Students with learning disabilities in four special education classrooms studied two science units (magnetism and electricity, and rocks and minerals) via either an activity-based, inquiry-oriented approach or a textbook approach. The investigation was conducted over a 2-week period and employed a counterbalanced, withinsubjects design, in which all students received both treatments. Students performed significantly higher on immediate and delayed unit tests when they had learned by the inquiry-oriented approach, although vocabulary acquisition was limited in both conditions. Additionally, students reported overwhelming preference for activity-based learning over textbook approaches. Implications for special education are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, J.G., Ceci, S. J., & Herrmann, D. (1987). Semantic structure and processing: Implications for the learning disabled child. In H.L. Swanson (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disorders (pp. 83–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2.
Bay, M., Staver, J.R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J.B. (in press). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
3.
Blough, G.O., & Schwartz, J. (1990). Elementary school science and how to teach it (8th ed.). Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Eylon, B., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251–301.
6.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17–31.
7.
Hadary, D., & Cohen, S.H. (1978). Laboratory science and art for blind, deaf, and emotionally disturbed children: A mainstrearning approach. Baltimore: University Park Press.
8.
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
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(1), 31–39.
11.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
12.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
13.
Mastropleri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
14.
Mastropieri, M.A, & Scruggs, T.E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.
15.
Mathias, M., & Johnson, R.A. (1981). Some thoughts on teaching science to the mentally handicapped secondary student. In M.E. Corrick (Ed.), Teaching handicapped students science (pp. 75–78). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
16.
Morocco, C.C., Dalton, B., & Tivnan, T. (1990). Interim report: Problem solving in science project. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
17.
Norman, C. (1991). Science education: Where's the beef?Science, 253, 1205.
18.
Patton, J.R., & Andre, K.E. (1989). Individualizing for science and social studies. In J. Wood (Ed.), Mainstreaming: A practical approach for teachers (pp. 301–351). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19.
Resnick, L. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L.S. Liben (Ed.), Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Rutherford, F.J., & Algren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory investigations to classroom applications. Journal of Special Education, 24, 7–32.
22.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219–229.
23.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (in press). Issues in intervention research: Secondary students. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Learning disabilities research: Theory applications, issues and ethics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
24.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., McLoone, B.B., Levin, J.R., & Morrison, C. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of text-embedded science facts with LD students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27–34.
25.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Sullivan, G.S., & Hesser, L.S. (in press). Improving reasoning and recall: The relative effects of mnemonic elaboration and elaborative interrogation. Learning Disability Quarterly.
26.
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., Jr., & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of the new science curricula on student performanceJournal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404.
27.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
28.
Winkler, A., Bernstein, L., Schachter, M., & Wolfe, S. (1984). Concepts and challenges in science, Book 1 (2nd ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
