This article reports the findings of a study examining independent variables that contributed to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) achievement of students with reading difficulties who participated in a technology-enhanced astronomy curriculum. The curriculum incorporated key elements of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) theoretical framework. Participants (N = 1153) included middle school students from 64 inclusive science classrooms. A two-level hierarchical linear model was developed to determine the contribution of student- and teacher/classroom-level factors to the prediction of posttest and problem-solving scores. Results reveal differences across schools in the effect of being in a lower reading ability group on performance on the posttest and problem-solving measures, with some students performing at a level commensurate with their proficient reading peers. Factors associated with differential performance are identified. Implications of these findings are discussed. Areas for future research are identified.
BarabS. A.HayK. E.BarnettM.KeatingT. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 297–313.
3.
BashamJ. D.MeyerH.PerryE. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 339–359.
4.
BellR. L.Gess-NewsomeJ.LuftJ. (2008). Technology in the Secondary Science Classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
5.
CawleyJ.HaydenS.CadeE.Baker-KroczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
DimitrovD. (1999). Gender difference in science achievement: Differential effect of ability, response format, and strands of learning outcome. School Science and Mathematics99, 445–450.
8.
DunleavyM.DedeC.MitchellR. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.
9.
EdyburnD. L. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, 9, 20–23.
10.
Gess-NewsomeG.LedermanN. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. London, England: Springer.
11.
HarmerA. J.CatesW. M. (2007). Designing for learner engagement in middle school science: Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in the Schools, 24(1), 105–124.
12.
KetelhutD. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory study of River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.
13.
KolodnerJ. L.CampP. J.CrismondD.FasseB.GrayJ.HolbrookJ.… RyanM. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12, 495–547.
14.
LeeV. E.BurkhamD. T. (1995). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613–650.
15.
LiuM.BeraS. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5–21.
16.
MarinoM. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17, 88–102.
17.
MarinoM. T. (2010). Defining a technology research agenda for elementary and secondary students with learning and other high incidence disabilities in inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology25(1), 1–28.
18.
MarinoM. T.CoyneM. D.DunnM. W. (2010). Technology-based curricula: How altered readability levels affect struggling readers' passage comprehension. Journal of Computing in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(1), 31–49.
19.
MonkD. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.
20.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.FierrosE. G.GoldbergA. L.StemlerS. E. (2000). Gender differences in achievement: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Boston, MA: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
24.
PallantA.TinkerR. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 51–65.
25.
PedersenS.WilliamsD. (2004). A comparison of assessment practices and their effects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 283–306.
26.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F.CongdonR. T. (1994–2008). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
27.
RoseD. E.MeyerA.HitchcockC. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28.
SamsonovP.PedersenS.HillC. L. (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students: A case study. Computers in the Schools, 23, 111–124.
29.
SaveryJ. R.DuffyT. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist foundations. Education Technology, 35, 31–38.
30.
SimonsK. D.KleinJ. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72.
31.
Touchstone Applied Science Associates (2000). DRP norms: Primary & standard DRP test scores. Brewster, NY: Author.
