CHAPTER 11

Special Needs and Talents in Science Learning

J. Randy McGinnis

University of Maryland, College Park

Gregory P. Stefanich

University of Northern Iowa

Every learner in science is unique, with diverse abilities. Teachers as well as educational researchers have long recognized and used that understanding to varying degrees in their teaching and research. Learners in science who differ substantially in their performances from typical learner performances (physical, cognitive, or behavioral dimensions) and who need additional services and supports are the focus of this chapter. Those learners who exceed typical performances are described as possessing special talents; those learners who do not achieve at the typical level are identified as having special needs. Both of these groups of learners require additional educational, social, or medical services to support them in learning and performing science. Professionals in the field of special education use the comprehensive term “exceptional learners” to refer to learners with learning and/or behavioral problems, learners with physical or sensory impairments, and learners who are intellectually gifted or have a special talent (Hardman, Drew, & Egan, 2002; Heward, 2000). We continue use of that nomenclature to refer collectively to learners in science with special needs and talents.

Science education researchers, interested in developing a knowledge base that would guide policymakers and teachers in achieving their goal of “science for all” (Fensham, 1985), have been attracted to studying these two groups of learners. The purpose of this chapter is to outline what is known about how exceptional learners learn science, including consideration of how the totality of science education (context, personnel, curriculum, and assessment) supports or hinders this process, and to use that understanding to make recommendations for future research directions. Included is a discussion of how certain schools of thought on learning influence the research in this area. Structurally, this chapter reviews in two parts the literature on science learning by exceptional learners. Part I focuses on the science learning population with special needs. Part II focuses on the science learning population with special talents.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES GUIDING RESEARCH ON EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS

There is no one accepted theoretical model of learning that provides a grand explanation for why learners engage science in differing ways and at varying levels of achievement. Three prevailing schools of thought on learning that have guided research on exceptional learners in science are the behavioral, developmental, and cognitive perspectives (Stefanich & Hadzegeorgiou, 2001). Although the behaviorist perspective historically has dominated research by special educators in this area, a growing number of researchers dissatisfied with that perspective, including those in science education, have been drawn to more contemporary applications of cognitive science that include an appreciation of social context (Rogoff, 1990). In addition, a fourth school of thought, a sociocultural perspective, also has its proponents.

Behavioral psychologists believe that learning consists of making connections between events (stimuli) and behaviors (responses). External forces, such as rewards and punishments, and drives, such as hunger, provide the learner motivation to make stronger connections between stimuli and behaviors, that is, to learn. Although the primary form of data valued in this theoretical perspective is observable behavior, theorists applying behaviorism to educational research have expanded on the theory to include hypotheses on mental states, including thinking, understanding, and reasoning (Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, & Pellegrino, 2000). Behaviorists assert that instruction should be based on the identification of clear outcomes and be directed toward those outcomes. Developmental psychologists believe that the thinking of children is distinctly different from that of adults. They assert that as individuals progress through life, their thinking patterns change dramatically over short periods of time and then remain somewhat stable for an extended period. A key assumption is that rates of learning vary per individual. Developmental psychologists examine the external factors (such as science instruction) that might influence an individual's rate of intellectual maturity. A cognitive science perspective examines mental functioning, in the individual and the social contexts, frequently by using technology to collect biological data on the brain. It uses a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates developmental psychology, computer science, and neuroscience, as well as other fields of study. The testing of theories of teaching and learning characterizes studies in this perspective. The sociocultural perspective is distinguished by its attention to the interaction between learners’ mental functioning and their cultural, historical, and institutional settings (Wertsch & Kanner, 1992). A key assumption is that learners’ mental development the result of a complex interaction among multiple factors and is not determined solely by their biological structures.

Recently, some researchers, influenced by emerging findings from brain research, have proposed that there are disrupted brain functions in some learners that can be identified and hypothetically “rewired,” producing additional compensatory activation in other brain regions (Shaywitz, 2003; Shaywitz et al., 2002; Simos et al., 2002; Temple et al., 2003). However, other researchers have challenged these tenets. Donald (2001) rejected the explanation that certain brain regions perform specialized operations. Instead, he stated that the mechanisms and connectivity for language are set by experience with countless interconnection points, or synapses, which connect neurons in various patterns. He concluded that learning and experience create and shape the brain's circuits, and, therefore, these circuits are not predetermined. Lieberman (1998) proposed that human language is a system of neuro-anatomical connections that are distributed throughout the brain. Coles (2004) argued that brain researchers have misconstrued data and have drawn conclusions to justify unwarranted beliefs. Coles stated, “Dyslexia remains no more of a proven malady among a substantial percentage of beginning readers than when Glasow ophthalmologist James Hinshelwood first discussed it as ‘congenital word-blindness’ at the end of the 19th century” (p. 351).

Awareness of these four schools of thought may assist researchers in making sense of the reported studies on exceptional learners in science. Although it is the nature of this scholarship area to be advocacy oriented, individual articles may include reported data (either in empirical studies or summary articles) that can be inferred to reflect one of these theoretical perspectives. For example, many researchers holding a cognitive or sociocultural perspective discuss inquiry as an important and effective/efficient feature of learning in science, whereas those taking a behaviorist perspective place an emphasis on the mastery of skills and information. Likewise, the literature on inclusion can be viewed as being founded primarily on a learning perspective that places highest value on social context and developmentalism.

PART I: SPECIAL NEEDS IN SCIENCE LEARNING

Definitions

If education is devoted to offering opportunities for all students to gain sufficient schooling to help them make life choices and become productive members of society, it is essential that all teachers have the knowledge to make appropriate adaptations so that every student with special needs or disabilities can become an active participant in the learning process. This basic statement brings to the forefront the complex nature of the issues of teaching science to students with special needs or disabilities. Because of that complexity, there has been much effort devoted recently to educating science teachers worldwide to learn how to make needed accommodations and adaptations and, therefore, to differentiate effectively the science curriculum for students with special needs (Smith & Sherburne, 2001).

To understand the scope of the problem, data from the U.S. school population provides one example: the United States Department of Education (2002) Digest of Educational Statistics indicated that in 2000–2001, 12.7% of the U.S. school population (6- to 21-year age group) was identified as eligible for special education services, up from 12.4% in 1995–96. The numbers, percentage of the total population and percentage of the population of students with special needs, are reported in Table 11.1.

Students with special needs are typically divided into two large categories that can overlap, those with physical impairments and those with cognitive, social-personal, or intellectual disabilities. The first category consists of individuals with physical impairments, many of whom are considered to have the cognitive, social, and intellectual capabilities to potentially become career scientists, mathematicians, or engineers. Approximately 24% (1,386,173) of U.S. students with disabilities would fall into this group. Approximately 19% (1,093,808) of these students have speech and language impairments that require minimal accommodation in a science classroom or laboratory. This group is still significantly underrepresented in the disciplines of science. Historically, members of this group who succeeded in science were persons of special talents and exceptional persistence.

TABLE 11.1
Students with Special Needs (Ages 6–21) in the US, 2000–2001

Population	Number	Percentage of total	Percentage of special needs population
Ages 6 to 21	45,264,278	100.0
Individuals with disabilities	5,775,722	12.8	100.0
Learning disabilities
Specific learning disability	2,887,217	6.3	50.0
Speech-language impairments	1,093,808	2.4	18.9
Mental retardation	612,978	1.4	10.6
Emotional disturbance	473,663	1.0	8.3
Hearing impairments	70,767	0.15	1.2
Orthopedic impairments	73,057	0.16	1.3
Other health impairments	291,850	0.64	5.1
Visual impairments	25,975	0.05	0.4
Multiple disabilities	122,559	0.27	2.1
Traumatic brain injury	14,844	0.03	0.2
Developmental delay	28,935	0.06	0.5

From US Department of Education (2002).

The second category of students, 76% of the total U.S. school-age population with disabilities, consisting of 4,389,549 students with cognitive or social-personal disabilities, often experience difficulty with science in secondary and post-secondary education. Some do have potential for the highest levels of science achievement, but they need assistance to have a career in science. For the others, a reasonable goal is general science literacy as opposed to a professional career in a science field.

