Content uploaded by Julia K Olsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julia K Olsen on Jul 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION ON SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT
OF AN ACTIVITY-BASED MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
by
Julia K Olsen
_______________
Copyright © Julia K Olsen 2007
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2007
2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Dissertation committee, we certify that we have read the
dissertation prepared by Julia Olsen
entitled Impacts of Technology-Based, Differentiated Instruction on Special
Needs Students in the Context of an Activity-Based Middle School Science
Instructional Unit
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
_________________________________________________Date 04/05/07
Walter Doyle
_________________________________________________ Date 04/05/07
Kevin Vinson
_________________________________________________ Date 04/05/07
Timothy Slater
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the
candidate‘s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate
College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under
my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation
requirement.
_________________________________________________ Date 04/05/07
Dissertation Director: Dr. Timothy Slater
3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements
for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the
Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special
permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of the source is made.
Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this
manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.
SIGNED: _____Julia K Olsen____
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any list of acknowledgements will be an incomplete listing of all the
individuals who have touched my life in so many ways and shaped me and
my understanding of the world. An extremely short list of my friends and
colleagues from whom I have learned so much and without whom I would
not have had the motivation to strive for excellence in the education of all
learners must include these educators who have been especially significant
at various stages of my career and consistently provided a positive influence
on my own growth as an educator:
Julie Reinhart, who mentored me during my first years as an educator
Mel Etherton from whom I learned to see students as individuals and
the importance of making personal connections with my learners
Nicole Ofiesh who helped me formalize my understanding of the
needs of diverse learners
Cassandra Runyon who opened my eyes to special education research
in astronomy and space sciences
Special thanks to Tim Slater, my advisor and friend; as well as my
committee members and the CAPER team who have guided and supported
my transition from public education to educational research, and to Ingrid
Novodvorsky who opened the opportunity for me to move from the
classroom to the university.
I express my thanks to many members of the Deaf community, especially
Kit and Connie Carson, for their patience and encouragement in my learning
of their culture, which ultimately led me to this point in my career.
Finally, thanks to all my family for their support during the years spent in
pursuing my education and career and for the inspiration they have given me
to pursue my dreams.
5
DEDICATION
It is in service of science teachers in inclusionary science classrooms that the
modified curriculum materials and evaluation results of this study aim to
support.
I also dedicate this work to the strong women in my family: my
grandmothers, my mother, my sister, my daughters and my granddaughters.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................11
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................15
Background ................................................................................................15
Research Rationale .....................................................................................17
Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................18
Research Objectives and Questions ...........................................................20
Research Questions ................................................................................23
Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................24
Assumptions ...............................................................................................27
Context of the Study ...................................................................................28
Participants .................................................................................................29
Data Sources ...............................................................................................30
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................30
Summary ....................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................33
Introduction ................................................................................................33
Scientific Literacy ......................................................................................34
Student Academic Diversity ......................................................................36
Technology .................................................................................................40
Teacher Attitude .........................................................................................45
Implications for Classroom Practice ..........................................................48
Implications for Teacher Education ...........................................................51
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND
METHODOLOGIES .....................................................................................55
Introduction ................................................................................................55
The Needs Assessment ...............................................................................56
Purpose of the Needs Assessment ..........................................................56
Participants in the Needs Assessment ....................................................57
Needs Assessment Methodology ............................................................58
Results from the Needs Assessment Data Analysis ...............................61
The Research Question and Methodology .................................................66
Research Question ..................................................................................66
Unique Context of the Study ..................................................................67
Participants ..............................................................................................72
Research Design .....................................................................................73
Criteria Guiding Curriculum Modifications ...........................................76
The curriculum and instruction materials ..................................................82
Unit 1: The Sun is a Star .........................................................................83
Unit 2: The Sun-Earth System: Why are there seasons? ........................88
Unit 3: The Solar System ........................................................................90
Unit 4: Beyond the Solar System............................................................92
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ................................................................................95
Overall Gain Scores (Post-test Minus Pre-test) for Unit 1: Living with a
Star ..............................................................................................................96
Gain Scores (Post-test Minus Pre-test) on Item #4 for Unit 1: Living with
a Star .........................................................................................................102
Qualitative Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test Student Supplied Responses
..................................................................................................................108
Missing Scores for Units 2, 3 and 4 .........................................................120
Summary of Results .................................................................................121
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION .......................................................................123
Summary of what has been achieved .......................................................123
Comparison of aims and objectives with achievements ..........................126
Contributions made by this work .............................................................126
An Agenda for Future Work ....................................................................128
APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY SURVEY QUESTIONS.……………..130
APPENDIX B: HyperRESEARCH REPORT ……………………..….....132
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS ............................144
APPENDIX D: SUN-EARTH PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................150
APPENDIX E: SUN-EARTH POST-QUESTIONNAIRE .........................152
APPENDIX F: SCORING RUBRIC SUN-EARTH PRE-
QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................................154
APPENDIX G: SCORING RUBRIC SUN-EARTH POST
QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................................160
APPENDIX H: WHY ARE THERE SEASONS? PRE-
QUESTIONNAIRE………………………………………………..……...165
APPENDIX I: WHY ARE THERE SEASONS? POST-
QUESTIONNAIRE………………………………………………..……...167
APPENDIX J: SCORING RUBRIC UNIT 2 PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE ...169
APPENDIX K: SCORING RUBRIC UNIT 2 POST-
QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………………..…...174
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………179
9
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 3.1: Menu for the live data section of the program allows student
choice in sequencing of presentation. Because the content is in modules
containing smaller elements, important details are isolated to improve
student focus. .................................................................................................84
Figure 3.2: Newsflash data from the printed curriculum is contrasted with a
screenshot from the computer based resource. The program delivers the
same information in a TV broadcast format, emphasizing important terms
with still images illustrating vocabulary. .......................................................85
Figure 3.3: Original text-based material contrasted with adapted weather
map. Colorful graphics draw attention to essential information. A vocal
rendition is provided, giving the same detailed content as the text…. ..........86
Figure 3.4: Comparison of original text-based graph with animated graphic
which uses color to represent day and night hours. Pop-up text shows sunrise
and sunset times. Voice describes the graph, and a world map focuses
student attention on the geographic location. ................................................87
Figure 3.5: Temperature data is similarly converted to a format with less
cognitive load, therefore increasing the opportunity for student learning.
Temperature is represented by two colors indicating above and below zero,
Celsius………………………………………………………………..…….89
Figure 3.6: The original textual material is in a format not accessible to
many students with learning disabilities. Because the computer version
follows principles for accessibility, students are able to gain information in a
format focused on their learning needs………………………………….....91
Figure 3.7: Unit 4 menu presents two activities. "Beyond the Solar System"
is a sorting activity using color images. Students can manipulate the cards
anywhere on the screen……………………………………………...……..93
Figure 3.8: Hubble Deep Field image grid and detail section demonstrate
another aspect of design principles. Color image in addition to only one grid
section on display focus student attention on cognitive task………...……..94
10
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - Continued
Figure 4.1: Regular Education Students (n=15) using unmodified
curriculum showed an 8% average gain from pre- to post-test………….....98
Figure 4.2: Special Education Students (n=6) using the unmodified
curriculum showed a -7% gain (7% decrease) from pre- to post-test…..….99
Figure 4.3: Regular education students (n=20) using the modified curriculum
averaged a 9% gain in their pre- post-test scores…………………………100
Figure 4.4: Special Education Students (n=15) using the modified
curriculum averaged a 7% gain in their scores from pre- to post-test…...101
Figure 4.5a: Number of responses to Question 4 among students using the
unmodified curriculum……………………………………………………104
Figure 4.5b: The number of responses to Question 4 for regular education
students …………………………………………………………………...105
Figure 4.5c: Special education students in the unmodified group ……….105
Figure 4.6a: Overall pattern of the number of responses to Question 4 for the
modified curriculum ……………………………………………………...106
Figure 4.6b: Number of responses to Question 4 for regular education
students……………………………………………………………………106
Figure 4.6c: Number of responses to Question 4 for special education
students……………………………………………………………………107
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Problems and solutions related to students with LD…………….78
Table 4.1: Comparison of overall gains from nationwide aggregate,
unmodified (U1 and U2), and modified (M1 and M2) groups…………….97
Table 4.2: Gain scores between pre/post tests for Unit 1 ………………...103
Table 4.3: Unmodified curriculum group U2, special education students'
responses to Question 4 …………………………………………………..110
Table 4.4: Modified curriculum group M2, special education students'
responses to Question 4…………………………………………………...113
Table 4.5: Student pre-test responses for unmodified curriculum………..116
Table 4.6: Student pre-test responses for modified curriculum ..................117
Table 4.7: Student post-test responses for unmodified curriculum .............118
Table 4.8: Student post-test responses for modified curriculum .................119
12
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore technology as a tool for
increasing student achievement within the middle school science classroom
and specifically to support the learning of special needs students.
Utilizing field-test curriculum from the Lawrence Hall of Science‘s
Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) Space Science Curriculum
Sequence, software modules were designed to mediate instruction in specific
problem areas which special needs students, especially those with learning
disabilities, face in learning science.
Participants in this research were middle school students who were
classified as receiving special education services, but were enrolled in
regular education science classes. Students in the control classrooms
participated in an activity-oriented field-test curriculum which was common
to all students within a particular class. Students in the modified treatment
group received modified instructional activities which were mediated by a
computer and utilized best practices.
Regular education students using unmodified curriculum showed an
8% average gain from pre- to post-test whereas special education students
13
showed a 7% decrease. On the other hand, regular education students using
the modified curriculum averaged a 9% gain in their pre- post-test scores
whereas special education students averaged a 7% gain.
Gains in students‘ pretest to posttest scores were notably higher for
the special education students who used computer-mediated instructional
approaches designed utilizing best practices. In addition, the proportion of
special needs students who provided more scientifically accurate and
extended responses was much greater among those who used the modified
materials. Most importantly, special needs students in this study who used
the modified materials demonstrated more conceptual growth than did the
special education students in using the unmodified materials. The major
finding of this work is that most special education students demonstrated
substantial gains in learning the content using the modified curriculum.
Moreover, students using modified curriculum not only increased in the
frequency of their responses, but also increased in the quality of their
responses to a particular prompt. In addition, responses from special
education students in the modified curriculum group were consistently
14
within the range of responses found among the general education population,
who also increased.
15
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Teachers, through the methods and materials they use in classrooms,
either enhance student opportunities to learn or present barriers to student
understanding (Coleman, 2001). Inclusionary classrooms present a
particularly ardent challenge for even the most seasoned science teachers
because of the wide diversity in student abilities, modes of learning, and
successful experiences of the students included. Teaching science in
inclusionary classrooms is a deeply complex and multifaceted process that
can place extraordinary burdens on underprepared teachers. Content
knowledge is of course important, but research shows that pedagogical
content knowledge, or PCK, is critical to expert teaching: pedagogical
content knowledge encompasses not only the science content, but teaching
strategies specific to the science content, understanding of possible
misconceptions and preconceptions students bring to the classroom, and
appropriate means of assessing student understanding (Bransford, 2000).
The most effective inclusionary middle school science teachers not only
16
have a strong pedagogical content knowledge in science (Donovan, 2005),
but they also are knowledgeable in the adolescent development and
psychology of a wide diversity of learners as well as steeped in middle
school philosophy, which focuses educational practice on the unique needs
of early adolescents: possessing relevance in their work to the outside world,
having intellectual depth and authentic purpose, and utilizing student
physical energy and need for social contact as positive qualities for learning
rather than liabilities (Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents,
1989). To add further complexity to middle school science instruction,
science teachers are often expected to integrate language and mathematics
standards into their daily instruction. Furthermore, teachers are expected to
incorporate technology as a tool for instruction in their classrooms, a task for
which few have adequate preparation or skills (Mishra, 2006). It is in an
attempt to provide a descriptive example of an overlap between the areas of
science education, special education and technology education that this
research study has been undertaken.
17
Research Rationale
The current philosophy of inclusive education is the direct result of
PL 94-142, first enacted in 1975, which has been extended and reauthorized
a number of times. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (Building the
Legacy: IDEA 2004), continues mandated education for students to be
provided in the ‖least restrictive environment‖ (LRE). Everyday
experience confirms the preliminary research evidence underlying this study
suggesting that a large number of middle school science teachers feel highly
underprepared to adequately instruct and accommodate learners with special
needs (Scruggs, 1996). Because the philosophy of inclusion dictates that
segregation or separation of students not only creates bias and makes special
education students different, the concern on the minds of many science
teachers is to determine ways to provide inclusive education that are both
feasible and effective in ensuring successful science learning outcomes for
all students whether designated for regular education or special education.
In short, teachers need to know which curriculum and instructional
modifications, based on educational research, are most likely to support the
science education of special needs students.
18
Statement of Purpose
The mix of students in the typical American classroom has become
increasingly heterogeneous. Today‘s classrooms contain students of
varying abilities, cultural backgrounds, socio-economic status and English
proficiencies (National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of
Education, 2007). The current national emphasis on explicitly specified
educational standards and high-stakes testing places a tremendous amount of
responsibility on both teachers and administrators to ensure that all students
achieve the same high levels. Unfortunately, simply adopting educational
standards for all students does not automatically ensure acceptable academic
achievement for diverse students (Gustafson, 2002). Inclusionary students,
in particular, often see little relationship between the science they are
exposed to in schools and their own lives, despite the fact that our society is
deeply affected in nearly every area by science and technology (Ogens &
Koker, 1995). In the last few decades, there have been profound changes in
the philosophies of science education, special education, and the
introduction of new technologies into classrooms - yet there has been little
19
widespread technology integration in actual classrooms, particularly those
with significant numbers of special needs students (Peterson-Karlan, 2005).
In combination, federal laws, parental concerns, and recent research
on learning and teaching all contribute at varying levels to the complexity of
implementing successful inclusion teaching practices. Pragmatic aspects,
such as the need for separate accommodations for each individual student,
rapid adjustment of teaching methods in inclusive classrooms, and special
grading schemes for special education students, have long been a focus of
resolution-less dialogue between special education and regular education
teachers. Much of the current fervor of the discussion is being driven by
high-stakes testing, which has become a major driving force across all of
educational reform. Many issues in the testing debate parallel concerns
about inclusion: impacts on teachers, impacts on students, and impacts on
administrative practices and school organization. The very core of the
inclusion debate centers on how to best provide an equal and excellent
education to all students. The existence of a tension between equality and
excellence often drives the unease that so many educators feel regarding
inclusion. The increasing emphasis on high-stakes testing and teacher
20
accountability for student achievement makes improvement in student
understanding even more critical an issue, all the more so in light of recent
criticisms of No Child Left Behind and effects of testing on learners with
special needs (American Psychological Association, 2001; Nichols, 2005)
Perhaps educational technology can play a mediating role for teachers
implementing inquiry-oriented, constructivist learning strategies. The
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997) emphasizes
the importance of educational technology and even requires that the need for
assistive technology be addressed on every IEP to meet the needs of each
individual student (Warger, 1998). Recent research suggests that the
current generation of students is especially poised to utilize classroom
technologies due to their comfort with technology, and the potential for
connection with real world learning. (Peterson-Karlan, 2005).
Research Objectives and Questions
This study described here is driven by the need to explore technology
as a tool for increasing student achievement within the science classroom
and specifically to support the learning of special needs students. Special
21
needs students in particular often have difficulty engaging in unstructured,
inquiry-oriented science activities and understanding the targeted concepts
when, as is often the case, they have minimal background knowledge on
which to build. In response, this study asks to what extent educational
technology can be used to provide differentiated instruction and increase
achievement of special needs students within the activity-oriented science
classroom.
This work is particularly timely as the new requirements asked of
science teachers in middle school are becoming broadened in both content
and context. Current nationally mandated assessments in the areas of math
and literacy do not often provide sufficient accommodations for special
needs students and science assessments on the horizon can be expected to be
similar in administration. As described later, the results of my needs
assessments have strongly suggested that the academic requirements of
special education students are often not met in the regular science
classrooms in spite of the provisions that are mandated by federal laws and
state statutes. Although it might be feasible to make special individual
accommodations for a few students, the great numbers of special needs
22
students found in typical urban middle schools makes the reality of
individualization of curriculum for any given student nearly impossible
within the constraints of time and management issues teachers face. As a
result, I am driven to ask which, if any, forms of instructional support can
lead to enhanced conceptual understanding among special needs students
participating in activity-oriented science classrooms.
One hint toward a successful approach is revealed in a report from the
Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (Oppenheimer, 1997), which includes ten
significant, but unanswered, questions for further study. Seven of these
questions are highly applicable to this study:
1. How can technology increase student learning and assist
students in meeting the standards?
2. Do students learn and retain more with the aid of computers?
3. How does the use of computers affect classroom climate and
student attitudes?
4. What are the conditions that must be in place for technology to
improve student learning and especially the achievement of ―at-
risk‖ students?
23
5. How can technology serve as an extension of human
capabilities and cognitive functioning?
6. What specific cognitive skills are enhanced by the use of
technology for learning?
7. How can online assessment be used to enhance student learning
and accountability?
Research Questions
This study therefore has as its goal the implementation of technology
as a tool for increasing achievement of special needs students within the
science classroom. In other words, I seek an answer to whether or not
interactive, computer-based, differentiated instruction increases achievement
of special needs students in an activity-oriented middle school science
classroom. This problem is targeted with a single research question: Are the
scores and work products of students with learning disabilities significantly
different when these students are provided with technology-based
instructional activities modified according to the best practices for working
with special needs students?
24
Theoretical Framework
Constructivism can be described as the instructional perspective
describing students‘ learning as a convolution of how instructional
experiences mix with the pre-existing ideas students bring to the classroom
(Bransford, 2000). This worldview guides constructivist teachers to an
underlying perspective that active learning is better than passive and science
must be relevant to students. Moreover, this notion emphasizes that deep
understanding of concepts cannot be accomplished in just one learning
experience; rather, multiple opportunities for learning are often required and
these opportunities need to be matched with the skills that students have
within their grasp (Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through
Eighth Grade, Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W.
Shouse, Editors, 2007).
Because mental development has been shown to be closely correlated
to the complexity of language used, vocabulary building and usage is an
important part of the instructional process (Jitendra, 2004). Scruggs and
Mastropieri (1994) summarize the best instructional practices for special
needs students by recommending that effective teaching includes structure,
25
clarity, redundancy, enthusiasm, appropriate pace, and maximized pace.
They describe that teachers typically make (Crane, 2005) substantial
modifications in science curricula and materials to accommodate their
special needs learners. Some areas of scientific knowledge will not be
readily constructed by students without considerable support from a teacher:
vocabulary, procedures, and formal classification schemes need to be
learned and memorized (Westby, 2000).
By most definitions, successful inclusionary, constructivist instruction
is inherently accommodating to diverse learners (Mastropieri, 2001).
Constructivist notions of science view science as a social activity based on
student prior understandings and active engagement in the learning process.
From this philosophical position, all students gain deeper understanding
when they are involved in well-implemented instruction based on proven
principles of teaching for understanding (Morocco, 2001; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1994). Constructivist learning is based on the idea that all
people are always learning , and that students are actively engaged in
reasoning through scientific problems (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996;
Mastropieri, 2001). Udvari-Solner & Thousand further argue that learner-
26
centered and process-oriented learning environments are more likely to
produce successful results: in short, the best strategies for inclusion run
parallel with the best practices in general education. Special education
students might get opportunities through science classes that they might not
be provided anywhere else: group learning situations, excitement provided
by experimentation, and alternative methods of assessment are some reasons
why science classes are deemed ideal for inclusion (McCann, 1998). The
implication is that it is increasingly important to identify the consequences
of different types of instructional practices and curriculum models associated
with meaningful learning in effective inclusive classrooms (Mastropieri,
Scruggs, & Boon, 2001).
