This investigation compared quantitative outcomes associated with classwide peer tutoring using differentiated hands-on activities vs. teacher-directed instruction for students with mild disabilities in inclusive 8th-grade science classes. Thirteen classes of 213 students (109 males; 104 females), of whom 44 were classified with disabilities, participated in 12-week sessions in a randomized field trial design. Experimental classes received units of differentiated, peer-mediated, hands-on instruction, while control classes received traditional science instruction. Results indicate that collaborative hands-on activities statistically facilitate learning of middle school science content on posttests and on state high-stakes tests for all students and that students enjoyed using the activities. Implications for practice indicate use of supplemental peer mediated hands-on activities may provide necessary review and practice for students with disabilities. Future research would help uncover additional critical instructional variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderman, E.M. (1998). The middle school experience: Effects on the math and science achievement of adolescents with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 128—138.
2.
Armbruster, B.B., & Anderson, T.H. (1988). On selecting “considerate” content area textbooks. Remedial & SpecialEducation, 9, 47—52.
3.
Bakken, J.P., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 300—324.
4.
Bay, M., Staver, J., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555—570.
5.
Bergerud, D., Lovitt, T.C., & Horton, S. (1988). The effectiveness of textbook adaptations in life science for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 70—76.
6.
Carlisle, J. (1993). Understanding passages in science textbooks: A comparison of students with and without learning disabilities. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 42, 235—242.
7.
Carlisle, J. (1999). Free recall as a test of reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 11—22.
8.
Cawley, J.F., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Krooczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423—435.
9.
Cawley, J.F., Miller, J.H., & Carr. S.C. (1990). An examination of the reading performance of students with mild educational handicaps or learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 284—290.
10.
Cawley, J.F., & Parmar, R.S. (2001). Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly,17, 105-125.
11.
Dalton, B., Morocco, C.C., & Tivnan, T. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670—684.
12.
Eylon, B.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research , 58, 251—301.
13.
Finson, K.D., Ormsbee, C.K., Jensen, M., & Powers, D.T. (1997). Science in the mainstream: Retooling science activities . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 219—232.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309—318.
15.
Gartin, B.C., Murdick, N.L., Imbeau, M., & Perner, D.E. (2002). How to use di ferentiated instruction with students with developmental disabilities in the general education program. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
16.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23—35.
17.
Greenwood, C.R. (1999). Reflections on a research career: Perspective on 35 years of research at the Juniper Gardens Children's Project. Exceptional Children, 66, 7—22.
Kinder, D., Bursuck, W.D., & Epstein, M.H. (1992). An evaluation of history textbooks. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 472-491.
20.
King-Sears, M.E., Mercer, C.D., & Sindelar, P.T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonic: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 22—33.
21.
Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Benedetti, D. (1985). Two methods of adapting science materials for learning disabled and regular seventh graders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 275—285.
22.
Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Benedetti, D. (1986). Adapting science materials for regular and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 31—39.
23.
Maheady, L., Sacca, M.K., & Harper, G.F. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring with mildly handicapped high school students. Exceptional Children, 55, 52—59.
24.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377—411.
25.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2002). E fective instruction for special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). Effective classroom instruction. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (pp. 687— 691). Oxford, UK: Elsevier .
27.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (in press). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for e fective teaching (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall/Merrill.
28.
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, 130—138.
29.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities?The Journal of Special Education, 31, 199—211.
30.
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. 99—110). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
31.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Mantzicopoulos, P.Y., Sturgeon, A., Good-win, 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.
32.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Mohler, L.J., Beranek, M.L., Spencer, V., Boon, R.T., et al. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,16, 18—27.
33.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,18, 52—65.
34.
McCarthy, C.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.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2005). NAEP science assessment data, 2000. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov
36.
Nelson, J.R., Smith, D.J., & Dodd, J.M. (1992). Investigations into the relationship between science and language abilities of students with mild disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children,15, 228—243.
37.
Parmar, R.S., Deluca, C.B., & Janczak, T.M. (1994). Investigations into the relationship between science and language abilities of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 117—126.
38.
Patton, J.R., Polloway, E.A., & Cronin, M.E. (1994). Science education for students with mild disabilities: A status report. Austin, TX: Learning for Living. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370329)
39.
Scruggs, T.E. (2004, March). Science for students with disabilities: Good for students, good for science!Paper presented at the Secretary's Summit on Science, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved October 18, 2005, at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/scruggs.html
40.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities . Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15—24.
41.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1995). Science and mental retardation: An analysis of curriculum features and learner characteristics. Science &Education, 79, 251—271.
42.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1998). Peer tutoring and students with special needs. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer assisted learning (pp. 165—182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
43.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 10, 163—173.
44.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2003). Science and social studies . In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 364—379). New York : Guilford.
45.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Bakken, J.P., & Brigham, F.J. (1993). Reading vs. doing: The relative effectiveness of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science education. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 1—15.
46.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education , 32, 21—44.
47.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., McLoone, B.B., Levin, J.R., & Morrison, C. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of learning disabled students'memory for expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27—34.
48.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Wolfe, S. (1995). Scientific reasoning of students with mental retardation: Investigating preconceptions and conceptual change. Exceptionality,5, 223—244.
49.
Shepard, T., & Adjogah, S. (1994). Science performance of students with learning disabilities on language-based measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 219—225.
50.
Spencer, V., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2003). Content area learning in middle school social studies classrooms and students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A comparison of strategies. Behavioral Disorders , 28, 77—93.
51.
Stanford Achievement Test Series (9th ed.). (2001). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
52.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). The di ferentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
53.
Virginia State Department of Education. (2005 ). Virginia school report card: Standards of Learning (SOL) assessment results. Richmond, VA: Author. Retrieved October 18, 2005, at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/src/SOLassessments.shtml
54.
Whitehurst, G.J. (2004, March). Research on science education. Paper presented at the Secretary's Summit on Science, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved November 1, 2005, at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/whitehurst04/index.html
55.
Woodward, J., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). Teacher problem solving through computer simulations . American Educational Research Journal, 25, 7—28.
56.
Woodward, J., & Noel, J. (1992). Science instruction at the secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities. In D. Carnine & E. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstreamed students (pp. 39—58). Austin, TX: PRO-ED .
