In this summative discussion, we respond to Crockett's proposals about supporting science in the schoolhouse, and we summarize and reflect on the perspectives of the commentators. Overall, they identify discussion points in issues of science in schooling, implementation of scientific practices, teacher training and professional development, and issues in educational administration and leadership. We agree with Crockett and the commentators that intensive efforts in all these areas must be made to strengthen the role of science in the schoolhouse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96—108.
2.
Miramontes, O.B., & Howe, K.R. (1992). The ethics of special education. New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.
4.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163—179.
5.
Nougaret, A. (2002). The impact of licensure status on the pedagogical competence of first-year special education teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
6.
Swanson, H.L. (2000). What instruction works for students with learning disabilities? Summarizing the results from a meta-analysis of intervention studies. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 1—30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