Exceptional Students and Issues of Race

The National Research Council Report on Minority Students in Special Education and Gifted Education (Donovan & Cross, 2003) indicated that minority students are over-represented in U.S. special education programs. In the report, Donovan and Cross described the percentage of minority students in special education categories as compared with the majority population. The percentages of minority students identified with a learning disability (the largest classification of all disabilities) were reported as follows: Native American and Alaska Native students 7.45%, Black students 6.49%, and Hispanic students 6.44%. In comparison, the percentage was 6.02% for White students. Percentages for developmental disabilities were 2.64% for Black students and 1.28% for Native American and Alaska Native students. Emotional disability ratios were 1.45% for Black students and 1.03% for Native American and Alaska Native students. States vary widely in how they determine students with disabilities. For example, at the extreme, the ratio for Black students being identified as developmentally delayed was 10 times higher in Alabama than in New Jersey.

The figures themselves explain nothing and hold the danger of reinforcing the notion that some groups are superior to others. A number of potential factors that can be generated to explain the performance of certain groups include poverty, family dysfunction, transience, and devaluing of academic achievement. These factors can be treated relative to the individuals involved rather than being ethnicityor race-based. More importantly, these are mutable circumstances; appropriate interventions can serve to lessen their damaging effects.

The educational research community at times questions the labeling of students as holding special needs in science (or otherwise) by school personnel. In challenge to the research on special needs, Gray and Denicolo (1998) contested research that purported to be objective within an empirical-analytic paradigm. Instead, they advocated an alternative paradigm that attempts to challenge the normalization approach to teaching learners designated as having special needs. In science education, in a study that examined the science participation in an environmental education activity by two students who were labeled by their school as learning disabled, Roth (2002) supported Mehan's (1993) argument that the placement of learners into a special needs category resulted from how they were assessed in specific learning situations, and did not convey valid information as to their attributes across situations.

Science for All

Within the field of science education, contemporary key science education reform documents have supported science education's goal of science literacy for all, regardless of any categorization of learners’ abilities (McGinnis, 2000). The primary purpose of such documents is to provide a vision of the teaching and learning of science and to provide criteria for measuring progress toward that vision. In the U.S. National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996), students with special needs are viewed explicitly as participating (as fits their ability and interest) in inquiry-based science classrooms.

The key principle guiding the development of the U.S. Standards (NRC, 1996) is “Science is for all students” (p. 19). This is defined as a principle of “equity and excellence” (or “fairness”) (p. 20) that strongly advocates science in schools for students with special needs. In addition, all students are to be included in “challenging science learning opportunities” (p. 20). This equity principle is reflected in Teaching Standard B: “Teachers of science guide and facilitate learning” (p. 32). In order to accomplish this, it is imperative that teachers “Recognize and respond to student diversity and encourage all students to participate fully in science learning.” “Students with physical disabilities might require modified equipment; students with learning disabilities might need more time to complete science activities” (p. 37).

The equity principle is also reflected in Program Standard E (NRC, 1996): “All students in the K–12 science program must have equitable access to opportunities to achieve the Standards” (p. 221). Actions to promote this include “inclusion of those who traditionally have not received encouragement and opportunity to pursue science” by “adaptations to meet the needs of special students” (p. 221). This equity principle is further reflected in Assessment Standard D (NRC): “Assessment practices must be fair… . Assessment tasks must be appropriately modified to accommodate the needs of students with physical disabilities [and] learning disabilities” (p. 85). This is not only an ethical requirement, but also a measurement requirement.

Legislation Affecting the Rights of Persons with Special Needs

In addition to considering learning theory and science education policy documents, it is also necessary for researchers in this area to be knowledgeable about how legislation affects the educational rights of persons with special needs. It is informative with regard to the science education documents to note that Collins (1998) stated that policy documents such as the U.S. Standards were designed in a political context and were therefore “political in context, political in process, and political in intent” (p. 711). Special education in the United States found its present profile and substance through federal law, the Civil Rights movement, and resulting court cases, as well as the evolutionary influences of politics and society (Friend & Bur-suck, 1999; Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 1998). The legislation having the greatest impact on educational practice in U.S. schools was passed in 1975. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) was passed by the U.S. Congress as PL94-142. The law required that children with special needs be provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

The passage of this law mandated integration of students with special needs into general education classes with typical peers. The name of the law reflected the language of the day and required states to educate all students, regardless of disability (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). The major components of this landmark legislation included FAPE for students ages 6 through 17; mandates for the creation, review, and revision of an Individual Education Program (IEP) for each student receiving special education services; a guarantee of placement in the LRE; and detailed parental rights (Sherwood, 1990; Tiegerman-Farber & Radziewicz, 1998). Public Law 94-142, a turning point for those with disabilities, addressed the issue of where students with disabilities would be educated, not simply whether they would be educated.

As a result of the passage of PL 94-142, many students with mild disabilities in the United States began a new era in the general education classroom and saw success. Students were placed in the LRE (Smith et al., 1998; Takes, 1993), or school districts created accommodations in the form of separate classes and separate schools for those with more severe disabilities. At the time, this was considered by most advocates as an equitable move forward because students with greater needs had previously been denied public education in any form.

The Regular Educator Initiative (REI) associated with PL 94-142 was viewed as a major first step in the movement to include students with special needs in typical education settings (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991; Will, 1986), even though the term inclusion does not appear in the law itself. Although the students who benefited most from inclusion were those with mild disabilities (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997), a major milestone was achieved in making science (and other subjects) more accessible to students with disabilities.

The U.S. Congress has passed many laws designed to deal with the rights of people with disabilities, but it has taken a long time to enact and enforce them. Legislation from PL 94-142, Senate Bill 504, the Individuals with Disabilities Education [IDEA], and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] were all initiatives intended to provide equal opportunities for persons with disabilities to experience the same full and independent life available to the general population. The legislation essentially extended equal opportunity to those with disabilities so they could experience the services and opportunities that were available to the general population. IDEA mandates that those identified as eligible for special services be given a free and appropriate public education, an education in the least restrictive environment, and an individualized education program (IEP) (Turnbull & Cilley, 1999).

Other significant U.S. legislative actions related to the education of learners with special needs include:

1. Sections 501, 503, and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The major impact of this legislation was to prohibit federal agencies, federal contractors, and recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities solely on the basis of disability (Tucker & Goldstein, 1992).
2. Section 02 Amendments, 1978 & 1979. These amendments authorized federal agencies to provide grants to state units overseeing work with people with disabilities; establish and operate comprehensive rehabilitation centers; and make the remedies, procedures, and rights of Title VI (Civil Rights Act, 1964) available to section 504 discrimination victims.
3. Section 504 Amendment, Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 [CRRA]. This amendment clarified “program or activity” to mean all of the operations of a college, university, or other post-secondary institution, and that if federal financial assistance was extended to any part of an institution, all of the operations were covered.
4. Education for All Handicapped Children Act [EAHCA] 1975. This act required states to provide all children with disabilities with FAPE.
5. Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] 1990. This legislation required that students with special needs would be served as much as possible in the general education classroom (Smith et al., 1998); that “handicapped children” was changed to “children with disabilities”; and that two new categories of disability, traumatic brain injury and autism, were eligible categories for special education services.
6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] 1990, 1997, 2004. This act contained provisions concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities to receive an equivalent education and the opportunity to learn with other students of all abilities. It required the participation of the regular classroom teacher in the IEP process and in the delivery of an equivalent education.

Review of the Literature

For heuristic purposes the review of the literature on special learners in science is presented in two subsections: Curriculum and Instruction, and Assessment.

Curriculum and Instruction

The literature concerning curriculum and instruction in science of learners with special needs is associated with collaboration (the sharing of the teaching responsibility among educators of different professional expertise, content and pedagogy) and with the advocacy and study of inclusion (the placement of learners with disabilities in the general classroom, including science).

Collaboration

Collaboration is a supportive system in which teachers utilize the expertise of other educators to solve problems (Pugach & Johnson, 1990). Science teachers often find themselves isolated in their efforts to serve students with special needs who are placed in their classrooms (McGinnis & Nolet, 1995). Isolation makes teachers more resistant to the changes involved with including students with special needs. Perceptions that may interfere with effective collaboration can become ingrained in professional practice. Unless they are brought to the surface, they serve as persistent bottlenecks to collegiality between professionals.

Since the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was enacted in the United States in 1975, learners receiving special education services have increasingly been served in the general education setting. The traditional dual system of general education and special education fostered definitive boundaries between these two areas, with little sharing of expertise and support. The concept of inclusion represented a radical departure from the typical school setting and involved, among other things, cooperative and collaborative efforts. There is no one standard model of collaborative service; however, Bauwens (1991) described three common models: teacher assistance teams, collaborative consultation, and cooperative teaching. Of the three basic models, cooperative teaching is the more frequently implemented practice in most school districts (Reeve & Hallahan, 1994). Cooperative teaching, also generically referred to as “collaboration,” involves general and special educators coordinating efforts to jointly teach heterogeneous groups of students in integrated settings to meet the needs of all students (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997).

