RESEÑA ARTÍCULO-Kirch-2007-Reflections_of_Educators_in_Pursuit_of_Inclusive_Science_Classrooms

8/3/2019 RESEÑA ARTÍCULO-Kirch-2007-Reflections_of_Educators_in_Pursuit_of_Inclusive_Science_Classrooms

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resena-articulo-kirch-2007-reflectionsofeducatorsinpursuitofinclusivescienceclassrooms 1/30

Reflections of Educators in Pursuit of Inclusive ScienceClassrooms

Susan A. KirchElementary and Early Childhood Education Department, Queens College of the City

University of New York, Powdermaker Hall, Room 054, 65-30 Kissena Boulevard,

Flushing, NY 11367-1597, USA;

e-mail: [email protected]

Mary Ellen Bargerhuff Department of Teacher Education, Wright State University, 313 Allyn Hall, 3640 Colonel

Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA;


Heidi CowanDepartment of Biological Sciences c/o CLASS, Wright State University, 235A Biological

Sciences Building, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA;


Michele WheatlyCollege of Science and Mathematics, Wright State University, 134 Oelman Hall, 3640 Colonel

Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA;


General education science teachers are meeting increasingly diverse class-

rooms of students that include students with disabilities. A one-week, sum-

mer, residential workshop was offered to interested science and special

educators who worked through lab experiments one-on-one with students

with physical or sensory disabilities (grades 7-12). To determine how effec-

tive this professional development workshop was at raising disability aware-ness and providing teacher training in inclusive science teaching practices, a

combination of survey and reflective journal entries was used to monitor

participantsÕ experience. Here we discuss the findings from this benchmark

study and discuss how others might adapt this professional development

model for use by schools interested in moving toward inclusive practices.

Introduction

In his autobiography, the pre-eminent evolutionary biologist and pale-

ontologist Geerat Vermeij (1997) makes numerous references to ‘‘unenlight-

ened’’ faculty, administrators, and even officials at the Commission for the

Blind who, perhaps unwittingly continued to try to counsel him out of a

career in biology.

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2007) 18:663–692

DOI 10.1007/s10972-007-9052-9 Ó Springer 2007



Too often, a well-meaning but inflexible professor both underesti-

mates the power of alternative techniques and clings to unnecessarily

rigid protocols. ‘No, you canÕt take chemistry because you canÕt do

the lab workÕ......In many courses, laboratory work involves the

examination and evaluation of specimens. Nothing prevents a blind

person from participating fully in such exercises. Excellent models

of cells, embryos, and three-dimensional molecular structures are

available, and these serve as invaluable tools for complementing and

illustrating lectures. The use of such alternatives need not imply a

relaxation of standards; it does demand flexibility and an instruc-

torÕs recognition that rigor can be maintained without strict adher-

ence to rules crafted with only the sighted in mind. (pg. 63)

In Talking About Disability science and math undergraduates with

disabilities report facing similar barriers (Seymour & Hunter, 1998). These

students explained how faculty attitudes often undermined the system admin-

istered by the campus Office of Disability Services. Faculty responses to for-

mal accommodation requests from students included: (a) encouraging

students to drop the class or change majors, (b) lowering grades for work

done under accommodated conditions, (c) refusing accommodation as a way

to ‘‘prepare’’ the student for ‘‘real world’’ competition, and (d) embarrassing

student by talking about the disability or accommodations in front of peers(Seymour & Hunter, 1998). In Working Chemists with Disabilities (Blu-

menkopf, Stern, Swanson, & Wohlers, 1996), authors agree that the most

serious barriers are attitudinal rather than physical. Similar to Dr. Vermeij,

many describe how they make and use adaptations and modifications to

equipment that enable them to work safely and efficiently in the laboratory.

The CLASS (Creating Laboratory Access for Science Students) project

uses direct-experience, professional development workshops to help educa-

tors eliminate barriers for their students (Bargerhuff & Wheatly, 2004; Kirch,

Bargerhuff, Turner, & Wheatly, 2005). One of the main goals of the project isto increase the representation of individuals with motor–orthopedic and/or

sensory disabilities pursuing careers in or related to science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics. During workshops, teacher and student par-

ticipants conduct a variety of science activities together. Science teachers

have time to learn more about students with specific disabilities and special

educators gain experience setting up and conducting science activities.

