BarragaN. (1990). Research and practice in the field of visual impairment: 70 years of vision at Peabody. Peabody Journal of Education.67(2), 10–21.
2.
DionM., HoffmanK., & MatterA. (2000). Teacher's manual for adapting science experiments for blind and visually impaired students. Retrieved from http://www.tsbvi.edu/Education/Manuel2.doc
3.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
4.
ErwinE., PerkinsT., AyalaJ., FineM., & RubinE. (2001). “You don't have to be sighted to be a scientist, do you?” Issues and outcomes in science education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 338–352.
5.
GoughE. (1978). The science-related problem-solving processes of visually impaired adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
6.
GutmannA. (1987). Democratic education.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
HadaryD., & CohenS. (1978). Laboratory science and art for blind, deaf, and emotionally disturbed children.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
8.
KoenigA., & HolbrookM. (Eds.). (2000). Foundations of education: Volume II: Instructional strategies for teaching children and youths with visual impairments (2nd ed.). New York: AFB Press.
9.
KumarD., RamassamyR., & StefanichG. (2001). Science for students with visual impairments: Teaching suggestions and policy implication for secondary learners. [Electronic version]. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5, 1–9.
10.
LatherP. (2004). Fertile obsession: Validity after postructuralism. In SealeC. (Ed.), Social research methods: A reader (pp. 425–431). London: Routledge.
11.
LinnM., & TheirH. (1975). Adapting science material for the blind (ASMB): Expectation for student outcomes. Science Education, 59, 237–246.
12.
LongN. (1973). Science curriculum improvement study (SCIS): Its effect on concept development and manipulative skills in visually handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
13.
LynchS., TaymansJ., WatsonW., OchsendorfR., PykeC., & SzeszeM. (2007). Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 202–223.
14.
National Science Foundation. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research.Arlington, VA: Author.
15.
SealeC. (2002). Quality issues in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 97–110.
16.
SilbermanR., Ambrose-ZakenG., CornA., & TriefE. (2004). Profile of personnel preparation programs in visual impairments and their faculty: A status report. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 741–757.
17.
StoneD. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making.New York: W. W. Norton.
18.
StruveN., TheirH., HadaryD., & LinnM. (1975). The effect of an experiential science curriculum for the visually impaired on course objectives and manipulative skills. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 7(1), 9–14.
VosniadouS. (2007). The conceptual change approach and its reframing. In VosniadouS., BaltaA., & VamvokoussiX. (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 1–17). Boston: Earli.
22.
VosniadouS., IoannidesC., DimitrakopoulouA., & PapademetriouE. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
23.
WaskoskieW. (1980). Teaching biology concepts to blind college-level students through audio-tutorial-self-instruct laboratory experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
24.
WilloughbyD., & DuffyS. (1989). Handbook for itinerant and resource teachers of blind and visually impaired students.Baltimore, MD: National Federation of the Blind.