McGinnis and Nolet (1995) reported one possible model for science teacher preparation and science instruction when the goal was for general and special educators to work collaboratively as way of meeting the science context needs (curricular, instructional, and evaluative) of learners with disabilities. They presented a model based on earlier reported work by Nolet and Tindal (1993). It was designed to bridge the gap between the fields of special education and science education by focusing on the development of what McGinnis and Nolet termed “a new professional relationship between the practitioners” (p. 32). The model was built on the premise that if the needs of the student with disabilities were to be met in authentic school settings, then the focus of the collaboration between the general and the special educator should be on science content and the effective teaching of such knowledge. Differing aspects of expertise were identified for the general science educator (key science knowledge forms: facts, concepts, principles, and procedures). They also identified for special educators the pedagogy of students with special needs (designing instruction, implementing classroom management, and motivational strategies).

Research in instituting collaboration has found that the underlying belief system within a school building must be examined thoroughly before embarking on a mission of collaborative change. The building administration must embrace the theory and concept behind collaboration, support the teachers initiating such a change, and provide structural supports that will allow the collaboration to occur. Walter-Thomas, Bryant, and Land (1996) suggested that administrators provide administrative support and leadership, select capable and willing participants, provide ongoing staff development, establish balanced classroom rosters, provide weekly scheduled co-planning time, facilitate the development of appropriate IEPs, and pilot test classroom and school collaborative efforts.

A belief system within a school that promotes open sharing among colleagues would be most beneficial to a collaborative model. Traditionally, educators have not always been prepared to share and work in a collaborative fashion with other teachers. They have been taught to be autonomous and self-sufficient, for the most part, within their classrooms (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990). Because of the physical separation of individuals within a building, teachers historically have learned to accept this isolation as the norm or the existing condition of work in the education field. Many teachers, however, see this condition as isolation from the peers who can provide badly needed professional support within schools filled with high-need students. A collaborative environment may help provide the support teachers feel is needed under these conditions. Many schools are thus turning toward the establishment of collegial norms.

Special and general educators can work collaboratively on making adaptations, using the student's IEP as a framework and reference (Golomb & Hammeken, 1996). Myles and Simpson (1989) found that adaptations are most successful when general education teachers are involved in making decisions about designing and implementing the adaptations for students with disabilities.

Inclusion

Mainstreaming, integration, and inclusion have all been used to describe the movement to meet the needs of learners with special needs in the general school setting. Inclusive schools are those in which students with and without special needs are educated together within one educational system (Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Research in this area is extensive. As result, this section is presented in subsections identified by their headings.

Science as an inclusive setting. As reported by McGinnis (2000), historically teachers inclined toward inclusion (a minority of all teachers) have identified science classes as especially suited for students with disabilities (Atwood & Oldham, 1985). These teachers identify the perceived relevance of the content, the possibility for practical experiences, and the opportunity for group learning with typical peers as the strengths of science classes for inclusion purposes (Mastropieri et al., 1998). However, this perspective does not mean that most contemporary teachers in science (or otherwise) are comfortable including students with disabilities in their classrooms (McCann, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994; Welch, 1989). Instead, as reported by Norman, Caseau, and Stefanich (1998), both elementary and secondary science teachers identify teaching students with special needs as one of their primary concerns.

Contrary to the teachers’ misgivings, findings reported in the special education educational research literature appear to support inclusion (including in science learning contexts) as a more desirable alternative than segregated instruction for students with disabilities. Ferguson and Asch (1989) found that the more time children with disabilities spent in general classes, the more they achieved as adults in employment and continuing education. This held true regardless of gender, race, socioeconomic status (SES), type of disability, or the age at which the child gained access to general education. Research reviews and meta-analyses known as the special education “efficacy studies” (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989, p. 19) showed that placement outside of general education had little or no positive effect for students regardless of the intensity or type of disability. In a review of three meta-analyses that looked at the most effective setting for educating students with special needs, Baker, Wang, and Walbert (1994) concluded that “students [with disabilities] educated in general classes do better academically and socially than comparable students in noninclusive settings” (p. 34). Their review yielded the same results regardless of the type of disability or grade level.

Regarding students with severe disabilities, Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro (1995) found that including these students in the general education classroom was not detrimental to classmates. Other researchers (Costello, 1991; Kaskinen-Chapman, 1992) found such inclusion enhanced classmates’ as well as their own learning (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Strain, 1983; Straub & Peck, 1994) and yielded social and emotional benefits for all students, with self-esteem and attendance improving for some students considered “at risk” (Costello). This research, coupled with strong public press to change current models of delivery in schools, provided a strong impetus for major educational reform.

Some researchers have generated questions about serving mildly developmentally delayed students via pull-out programs because of their limited growth abilities (Epps & Tindall, 1987; Idol-Maestas, 1983; Polloway, 1984). Other researchers have indicated that providing adaptations within the general education classroom instead of pull-out programs may prove to be more effective (Baker & Zigmond, 1990). Current research on effective schools and effective classroom practices supports the integration of students with special needs into general education classes (National Council on Disability Report, 1989).

Supporters of the early inclusion movement (1980s) cited such claims as basic rights of all individuals to have equal opportunity to life in a typical manner and attend school with typical peers, to participate as fully as possible (Ferguson, 1995; McNulty, Connolly, Wilson, & Brewer, 1996). Many researchers claimed that all students would benefit from having students with special needs in the general classroom (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995; Lipsky & Gartner, 1998; McLeskey & Waldron, 1996; Ryndak, Downing, Morrison, & Williams, 1996; Stainback, Stainback, & Stefanich, 1996; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). Mercer, Lane, Jordan, Allsopp, and Eisele (1996) found that teaching methods and strategies utilized in special education classrooms did not differ so drastically from those used in general classes. Service models that required the students to leave the classroom for prescriptive services denied the students much valuable instructional time and socialization in the general classroom (Sapon-Shevin, 1996). Wang and Reynolds (1996) reported that when students with disabilities left their class to attend resource or pullout programs, they incurred a risk of being negatively labeled and stigmatized.

These researchers and others have documented that adaptations are often needed if students with special needs are to receive instruction in the content areas. In meta-analyses that examined the best setting for students with special needs, Baker et al. (1994) and Stainback et al. (1996) reported that learning core subjects such as social studies, science, and mathematics is beneficial for the long term for students with disabilities, including those with severe disabilities. These researchers and others have documented that adaptations are often needed if students with special needs are to receive instruction in the content areas.

Approaches of professional organizations and the attitudes of teachers to inclusion in science. Some professional organizations have voiced concerns over the inclusion issue. The spectrum of support for inclusive education ranges from total and unrestricted support from the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps (1991) to cautious regard for a continuum of services while supporting inclusion (Council for Exceptional Children, 1993), concern for the provision of needed services (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 1993), and guarded caution by the American Federation of Teachers [AFT] (1994) and the National Education Association (1994) in supporting appropriate inclusion (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996).

The AFT (1994) called for a moratorium on inclusion in response to expressed concerns about lack of teacher preparation addressing the need of students with disabilities in a regular classroom. Practitioners consistently cite the need for inservice opportunities to promote successful inclusion for both students with special needs (Sapon-Shevin, 1996). Research has indicated that the need for teacher inservice and skill development in serving students with disabilities through collaborative efforts is one of the most important aspects of the general educator's role in serving all students (Stainback et al., 1996; Sapon-Shevin, 1996).

Cawley (1994) reported that science teachers generally have little experience or preparation for teaching students with disabilities, and, in general, special educators have little or no exposure to science education. In a survey of special education teachers, Patton, Polloway, and Cronin (1990) found that 42% of special education teachers received no training in science; 38% of children in self-contained special education classes did not receive any instruction in science; among special educators who did teach science, nearly half devoted less than 60 minutes a week to science; and nearly 90% of the teachers surveyed depended upon a textbook for science instruction. Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Christenson, and Weiss (1987) reported that for students with mild disabilities, approximately 200 minutes of reading instruction was received for each minute of science instruction. Often when students with disabilities do receive science instruction, it is from special educators who have little, if any, training in science instruction (Gurganus, Janas, & Schmitt, 1995).