Teachers are responsible for providing the engaging science experiences

in high school that often encourage students to consider future careers in

science and engineering. Pre-college science and mathematics experiencesprovide an important foundation for subsequent higher education and

employment in science and engineering (NSF, 2004). Yet, students with

physical or sensory disabilities are often excluded from high school science

courses and field trips. Across the nation, 47.4% of students ages 6–21 are

labeled with a disability (all 13 federal categories; GPO, 2002) and spend

664 KIRCH, BARGERHUFF, COWAN, & WHEATLY



80% or more of their school day in a general education classroom. While

great progress has been made in the placement of students with disabilities

in general education classrooms, it is only one factor among many neces-

sary to foster academic success for this diverse group of students. Overall,

these students took fewer science and mathematics courses, had lower

grades, and had lower NAEP achievement scores than students without

disabilities. Students with disabilities in general education classrooms also

had lower average high school grades in mathematics and science than

those without disabilities in 1992 (NSF, 2004). In a separate longitudinal

study, students identified as disabled were found to have greater difficulties

in school and to have fewer positive outcomes from schooling (Ingels,

Scott, Taylor, Owings, & Quinn, 1998). These students were more often

retained in grade, enrolled in remedial classes, and placed in dropout pre-vention programs. As a result they earned fewer credits in core curriculum

areas, had lower educational expectations, and had higher dropout rates

than their peers without disability (Ingles et al., 1998). The severity of these

educational problems appears to vary by type of disabling conditions. For

example, students with emotional problems were shown to have the highest

dropout rates, whereas students with health problems tended to compare

more favorably to students without a disability (Ingles et al., 1998). Very

little is known about what type of science coursework these students expe-

rience in school, and why students with particular disabilities do or do notpursue coursework in science and/or engineering. Furthermore, no studies

have been done to determine how school academic counselors decide to

advise students in different disability categories about this coursework or

attending college and then how they plan an educational program to sup-

port that decision.

Persons with disabilities have struggled for decades for equitable treat-

ment in all areas of their lives including employment, independent living,

and education. For example, many students with disabilities were routinely

excluded from public school until the passage of the Education of AllHandicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975. The EHA, first reauthorized as

the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and now reautho-

rized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of

2004 (IDEIA), mandates a free and appropriate public education for all

students in the least restrictive environment. According to the law, children

with disabilities should be educated alongside their typically developing

peers to the maximum extent appropriate. If education in general education

classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily with the use of supplementary

aides and services then the student can be moved to a more suitable envi-ronment (Hocutt, Martin, & McKinney, 1990). Commonly known as inclu-

sion, this right of every student to access general education classes might be

thought of as a mechanism for recognizing and expanding social, cultural,

and academic capital of these individuals—a mechanism to deal with the

REFLECTIONS OF EDUCATORS 665



inequities that came to accompany the creation of categories and labels

(Lipsky & Gartner, 1997).

Since the passage of IDEA, resources to prepare teachers for inclusive

classrooms have continued to expand (Berda & Blaisdell, 1998; Brown,

Harwood, & Vahid, 1998; Burgerstahler & Norse, 2000; Gartner & Lipsky,

2002; Grice, 2002; Hassard, 2000; Kahn, 2002; Lavoie & Rosen, 1989;

Poppe, Miller, & Poppe, 1999; Stefanich, 2001; Swanson, Miner, Carpenter,

Woods, & Nieman, 2001; Thompson, Quenemoen, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke,

2001; Weisgerber, 1995; Woods & Stern, 2002). Recognizing that teachers

need at least minimal preparation for the complexity of teaching in inclusive

classrooms, 37 of the 50 states in the US required general educators to take

at least one university course in teaching students with disabilities (Reiff,

Evans, & Cass, 1991). However, ‘‘there continues to be a need to providein-service training to build the specialized competencies required for the

inclusion of students with disabilities’’ (Johnson, 2000, p. 281).

In light of this training gap, perhaps it is not surprising to learn that

only 32% of teachers (N = 5,253) reported feeling prepared to address the

needs of students with disabilities (Parsad, Lewis, & Farris, 2001). Previous

studies surveying teachers about their pre-service preparations indicate gen-

eral educators (including science educators) had little to no training in

accommodating students with physical disabilities (Norman, Caseau, &

Stefanich, 1998).Pre-service and professional development activities not only need to

provide opportunities for educators to learn how to perform certain tasks

related to teaching science to students with disability (e.g., to design, select

and modify activities, modify assessment and assessment formats and learn

how to work with parents and professionals in planning programs for stu-

dents with disability), the survey conducted by Norman et al. (1998)

revealed that professional development also needs to address prejudicial

and emotional barriers that exist in the population of educators in order to

ensure that students with disability have equitable opportunities to learnscience.

