Theory Into Practice

ISSN: 0040-5841 (Print) 1543-0421 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs

J. Randy McGinnis

To cite this article: J. Randy McGinnis (2013) Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs,
Theory Into Practice, 52:1, 43-50, DOI: 10.1080/07351690.2013.743776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743776

Published online: 14 Jan 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 728

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=htip20

Download by: [Northcentral University] Date: 05 November 2016, At: 22:21

Theory Into Practice, 52:43–50, 2013
Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/07351690.2013.743776
J. Randy McGinnis
Teaching Science to Learners
With Special Needs
A fundamental social justice issue worldwide is
how to meet the needs of all learners, especially
those with special needs who historically have
faced discrimination, exclusion, and oppression
due to special needs (physical, cognitive, or be-
havioral dimensions). This article focuses on the
key questions that researchers interested in im-
proving science education for students with spe-
cial needs have examined empirically and lessons
learned in regard to making science more ac-
cessible and relevant to them through evidence-
based adapted instruction. The most promising
J. Randy McGinnis is a professor at the University of
Maryland, College Park.
I acknowledge the contributions (the demographic
information for the students with special needs in the
United States of America, information on universal
design for learners, and some additional relevant liter-
ature) made by Dr. Susan De La Paz, Department of
Counseling, Higher Education and Special Education,
University of Maryland.
Correspondence should be addressed to J. Randy
McGinnis, Science Teaching Center, Department of
Teaching, Learning, Policy, and Leadership, Room
2226 Benjamin, University of Maryland, College Park,
College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: jmcginni@umd.edu
insights culled from a review of the literature to
achieve this goal for curriculum, instruction, and
assessment are presented for science teachers
at all grade levels, and also for school admin-
istrators and policy makers. A call for more
research is made, with an emphasis placed on
how teachers of science can best conduct and
use practitioner research in this topic area.
A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN of science teachers
at all grade levels and contexts is deciding
what instructional practices empirical research
suggests as effective and/or promising in support-
ing the learning needs and expected achievement
for students across a diverse spectrum of capa-
bilities and challenges. This article focuses on
learners with special needs in science who dif-
fer substantially in their performances (physical,
cognitive, or behavioral dimensions) from typical
learner performances and who need additional
services and supports.
A major emphasis on meeting the instructional
requirements of students with special needs is
necessary if science teachers are to achieve the
field’s longstanding goal of “Science for all
43
Diversity and Equity in Science Education
Americans” (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, p. x).
Professional organizations such as the National
Research Council (1996), the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science (1993),
and the National Science Teachers Association
(2004) have called for science literacy for all,
regardless of any categorization of learners’ abil-
ities (McGinnis, 2000). In addition, in the United
States there is an established body of legislation
and case law that protects the rights of learners
with disabilities (Friend & Bursuck, 1999; Smith,
Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 1998), as well as
ethical and moral obligations for educators to
fulfill (McGinnis, 2003), which adds impetus for
teachers to achieve this worthy goal.
This article focuses on the fundamental ques-
tions that researchers interested in improving
science education for students with special needs
have examined empirically and what has been
learned in regard to making science more ac-
cessible and relevant to students with special
needs through evidence-based adapted instruc-
tion. The most promising insights culled from
a review of the literature to achieve this goal
for curriculum, instruction, and assessment are
presented for science teachers at all grade levels,
and also for school administrators and policy
makers. As a way to ensure that the science
teacher evaluates the recommendations as feasi-
ble, use of support provided by the school and
by the school districts to achieve this goal (such
as specialists in special education and curricula
resources) is highly encouraged. Also, it must be
underscored that although the recommendations
for instructional modifications will benefit most
students with disabilities, due to the underlying
reality that degrees of variations in disabilities
exist, additional individual modifications may be
required for particular students.
Demographics of U.S. Students With
Special Needs
Data from the US Department of Education
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009)
indicate that 13.4% of all prekindergarten through
12th-grade students (out of a total US student
44
population of almost 50 million) are identified
as having some type of disability, and that this
number has remained fairly stable since at least
2002. Of this group, most students are identified
as having a learning disability (5.2%, or 2,573,000
students). Other high incidence or commonly
occurring disabilities include speech or language
impairment (3.0%, or 1,456,000 students),
