Ensuring Meaningful Access to the Science Curriculum for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Agran M. Cavin M. Wehmeyer M. Palmer S. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the self-determined learning model of instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.

Ayers K. M. Lowery K. A. Douglas K. H. Sievers C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can't brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.

Barron A. E. Harmes C. J. Kemker K. (2006). Authentic instruction in laptop classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 22, 119–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v22n03_10.

Bybee R. W. Taylor J. A. Gardner A. Van Scotter P. Powell Carlson J. Westbrook A. Landes N. (2006, June). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). Retrieved from http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf.

Collins B. C. Hager K. L. Galloway C. C. (2011). Addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 22–39.

Collins B. C. Karl J. Riggs L. Galloway C. C. Hagar D. K. (2010). Teaching core content with real-life applications to secondary students with moderate and severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(1), 52–59.

Courtade G. R. Spooner F. Browder D. M. (2007). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 43–49.

DeBoer G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6xxx582::AID-TEA5yyy3.0.CO;2-L.

Giessman J. (2010). Authentic learning for authentic life. Independent School, 69(3), 14–16.

Hammerman H. (2006). 8 Essentials of inquiry-based science, K-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hitchcock C. Meyer A. Rose D. Jackson R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act , 20 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (2006).

Jimenez B. A. Browder D. M. Courtade G. (2008). Teaching an algebraic equation to high school students with moderate developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 266–274.

Jimenez B. A. Browder D. M. Courtade G. (2010). An exploratory study of self-directed science concepts learning by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(2), 33–46.

Llewellyn D. (2007). Inquiry within. Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades K-8. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, June). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Teacher Association. (2011). NSTA reports: Anticipating the next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=59290 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2006).

Parrish P. R. Stodden R. A. (2009). Aligning assessment and instruction with state standards for children with significant disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(4), 46–56.

Snell M. E. Brown F. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Snell M. E. Brown F. (2011). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sorrells A. M. Rieth H. J. Sindelar P. T. (2004). Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Spooner F. Knight V. Browder D. Jimenez B. DiBiase W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(2), 62–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.62.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). A decision framework for IEP teams related to methods for individual student participation in state accountability assessments. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/index.html.

Yell M. Y. Drasgrow E. Lowery K. A. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with autism disorders. Focus on Autism Disorders and Developmental Disabilities, 20, 130–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200030101.

Zemelman S. Daniels H. Hyde A. (2005). Best practice: Today's standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.