One of the goals of the CLASS Workshop is to help educators see

that very simple modifications to laboratory equipment and protocols can

make the laboratory a safer setting for all students. By recognizing that

students with disabilities can learn if instruction and materials meet their

needs, educators can challenge societyÕs current vision of disability (Lipsky

& Gartner, 1997). This requires that both special and general educators

work collaboratively with students to generate curriculum and instructional

methods. By working directly with students and other educators in the con-text of the CLASS Workshop, participants are encouraged to ask their

own questions and begin to develop courses of action that are valid in their

home institutions (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993).

Professional development activities that provide authentic training in

inclusive science teaching practices are necessary for educators, yet there




are few good models for what these training activities should look like

(Kimmel, Deek, Farrell, & OÕShea, 1999). The CLASS Workshop is a new

model designed to meet this growing professional development need

(Bargerhuff & Wheatly, 2004; Bargerhuff, Kirch, & Wheatly, in press;

Kirch et al., 2005).

The Innovation—The CLASS Workshop

CLASS Workshops are residential summer workshops designed to

provide educators with an opportunity to meet and work through science

activities with middle and high school students who have a disability. By

working with these students in a low-stakes environment (i.e., outside

school) it was hoped that teachers would (a) cultivate positive attitudestowards these individuals, (b) expand their knowledge base about inclusion,

and (c) add to their skills for providing appropriate adaptations and modi-

fications for students with special needs to participate in an inquiry-based

science program.

The CLASS Workshop is unique among other programs that help

teachers to modify and adapt science activities for students with learning

disabilities or severe emotional disturbances (Caseau & Norman, 1997;

Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002; Finson, Ormsbee, Jensen,

& Powers, 1997; Hammrich, Price, & Slesaransky-Poe, 2001; Moroney,Finson, Beaver, & Jensen, 2003; Ormsbee & Finson, 2000). While we have

found this summer workshop model to be effective (Kirch et al., 2005), it

may not always be feasible economically, so we discuss possibilities for

adapting this model for implementation as an after-school professional

development program.

Workshop Development

A team of faculty and staff members at the university developed work-shop activities. Scientists and educators from geology, chemistry, biology,

teacher education, special education, and disability services contributed to

a number of project endeavors including workshop development (Barger-

huff & Wheatly, 2004; Bargerhuff et al., in press). Their combined efforts

resulted in an event filled calendar that emphasized student and teacher

involvement, reflection, and collaboration. Activities planned for partici-

pants in the CLASS 2003 Workshop are outlined in Figure 1 and described

briefly below. Several readings were mailed to the educator participants in

their registrations packets approximately 2 weeks before the workshopincluding: Inquiry in the National Science Education Standards (NRC,

1996), Curricular and Instructional Adaptations for Special Needs Students in

the General Education Setting (Bohning & Stefanich, 2001), Unspeakable

Conversations or How I Spent One Day as a Token Cripple at Princeton




University (Johnson, 2003), and A Collaborative View of the Science Class-

room (Blaisdell, 2001).

Overview of Workshop Activities

During the first 2 days teacher participants attended several workshops

with CLASS Project staff members in preparation for teaching science to

students with physical disabilities and autism (Figure 1, see Saturday and

Sunday). Some sessions were designed to stimulate discussion and self-

reflection. For example, in the ‘‘Disability Awareness’’ workshop partici-

pants were asked to classify the statements they made about individuals

with specific disabilities. When they discovered that many of their state-

ments reflected attitudes, perceptions, or judgments workshop staff empha-sized that it is fine to feel emotions about people with disabilities, but one

cannot use those fears to make irrational judgments about what an individ-

ual can and cannot do. In the ‘‘Science Standards and Learning Cycle’’

workshop, small group brainstorming activities were used to discuss how

educators can meet the needs of all students, including those with disabili-

ties, in this climate of standards-based reform.