mental retardation (1%, or 500,000 students),
and emotional disturbance (0.9%, or 442,000
students). Less common so-called low incidence
disabilities include, but are not limited to,
developmental delay (0.7%, or 358,000 students),
autism (0.6%, or 296,000 students), hearing
impairment (0.2%, or 79,000 students), and
orthopedic impairment (0.1%, or 67,000 students).
Education Policy Considerations
The educational rights of students with spe-
cial needs in the United States are defined and
protected by legislation that has evolved over
time. The enactment in 1975 of The Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children Act (passed
by the US Congress as PL94-142) started a
new educational policy expectation that students
with special needs would be included in the
least restrictive environment (typically, the reg-
ular classroom). Supplementary materials and
aids would be employed to meet their learning
needs. The most current legislation is Public Law
108-446 Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004, which supports and
extends PL94-142 policy to the posteducation
or employment time period (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004).
In addition, the assessment of students with
disabilities has gained much attention due to
its prominence in the 2001 No Child Left Be-
hind legislation, in which disaggregated assess-
ment data by subject matter for different student
groups, including those with disabilities, are used
to define school performance levels (No Child
Left Behind Act, 2001). Reauthorization of this
legislation is under negotiation, with the hope
that changes will be beneficial for students with
special needs, particularly concerning the equity
McGinnis
issue that relates directly to their ability to earn a
high school diploma as determined by successful
performance on high-stakes tests.
Instructional Practice Models for
Students With Special Needs in Science
Since passage of PL94-14, learners receiving
special education services in the United States
increasingly have been served in the general ed-
ucation setting. Although there is no one standard
model of collaborative service provided by spe-
cial educators and regular educators, Bauwens,
as long ago as 1991, described three common
models: teacher assistance teams, collaborative
consultation, and cooperative teaching. Teacher
assistance teams consist of teachers, counselors,
administrators, and parents who provide support
to the classroom teachers with the goal of im-
plementing appropriate opportunities for learners
with special needs. Collaborative consultation is
an arrangement between the special education
teacher and regular education teacher to share ex-
pertise while identifying potential problems faced
by learners with special needs and to develop so-
lutions. Cooperative teaching (frequently referred
to as collaborative or coteaching in the literature)
occurs when regular and special educators coor-
dinate their efforts to jointly teach heterogeneous
students in integrated settings (Bauwens & Hour-
cade, 1997). Of the three basic models, coteach-
ing has consistently been identified by survey
research as the more frequently implemented
practice (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Boon, 1998).
Results for coteaching in the science classroom,
however, are mixed with both benefits and unmet
potential (Moin, Magieri, & Zigmond, 2009).
Recommendations for Practice Culled
From the Literature in Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment for
Students With Special Needs in Science
Curriculum
The fundamental research question in regard
to science curriculum for students with special
Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs
needs is “What science curriculum is most ap-
propriate for students with special needs?” Cur-
ricular modifications are often varied according
to content and grade level expectations. They
can be designed for groups of students and for
individual students. Key findings of empirical
studies influenced by this line of thought are
summarized below.
Booth and Ainscow (1998) suggested that
one type of curricular modification is allow-
ing students to participate in setting their own
learning and social objectives combined with the
teachers’ objectives in the same areas. Lynch and
colleagues (2007) reported on the results of a
quasi-experimental study of the implementation
of a science unit (Chemistry That Applies) for
learners with special needs in general educa-
tion classrooms. The results supported claims
that science instruction that included guided in-
quiry, hands-on science, and students working
in heterogeneous laboratory groups can be ap-
propriate and effective for students with special
needs.
In an article that summarized modifications to
assist teachers in successfully teaching students
with mild learning disabilities who were in high
school science courses (biology, Earth science,
and chemistry), Steele (2007) reported that the
common characteristics for the students with
special needs for whom modifications were rec-
ommended were problems in processing skills,
memory, language, and attention.
Based on these findings, the following rec-
ommendations are offered to teachers of science
who teach students with special needs:
 Modify curriculum materials, as needed. For
example, adapt readings and activity sheets
to match the reading/comprehension level
of the student; use written backup for oral
directions; shorten the assignment; give direc-
tions in small, distinct steps; read the direc-
tions to the student; and use a school/home
assignment.
 Coordinate the modifications in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment of all the student’s
teachers across the school day.
45
Diversity and Equity in Science Education

