The Common Core Science Standards represent a new effort to increase science learning for all students. These standards include a focus on English and language arts aspects of science learning, and three dimensions of science standards, including practices of science, crosscutting concepts of science, and disciplinary core ideas in the various subject areas. Many of these issues bring important implications for students with learning disabilities, which we discuss in turn. With appropriate supports and applications, students with learning disabilities can potentially benefit greatly from these new standards. However, the demands of these standards may require a higher level of support than those commonly available for many students with learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakkenJ. P., MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324. doi: 10.1177/002246699703100302
2.
BayM., StaverJ. R., BryanT., & HaleJ. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555–570. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290605
3.
BoyleJ. R., & WeishaarM. (2001). The effects of strategic note taking on the recall and comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 133–141. doi: 10.1111/0938–8982.00014
4.
BrighamF. J., BerkeleyS., & WalkerE. (2012). Navigating the measurement and monitoring maze. Exceptionality, 20, 133–142. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2012.669298
5.
BrighamF. J., ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1992). The effect of teacher enthusiasm on the learning and behavior of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 68–73.
6.
BrighamF. J., ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2011). Science and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 223–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00343.x
7.
BrighamF. J., TochtermanS., & BrighamM. S. P. (2000). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders and their teachers in test–linked systems of accountability. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(1), 19–27.
8.
BybeeR. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st–century perspectives. Arlington, VA : NSTA Press.
9.
CarnineD. (1989). Teaching complex content to learning disabled students: The role of technology. Exceptional Children, 55, 524–533.
10.
CAST (2009). CAST Science Writer II. Cambridge, MA : Author.
11.
Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC : The National Academies Press.
12.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Adoption by state. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.cor
13.
DexterD. D., ParkY. J., & HughesC. A. (2011). A meta–analytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 204–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00341.x
14.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 89–10 C.F.R. § 20 U.S.C. 7305 et seq (1965).
15.
FeuerM. J., HollandP. W., GreenB. F., BertenthalM. W., HemphilF. C., & National Research Council Committee on Equivalency and Linkage of Educational Tests. (Eds.). (1999). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
16.
GratzG. B., (2009). The peril and promise of performance pay: making education compensation work. Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield.
17.
HarrisK, GrahamS, MasonL. & FriedlanderB. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD : Brookes.
18.
KonradM., JosephL. M., & ItoiM. (2011). Using guided notes to enhance instruction for all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 131–140. doi: 10.1177/1053451210378163
19.
KozmaR. (2003). Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226. doi: 10.1016/S0959–4752(02)00021–X
20.
LernerJ. W., & JohnsB. H. (2012). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth.
21.
MacArthurA. C., FerrettiR. P., & OkoloC. M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth–graders about the desirability of early 20th–century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 160–172.
22.
MaheadyL., & GardJ. (2010). Classwide peer tutoring: Practice, theory, and a personal narrative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 71–78. doi: 10.1177/1053451210376359
23.
MasonL. H., & HedlinL. R. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 211–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00342.x
24.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1994). Text–based vs. activities–oriented science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72–85. doi: 10.1177/074193259401500203
25.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (in press). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiated instruction (5th ed.). Underwood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
26.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., BoonR., & CarterK. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 130–138. doi: 10.1177/074193250102200301
27.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & ButcherK. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilitiesJournal of Special Education, 31, 199–211. doi: 10.1177/002246699703100203
28.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & GraetzJ. (2005).Cognition and learning in inclusive high school chemistry classes. In ScruggsT. E. & MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (vol. 18, pp. 107–118). Oxford, UK : Elsevier.
29.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & LevinJ. R. (1987). Learning disabled students’ memory for expository prose: Mnemonic vs. nonmnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 505–519. doi: 10.3102/00028312024004505
30.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., MantzicopoulosP. Y., SturgeonA., GoodwinL., & ChungS. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098–237X(199804)82:23.0.CO;2–C
31.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., NorlandJ., BerkeleyS., McDuffieK., TornquistE. H., . (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high–stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. doi: 10.1177/00224669060400030101
32.
McCarthyM. (2009). Research on actors and institutions involved in education policy. In SykesG., SchneiderB. L., PlankD. N. & FordT. G. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 842–847). New York, Washington, DC : Routledge, American Educational Research Association.
33.
McCleeryJ. A., & TindalG. A. (1999). Teaching the scientific method to at–risk students and students with learning disabilities through concept anchoring and explicit instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 7–18. doi: 10.1177/074193259902000102
34.
McGuinnP. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy. 1965–2005. Lawrence, KS : University Press of Kansas.
35.
MervisJ. (2007). A new twist on training teachers. Science, 316(5829), 1270–1277. doi: 10.1126/science.316.5829.1270
36.
PorterW., RileyR., TowneL., HightowerA. M., LloydS. C., SellersK. L., . (2012). Preparing for change: A national perspective on Common Core State Standards implementation planning. Seattle, WA : Education First, & Bethesda, MD, Editorial Projects in Education.
37.
ReevesD. B., WiggsM. D., LassiterC. J., PiercyT. D., VenturaS., & BellB. (2011). Navigating implementation of the common core state standards. Englewood, CO : Lead +Learn Press.
38.
RutherfordF. J., & AlghrenA. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York : Oxford University Press.
39.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1994). The construction of scientific knowledge by students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28, 307–321. doi: 10.1177/002246699402800306
40.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/ inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
41.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173. doi: 10.1023/A:1016640214368
42.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed vs. instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74. doi: 10.1080/09362830701294144
43.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (in press). Science and social studies. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK., & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New York : Guilford.
44.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., BakkenJ. P., & BrighamF. J. (1993). Reading vs. doing: The relative effectiveness of textbook–based and inquiry–oriented approaches to science education. Journal of Special Education, 27, 1–15. doi: 10.1177/002246699302700101
45.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., BerkeleyS., & GraetzJ. (2010). Do special education interventions increase the learning of secondary content? A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449. doi: 10.1177/0741932508327465
46.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., & LeinsP. (2012). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion: Are they changing? Fairfax, VA : George Mason University, Division of Special Education and Disability Research.
47.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., & SullivanG. S. (1994). Promoting relational thinking skills: Elaborative interrogation for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 60, 450–457.
48.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., & WolfeS. (1995). Scientific reasoning of students with mental retardation: Investigating preconceptions and conceptual change.Exceptionality, 5, 223–244. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790303
49.
SparksS. D. (2011). Experts see hurdles ahead for Common Core tests. Education Week, 30(28), 11.
50.
StrangC., LujanV., & BarakosL. (2011, September). Exploring the new NRC Framework for K–12 Science Education. Berkeley, CA. : Center for Instruction webinar, Lawrence Hall of Science Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/NRC%20Framework%2Epptx
51.
SullivanG. S., MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1995). Reasoning and remembering: Coaching thinking with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, 310–322. doi: 10.1177/002246699502900304
52.
TaiR. H., LoehrJ. F., & BrighamF. J. (2006). An exploration of the use of eye–gaze tracking to study problem–solving on standardized science assessments. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29, 185–208. doi: 10.1080/17437270600891614
53.
VaughnS., CirinoP. T., WanzekJ., WexlerJ., FletcherJ. M., DentonC. D., . (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