Other sessions were designed to impart information and provide par-

ticipants with resources. For instance, staff members from the Office of

Disability Services (ODS) designed and led a session on ‘‘Assistive Technol-ogy’’ to introduce a variety of specialized technology that individuals with

disabilities have found helpful. Participants practiced using voice recogni-

tion software, specialized keyboards, and page readers and workshop

leaders reviewed the cost of featured technology, typical uses for each type,

and the strengths and weaknesses of each. In the session ‘‘Legal Issues’’,

Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Staff

introductions

Chemistry

Group 1

Geology

Group 1

Standards

andLearning

Cycle

Biology I

Group 2

Biology II

Group 2

Forensics

Groups 1&2

Assistive

Technology

Free time

Discussion Planning

CFO

Field trip to

Caesar’s

Creek

Fossil

hunting

A Century of

Flight (CFO)

Workshop

Evaluations

Lunch Farewell

lunch

Legal issues:

testing/IEP/

MFE

Introduction

to week’s

science

activities

Chemistry

Group 2

Geology

Group 2

Fossil lab –

analysis of

collections

Disability

Awareness

Student

Needs(ODS)

Biology I

Group 1

Biology II

Group 1

Planning

COF

Educators

arrive

Discussion Students

arrive

Discussion Planning &

Discussion

Discussion

A Century of

Flight pt. 2

Participants

Depart

WelcomeDinner

Dinner WelcomePicnic

Dinner

Karaoke Movie

night/games

Swimming Banquet

Journaling

time

Journaling

time

Journaling

time

Journaling

time

Journaling

time

Journaling

time

Figure 1. CLASS 2003 Workshop activity schedule.




the second author, a former special education teacher and school district

supervisor, clearly outlined the legal responsibilities of all teachers (general

and special educators) involved in the teaching and learning of students

with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). She provided reference

sheets on the US federal definitions of disability, an IEP meeting outline, a

guide for communicating with students with disabilities (Bigge, Best, &

Heller, 2001), and she introduced the idea of ‘‘self-determination’’—that

students with disabilities have the right to participate actively in the plan-

ning, implementation, and evaluation of the science education program

being offered them (Villa & Thousand, 1995; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997).

Finally, in a short information session about the student participants

attending the workshop, ‘‘Student Needs,’’ a meeting where new faculty

might meet with support personnel to discuss student needs in the class-room and ideas for accommodation was modeled. The remainder of the

workshop (days 3–7) was devoted to working with students and conducting

a variety of popular science investigations in chemistry, biology, paleontol-

ogy, physics, and forensics. During these activities throughout the week

both teachers and students were introduced to a variety of adaptations to

laboratory equipment, furniture, and documentation including: a Braille

manual, Braille labels, raised and textured images, atomic models made of

nuts and bolts rather than colored sticks and balls, talking balances, plastic

ware, funnels, non-slip surface covers, adjustable microscope stands, ana-log/digital microscopes with computer or TV output displays, makeshift

table extensions, rubber mats to help individuals in wheelchairs negotiate

rocky terrain on field trips, large pans and brushes for collecting samples,

toy bicycle pumps and hand pumps for inflating balloons, Velcro patches,

and data recording boards, among others.

Workshop Participants

Recruiting. During the fall of 2002 and the winter/spring of 2003 project staff (including the first three authors) attended several local and

national teacher conferences (Council for Exceptional Children, National

Science Teachers Association, National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-

ics, National Association of Biology Teachers, and Science Education

Council of Ohio) and staffed a booth, delivered presentations, and per-

formed demonstrations. The purpose of the booth was to advertise pro-

grams and resources offered by the project including the professional

development workshop opportunity being offered in the summer of 2003.

Nearly every teacher applicant for the CLASS 2003 workshop had heardabout our programs at one or more of the conferences.

Selection. The CLASS Advisory Committee selected workshop partici-

pants. Given budgetary constraints, the target group size was 20 partici-

pants. Written applications were reviewed and discussed. Educator




applicants who demonstrated an interest in broadening their knowledge of

inclusive practices in science were considered. The committee gave prefer-

ence to applicants who had worked in inclusive environments in the past or

those who were currently developing inclusive science classrooms for stu-

dents with physical or learning disabilities. The reviewers paid particular

attention to those applicants who were part of a collaborative school team

that included at least one special educator and one general educator, since

these partners had greater potential to influence organizational change in

their school and/or districts. Teachers whose applications indicated a pri-

mary interest in students with moderate to intense cognitive delays did not

gain acceptance into the program because the workshop was not designed

with these teachers in mind. Overall, 14 out of 20 applicants were accepted.

