The purpose of this article is to discuss the use of explicit instruction in the curriculum area of science where non–explicit approaches (e.g., discovery learning) are often used. While there has been a relative paucity of research on explicit instruction in science classrooms, we argue that explicit instruction, particularly when it is embedded within an inquiry approach aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards, has the potential to increase achievement in science for students with LD. Based on previous research, we provide potential ways to implement the five core instructional components of explicit instruction in today's inquiry–based science classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfieriL., BrooksP., AldrichN., & TenenbaumH. (2011). Does discovery–based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Resources for science literacy: Professional development. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
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.
4.
BosC. S., & AndersP. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 225–238.
5.
BrighamF., ScruggsT., & MastropieriM. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(4), 223–232.
6.
DaltonB., MoroccoC. C., TivnanT., & Rawson MeadP. L. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684.
7.
DexterD. D., & HughesC. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34. 51–72.
8.
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 & Practice, 26(4), 204–213.
9.
KaldenbergE., WattS., & TherrienW. (2015). Reading instruction in science for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 160–173.
10.
KlahrD., & LiJ. (2005). Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 217–238.
11.
KlahrD., & NigamM. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
12.
MasonL. H., & HedinL. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(4), 214–222.
13.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., & ButcherK. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 31, 199–211.
14.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., & 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 Science.
15.
MastropieriM., ScruggsT., NorlandJ., BerkeleyS., McDuffieK., TornquistE., & ConnorsN. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science effects on classroom and high–stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 130–137.
16.
McCleeryJ., & TindalG. (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.
17.
MercerC. D., & MercerA. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
18.
MinnerD., LevyA., & CenturyJ. (2010). Inquiry–based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
19.
MorganP. L., FarkasG., HillemeierM. M., & MaczugaS. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35.
20.
NagroS. A., HooksS. D., FraserD. W., & CorneliusK. E. (2016). Whole–group response strategies to promote student engagement in inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(5), 243–249.
21.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. In SingerS. R., HiltonM. L., & SchweingruberH. A. (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22.
National Science Teachers Association Board of Directors. (2004). National science teachers’ association position statement: Science inquiry.
23.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24.
OlsonJ. L., & PlattJ. C. (2004). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
25.
PalincsarA., MagnussonS., CollinsK., & CutterJ. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15–32.
26.
ParmarR. S., DelucaD. B., & JanczakT. M. (1994). Investigations into the relationship between science and language abilities of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 117–126.
27.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 15–24.
28.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74.
29.
ShepardT., & AdjogahS. (1994). Science performance of students with learning disabilities on language–based measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 219–225.
30.
SpenceD. J., YoreL. D., & WilliamsR. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 15–30.
31.
SteeleM. (2004). Teaching science to middle school students with learning problems. Preventing School Failure, 49, 19–22.
32.
SwansonH. L., & SáezL. (2003). Memory difficulties in children and adults with learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK. R. & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 182–198). New York: Guilford Press.
33.
TherrienW. J., TaylorJ. C., HospJ. L., KaldenbergE. R., & GorshJ. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 188–203.
34.
TothE., KlahrD., & ChenZ. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively–based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 423–459.
35.
WoodwardJ. (1994). Effects of curriculum discourse style on eighth graders’ recall and problem solving in earth science. The Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1086/461768
