This investigation focused on the effects of a treatment package including multiple exemplar training, time delay, and a self-directed learning prompt (KWHL chart) on students' ability to complete an inquiry lesson independently and generalize to untrained materials. Three middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities learned to self-direct themselves through a 15-step task analysis to complete inquiry lessons in chemistry and physical science. All three students achieved mastery across materials, science concepts, and instructional settings, but unanticipated generalization weakened the demonstration of experimental control. The results provide a potential method for students with moderate intellectual disabilities to learn science concepts.
AgranM.BlanchardC.WehmeyerM.HughesC. (2001) Increasing the problem solving skills of students with developmental disabilities participating in general education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 279–288.
2.
AgranM.CavinM.WehmeyerM.PalmerS. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.
3.
AgranM.King-SearsM.WehmeyerM. L.CopelandS. R. (2003). Student-directed learning: Teachers' guides to inclusive practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
4.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BassJ. E.CarinA. A.ContantT. L. (2008). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (11th ed.). Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BrowderD. M.MinarovicT. J. (2000). Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.
7.
BrowderD. M.ShearS. M. (1996). Interspersal of known items in a treatment package to teach sight words to students with behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 29, 400–413.
8.
CAST. (2008). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
9.
CollinsB. C. (2006). Moderate and severe disabilities: A foundational approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
CollinsB. C.StinsonD. M. (1995). Teaching generalized reading of product warning labels to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key words. Exceptionality, 5, 163–181.
11.
Cooper-DuffyK.PerlmutterD. G. (2006). Developing math and science skills in general education contexts. In BrowderD.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
CourtadeG.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DiBiaseW. (in press). Training teachers to use an inquiry-based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities.
13.
CourtadeG.SpoonerF.BrowderD. (2007). A review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities that link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 43–49.
14.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaA.RosensteinA.ChunE. J.BanksR. A.NiswanderV. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a universally designed inclusive high school course: A case study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 293–308.
15.
GastD. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 276–328). New York: Routledge.
16.
GenaA.KrantzP. J.McClannahanL. E.PoulsonC. L. (1996). Training and generalization of affective behavior displayed by youths with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 291–304.
17.
GreenwoodD. J.LevinM. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
18.
HornerR. H.EberhardJ.SheehanM. R. (1986). Teaching generalized table bussing: The importance of negative teaching examples. Behavior Modification, 19, 457–471.
19.
HughesC.HarmerM. L.KillianD. J.NiarhosF. (1995). The effects of multiple-exemplar self-instructional training on high school students' generalized conversational interactions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 201–218.
20.
HughesC.RungL. L.WehmeyerM. L.AgranM.CopelandS. R.HwangB. (2000). Self-promoted communication book use to increase social interaction among high school students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 153–166.
21.
JamesonJ. M.McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.RiesenT.PolychronisS. (2007). A comparison of one to one embedded instruction in the general education classroom and one to one massed practice instruction in the special education classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 23–44.
22.
JohnsonJ. W.McDonnellJ. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 46–63.
23.
KarshK. G.ReppA. C. (1992). The task demonstration model: A concurrent model for teaching groups of students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 54–67.
24.
KeysC. W.KennedyV. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315–333.
25.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. A.BoonR.CarterK. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 130–137.
26.
McCarthyC. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching verses a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263.
27.
McDonnellJ.FergusonB. (1989). A comparison of time delay and decreasing prompt hierarchy strategies in teaching banking skills to students with moderate handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 85–91.
28.
MillerS.HudsonP. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 47–57.
29.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
RoehrigG. H.LuftJ. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3–24.
33.
SnellM. E.BrownF. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
34.
SnyderE. P. (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 340–357.
35.
SpoonerF.DiBiaseW.Courtade-LittleG. (2006). Science standards and functional skills: Finding the link. In BrowderD.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
36.
TaylorP.CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W.KleinertH. (2002). Teaching laundry skills to high school students with disabilities: Generalization of targeted skills and nontargeted information. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 172–183.
37.
Trask-TylerS. A.GrossiT. A.HewardW. L. (1994). Teaching young adults with developmental disabilities and visual impairments to use tape-recorded recipes: Acquisition, and maintenance of cooking skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 283–311.
38.
WestlingD. L.FoxL. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