Instruction ternative grouping practices (Yesseldyke et al.,

1990).
The fundamental research question in regard
To the extent that inquiry tasks are devel-
to science instruction for students with special
opmentally appropriate and carefully structured,
needs is “Which instructional techniques in sci-
Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Butcher (1997) re-
ence education are most effective, for whom, and
ported that learning might be more successful
for what purpose(s)?” In an attempt to support
for students with mild disabilities. To the extent,
students with special needs in science, teachers
however, that students are expected to discover
have made accommodations in their practices
new rules and generalizations on their own with
(a change in some aspect of the instructional
little or no special support, learning was likely
delivery that allows students with disabilities to
to be less successful. In a study conducted in an
demonstrate competence in achieving the same
informal science education context outside the
educational goal that is expected of students who
school, Brooke and Solomon (2001) examined
do not have disabilities) and/or modifications
the extent to which students with developmental
(fundamental changes in the nature of the learn-
delays (Down syndrome) learned science. The
ing situation). Key findings of empirical studies
researchers found that the students could manip-
influenced by this line of thought are summarized
ulate materials independently (an interactive ex-
below.
hibit), demonstrated concentration, and engaged
In regard to how general and special educators
in a search for causation to explain observed
may work collaboratively on making accommo-
phenomenon.
dations and modifications, Golomb and Ham-
In an influential study, Mastropieri, Scruggs,
meken (1996) underscored the crucial benefits of
and Magnusen (1999) reported the findings of
the student’s individual education program (IEP)
several extended classroom investigations in sci-
as a framework and reference. When teachers
ence education that included students with spe-
believe that the types of accommodations and
cial needs. In all cases, certified teachers im-
modifications are feasible and desirable, they use
plemented the science instruction over extended
accommodations and modifications (Johnson &
time periods to their students with and without
Pugach, 1990; Yesseldyke, Thurlow, Wotruba,
disabilities. Additionally, the science curricula
& Nania, 1990). In inclusive settings where
were adapted as necessary to promote the suc-
accommodations and modifications are instituted,
cessful participation and learning of students
Winter (1997) reported that all children learn,
with disabilities. Activities-based curriculum ma-
feel a sense of belonging, and achieve their
terials were used solely, in combination, or
educational and social goals.
in comparison with textbook-based curriculum
Adjusting the length of assignments and ac-
materials. Findings across all classroom imple-
quiring alternative resources improved academic
mentation indicated that students with special
performances of students at different levels of
needs successfully learned more when taught
reading ability, according to a study reported by
with the adapted activities-based science cur-
Lawrence (1988). Johnson and Pugach (1990)
riculum materials. Additionally, students with
reported that classroom teachers’ most feasi-
special needs overwhelmingly reported enjoy-
ble instructional accommodations for learners
ing the activities-oriented instruction more than
with special needs centered on using positive
textbook instruction. Teachers noted that during
methods and multisensory techniques that were
activities-oriented instruction, students appeared
readily integrated into daily classroom routines.
more motivated to learn and to participate in
The most desirable classroom accommodations
class, and demonstrated more on-task behaviors.
reported by teachers were: identifying alternate
However, teachers also reported that activities-
ways to manage student behavior, implementing
oriented instruction involved considerably more
alternative instructional methodologies, using a
teacher preparation time, behavior management
variety of instructional materials, and using al-
skills, and organizational skills than traditional

