Science,Technology,Engineering,Arts,and Mathematics Remote Instruction for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

The need for all students to have science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) experiences has translated into research examinations of what strategies and practices work in learning STEAM-related concepts and ideas. Through research, effective frameworks, strategies, and additional considerations have been identified for teaching and learning STEAM for students with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders. Along with understanding how to apply teaching and learning frameworks and using specific strategies for science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics, the authors provide details on how to differentiate instruction for remote teaching.

Keywords

mathematics science STEAM STEM students with disabilities UDL remote instruction online instruction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bouck

E. C.

Flanagan

S. M.

(2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186–191.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2020). Universal design for learning guidelines. http://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Chin

(2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.2017

Cole

J. E.

Wasburn-Moses

L. H.

(2010). Going beyond “The Math Wars”: A special educator’s guide to understanding and assisting with inquiry-based teaching in mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(4), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004200402

Cook

S. C.

Rao

Collins

(2017). Self-monitoring interventions for students with EBD: Applying UDL to a research-based practice. Beyond Behavior, 26(1), 19–27. http://doi.org/10.1177/1074295617694407

Cunningham

C. M.

(2017). Engineering in elementary STEM education: Curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment. Teachers College Press.

Dye

G. A.

(2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! Helping students link and remember information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 72–76.

Hwang

Riccomini

P. J.

Morano

(2019). Examination of cognitive processes in effective algebra problem-solving interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 17(2), 205–220.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.06.00017

10.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2020). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

11.

The IRIS Center. (2020). Graphics organizers. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ss2/cresource/q1/p02/

12.

Kaldenberg

Therrien

Watt

Gorsh

Taylor

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

13.

Koomen

Kahn

Atchison

C. L.

Wild

T. A.

(2018). Towards inclusion of all learners through science teacher education. Brill Sense.

14.

Moore

Stohlmann

Wang

Tank

Glancy

Roehrig

(2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Purzer

Strobel

Cardella

(Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.

15.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.

16.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.

17.

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

18.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

19.

Riccomini

P. J.

Witzel

B. S.

(2010). Response to intervention in math. Corwin Press.

20.

Rizzo

K. L.

Taylor

J. C.

(2016). Effects of inquiry-based instruction on science achievement for students with disabilities: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19(1), Article 2.

21.

Sanders

(2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

22.

Satsangi

Bouck

E. C.

(2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174–186.

23.

Scheuermann

A. M.

Deshler

D. D.

Schumaker

J. B.

(2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 103–120.

24.

Schmidt

M. M.

Lin

M. F. G.

Paek

MacSuga-Gage

Gage

N. A.

(2017). Implementing project SIED: Special education teachers’ perceptions of a simplified technology decision-making process for app identification and evaluation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(1), 12–22. http://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416681160

25.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

(2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15(2), 57–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/09362830701294144

26.

Strickland

T. K.

(2017). Using the CRA-I strategy to develop conceptual and procedural knowledge of quadratic expressions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(2), 115–125.

27.

Taylor

J. C.

Riden

Markelz

(2018). The arts, project-based learning, and students with challenging behaviors: The alignment of strengths, usage, and outcomes. VSA Kennedy Center Intersections: Exemplary Programs and Approaches Professional Papers Series, 4, 55–69. https://www.kennedycenter.org/globalassets/education/networks-conferences-research/research–resources/vsa-resources/parents-and-educators/2018_professional_papers_vol4_remediated.pdf

28.

Taylor

J. C.

Therrien

W. J.

Kaldenberg

Watt

Chanlen

Hand

(2012). Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with disabilities: Snapshot and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 15(1), 27–39. http://www.doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.04.0003

29.

Taylor

J. C.

Villanueva

M. G.

(2014). The power of multimodal representations. Science and Children, 51(5), 60–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_05_60

30.

Thomas

C. N.

van Garderen

Sadler

Decker

Hanuscin

(2018). Applying a universal design for learning framework to mediate the language demands of science. In Koomen

Kahn

Atchison

C. L.

Wild

T. A.

(Eds.), Towards inclusion of all learners through science teacher education (pp. 91–103). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21497

31.

Villanueva

M. G.

Taylor

Therrien

Hand

(2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 187–215. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117

32.

Witzel

B. S.

(2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.

33.

Yakubova

Hughes

E. M.

Baer

B. L.

(2020). Supporting students with ASD in mathematics learning using video-based concrete-representational-abstract sequencing instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 12–18.