Direct instruction is the predominate method of instruction in special
education. Direct instruction is specifically grounded in a philosophy that
minimizes teacher creativity and focuses on a prescribed series of highly
scripted steps in instruction. It is highly teacher-driven and contrasts with
current science education philosophy. Special education strategies are often
grounded in direct instruction, in contrast to current philosophies in science
27
education, which value building of concepts in the context of a student-
centered learning environment (Crane, 2005).
Direct instruction and constructivism are extremes on a learning
continuum. Some skills and basic concepts may be best learned in a direct
approach. Student misconceptions, however, are not easily overcome by a
direct approach (Crane, 2005; Committee on Science Learning,
Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, 2007). It is from the philosophical
foundations of both direct and constructivist instruction which frame how
one modifies instructional approaches for special needs students. The
philosophical framework for this study‘s research question is grounded in
the notion that the best instruction happens within the spectrum, not on
either end.
Assumptions
For this study, it is assumed that increasing students‘ scientific
conceptual understanding is the goal and focus of the instruction rather than
increasing students‘ knowledge of technology. It is also assumed that
schools involved in this study have enough usable technology infrastructure
and teacher expertise that makes computers available to students; therefore
28
the findings of this research can be of use to educational practitioners.
Students in this study are assumed to be familiar with basic point-and-click
computer skills. Most importantly, it is an assumption that the curriculum
being used is based on the notion that science is for all students, as
articulated by the science education reform documents from AAAS‘s Project
2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990).
Context of the Study
This study is being conducted at a unique point in time to correspond
and leverage a national implementation study. University of California -
Berkley's Lawrence Hall of Science (LHS) conducted a national field-test of
a new, inquiry- oriented, 8-week long middle school level space science
instructional sequence for the Great Explorations in Mathematics and
Science (GEMS) program. Independent of this study, several participating
teachers allowed the researchers to provide modified instructional tasks,
mediated by computer technology. The modified lessons were designed by
the researchers and built upon the best practices for teaching special needs
students.
29
Participants
Participants in this research are middle school students who are
classified as receiving special education services. These students are
enrolled in regular education science classes in their middle schools. A
nationally recognized, activity-based space science sequence of instructional
materials for middle school astronomy education was provided to
participating teachers by the GEMS program at Lawrence Hall of Science.
Students in field-test classrooms were identified by their teachers as special
education students if the student had an individualized education plan (IEP).
Students in the control classrooms participated in the field-test curriculum
which was an activity-oriented instructional experience common to all
students within a particular class. Students in the modified treatment group
received modified instructional activities which were mediated by a
computer. These modifications were provided in addition to the standard
curriculum and targeted the same conceptual domains. Each group is
described below:
Group U consisted of students in classrooms where instruction
consisted of the field test materials alone. There were no
30
known modifications or accommodations provided for special
education students.
Group M consisted of students in classrooms where selected
components of instruction included alternative/supplemental
instructional activities which were modified to be delivered by
interactive multimedia computer software.
Data Sources
Cognitive pre-test and post-test data were collected by the Lawrence
Hall of Science as part of their national field-test. These pre and post tests
consisted of a number of multiple choice and free response questions.
Student identification was by randomly assigned number, which allowed for
pairing of pre- and post-test scores.
Definition of Terms
The terms ―students with special needs‖ and ―special education
students‖ are generic terms for students who have difficulty in school and
are eligible for special services under Public Law 101-476, the Individuals
31
with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Special education encompasses students with
a wide range of disabilities—behavioral disorders, communication disorders
such as language and speech development, physical handicaps, visual and
auditory impairments. Also common is ADHD (attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder) and many students exhibit multiple disabilities. At
the other end of the spectrum, gifted students are also classified as special
education, and indeed a student may be gifted along with some other
disabling condition. All of these are handicaps which influence how a
student can interact with his or her environment.
More commonly, special education students in inclusionary
classrooms tend to be learning disabled (LD). Learning disabilities are
specific neurological disorders that affect the brain's ability to store, process
or communicate information, and they vary in type and severity among
individual students. Specific learning disability (SLD) is the term used in
federal law for any learning disability. Although students with learning
disabilities are typically average to above average in intelligence, they
struggle in school; learning disabilities affect cognitive processes and are
typically manifested in reading, writing, and mathematical domains.
32
Summary
Special needs students all too often fall behind in achievement in math
and science, especially during the middle school years. Nationally, schools
view science as a natural and desirable content area in which to mainstream
special education students due to the inherently structured nature of
scientific inquiry. Although technology holds promise for enhancing
educational opportunities for special education students, there has been little
systematic work to date on the actual effectiveness and feasibility of
informed interventions.
33
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In this chapter I summarize the literature on how science teachers
attempt to modify curriculum and instruction to accommodate special needs
learners in the classroom and whether it makes a difference. Many regular
education teachers are actively looking for feasible and effective ways to
make inclusion work in their classrooms, but with varying degrees of
support from administrators and special educators (Willis, 1996). A
multitude of new strategies are being developed and reported in the literature
(Bechard, 2000) which, if successfully incorporated into daily classroom
instruction, could dramatically promote learning among special needs
students. Yet these strategies are not often used. Coleman (2001) reports
that there are a number of variables which affect a teacher‘s ability to
successfully teach inclusion students, among them pre- and in-service
preparation and collaboration between special and regular educators.
Assistive technology is becoming a more necessary instructional strategy for
students with mild disabilities (Peterson-Karlan, 2005). Previously,
34
McCann (1998) showed that student achievement is dramatically impacted
by the significance of teacher attitudes and expectations regarding their
special needs students (McCann, 1998). The core issue for educators is one
of finding feasible strategies that successfully leverage what is now known
about learning to close current gaps in educational achievement between
diverse students (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2002; Bell, 2002).
Scientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the most often cited goal for science education
reform (Bybee, 1995). Scientific literacy can be described in light of three
particular features: scientific concepts, encompassing the knowledge and
facts specific to an individual science content area or discipline; scientific
processes, those integral to scientific understanding such as identifying
scientific questions, using evidence, drawing conclusions and
communicating; and development of conceptual change, where scientific
knowledge becomes meaningful to students only when that knowledge is
useful for making sense of their worlds (Bybee, 2002). As such, scientific
literacy implies a particular goal for all students, and it implies immersion in
a culture
35
Morocco (2001) argues that science concepts are inherently complex
and cannot be meaningfully understood through a single learning
experience. For Morocco, understanding concepts is most often
demonstrated by knowledge use beyond the context where it was learned.
This can be developed through authentic tasks, anchored instructional
environments, cognitive strategies, social mediation, and constructive
conversation (Morocco, 2001). Ogens and Koker (1995) similarly propose
that scientific literacy incorporates not only content knowledge, but also
underlying principles and a social impact component.
Bybee (2002) expands his definition of scientific literacy as a
continuum of understanding, and brings in the notion that another important
characteristic of scientific literacy is that it is inclusive rather than exclusive
– a most important facet considering the diversity of student ability levels
present in a typical urban classroom. Brownell (1998) quotes Margo
Matropieri making this exact point: science is a particularly good subject for
students with disabilities ―because science focuses on everyday life and
daily experiences we have interacting with our environment.‖ (p119) In this
sense, students must attempt to make sense of new information by
36
incorporating it into their own prior knowledge and experience.
Contemporary science education practices emphasize active learning – that
is, that students will understand better and be more interested in science if
they are intellectually engaged in the doing of science (Blosser & Helgeson,
1990). However, other research by Lord (1999) provides some limits on the
constructivist notion of science education by noting that even though an
assignment may have a ‗hands-on‘ form, students may not actually be
engaged in processes leading to understanding. We know that students
construct understanding by ―an iterative process of theory building,
criticism, and refinement‖ (Bransford, 2000, p183). Bransford also
describes the model of inclusive science teacher as guide; supporting
students as they explore problems should be part of the shared responsibility
of learning within a community of scientific practice. Much of this is well
summarized by Sanger (1997) who noted that the types and natures of
students‘ connections are based in their experiences.
Student Academic Diversity
A typical education science classroom most likely includes students at
all levels of school achievement, at-riskness for school failure, and with a
37
variety of learning and/or physical abilities. Contemporary science
classrooms in the U.S. also contain students whose first language is not
English, as well as students with behavioral, emotional, and motivational
problems. While there is a broad range of disabilities in general, McCann
(1998) reports that over half of all students receiving special education
services are diagnosed with learning disabilities.
Given the robustness of science as a disciplinary pursuit, it is not
surprising that science instruction has been readily identified by special
educators as an especially accommodating area for special needs students
(Randant, 1998). This perspective aligns well with national reforms
suggesting that children learn best by actually doing science in an active way
– questioning, designing experiments, predicting, observing, and keeping
organized records. Based on the assumption that all students can learn
science as describe by the national standards documents, there is a clear
assumption that students with learning disabilities can and will be included
in regular science classrooms (Mead, 1997) unless there is compelling
reason to place the student in a more restricted environment. Barton and
Osborne (2001) refer to teaching in the interface, which they define as the
38
intersection of the domains of science with the real-life worlds of children,
especially children of urban poverty. They, along with many others
(Blosser & Helgeson, 1990; Bybee, 2002; Westby & Torres-Velasquez,
2000), suggest that in addition to understanding the nature of scientific
knowledge, it is also important to make visible how science relates to
society. This is consistent with authors writing about research on science
education practices who emphasize the importance of problem solving and
learning activities based on real world problems, especially designed to
incorporate higher-order thinking skills and construction of knowledge
(Chaineux & Charlier, 1999; Dillon & Scott, 2002).
This situation of wide diversity presents an enormous challenge for
regular education science teachers who have constructivist orientations.
Constructivist orientations drive teachers toward activity-based instruction
guided by individual students‘ prior experiences and preexisting knowledge.
Successful inclusion of diverse learners requires even more varied
instructional methods designed to address individual student strengths and
weaknesses (Mercer, Lane, Jordan, Allsopp, & Eisele, 1996; Rose & Meyer,
2002). There is widespread agreement that all students deserve the same
39
opportunities to learn as students with no disabilities (Bechard, 2000;
Tomlinson &Allen, 2000) and, indeed, special needs students are capable of
learning the essential concepts as elaborated in curriculum standards,
although some may require variations in presentation of material or
adjustments in level of difficulty. Providing meaningful inclusion of special
needs students unquestionably requires expertise and careful consideration
of various instructional strategies on the part of teachers (Gersten, Baker,
Pugach, Scanlon, & Chard, 1996).
Current federal laws regarding the inclusion of all students combined
with an ever increasing emphasis on rigorous learning standards places
greater responsibilities on classroom teachers to ensure that all students
reach their highest levels of achievement. Unfortunately, surveys reveal
that far too many students in special education programs, especially those in
urban, inner city settings, receive inadequate or no education in science,
math, engineering, or technology (AERA, 2004; Jacobson, 2007).
Hammrich (2001) reports that even though only 8% of school districts are
classified as inner-city these schools educate over 26% of all school
children. One of the characteristics typical of these school districts is they
40
have high poverty rates and high minority representation, further evidence of
increasing student diversity. Indeed, many students with disabilities could
perform at a cognitively higher level than reading scores would initially
indicate given the right learning environment (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Some schools in the Rose and Meyer study are able to show no measureable
achievement gaps among diverse students: these schools emphasize several
key strategies that benefit all students. These strategies include
emphasizing reading skills, teaching higher order thinking skills to all
students, re-teaching content using a variety of approaches, ensuring that all
students are participating, and creating an affective connection for all
students (Bell, 2002). Therefore it is clear that data rather than personal
philosophy should guide decisions of placement for special needs students
(Hagan-Burke & Jefferson, 2002).
Technology
Students with disabilities may require assistive technology, but
technology resources are not always used where they could benefit the
student and lack of knowledge regarding technology integration among
41
teachers is cited as a major factor for this (McCann, 1998). IDEA requires
that assistive technologies be considered for all students with special needs.
Current instructional design paradigms urge educators to start with
curriculum goals and determine how educational technology can assist
students in achieving positive learning goals (Warger, 1998). when
implemented purposefully, technology can allow access to challenging
curricula and increase academic performance, motivation, and general skills
such as in writing and communication (Chin, 2000). To be effective,
computer technology must seamlessly integrate with the curriculum,
functionally supplementing the classroom instruction, and yet be accessible
and academically beneficial for students to use.
Technology projects incorporating principles of situated learning
(principles such as authentic context, and social interaction and
collaboration) have been shown to provide an effective framework for
learning (Basden, 2001). Technology, in its broadest sense, begins with
problems that children find important and naturally engages them by using
their pre-existing cognitive resources to encourage expansion of problem
solving strategies while providing a further context for communication and
42
organization (Benenson, 2001). As such, technology effectively becomes a
basic tool to allow special needs learners to become more fully participating
members of regular classrooms. Lewis (1998) has convincingly shown that
learning activities that are aligned with a variety of technologies have
positive benefits for diverse student populations. Some of these
inclusionary classroom benefits include the promotion of positive attitudes,
an emphasis on inquiry and process approaches to learning, and affirming
student strengths. Targeted technologies can help students overcome print
and communication barriers, learning disabilities, and both hearing and
physical impairments. Technology has great potential for learning disabled
students because it can provide contextualized (that is, grounded in a
meaningful conceptual framework) learning environments (Lewis, 1998),
and students in technology-rich environments show often academic
achievement in all subject areas (Butzin, 2001).
Although the traditional educational viewpoint is one of equal
opportunity (Kennedy & Agron, 1999),a lack of technology-access in fact
creates inequality in educational opportunities (Hancock, 1993). Critics of
technology-in-the-classroom suggest that if teachers do not accept and
43
incorporate technology into their classroom practices, then no significant
academic achievements can occur as a result of technology (Oppenheimer,
1997). And, if technology is used improperly, it may have the unintended
consequence of generating new conceptual misunderstandings (Olson &
Clough, 2001). On the other hand, one can argue that incorporating a
variety of technologies can be especially advantageous for minority and
disadvantaged students, as well as students with learning disabilities and
emotional or behavioral difficulties, by encouraging positive attitudes and
increasing student participation. Moreover, computer technology has the
potential to facilitate inquiry and process approaches to learning, and put
emphasis on student strengths.
Research on teaching effectiveness and teaching evaluation bears out
that incorporating computer technology into the curriculum is becoming ever
more an aspect of good teaching (Mishra, 2006). Experienced teachers
often use technology in a variety of educational tasks. These teachers tend to
have higher expectations for their students as well as shifting instruction to a
more student-centered learning perspective. Pierson (2001) reports several
important findings that have direct implications for educational practice and
44
teacher preparation. The most important of these is that the ways in which
the teachers themselves experienced technology then became the basis for
thesse teachers‘ own definitions of technology integration. Specifically,
Pierson found that teachers who were at less proficient levels of either
technology application or teaching abilities not only altered their planning
habits when preparing for technology inclusion, and that teachers taught
with and about technology according to their own personal learning
strategies, but also that teachers‘ individual definitions of technology-
integration influenced how they managed student computer use, and that
teachers at lower levels of technology or teaching experience also altered
their perspectives on assessment when assessing student technology use.
This information is important to any study utilizing educational technology
because teachers need to view technology as an integral part of the learning
process if it is to be effectively used as a meaningful part of instruction
(Pierson, 2001). Emerging research goes so far as to suggest the necessity
of a ‖technological pedagogical content knowledge‖ which teachers should
possess in order to appropriately and effectively incorporate technology into
classroom teaching (Mishra, 2006). While there has been ongoing
45
discussion and research into the effectiveness of computers in the classroom,
even critics of computer use in classrooms (Oppenheimer, 1997) generally
agree that computer use has been shown to facilitate learning among special
needs students. The literature shows that more research needs to be done
regarding the achievement of students where technology is used in the
classroom.
Teacher Attitude
Teachers‘ attitudes toward special education students is probably the
most important factor in successful inclusion (McCann, 1998). While
research suggests that principals, regular educators, and special educators
have varying attitudes toward the inclusion of special needs students
(Tanner, Linscott, & Galis, 1996), and studies show that students with
learning disabilities seem to be accepted by teachers, special needs students
are often painted with stereotypical characteristics, such as not disrupt other
students, exhibiting a passive learning style, asking few questions, and
rarely volunteering (Gersten et al., 1996). Additionally, many teachers
perceive special needs students as needing more time for teacher interaction,
46
potentially taking away from their already scarce time with the rest of the
students in their classes (Jackson, Harper, & Jackson, 2001). Studies also
show that instruction in diverse classrooms is often not differentiated to meet
the needs of the students (Rose & Meyer, 2002), although successful
inclusionary instruction is inherently accommodating to special needs
learners (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996). Many practicing educators
feel that while accommodations may be desirable, they are not feasible in
light of the many demands already placed on classroom educators (Jackson
et al., 2001).
Student self-concept has a close relationship with academic
achievement. Teachers tend to think of special needs students as having less
capability to learn, but students with learning disabilities tend to believe they
have more ability to succeed in science due to the potential for interactive
learning experiences. However, since achievement in the classroom is
largely assessed by teachers, their attitudes towards students with special
needs may negatively affect the self-concept of these students. This is
important since development of academic self-concept is integral to
motivation and achievement (Carlisle & Chang, 1996).
47
Studies show that student achievement increases when students
receive instruction in their preferred learning style (Ballone & Czerniak,
2001); however, the most typical student teaching experiences might not
sufficiently prepare future teachers for the challenges of fully differentiated
classrooms (Andrews, 2002). Further complicating the issue, a serious
shortage of teachers exists in the areas of science, math, and technology
(Craven III, 2001), and students far too often do not receive the modified
science and math instruction that meets their particular instructional needs
(Hammrich et al., 2001). Many teachers do not feel they have the
knowledge or skills to successfully make adaptations for special education
students in inclusive classrooms (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Adaptations
generally used in most classrooms need to be fully re-examined (Robinson,
2002) and best practices for special needs students needs to be disseminated.
Many teachers believe that little higher learning is possible with special
education students (Lombardi & Savage, 1994). Furthermore, assessment of
special needs students is complicated by the lack of adequate preparation of
science teachers, leaving many teachers feeling concerned about equitable
grading practices (Fleischer, 2004).
48
Implications for Classroom Practice
Shea (1994) argues that there are important characteristics linked to
effective instruction of special needs students: (a) teacher behavior, (b) the
organization of instructional and academic learning time, and (c)
instructional supports, such as class size and teacher in-service training
(Shea, 1994). For many traditional science teachers, teaching seems to
involve only the one-directional transmission of scientific facts and
knowledge from teacher to student. These beliefs, and their accompanying
classroom actions, prove to be a hindrance to effective science learning
among diverse learners. A constructivist perspective necessitates that
student engagement in the learning process is essential if students are to
succeed in science, especially with the current atmosphere of standards and
accountability. Yet, special needs students often have little motivation to
learn science in that they often see limited relevance between schooling and
the reality of their lives (Barton & Osborne, 2001; Wolk, 2003). The
challenge for teacher practice is to change methodologies in order to respond
to the increasing academic diversity in classrooms in a manner which
supports learning for all students. This approach emphasizes that students‘
49
conceptions of science must be valued, as well as their experiences and
social identities, in order to be successful. Munby, Russell, and Martin
(2001) argue that moving between theory and practice is not familiar nor is it
easy. Many teachers are not able to articulate or actualize a vision of what
a successful classroom might look like if it was truly able to respond to the
individual needs of special needs students.
