Promoting Literacy-Embedded,Authentic STEM Instruction for Students with Disabilities and other Struggling Learners

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AccessSTEM (2007). Building capacity to include students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Basham

J. D.

Israel

Maynard

(2010). Developing an ecological model for STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9–19.

Benenson

(2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 730–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.

Breiner

J. M.

Johnson

C. C.

Harkness

S. S.

Koehler

C. M.

(2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.

Brigham

F. J.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 223–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00343.x.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2012). Acknowledging learner variability. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/changes.

Cervetti

G. N.

Pearson

P. D.

Barber

Hiebert

E. H.

Bravo

M. A.

(2007). Integrating literacy and science: The research we have, the research we need. In Pressley

Billman

A. K.

Perry

Refitt

Reynolds

(Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement (pp. 157–174). New York, NY: Guilford. Retrieved from http://textproject.org/library/articles/?start=10.

Crismond

(2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 791–820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.1032.

Faggella-Luby

M. N.

Graner

P. S.

Deshler

D.D.

Drew

(2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 69–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TLD.ob013e318245618e.

10.

Hagaman

J. L.

Reid

(2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932507311638.

11.

Kolodner

J. L.

Camp

P. J.

Crismond

Fasse

Gray

J. Holbrook

Ryan

(2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting a learning-by-design curriculum into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2.

12.

Leddy

M. H.

(2010). Technology to advance high school and undergraduate students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 3–8.

13.

Lee

Erdogan

(2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600972974.

14.

Matthews

(2007). Science, engineering, and mathematics education: Status and issues. Federal Publications: Congressional Research Service (CRS) Rep. and Issue Briefs, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

15.

Mehalik

M. M.

Doppelt

Schunn

C. D.

(2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.

16.

National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations [Report]. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13078.

17.

National Research Council, Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

18.

National Research Council. National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering.

19.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011 (Special Report NSF 11–309). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.

20.

Newmann

F. M.

King

M. B.

Carmichael

D. L.

(2007). Authentic instruction and assessment: Common standards for rigor and relevance in teaching academic subjects. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education.

21.

Palinscar

A. S.

Brown

A. L.

(1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

22.

Pugach

M. C.

Johnson

L. J.

Drame

E. R.

Williamson

(2012). Collaborative practitioners collaborative schools (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

23.

Robinson

F. P.

(1970). Effective study (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

24.

Shanahan

(2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a.

25.

Villanueva

M. G.

Hand

(2011). Science for all: Engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 233–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00344.x.

26.

Williams

J. P.

Stafford

K. B.

Lauer

K. D.

Hall

K. M.

Pollini

(2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013152.

27.

Wood

K. D.

(2002). Differentiating reading and writing lessons to promote content learning. In Block

C. C.

Gambell

L. B.

Pressley

(Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking, research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 155–180). San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass. PMid: 11869197.

28.

Yore

L. D.

Pimm

Tuan

(2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 559–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4.

29.

Zwiers

(2010). Building reading comprehension habits in grades 6–12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.