Lang (1994) found that the majority of instruction deaf students receive in science is from teachers with inadequate content preparation in the discipline. Less than 5% of teachers of deaf children reported a major in the physical sciences. Lang concluded, “Although 86% of deaf students report liking science, their academic preparation is inadequate for post-secondary education” (p. 148).

In a study focused on undergraduate science teacher preparation, McGinnis (2003) reported that teacher interns (general education and special education populations collaboratively learning pedagogy) expressed differing beliefs concerning the inclusion of students with special needs in science classrooms. A significant finding was that the general education majors were more likely to support the inclusion of students with developmental delays, whereas those majoring in special education expressed reservations. An examination of the teacher interns’ epistemological perspectives of learning (cognitive-based or behavioral-based), as well as their perspectives on group participation in inclusion classroom settings, offered explanatory insight into their inclusion/exclusion decision making. In addition, McGinnis reported an analysis of the ways in which teacher interns modified their science lesson plans to include a hypothetical learner with a developmental delay. In the majority of instances where interns supported the inclusion of the learner with special needs in general science lessons, the pedagogical action taken was to have others (the students’ peers or a teacher's aide), rather than the science teacher, provide the learner support in the classroom, typically addressing only social needs. It was rare for any intern to use the ideas recommended by the literature to meet the student's intellectual needs. McGinnis concluded, “As a field, science educators are in moral jeopardy without a moral perspective in making decisions on the inclusion/exclusion of students with disabilities, particularly those with developmental disabilities, in the science classroom” (p. 212).

Stefanich (1994) reported on typical learners’ attitudes toward the inclusion of learners with special needs in their science classrooms. He detected a concern for fairness. Too often both teachers and students perceive that equal treatment of all students is fair. This often becomes a barrier to the acceptance of inclusion with its necessary curricular accommodations for some students.

Adaptations to facilitate inclusion and instruction of students with special needs in science. The inclusion initiative has resulted in efforts to adapt science curriculum and instruction to provide students with special needs with rich experiences that they may not receive in traditional settings. However, because of the limited science background of many general educators, adapting science curriculum can present special challenges. According to a review of the relevant research by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1994), classroom teachers can successfully include students with disabilities in science when the following are present: administrative support; support from special educators; an accepting classroom atmosphere; effective teaching skills; student-to-student peer assistance; and disability-specific teaching skills.

When students with special needs are included for science instruction, the most commonly used approach is the content approach (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993). In this approach, textbooks are the primary source of curriculum and instruction. A contrasting approach is the activity-oriented approach. In this approach, the teacher may still employ direct instruction, but students are also actively engaged in the exploration of science concepts (Scruggs & Mastropieri). In the activity-oriented approach, the use of the textbook and the need for acquisition of new vocabulary is significantly decreased, and students can apply the processes of science—observation, classification, measurement, comparison, predictions, and making inferences. Activity-oriented approaches to science that address fewer topics in greater depth can be especially beneficial for students with special needs (Patton, 1995). Both content- and activity-oriented approaches can be adapted and modified to meet the diverse learning needs of students.

General education teachers do implement a wide variety of adaptations to meet student needs, but they do not always find that all types of adaptations are as readily implemented as others. The most feasible adaptations centered on using positive methods and multisensory techniques that were readily integrated into daily classroom routines (Johnson & Pugach, 1990). Adaptations less favorably rated involved dealing with students individually. Yesseldyke, Thurlow, Wotruba, and Nania (1990) found that teachers rated the following methods desirable classroom adaptations: identifying alternative ways to manage student behavior, implementing alternative instructional methodologies, using a variety of instructional materials, and using alternative grouping practices.

In many instances, it is appropriate and necessary for teachers to make curricular and instructional adaptations for students. Teachers use typical adaptations more frequently than substantial adaptations. Typical adaptations include altering the format of directions, assignments, or testing procedures. Substantial adaptations include changing the difficulty level for students, such as implementing altered objectives, assigning less complex work, and providing texts with lower reading levels (Munson, 1986). This research suggested that even though there are a wide variety of adaptation types, teachers will implement the types they are most comfortable with and understand. Teachers in effective schools feel that they have the instructional freedom to alter instruction and assignments to meet the individual needs of their students (Jackson, Logsdon, & Taylor, 1983). When teachers understand typical and substantial adaptations and believe that they have the freedom to make such adaptations, students in inclusive settings benefit.

Mauer (1996) supported the application of effective schools research in making curricular and instructional adaptations for all students, particularly those with special needs. Some characteristics of effective schools are directly related to the classroom teacher. Stefanich (1983) identified the attributes of teachers in effective schools that support the instruction of students with special needs: maintain a clear focus on academic goals; select instructional goals; perceive the students as able learners; implement an evaluation system based on individual student learning, rather than on a comparison with other students’ achievements; accurately diagnose student learning needs to foster high student achievement; prepare lessons (including adaptations) in advance; meet students’ needs in both academic achievement and socialization; be readily available to consult with students about issues and problems; attend staff development courses to continue your professional development; and keep parents informed and involved.

Multimodality instruction is especially critical in helping students with disabilities gain a familiarity with the content material. Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, and Brigham (1993), in presenting suggestions for teaching science lessons to students with disabilities, stated that students with disabilities are likely to encounter far fewer problems when participating in activity-oriented approaches to science education. The use of multimodality approaches both in teaching and in assessment has shown positive effects (Cheney, 1989). Wood (1990) noted that strategies that lend multiple exposures to new terms and concepts enhance opportunities for all students to understand that content more fully. As a result, actual examples or models are considered to be especially helpful to students with disabilities.

Curricular adaptations are often varied according to content and grade level expectations. They can be designed for groups of students and for individual students. Booth and Ainscow (1998) suggested that one type of curricular adaptation is allowing students to participate in setting their own learning and social objectives, combined with the teachers’ objectives in the same areas. The students can then evaluate their progress on their goals as well as the teacher's goals. However, Stain-back et al. (1996) warned that writing separate or varying learning outcomes for one student or small groups of students can foster a sense of isolation and separateness in the general education setting.

The process by which teachers implement adaptations. In inclusive settings, instruction can be adapted to ensure the academic success of all students (Smith et al., 1998). But to do this in content areas, such as science, a match needs to exist between the student's abilities and learning preferences and the curriculum and instructional methodologies. Stainback et al. (1996) stated: “Some students exhibit learned helplessness when there is not a good match between learning objectives and student attributes” (p. 14). Making adaptations for students is one way to create that match (Salisbury et al., 1994).

If teachers are given structures and supports for implementing adaptations, they will use them effectively in the general education classroom (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Karns, 1995). Scott, Vitale, and Masten (1998) reported that when these support systems are in place, teachers make the necessary adaptations for students. Udvari-Solner (1996) found that when teachers decide what adaptations need to be implemented, they engage in a personal, reflective dialog with self-questioning. This leads to these same questions being posed when they meet in a group setting with other educators and parents. Parents often desire the opportunity to work collaboratively with teachers when determining appropriate adaptations for their children (National Council on Disability, 1989). This collaboration can foster positive relations between home and school, one of the effective school correlates (Salivone & Rauhauser, 1988).

When teachers determine whether adaptations should be made, the next question to consider is, what are the goals of such adaptations? Researchers such as Salisbury and associates (1994) argued that curriculum adaptations should achieve two main goals: promote positive student outcomes and optimize the physical, social, and instructional inclusion of the student in ongoing classroom lessons and activities. Creating an inclusive science classroom is thought to be a balance of designing an accepting environment, implementing effective instructional techniques, and adapting curriculum, materials, and instruction. Inclusive science classrooms are important for students (Patton, 1995).

Designing and implementing curricular and instructional adaptations in the science classroom is similar to those in other content areas. However, science adaptations can sometimes pose special challenges due to the nature of experiments and the materials used (Stefenich, 1994). Teachers must plan lesson adaptations in advance and anticipate difficulties that students may encounter with the materials needed or the science activity.

When teachers believe that the types of adaptations are feasible and desirable, they will use them (Johnson & Pugach, 1990; Yesseldyke et al., 1990). In inclusive settings where adaptations are made, all children can learn, feel a sense of belonging, and achieve their educational and social goals (Winter, 1997). Many teachers believe that they are skilled, accommodating, and willing to serve on IEP Teams in all aspects of planning and implementation of appropriate education for students with special needs (Friend & Bursuck, 1999). However, many also now believe that mechanisms are lacking to capitalize on their skills and respect their professional talents and limitations.