Butzin (2001) found that most of the teachers he surveyed have great
difficulty in integrating technology into instruction – such support needs be
provided for teachers to learn to effectively incorporate technology as a tool
for instruction in the science classroom. J. T. Fouts (2005), in a study of
computers and education for the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, showed
that although technology exists in almost every school in the nation, for
technology to make a difference certain factors such as low student-
computer ratios, extensive teacher training, teacher ownership of reform
efforts, and a clear purpose for use must be present.
Regular feedback regarding classroom practice is essential, and
opportunities for reflection and discussion with peers must be provided on a
regular basis (Kimmel, Deek, & Farrell, 1999). Change in teacher behavior
50
is gradual and it is often difficult for teachers to implement changes in
classroom instruction, especially when it involves not only their practices
and skills but also their educational beliefs (Levin, 2006). Teacher
professional development needs to model use of technology for its
participants in the educational process since teachers will not integrate
technology into the curriculum if they are not educated and supported
(Pierson, 2001). Even though computer-based learning often promotes a
constructivist approach; allowing shared products to be created, supporting
the creative thinking necessary in our current models of teaching science,
and providing an opportunity for students to take responsibility for
differentiated learning levels, effective utilization in science classrooms is
highly dependent on changes in teacher attitudes and skills. The literature
clearly shows that the belief structures of teachers influence their behavior in
classrooms (Levin, 2006), yet teachers rarely have the opportunity to
participate in carefully designed professional development experiences that
clearly demonstrate how to implement these methods in their classrooms for
special needs students.
51
Implications for Teacher Education
The Bright Futures Report (Coleman, 2001) identified several
variables that influence a teacher‘s ability to successfully teach inclusion
students. These variables fall under two main categories: identification of
the ―obstacles and barriers‖ which hinder quality education for included
students and developing an action plan with the goal of assuring all
exceptional students are taught under the best possible conditions for
learning. A number of themes that influence teaching and learning
conditions were identified in this report. These themes include, collegiality
and professionalism among teachers, frank communication, supportive
climate, resource availability and clear roles and responsibilities. Barriers
to quality instruction included class size and constitution (variables such as
proportion of students of each gender, learners with special needs, and
English Language Learners), time for planning and collaboration, and
paperwork. This report also found that there are greater expectations of
teachers, including accountability for student learning, in the light of high-
stakes testing. However, the report charges that far too little is being done
to prepare teachers to meet these demands. Furthermore, there is a growing
52
gap between resources and expectations. This begs the question of where
do these inquiries fit into the context of science education and reform.
There are, of course, many variables that affect a teacher‘s ability to
teach special needs students successfully, among them pre- and in-service
preparation, collaboration between special and regular educators (Coleman,
2001), and an understanding of the significance of teacher attitudes and
expectations regarding their special needs students (McCann, 1998). A
study of regular education teachers (Olson et al, 1997) identified several key
factors on which the most successful inclusive teachers place focus. These
factors include several important teacher characteristics, including
adjustment of expectations, responsibility for all students, having a tolerant,
reflective, and flexible personality. Several key factors related to the
successful inclusion of special education children are also prominent, such
as tolerance of diverse skill levels and the availability of technical
assistance. In general, research shows that using ―particular technology
tools was associated with positive gains in learning for students with
learning disabilities, students with emotional or behavioral difficulties, and
students described as low achievers or ‗at risk‘‖ (CAST, 2001).
53
Although the literature demonstrates educational content and practices
that can be inherently engaging and relevant to all students, many schools do
not successfully foster this atmosphere. Students who are academically
diverse and have substantial risk factors associated with academic failure
are, in fact, the students who most often do not have the opportunity to
participate in the type of educational learning environment that promotes
engagement in learning. If scientific literacy is the overarching goal for all
students, then science teacher educators must be the catalysts for change
(Craven, 2001). Sound teacher education programs must be developed to
prepare teachers for the instructional challenges of an ever diversifying
student population (Maheady, Michelli-Pendi, & Mallette, 2002). Student
teaching experiences may not adequately prepare teachers for inclusion
practices in their classrooms. However, few teachers are aware of the range
of technology available or how to use it. Most pre-service educational
programs do not coordinate instructional technology with methods so new
teachers have had no effective modeling of technology integration in the
classroom (Mishra, 2006). Teacher preparation must address diversity,
technology, and contextual issues (Willis & Raines, 2001). Munby, Russell
54
and Martin (2001) have delineated some features that contribute to
successful learning opportunities for teachers, including addressing teachers‘
preexisting knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning, treating
teachers as learners in a manner consistent with a vision of how teachers
should treat students as learners, grounding teachers‘ learning and reflection
in classroom practice, and offering ample time and support for reflection,
collaboration, and continued learning.
Case-based instruction may help pre-service educators gain the skills
and understandings needed to successfully teach in diverse urban settings.
To date, good models for case studies are rare. Internet technology can add
a new dimension to learning by allowing future teachers to interact with
cases in a collaborative setting (Andrews, 2002; Ochoa, 2002), yet these
approaches are as yet widely unrealized.
55
CHAPTER 3
NEEDS ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND
METHODOLOGIES
Introduction
This chapter is organized into three major sections. First, the needs
assessment conducted in support of this study is described. Second, the
formal research question is presented and the corresponding research design
is described. The majority of this chapter is devoted to the third aspect,
describing how the treatment curriculum was modified according to best
practices for working with special needs students in order to test its
effectiveness with conventional approaches.
The No Child Left Behind Act clearly states that all children deserve a
highly qualified teacher and that all U.S. schools and students will increase
their achievement to meet higher standards. These lofty ideas also apply to
special needs students who need access to in depth and challenging curricula
so that they can participate fully in personal growth, obtain meaningful
careers and contribute to society. Government statistics show that 10 to 12%
of the total population of school-age children in the US are classified as
56
having a disability requiring special education services (National Center for
Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education, 2007). In addition 30
to 40% of the school population may also be at risk for school failure and
experience problems much like students with mild to moderate disabilities.
Previous studies show that principals, regular educators, and special
educators have varying attitudes towards integration of disabled students
(Carlisle & Chang, 1996; Robinson 2002; Tanner, 1996). In order for all
students to have an opportunity to learn science, both content and
instructional practices must be changed. Students with disabilities deserve
the same opportunities to learn as students with no disabilities and the extent
to which this can be realized depends in part on whether special needs
students can excel with modified curricula that leverages computer-
technology.
The Needs Assessment
Purpose of the Needs Assessment
A needs assessment was designed to illuminate the generally accepted
truism that early-career teachers struggle with adapting their science
57
classrooms to help special needs students succeed. In this context, early-
career teachers are teachers who have been teaching science in a full-time
capacity for less than three years. The central question framing this needs
assessments is: What are the perceptions and needs of early-career teachers
about teaching science to their special needs students?
Participants in the Needs Assessment
Eight full-time science teachers from an urban area in the
Southwestern United States voluntarily provided information for this needs
assessment. They represent early-career science teachers who are all in the
first three years of their teaching career. Each of these teachers currently
has special education students included in their classrooms. These teachers
were voluntarily participating in an early-career induction program run by
the researcher that included monthly meetings on Saturdays and informal,
non-evaluative classroom visits by the researcher to provide feedback on
classroom practice. As such, these teachers are judged to be representative
of similar teachers although they do reflect a sample of convenience. These
teachers taught in schools that enroll students representing a variety of socio-
economic backgrounds and ethnicities. These teachers graduated from
58
various education programs at different colleges and universities. Three
held elementary certification, and five held current secondary teaching
certificates.
Needs Assessment Methodology
A needs assessment was conducted using survey research methods,
relying especially on interviews consisting of a semi-structured format in
which participants engaged in a card-sort strategy, during which they were
encouraged to elaborate on their thinking as they sorted the items
(Friedrichsen &Dana, 2003). Teachers were observed in their science
classrooms by the researcher on at least three separate occasions as a natural
part of their participation in a University-based induction program. These
visits were non-evaluatory and designed to provide support and constructive
feedback on their instructional practices. Teachers were given a
questionnaire that served as a medium for discussion about what was
occurring in their classrooms and is included in Appendix A.
Responses to the questionnaire, as well as the classroom observations
were coded inductively based on recurrent themes generated by looking at
the data several times to develop categories and key concepts related to the
59
participants‘ responses, using HyperRESEARCH software. Coding
focused on the characteristics of responses as well as supporting details,
received by the researcher, using standard practices for qualitative data
analysis.
The researcher took on two simultaneous two roles during the needs
assessment process: independent observer and Socratic facilitator. Because
of the researcher‘s own background in inclusion classrooms, a possibility of
researcher bias does exist in the final coding schemes. To mitigate against
possible bias, the interview questions and observation procedures were
reviewed by a group of three experts for impartiality and judged to be
reasonable strategies for illuminating teaching practices.
A set of nine interview questions and a data collection sheet designed
by the researcher were developed to guide the interview process. In order to
ensure consistency in interviews, an open-ended interview guide was
developed to serve as a quasi-script for the researcher. Validity and
reliability were established through five pilot interviews with new teachers.
As a result of this beta-testing process, three questions were re-written for
clarity and understanding as the initial participants reported them to be
60
confusing. This needs assessment document consisted of four distinct
sections: a place for interview notes for recording the logistics of when and
where the interview occurred, a place for background information for
describing more completely the demographics of the teacher-participants, a
section including questions relating to the educational background and
philosophy of the teacher-participants, and, finally, the actual interview
questions. The interview questions are found in Appendix A.
After each classroom observation conducted by the researcher, each
teacher was surveyed in person or by telephone if scheduling did not allow
personal interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 20 – 25 minutes.
Before the conclusion of the interview, the researcher summarized the
responses for the person interviewed to confirm accuracy of her field-notes.
Responses were recorded using hand-written field-notes on the interview
response form and coded using commercially available HyperRESEARCH
computer program as an assistive tool. A detailed printout of the analysis is
included in Appendix B.
61
Results from the Needs Assessment Data Analysis
All of the results from the interviews are summarized in Appendix C,
where the responses are sorted into categories based on the interview
questions.
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
Most new teachers had little or no inclusion experience or training,
and those who did had largely gained their knowledge and experience in the
classroom rather than in a formal course or in-service program. One teacher
expressed feelings of being overwhelmed at first, thinking that she had to
make separate lesson plans for her special education students. Another
expressed being ‗thrown into‘ the classroom as the mechanism for learning
while another used the phrase ‗winging it‘. Only one student mentioned
taking a special education class in college, which is typical of a number of
science education programs.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
The attitudes of the new teachers towards students with special needs
ranged from negative (the bane of my teaching) to ambivalent (mixed
feelings) to positive (really great abilities), although the overall result of this
62
particular question was a feeling that the teachers were at least somewhat
positive towards their special learners. A few teachers characterized their
special education students as witty, really bright, having a lot of energy, or
possessing high social skills.
Teachers expressed the challenges of trying to not leave their students
academically behind the regular education students in their classrooms,
while focusing on their abilities rather than their disabilities. One teacher felt
the curriculum had to be tiered as though it was ―almost two different
classes‖ and expressed that the other students didn‘t want to work with the
special needs learners in their class. Another teacher related the students‘
needs to Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and that some special students had
special emotional needs and perhaps an unstable home life. Some
difficulties they saw in their students included having great long term
memory but not short term, teaching their special learners was like looking
through a foggy glass window, and that usually special education but not all
have behavior problems.
63
MODIFICATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS REPORTED
Most teachers were aware of and used minor and traditionally
recommended modifications such as finding ways to make lessons simpler,
using books with ideas for students who need more help, allowing students
to use notes on tests, providing skeleton outlines for content, and using
preferential seating. Some teachers altered expectations, modifying grade
level materials or making their own, allowing students to pass on
participation in class, or allowing test retaking with a special education
resource teacher. One teacher expressed feeling that many students need
accommodations, but in many accommodations the accommodations cripple
the students because of learned helplessness; that is, students may feel they
have no control over a situation and respond passively to new situations.
A few teachers made attempts at accommodation through their
classroom instructional practices, such as using visuals, connecting
vocabulary with visuals, using manipulatives and hands-on materials, and
always having something other than reading and writing.
64
TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, AND ATTITUDES
In general, the new teachers were familiar with basic computer
applications such as word processing, using the internet, and PowerPoint
type applications. One response indicated little use computers except for
research. Most of them expressed having little to no technology expertise
relating to special education learners and ―just using the stuff that came with
the textbook‖.
SATISFACTION WITH TEACHING THEIR SPECIAL LEARNERS
In general, the new teachers were at least somewhat satisfied with
their teaching, with one expressing that her desire to improve is ―not low but
not where I want to be‖. Another teacher expressed dissatisfaction with the
lack of teacher support or induction programs in the district, another wished
for more time to keep track of every student every day. Teachers in general
expressed satisfaction with seeing improvement and achievement among
their special needs learners.
Across all eight interviews, the results are quite uniform with no
outstanding or unexpected responses. Early-career teachers at the
secondary level self-report a considerable lack of confidence in their ability
65
to make justifiable curriculum modifications, instructional adaptations, and
assessment decisions to support the learning of special needs students.
Further, it is not due to a lack of desire; rather, it seems to reflect a
significant deficit in their teacher-preparation and professional development
programs. Because these teachers represented a variety of programs and
institutions, one can infer that this is a systemic deficiency, as opposed to a
single program. Moreover, the curriculum materials available provide only
cursory guidance, if any, about making modifications for special needs
students. All of the participants in the needs assessment reported their
support for special needs students to be insufficient.
The results of the needs assessment clearly point toward providing a
classroom-ready curriculum modification for special needs students as a first
step. This perspective, gained from new science teachers, reinforced the
motivation of this researcher to look for a computer-based, technology
solution that would modify the way information was organized for special
needs students to help them build and organize foundational knowledge so
that they could more fully participate in an inquiry-based science classroom.
66
The Research Question and Methodology
This section reiterates the research question from Chapter 1 and places
the research methodology in context of the needs identified in the needs
assessment and the opportunity to participate in a national field-test of
exemplary curriculum materials.
Research Question
As described previously, a needs assessment conducted with early-
career secondary science teachers clearly identifies a need for a classroom-
ready curriculum modification for special needs students. This, of course, is
viewed to be one piece of a much larger portfolio of strategies,
infrastructure, and accommodations that special needs students require for
success. Because the researcher had experience with technology-based
solutions for learning environments, the researcher was motivated to look for
a computer-based, technology solution that would modify the way
information was organized for special needs students to help them build and
organize foundational knowledge so that they could more fully participate in
an inquiry-based science classroom. This provided the foundation for a
question surrounding the extent to which interactive, computer-based,
67
differentiated instruction might be able to increase and enhance the
achievement of special needs students in an activity-oriented middle school
science classroom. This notion is expressed in a single research question:
RESEARCH QUESTION: Are the scores and work products of
special needs students significantly different when provided with
technology-based instructional activities modified according to the
best practices for working with special needs students?
Unique Context of the Study
This study occurred within in a unique research and
development opportunity in both time and context, where the opportunity
presented itself to partner with Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley.
The Lawrence Hall of Science‘s Great Explorations in Math and Science
(GEMS) Program has created a collection of GEMS core curriculum
sequences, combining the excellence of current GEMS Teacher‘s Guides
with the coherence, depth, deeper assessment, and technological advances
that were integral to development of a new GEMS program. The goal was
to extend and refine a carefully designed series of coherent curriculum
sequences that construct student understandings and capabilities aligned to
68
the fundamental recommendations of the National Science Education
Standards and related frameworks.
Each GEMS core curriculum sequence, based on a series of 4-5
existing or pending GEMS units, is correlated with a focused and essential
area of the national science standards. Assessment opportunities are built
into each GEMS core curriculum sequence, testing not just what a student
learned from specific units, but a student‘s greater understanding of the
underlying concepts. Student readings, connecting the subject of study to
the work of current and past scientists were also included. Materials
include related web-based technology resources to enhance the learning
experience and further enable students to understand the bigger perspective
related to that strand of science.
In partnership with NASA‘s Sun Earth Connection Forum, NASA‘s
Kepler Mission, the Origins Education Forum and Hubble Space Telescope,
the IBEX mission, and other NASA scientists and astronomy researchers,
the development of the first GEMS Core Curriculum Sequence in space
science was conducted in 2005 and 2006. The sequence provided teachers
with an effective inquiry-based, content-rich approach to teaching. Each
69
sub-sequence (3-5th and 6-8th grade) included: printed curriculum and
assessment guides for core units packaged together; closely coordinated
student readings; a complete materials kit; and a teacher‘s guide for the
entire sequence.
The space science sequence, focused on the Earth within the solar
system and beyond, is built on the following existing GEMS units: Earth,
Moon, and Stars, Moons of Jupiter, The Real Reasons for Seasons,
Messages from Space, and Living with a Star, and involved some
development of new activities. There is a substantial base of research
showing that fundamental concepts in astronomy, such as the causes of the
seasons, are often misunderstood by students, and there is a need for
teachers‘ instructional strategies to address often persistent
misunderstandings. It is worth noting that several of the GEMS guides were
developed precisely in this context. Work reported by Lawrence Hall of
Science with 539 U.S. students who experienced the GEMS unit Earth,
Moon, and Stars showed that significant numbers of students shed
misconceptions about the Earth‘s shape and gravity, with younger students
responding even more dramatically. The GEMS guide The Real Reasons for
70
Seasons uses a pre-test to elicit student preconceptions and a designed
sequence of activities toward improved understanding. It included a CD-
ROM that featured web resources and software that allows teachers and
students to experiment with the Sun‘s position, the tilt of the Earth, and the
shape of the Earth‘s orbit. Throughout the GEMS Space Science Core
Curriculum Sequence teachers were apprised of common student
misconceptions and strategies for overcoming them, with the understanding
that repeated experiences in differing learning formats over time are often
necessary for students to replace their initial ideas with more accurate
understandings and concepts. A chance to sequence, revise, and refashion
these units, and add the features of a technology environment, student
readings, and an assessment system, will improve their effectiveness and
support their coherent and flexible use.
Through these GEMS core curriculum sequences, teachers can choose
an approach to teaching science that provides more coherence than a
supplementary program but requires less time than a comprehensive
curriculum. A core curriculum sequence provides a realistic and practical
approach to teaching essential science content at a time when the pressure on
71
the curriculum is great. Over time, a collection of carefully constructed
GEMS core curriculum sequences together provide an educational program
consisting of a number of coherent curriculum sequences that convey core
concepts in life, earth/space, and physical science.
The GEMS curriculum development team was approached by the
researcher and her colleagues about informally creating and testing a
computer-based, technology modification to the GEMS Space Science
Curriculum designed specifically to help special needs students. Not only
did the curriculum development team enthusiastically encourage the
researcher to development these modifications, they also encouraged the
researcher to fully utilize their national field-test assessment and evaluation
infrastructure to explore the impact of these modifications on special needs
students. Albeit this scenario does not allow for a significant test, revise, re-
test model for iterative curriculum development, it does represent a very
unique opportunity to glimpse into how special needs students compare to
regular education students in a widely-known and highly visible national
curriculum field-test project. It was judged by the researcher and her
colleagues that the advantages of participating in this national field-test
72
outweighed the disadvantages imposed by the lack of an iterative curriculum
development model or the lack of researcher control about how, when, and
where the assessment data was collected.
Participants
Lawrence Hall of Science coordinated all teachers participating in a
national classroom field-testing of their revised space science curriculum. In
all, more than 50 teachers participated at some level. Each student was
identified by an anonymous code number assigned by the team at Lawrence
Hall of Science. This code identified each student‘s teacher, grade level,
classroom section, gender, and if the student had an active Individual
Education Plan (IEP). The presence of an IEP in the student‘s record was
used as a proxy for identifying the individual as a special needs student.