Students were required to submit an essay that explained their interestin science as well as a letter of recommendation from a schoolteacher.

These were reviewed and all seven of the student applicants were accepted

for participation in the workshop.

Teachers. The workshop participants (N = 14) were all certified mid-

dle or high school teachers. Four special education teachers, nine science

teachers, and 1 with dual certification attended. Eleven of the teachers were

women and three were men. Nine states were represented and included

educators from urban (4), suburban (9), and rural districts (1). Nine of theteachers held masterÕs degrees in a field of science or education, all of the

participants held bachelorÕs degrees in science and/or education.

Students. Participants included four boys and three girls from middle

and high school. In order to prepare personal assistance services, students

and parents were interviewed prior to the beginning of the workshop. Dur-

ing these interviews, participants volunteered minimal descriptions of their

disability in order to assist the Office of Disability Services in hiring appro-

priately trained personal assistants as necessary. Two students had sensoryimpairments (blind and low-vision), one student had recently suffered a

traumatic brain injury, one student had autism, one student demonstrated

autistic-like traits, and four students had moderate-to-severe motor–ortho-

pedic impairments from birth or early childhood. These latter students

relied on wheelchairs and crutches for mobility and alternative communica-

tion devices for speaking.

Workshop Evaluation Procedures

Evaluation Instruments and Data Analysis

To document participantsÕ experiences we collected several types of evi-

dence from teacher participants. Responses to a multi-point Likert survey,

responses to daily reflections and discussion notes were collected, analyzed,




and are discussed here. A discussion of the participantsÕ evaluation of the con-

tent and learning objectives of the laboratory activities is not presented here.

1. Teaching Science for Students with Disabilities Survey. We used an

anonymous self-reporting survey to evaluate participantsÕ preparedness to

teach science to students with disabilities. All participants completed the

Teaching Science for Students with Disabilities instrument developed by

members of the AETS (Association for the Education of Teachers in Sci-

ence) Committee for the Inclusion of Challenged Populations (Stefanich &

Norman, 1996). This survey covers four categories including (a) exposure

to issues regarding students with disabilities, (b) preparation for teaching

science to students with disabilities, (c) strategies for teaching science to

students with disabilities, and (d) attitudes about teaching science to stu-dents with disabilities.

We acknowledge that at best, these data are ordinal because there is a

continuum underlying the observed scores, even though the actual scores

on the survey fall into discrete categories (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). Therefore,

descriptive statistics were used to analyze this data set. All of the data pre-

sented are given as a percentage of total number of participants.

2. Daily Journals. Reflection was an integral part of the educator

experience during CLASS 2003 Workshop. Educator participants keptdaily journals; each day they responded to these questions:

(1) What did I learn today about: (a) teaching a student with a disability,

(b) communicating with a student with a disability, (c) science, (d)

inquiry-based teaching, or (e) inclusion, and how did I learn it?

(2) What remains unclear?

This activity was added to the workshop evaluation procedure because

prior investigations (survey instruments and general opinion) used in 1998– 2001 provided organizers with superficial information about participantsÕ

experiences at the workshops. Daily reflections were considered and adop-

ted to serve a dual purpose. First, it was believed they could provide an

opportunity for participants to monitor their own levels of mastery and

understanding of what they were experiencing during the workshop. Sec-

ond, they could be used to inform organizers of individual participantÕs

knowledge, skills, and dispositions and whether these factors changed dur-

ing the course of the week.

The participants typically recorded their reflections in the evening andsubmitted them the following day. The responses were transcribed, all per-

sonal identifiers were removed, and the information was entered into a

password-protected database. The first two authors performed subsequent

analysis of the data. Student and teacher participants were assigned pseud-

onyms to protect their identity.




Qualitative research methods were used for journal analysis. The first

two authors analyzed data inductively by using categorical coding (Bogdan

& Bilken, 2003). The data were categorized into broad areas, with quotes

and examples that supported each category. The two researchers compared

responses and resolved differences in coding, with agreements and disagree-

ments recorded to check on inter-coder reliability (Burstein, Sears,

Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004). The two researchers reorganized

responses into general categories that fit under a single-phrase theme that

specified the general trend in their reflections (Hamre & Oyler, 2004). We

identified 10 categories participants chose to reflect on including inclusion,

modifications and adaptations, and disability awareness. These 10 were

reanalyzed and three themes emerged from the statements regarding inclu-

sion discussed in this paper: Student as Valued Learner, Self as Learnerand Facilitator of Learning, and Physical Environment as Fundamental

Support to Learning. Similar themes and categories emerged from data

collected at previous workshops (Kirch et al., 2005).