The role of the general educator in the development, implementation, and evaluation of IEPs has become a critical issue in response to compliance efforts of schools to IDEA 1997 (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Sapon-Shevin, 1996). Studies at the secondary level indicate that although the majority of general education teachers who had learners with special needs included in their classes felt successful, over one-third of them received no prior or ongoing preparation or professional development for inclusion, and less than one-half had been involved in development of the IEP (Rojewski & Pollard, 1993). Other findings indicated that teachers did willingly make specialized adaptations when the IEP teams advised them to do so and supported them (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Sapon-Shevin). Research studies indicate that many teachers do not attempt to meet IEP guidelines or modify or adapt any classroom procedures or expectations for any students with disabilities (Ysseldyke et al., 1990). Other studies indicated that adapted techniques may be highly desirable, yet practice does not follow the belief in some classrooms with mainstreamed students (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989, 1997; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998).

Assessment

Assessment is a major and necessary component of education. But the assessment of students with special needs in science and elsewhere typically leads to controversy. Some believe assessment can serve as a stimulus for education reform, whereas others think it is a deterrent to educational programs sensitive to individual differences.

Much of the controversy swirling around educational assessment exists because groups involved have different agendas, views on the validity and reliability of standardized assessments, concerns about how the results of assessment will affect the students being tested, concerns about how the results of assessment will be used to evaluate those giving instruction or delivering programs, concerns about how legislative bodies will use the information from assessments in funding and evaluating schools, concerns about the use of assessment in labeling and categorizing students, and concerns about whether the test(s) accurately assess the knowledge of the individuals and their ability to perform in tasks relating to qualifications.

Kohn (2001) asserted that school testing is driven by a top-down, heavy-handed, corporate-style version of school reform that threatens the basic premises of school improvement, and that the current high-stakes assessment system suits the political appetite for rapid, quantifiable results (Thompson, 2001). Innovations supported by best-practice research are overlooked particularly in communities where the need for developmentally appropriate practice is most needed. Eisner (2001) expressed concern that when there is a limited array of areas in which assessment occurs, students whose aptitude and interests lie in other areas become marginalized. Science is particularly vulnerable. One of the easiest ways to raise test scores may be to teach in ways not recommended by the U.S. Standards (National Research Council, 1996), that is, to use direct instruction to present a huge amount of declarative knowledge in a superficial fashion (Kohn, 2001).

U.S. citizens have the right to (a) equal protection under the law and (b) due process when state action may adversely affect an individual. In education, constitutional rights translate into a guarantee of equal educational opportunity (not equal outcomes). Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that admissions tests for persons with disabilities must be validated and reflect the applicants’ aptitude and achievement rather than any disabilities extraneous to what is being measured. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) PL 94-142 mandated that all children with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education. It also mandated due process rights, responsibilities of the federal government in providing some financial assistance, and the requirement that special education services be monitored. According to Suran and Rizzo (1983): “The tests used to evaluate a child's special needs must be racially and culturally nondiscriminatory in the way they are selected and the way they are administered, must be in the primary language or mode of communication of the child, and no one test procedure can be used as the sole determinant of a child's educational program” (p. 175).

The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 (PL 101-336), although intended mainly for industry, has many implications for education, specifically for the licensing/certification/credentialing process. This act requires that the test application process and the test itself be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Although a person may not be able to meet other requirements of the credentialing process, he or she may not be barred from attempting to pass the credentialing exam. The agency or entity administering the test must provide auxiliary aids and/or modification and may not charge the individual with a disability for the accommodations made. Accommodations that may be provided include an architecturally accessible testing site, a distraction-free space, an alternative location, test schedule variation, extended time, the use of a scribe, sign language interpreter, readers, adaptive equipment, adaptive communication devices, and modifications of the test presentation and/or response format (Thurlow, Yesseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993).

Concerning performance examinations in science, the facilities must be accessible and usable by individuals. Acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, qualified readers or interpreters, appropriate modification in training materials and/or policies, and other similar modifications must be made for individuals with disabilities (42 USC 12/11, Section 101(9)), who must provide documentation of the disability.

Research has indicated a continuing lack of responsiveness by science teachers to adjust the learning environment so that students with disabilities feel a sense of success and accomplishment. In an examination of science grades for over 400 students with mild disabilities in grades 9–12, Cawley, Kahn, and Tedesco (1989) reported that 50–60% of the grades were Ds or Fs. Donahoe and Zigmond (1990) reported 69% of the science grades for ninth-grade students with learning disabilities were D or below.

Research has indicated that teachers should be cautious in their actions as a result of interpretations of student performance on standardized assessment instruments (Darling-Hammond, 1999). The use and interpretation of evaluation instruments is a fundamental concern in student identification for special services. Indeed, the validity and reliability of tests used for classification and placement has been repeatedly challenged (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Stainback, Stainback, & Bunch, 1989; Wang & Wahlberg, 1988). Gartner and Lipsky described these tests as “barely more accurate than a flip of the coin” (p. 372). Addressing the relative permanence of classifications based on these tests, Gartner and Lipsky reported that less than 5% of the students are declassified and returned to the general education classroom.

Many students with special needs are unable to demonstrate their true level of understanding under traditional testing conditions. Winter (1997) advocated the use of alternative assessment strategies for learners with special needs. Jones (1992) indicated that students with learning disabilities “often fail to develop efficient and effective strategies for learning. They do not know how to control and direct their thinking to learn, to gain more knowledge, or how to remember what they learn” (p. 136). Women and/or minorities with disabilities face even more obstacles to obtaining quality education because of the compounding effect of the disability with other actions of discrimination and/or low expectations.

Conclusions

A key principle in the U.S. National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) is to provide all students in science with challenging learning opportunities appropriate to their abilities and talents. Many students who are capable of high performance in science are labeled as students with disabilities because of low performance or limitations in other areas not related to reasoning in science. Science teachers must be prepared to recognize these differences and respond to the unique learning needs of each student. Evidence indicates that both practicing and prospective science teachers note the inadequacy of their preparation to make instructional adjustments for students with disabilities.

Other limitations are evidenced when students receive instruction in science primarily from special educators, including time allocated to science, delivery of science through textbook teaching as the primary mode of instruction, and limited teacher knowledge of the science content. Science teachers themselves are generally open to typical adaptations (i.e., format of directions, assignments, and testing) but seldom make substantive accommodations (i.e., altered objectives, less complex work, alternative texts) for students.

Accommodations consistently found to improve the learning of all students are teaching through multimodality instructional approaches, allowing students opportunities to resubmit and improve assignments, and willingness to collaborate with other educators about ways to better serve the needs of all students. Modifications that allow students with disabilities opportunities to share what they have learned in both formative and summative assessments (that are required in U.S. legislation) result in improved student participation in and commitment to the learning process.

There is no substantive empirical evidence that students with special needs process information differently than other students. Coles (2004) surmised that, after a skill is attained, brain activation changes toward that commonly found in individuals with good use of the skills. When a student has difficulty learning a skill or concept, causes can be difficult to diagnose. Effective teaching of students with special needs must be grounded in interaction between the learner and the learning environment, making efforts to understand the cognitive processing that occurs. Currently, much controversy exists as to whether exceptional learners require approaches to instruction not contained in the repertoire of general classroom teachers, or whether adaptations of well-known instructional practices are sufficient for the vast majority of students. Findings from research on student performance indicate that teachers who use greater variety in their teaching and take time to get to know their students are more effective with all students, regardless of ability.

Future Research Directions

In general, a question certain to be addressed in the U.S. courts (as the newest legislation covering the educational rights of persons with disabilities is enforced) is the extent and degree of responsibility educators have in accommodating the educational needs of students with disabilities. Research that documents the extent and efficacy of science curriculum, instruction, science teacher education context, and assessment of students with special needs is urgently needed.

Other, more specific research questions to investigate include: How have teachers (with data disaggregated by school level and by science discipline) included students with special needs (with data disaggregated by type of disability and personal characteristics) in the general science classroom? What has been the outcome of such efforts across multiple dimensions (e.g., class ecology, curriculum and instruction, and assessment)? What types of teacher professional development throughout the teacher professional continuum have been designed to prepare teachers to teach students with special needs, and what outcomes have those experiences had on the teachers’ practices? What outcomes are associated with the differing approaches to teaching science to learners with special needs, and to what extent do these outcomes align with local and high-stakes assessment requirements? What sense do teachers make of adaptations for learners with special needs in science, and how does their perception of their school culture influence such understandings and actions? What strategies help teachers to make adaptations for learners with special needs in the science classroom? From the general classroom teacher's perspective, what mechanisms and strategies would support them in contributing productively at meetings for learners with special needs in their science classrooms? How are the various collaboration models between the general science teacher and the special educator enacted in school environments? To what extent and with what limitations do the various models help learners with special needs to learn for understanding as well as to perform on assessment tasks (traditional as well as alternative)? From the perspective of learners with special needs, how do they access the general curriculum in science? We wonder what new insights in research in special needs might emerge if researchers posed such questions and used alternative paradigms outside of the objectivist paradigm.