46
McGinnis
textbook instruction. Zembylas and Insenbarger
(2002) also found evidence in support of an
activity-oriented science curriculum but noted
that the presence of a caring teaching construct
(respecting students’ talents and strengths) en-
hanced the effectiveness of the approach.
Based on these findings, the following rec-
ommendations are offered to teachers of science
who teach students with special needs:
 Teach science, at least at times, in an activity-
oriented, inquiry approach rather than in a
content-oriented approach. Although scientific
information is important, placing an emphasis
in science instruction on scientific practices
better portrays authentic science, which better
prepares students to engage in science, succeed
in science, and be competitive for careers
in science. However, monitoring closely the
quality of the learning experience for students
with developmental delays is advised due to
the mixed research results.
 Make instructional accommodations a regu-
lar feature of your practice. For example,
reteach vocabulary; use manipulatives; demon-
strate concepts; tape lectures for playback; use
small group instruction; permit peer coaching
during lessons; use a multimodal teaching
approach that includes auditory, visual, and
tactile modes; use a parallel curriculum; check
often for understanding; have the student re-
peat directions; and plan for activity-oriented
lessons.
Assessment
The fundamental question concerning assess-
ment of content and performance in science for
students with special needs is “What assessment
is most appropriate for students with special
needs?” A fundamental standard to meet, ac-
cording to the legal system, is that educational
facilities must be accessible and usable by all
students. Practically, this means that acquisition
or modification of equipment or devices, ap-
propriate adjustment or modifications of assess-
ments, qualified readers or interpreters, appro-
priate modification in training materials and/or
Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs
policies, extended time, and other similar modifi-
cations must be made for individuals with special
needs whose disabilities are legally documented
(42 USC 12/11, Section 101[9]). Key findings
of empirical studies influenced by this line of
thought are summarized below.
In a study that examined the implementation
of a science project designed to include junior
high school students with severe emotional dis-
turbances or diagnosed learning challenges into
the general education science classroom, Caw-
ley, Hayden, Cade, and Baker-Kroczynski (2002)
found that accommodations for the students by
the teachers were guided by their IEPs. Academic
performance was measured by a districtwide sci-
ence test and final grade. The academic success
of the students with special needs was compara-
ble to the passing rate of the general education
students. That is, 11 of the 16 students in special
education (69%) passed the district exam, which
is equal to the rate at which the general education
students passed the exam. The behavior of the
special education students posed no problem in
the science class, and the behavior of the general
education students was not affected in a negative
way by the presence of the special education
students. The behavior of the general education
students was better during science, and in one
case, a class had 50% fewer discipline referrals
than a class not having special education students
as members.
How students with special needs (serious emo-
tional disturbances) learned science in two differ-
ent instruction environments (traditional textbook
approach and a hands-on, thematic approach)
was examined by McCarthy (2005). Overall,
students in the hands-on instructional program
performed significantly better than the students in
the textbook program on two of three measures of
science achievement, a hands-on assessment and
a short-answer test. The students did not differ
on a multiple choice format test.
Mastropieri, et al. (2006) investigated as-
sessment in high-stakes testing with students
with special needs. The study compared two
instructional strategies, differentiated hands-on
activities and teacher-directed, for students with
mild disabilities in inclusive 8th-grade science
47
Diversity and Equity in Science Education
classes. Results showed that collaborative hands-
on activities significantly facilitated learning of
science content on posttests and on state high-
stakes tests for all students. The students also
indicated that they enjoyed using the activities.
The results suggested that students in inclusive
science classes could work with each other in
critical content area materials, and that their
content area learning improved at a rate greater
than that attained through traditional instruction.
Recently, Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkely, and
Graetz (2009) conducted a literature review of
empirical studies of students with diverse learn-
ing needs in content area classes. In science,
explicit instruction that employed differential
practice time and levels and cognitive strategies
(e.g., peer tutoring and embedded strategic infor-
mation) enhanced students’ learning of content,
which increased student performance on high-
stakes tests.
It should be noted that the assessment of
students with special needs in science and other
content areas often leads to controversy (McGin-
nis & Stefanich, 2007). Much of the controversy
associated with educational assessment exists
because individuals and professional associations
(see the National Center for Educational Out-
comes and the Council for Exceptional Children)
have different views on the validity and reliability
of standardized assessments; concerns about how
assessment results will impact the students being
tested; concerns about how assessment results
will be used to evaluate those giving instruc-
tion or delivering programs; concerns about how
legislative bodies will use the assessment infor-
mation in funding and evaluating schools; and
concerns about the use of assessment results in
labeling and categorizing students.
Based on these findings, the following rec-
ommendations are offered to teachers of science
who teach students with special needs:
 Modify the assessment procedure and grading
system, as appropriate within the individual
science teachers’ classroom responsibilities to
match the student’s IEP.
 When direct instruction is practiced, include
strategies such as differential practice time and
48
levels, peer tutoring, and embedded strategic
information.
Conclusions
The review of the science education research
has resulted in multiple recommendations for
teachers of science to meet the needs of their
students with special needs. Another ongoing
initiative that strives to achieve the same results
for students with special needs without adap-
tation or specialized design is referred to as
universal design or universal design for learners
(UDL; Trundle, 2008). The goal of UDL is
to design upfront and on-the-spot interactions,
environments, products, services, and resources
to be accessible by all learners, to the great-
est extent possible (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, &
Jackson, 2002; Kurtts, Matthews, & Smallwood,
2009). A hope held by many is that rigorous
and systematic studies in UDL may be supported
with significant resources as a way to lead to
major breakthroughs in meeting the needs of
students with special needs across the content
areas, including science.
Finally, even though the recommendations
culled from the literature are promising and pro-
vide guidance for effective science education for
all, the discerning classroom teacher of science
may recognize that much remains to be studied
to improve science education for students with
special needs in science classrooms, especially
regarding equity concerns (for example, what