3. Discussion Notes. At the end of each day of activities, educator par-

ticipants were asked to attend a short, ‘‘debriefing’’ session to share their

experiences, questions, and concerns. The authors recorded field notes dur-

ing these sessions to capture questions and concerns of the teachers. Work-

shop organizers used the discussion notes to identify and address issuesraised during the week of the workshop.

These artifacts were transcribed and analyzed as described for the

journals. The data set was not nearly as ‘‘rich’’ as the set from the journals.

Only four types of response were noted including, (a) modifications and

adaptations, (b) student needs, (c) student collaboration, (d) comments and

criticism of lab activities.

Findings

Data from the surveys, journals, and discussion notes indicated that all

participants found that the workshop provided valuable experiences to

learn more about disabilities and modifications and adaptations for stu-

dents with disabilities in science. Almost unanimously, however, workshop

participants continued to express uncertainty about implementing new

strategies in their schools and classrooms ‘‘back home.’’ We present evi-

dence here that the pre-workshop survey revealed that the 14 participants

perceived themselves as highly qualified professionals with knowledge,

skills, and positive attitudes necessary to foster inclusive science classroomsfor their students. As a group their prior experiences with students with

disabilities were diverse, but as individuals there was significant variability

in type of exposure. Most felt comfortable in their ability to use effective

strategies for teaching and communicating. Analysis of the journal entries




and discussion notes, however, revealed a much more complex picture of

the issues and realities the participants struggled with throughout the week.

Evidence of the three major themes that emerged from the analysis of

the journal entries and discussions is highlighted in this section, including:

Student as Valued Learner, Self as Learner and Facilitator of Learning,

and Physical Environment as Fundamental Support to Learning. We

acknowledge that the balance of these three themes, even the emergence of

these three themes, may shift and change as we continue to gather CLASS

program participantsÕ reflections in the future. As the sample size grows

and as others investigate ways of creating inclusive science classrooms, we

expect additional themes and sub-themes to emerge and inform how we

design professional development activities and programs. We recognize new

or unexpected themes have not emerged during this study, but rather pre-dictable and practical themes have been identified. Therefore, in the Rec-

ommendations section, we consider how these themes might begin to inform

professional development activities designed for science teachers working

in, or starting to work in, inclusive settings.

Throughout this section a simple format for conveying the findings

from this benchmark evaluation study was employed. First reflections from

educators which best illustrated a given theme were chosen and connections

were made back to the literature in support of the ideas expressed by this

particular group of teachers. For each theme, the reader is also providedwith additional contextual information from two sources of information (1)

the total number of responders and statements recorded in the theme cate-

gory discussed, and (2) an associated table of additional statements made

by other participants assigned to the corresponding theme category

presented.

Preparation for Teaching Students with Disabilities

One goal of many teacher preparation programs is to provide course-work and field experiences to introduce future educators to diverse student

populations and provide a framework for accommodating a range of learn-

ing styles. But students with a physical disability or a sensory impairment

require different types of accommodations and modifications and other but

related efforts are often necessary to include students with various disabili-

ties in a science lesson (Tomlinson, 1999). For example, accommodations

for a student who is blind will be different from accommodations made for

a student with a motor–orthopedic impairment (Wood, 2001). Using the

‘‘Teaching Science for Students with Disabilities Survey’’ instrument(Stefanich & Norman, 1996), we asked teachers in the workshop to rate the

coverage each of the disability categories received during their teacher edu-

cation program in college, both in science methods courses and general tea-

cher education classes. The categories of disability surveyed included:

motor/orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, hearing impairments,




learning disabilities, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), devel-

opmentally delayed, emotional/behavioral disabilities, speech/language dis-

abilities, autism, deaf and blind, traumatic brain injury, physical or health

impairments, multi-categorical, and ‘‘other’’ (for descriptions of each cate-

gory of disability surveyed see GPO, 2002). More than half of all partici-

pants reported not being prepared or only minimally prepared to teach

science to students in all but two categories. The only categories of stu-

dents that participants felt adequately to completely prepared to teach

included students with a learning disability and students with ADD/

ADHD. When asked about their preparation to teach science to individuals

with disabilities, all of the teachers reported that their science methods

coursework did not cover (or minimally covered) how to teach science to

students with disabilities (Table 1).