PART II: SPECIAL TALENTS IN SCIENCE

George DeBoer, in A History of Ideas in Science Education (1991), pointed out that in the field of science education, particularly with regard to the U.S. context, a longstanding barrier to meeting the unique needs of learners with special talents was sensitivity by educators to avoid charges of favoritism. Spurred on by concerns for national security in the post–World II period, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Cooperative Committee argued that, by not recognizing the special abilities in talented learners, science education was committing a double error: (a) not addressing the unique educational needs of such individuals and (b) not developing a national resource that was in high need (DeBoer). Although the record since that period has not been an unqualified success for learners with special talents in science, progress has occurred.

Learners with special talents in science previously have been referred to as “gifted.” Contemporary labels seek to describe this group of learners by placing a greater focus on “creativity,” “extraordinary abilities,” or “talents” (i.e., observable performances in situated events, context, and domain-specific activities) rather than relying solely on superior test-taking performances (academic or IQ examinations) (Ericsonn & Charness, 1994). Maker (1993) described such a learner as a problem solver who “enjoys the challenge of complexity and persists until the problem is solved … [and who is capable of] a) creating a new or more clear definition of an existing problem, b) devising new and more efficient or effective methods, and c) reaching solutions that may be different from the usual, but are recognized as being effective, perhaps more effective, than previous solutions” (p. 71).

Tannenbaum (1997) proposed two types of talented individuals: performers and producers. Performers are those who excel at “staged artistry” or “human services” (p. 27); producers excel at contributing “thoughts” and “tangibles” (p. 27). Other theoreticians, such as Piirto (1999), placed attention, especially in precollegiate education, on precocity (the ability to easily do those things typically seen in older learners) as a hallmark of the talented.

As result of the multiple views of researchers, policymakers, and education professionals interested in education for the talented, between 3% and 15% of the student population can be identified as fitting into this category of learners (Hard-man et al., 1999). Whitmore and Maker (1985) and Willard-Holt (1998) investigated talented learners in the population with special needs (visual, hearing, physical, and learning disabilities population) and suggested that a similar percentage would apply to the identification of the talented in that group of learners as well.

Legislation Affecting the Rights of Talented Learners in Science

In contrast to U.S. legislation that mandates educational services for learners with special needs, learners with talents in science (or any areas) have no such legal entitlement. Instead, the U.S. federal Gifted and Talented Children's Act of 1978 and the 1993 Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act provided definitions of talented learners as well as some funding to support a national research center, demonstration programs, and activities for leadership personnel throughout the United States (Gallagher, 1997). Accordingly, funding for talented learners in science is a state and local issue. The U.S. Department of Education's (1993) definition of the talented is:

1. Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment.
2. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.
3. Children and youth with outstanding talents are present in all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 3)

Review of the Literature

For heuristic purposes the review of the literature on talented learners in science is presented in two subsections: Curriculum and Instruction, and Identification of Talented Science Learners.

Curriculum and Instruction

The basic principles of education for the talented have been identified as acceleration of content delivery, selective grouping of the learners, and enrichment of the curriculum (VanTassel-Baska, 2000). Research on the study of curriculum and instruction for talented learners in science has examined two intervention models: a specialized administrative model (enrolling only talented learners) and a general education model (differentiation of instruction for all ability groups). Other studies have sought to document and understand the perspectives of all stakeholders (administrators, teachers, learners, and parents) concerned with science education for the talented.

Intervention models. Researchers have sought to understand the impact of special programs in science, such as accelerated summer experiences or specialized school science courses, designed to meet the needs of talented learners. This intervention model is the specialized administrative model. Wolfe (1985) reported an in-depth study of 23 talented learners in science who participated in the McGill Summer School for Gifted and Talented Children in Montreal. The researcher's focus was determining from the learners’ perspectives what messages about science were conveyed when an instructional intervention was used. The pedagogical intervention approach focused on developing six talent areas (creativity, decision making, planning, forecasting, communication, and thinking ability) to enhance the inquiry skills of the learners. From analyses of the classroom interactions in five science lessons, Wolfe determined that only two inquiry skills were being developed in the lessons, and in such a manner as to promote an unacceptable sensationalist view of science.

Lynch (1992) examined the effectiveness of an accelerated summer program in science (biology, chemistry, and physics) at Johns Hopkins University that taught talented learners (ages 12–16) a year of content in three weeks. The study extended over six years and included 905 learners. Lynch found that the summer program effectively prepared learners to accelerate in science content, and that the learners also benefited by beginning high school sciences earlier than regularly allowed. In a similar line of investigation, Enersen (1994) surveyed a sample of talented secondary students (N = 161) who had attended high school summer science residencies and found that their attitude toward science increased by participation. In a follow-up survey, most students reported that they were studying or working in scientific fields (no difference between genders). Bass and Ries (1995) investigated the scientific reasoning abilities of talented students in a high school's gifted education program. The researchers designed a data collection strategy that used analogous problems and questions to measure understanding of basic scientific concepts and skills. They determined that the talented learners did not uniformly benefit from the experience; their performances varied on measures that documented their ability to solve different kinds of scientific problems.

Jones (1997) reported on a six-year pre-collegiate intervention program designed to prepare academically talented, lower socioeconomic minority learners for college. The Young Scholars Program at Ohio State University transformed the way agriculture was presented to the learners. Success was measured in achievement and in career interest. In a series of evaluation studies that measured the curricular impact on elementary-level talented learners in science, Boyce, VanTassel-Baska, Burruss, Sher, and Johnson (1997) and VanTassel-Baska, Bass, Ries, Poland, and Avery (1998) reported that problem-based learning and integration of disciplines in science benefited talented learners, as measured by increased motivation, enhanced process skills, and greater ability to make intra- and interdisciplinary connections. In an exploratory study that sought to understand how a sample of talented secondary learners displayed domain-relevant skills possessed by experts in disciplinary content knowledge, Fehn (1997) found that the talented learners in science among his sample varied most widely in critical abilities (interpretation, evaluation for bias, and synthesis). The talented science learners who had previous experience with primary sources in history performed better than those with no experience. Fehn speculated that this finding had strong implications not only for teaching the history curriculum to talented science learners, but for all instructional contexts that required such skills.

Renzulli, Baum, Hebert, and McCluskey (1999) reported on the problems of underachievement by high-ability learners. The researchers presented a new perspective and advocated a strategy to increase success for such learners. Type III Enrichment, an educational experience for the talented, encouraged learners to take on the role of actual investigators by studying problems of their choice. The learners were responsible for carrying out their investigations with appropriate methods of inquiry and presenting their findings to an audience. Over 80% of the learners showed gain in the areas of achievement, effort, attitude, self-regulated behavior, and positive classroom behavior. This evidence supported the work of Fort (1990), who had earlier argued for talented learners in science to be allowed to conduct independent research projects.

Another intervention model that researchers have examined is the general education model, in which talented learners in science share the experience with other learners. In a study that examined the impact of mixed-ability classes for science learning in secondary schools, Hacker and Rowe (1993) reported negative results. They found that the mixed-ability class resulted in deterioration in the quality of classroom interactions of both high- and low-ability learners. However, in a study that investigated the differentiation practices of a sample of Scottish secondary science teachers, in which differentiation was defined as teaching individual students in a class at different paces and in different ways, Simpson and Ure (1994) reported evidence of success. Success resulted when teachers shared with their learners (of varying abilities, including the talented) the management of their learning, promoted the belief that achievement can improve, used a wide range of information and support, identified a range of needs, and gave and received continuous feedback.

Perspectives of talented learners, parents, and school personnel. In addition to researchers’ interest in examining the impact of intervention models, they have investigated the perspectives of talented learners, their parents, and school personnel along a range of topics. Johnson and Vitale (1988) conducted a survey study of a large sample of South Dakota sixth- through tenth-grade talented learners to measure their perceptions of science. The learners enjoyed science as a discipline and believed it should be a national priority. They thought that science made the world a better place to live, improved the standard of living and the development of the country, and helped to solve everyday problems. However, students reported that, in general, school science was not challenging.

