndersonL. M., AnthonyH. M., & StevensD. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337–372.
15.
FusonK. C. (1992). Research on learning and teaching addition and subtraction of whole numbers. In LeinhardtG., PutnamR., & HattrupR. (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 53–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.*
16.
GerstenR., & MclnerneyM. (1997). What parents, teachers and researchers view as critical issues in special education research: Technical Report 97-1.Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
17.
GinsbergH. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 20–33.
18.
Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 198–208.
19.
GoodrichB., & SternV. W. (1995, June). Teaching science and mathematics to students with learning disabilities: Challenges and resources.NSF/AAS Invitational Conference on Learning Disabilities and the Teaching of Science and Mathematics, Washington, DC.
20.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (1989). Improving learning disabled students' skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training.Exceptional Children, 56, 201–214.
21.
HiebertJ., CarpenterT. P., FennemaE., FusonK., HumanP., MurrayH., OlivierA., & WearneD. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics.Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
22.
HolahanG. G., McFarlandJ., & PicilloB. A. (1994). Elementary school science for students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 86–93.
23.
HollingsworthM., & WoodwardJ. (1993). Integrated learning: Explicit strategies and their role in problem-solving instruction for students with learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 59, 444–455.
24.
JonesE. D., WilsonR., & BhojwaniS. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 151–163.
25.
KellyB., GerstenR., & CarnineD. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 23–32.
26.
KolligianJ., & SternbergR. J. (1987). Intelligence, information processing, and specific learning disabilities: A triarchic synthesis.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 8–17.
27.
LosardoA., & BrickerD. (1994). A comparison study: Activity-based intervention and direct instruction.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98(6), 744–765.
28.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities.Review of Educational Research, 62(4), 377–411.
29.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1994). Text versus hand-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 72–85.
30.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., & ButcherK. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities?Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 199–211.
31.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & ChungS. (1997, March). Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
32.
McKinneyJ. D., OsborneS. S., & SchulteA. C. (1993). Academic consequences of learning disability: Longitudinal prediction of outcomes at 11 years of age.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(1), 19–27.
33.
MillerP. H. (1985). Metacognition and attention. In Forrest-PresselyD. L., MacKinnonG. E., & WallerT. G. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance Vol. 2 (pp. 181–218). New York: Academic Press.*
34.
MontagueM. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 164–177.
35.
MooreL. J., & CarnineD. W. (1989). A comparison of two approaches to teaching ratio and proportions to remedial and learning disabled students: Active teaching with either basal or empirically validated curriculum design material.Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 28–37.
36.
National Academy of Education. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform.Stanford, CA.
37.
NoletV., & TindalG. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and practical procedures.Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 36–48.
38.
PugachM. C., & WargerC. L. (1993). Curriculum considerations. In GoodlandJ., & LovittT. (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 125–148). New York: Merrill.*
39.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1985). Mastering fractions.Washington, DC: Author.
40.
UsiskinZ. (1993). Lessons from the Chicago mathematics project.Educational Leadership, 50(8), 14–18.
41.
WilliamsJ., FuchsL., GerstenR., & BakerS. (1997). Reading comprehension: A research summary for students with learning disabilities.Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
42.
WongB. Y. L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 110–120.
43.
WoodwardJ. (1994). The role of models in secondary science instruction.Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 94–104.
44.
WoodwardJ., & BaxterJ. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in mainstreamed settings.Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.
45.
WoodwardJ., CarnineD., & GerstenR. (1988). Teacher problem solving through computer simulations.American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 7–28.
46.
WoodwardJ., & GerstenR. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary learning disabled students: A multi-faceted study of implementation.Exceptional Children, 58, 407–421.
47.
WoodwardJ., & NoellJ. (1992). Science instruction at die secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 277–284.
