From Silos to Synergy in STEM Education: Promoting Interdisciplinary STEM Education to Enhance the Science Achievement of Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Recent studies have posited that K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education should go beyond traditional subject silos and take an interdisciplinary approach that integrates these core subjects into a cohesive curriculum to foster authentic problem-solving skills. The purpose of this study was to field test one of five proposed packages of interdisciplinary STEM lessons to examine its feasibility for further revisions of lesson development. The study employed a piecewise linear growth model to examine growth patterns of students’ science vocabulary acquisition and contextualized problem-solving skills during a 40-week observation period. Results showed that all students with learning disabilities (N = 9) made significant knowledge gains in these two areas and maintained them for a long term—two and four weeks post intervention. Our findings are encouraging and provide initial evidence for effective lesson design to support STEM education for students with learning disabilities.

Keywords

STEM interdisciplinary feasibility learning disabilities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

K. L.

Entwisle

D. R.

Olson

L. S.

(2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 167–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200202

Alfieri

Brooks

Aldrich

Tenenbaum

(2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Archer

A. L.

Hughes

C. A.

(2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Publications.

Bayanova

A. R.

Orekhovskaya

N. A.

Sokolova

N. L.

Shaleeva

E. F.

Knyazeva

S. A.

Budkevich

R. L.

(2023). Exploring the role of motivation in STEM education: A systematic review. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(4), em2250. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13086

Beach

K. D.

Sanchez

Flynn

L. J.

O’Connor

R. E.

(2015). Teaching academic vocabulary to adolescents with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915594783

Beier

M. E.

Kim

M. H.

Saterbak

Leautaud

Bishnoi

Gilberto

J. M.

(2019). The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465

Bell

R. L.

Smetana

Binns

(2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.

Bodzin

A. M.

Beerer

K. M.

(2003). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173842

Bottge

B. A.

Heinrichs

Mehta

Z. D.

Hung

Y. H.

(2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690203500401

10.

Bottge

B. A.

Gassaway

Toland

M. D.

Butler

Cho

S. J.

(2014). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527240

11.

Bottge

B. A.

Rueda

Grant

T. S.

Stephens

A. C.

Laroque

P. T.

(2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600403

12.

Bottge

B. A.

Toland

M. D.

Gassaway

Butler

Choo

Griffen

A. K.

(2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551742

13.

Carlone

H. B.

Johnson

(2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237

14.

Chiappetta

E. L.

Adams

A. D.

(2004). Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46.

15.

Choo

Park

Nelson

N. J.

(2021). Evaluating spatial thinking ability using item response theory: Differential item functioning across math learning disabilities and geometry instructions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(2), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720912417

16.

Committee on STEM Education, National Science & Technology Council, the White House. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf .

17.

Cooper

Nye

Charlton

Lindsay

Greathouse

(1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003227

18.

Custers

E. J.

(2010). Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: A review study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9101-y

19.

Dare

E. A.

Keratithamkul

Hiwatig

B. M.

(2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737

20.

Daugherty

M. K.

Carter

(2018). The nature of interdisciplinary STEM education. In de Vries

(Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 159–171). Springer.

21.

Drevno

G. E.

Kimball

J. W.

Possi

M. K.

Heward

W. L.

Gardner

III Barbetta

P. M.

(1994). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of science vocabulary by elementary students: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 179–180. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-179

22.

Ehsan

Rispoli

Lory

Gregori

(2018). A systematic review of STEM instruction with students with autism spectrum disorders. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 5(4), 327–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-018-0142-8

23.

Falloon

Hatzigianni

Bower

Forbes

Stevenson

(2020). Understanding K12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-02009823-x

24.

Faught

B. E.

Law

Zahradnik

, & Brock University. (2016). How much do students remember over time? Longitudinal knowledge retention in traditional versus accelerated learning environments. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

25.

Fleury

V. P.

Hedges

Hume

Browder

D. M.

Thompson

J. L.

Fallin

El Zein

Reutebuch

C. K.

Vaughn

(2014). Addressing the academic needs of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in secondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 35(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518823

26.

Fontana

J. L.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2007). Mnemonic strategy instruction in inclusive secondary social studies classes. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280060401

27.