For the present study, four of the teacher-participants agreeing to
participate were from the area in which the researcher lived. With the full
knowledge and encouragement from the national field-test team, these
teachers agreed to use and administer the assessments for the modified
versions of all four activity units comprising the Space Science sequence.
Student demographics were nearly identical across all schools, buildings,
73
and classes, and can be summarized as students at-risk for school failure,
from low-income families (the schools have greater than 90% of the
population on free and reduced lunch), and a large number of the students
had an accommodation plan (IEP).
Research Design
The research design that most closely aligns with the research
question is a four-group, pre-test/post-test, quasi-experimental design. Each
student-participant completed a hand-written pre-test administered in at the
beginning of each of the four units of study. Each test consisted of a mix of
multiple choice and short answer questions. The students then participated
in either the un-modified or the modified curriculum model. The vast
majority of students participated in the un-modified version. The targeted
teachers for this study used a modified version of the curriculum for all
students: regular education and special needs students. At the conclusion of
each of the four modules, student-participants again completed a hand-
written post-test. The only difference between the pre-test and post-test was
that the question sequence was changed slightly. All surveys were
submitted to the national office by participating field-test teachers and a
74
subset was randomly selected for scoring at LHS. The surveys and the
scoring rubric are included in Appendices D through K.
After the national scoring was complete, the student-participant
surveys identified for this study, both regular education and special
education students, were mailed to the researcher who scored all students
surveys whether or not they had been scored by the GEMS national
evaluation team. Surveys from target classrooms that had been scored by
the national evaluation team were scored again by the researcher to be
certain that inter-rater reliability was established. There were only small
discrepancies between the researcher‘s scores and the national evaluation
team scores and this only occurred in six of the 40 double-scored surveys
and I judge the scoring system to be reliable insofar as the rubric can
measure.
From the data provided, the researcher was able to discern four
distinct groups, labeled U1, U2, M1, and M2. The U1 and U2 groups
participated in the un-modified curriculum and the M1 and M2 groups
participated in the modified curriculum. The groups are then defined as:
75
Group U1: Regular education students who participated in the un-
modified curriculum
Group U2: Special needs students who participated in the un-
modified curriculum
Group M1: Regular education students who participated in the
modified curriculum
Group M2: Special needs students who participated in the modified
curriculum
The performances of these groups are compared on two separate
quantitative measures. The first measure evaluates how well groups‘
overall gain scores (post-test minus pre-test) compare for each instructional
unit, as determined by the provided scoring rubric. The second measure
compares the groups‘ gain scores (post-test minus pre-test) for the individual
assessment item most closely related to the curriculum modification, as
determined by the provided scoring rubric.
In addition, these results are further examined and validated by a
qualitative assessment of student work samples. The student assessments
in a subset of the modified curriculum participants are inductively analyzed
by reading and re-reading the surveys looking for recurrent themes. These
76
themes are summarized and lend support and insight into the quantitative
results derived from the process described above.
The limitations to this approach are the lack of randomly assigned
students, resulting in a quasi-experimental research approach rather than a
pure experimental design. Further, this design does not account for skill
differences of individual teachers or allow for variation in fidelity of
implementation. Moreover, this design lacks significant controls over how
much and under what conditions the data collection is conducted. As a
result, the data and conclusions lack wide generalizability and serves only as
a first step toward exploring the role modified curriculum makes for special
needs students.
Criteria Guiding Curriculum Modifications
The Space Science instructional materials developed by LHS/GEMS
are widely regarded as being highly inquiry-oriented, so it was determined
early in the design process that an overriding principle was that the
computer-based modifications would make every attempt to not infringe
upon any of the inquiry activities in the curriculum. Rather, the
modifications would focus on areas known or highly suspected of being
77
particularly difficult for special needs students. A set of design principles
summarized from the literature and found to be highly relevant in light of the
particular educational needs of learning disabled students are summarized in
Table 3.1.
78
Table 3.1 Problems and solutions related to students with LD
AREA
ISSUE
SOLUTIONS
REFERENCES
Science
education and
learning
disabled
students
The science class is potentially one of
the more promising classes in which to
provide an appropriate education in the
LRE because it has the potential (a) to
allow students to interact, share, and
collaborate during their learning (b) for
teachers and students to assist one
another during instructional activities;
and (c) to offer a variety of multimedia
opportunities for learning and
performance. This is especially
important at the middle school level as
students are preparing for the academic
demands of secondary school.
Learning science has both
cognitive and affective
implications for students with LD.
In this context, computer
technology provides cognitively
engaging and motivating
instructional tools for
individualizing the mode of
delivery; developing expert tutors;
anchoring instruction; integrating
science with other subjects;
reducing cognitive load on
working memory; and motivating
students to stay on task.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E.,
Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002).
Including students with
disabilities into the general
education science classroom.
Exceptional Children, 68 (4),
423-436.
Kumar, D. & Wilson, C. (1997).
Computer Technology, Science
Education, and Students with
Learning Disabilities. Journal of
Science Education and
Technology, 6(2), 155-161.
Information
Processing
The learner must orient him/herself to
instructional situation by becoming
aware that a learning situation or
opportunity exists.
Since many students have
difficulty distinguishing between
relevant and irrelevant
information, cueing and directing
student attention through the
instructional representation could
allow cognitive resources to be
directed to the most relevant
material.
Patrick, M., Carter, G., Wiebe,
E.(2005). Visual Representations
of DNA Replication: Middle
Grades Students‘ Perceptions and
Interpretations. Journal of Science
Education & Technology, 14(3),
353-365.
79
Yong, F., & McIntyre, J. (1992).
A comparative study of the
learning style preferences of
students with learning disabilities
and students who are gifted.
Journal of learning disabilities,
25(2), 124 – 132.
Need to promote student attention or
reception of incoming information.
Promotes student reception of
incoming information: text, audio
and multimedia options for gaining
information.
Kumar, D. & Wilson, C. (1997).
Computer technology, science
education and students with
learning disabilities. Journal of
Science Education & Technology,
6(2), 155-160.
Deshler, D., Ellis, E. & Lenz, B.
(1996). Teaching adolescents
with learning disabilities, 2nd Ed.
Love Publishing Company,
Denver CO.
Learner must draw on appropriate prior
knowledge to conceptualize or make
logical associations with the new
information.
Computerized modules anchor
instruction by allowing students to
revisit problem situations and gain
meaningful understanding of the
topic they learn.
Support student use of learning
strategies (establishing a purpose,
setting goals, activating background
knowledge, predicting, visualizing,
prioritizing, looking for patterns of
information, and organizing
information).
Content is reduced to simple
elements, then components
integrated and students must be
engaged in tasks that will require
them to apply and generalize.
Cues are provided to use cognitive
strategies and take overt action.
Appropriate reinforcers to increase
motivation permit students to have a
certain amount of control and to make
choices about their learning enhance
motivation and independent decision
making.
Students have choice of modules
and sequence of presentation.
Yong, F. & McIntyre, J. (1992).
A comparative study of the
learning style preferences of
students with learning disabilities
and students who are gifted.
Journal of learning disabilities,
25(2), 124 – 132.
80
Reading
More easily perceiving a row of text on
a page makes the text easier to read and
so less attentional resources are
required for the process of reading.
Simplified text
Serif font
Gasser, M., Boeke, J., Haffernan,
M., Tan, R.. (2005). The
Influence of Font Type on
Information Recall. North
American Journal of Psychology,
7(2), 181-188.
Good readers are able to identify key
ideas from text and discriminate their
relative importance.
For each topic, key ideas are
presented on one screen before
students continue to interactive
details.
Deshler, D., Ellis, E. & Lenz, B..
(1996). Teaching adolescents
with learning disabilities, 2nd Ed.
Love Publishing Company,
Denver CO.
Students with learning disabilities
prefer an auditory learning mode.
Audio is an integral part of this
program to build on student
strengths.
Yong, F. & McIntyre , J. (1992).
A comparative study of the
learning style preferences of
students with learning disabilities
and students who are gifted.
Journal of learning disabilities,
25(2), 124 – 132.
Short-term
auditory
memory
Students with LD tend to have
problems with short-term and working
memory.
Stress important details, ensure
that students have prior
knowledge/ prerequisite skills
needed to understand and make
connections with new material,
give students time to rehearse and
elaborate on new information,
provide opportunities for students
to practice material under different
conditions/with different tasks to
promote comprehension and
transfer
Deshler, D., Ellis, E. & Lenz, B..
(1996). Teaching adolescents
with learning disabilities, 2nd Ed.
Love Publishing Company,
Denver CO.
81
Content enhancement
Advance organizers, visual
displays graphically depict lesson,
study guides highlight critical
content information, audio
recordings, computer-assisted
instruction.
Vocabulary
Students with learning disabilities often
have inadequate vocabulary knowledge
and difficulties with learning. Students
with disabilities have a fragmented and
less complete knowledge of words, as
well as a narrow understanding of
particular word features.
Practice is critical to vocabulary
acquisition that, in turn, may lead
to maintenance and generalization.
Jitendra, A., Edwards, L. , Sacks,
G. & Jacobson, L. (2004). What
research says about vocabulary
instruction for students with
learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 70(3), 299-323.
82
82
The curriculum and instruction materials
Four GEMS units in the Space Science Core Curriculum Sequence were
field tested during the time of this study: Living with a Star, Why are there
Seasons? The Solar System, and Beyond the Solar System. Within each unit,
specific lessons were identified as having high potential to be exceptionally
difficult for special needs students. Typically, these lessons were either
heavily text-based or contained information in a form which is not easily
accessible to students with learning disabilities. Examples will be presented
in the following sections. Using the criteria in Table 3.1, a set of computer
based materials was developed using Macromedia Authorware. One CD
was provided to each participating teacher for each unit. Although
GEMS/LHS produced a CD of supplementary materials to accompany the
core curriculum, teachers who agreed to field-test the modifications did not
receive that resource. Teachers in the unmodified group may have received
the CD, but there is no data available as to the actual usage of that resource.
Each of the supplements followed a similar strategic approach to:
1. tightly focus student attention on the most relevant aspects and
important details of the lesson information, and
83
83
2. present information in a variety of modalities, to simplify text but not
content, and to provide avenues for vocabulary acquisition by all
students.
Unit 1: The Sun is a Star
In this unit, students are tasked to look for patterns in data to
determine the effect of a star, our Sun, on their daily lives. Students engage
in five separate investigations to learn about the different kinds of energies a
star can produce. Much of the content information is provided to students
in text form on data sheets (shown in Figure 3.1). Following the principles
in Table 3.1, this content was dramatically transformed into a richly
interactive format with simplified text, audio and visual representations of
the content, and opportunities for student choice in the sequencing . This is
shown in Figure 3.1 in a ―before-and-after‖ motif. Subsequent images
(Figures 3.1 – 3.7) illustrate other aspects of the modified materials.
84
Figure 3. 1 Menu for the live data section of the program allows student choice in
sequencing of presentation. Because the content is in modules containing smaller
elements, important details are isolated to improve student focus.
85
Figure 3.2 Newsflash data from the printed curriculum is contrasted with a screenshot
from the computer based resource. The program delivers the information in a TV
broadcast format, emphasizing important terms with still images illustrating vocabulary.
86
Figure 3. 3 Original text-based material contrasted with adapted weather map. Colorful
graphics draw attention to essential information. A vocal rendition is provided, giving the same
detailed content as the text.
87
Figure 3. 4 Comparison of original text-based graph with animated graphic which
uses color to represent day and night hours. Pop-up text shows sunrise and sunset
times. Voice describes the graph, and a world map focuses student attention on the
geographic location.
88
88
Unit 2: The Sun-Earth System: Why are there seasons?
The goal of this unit is to guide students towards an understanding of
the causes of Earth‘s seasons. This topic is frequently misunderstood by
both students and adults and is well documented elsewhere. Because
research shows no single, isolated experience is likely to overcome an initial
misconception, this unit provides a number of experiences to allow students
the opportunity to compare their alternative ideas with new information and
develop an accurate representation of this important concept. As illustrated
in the following figures in a ―before-and-after‖ motif, seasonal data
(temperature change and daylight hours) were transformed from static
information into an interactive format with voice descriptors and visual cues
to lessen cognitive load and allow attention to be given to the most important
information.
89
Figure 3.5: Temperature data is similarly converted to a format with less cognitive load,
thereby increasing the opportunity for student learning. Temperature is represented by
two colors indicating above and below zero Celsius.
90
90
Unit 3: The Solar System
Students learn about the diverse objects in the solar system through
this unit, with emphasis on the big ideas about how the solar system is
organized, how the objects it contains are arranged, and how they move.
Supportive materials for this unit focused on providing information for
research on objects in the solar system. The principles involved in
developing this section include extensive use of icons to represent
characteristics of each object: temperature, day length, atmosphere, moons,
mass, size, appearance, length of rotation, and distance from the Sun. Data
are separated onto the different screens to allow students to focus on relevant
information for each section. Text is simplified while voice narration
includes the full content of information from the curriculum.
91
Figure 3. 6 The original textual material is in a format not accessible to many
students with learning disabilities. Because the computer version follows principles
for accessibility, students are able to gain information in a format focused on their
learning needs
92
92
Unit 4: Beyond the Solar System
This unit provides students with an opportunity to gain an
understanding about stars and galaxies, the vast scale and structure of the
universe, and the important role that light plays in our knowledge of the
universe. As with the other units, design considerations focused on
retaining all content while providing delivery in a student centered format.
In this unit special focus was given to the Hubble Deep Field Images,
providing students with an opportunity to engage in exploration of the
curriculum while maintaining their focus on important ideas and themes,
according to the principles guiding the curriculum resource development.
93
Figure 3. 7 Unit 4 menu presents two activities. "Beyond the Solar System" is a sorting
activity using color images. Students can manipulate the cards anywhere on the screen.
94
Figure 3. 8 Hubble Deep Field image grid and detail section demonstrate another aspect of design
principles. Color image in addition to only one grid section on display focus student attention on
cognitive task.
95
95
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
In this chapter, the results related to the research question, ‖Are the
scores and work products of special needs students significantly different
when they are provided with technology-based instructional activities
modified according to the best practices for working with special needs
students?‖ are presented. First, the quantitative data are summarized by
disaggregating it into four distinct groups defined as:
Group U1: Regular education students who participated in the un-
modified curriculum
Group U2: Special needs students who participated in the un-
modified curriculum
Group M1: Regular education students who participated in the
modified curriculum
Group M2: Special needs students who participated in the modified
curriculum
Second, the qualitative results from an inductive analysis of student
writing on the assessments are presented. Student scores across all
classrooms have been aggregated to reduce any attribution to individual
teachers.
96
96
The student work products were analyzed by looking for natural and
recurring patterns in the student responses to the prompt. As introduced
above, there were at least five distinct relationships that developed through
this inductive analysis process, which I now describe in detail.
Overall Gain Scores (Post-test Minus Pre-test) for Unit 1: Living with a
Star
Survey #1, provided in Appendix D, asked students to supply written
responses to six items and was administered just before and immediately
after participating in the Space Science Curriculum Unit 1: Living with a
Star. Student responses were scored using the rubric provided in Appendix
D and the results are summarized in Table 4.1 below. These data were
arrived at by converting the raw scores to a percentage, determining the
average percent, and then subtracting the average percentage for the pretest
from the average percentage for the posttest.
97
97
Table 4.1 Comparison of overall gains from nationwide aggregate,
unmodified (U1& U2), and modified (M1 and M2) groups.
Special needs students‘
pre/post gain
Regular education students
pre/post gain
GEMS aggregated
8 % mean correct gain (7th grade)
Unmodified
curriculum
-7% (n=6)
8% (n=43)
Modified
curriculum
7% (n=15)
9% (n=96)
While the numbers of students involved are too small for a robust
statistical analysis to confirm if significant differences exist, a visual
inspection of the raw scores and individual student gains suggest that special
education students using the unmodified curriculum experienced great
difficulty in learning the concepts involved. The following tables and
graphs present scores and percent gains (calculated by converting the raw
scores to percentages for each pre- and post-test, then subtracting the pre-test
percentage from the post-test percentage) for individual students using the
unmodified and the modified versions of the curriculum. Students are
grouped by their regular education (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.3) or special
education (Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.4) status for ease in comparison. Figure
4.1 shows scores for a randomly selected subgroup of regular education
students who used the unmodified curriculum, and their 8% overall gain was
98
98
consistent with the national aggregated results as the scores of the subgroup
of regular education students in the modified group, which provides
evidence that the classes under evaluation are representative of the larger
nationwide sample.
Figure 4.1 Regular Education Students (n=15) using unmodified
curriculum showed an 8% average gain from pre- to post-test.
Figure 4.2 presents scores for special education students within the
same classrooms, who were also taught using the unmodified curriculum.
Although the regular education students overall gains for this unit were
consistent with the national averages, it is evident that the special education
99
99
students were not learning at a level equal to their peers, and in fact
deteriorated in their performance during the course of the unit, with their
gains from pre- to post-test declining by 7% and 4 out of the 6 declined in
their scores from the pre-test to the post-test. Comparison of the graphs and
data tables also shows a discrepancy between the proportions of special
education students who demonstrated quantitative gains (only about 33%) in
comparison to the regular education students (about 66%).
Figure 4.2 Special Education Students (n=6) using the unmodified
curriculum showed a -7% gain (7% decrease) from pre- to post-test.
100
10
0
Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show gains by students who were taught
with the modifications to the curriculum. Twenty pre- and post-tests were
randomly chosen from the group of regular education students who
participated in the modified curriculum: the regular education students
demonstrated an average 9% gain using the modified curriculum. About
65% of the regular education students using the modified curriculum
demonstrated gains between the pre- and the post-tests, similar to the regular
education students who used the unmodified curriculum.
Figure 4.3 Regular education students (n=20) using the modified
curriculum averaged a 9% gain in their pre- post-test scores.
101
10
1
Figure 4.4 is inclusive of all the special education students in the study, who
were taught with the modified curriculum. As specified in Table 4.1 above,
the special education students who were taught with the modified curriculum
averaged a gain of 7%, but in contrast to either of the groups which used the
unmodified curriculum or the regular education students who used the
modified materials, 73% of these special education students demonstrated
improvement in their scores from the pre-test to the post-test, and only 2 of
the 15 had a decrease in their scores.
Figure 4.4 Special Education Students (n=15) using the modified
curriculum averaged a 7% gain in their scores from pre- to post-test
102
10
2
The data therefore suggest that most special education students
demonstrated substantial gains in learning the content using the modified
curriculum. In general, special education students who were taught using
the modified materials had gains greater than any special education student
who was taught only with the unmodified materials. Individual special
education students gained as much as 30% and 9 of the 15 increased 10% or
more using the modified curriculum compared to only 15% gain for one of
the special education students using the unmodified curriculum and there
were no other improvements over 10% within that group.
Gain Scores (Post-test Minus Pre-test) on Item #4 for Unit 1: Living
with a Star
Of the six items on survey #1 relating to Unit 1: Living with a Star,
Question #4 is the most closely aligned with the concept emphasize by the
computer-based modifications specifically created for this study. Question
#4 asks students to create a list of things coming through outer space toward
Earth from the Sun, and indicate which items are harmful and which are
helpful to us, and how. Students‘ pre/post test gain scores for Question #4
are summarized in Table 4.2 where it appears that there are few stark
differences in student scores. Although the gains were not equal to the
103
10
3
GEMS aggregated scores for this test item, it is important to notice that
among the classes studied students who used the modified curriculum made
slightly larger gains than students who did not for this particular question.
