The Next Generation Science Standards framework outlines scientific and engineering practices as a key element of student development. Educators are just beginning to discover effective and meaningful ways to teach science content to students with intellectual disability; however, the literature on teaching science practices is still limited and engineering practices nonexistent. This study utilized a quasi-experimental group design to investigate the impact of universally designed engineering curriculum on 43 students with intellectual disability and autism display of engineering habits of mind (e.g., persist and learn from failure) during ongoing Engineering is Elementary design challenges. A statistically significant difference between the control and treatment groups was found. Findings suggest engineering instruction may support student development of problem-solving skills.
BrowderD. M.WoodL.ThompsonJ.RibuffoC. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-3). Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/
2.
CapobiancoB. M.Diefers-DuxH. A.MenaI.WellerJ. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00015.x
CourtadeG. R.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DiBiaseW. (2010). Training teachers to use an inquiry-based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 378–399.
5.
CourtadeG. R.SpoonerF.BrowderD. M. (2007). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 43–49.
6.
CourtadeG. R.SpoonerF.BrowderD.JimenezB. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Development Disabilities, 47(1), 3–13.
7.
CunninghamC. M.CarlsenW. S. (2014). Precollege engineering education. In LedermanN. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 747–758). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Engineering is Elementary. (2019). Museum of Science.
10.
Gruber-HineL. K. (2018). Engineering is Elementary: Identifying instances of collaboration during the engineering design process [Doctoral dissertation]. Syracuse University. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/848/
11.
HallT. E.MeyerA.RoseD. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press.
12.
HeinrichS.CollinsB. C.KnightV.SpriggsA. D. (2016). Embedded simultaneous prompting procedure to teach STEM content to high school students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive setting. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(1), 41–54.
13.
JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DiBiaseW. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440291207800303
14.
KellyG. J. (2011). Scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In LinderC.OstmanL.RobertsD. A.WickmanP.-O.EricksonG.MacKinnonA. (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 61–73). Routledge.
15.
KnightV. F.CollinsB.SpriggsA. D.SartiniE.MacDonaldM. J. (2018). Scripted and unscripted science lessons for children with autism and intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(7), 2542–2557. https://doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3514-0
16.
KnightV. F.WoodL.McKissickB. R.KuntzE. M. (2019). Teaching science content and practices to students with intellectual disability and autism. Remedial and Special Education, 41(6), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932519843998
17.
LachapelleC. P.CunninghamC. M.JoczJ.KayA. E.PhadnisP.WertheimerJ.ArteagaR. (2011). Engineering is Elementary: An evaluation of years 4 through 6 field testing. Museum of Science.
18.
LevyS. T. (2013). Young children’s learning of water physics by constructing working systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 537–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9202-z
19.
Lottero-PerdueP. S.NealyJ.RolandC.RyanA. (2011, December). Caught on video! Using handheld digital video cameras to support evidence-based reasoning. Science and Children, 49(4), 56–60.
20.
Lottero-PerdueP. S.ParryE. A. (2017). Elementary teachers’ reflections on design failures and use of fail words after teaching engineering for two years. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1160
21.
MoskalB. M.LeydensJ. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, Article 10.
22.
National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects (KatehiL.PearsonG.FederM., Eds.). Academy of Engineering & National Research Council.
23.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962
24.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
25.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). The National Academies Press.
26.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
27.
PantoyaM.HuntE.Aguirre-MunozZ. (2015). Developing an engineering identity in early childhood. American Journal of Engineering Education, 6(2), 61–68.
28.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
29.
RutherfordF. J.AhlgrenA. (1991). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
SchaubleL.KlopferL. E.RaghavanK. (1991). Students’ transition from engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910
31.
SmithB. R.SpoonerF.JimenezB. A.BrowderD. (2013). Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(1), 1–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42900600
32.
SpoonerF.KnightV.BrowderD.JimenezB.DiBiaseW. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36(1), 62–75.
33.
TrelaK.JimenezB. (2013). From functional to personally relevant curriculum: A reflection on the shift from “different” to “differentiated” curriculum for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 117–119.
34.
WongC.OdomS. L.HumeK. A.CoxA. W.FettigA.KucharczykS.BrockM. E.PlavnickJ. B.FleuryV. P.SchultzT. R. (2014). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://autism.unt.edu/sites/default/files/2014-EBP-Report%20%28NPDC%29.pdf