Lynch (1990) investigated credit and placement issues for talented learners in science following accelerated summer studies in science and mathematics. She reported that although the learners and their parents appreciated the acceleration, their schools were less receptive. Schools had practical concerns about how to incorporate the summer credits into existing academic programs and appropriate course placements for the learners.

Cross and Coleman (1992) documented by survey methodology the perspectives of a high school sample (N = 100) of talented learners in science. The key finding was that the learners felt restrained by the pace of instruction and the science content of their science courses. They expressed frustration with the lecture-memorization instructional strategy and desired to be more challenged academically.

Identification of Talented Science Learners

The identification and description of learners who would be considered talented in science has been of interest to the research community. Brandwein (1955) wrote a widely read and influential book, The Gifted Student as Future Scientist, which along with presenting ideas for increasing the number of talented students in science, began the contemporary conversation on the identification of talented learners in science.

School districts’ reliance on aptitude tests to select for talented science learners has drawn the interest of investigators. Piburn and Enyeart (1985) compared the reasoning ability of a large sample of elementary students (grades 4 to 8) designated as gifted (n = 217) and mainstreamed (n = 91) who were enrolled in the same science-oriented advanced curriculum. The researchers used a battery of Piagetian measures designed to assess combinatorial reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, and the ability to isolate and control variables. They found that their study sample of talented science learners was accelerated over the mainstreamed comparison group by more than two grade levels. Piburn and Enveart concluded that results had implications for how to select talented students for local enrichment programs in science. Instead of complete reliance on standardized aptitude tests, they argued for additional use of a full battery of reasoning ability tests.

Jarwan and Feldhusen (1993) studied the procedures used in selecting talented learners for state-supported residential high schools for mathematics and science. The researchers used both quantitative and qualitative research designs. They determined that the learners’ home school adjusted grade-point average was the best predictor of first- and second-year grade-point averages. Their performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test was the second best predictor. Most significantly, they determined that statistical prediction was superior to professional prediction by interview or ratings of learner portfolio files. In addition, they determined by examination of enrollment data that African American and Latino learners were underrepresented.

Conclusions

Researchers’ attention has been drawn to understanding how talented learners in science can be assisted to perform to the best of their abilities in science. A limited number of studies have investigated what talented learners have gained academically from participation in specific science programs and what perceptions talented learners express about science and their schooling. Limited findings suggest that talented science learners do benefit from learning situations that decrease the focus on memorization of information and increase opportunities for problem solving and inquiry.

Although the current research in science education has not determined which type of intervention model is most effective for talented learners (acceleration or enhancement), available evidence suggests that both types of models offer benefits and challenges that call for further exploration. Summer science acceleration programs for the talented have resulted in measurable academic and attitudinal gains.

There is a paucity of research concerning the instructional and learning process for learners with special needs who also have special talents. One limitation is a lack of legal entitlement for students with special needs who meet or exceed academic proficiency requirements. Additional services to address their talents are often ascertained as a general classroom issue without the same type of IEP reporting requirements of those identified with academic learning deficiencies.

Researchers have examined possible ways to identify talented science learners. The limited research in this area suggests that complete reliance on aptitude tests is not warranted and that other measures should be considered (including interviews and reasoning ability instruments).

Future Research Directions

Because of the limited nature of research in science education for talented learners, research is urgently needed in key areas. Recommended specific research questions include: What happens to the talented female learners in science as they proceed through their educational programs (mixed-ability and high-ability groupings)? What happens to the talented learners in science with special needs as they proceed through their educational programs (mixed-ability and high-ability groupings)? What happens to the talented learners in science from different cultural backgrounds or living in poverty as they proceed through their educational programs (mixedability and high-ability groupings)? And, what relationship, if any, exists between the identification of talented learners in science and the types of outcomes that the talented programs in science are designed to achieve?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

There is continuing tension in the research of exceptional learners in science. A major reason for this tension is special education and science education researchers’ use of different theoretical views on learning and teaching. Special education researchers’ widespread use of behaviorism as a theoretical lens in research is often in conflict with science education researchers’ more common use of cognitive and sociocultural views of learning and teaching. Science educators’ strong commitment to inquiry for all in science learning and instruction, as opposed to a focus on skill and information acquisition, contributes to a discernible schism between these two fields of educational research. As a result, researchers in this area who seek cohesion will find that need unmet at this time.

Compounding the epistemological disagreement among researchers interested in understanding the learning in science by exceptional learners is the unique role of legislation in regulating the education of exceptional learners. A clear consequence of the legislative involvement is that a preponderance of researchers have focused their attention on pressing issues of curriculum and instruction within the legal and administrative contexts of schools. The hope is that future research on exceptional learners in science will be expanded to address more fundamental questions of learning theory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Janice Koch and Sharon Lynch, who reviewed this chapter.

REFERENCES

American Federation of Teachers. (1994). AFT resolutions: Inclusion of students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.

Americans with Disabilities Act. (1990). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1991). Seattle, WA: Author.

Atwood, R. K., & Oldham, B. R. (1985). Teachers’ perceptions of mainstreaming in an inquiry oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69, 619–624.

Baker, E., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33–35.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.

Bass, G. M., & Ries, R. R. (1995, April). Scientific understanding in high ability school students: Concepts and process skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bauwens, J. (1991, March). Blueprint for cooperation teaching. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Special Education Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1997, April). Cooperative teaching; Portraits of possibilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, UT.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge.

Boyce, L. N., VanTassel-Baska, J., Burruss, J. D., Sher, B. T., & Johnson, D. T. (1997). A problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363–379.

Brandwein, P. (1955). The gifted student as future scientist: The high school student and his commitment to science. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cawley, J. F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 67–71.

Cawley, J. F., Kahn, H., & Tedesco, A. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.

Cheney, C. (1989). The systematic adaptation of instructional materials and techniques of problem learners. Academic Therapy, 25(1), 25–30.

Civil Rights Act. (1964). Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved June 12, 2004, from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.html

Cole, D. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 340–351.

Coles, G. (2004). Danger in the classroom: ‘Brain glitch’ research and learning to read. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 344–351.

Collins, A. (1998). National education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 711–727.

Costello, C. (1991). A comparison of student cognitive and social achievement for handicapped and regular education students who are educated in integrated versus a substantially separate classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1993). CEC policy on inclusive schools and community settings. Reston, VA: Author.

Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1992). Gifted high school students’ advice to science teachers. Gifted Child Today, 15(5), 25–26.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teaching for high standard, what policymakers need to know and be able to do. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Donahoe, K., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning-disabled students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality: A Research Journal, 1(1), 17–27.

Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donovan, S. M., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2003). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1975).

Eisner, E. W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 367–372.

Enersen, D. L. (1994). Where are the scientists? Talent development in summer programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(2), 23–26.

Epps, S., & Tindall, G. (1987). The effectiveness of differential programming in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Vol. 1. Learner characteristics and adaptive education (pp. 231–248). New York: Pergamon Press

Ericsonn, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance. Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.

Fehn, B. (1997, March). Historical thinking ability among talented math and science students: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 415–435.

Ferguson, D. L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a “rabid inclusionist.” Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 281–287.

Ferguson, P., & Asch, A. (1989). Lessons from life: Personal and parental perspectives on school, childhood, and disability. In D. Bicklen, A. Ford, & D. Ferguson (Eds.), Disability and society (pp. 108–140). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Fort, D. C. (1990). From gifts to talents in science. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 665–671.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive school movement and radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What's special about special education? Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522–530.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptations for students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70–84.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N., & Karns, K. (1995). General educator's specialized adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440–459.

Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N. Clangelo & A. D. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp, 27–42). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395.

Golomb, K., & Hammeken, P. (1996). Grappling with inclusion confusion? Learning, 24(4), 48–51.

Gray, D. E., & Denicolo, P. (1998). Research in special needs education: Objective or ideology? British Journal of Special Education, 25, 140–145.

Gurganus, S., Janas, M., & Schmitt, L. (1995). Science instruction: What special education teachers need to know and what roles they need to play. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 7–9.

Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1993). A study of the effects of an organizational change from streamed to mixed-ability classes upon science classroom instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 223–231.

Hardman, M. L, Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W. (1999). Human exceptionality: Society, school, and family. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Heward, W. L. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Hollowood, T., Salisbury, C., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242–253.

Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). Special educator's consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. 20 U.S.C. 1400–1485.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. 1400-et seq., 105th Congress, 1st session.