Funk

Parker

(2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/.

28.

George

A. A.

Hall

G. E.

Stiegelbauer

S. M.

(2006). Measuring implementation in schools: the stages of concern questionnaire. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://sedl.org/cbam/socq_manual_201410.pdf

29.

Hall

Loucks

(1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146817808000104

30.

Hand

Norton-Meiri

Staker

Bintz

(2009). Negotiating science: the critical role of argument in student inquiry. Heinemann.

31.

Hedeker

Gibbons

R. D.

(2006). Longitudinal data analysis. Wiley-Interscience.

32.

Hunt

J. H.

Vasquez

III (2014). Effects of ratio strategies intervention on knowledge of ratio equivalence for students with learning disability. The Journal of Special Education, 48(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912474102

33.

Hwang

Taylor

J. C.

(2016). Stemming on STEM: A STEM education framework for students with disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.09.0003

34.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004.

35.

International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. https://iste.org.

36.

Irwin

De La Rosa

Wang

Hein

Zhang

Burr

Roberts

Barmer

Bullock Mann

Dilig

Parker

(2022). Report on the condition of education 2022 (NCES 2022-144). U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf

37.

Israel

Maynard

Williamson

(2013). Promoting literacy-embedded, authentic STEM instruction for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500402

38.

James

Lamons

Spilka

Bustamante

Scanlon

Chini

J. J.

(2019, July 24-25). Hidden walls: STEM course barriers identified by students with disabilities. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2019, Provo, UT. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=15285&DocID=5197

39.

Jang

(2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1

40.

Jimenez

B. A.

Croft

Twine

Gorey

(2021). Development of engineering habits of mind for students with intellectual disability. The Journal of Special Education, 55(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211009960

41.

Jitendra

A. K.

Edwards

L. L.

Sacks

Jacobson

L. A.

(2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029040700030

42.

Kaku

(2011). Physics of the future: how science will shape human destiny and our daily lives by the year 2100. Doubleday.

43.

Kaldenberg

Therrien

Watt

Gorsh

Taylor

(2011). Three keys to success in science for students with learning disabilities. Science Scope, 35(3), 36.

44.

Kim

J. S.

Quinn

D. M.

(2013). The effects of summer Reading on low-income children’s literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 386–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483906

45.

Klahr

Nigam

(2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x

46.

Knight

V. F.

Smith

B. R.

Spooner

Browder

(2012). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378–389.

47.

Krajcik

J. S.

Czerniak

C. M.

(2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: a project-based learning approach. Routledge.

48.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.

49.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

J. H.

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794

50.

Lane

J. D.

Gast

D. L.

(2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636

51.

Laur

(2013). Authentic learning experiences: A real-world approach to project-based learning. Routledge.

52.

Madden

M. E.

Baxter

Beauchamp

Bouchard

Habermas

Huff

, … & Plague

(2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316

53.

Mahoney

M. P.

(2010). Students’ attitudes toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.4

54.

Martens

B. K.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Darveaux

D. X.

(1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16(2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.16.2.191

55.

Minshew

N. J.

Goldstein

Taylor

H. G.

Siegel

D. J.

(1994). Academic achievement in high functioning autistic individuals. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(2), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402637

56.

Montague

Warger

Morgan

T. H.

(2000). Solve it! strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_7

57.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities 2023 (Special Report NSF 23-315). National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.

58.

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS) (2014). National core arts standards. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ .

59.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. https://isbe.net .

60.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.

61.

National Research Council (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.

62.

National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

63.

National Science and Technology Council (2019). Progress report on the federal implementation of the STEM education strategic plan. A report by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/documents/stem/2019-stem-progress-report.pdf.

64.

B. L.

Liu

W. C.

Wang

J. C.

(2016). Student motivation and learning in mathematics and science: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1359–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9654-1

65.

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.

66.

Noell

G. H.

(2007). Research examining the relationships among consultation process, treatment integrity, and outcomes. In Erchul

W. P.

Sheridan

S. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 315–334). Erlbaum.

67.

