Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 293–325 | Cite as

Inclusive science education: learning from Wizard

  • Michele Hollingsworth Koomen
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This case study reports on a student with special education needs in an inclusive seventh grade life science classroom using a framework of disability studies in education. Classroom data collected over 13 weeks consisted of qualitative (student and classroom observations, interviews, student work samples and video-taped classroom teaching and learning record using CETP-COP) methods. Three key findings emerged in the analysis and synthesis of the data: (1) The learning experiences in science for Wizard are marked by a dichotomy straddled between autonomy [“Sometimes I do” (get it)] and dependence [“Sometimes I don’t (get it)], (2) the process of learning is fragmented for Wizard because it is underscored by an emerging disciplinary literacy, (3) the nature of the inclusion is fragile and functional. Implications for classroom practices that support students with learning disabilities include focusing on student strengths, intentional use of disciplinary literacy strategies, and opportunities for eliciting student voice in decision making.

Keywords

Inclusion Disability studies Student voice Self-efficacy Disciplinary literacy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). Inviting interdisciplinary alliances around inclusive educational reform: Introduction to the special issue on disability studies in education. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2115–2121.Google Scholar
  4. Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525–529. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370060701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, J. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98. doi: 10.2307/1511250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton, D., & Pace, D. (2009). preparing pre-service teachers to teach mathematics in inclusive classrooms: A three-year case study. School Science and Mathematics, 109(2), 108–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17943.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237–244. doi: 10.1177/0022487112446512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York: Routledge/Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, K. M. (2013). A disability studies response to JTE’s themed issue on diversity and disability in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 283–286. doi: 10.1177/0022487112473155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connor, D. J., Gabel, S. L., Gallagher, D. J., & Morton, M. (2008). Disability studies and inclusive education-implications for theory, research and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(5–6), 441–457. doi: 10.1080/13603110802377482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, S. (2013). What students can do when the reading gets rough. Educational Leadership, 71(3), 69–72.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A reconsideration. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261–295. doi: 10.3102/00028312033002261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340, 314–316. doi: 10.1126/science.1230855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fellner, G. (2013). The problem is education not “special education”. Cultural Studies of Science Education,. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9559-7.Google Scholar
  17. Fitch, E. F. (2002). Disability and inclusion: From labeling deviance to social valuing. Educational Theory, 52(4), 463–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2002.00463.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture and the process of schooling. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gresham, F. M., Evans, S., & Elliott, S. N. (1988). Self-efficacy differences among mildly handicapped, gifted, and nonhandicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 231–241. doi: 10.1177/002246698802200208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt, L. (2009). Revisit, reflect, retell: Time-tested strategies for teaching reading comprehension. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. doi: 10.1336/0325000719.Google Scholar
  23. IDEA 2004: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-446).Google Scholar
  24. Johnston, P. (1985). Understanding reading disability: A case study approach. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, M. M. (2011). Awakening teachers’ strategies for deconstructing disability and constructing ability. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 5, 218–229.Google Scholar
  26. Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004). Making Words Stick. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 30.Google Scholar
  27. Keefe, E. B., Moore, V. M., & Duff, F. R. (2006). Listening to the experts: Students with disabilities speak out. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  28. Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370020201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of early adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 19–30. doi: 10.1177/073194871003300102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klassen, R. M., & Lynch, S. L. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with LD and their specialist teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 494–507. doi: 10.1177/00222194070400060201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and emerging directions. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 1–33. doi: 10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students’ perceptions of instruction in inclusion classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 66(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  33. Koomen, M. H. (2006). Listening to their voices: The essence of the experience of special and regular education students as they learn monarch, Danaus plexippus, biology and ecology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  34. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2004). Impossibilities of reconciliation: Validity in mixed theory projects. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 601–621. doi: 10.1177/1077800403261860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Appeldoorn, K. (2002). Classroom observation handbook. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 20(10), 1–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13480524.Google Scholar
  37. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar
  38. Mercer, G. (2002). Emancipatory disability research. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver, & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability studies today (pp. 228–249). Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moje, E. B., Sutherland, L. M., Cleveland, T., & Heitzman, M. (2010). Integrating literacy instruction into secondary school science inquiry: The challenges of disciplinary literacy teaching and professional development. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109–51259.Google Scholar
  41. Montis, K. K. (2000). Language development and concept flexibility in dyscalculia: A case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moss, B., & Loh, V. S. (2010). 35 Strategies for guiding readers through informational texts. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mutch-Jones, K., Puttick, G., & Minner, D. (2012). Lesson study for accessible science: Building expertise to improve practice in inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1012–1034. doi: 10.1002/tea.21034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).Google Scholar
  49. Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82(2), 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oberhauser, K. & Goehring, L. (1999, 2008). Monarchs in the classroom: an inquiry based curriculum for middle school. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  51. Patton, J. M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African-Americans in special education: Looking beyond the curtain for understanding and solution. The Journal of Special Education,. doi: 10.1177/002246699803200104.Google Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Individual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(6), 360–370. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pugach, M., Blanton, L., & Florian, L. (2012). Unsettling conversations: Diversity and disability in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 235–236. doi: 10.1177/0022487112447573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to next generation science standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Understanding Language Initiative at Stanford University. ell.stanford.edu.Google Scholar
  55. Reid, D. K., & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability implications for instruction and parent–chool relations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 466–481. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370060101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Robinson, F. P. (1948). Effective study (6th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  57. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge Palmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 21–44. doi: 10.1080/03057269808560126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sinclair, B. B., Naizer, G., & Ledbetter, C. (2011). Observed implementation of a science professional development for K-8 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 579–594. doi: 10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167–177. doi: 10.1080/13603110010035832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  63. Stockall, N., & Gartin, B. (2002). The nature of inclusion in a blue ribbon school: A revelatory case. Exceptionality, 10(3), 171–188. doi: 10.1207/S15327035EX1003_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2012). Empowering science and mathematics education in urban schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor, S. J. (2006). Before it had a name: Exploring the historical roots of disability studies in education. In S. Danforth & S. L. Gabel (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  67. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational leadership, 57, 12–17.Google Scholar
  68. Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1998). Students’ perceptions of inclusion and resource room settings. The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 79–88. doi: 10.1177/002246699803200202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wasley, P. A., Hampel, R. L., & Clark, R. W. (1997). Kids and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  70. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Zaretsky, L. (2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive theories. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 65–86.Google Scholar
  72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: JAI Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationGustavus Adolphus CollegeSaint PeterUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options