Table 4.2 Gain scores between pre/post tests for Unit 1, Question 4
Special needs students
Regular education
students
(GEMS overall)
.82 mean gain (all students, GEMS aggregated)
Unmodified curriculum
0 (n=6)
.2. ( n=43)
Modified curriculum
.13 ( n=15)
.55 (n=96)
Another relationship which developed is related to how many items
students listed in their responses. The numbers of responses were tallied for
all students in the modified and unmodified groups. Among students who
were taught with the unmodified curriculum, students overall tended to
increase the number of responses to the prompt (Figure 4.5a) and regular
education students using the unmodified curriculum have a similar pattern in
their responses. Special education students using the unmodified
curriculum, however, did not demonstrate a noticeable increase in the
number of their responses to the question (Figure 4.5c)
104
10
4
Figure 4.5a Number of responses to Question 4 among students using
the unmodified curriculum. The average number of pretest responses
was 2.5 while number of posttest responses average is 3.5
In contrast to the students who were taught with the unmodified curriculum,
most students who were taught with the modified curriculum tended to
increase the quantity of their responses to the prompt by listing more items,
with more movement towards higher numbers of responses than in the
unmodified group. Similar to the modified group, regular education students
showed a strong trend towards more responses to the prompt. Special
education students in particular show a distinct and positive difference
between the unmodified (U2) and modified (M2) groups.
105
10
5
Figure 4.5b The number of responses to Question 4 for regular
education students has a similar pattern as for the group overall, where
the average number of pretest responses is 2.5, posttest response
number averages 3.4
Figure 4.5c Special education students in the unmodified group did not
greatly increase their number of responses to Question 4. The average
number pretest responses for this group is 2.6, average number of
posttest responses is 2.8.
106
10
6
Figure 4.6a Overall pattern of the number of responses to
Question 4 for the modified curriculum demonstrates a strong trend
towards more responses (pretest average number of responses 2.9
moved to posttest average number of responses 3.8)
Figure 4.6b Number of responses to Question 4 for regular education
students only, using the modified curriculum (pretest average number
of responses 2.7 moved to posttest average number of responses 3.9)
107
10
7
Figure 4.6c Number of responses to Question 4 for special education
students who used modified curriculum (pretest average number of
responses 3.0 moved to posttest average number of responses 3.4)
Both the overall test scores and the response patterns are interesting in
and of themselves and do give some indication of the learning gains among
the students, but they do not reveal the entire picture of achievement of the
special education students who were provided the modified curriculum. A
qualitative analysis of students‘ responses provides considerably more
insight into student thinking.
108
10
8
Qualitative Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test Student Supplied
Responses
To qualitatively analyze student responses to both the pre-test and
post-test, I began by attempting to find patterns among the data and themes
for categorization. For convenience, I started the categorization with the
first student response for each pre- and post-test, which were readily placed
into distinct categories. Subsequent responses were sorted on their relevance
to the question: whether they were on topic and conceptually relevant,
moderately connected, or naïve and largely unrelated. This method of
analysis was undertaken to determine what responses were most frequently
listed as well as the qualitative nature of the responses. As might be
expected, student responses on the pretest were quantitatively and
qualitatively different than student responses on the post-test.
It should be noted before further quantitative analysis of student
responses that the National Science Education Standards (NSES) explains
light and the electromagnetic spectrum are a fundamental concept: ―The sun
is a major source of energy for changes on the earth's surface. The sun loses
energy by emitting light. A tiny fraction of that light reaches the earth,
transferring energy from the sun to the earth. The sun's energy arrives as
109
10
9
light with a range of wavelengths, consisting of visible light, infrared, and
ultraviolet radiation‖ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 155).
Nationally, according to the LHS/GEMS results document, students
mentioned light and heat most often (66 and 67% respectively on the pre-
test, 52 and 41% on the post-test), followed by rays (25% on the pre-test
and 29% on the post-test) and solar particles (only 10% for pretest, 24% on
post test mentioned these). As reported by initial LHS in-house analysis yet
to be published, of those who mentioned rays, most mention (58% for pre-
test, 20% for post-test) was of a general nature on the pretest, with some
specific rays mentioned 23% on the pre-test and 77% on the posttest. No
rays were mentioned 19% of the time on the pre-tests, and 3% of the post-
test responses. Student responses in the pretest for the unmodified and
modified groups were overwhelmingly aspects of the topic which students
had prior knowledge and experiences: light, heat, rays, and energy were the
most common responses, although some included particles, waves, particles,
and radiation. Plausible responses submitted by students included plants,
life, water, seasons, and sunburns/tans, while rocks from the sun, planets,
meteors, and so forth are typical responses which were categorized as naïve.
110
11
0
A deeper qualitative review of student responses shows that most
student responses from special needs students using the modified curriculum
fall within the conceptual framework set by the NSES, and although the
student responses from special education students in the unmodified group
are acceptable, they do not show a qualitative increase in the depth of
understanding among these students: none of the post-test responses
included specific types of rays or any mention of solar particles (see Table
4.9).
Table 4.3 Unmodified curriculum group U2, special education students'
responses to Question 4
Student
Pre-test responses
Post-test responses
119
uv rays, light, heat
light
105
energy, heat, air
energy, air, water, sun, wind
006
hot wind, cold wind, light, heat
heat, light, air
009
sunlight, heat
light, heat
026
heat, light
light, heat
020
steam, light
heat, light, energy(listed
twice)
On the other hand, students in the modified curriculum group not only
increased in the number of their responses, most increased in the quality of
responses based on both the GEMS rubric and the National Science
Education Standards. The pretest responses included appropriate content
111
11
1
such as rays, light, heat, and particles. Specific rays such as UV were
mentioned by 3 of the 15 special education students in the modified group,
in contrast to the unmodified group where only 1 of the 6 students
mentioned a specific ray in the pre-test and none mentioned any specific
rays in their post-test responses.
The LHS/GEMS rubric utilizes light, energy, and heat as indicators of
insufficient understanding if there are no further details provided by the
student (and scores this response a ―2‖), while complete understanding (a
score of ―4‖ according to the rubric scoring guide) includes at least 4 of the
possible responses along with a correct identification of harmfulness or
helpfulness, with a full response including the full spectrum of
electromagnetic energy. A complete response would also include
descriptions of the type of harm or helpfulness resulting from the various
electromagnetic energies: UV (negatively) producing sunburns, skin cancer,
eye damage, and (positively) stimulating vitamin D production in skin are
possible descriptions. Close inspection of the students‘ responses for the
modified group indicates differences in conceptual understanding not
reflected in purely numerical scores. For example, based on the literature
(Sadler, 1998), it can be argued that there is indeed a difference in
112
11
2
conceptual understanding between students who responded ―light, heat‖ on
both the pre-test and post-test, and those who went from ―light, heat‖ to
―heat, light, energy‖ or ―energy, light, cancer‖ since these students are
developing alternative paradigms which support their progression on the
learning continuum towards complete understanding.
It is interesting to note that a number of students responded to the
prompt with radiation, cancer, sunburns, and explosions which did not
increase their score on the rubric, but do indicate progress in conceptual
understanding of the topic.
Tables 4.5 – 4.8 summarize all students‘ responses on the pre-test and
the post-test. Responses were sorted into categories based on the GEMS
rubric and the National Science Education Standards. Responses were
categorized as moderately connected if they were not deemed acceptable on
the GEMS rubric, but if they showed a conceptually strong connection with
the topic of the Question #4 prompt ―what comes to the earth from the sun‖.
Finally, responses were categorized as naïve if there was no immediately
obvious conceptual relationship to the prompt. Responses for all students are
included to demonstrate the general nature of answers among all groups, and
to further support the argument that special education students who used the
113
11
3
modified curriculum did not demonstrably differ in quality of responses
from the majority of regular education students.
Table 4.4 Modified curriculum group M2, special education students'
responses to Question 4
Student
Pre-test responses
Post-test responses
011
heat, uv rays, global warming
heat, rays, uv rays
016
particles, light, rays, radiation,
heat, life
meteors, sunlight
051
rays
heat, light
053
light, heat
heat, light, energy
054
fireballs, heat, fire, light
solar flare, light, heat, energy
063
energy, light
energy, light, cancer, see it, heat
064
<blank>
xray, heat, energy
067
rays, heat, light
uv rays, sunlight, heat
070
energy, heat, oxygen, dry
heat, energy, light, oxygen, cme
108
light, energy, heat, skin cancer,
elipses (sic), asteroids (sic)
light, energy, solar flares, heat,
explosions
113
light, ultraviolet rays, warmth
heat, xrays, uv, solar flare, light
154
heat, uvlight, energy, solar rays
heat, rays, solar flares, energy
203
heat, light
energy, light, cancer
160
light, cancer, solar rays, heat
light, fire, spots, strang(sic)
stuff, energy, dar(illegible)
209
light, energy, heat, electricity,
power
energy, sunlight, gas, heat
The nature of student responses to Question 4, ―What things are
coming toward the Earth from the Sun‖, is strikingly evident in the
114
11
4
differences between students who experienced the standard curriculum and
those who used the modified version. These differences are observable
qualitatively both in quantity of responses as well as in the quality of
answers. All student responses are documented in Tables 4.9 though 4.12.
These tables indicate students were moving from naïve to acceptable
to scientifically accurate understandings, and even though their learning and
understanding is imperfect, it is moving in the direction of conceptual
accuracy. For example, very few students had only a naïve understanding of
the concept, and of those who did, most also had either plausible or
acceptable understandings as well. This is true both on the pre-test and the
post-test for the unmodified and the modified groups, though the modified
groups demonstrate the most movement from plausible to acceptable
understanding. Students demonstrate emerging understanding of the nature
of light through knowledge of the various types of electromagnetic radiation
and that what the earth receives from the sun is both helpful and harmful,
which they express in responses such as plants, cancer, sunburns, solar
power, and cataracts.
As one might anticipate, student responses on the pretest reflected
their basic understandings of the topic, but interestingly their responses also
115
11
5
reflected the geographic differences between the students involved in the
field-test. This provides evidence of nature of their prior knowledge of the
content; students in the Southwest overwhelmingly responded with heat as
their first response, while the majority of students in less arid and sunlit
areas of the country listed light as their first response.
116
11
6
Table 4.5 All student pre-test responses for unmodified curriculum
Additional responses to the prompt, categorized by conceptual level
Naïve
Meteors
Dust particles
meteors
air
Clear or plausible connection with
the concept
Plants, life, water, coldness
Seasons, tan, sunburn
Plants
Acceptable
Heat (13), energy
(4), particles (2)
Light (7), rays,
energy, waves,
particles
Light(5), heat(5),
particles (3), uv
rays
Heat(2), particles,
light, sun rays (2)
Light (2), heat
First Student Response
Light (n=19)
Heat (n=10)
Rays (n=10)
Energy (n=5)
Other (n=3)
Meteors, hot wind/cold wind, steam
117
11
7
Table 4.6 All student pre-test responses for modified curriculum
Additional responses to the prompt, categorized by conceptual level
Naïve
Meteroroids (sic)
Sun itself,
sunrise, sunset,
world protection,
asteroids
earth, planets,
stars, moon
Meteors, rocks
from the sun, heart
disease, asteroids,
Moon, sun,
Clear or plausible connection with
the concept
Shade, skin cancer, burns, global
warming, radiation, fire, gases,
sunburn, cause things to die, grow
plants, solar power, solar panels
Cancer, skin cancer, gases, chemicals,
uv heat rays, electricity, power, drys
things out, eclipses, reflects off moon,
gives light to moon
Gravity,
Hot, hotter, hot days, desert, heat,
heat waves, solar power
Life, flames
vitamin d, warm, fire, heat, keeps
plants alive, cancer
Acceptable
Energy (7), light
(11), uv/ir light (3)
Heat (19), energy
(5), uv rays,
particles
Heat (10), light
(8), energy(4)
Light/ sunlight (7),
Rays, radiation,
energy, light
Energy
First Student Response
Heat (n=35)
Light (n=27)
Rays (n=19)
Energy (n=10)
Particles (n=3)
Other (n=7) flames, cancer, plants,
fire, earthquake, comets, fireballs,
118
11
8
Table 4.7 All student post-test responses for unmodified curriculum
Additional responses to the prompt, categorized by conceptual level
Naïve
Clouds
Sun , wind, water
Sun,
Clear or plausible
connection with the
concept
Cataracts, matter,
Cataracts, waves,
harmful rays
Helps fruit grow
Warm
Acceptable
13 of 18 students list a number of specific em
waves, 4 uv only, 1 ‗rays‘, cme‘s ,sunlight/light
(9) heat, energy, solar wind particles
Heat (12), energy (4), uv(2), solar particles
Light (10), energy (5), ir/uv (3), solar particles
Light (4), uv (a,b,c)/ir (3), rays, solar flares
Rays, heat, ultraviolets(sic), light,
First Student Response
Rays/waves (n=18)
Light (n=14)
Heat (n=12)
Energy (n=6)
Other (n=2) Vitamin D,
meteor
119
11
9
Table 4.8 All student post-test responses for modified curriculum
Additional responses to the prompt, categorized by conceptual level
Naïve
Meteors, hot wind,
cold wind, steam
Sun
Sunrise, ‗different
rays‘ a spot in the
sky, cell phone,
‗strange stuff‘
fire
Clear or plausible
connection with the
concept
Sunburns (2), summer,
sweat, tan, life,
oxygen
Hydrogen, solar
power,
Cancer, sunburn
Plants, solar storm, ,
explosions, fire (2),
electricity, solar
energy (2) , gases
gases
Sunburn (2), plants
Acceptable
Light (20), energy (17),solar flares (4),
particles (3), uv/ir/xray (14), cme
Listed more specific rays (16), heat (14),
energy (8), light (6), solar flares (3),CME, solar
wind, particles (2) sun rays
Light (14), heat/warmth(14), specific em rays
(3),. solar flares (2), solar rays,
Energy (13), rays (8), heat/warmth
(13),specific em solar flares(5), cme (3), solar
wind, sun rays, particles, sun/solar rays
Light (7), energy(5), heat (4), specific rays (2),
cme (2), particles, solar flares
Light/sunlight (6), energy (3), heat/warmth (3),
gamma rays
First Student Response
Light (n=25)
Rays (n=24)
Energy (n=22)
Light (n=22)
Particles, flares, radiation
(n=9)
Other (n=6)stars, life,
meteors, skin cancer,
electricity, comets
120
12
0
Students in the Southwest also noticeably listed sun related effects such as
skin cancer, burns, and global warming which were not mentioned among
students in the areas where the unmodified version of the curriculum was
implemented.
There are no other outstanding differences in the quality of responses
between either the unmodified and modified groups or between the special
education and regular education students within the pre-test responses.
Meteors/meteoroids/asteroids were the most common naïve response among
both groups. Plausible responses tended to focus on results or uses of the
sun‘s energy where plants, life, cause growth, and skin cancer are some
common responses. Acceptable responses demonstrated understanding of
the actual types of energy that is emitted from the sun and received on earth:
general terms such as heat, light, rays, particles, and mention of specific
waves such as ultraviolet and infrared.
Missing Scores for Units 2, 3 and 4
Beyond the control of the researcher, there were insufficient numbers
of data collected by the LHS team for analysis relating to the three
remaining units. It is unclear as to whether or not a substantial number of
121
12
1
participating teachers completed the needed documentation which
accompanied the field-test materials. While I had hoped to analyze a
number of units to provide overwhelming evidence in response to the
research question, the researcher judges that the data received from Unit 1
alone, in concert with the qualitative analysis described above, provide
sufficient data to analyze the targeted research question and suggest a
legitimate response to that question.
Summary of Results
It is evident from both the quantitative and the qualitative analysis of
the student work products that the answer to the research question is yes, the
scores and work products of special needs students are indeed substantially
different when provided with technology-based instructional activities
modified according to best practice for working with special needs students.
Responses from special education students were consistently within
the range of responses found among the general education population.
Special education students had fewer initial misconceptions than regular
education students in both the pre- and the post-tests in unit 1. As a
generalization, special education students did not respond as completely to
122
12
2
either pre- or post-test questions with the depth found among some regular
education students.
Some misconceptions repeat among a number of students as seen in
the pre-test / post-test responses. The most evident example of these is in
the student conceptions that plants come from the sun, which even though it
is demonstrating a conceptual link to the prompt it does not adequately
answer the question of what comes to the earth from the sun. The most
often mentioned misconception is that meteors and asteroids are from the
sun. As a result, it seems plausible that inquiry-based science instruction was
able to remediate some misconceptions among students, but not all. As one
might expect, there were a few students who apparently developed new
misconceptions through the instructional process, as evidenced on the post-
test writing samples. These findings are consistent with other studies of
students‘ conceptions and progression along a continuum of conceptual
understanding (Sadler, 1998).
123
12
3
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The overarching goal of this research was to extend emerging theories
of computer mediated instruction into classroom practice to improve the
achievement of special needs students. The following sections present a brief
discussion suggesting implications of this study and propose an agenda for
future research.
Summary of what has been achieved
Consistent with Pandit‘s (1996) grounded theory perspective that data
itself should drive research questions and research design, analysis of the
initial interviews with new science teachers conducted as part of the needs
assessment suggested an underlying general proposition that new science
teachers have little to no experience or educational background in teaching
special needs learners. Interview data clearly showed that new teachers
were open to trying accommodations and modifications which would benefit
their special needs students if they had classroom-ready resources available
to use. Moreover, many held at least somewhat positive feelings about
having special needs students in their science classes as well as held positive
124
12
4
attitude towards using computer technology as a resource in their
classrooms. This combination of attributes, in concert with a strong desire to
become better teachers, provided the researcher with considerable
motivation to create new and pedagogically effective instructional materials
that teachers could easily implement
The qualitative and quantitative data resulting from the pretest-
posttest, four-group study design to evaluate the success of the developed
resources resulted in two overarching observations, both of which are
consistent with previous findings presented in the literature. First, gains in
students‘ pretest to posttest scores were notably higher for the special
education students who used computer-mediated instructional approaches
designed utilizing best practices. Second, the proportion of special needs
students who provided more scientifically accurate and extended responses
was much greater among the special education students who used the
modified materials than those who did not.
Sadler (1998) suggests that students simply do not move from
inaccurate to accurate thinking and it is difficult to construct a precise model
showing the flow of how students‘ understanding of scientific concepts
evolves during instruction. The data analysis of this research supports this
125
12
5
evolutionary perspective in that this study reveals subtle evolutions in
student thinking. Although Sadler‘s (1998) work on learning astronomy did
not specifically look at special needs students, the results of this study
targeting special needs students confirms a continuum of student
understanding along which students can move. Although neither the regular
education nor the special education students in this study demonstrate a
complete fully mature and scientifically accurate understanding at the end of
instruction, the shifts they did make are indeed indicators of conceptual
progress.
Most importantly, special needs students in this study who used the
modified materials demonstrated more conceptual growth than did the
special education students in using the unmodified materials. Their
responses to the question demonstrate important conceptual movement from
naïve and plausible understandings toward more scientifically accurate
conceptions to a much greater degree than did the students who were taught
only with the unmodified, conventional materials. Moreover, a related and
somewhat serendipitous observation during this study was that regular
education students too seemed to benefit from instruction designed with best
practices for special needs students.
126
12
6
Comparison of aims and objectives with achievements
The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data shows there is
indeed a difference between the pretest to posttest gain scores and work
products of the special needs students who were provided access to the
computer-mediated instructional activities which were modified according to
best practices for instruction of special needs students.
The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data shows there is
indeed a difference between the pretest to posttest gain scores and work
products of the special needs students who were provided access to the
computer-mediated instructional activities which were modified according to
best practices for instruction of special needs students.
Contributions made by this work
The needs assessment that eventually guided this study considered the
areas of technology in the classroom, teacher attitude, diverse learners, and
classroom practice and teacher preparation. The results of this research are
relevant to each of those areas and there are implications for each from these
findings. Each of these are considered in turn below.