Powell

S. R.

Driver

M. K.

Roberts

Fall

A. M.

(2017). An analysis of the mathematics vocabulary knowledge of third- and fifth-grade students: Connections to general vocabulary and mathematics computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 57(6), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.011

68.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf.

69.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, Vol. 1. Sage.

70.

Reynolds

A. J.

Walberg

H. J.

(1992). A structural model of science achievement and attitude: An extension to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.371

71.

Riccomini

P. J.

Smith

G. W.

Hughes

E. M.

Fries

K. M.

(2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235–252.

72.

Ritchie

Karge

B. D.

(1996). Making information memorable: Enhanced knowledge retention and recall through the elaboration process. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 41(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1996.9944681

73.

Sahin

(2013). STEM project-based learning: specialized form of inquiry-based learning. In Capraro

R. M.

Capraro

M. M.

Morgan

J. R.

(Eds.), STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 59–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-143-6

74.

Sahin

(2019). The role of interdisciplinary project-based learning in integrated STEM education. In Sahin

Mohr-Schroeder

M. J.

(Eds.), STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 93–103). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_006

75.

Sarama

Clements

D. H.

(2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: learning trajectories for young children. Routledge.

76.

Shadiev

T. T.

Huang

Y. M.

(2020). Using image-to-text recognition technology to facilitate vocabulary acquisition in authentic contexts. ReCALL, 32(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344020000038

77.

Singh

Granville

Dika

(2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607

78.

Smithenry

D. W.

(2010). Integrating guided inquiry into a traditional chemistry curricular framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1689–1714. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903150617

79.

Spooner

Knight

Browder

Jimenez

DiBiase

(2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1–2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.62

80.

Spronker-Smith

Walker

Batchelor

O’Steen

Angelo

(2012). Evaluating student perceptions of learning processes and intended learning outcomes under inquiry approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.496531

81.

Stevens

(1991). Classroom concordancing: Vocabulary materials derived from relevant, authentic text. English for Specific Purposes, 10(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90014-N

82.

Stringer

Mace

Clark

Donahue

(2020). STEM Focused extracurricular programs: Who’s in them and do they change STEM identity and motivation? Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(4), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1662388

83.

Swanson

H. L.

Siegel

(2001). Elaborating on working memory and learning disabilities: A reply to commentators. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 7(1), 107–129.

84.

Talaván

(2007). Learning vocabulary through authentic video and subtitles. Tesol-Spain Newsletter, 31, 5–8.

85.

Taylor

J. C.

Hwang

Rizzo

K. L.

Hill

D. A.

(2020a). Supporting science-related instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A review and analysis of research studies. Science Educator, 27(2), 102–113.

86.

Taylor

J. C.

Rizzo

K. L.

Hwang

Hill

(2020b). A review of research on science instruction for students with autism spectrum disorder. School Science and Mathematics, 120(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12388

87.

Therrien

W. J.

Benson

S. K.

Hughes

C. A.

Morris

J. R.

(2017). Explicit instruction and next generation science standards aligned classrooms: A fit or a split? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12137

88.

Therrien

W. J.

Taylor

J. C.

Hosp

J. L.

Kaldenberg

E. R.

Gorsh

(2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(4), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x

89.

Toth

Klahr

Chen

(2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 423–459. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_1

90.

Turiman

Omar

Daud

A. M.

Osman

(2012). Fostering 21st century skills through scientific literacy and science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59(17), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.253

91.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2017). STEM jobs: 2017 update. National Center for Education Statistics Retrieved from https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/stem_jobs_update_12122017.pdf.

92.

von Brock

M. B.

Elliott

S. N.

(1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25(2), 131–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(87)90022-7

93.

Wang

H. H.

Charoenmuang

Knobloch

N. A.

Tormoehlen . (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4

94.

Watt

S. J.

Therrien

W. J.

Kaldenberg

Taylor

(2013). Promoting inclusive practices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 40–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500405

95.

Webb

(2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml048

96.

Wright

J. C.

Knight

V. F.

Barton

E. E.

(2020). A review of video modeling to teach STEM to students with autism and intellectual disability. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 70(2), 101476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101476