This article presents a framework for science programming at the elementary school level by incorporating the principles of universal design. Adherence to the principles of universal design shows promise for (a) increasing access to the general education curriculum, (b) enhancing student progress in science, and (c) framing the general education curriculum to make it more appropriate for students with disabilities (Orkwis, 1999). Five models of elementary school science are reviewed, with an emphasis on the principles of universal design: spiral, intensified, theme-based, integrated, and multiple-option. The multiple-option curriculum as exemplified by Science for All Children both meets the criteria and expands on the principles of universal design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993a). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993b). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities: Final Regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.26 (1999).
4.
Atwood, R.K., & Oldham, B.R. (1985). Teacher's perceptions of mainstreaming in an inquiry-oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69, 619—624.
5.
Bredderman, T. (1982). The effects of activity-based science in elementary schools. In M. Rowe & W. Higuchi (Eds.), Education in the 80's (pp. 63—75). Washington, DC: National Education Association .
6.
Cawley, J., Miller, J., Sentman, R., & Bennett, S. (1999). Science for all children. Unpublished curriculum study. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
7.
Champagne, A., & Bunce, D. (1989, April). Electricity in 6th grade tests: Too much, too fast. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
8.
Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240—246.
9.
Eggin, P., & Main, J. (1990). Developing critical thinking through science: Book two. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
10.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23—36.
11.
Lovitt, T., & Horton, S. (1994). Strategies for adapting science textbooks for youth with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education , 15, 105—106.
12.
Lowery, L.F. (1992). The biological basis of thinking and learning . Berkeley: University of California .
13.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1992). A program to guide science for students with disabilities . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University .
14.
National Research Council. (1994). National science standards. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
Orkwis, R. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children .
16.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Topical brief. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
17.
Ormsbee, C.K., & Finson, K.D. (2000). Modifying science activities and materials to enhance instruction for students with learning and behavior problems. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 10—21.
18.
Parmar, R., & Cawley, J. (1993). Analysis of science recommendations in school textbooks. Exceptional Children, 59, 518—531.
19.
Raizen, S. (1988). Increasing educational productivity through improving science. Washington, DC: The National Center for Improving Science Education.
20.
Roth, K.J. (1989). Science education: It's not enough to “do” or “elate.” American Educator, 13, 16—22, 46—48.
21.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1994). The construction of scientific knowledge by students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 307—321.
22.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., Bakken, J., & Brigham, F. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 1—15.
23.
Shymansky, J., Kyle, W., & Alport, J. (1982). How effective were the hands-on science programs of yesterday?Science and Children, 20, 14—15.
24.
Staver, J.R., & Bay, M. (1989). Analysis of the conceptual structures and reasoning demands of elementary science texts at the primary level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 329—349.