127
12
7
Computer mediated instruction seems promising for students with
special needs. Although student interest and motivation to learn was not
measured, anecdotal evidence provided by the teachers using the modified
curriculum indicated increased student engagement. Whereas the original
study design called for teachers to use the modified curriculum with special
needs students only, participating teachers chose to use the software with
their entire class, not only because it was easier to manage, but because they
strongly believed that all the students would be more interested in the
instruction when engaging with the interactive media. Because the
interactive software designed for this study could be used in a variety of
classroom settings (individual students, whole group, small groups) and had
a simplified interface, teachers reported finding it easy to implement in their
classrooms. Consistent with results from the needs assessment, new
teachers have great concerns about managing and using technology in the
classroom in concert with the logistics of meeting the needs of all their
students.
This work is especially relevant to the aspirations of improving
teacher attitudes and teacher confidence in that the materials and evaluation
results can serve to dispel some common (mis)conceptions of teachers
128
12
8
regarding special needs students and their ability to engage these students
successfully in science classrooms. This is consistent with the notion that
when all students have the opportunity to deepen understanding through
educational materials that are designed to meet their learning needs,
opportunities for achievement are enhanced and teacher attitudes toward
diverse learners in their classrooms will be improved and enhanced.
Contemporary classroom instruction is indeed complex and
demanding, but appropriate tools and instructional materials can help
mediate learning for a wide range of students, and in doing so, improve
instruction for many students typically found in American classrooms across
content areas and among general education as well as special education
students.
An Agenda for Future Work
The results of this work would be enhanced by dramatically
increasing both the number of students involved and expanding the range of
topics studied with more diverse assessment protocols. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that this type of computer mediated instruction used here has
promise for students learning English as a second language. This is due in
129
12
9
large part to the nature of this intervention which takes the emphasis off of
written English and places it on oral and visual representations of content,
supplemented by relevant vocabulary in simplified text form.
The original intention of this project was primarily to probe the effects
in classrooms of early career teachers, which as the project developed found
itself outside the scope of the LHS/GEMS field-test. Perhaps access to
easily utilized and highly focused materials such as this would prove to be
especially useful to new classroom science teachers and it would be
worthwhile to further investigate the utility of such software in these
settings.
The original vision of these instructional modules was that they would
be used by individual Learning Disabled students as needed to mediate
instruction. Further study is warranted to determine the effects of
individualized engagement in comparison to whole-class forms of
utilization.
130
13
0
APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. Because of federal laws, students are mainstreamed in regular
classrooms, especially in science. Would you tell me about your
experiences with inclusion (IEP) students?
2. What types of training have you had about teaching special needs
students?
3. In my experience, it is often necessary to alter instruction and/or
assessments to accommodate the inclusion (IEP) students. How do
you do that?
4. What effects in student motivation, interest, and achievement do you
see when you make accommodations for your classes. What happens
to interest and motivation…prompt and reroute questions to lead them
to effects…in my teaching experience…story prompt…then follow up.
5. Recent research shows promising technologies that may help special
needs students. Would you describe your awareness of any of those
technologies and how you could use them?
6. What kinds of barriers might keep you from using those technologies?
7. If there are technologies that would work, would you use them? Why
or why not?
131
13
1
8. What is your perception of the abilities of your special needs
students?
9. How would you rate your satisfaction/dissatisfaction with your own
teaching of the special education students in your classroom?
132
13
2
APPENDIX B: HYPERRESEARCH REPORT
The Master Case List for this Study is:
Attitudes to SpEd
experience and training
modifications
satisfaction
technology experience and attitudes
____________________ (End list of cases)
This report is on the following selected cases:
Attitudes to SpEd
experience and training
modifications
satisfaction
technology experience and attitudes
____________________ (End list of cases)
The Master Code List for this Study is:
1a no inclusion experience
1b some inclusion experience
1d extensive inclusion experience
2a no training
2b minimal training
2c adequate training
2d extensive training
3a no accommodations
3b minor modifications
3c some modifications
3d differentiating instruction
5a no technology expertise
5b minimal technology expertise
5c some technology expertise
5d extensive technology expertise
6a no barriers
6b minor barriers
6c moderate barriers
133
13
3
6d substantial barriers
7a oppose technology
7b mildly positive towards technology
7c generally positive towards technology
7d embraces technology
8a negative attitude towards SpEd
8b somewhat positive towards SpEd
8c ambivalent towards SpEd students varied in abilities
8d students have many strengths
9a generally dissatisfied with own teaching
9b somewhat satisfied with own teaching
9c generally satisfied with own teaching
9d extremely satisfied with own teaching
____________________ (End list of codes)
The source files used by this study are:
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/av.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/cb.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/ec.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/ew.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/gm.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/lc.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/rr.txt
C:/Users/Julia/Documents/sh.txt
____________________ (End source list)
~Case Code Frequency Type Reference Source
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
483,661 ec.txt
Source Material:
Varied abilities. Some have limited problems, difficulty to extremes of not
able to read/write. Challenging to find media so kids not left behond or too
far below other students.
134
13
4
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
753,812 av.txt
Source Material:
No behavior problems but usually SpEd has behavior problem
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
428,676 cb.txt
Source Material:
Not sure of cause and effect but relates to Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs. 504
status seems to be related to inability to contact home, poor grooming, poor
social skills. Some SpEd (not all) have special emotional needs and maybe
unstable home life.
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
641,733 gm.txt
Source Material:
So har to get them 1-1. Some willing to work really hard, some don‘t.
Trouble comprehending.
Attitudes to SpEd 8d students have many strengths 2 TEXT
818,986 lc.txt
Source Material:
Many kids really low academics but high social. Really great abilities.
Have to focus on abilities instead of disabilities. Some will be able to leave
SpEd resource.
Attitudes to SpEd 8c ambivalent towards SpEd students varied in abilities
2 TEXT 1,186 rr.txt
Source Material:
Mixed feelings. Currriculum has to be tiered - almost two different classes.
Tries to get them to work with other students but other students don't want to
work in groups w/IEP students.
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
434,532 rr.txt
Source Material:
135
13
5
Some really bright. Like looking through a foggy glass window. Wish I had
a way to clear the windo
Attitudes to SpEd 8d students have many strengths 2 TEXT
538,653 ew.txt
Source Material:
Really witty. Great long term memory but not short term. A lot of energy,
sometimes, some of them. Very creative.
Attitudes to SpEd 8c ambivalent towards SpEd students varied in abilities
2 TEXT 303,437 sh.txt
Source Material:
Without accomodations they would fail. Other teachers tell her to create
different grading system for IEP students. Changes to P/F.
Attitudes to SpEd 8a negative attitude towards SpEd 1 TEXT
762,842 sh.txt
Source Material:
The bane of her teaching. Really feel them especially when has 20-25 other
kids.
Attitudes to SpEd 8b somewhat positive towards SpEd 6 TEXT
650,698 sh.txt
Source Material:
Would use whatever is best way to explain things
_____________________________________________________________
________________ Case Code Frequency Type Reference Source
experience and training 1d extensive inclusion experience 5 TEXT
1,3 ec.txt
Source Material:
yes
experience and training 1d extensive inclusion experience 5 TEXT
1,3 ew.txt
Source Material:
yes
136
13
6
experience and training 1d extensive inclusion experience 5 TEXT
1,82 av.txt
Source Material:
Long term sub for 3 months in SpEd last year. Currently have a few SpEd
students.
experience and training 1a no inclusion experience 1 TEXT 1,66
cb.txt
Source Material:
Initially felt overwhelmed. Thought needed separate lesson plans.
experience and training 1d extensive inclusion experience 5 TEXT
1,68 gm.txt
Source Material:
Both good and bad. A little of both. Has both ends of the spectrum.
experience and training 1d extensive inclusion experience 5 TEXT
1,129 lc.txt
Source Material:
Likes self contained/resource because you get to know the students and they
get to know you. You can modify for their abilities.
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 8,8 ec.txt
Source Material:
e
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 5,136 ew.txt
Source Material:
No formal training but last year taught gen chemistry class that had 15 SpEd
kids and TA. A good experience but not formal training.
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 84,137 av.txt
Source Material:
No formal training, background is Spanish and history.
137
13
7
experience and training 2b minimal training 2 TEXT 68,158
cb.txt
Source Material:
District training for inclusion. UoP classes addressed SpEd needs, materials
& books, ideas
experience and training 2b minimal training 2 TEXT 70,176
gm.txt
Source Material:
Just what I learned in college. A little background knowledge. When they
throw you into it you learn more.
experience and training 2d extensive training 1 TEXT 131,318
lc.txt
Source Material:
TA in self contained classroom for some years. Started taking classes,
graduated, applied for SpEd job. Wasn't certified SpEd but has emer cert
and working on permanent. Elem Ed degree.
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 188,216 rr.txt
Source Material:
Not really - just winging it.
experience and training 1b some inclusion experience 2 TEXT 1,50
sh.txt
Source Material:
Has two classes this year with inclusion students.
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 52,73 sh.txt
Source Material:
No. A big frustration.
experience and training 1b some inclusion experience 2 TEXT 1,82
av.txt
Source Material:
Long term sub for 3 months in SpEd last year. Currently have a few SpEd
students.
138
13
8
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 84,137 av.txt
Source Material:
No formal training, background is Spanish and history.
experience and training 2a no training 7 TEXT 188,216 rr.txt
Source Material:
Not really - just winging it.
_____________________________________________________________
________________ Case Code Frequency Type Reference Source
modifications 3b minor modifications 2 TEXT 10,160 ec.txt
Source Material:
More visual aids. Find ways to make lessons simpler. Use books with ideas
for students who need more help. Experiment to find what works. Use
internet
modifications 3c some modifications 5 TEXT 138,379 ew.txt
Source Material:
IEPs written to help out students - they get to use notes on tests, extra times
on tests but don't do tests differently. A lot of students need the
accomodations but in many cases the accomodations cripple them because
of learned helplessness
modifications 3c some modifications 5 TEXT 139,302 av.txt
Source Material:
Does study guides, allows SpEd to use notes for some sections of the test.
Groups SpEd with heterogeneous groups. Familiar with a lot of
accomodations. Simplifies.
modifications 3c some modifications 5 TEXT 161,274 cb.txt
Source Material:
Psychologist helps modify lessons, strategies overlap between SEI and IEP,
504. Smaller classes benefit SpEd also.
modifications 3c some modifications 5 TEXT 178,326
gm.txt
139
13
9
Source Material:
Allows to take exams home. Gives a skeleton outline to all kids. Models and
demonstrates, uses multiple methods, preferential seating. Modifies room.
modifications 3d differentiating instruction 1 TEXT 320,561
lc.txt
Source Material:
Modify grade level materials or make own. Hands on, drawing, models,
graphing, problem solving. Outdoor activities, ties vocabulary with visuals,
hands on, manipulatives. Alsays have to have something other than (only)
reading and writing.
modifications 3b minor modifications 2 TEXT 218,289 rr.txt
Source Material:
Flexibility in assessments, They get to retake tests with SpEd teacher.
modifications 3c some modifications 5 TEXT 75,300 sh.txt
Source Material:
Yes. Alter expectations (reduce work quantity), Realize I need to preplan for
them, too. Know I have to do something better for next year. Have no
experience yet on accomodations they need, but they will pass for
participation
_____________________________________________________________
________________ Case Code Frequency Type Reference Source
satisfaction 9b somewhat satisfied with own teaching 3 TEXT
663,820 ec.txt
Source Material:
Satisfaction when they finally understand things. Dissatisfaction when lack
of access to different technologies.
dissatisfied w/TUSD lack of teacher induction
satisfaction 9b somewhat satisfied with own teaching 3 TEXT
655,816 ew.txt
Source Material:
140
14
0
Wish had more time to check where they are on an individual basis like
daily. I have so many kids I don't have time to keep on track where they are
at every day.
satisfaction 9c generally satisfied with own teaching 4 TEXT
678,888 cb.txt
Source Material:
Satisfied. Not ecstatic because still inexperienced. As skills and experience
and training improve, outlook is very positive. Does have capability to meet
student needs. Not put unrealistic expectations on them.
satisfaction 9c generally satisfied with own teaching 4 TEXT
735,863 gm.txt
Source Material:
Satisfactory. Knows all SpEd kids on their team and has to be at best with
them. Works hard to get them where they need to be.
satisfaction 9c generally satisfied with own teaching 4 TEXT
988,1235 lc.txt
Source Material:
Good to see kids remembering things they have learned before. Hard to
work with inclusion teachers. Does the best she has with what she has.
Rates self 8 out of 10 because not that much background in science and
doesn't know all the resources yet.
satisfaction 9b somewhat satisfied with own teaching 3 TEXT
536,555 rr.txt
Source Material:
Somewhere in-between
satisfaction 9a generally dissatisfied with own teaching 1 TEXT
739,842 sh.txt
Source Material:
Not satisfied at all. The bane of her teaching. Really feel them especially
when has 20-25 other kids.
141
14
1
satisfaction 9c generally satisfied with own teaching 4 TEXT
857,973 av.txt
Source Material:
. Now low but not where I want to be. Lots of things I could do to make it
better. Rates self 7 or 8 on 1-10 scale.
_____________________________________________________________
________________ Case Code Frequency Type Reference Source
technology experience and attitudes 5b minimal technology expertise
2 TEXT 166,248 ec.txt
Source Material:
Word processors, calculators, internet, other software for overheads, etc.
Picture.
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 385,386 ew.txt
Source Material:
no
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 476,511 av.txt
Source Material:
Not familiar with SpEd technologies.
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 504,538 gm.txt
Source Material:
Not familiar with SpEd technologies
technology experience and attitudes 5c some technology expertise 1
TEXT 580,652 lc.txt
Source Material:
Familiar with computers but doesn't really use them unless for research.
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 295,363 rr.txt
142
14
2
Source Material:
Stuck in that regard. A struggle. Uses stuff that came with textbook.
technology experience and attitudes 5b minimal technology expertise
2 TEXT 439,498 sh.txt
Source Material:
No. Computer? But doesn't know any programs. Uses overhead.
technology experience and attitudes 7c generally positive towards
technology 3 TEXT 372,481 ec.txt
Source Material:
Anything to help a student understand what they are doing - if there is
technology out there we should use it.
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 445,536 ew.txt
Source Material:
I think so - sometimes those students don‘t want to be pointed out, identified
as different.
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 676,751 av.txt
Source Material:
Would depend on time available and the focus for all students not only
SpEd.
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 352,426 cb.txt
Source Material:
Technology works great if students don‘t have verbal skills to communicate.
technology experience and attitudes 7c generally positive towards
technology 3 TEXT 563,639 gm.txt
Source Material:
Tries to use computer work, microscope work, hands on. Build and make
things.
143
14
3
technology experience and attitudes 7a oppose technology 1 TEXT
671,816 lc.txt
Source Material:
Probably wouldn't use because like a crutch. Wouldn't want to separate kids
from group. Would have to be severe handicap to separate from peers.
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 401,432 rr.txt
Source Material:
For notetaking - some kids cant'
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 650,707 sh.txt
Source Material:
Would use whatever is best way to explain things to kids.
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 476,511 av.txt
Source Material:
Not familiar with SpEd technologies.
technology experience and attitudes 7c generally positive towards
technology 3 TEXT 676,751 av.txt
Source Material:
Would depend on time available and the focus for all students not only
SpEd.
technology experience and attitudes 5a no technology expertise 6
TEXT 295,363 rr.txt
Source Material:
Stuck in that regard. A struggle. Uses stuff that came with textbook.
technology experience and attitudes 7b mildly positive towards technology
6 TEXT 401,432 rr.txt
Source Material:
For notetaking - some kids cant'
144
14
4
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS
Inclusion Experience
Yes (2 respondents)
Has two classes this year with inclusion students.
Mixed feelings. Currriculum has to be tiered - almost two different
classes. Tries to get them to work with other students but other
students don't want to work in groups w/IEP students.
Long term sub for 3 months in SpEd last year. Currently have a few
SpEd students.
Both good and bad. A little of both. Has both ends of the spectrum.
Likes self contained/resource because you get to know the students
and they get to know you.
You can modify for their abilities.
Initially felt overwhelmed. Thought needed separate lesson plans.
Training
None
No formal training but last year taught gen chemistry class that had 15
SpEd kids and TA. A good experience but not formal training.
No. A big frustration.
Not really - just winging it.
No formal training, background is Spanish and history.
145
14
5
Just what I learned in college. A little background knowledge. When
they throw you into it you learn more.
TA in self contained classroom for some years. Started taking classes,
graduated, applied for SpEd job. Wasn't certified SpEd but has emer
cert and working on permanent. Elem Ed degree.
District training for inclusion. UoP classes addressed SpEd needs,
materials & books, ideas.
Current Accommodations
More visual aids. Find ways to make lessons simpler. Use books with
ideas for students who need more help. Experiment to find what
works. Use internet
IEPs written to help out students - they get to use notes on tests, extra
times on tests but don't do tests differently. A lot of students need the
accomodations but in many cases the accomodations cripple them
because of learned helplessness
Yes. Alter expectations (reduce work quantity), Realize I need to
preplan for them, too. Know I have to do something better for next
year. Have no experience yet on accomodations they need, but they
will pass for participation.
Flexibility in assessments, They get to retake tests with SpEd teacher.
Does study guides, allows SpEd to use notes for some sections of the
test. Groups SpEd with heterogeneous groups. Familiar with a lot of
accomodations. Simplifies.
Allows to take exams home. Gives a skeleton outline to all kids.
Models and demonstrates, uses multiple methods, preferential seating.
Modifies room.
146
14
6
Modify grade level materials or make own. Hands on, drawing,
models, graphing, problem solving. Outdoor activities, ties
vocabulary with visuals, hands on, manipulatives. Always have to
have something other than (only) reading and writing.
Psychologist helps modify lessons, strategies overlap between SEI
and IEP, 504. Smaller classes benefit SpEd also.
Effects
Without accommodations they would fail. Other teachers tell her to
create different grading system for IEP students. Changes to P/F.
Thinks good effects. Students feel more comfortable, don't do too bad
and participation shows enjoyment in class. Effort gives the idea that
they are motivated to learn.
Not so bad because all on one team - not such a problem like 1-2 kids
alone. (Special ed students) feel comfortable with other students
because all are together all day. Status is not real obvious.
No answer (4 responders)
Technology Awareness
Word processors, calculators, internet, other software for overheads,
etc. Picture.
No
No. Computer? But doesn't know any programs. Uses overhead.
Stuck in that regard. A struggle. Uses stuff that came with textbook.
Not familiar with SpEd technologies. (2 respondents)
Familiar with computers but doesn't really use them unless for
research.
147
14
7
Did not answer
Perceived Barriers to Technology Implementation
Some science experiments might be more difficult. Could cause
problems in LAN(Local network). Student understanding of how to
use these.
If school didn't have it or no room in budget to buy it.
Inexperience. Because of inexperience takes a lot of research time to
look for websites. Limited computers in classroom. Must preplan to
use LRC.
Would have to come in at lunchtime.
Accelerated reading program uses computers. Dissection on
computer before real thing, site had online quizzes. Research on
internet for environmental project.
Did not answer. (2 respondents)
No lab at school. Would like more computers.
Attitude towards Technology Implementation
Anything to help a student understand what they are doing - if there is
technology out there we should use it.
I think so - sometimes those students don‘t want to be pointed out,
identified as different.
Would use whatever is best way to explain things to kids.
For notetaking - some kids cant'(write by hand)
148
14
8
Would depend on time available and the focus for all students not
only SpEd.
Tries to use computer work, microscope work, hands on. Build and
make things.
Probably wouldn't use because like a crutch. Wouldn't want to
separate kids from group. Would have to be severe handicap to
separate from peers.
