Increased attention is being devoted to the development of science literacy as repeated findings demonstrate students' lack of scientific understanding. To provide all students an opportunity to become science-literate, significant changes have been proposed in both the content being addressed and the instructional practices being used in teaching science. In this study, we manipulated both of these facets to teach the scientific method to at-risk students and students with learning disabilities. The content was framed with concepts and principles, and instruction was explicit, using rules to guide classroom activities. A combination of classroom observations and problem-solving tasks yielded significant differences between students taught with this enhanced approach over that achieved when instruction simply provided hands-on constructivistic activities not anchored to concepts or not explicitly delivered through rules.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. ( 1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223.
3.
Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
4.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the teaching of science and mathematics. In M. Gardner, J. Greens, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld , A. di Sessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 111-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Carnine, D. (1993). Effective teaching for higher cognitive functioning . Educational Technology, 33(10), 24-33.
6.
Casby, M.W. (1989). National data concerning communication disorders and special education. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20, 22-30.
7.
Cohen, H.G. (1992). Two teaching strategies: Their effectiveness with students of varying cognitive abilities. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 126-132.
Fosnot, C.T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Gitomer, D. (1994). Learning by doing what? The Professional Journal of theAmerican Federation of Teachers, 18(3), 34-35.
11.
Good, T.L., & Grouws, D.A. (1979). The Missouri mathematics effectiveness project: An experimental study in fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 49-54.
12.
Greenwood, C.R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57, 52-535.
13.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R.V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance . In W. L. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 55-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
14.
Guzzetti, B.J., Snyder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117-155.
15.
Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1994). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
16.
Howell, K.W., Fox, S., & Morehead, M.K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision-making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
17.
International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1988). Science achievement in 17 countries: A preliminary report. New York: Pergamon.
18.
Kronick, D. (1990). Holism and empiricism as complementary paradigms . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 5-8, 10.
19.
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343-361.
20.
Lovitt, T.C., & Horton, S.V. (1994). Strategies for adapting science textbooks for youth with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education , 15, 105-116.
21.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1995). Teaching science to students with disabilities in general education settings. Teaching Exceptional Children , 27(4), 10-13.
22.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Hamilton, S.L., Wolfe, S., Whedon, C., & Canevaro, A. (1996). Promoting thinking skills of students with learning disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehension of expository prose. Exceptionality, 6(1), 1-11.
23.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S.P. (1996). Constructivistic math instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 147-156.
24.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1994). NAEP 1992 writing report card (Report No. 23-W01). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics .
25.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Third international mathematics and science study. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics .
26.
Patton, J. (1995). Teaching science to students with special needs . Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 4-6.
27.
Porter, A. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-learn standards . Educational Researcher, 24( 1 ), 21-27.
28.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 60-68.
29.
Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers: A festschrift for N. L. Gage (pp. 75-92). New York: Random House.
30.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
31.
Ross, J.A., & Robinson, F.G. (1987). The use of rule structures in teaching experimental design to secondary-school students. Science Education, 71, 571-589.
Siegler, R.S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Psychology, 8, 481-520.
34.
Siegler, R.S. (1978). The origins of scientific reasoning. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops (pp. 109-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Siegler, R.S., & Liebert, D.E. (1975). Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10- and 13-year-olds: Designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology, 11, 401-402.
36.
Simmons, D.C., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J.P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 387-408.
37.
Sindelar, P.T., Smith, M.A., Harriman, N.E., Hale, R.L., & Wilson, R.J. (1986). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs . The Journal of Special Education, 20, 195-207.
38.
Sullivan, G.S., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1995). Reasoning and remembering: Coaching students with learning disabilities to think. The Journal of Special Education , 29, 310-322.
39.
Swanson, H.L., & Gansle, K.A. (1994). Specificity and modifiability of working memory in exceptional children: The role of dynamic assessment. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 8, pp. 65-104). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
40.
Tindal, G., Nolet, V., & Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes (Training Module No. 3). Eugene: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program.
41.
Torgesen, J.K., & Kail, R.V., Jr. (1980). Memory processes in exceptional children. In B. K. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in special education (Vol. 1, pp. 55-99). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
42.
Williams, R.G., & Haladyna, T.M. (1982). Logical operations for generating intended questions (LOGIQ): A typology for higher order level test items. In G. H. Roid & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), A technology for test-item writing (pp. 161-186). New York: Academic Press.
43.
Willis, S. (1995). Reinventing science education [curriculum update] . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Wynne, P. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children's learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology , 82, 741-748.
45.
Woodward, J. (1994). The role of models in secondary science instruction . Remedial and Special Education, 15, 94-104.