Student as Valued Learner

Many participants commented on getting to know and value individ-

ual students. In fact, two sub-categories emerged from this theme: (a)

knowing and valuing individual students, and (b) expectations of students

abilities. Eight participants made 15 statements over 5 days related to

knowing and valuing individual students or generalized to valuing all stu-

dents with disabilities, and nine participants made 11 statements over thesame time period regarding their changing expectations of studentsÕ abili-

ties. A key element involved in moving from a segregated perspective to an

inclusive perspective is ‘‘valuing as the preferred response to diversity’’

(Villa & Thousand, 1995). One goal of inclusion is to value each person for

their uniqueness rather than stereotyping and rejecting people because of

his/her differences, tolerating people with differences, or requiring people

with differences to be ‘‘rehabilitated’’ before joining ‘‘normal’’ society

(Diaz-Greenberg, Thousand, Cardelle-Elawar, & Nevin, 2000). Tied closely

to learning to value students as individuals with disabilities is recognizingstudentsÕ abilities. Therefore, statements that alluded to or discussed how

educator expectations were changing were placed in the related sub-cate-

gory ‘‘expectations of student abilities.’’ Together these reflections in ‘‘Stu-

dent as Valued Learner’’ might also be seen as essential steps for educators

to take in order to help students become aware that they have a voice and

can (and do) impact others (Diaz-Greenberg, Thousand, Cardelle-Elawar,

& Nevin, 2000).

The direct-experience workshop model was designed by the CLASS

project staff to give educators opportunities to relate to the everyday expe-riences with individuals with disabilities; opportunities they seized. A sci-

ence teacher, Dot, provided a good illustration, ‘‘These kids are just like

everyone else – they have great senses of humor, they are witty and deviant

just like many teenagers – and they steal your heart away!!’’ As educators

(both general and special education teachers) came to know and value each




T a b l e 1

T e a c h e r P a r t i c i p

a n t s R a t e d t h e C o v e r a g e o f E a c h D i s a b i l i t y C a t e g o r y i n T

h e i r T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n C o u

r s e s ( G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n a n d

S c i e n c e

E d u c a t i o n C o u r s

e s ) . A L i k e r t R a t i n g S c a l e ( 1 – 5 ) w a s u s e d . N o C o v e r a g

e = 1 , M i n i m a l = 2 , A d e q u a t e = 3 , M o d e r a t e = 4 , a n

d C o m -

p r e h e n s i v e = 5

P a r t i c i p a n t b

C o

v e r a g e o f d i s a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s i n ‘ ‘ P r e - S e r v i c e ’ ’ c o u r s e w o

r k a

S c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s

E d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s

A n n a S p E d M i n i m a l c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s a n d A D H D

N

o c o v e r a g e : r e m a i n i n g c a t e g

o r i e s

M i n i m a l t o c o m p r e h e n s i v e

c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s

J u s t i n S p E d N o


A d e q u a t e t o c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s

S t e v e n S p E d M i n i m a l t o m o d e r a t e c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s

M i n i m a l t o m o d e r a t e c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s

T a r a S p E d

N o


A d e q u a t e t o C o m p r e h e n s i v e c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s

A m y S p E d ,

S c i E d

M i n i m a l t o a d e q u a t e c o v e r a g e : m o t o r / o r t h o p e d i c i m p a i r -

m

e n t s , s p e e c h / l a n g u a g e d i s a b

i l i t i e s , a n d d e a f a n d b l i n d ,

v

i s u a l i m p a i r m e n t s ,

d e v e l o p m

e n t a l d e l a y , t r a u m a t i c b r a i n

i n j u r y N o c o v e r a g e : h e a r i n g i m p a i r m e n t s ,

l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i -

t

i e s , A D H D , e m o t i o n a l / b e h a v i o r a l , a u t i s m , p h y s i c a l o r

h

e a l t h i m p a i r m e n t s , m u l t i - c a t e g o r i c a l

M i n i m a l t o c o m p r e h e n s i v e

c o v e r a g e : m o s t c a t e g o r i e s N

o c o v -

e r a g e : A D H D , e m o t i o n

a l / b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , t r a u m a t i c

b r a i n i n j u r y

C h a r l o t t e

S c i E d

N o


M i n i m a l t o a d e q u a t e c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e s N o c o v e r a g e :

t r a u m a t i c b r a i n i n j u r y

C h r i s S c i E d N o


N o c o v e r a g e : a l l c a t e g o r i e

s

D o t S c i E d

N o


M i n i m a l c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n

g d i s a b i l i t i e s , A D H D ,

d e v e l o p m e n -

t a l d e l a y , a n d e m o t i o n a

l / b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s N o c

o v e r -

a g e : r e m a i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s

J i m S c i E d

N o


M i n i m a l t o m o d e r a t e c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , A