Technology works great if students don‘t have verbal skills to
communicate.
Perceptions of Student Abilities
Varied abilities. Some have limited problems, difficulty to extremes
of not able to read/write.
Challenging to find media so kids not left behind or too far below
other students.
Really witty. Great long term memory but not short term. A lot of
energy, sometimes, some of them. Very creative.
Varied. One needs 1-1. Needy
Some really bright. Like looking through a foggy glass window.
Wish I had a way to clear the window.
No behaviour problems but usually SpEd has behaviour problems.
So hard to get them 1-1. Some willing to work really hard, some
don‘t. Trouble comprehending.
Many kids really low academics but high social. Really great
abilities. Have to focus on abilities instead of disabilities. Some will
be able to leave SpEd resource.
149
14
9
Not sure of cause and effect but relates to Mazlow's heirarchy of
needs. 504 status seems to be related to inability to contact home, poor
grooming, poor social skills. Some SpEd (not all) have special
emotional needs and maybe unstable home life.
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
Satisfaction when they finally understand things. Dissatisfaction when
lack of access to different technologies.
Wish had more time to check where they are on an individual basis
like daily. I have so many kids I don't have time to keep on track
where they are at every day.
Not satisfied at all. The bane of her teaching. Really feel them
especially when has 20-25 other kids.
Somewhere in-between
Uses comprehension, motivation strategies. Now low but not where I
want to be. Lots of things I could do to make it better. Rates self 7 or
8 on 1-10 scale.
Satisfactory. Knows all SpEd kids on their team and has to be at best
with them. Works hard to get them where they need to be.
Good to see kids remembering things they have learned before. Hard
to work with inclusion teachers. Does the best she has with what she
has. Rates self 8 out of 10 because not that much background in
science and doesn't know all the resources yet.
Satisfied. Not ecstatic because still inexperienced. As skills and
experience and training improve, outlook is very positive. Does have
capability to meet student needs. Not put unrealistic expectations on
them.
150
15
0
APPENDIX D: SUN-EARTH PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIT 1 Sun-Earth Pre-Questionnaire: How does the Sun Affect Earth?
1. What protects us from the harmful effects of the Sun? Circle all the correct
answers. There may be more than one.
A. Sunscreen protects us from harmful particles.
B. The magnetic field of the Earth protects us from harmful particles.
C. The atmosphere of the Earth protects us from harmful energies.
D. Ozone in Earth‘s atmosphere protects us from harmful particles.
2. How do people protect themselves from harmful effects of the Sun? List at least two
ways.
3. Is the energy that comes from the Sun always the same? Explain how the energy is the
same or different.
4. What things are coming toward Earth from the Sun? List as many things as you
can, and be as specific as possible Next to each thing you list, write if it is harmful or
helpful to us and how.
151
15
1
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How?
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
5. What does the Earth and Sun system look like? Draw the Earth and Sun system on the
page. You must include the Sun and the Earth, and label each of them. You may include:
Labels that show sizes or distances.
Arrows to show how the Sun and Earth move.
Anything else to show how the Sun and Earth affect each other.
152
15
2
APPENDIX E: SUN-EARTH POST-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What things are coming toward Earth from the Sun? List as many things as you
can, and be as specific as possible Next to each thing you list, write if it is harmful or
helpful to us and how.
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How?
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
2. How do people protect themselves from harmful effects of the Sun? List at least two
ways.
3. Is the energy that comes from the Sun always the same? Explain how the energy is the
same or different.
153
15
3
4. What does the Earth and Sun system look like? Draw the Earth and Sun system on the
page. You must include the Sun and the Earth, and label each of them. You may include:
Labels that show sizes or distances.
Arrows to show how the Sun and Earth move.
Anything else to show how the Sun and Earth affect each other.
5. What protects us from the harmful effects of the Sun? Circle all the correct
answers. There may be more than one.
A. The atmosphere of the Earth protects us from harmful energies.
B. Ozone in Earth‘s atmosphere protects us from harmful particles.
C. Sunscreen protects us from harmful particles.
D. The magnetic field of the Earth protects us from harmful particles.
154
15
4
APPENDIX F: SCORING RUBRIC SUN-EARTH PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
SCORES
Dimensions
0
1
2
3
4
Understanding
Science
Concepts
Missing,
illegible,
irrelevant, off
topic
Inaccurate
Understanding
Insufficient
Understanding
Partial
Understanding
Complete
Under-
standing
Scoring of each of the questions is based on the ―Understanding Science Concepts‖
rubric. This allows the teacher to make comparisons of levels of understanding across
different work products and different science concepts. In order to get an accurate class
profile of student understanding, count the number of students who are in each of the five
categories for each of the questions. This will help you identify misconceptions and key
points in the instruction that should be emphasized for your particular class.
Description of Each Level of the Rubric
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responses are based on at least some inaccurate information
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student does not provide enough information to demonstrate an
understanding of the applicable science concepts
3- Partial Understanding
The student provides accurate information that demonstrates a partial
understanding of the applicable science concepts
4- Complete Understanding
The student provides accurate and sufficient information that demonstrates
a complete understanding of the science concepts
* For some questions not all levels of the scoring rubric will be applied. In this case, the
levels that are not going to be used will be labeled as not applicable.
155
15
5
1. What protects us from the harmful effects of the Sun? Circle all the correct
answers. There may be more than one.
A. Sunscreen protects us from harmful particles.
B. The magnetic field of the Earth protects us from harmful particles.
C. The atmosphere of the Earth protects us from harmful energies.
D. Ozone in Earth‘s atmosphere protects us from harmful particles.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles at least one of the incorrect answers, which are A and
D. The student may or may not have one or both of the correct answers,
which are B and C, as well.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
The student only circles one of the corrects answers, which are B and C.
The student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles both correct answers, which are B and C. The student
does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
2. How do people protect themselves from harmful effects of the Sun? List at least two
ways.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that people can not protect themselves from the
harmful effects of the Sun or mentions some incorrect way of protecting
themselves.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student has one correct way to protect people from the Sun and one
or more incorrect way(s) to protect people from the Sun.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds with only one of the correct responses, which
include clothing, sunglasses, sunscreen, and staying out of the Sun. The
student does not have any incorrect responses.
156
15
6
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that clothing, sunglasses, sun screen, and other
materials can shield a person from ultraviolet radiation. A person can also
stay out of the Sun (ie. Staying inside). The student needs to have at least
2 of the four ways to protect people from the Sun. The different shields or
layers of the Earth‘s atmosphere should be counted as correct ie. Ozone or
magnetic field.
3. Is the energy that comes from the Sun always the same? Explain how the energy is the
same or different.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that the energy from the Sun is always the same. If
they respond that the energy is always the same, they receive a score of 1
regardless of their explanation.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student responds that “no” the energy is different but provides no
explanation. Consequently, you can not evaluate their understanding about
what makes it different. Or the student has an irrelevant or incorrect
explanation ie. the different energy from the Sun causes seasons or the
different temperatures on Earth are causes by the variability.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds that “no” the energy that reaches Earth from the Sun
is not constant and is different. The student explains that at different times
the Sun gives off different amounts of energy. However, the student does
not go into the specifics about solar storms, solar flares, and CMEs.
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that “no” the energy that reaches Earth from the Sun
is not constant and is different. The student explains that at different times
the Sun gives off different amounts of energy. The student cites at least
one specific example. For instance, the student explains that during solar
storms, huge flares of electromagnetic energies explode from the surface.
During a storm, solar flares send out increased electromagnetic energy.
OR Also, during a solar flare, a giant gust of solar storm particles called
a Coronal Mass Ejection, or CME, also erupts from the Sun. A CME
has more particles than the normal solar wind, and the particles travel
faster.
157
15
7
4. What things are coming toward Earth from the Sun? List as many things as you can,
and be as specific as possible Next to each thing you list, write if it is harmful or helpful
to us and how.
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How so?
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student lists things that are not emitted from the Sun ie. Rockets, rain,
balloons, etc.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student replies energy, light, or heat and does not go into any detail
or specifics about the types of energy that the Sun emits. Or the student
has 2 or fewer correct responses that may or may not state if the things are
helpful or harmful.
3- Partial Understanding
The student provides 3 or fewer correct responses of what comes from the
Sun and states correctly if they are helpful or harmful. The student must
include at least one specific example.
4- Complete Understanding
The student provides at least four of the possible responses and correctly
identifies if it is helpful or harmful. The student must include at least one
specific example. A complete response of all of the answers is the Sun
radiates a full spectrum of electromagnetic energy including the visible
spectrum, infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, radio wave, X-rays, and
gamma rays. UV, X-rays, and gamma rays can be harmful to living things.
UV can be harmful by producing sunburns, skin cancer, and damage to
158
15
8
eyes. UV can also be helpful since it stimulates skin to produce vitamin D.
The Sun also radiates particles in the solar wind.
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How so?
Radio Not Helpful or harmful
Microwave Not Helpful or harmful
Infrared Helpful
Visible/Light Helpful
Ultraviolet * Helpful/Harmful
X-rays Harmful
Gamma Rays Harmful
Solar Particles Harmful
*UVA, UVB, and UVC should only be counted as one correct if two or three are
listed.
Students might also mention that during solar storms, huge flares of electromagnetic
energies explode from the surface. Solar flares can disrupt some radio signals.
Another thing that happens during solar storms is the Sun sometimes ejects particles
in strong bursts called Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). Satellites can be damaged by
CME particles. Electric power systems can be disrupted by CME‘s.
5. What does the Earth and Sun system look like? Draw the Earth and Sun system on the
back of the page. You must include the Sun and the Earth, and label each of them. You
may include: Labels that show sizes or distances.
Arrows to show how the Sun and Earth move.
Anything else to show how the Sun and Earth affect each other.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student draws a Earth and Sun system that has major inaccuracies.
Possible major inaccuracies include: The diameter of the Sun and Earth
being similar to each other, or the Earth being larger in diameter than the
Sun. Either the Sun or the Earth or both being a shape other than spherical.
Having the Sun orbit the Earth. The student draws the Earth and Sun
system without labeling (or making identifying markers on the objects).
2- Insufficient Understanding
There are no major inaccuracies in their model. They include one or two
pieces of correct information (see correct response in level4). For
instance, they accurately represent the size of the Earth and Sun and the
159
15
9
spherical shape of the two bodies. These responses have more accurate
information than inaccuracies.
3- Partial Understanding
There are no major inaccuracies in their model. They include three pieces
of correct information (see correct response in level4). The orbit of the
Earth around the Sun in a circular orbit and the rotation or spinning of the
Earth on its axis are concepts that may be difficult for the students to
depict on a 2 dimensional drawing (attempts to represent either concept
should be scored as at least a partial understanding). The students may
also depict the different shields around the Earth or the energy or particles
coming from the Sun. The student may not demonstrate a complete
understanding of relative size of the Earth and Sun or the distance between
the Earth and Sun since these are very difficult to demonstrate in the space
provided. However, these two things should not be grossly inaccurate.
4- Complete Understanding
The student demonstrates an exemplary understanding of the key science
concepts which may include 1) the diameter of the Sun is about 100 times
the diameter of the Earth (actually close to 109 times),2) the Sun and the
Earth are both spherical in shape, 3) the Earth orbits the Sun in a circular
orbit, 4) the Sun is about 150,000,000 km away from Earth, 5) the Earth
rotates on its axis 6) there are different shields around the Earth, 7) the
Sun has energy or particles coming from it toward Earth. The student uses
at least four of these concepts to develop their scale model and depict the
movement of the objects in complete detail.
160
16
0
APPENDIX G: SCORING RUBRIC SUN-EARTH POST-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What things are coming toward Earth from the Sun? List as many things as you
can, and be as specific as possible Next to each thing you list, write if it is harmful or
helpful to us and how.
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How so?
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
_________________ ____ _______________________________________________
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student lists things that are not emitted from the Sun ie. Rockets, rain,
balloons, etc.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student replies energy, light, or heat and does not go into any detail
or specifics about the types of energy that the Sun emits. Or the student
has 2 or fewer correct responses that may or may not state if the things are
helpful or harmful.
3- Partial Understanding
The student provides 3 or fewer correct responses of what comes from the
Sun and states correctly if they are helpful or harmful. The student must
include at least one specific example.
4- Complete Understanding
The student provides at least four of the possible responses and correctly
identifies if it is helpful or harmful. The student must include at least one
specific example. A complete response of all of the answers is the Sun
radiates a full spectrum of electromagnetic energy including the visible
spectrum, infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, radio wave, X-rays, and
161
16
1
gamma rays. UV, X-rays, and gamma rays can be harmful to living things.
UV can be harmful by producing sunburns, skin cancer, and damage to
eyes. UV can also be helpful since it stimulates skin to produce vitamin D.
The Sun also radiates particles in the solar wind.
What comes from the Sun? Is it helpful or harmful to us? How so?
Radio Not Helpful or harmful
Microwave Not Helpful or harmful
Infrared Helpful
Visible/Light Helpful
Ultraviolet * Helpful/Harmful
X-rays Harmful
Gamma Rays Harmful
Solar Particles Harmful
*UVA, UVB, and UVC should only be counted as one correct if two or three are
listed.
Students might also mention that during solar storms, huge flares of electromagnetic
energies explode from the surface. Solar flares can disrupt some radio signals.
Another thing that happens during solar storms is the Sun sometimes ejects particles
in strong bursts called Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). Satellites can be damaged by
CME particles. Electric power systems can be disrupted by CME‘s.
2. How do people protect themselves from harmful effects of the Sun? List at least two
ways.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that people can not protect themselves from the
harmful effects of the Sun or mentions some incorrect way of protecting
themselves.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student has one correct way to protect people from the Sun and one
or more incorrect way(s) to protect people from the Sun.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds with only one of the correct responses, which
include clothing, sunglasses, sunscreen, and staying out of the Sun. The
student does not have any incorrect responses.
162
16
2
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that clothing, sunglasses, sun screen, and other
materials can shield a person from ultraviolet radiation. A person can also
stay out of the Sun (ie. Staying inside). The student needs to have at least
2 of the four ways to protect people from the Sun. The different shields or
layers of the Earth‘s atmosphere should be counted as correct ie. Ozone or
magnetic field.
3. Is the energy that comes from the Sun always the same? Explain how the energy is the
same or different.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that the energy from the Sun is always the same. If
they respond that the energy is always the same, they receive a score of 1
regardless of their explanation.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student responds that “no” the energy is different but provides no
explanation. Consequently, you can not evaluate their understanding about
what makes it different. Or the student has an irrelevant or incorrect
explanation ie. the different energy from the Sun causes seasons or the
different temperatures on Earth are causes by the variability.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds that “no” the energy that reaches Earth from the Sun
is not constant and is different. The student explains that at different times
the Sun gives off different amounts of energy. However, the student does
not go into the specifics about solar storms, solar flares, and CMEs.
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that ―no‖ the energy that reaches Earth from the Sun
is not constant and is different. The student explains that at different times
the Sun gives off different amounts of energy. The student cites at least
one specific example. For instance, the student explains that during solar
storms, huge flares of electromagnetic energies explode from the surface.
During a storm, solar flares send out increased electromagnetic energy.
OR Also, during a solar flare, a giant gust of solar storm particles called
a Coronal Mass Ejection, or CME also erupts from the Sun. A CME has
more particles than the normal solar wind, and the particles travel faster.
163
16
3
What does the Earth and Sun system look like? Draw the Earth and Sun system on the
back of the page. You must include the Sun and the Earth, and label each of them. You
may include: Labels that show sizes or distances.
Arrows to show how the Sun and Earth move.
Anything else to show how the Sun and Earth affect each other.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student draws a Earth and Sun system that has major inaccuracies.
Possible major inaccuracies include: The diameter of the Sun and Earth
being similar to each other, or the Earth being larger in diameter than the
Sun. Either the Sun or the Earth or both being a shape other than spherical.
Having the Sun orbit the Earth. The student draws the Earth and Sun
system without labeling (or making identifying markers on the objects).
2- Insufficient Understanding
There are no major inaccuracies in their model. They include one or two
pieces of correct information (see correct response in level4). For
instance, they accurately represent the size of the Earth and Sun and the
spherical shape of the two bodies. These responses have more accurate
information than inaccuracies.
3- Partial Understanding
There are no major inaccuracies in their model. They include three pieces
of correct information (see correct response in level4). The orbit of the
Earth around the Sun in a circular orbit and the rotation or spinning of the
Earth on its axis are concepts that may be difficult for the students to
depict on a 2 dimensional drawing (attempts to represent either concept
should be scored as at least a partial understanding). The students may
also depict the different shields around the Earth or the energy or particles
coming from the Sun. The student may not demonstrate a complete
understanding of relative size of the Earth and Sun or the distance between
the Earth and Sun since these are very difficult to demonstrate in the space
provided. However, these two things should not be grossly inaccurate.
4- Complete Understanding
The student demonstrates an exemplary understanding of the key science
concepts which may include 1) the diameter of the Sun is about 100 times
the diameter of the Earth (actually close to 109 times),2) the Sun and the
Earth are both spherical in shape, 3) the Earth orbits the Sun in a circular
orbit, 4) the Sun is about 150,000,000 km away from Earth, 5) the Earth
rotates on its axis 6) there are different shields around the Earth, 7) the
Sun has energy or particles coming from it toward Earth. The student uses
164
16
4
at least four of these concepts to develop their scale model and depict the
movement of the objects in complete detail.
5. What protects us from the harmful effects of the Sun? Circle all the correct
answers. There may be more than one.
A. The atmosphere of the Earth protects us from harmful energies.
B. Ozone in Earth‘s atmosphere protects us from harmful particles.
C. Sunscreen protects us from harmful particles.
D. The magnetic field of the Earth protects us from harmful particles.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles at least one of the incorrect answers, which are B and
C. The student may or may not have one or both of the correct answers,
which are A and D, as well.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
The student only circles one of the corrects answers, which are A and D.
The student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles both correct answers, which are A and D. The student
does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
165
16
5
APPENDIX H: WHY ARE THERE SEASONS? PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. When the Earth is closest to the Sun, which of the following is true? (Circle the letter
of the best answer.)
A. It is winter everywhere on Earth.
B. It is summer everywhere on Earth.
C. The distance to the Sun causes summer in the Northern hemisphere.
D. The distance to the Sun has nothing to do with the reasons for seasons.
2. Which of the four drawings do you think best shows the shape of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun? (The view is top down. Circle the letter of the best answer.)
(Image)
3. Why do you think it is hotter in the United States in June than in December? (Circle all
that are correct.)
A. Because the Sun itself gives off more heat and energy in June and less in
December
B. Because the Earth is closer to the Sun in June, and farther away from the Sun in
December.
C. Because the United States is closer to the Sun in June and farther from the Sun in
December
D. Because the United States is tilted more toward the Sun in June and away from
the Sun in December.
E. Because the Sun appears higher in the sky in June, and its rays are more intense.
F. Because in the United States, there are more hours of daylight in June than in
December.
4. In the Sun-Earth drawing along the right side of this page, which picture of the Earth
best shows its size and distance from the Sun? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
(Image)
5. These two pictures show the same tree on two different days at noon. Why do the Sun's
rays come in at different angles? Explain why this occurs.
(Image)
166
16
6
6. Imagine there were two Earths. One Earth is where our Earth is. The other Earth is
8000 miles closer to the Sun. (See the picture.)Which place on these two Earths would be
hotter, point A or pointB? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Explain why you think so.
(Image)
167
16
7
APPENDIX I: WHY ARE THERE SEASONS? POST-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. These two pictures show the same tree on two different days at noon. Why do the Sun's
rays come in at different angles? Explain why this occurs.
