This paper reviews science curriculum issues surrounding the education of children with disabilities. Our nation's leadership has expressed serious concern regarding the role of science and mathematics in the education of our children, and children with disabilities cannot be excluded from this interest. we explore the background of science education for children with disabilities and examine three curricula designed especially for children with disabilities: Biological Science Curriculum study, full option science system, and science for all children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1992). Update Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Anderson, R., DeVito, A., Dyrli, O., Kellog, M., Kochendofer, L., & Weigand, J. (1970). Developing children's thinking through science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Biological Science Curriculum Study. (1976). Me and my environment. Northbrook, IL: Hubbard Scientific Co.
5.
Cawley, J. (1988). Science, mathematics and technology for the special needs child: A pilot project (Final Report to the National Science Foundation). Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
6.
Cawley, J., Kahn, H., & Tedesco, A. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.
7.
Cawley, J., & Miller, J. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–254.
8.
Cawley, J., Miller, J., Sentman, R., & Bennett, S. (1993). Science for all children. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
9.
Coble, C., & Mathias, F. (1982). Project to improve science for the handicapped. School Science and Mathematics, 82, 670–692.
10.
Cummins, C., Pinar, W., & Good, R. (1989). The hidden curriculum of science education and its relationship to the science-technology-society movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
11.
Donahoe, K., & Zigmond, N. (1988). High school grades of urban LD students and low-achieving peers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
12.
Elliott, D., Nagle, K., & Woodward, A. (1986). Scientific literacy in elementary science textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.
13.
Encyclopedia Britannica Co. (1982). Full option science system. Chicago: Author.
14.
Eylon, B. S., & Linn, M. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. American Educational Research Journal, 58, 251–302.
15.
Gregory, J., Shanahan, T., & Walberg, H. (1985). Learning disabled 10th graders in mainstreamed settings: A descriptive analysisRemedial and Special Education, 6(4), 25–33.
16.
Harnisch, D., & Wilkinson, I. (1989). Cognitive return of schooling for the handicapped: Preliminary findings from high school and beyond. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
17.
Houghton Mifflin. (1981). American heritage dictionary. Boston: Author.
18.
Lovitt, T., Horton, S., & Bergerud, D. (1987). Matching students with textbooks: An alternative to readability formulas and standardized tests. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 2, 49–55.
19.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1992a). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.
20.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1992b). Guidelines for effective mainstreaming in science. Purdue University: MISL Project.
21.
Miller, J., & Cawley, J. (1987). Training elementary school teachers for science in special education. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Orleans.
22.
Mitman, A., Mergendoller, J., Marcham, V., & Packer, M. (1987). Instruction addressing the components of scientific literacy and its relation to student outcomes. American Journal of Educational Research, 24, 611–634.
23.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 36–48.
24.
Parmar, R., & Cawley, J. (1993). Analysis of textbook recommendations to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 518–531.
25.
Patton, J. (1989). Best practices in mental retardation. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
26.
Patton, J., Polloway, E., & Cronin, M. (1990). A survey of special education teachers relative to science for the handicapped. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
27.
Raizen, S. (1988). Increasing educational productivity through improving the science curriculum. Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education.
28.
Woodward, J., & Noell. (1992). Science instruction at the secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 277–284.
29.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Christenson, S., & Weiss, J. (1987). Time allocated to instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed and nonhandicapped elementary students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 23–42.
