Science Learning in Special Education: The Case for Constructed Versus Instructed Learning

Throughout the history of education, debate has existed between the relative merits of instructed versus constructed knowledge. In this article, we review our program of research in science education for students with disabilities in order to reveal some insights into this debate. We review research in science curriculum, mnemonic strategies, text-processing strategies, hands-on approaches, coached elaborations, “discovery” learning, correlates of effective inclusive science classrooms, and class-wide peer tutoring with differentiated curriculum enhancements. Overall, both instructed and constructed knowledge are important and can be facilitated with appropriate instructional strategies. Implications for practice and future research are provided.

[1]  John R. Staver,et al.  Science Instruction for the Mildly Handicapped: Direct Instruction versus Discovery Teaching. , 1992 .

[2]  J. Levin,et al.  Mnemonic Vocabulary Instruction for Learning Disabled Students , 1985 .

[3]  Douglas Fuchs,et al.  Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for First-Grade Readers: Responding to the Needs of Diverse Learners. , 1998 .

[4]  Fred H. Groves.  Science Vocabulary Load of Selected Secondary Science Textbooks , 1995 .

[5]  J. Carlisle.  Free Recall as a Test of Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities , 1999 .

[6]  J. Cawley,et al.  LITERACY PROFICIENCY AND SCIENCE FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES , 2001 .

[7]  T. Scruggs,et al.  HOW EFFECTIVE IS INQUIRY LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES? , 1997 .

[8]  Radical constructivism: Between realism and solipsism , 2002 .

[9]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies on High School Students with Serious Reading Problems , 1999 .

[10]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Text Versus Hands-On Science Curriculum , 1994 .

[11]  J F Cawley,et al.  An Examination of the Reading Performance of Students with Mild Educational Handicaps or Learning Disabilities , 1990, Journal of learning disabilities.

[12]  J. Cawley,et al.  Including Students with Disabilities into the General Education Science Classroom , 2002 .

[13]  渋江 靖弘,et al.  Science for All Americans , 1990 .

[14]  Deborah J. Smith,et al.  The Effects of Teaching a Summary Skills Strategy to Students Identified as Learning Disabled on Their Comprehension of Science Text , 1992 .

[15]  E. Glasersfeld.  Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. Studies in Mathematics Education Series: 6. , 1995 .

[16]  Cheryl McCarthy,et al.  Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities , 2005 .

[17]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Cognition and Learning in Inclusive High School Chemistry Classes , 2005 .

[18]  Jeffrey P. Bakken,et al.  Reading Versus Doing: The Relative Effects of Textbook-Based and Inquiry-Oriented Approaches to Science Learning in Special Education Classrooms , 1993 .

[19]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Classroom Applications of Mnemonic Instruction: Acquisition, Maintenance, and Generalization , 1991, Exceptional children.

[20]  Bridget Dalton,et al.  Supported Inquiry Science , 1997, Journal of learning disabilities.

[21]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Promoting Thinking Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities: Effects on Recall and Comprehension of Expository Prose. , 1996 .

[22]  T. Scruggs,et al.  The Effectiveness of Mnemonic Instruction for Students with Learning and Behavior Problems: An Update and Research Synthesis , 2000 .

[23]  Janis A. Bulgren,et al.  The Effects of a Recall Enhancement Routine on the Test Performance of Secondary Students with and without Learning Disabilities. , 1994 .

[24]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Scientific Reasoning of Students with Mild Mental Retardation: Investigating Preconceptions and Conceptual Change. , 1994 .

[25]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Mnemonic Instruction of Science Concepts , 1988 .

[26]  C. D. Mercer,et al.  Toward Independence with Keyword Mnemonics , 1992 .

[27]  J. Levin,et al.  Mnemonic Strategy Instruction with Learning Disabled Adolescents , 1985, Journal of learning disabilities.

[28]  Mnemonic Generalization Training with Learning Disabled Adolescents. , 1992 .

[29]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Promoting Relational Thinking: Elaborative Interrogation for Students with Mild Disabilities , 1994 .

[30]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Teaching Abstract Vocabulary with the Keyword Method: , 1990, Journal of learning disabilities.

[31]  T. Lovitt,et al.  The Effectiveness of Textbook Adaptations in Life Science for High School Students with Learning Disabilities , 1988, Journal of learning disabilities.

[32]  M. Pressley,et al.  The Nature of Cognitive Strategy Instruction: Interactive Strategy Construction , 1991 .

[33]  Richard T. Boon,et al.  Correlates of Inquiry Learning in Science , 2001 .

[34]  J. Levin,et al.  Facilitating the Acquisition of Science Facts in Learning Disabled Students , 1985 .

[35]  Robert E. Yager,et al.  The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science , 1983 .

[36]  Panayota Mantzicopoulos,et al.  “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching , 1998 .

[37]  E. Ellis.  Integrative Strategy Instruction: A Potential Model for Teaching Content Area Subjects to Adolescents with Learning Disabilities , 1993, Journal of learning disabilities.

[38]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Differentiated Curriculum Enhancement in Inclusive Middle School Science , 2006 .

[39]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction , 1999 .

[40]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Maximizing What Exceptional Students Can Learn , 1985 .

[41]  J. Woodward,et al.  Science Instruction at the Secondary Level: Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities , 1991, Journal of learning disabilities.

[42]  Kimberly A. McDuffie.  Promoting success in content area classes: Is value added through co-teaching? , 2006 .

[43]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Improving Reasoning and Recall: The Differential Effects of Elaborative Interrogation and Mnemonic Elaboration , 1993 .

[44]  Decker Walker,et al.  No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation , 1978 .

[45]  D. Gallagher.  If Not Absolute Objectivity, Then What? A Reply to Kauffman and Sasso , 2006 .

[46]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Science and students with mental retardation: An analysis of curriculum features and learner characteristics , 1995 .

[47]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  The Construction of Scientific Knowledge by Students with Mild Disabilities , 1994 .

[48]  B. R. Hergenhahn,et al.  An Introduction to Theories of Learning , 2020 .

[49]  Jeffrey P. Bakken,et al.  READING COMPREHENSION OF EXPOSITORY SCIENCE MATERIAL AND STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: A COMPARISON OF STRATEGIES , 1997 .

[50]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Reasoning and Remembering , 1995 .

[51]  J. Levin,et al.  Learning-Disabled Students’ Memory for Expository Prose: Mnemonic Versus Nonmnemonic Pictures , 1987 .

[52]  Thomas E. Scruggs.  Science for Students with Disabilities: Good for Students, Good for Science! , 2007 .

[53]  J. Levin,et al.  Direct Vs. Mnemonic Instruction: Relative Benefits for Exceptional Learners , 1986 .

[54]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  Current Approaches to Science Education , 1993 .

[55]  J. Kauffman,et al.  Toward Ending Cultural and Cognitive Relativism in Special Education , 2006 .

[56]  T. Lovitt,et al.  Adapting Science Materials for Regular and Learning Disabled Seventh Graders , 1986 .

[57]  Increasing Content Area Learning of Learning Disabled Students: Research Implementation. , 1988 .

[58]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Successful Mainstreaming in Elementary Science Classes: A Qualitative Study of Three Reputational Cases , 1994 .