(Image)
2. Imagine there were two Earths. One Earth is where our Earth is. The other Earth is
8000 miles closer to the Sun. (See the picture.) Which place on these two Earths would
be hotter, A or B? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Explain why you think so.
(Image)
3. Why do you think it is hotter in the United States in June than in December? (Circle all
that are correct.)
A. Because the United States is tilted more toward the Sun in June and away from
the Sun in December.
B. Because in the United States, there are more hours of daylight in June than in
December.
C. Because the Earth is closer to the Sun in June, and farther away from the Sun in
December.
D. Because the Sun itself gives off more heat and energy in June and less in
December
E. Because the Sun appears higher in the sky in June, and its rays are more intense.
F. Because the United States is closer to the Sun in June and farther from the Sun in
December
4. When the Earth is closest to the Sun, which of the following is true? (Circle the letter
of the best answer.)
A. The distance to the Sun causes summer in the Northern hemisphere.
B. It is summer everywhere on Earth.
C. The distance to the Sun has nothing to do with the reasons for seasons.
168
16
8
D. It is winter everywhere on Earth.
5. In the Sun-Earth drawing along the right side of this page, which picture of the Earth
best shows its size and distance from the Sun? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
(Image)
6. Which of the four drawings do you think best shows the shape of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun? (The view is top down. Circle the letter of the best answer.)
(Image)
169
16
9
APPENDIX J: SCORING RUBRIC UNIT 2 PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE
SCORES
Dimensions
0
1
2
3
4
Understandin
g Science
Concepts
Missing,
illegible,
irrelevant, off
topic
Inaccurate
Understanding
Insufficient
Understanding
Partial
Understanding
Complete
Understandi
ng
Scoring of each of the questions is based on the ―Understanding Science Concepts‖
rubric. This allows the teacher to make comparisons of levels of understanding across
different work products and different science concepts. In order to get an accurate class
profile of student understanding, count the number of students who are in each of the five
categories for each of the questions. This will help you identify misconceptions and key
points in the instruction that should be emphasized for your particular class.
Description of Each Level of the Rubric
5- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
6- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responses are based on at least some inaccurate information
7- Insufficient Understanding
The student does not provide enough information to demonstrate an
understanding of the applicable science concepts
8- Partial Understanding
The student provides accurate information that demonstrates a partial
understanding of the applicable science concepts
9- Complete Understanding
The student provides accurate and sufficient information that demonstrates
a complete understanding of the science concepts
* For some questions not all levels of the scoring rubric will be applied. In this case, the
levels that are not going to be used will be labeled as not applicable.
PRE UNIT 2 Questionnaire: Why are there seasons?
1. When the Earth is closest to the Sun, which of the following is true? (Circle the letter
of the best answer.)
170
17
0
A. It is winter everywhere on Earth.
B. It is summer everywhere on Earth.
C. The distance to the Sun causes summer in the Northern hemisphere.
D. The distance to the Sun has nothing to do with the reasons for seasons.
Scoring
5- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
6- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are A, B, and C.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is D.
2. Which of the four drawings do you think best shows the shape of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun? (The view is top down. Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are B, C, and D.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is A.
3. Why do you think it is hotter in the United States in June than in December? (Circle all
that are correct.)
171
17
1
A. Because the Sun itself gives off more heat and energy in June and less in
December
B. Because the Earth is closer to the Sun in June, and farther away from the Sun in
December.
C. Because the United States is closer to the Sun in June and farther from the Sun in
December
D. Because the United States is tilted more toward the Sun in June and away from
the Sun in December.
E. Because the Sun appears higher in the sky in June, and its rays are more intense.
F. Because in the United States, there are more hours of daylight in June than in
December.
Scoring
5- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
6- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles at least one of the incorrect answers, which are A, B,
and C. The student may or may not have one or some of the correct
answers, which are D, E, and F as well.
7- Insufficient Understanding
The student circles one of the correct answers, which are D, E, and F. The
student does NOT circle any of the incorrect answers.
8- Partial Understanding
The student circles two of the correct answers, which are D, E, and F.
However, the student does not circle all three of the correct answers. The
student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
9- Complete Understanding
The student circles ALL of the correct answers, which are D, E, and F.
The student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
4. In the Sun-Earth drawing along the right side of this page, which picture of the Earth
best shows its size and distance from the Sun? (Circle the letter of the best answer)
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
172
17
2
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are A and B.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is C.
5. These two pictures show the same tree on two different days at noon. Why do the Sun's
rays come in at different angles? Explain why this occurs.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that the intensity of the energy from the Sun is
always the same. If they respond that the energy that makes it to Earth is
always the same regardless of the different angles, they receive a score of
1 regardless of their explanation. They respond that the Sun‘s rays come
at different angles since we are closer or farther from the Sun in our orbit.
The student believes that the two pictures of the Sun are at different times
of day ie. one is midnight /sun setting vs. noon/sunrise.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student responds that the Sun is located/positioned at different places
in the sky, but does not discuss the seasons, the location of the Earth in its
orbit (time of year), or the tilt of the Earth impacting the angle of sunlight.
Consequently, you can not evaluate their understanding about what makes
the angles different.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds that the seasons, the location of the Earth in its orbit
(time of year), or tilt of the Earth causes the rays to come in at different
angles. However, the student does not talk about the impact the these
factors have on the location of the Sun and the angles at different times of
year at noon. OR the student has the correct explanation but mis-labels the
pictures or has the wrong seasons for each of the pictures.
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that the Earth tilts towards or away from the Sun at
different times of year. The tilt and the location of the Earth in its orbit
cause the different seasons and appearance of the Sun at different
locations at noon. Consequently, sunlight strikes the ground at steeper or
173
17
3
shallower angles at different points during the year. So, the same tree can
have two different locations of the Sun above it at noon on different days
that occur during different times of the year when the Earth is tilted
differently. Must include tilt of Earth or season (time of year) AND
relating it to the angle of light/ intensity or position in the sky. FYI: The
top pictures is winter and the bottom picture is summer.
6. Imagine there were two Earths. One Earth is where our Earth is. The other Earth is
8000 miles closer to the Sun. (See the picture.) Which place on these two Earths would
be hotter, A or B? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Explain why you think so.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student selects B. The student might explain incorrectly that B is
hotter since it is closer to the Sun than A.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student selects A and does not explain why or has an explanation that
is incorrect. An incorrect explanation might be about the distance making
it hotter.
3- Partial Understanding
The student selects A. The student explains that the intensity of light at A
is higher due to the steeper angle of incidence of light. They might also
mention the geographic location of the two points (ie. one is closer to the
pole or equator) OR The location of B is closer to the Sun, the difference
in distance, 8,000 miles out of the 93,000,000 miles from the Earth to the
Sun, is insignificant. The student only discusses the angle of the light
hitting the ground OR the distance to the two Earths.
4- Complete Understanding
The student selects A. The student explains that the intensity of light at A
is higher due to the steeper angle of incidence of light. They might also
mention the geographic location of the two points (ie. one is closer to the
pole or equator). While location B is closer to the Sun, the difference in
distance, 8,000 miles out of the 93,000,000 miles from the Earth to the
Sun, is insignificant as a factor affecting the intensity of light hitting the
ground and causing it to be hotter. The student needs to discuss both the
angle of the light hitting the ground OR intensity OR geographic location
AND the distance of the two Earths to receive this score.
174
17
4
APPENDIX K: SCORING RUBRIC UNIT 2 POST-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. These two pictures show the same tree on two different days at noon. Why do the Sun's
rays come in at different angles? Explain why this occurs.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student responds that the intensity of the energy from the Sun is
always the same. If they respond that the energy that makes it to Earth is
always the same regardless of the different angles, they receive a score of
1 regardless of their explanation. They respond that the Sun‘s rays come
at different angles since we are closer or farther from the Sun in our orbit.
The student believes that the two pictures of the Sun are at different times
of day ie. one is midnight /sun setting vs. noon/sunrise.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student responds that the Sun is located/positioned at different places
in the sky, but does not discuss the seasons, the location of the Earth in its
orbit (time of year), or the tilt of the Earth impacting the angle of sunlight.
Consequently, you can not evaluate their understanding about what makes
the angles different.
3- Partial Understanding
The student responds that the seasons, the location of the Earth in its orbit
(time of year), or tilt of the Earth causes the rays to come in at different
angles. However, the student does not talk about the impact the these
factors have on the location of the Sun and the angles at different times of
year at noon. OR the student has the correct explanation but mis-labels the
pictures or has the wrong seasons for each of the pictures.
4- Complete Understanding
The student responds that the Earth tilts towards or away from the Sun at
different times of year. The tilt and the location of the Earth in its orbit
cause the different seasons and appearance of the Sun at different
locations at noon. Consequently, sunlight strikes the ground at steeper or
shallower angles at different points during the year. So, the same tree can
have two different locations of the Sun above it at noon on different days
that occur during different times of the year when the Earth is tilted
differently. Must include tilt of Earth or season (time of year) AND
relating it to the angle of light/ intensity or position in the sky. FYI: The
top pictures is winter and the bottom picture is summer.
175
17
5
2. Imagine there were two Earths. One Earth is where our Earth is. The other Earth is
8000 miles closer to the Sun. (See the picture.) Which place on these two Earths would
be hotter, A or B? (Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Explain why you think so.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student selects A. The student might explain incorrectly that A is
hotter since it is closer to the Sun than B.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student selects B and does not explain why or has an explanation that
is incorrect. An incorrect explanation might be about the distance making
it hotter.
3- Partial Understanding
The student selects B. The student explains that the intensity of light at B
is higher due to the steeper angle of incidence of light. They might also
mention the geographic location of the two points (ie. one is closer to the
pole or equator) OR The location of A is closer to the Sun, the difference
in distance, 8,000 miles out of the 93,000,000 miles from the Earth to the
Sun, is insignificant. The student only discusses the angle of the light
hitting the ground OR the distance to the two Earths.
4- Complete Understanding
The student selects B. The student explains that the intensity of light at B
is higher due to the steeper angle of incidence of light. They might also
mention the geographic location of the two points (ie. one is closer to the
pole or equator). While location A is closer to the Sun, the difference in
distance, 8,000 miles out of the 93,000,000 miles from the Earth to the
Sun, is insignificant as a factor affecting the intensity of light hitting the
ground and causing it to be hotter. The student needs to discuss both the
angle of the light hitting the ground OR intensity OR geographic location
AND the distance of the two Earths to receive this score.
176
17
6
3. Why do you think it is hotter in the United States in June than in December? (Circle all
that are correct.)
A. Because the United States is tilted more toward the Sun in June and away from
the Sun in December.
B. Because in the United States, there are more hours of daylight in June than in
December.
C. Because the Earth is closer to the Sun in June, and farther away from the Sun in
December.
D. Because the Sun itself gives off more heat and energy in June and less in
December
E. Because the Sun appears higher in the sky in June, and its rays are more intense.
F. Because the United States is closer to the Sun in June and farther from the Sun in
December
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles at least one of the incorrect answers, which are C, D,
and F. The student may or may not have one or some of the correct
answers, which are A, B, and E as well.
2- Insufficient Understanding
The student circles one of the correct answers, which are A, B, and E. The
student does NOT circle any of the incorrect answers.
3- Partial Understanding
The student circles two of the correct answers, which are A, B, and E.
However, the student does not circle all three of the correct answers. The
student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles ALL of the correct answers, which are A, B, and E.
The student does NOT circle any incorrect answers.
4. When the Earth is closest to the Sun, which of the following is true? (Circle the letter
of the best answer.)
A. The distance to the Sun causes summer in the Northern hemisphere.
B. It is summer everywhere on Earth.
177
17
7
C. The distance to the Sun has nothing to do with the reasons for seasons.
D. It is winter everywhere on Earth.
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are A, B, and D.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is C.
5. In the Sun-Earth drawing along the right side of this page, which picture of the Earth
best shows its size and distance from the Sun? (Circle the letter of the best answer)
Scoring
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are A and B.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is C.
6. Which of the four drawings do you think best shows the shape of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun? (The view is top down. Circle the letter of the best answer.)
Scoring
178
17
8
0- Missing, illegible, irrelevant, or off topic
The student does not circle any of the responses
1- Inaccurate Understanding
The student circles an incorrect answer, which are A, B, and C.
2- Insufficient Understanding
Not applicable
3- Partial Understanding
Not applicable
4- Complete Understanding
The student circles the correct answer, which is D.
179
17
9
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for
all Americans. Washington DC: AAAS Project 2061.
Andrews, L. (2002). Preparing general education pre-service teachers for
inclusion: Web-enhanced case-based instruction. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 17(3).
Ballone, L., & Czerniak, C. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about accomodating
students learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science
Education., 6(2).
Barton, A., & Osborne, M. (2001). Marginalized discourses and pedagogies:
constructively confronting science for all in classroom practice.
In A. C. Barton & M. D. Osborne (Eds.), Teaching science in diverse
settings, marginalized discourses and classroom practice. (Vol. 150). New
York: Peter Lang.
Basden, J. (2001). Authentic tasks as the basis for a multimedia design
curriculum. T H E Journal, 16 - 21.
Bechard, S. (2000). Policy brief: students with disabilities and standards-
based reform. MCREL.
Bell, L. (2002). Strategies that close the gap. Educational Leadership, 32 -
34.
Benenson, G. (2001). The Unrealized Potential of Everyday Technology as a
Context for Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730-
745.
Blosser, P., & Helgeson, S. (1990). Selected procedures for improving the
science curriculum. Retrieved April 5, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed325303.html
180
18
0
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R., Eds. (2000). How people learn:
brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy
Press.
Butzin, S. (2001). Using instructional technology in transformed learning
environments: an evaluation of project CHILD. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33(4), 367 - 373.
Bybee, R. Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. Retrieved April
11, 2002, from http://ehrweb.aaas.org/her/forum/bybee.htm
Carlisle, J., & Chang, V. (1996). Evaluation of academic capabilities in
science by students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special
Education, 30.
Chaineux, M., & Charlier, R. (1999). Strategies in environmental education.
International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56(6), 889 - 906.
Coleman, M. (2001). Conditions of Teaching Children with Exceptional
Learning Needs" The Bright Futures Report. Retrieved November, 2002,
from www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed455660.html
Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade,
Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse,
Editors. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Crane, E. (2005). The science storm: some say direct instruction works best,
while others argue for the discovery learning method. District
Administration , 41 (3), 46-49.
Craven III, J. (2001). Preparing new teachers to teach science: the role of the
science teacher educator. Electronic Journal of Science Education., 6(1).
Dillon, J., & Scott, W. (2002). Editorial - perspectives on environmental
education - related research in science education. International Journal of
Science Education, 24(11), 1111 - 1117.
181
18
1
Donovan, M. and. Bransford, J. editors. (2005) How Students Learn:
Science in the Classroom. Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted
Report for Teachers, National Research Council
Fleischer, A. (2004). Teacher ratings of intervention acceptability in the
instructional support team process. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, Educational and School Psychology and Special Education
Fouts, J. (2000). Research on computers and education: past, present and
future. Seattle WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. (2003). Using a card sorting task to elicit and
clarify science teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
14(4), 291-301
Gersten, R., Baker, S., Pugach, M., Scanlon, D., & Chard, D. (1996).
Contemporaty research on special education teaching. In AERA (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching: Virginia Richardson.
Gustafson, J. (2002). Missing the mark for low-SES students. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 38(2), 60 - 63.
Hagan-Burke, S., & Jefferson, G. (2002). Using data to promote academic
benefit for included students with mild disabilities. Preventing School
Failure, 46(3), 112-118.
Hammrich, P., Price, L., & Slesaransky-Poe, G. (2001). Daughters with
disabilities: breaking down barriers. Electronic Journal of Science
Education., 5(4).
Hancock, V. (1993). Trends: Technology - The At Risk Student.
Educational Leadership, 50(4).
Jackson, R., Harper, K., & Jackson, J. (2001). Effective teaching practices
and the barriers limiting their use in accessing the curriculum. Boston:
Teaching Practices Group at the Lynch School of Education Boston College.
182
18
2
Kennedy, M., & Agron, J. (1999). Bridging the Digital Divide. American
School and University, 8.
Kimmel, H., Deek, F., & Farrell, M. (1999). Meeting the needs of diverse
student populations; comprehensive professional development in science,
math, and technology for teachers of students with disabilities. School
Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 241 - 249.
Lewis, R. (1998). Assistive technologies and learning disabilities: Today's
realities and tomorrow's promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31.
Lombardi, T., & Savage, L. (1994). Higher order thinking skills for students
with special needs. Preventing School Failure, 38.
Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist
teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education,
30(3), 22-28.
Maheady, L., Michelli-Pendi, J., & Mallette, B. (2002). A collaborative
research project to imporve the academic performance of a diverse sixth
grade science class. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1), 55 -
70.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Boon, R. (2001). Correlates of inquiry
learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy.
Remedial and Special Education., 22(3), 130 - 137.
McCann, W. (1998). Science Classrooms for Students with Special Needs.
Retrieved November, 2002, from
www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digest/ed433185.html
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002). Inclusion and school change: teacher
perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 25(1), 41-54.
183
18
3
Mercer, C., Lane, H. , Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. , & Eisele, M. (1996).
Empowering teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive
settings. Remedial and Special Education, 17.
Mishra, P. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowedge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record , 108 (6), 1017-
1054.
Morocco, C. (2001). Teaching for understanding with students with
disabilities: new directions for research on access to the general education
curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1).
National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education.
(2007). Coping with Changing Demographics. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Ochoa, T. (2002). An interactive multimedia problem-based learning CD-
ROM for teacher preparation: IDEA-97 guidelines for disciplining students
with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(2).
Ogens, E., & Koker, M. (1995). Teaching for understanding: an issue
oriented approach. The Clearing House, 68, 343.
Olson, J., & Clough, M. (2001). Technology's tendency to undermine
serious study: A Cautionary note. The Clearing House, 75(1), 8.
Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. Atlantic Monthly, 280, 45 -
62.
Pandit, N. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent applicaiton of the
grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report.
Peterson-Karlan, G. (2005). Millennial Students with Mild Disabilities and
Emerging Assistive Technology Trends. Journal of Special Education
Technology , 20 (4), 27-38.
184
18
4
Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of
pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
33(4), 413 - 430.
Robinson, S. (2002). Teaching High School Students with Learning and
Emotional Disabilities in Inclusion Science Classrooms: A Case Study of
Four Teachers‘ Beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
13(1), 13 - 26.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age:
Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sadler, P. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science:
Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 35 (3), 265-296
Sanger, M. (1997). Sense of Place and Education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 29(1), 4-7.
Scruggs, T. & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional
Children , 63 (1), 59-74.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1994). The constructing of scientific
knowledge by students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education,
Vol 28.
Tanner, C., Linscott, D. & Galis, S. (1996). Inclusive Education in the
United States: Beliefs and Practices Among Middle School Principals and
Teachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives., Vol 4(No 19).
Technology in Education: Jeffrey Chin, Congress Sess. (2000).
Tomlinson, C., & Allen, S. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools
and classrooms. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
185
18
5
Udvari-Solner, A., & Thousand, J. (1996). Creating a responsive curriculum
for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education.
Warger, C. (1998). Including assistive technology in the standard
curriculum. Retrieved December, 2002, from
http://ericec.org/digests/e568.html
Westby, C., & Torres-Velasquez., D. (2000). Developing scientific literacy:
a sociocultural approach. Remedial and Special Education., Vol. 21(No. 2.).
Willis, E., & Raines, P. (2001). Technology in secondary teacher education.
T H E Journal, 29(2), 54 -.
Willis, S. (1996). Facing the challenges of inclusion. ASCD Education
Update, 38(1), (3).
Wolk, R. (2003). Worlds apart. Teacher Magazine.
