BellB.CowieB. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553. doi: 10.1002/sce.1022.
2.
BlackP.WilliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102.
3.
CarpenterL. B.DyalA. (2007). Secondary inclusion: Strategies for implementing the consultative teacher model. Education, 127(3), 344–350.
4.
CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
5.
CowieB.BellB. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6, 102–116. doi: 10.1080/09695949993026.
6.
EllisE. S.HowardP. W. (2007). A focus on graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Current Practice Alerts: Go For It, 13. Retrieved from http://www.teachingld.org/pdf/alert13.pdf.
7.
EnglertC. S. (1983). Measuring special education teacher effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 50, 247–254.
8.
GriffinC. C.SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7(4), 355–376.
9.
HandB.Norton-MeierL.StakerJ.BintzJ. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10.
HughesC. A.MacCiniP.GagnonJ. C. (2003). Interventions that positively impact the performance of students with learning disabilities in secondary general education classes. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 12(3), 101–111.
11.
JitendraA.EdwardsL.SacksG.JacobsonL. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
12.
KaldenbergE.TherrienW.WattS.GorshJ.TaylorJ. (2011). Three keys to success in science for students with learning disabilities. Science Scope, 35, 36–39.
13.
KeeleyP. (2011). Formative assessment probes. Science and Children, 48(4), 24.
14.
KlahrD.LiJ. (2005). Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 217–238. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-4423-5.
15.
KlahrD.NigamM. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
16.
KooyT.SkokR. L.McLaughlinT. F. (1992). The effect of graphic advance organizers on the math and science comprehension with high school special education students. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 16(2), 101–111.
17.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1998). Enhancing school success with mnemonic strategies. LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/5912.
18.
MinnerD. D.LevyA. J.CenturyJ. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
19.
MurawskiW. W.DiekerL. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher: Strategies for before, during, and after co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40–48.
20.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011. NCES 2011–033. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/.
21.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
National Science Teachers Association. (2011). Position statement on scientific inquiry. Retrieved from NSTA web site: http://www.nsta.org/.
24.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
25.
RitchieD.KargeB. D. (1996). Making information memorable: Enhanced knowledge retention and recall through the elaboration process. Preventing School Failure, 41(1), 28–33.
26.
SadlerD. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714.
27.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74. doi: 10.1080/09362830701294144.
28.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BoonR. (1998). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32, 21–44. doi: 10.1080/03057269808560126.
29.
TherrienW. J.TaylorJ. C.HospJ. L.KaldenbergE. R.GorshJ. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188–203.