are the consequences of excluding students with
special needs from enriched science education
courses due to ability level conditions?). There-
fore, a final recommendation is that teachers of
science engage in practitioner research (Mills,
2011) in their practices to investigate how to
meet the needs of students with special needs in
their immediate science education contexts. Prac-
titioner research places an emphasis on teachers
identifying meaningful questions, systematically
collecting data to answer the questions, and
analyzing and interpreting such data as a way to
promote evidence-based actions. Consequently,
teachers prepared to teach science, which is
McGinnis
conducted in a like manner, are particularly well
situated to carry out practitioner research for the
benefit of students with special needs in science
education.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
Washington, DC: Author.
Bauwens, J. (1991, March). Blueprint for cooperation
teaching. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the Special Education Conference, Cedar Rapids,
IA.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1997, April). Coop-
erative teaching: Portraits of possibilities. Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of the Council
for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, UT.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to
us: An international study of inclusion in education.
London, UK: Routledge.
Brooke, H., & Solomon, J. (2001). Passive visitors
or independent explorers: Responses of pupils with
severe learning difficulties at an interactive science
centre. International Journal of Science Education,
23, 941–953.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski,
S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into
the general education science classroom. Excep-
tional Children, 68, 423–435.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Including
students with special needs: A practical guide for
classroom teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Golomb, K., & Hammeken, P. (1996). Grappling with
inclusion confusion? Learning, 24, 48–51.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R.
(2002). Providing new access to the general cur-
riculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 35, 8–17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446. Retrieved May
28, 2011, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.
html.
Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1990). Classroom
teacher’s views of intervention strategies for learn-
ing and behavior problems: Which are reasonable
and how frequently are they used? Journal of
Special Education, 24, 69–84.
Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E., & Smallwood, T.
(2009). (Dis)solving the differences: A physical
Teaching Science to Learners With Special Needs
science lesson using universal design. Intervention
in school and clinic, 44, 151–159.
Lawrence, P. (1988). Basic strategies for mainstream-
ing integration. Academic Therapy, 23, 335–349.
Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W. A., Ochsedorf,
R. J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. J. (2007). Effec-
tiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit
for students with disabilities in general education
classrooms. Exceptional Children, 73, 202–223.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K.
(1997). How effective is inquiry learning for stu-
dents with mild disabilities? Journal of Special
Education, 31, 199–211.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Magnusen,
M. (1999). Activities-oriented science instruction
for students with disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 22, 240–249.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J.,
Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., Con-
ners, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhance-
ment in inclusive middle school science: Effects on
classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special
Education, 40, 130–137.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effect of thematic-based,
hands-on science teaching versus a textbook ap-
proach for students with disabilities. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263.
McGinnis, J. R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry
for students with disabilities. In J. Minstrell &
E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning
and teaching in science (pp. 425–433). Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive
verses exclusive settings: Preparing teachers to
teach students with developmental disabilities in
science. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral
reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse
in science education (pp. 195–216). Dordrecht:
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
McGinnis, J. R., & Stefanich, G. (2007). Special needs
and talents in science learning. In S. K. Abell &
N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research
in science education (pp. 287–318). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Mills, G. (2011). Action research: A Guide for the
teacher researcher (4th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ:
Pearson.
Moin, L., Magieri, K., & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instruc-
tional activities and group work in the US inclusive
high school co-taught science class. International
Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 7,
677–697.
49
Diversity and Equity in Science Education
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009).
Table 50. Children 3 to 21 years old served under
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part
B, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976–
77 through 2007–08. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.
gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_050.asp?
referrerDlist
National Research Council. (1996). National science
education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association position state-
ment. (2004). Science education for students with
disabilities. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://
www.nsta.org/about/positions/disabilities/aspx.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-
110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved May 29,
2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
esea02/index.html.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for
all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkely, S., &
Graetz, J. E. (2009). Do special education inter-
ventions improve learning of secondary content?:
A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education,
31, 437–449.
50
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R.
(1998). Science education for students with disabil-
ities: A review of the literature. Studies in Science
Education, 32, 21–44.
Smith, T. E., Polloway, E., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy,
C. A. (1998). Teaching students with special needs
in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Steele, M. (2007). Students with learning disabilities.
Science Teacher, 3, 24–27.
Trundle, K. G. (2008). Inquiry-based science instruc-
tion for students with disabilities. In Science as
Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Washington, DC:
NSTA Press.
Winter, S. (1997). “SMART” planning for inclusion.
Childhood Education, 73, 212–218.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M., Wotruba, J., & Nania, P.
(1990). Instructional arrangements: Perceptions for
general education. Teaching Exceptional Children,
22, 4–7.
Zembylas, M., & Isenbarger, L. (2002). Teaching sci-
ence to students with learning disabilities: Subvert-
ing the myths of labeling through teachers’ caring
and enthusiasm. Research in Science Education, 32,
55–79.