Jackson, S. A., Logsdon, S. M., & Taylor, N. A. (1983). Instructional leadership differentiating effective from ineffective low-income schools. Urban Education, 18(1), 59–70.

Jarwan, F. E., & Feldhusen, J. (1993). Residential schools of mathematics and science for academically talented youth: An analysis of admission programs. Collaborative Research Study (CRSS, 93304). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on Gifted and Talented.

Johnson, B., & Vitale, P. (1988, April). A factor analytic study of attitudes of gifted secondary students toward science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, MO.

Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1990). Classroom teacher's views of intervention strategies for learning and behavior problems: Which are reasonable and how frequently are they used? The Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 69–84.

Jones, C. J. (1992). Enhancing self-concepts and achievement of mildly handicapped students. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Jones, L. S. (1997). Opening doors with informal science: Exposure and access for underserved students. Science Education, 81, 663–677.

Kaskinen-Chapman, A. (1992). Saline area schools and inclusive community concepts. In R. Villa, J. Thousaud, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169–185). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kohn, A. (2001). A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 358–362.

Lang, H. G. (1994). Silence of the spheres: The deaf experience in the history of science. Westport, CT: Bergan & Garvey.

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (1993). Full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the regular education classroom: Position paper. Pittsburgh: Author.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, June). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Lieberman, P. (1998). Eve spoke: Human language and human evolution. New York: Norton.

Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 78–82.

Lynch, S. (1990). Credit and placement issues for the academically talented following summer studies in science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 27–30.

Lynch, S. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147–154.

Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9(2), 68–77.

Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. E., Mantziopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179.

Mauer, S. (1996). Developing effective schools. James McMahon Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 1.

McCann, W. S. (1998). Science classrooms for students with special needs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433185. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

McGinnis, J. R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry for students with disabilities. In J. Minstrell & E. H. VanZee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry/learning and teaching in science (pp. 425–433). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive verses exclusive settings: Preparing teachers to teach students with mental disabilities in science. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 196–215). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

McGinnis, J. R., & Nolet, V. W. (1995). Diversity, the science classroom, and inclusion: A collaborative model between the science teacher and the special educator. Journal of Science for Persons with Disabilities, 3, 31–35.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, J. L. (1996). Responses to questions teachers and administrators frequently ask about inclusive school programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 150–156.

McNulty, B. A., Connolly, T. R., Wilson, P. G., & Brewer, R. D. (1996). LRE policy: The leadership challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 158–167.

Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practices: Perspectives on activity and content (pp. 241–268). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mercer, C. D., Lane, H. B., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Eisele, M. R. (1996). Empowering teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 226–236.

Munson, S. (1986). Regular education teacher modifications for mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 389–502.

Myles, B., & Simpson, R. (1989). Regular educator's modification preferences for mainstreaming handicapped children. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 479–489.

National Council on Disability. (1989, September). The education of students with disabilities: Where do we stand? A report to the President and Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: Author

National Education Association. (1994). NEA policy on inclusion. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 36–48.

Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82, 127–146.

Patton, J. R. (1995). Teaching science to students with special needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 4–6.

Patton, J., Polloway, E., & Cronin, M. (1990). A survey of special education teachers relative to science for the handicapped. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Piburn, M., & Enyeart, M. (1985, April). A comparison of reasoning ability of gifted and mainstreamed science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Licks Springs, IN.

Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Polloway, E. A. (1984). The integration of mildly retarded students in the school: A historical review. Remedial and Special Education, 5(4), 18–28.

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). Meeting diverse needs through professional peer collaboration. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education (pp. 95–122). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1–11.

Renzulli, J. S., Baum, S. M., Hebert, T., & McCluskey, K. W. (1999). Reversing underachievement through enrichment. Reclaiming children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 7, 217–223.

Reynolds, M., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special education and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rojewski, J. W., & Pollard, R. R. (1993). A multivariate analysis of perceptions held by secondary academic teachers toward students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 330–341.

Roth, W-M. (2002, April). Constructing disability in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Morrison, A. P., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 106–118.

Salisbury, C., Mangino, M., Petrigala, M., Rainforth, B., Syryca, S., & Palombaro, M. (1994). Promoting the instructional inclusion of young children with disabilities in the primary grades. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 311–322.

Salvione, P., & Rauhauser, B. (1988). School improvement specialists. Coram, NY: Salvione & Rauhauser.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Full inclusion as a disclosing tablet: Revealing the flaws in our present system. Theory into Practice, 35(1), 35–41.

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teacher's perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18–25.

Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 106–119.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. American Research Journal, 31, 785–811.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15–24.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading vs. doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science education in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 1–15.

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., et al. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems of reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 101–110.

Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.

Sherwood, S. P. (1990). Principals’ perceptions about regular education teacher's attitudes toward integration of students with handicaps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Iowa.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, J. I., Breier, B. R., Foorman, E. M., & Castillo, R. N. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1213.

Simpson, M., & Ure, J. (1994). Studies of differentiation practices in primary and secondary schools. Interchange No. 30. Edinbugh: Scottish Office Education Department, Research and Intelligence Unit.

Smith, J., & Sherburne, M. (2001). Philosophy and vision for differentiation in MCPS science (K–8). Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/science/instr/differentiation.htm

Smith, T. E., Polloway, E., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (1998). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Understanding and conducting qualitative research. Dubuque, IA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Bunch, G. (1989). Introduction and historical background. In S.Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education (pp. 3–14). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Stefanich, G. (1996). Learning together in inclusive classrooms: What about curriculum? Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(3), 14–19.

Stefanich, G. (1983). The relationship of effective schools research to school evaluation. North Central Association Quarterly, 53, 343–349.

Stefanich, G. (1994). Science educators as active collaborators in meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5, 56–65.

Stefanich, G., & Hadzegeorgiou, Y. (2001). Nature of the learner: Implications for teachers from the constructivist perspective. Science teaching in inclusive classrooms: Theory & foundations (pp. 23–43). National Science Foundation Grant numbers HRD–953325 and HRD 9988729.

Strain, P. (1983). Generalization of autistic children's social behavior change: Effects of developmentally integrated and segregated settings. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3(1), 23–34.

Straub, D., & Peck, C. (1994). What are the outcomes for non-disabled students? Education Leadership, 52(4), 36–40.

Suran, B. G., & Rizzo, J. V. (1983). Special children: An integrative approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.

Takes, M. J. (1993). Cooperative teaching as a method of collaboration between regular and special educators in an integrated setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Iowa.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & A. D. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., & M. M. Merzenich, (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110, 2860–2865.

Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 358–362.

Thurlow, M. L., Yesseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature, synthesis report 4. Washington, DC: National Center on Educational Outcome.

Tiegerman-Farber, E., & Radziewicz, C. (1998). Collaboration decision making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tucker, B. P., & Goldstein, B. A. (1992). Legal rights of persons with disabilities, an analysis of federal law. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (1998). Free and appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities. Denver: Love.

Turnbull, R., & Cilley, M. (1999). Explanations and implications of the 1997 amendments to IDEA. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 245–254.

U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Annual report of IDEA (2000–2001). Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2002/appendix-a-pt1.pdf

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 345–365). London: Pergamon Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 200–211.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2, 264–270, 290.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996). Teacher's views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 96–106.

Walter-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–264.

Wang, M. C., & Reynolds, M. (1996). Progressive inclusion: Meeting new challenges in special education: Bringing inclusion into the future. Theory into Practice, 35(1), 20–25.

Wang, M. C., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1988). Four fallacies of segregationalism. Exceptional Children, 48, 106–114.

Welch, M. (1989). A cultural perspective and the second wave of educational reform. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 537–540, 560.

Wertsch, J., & Kanner, B. (1992). A sociocultural approach to intellectual development. In R. Sternberg & C. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 328–349). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in the disabled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.

Willard-Holt, C. (1998). Academic and personality characteristics of gifted students with cerebral palsy: A multiple case study. Exceptional Children, 65, 37–50.

Winter, S. (1997). “SMART” planning for inclusion. Childhood Education, 73, 212–218.

Wolfe, L. F. (1985, April). Teaching science to gifted children: The model and the message. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick Springs, IN.

Wood, K. (1990). Meaningful approaches to vocabulary development. Middle School Journal, 21(4), 22–24.

Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Christenson, S., & Weiss, J. (1987). Time allocated to instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed and non-handicapped elementary students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 23–42.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M., Wotruba, J., & Nania, P. (1990). Instructional arrangements: Perceptions for general education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 4–7.