D H D ,

v i s u a l a n d h e a r i n g i m p a i r m e n t s ,

d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a

y , e m o -

t i o n a l / b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , s p e e c h / l a n g u a g e d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

a u t i s m , p h y s i c a l o r h e a l t h i m p a i r m e n t N o c o v e r a g e :

r e m a i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s




T a b l e 1

c o n t i n u e d

P a r t i c i p a n t b

C o v e r a g e o f d i s a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e

s i n ‘ ‘ P r e - S e r v i c e ’ ’ c o u r s e w o r k a

S c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s

E d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s

J o n i

S c i E d

M i n i m a l c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n g d i s a

b i l i t i e s , A D H D , a n d s p e e c h

a

n d l a n g u a g e d i s a b i l i t i e s

N


o r i e s


g d i s a b i l i t i e s , A D H D , a n d s

p e e c h

a n d l a n g u a g e d i s a b i l i t i e

s N o c o v e r a g e : r e m a i n i n g c a

t e g o r i e s

N a n c y

S c i E d

M i n i m a l c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n g d i s a

b i l i t i e s

N


o r i e s

M i n i m a l t o a d e q u a t e c o v e r a g e : l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , A D H D ,

e m o t i o n a l / b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s a n d a u t i s m , v i s u a l

i m p a i r -

m e n t s ,

h e a r i n g i m p a i r m

e n t s ,

d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a y , p

h y s i c a l

o r h e a l t h i m p a i r m e n t s ,

m u l t i - c a t e g o r i c a l N o c o v e r a g

e :

r e m a i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s

P a t S

c i E d

M i n i m a l c o v e r a g e : e m o t i o n a l / b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s a n d

s p e e c h / l a n g u a g e d i s a b i l i t i e s

N


o r i e s


g d i s a b i l i t i e s , a n d e m o t i o n a l / b e h a v -

i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s N o c o v e r a g e : r e m a i n i n g c a t e g o r i e s

S t e p h a n i e

S c i E d

N o



s

T i n a

S c i E d

N o



s

a

T h e c a t e g o r i e s

o f d i s a b i l i t y s u r v e y e d i n c l u

d e d : m o t o r / o r t h o p e d i c i m p a

i r m e n t s , v i s u a l i m p a i r m e n t s

, h e a r i n g i m p a i r m e n t s ,

l e a r n

i n g d i s -

a b i l i t i e s , a t t e n t i o n d e fi c i t - h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r ( A D H D ) , d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y d e l a y e d , e m o t i o n a l / b e h

a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , s p e e c h / l a n g u a g e

d i s a b i l i t i e s , a u t i s m ,

d e a f a n d b l i n d , t r a u m a t i c b r a i n i n j u r y , p h y s i c a l o r h e a l t h i m p a i r m e n t s , m u l t i - c a t e g o r i c a l , a n d o t h e r .

b

S p E d i n d i c a t e s p a r t i c i p a n t i s a S p e c i a l E d u

c a t o r , S c i E d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i c i p a n t i s a S c i e n c e E

d u c a t o r .




student at the workshop, they also expressed surprise at ‘‘discovering’’ how

much each student was actually capable of doing and how this con-

tradicted their expectations. For example, after working with Jerome, Jim,

a science educator said, ‘‘In the afternoon, I worked with Jerome – I real-

ized (powerfully) how much I am still ruled by appearances and expecta-

tions based on them. I am not proud to admit this!!! I never expected

Jerome to be as bright and engaging and (how unexpected) to have such a

great sense of humor. Why did this surprise me so much? And if I have

such prejudices – what about the rest of the world? I thought I was enlight-

ened and open-minded. I was as full of fear and misinformation as many

other people. How humbling!’’ Jerome had low-vision, left-side paralysis,

and used a wheelchair for mobility. In a similarly candid admission, Justin,

a special educator reflected on time spent with David, ‘‘Today I spent timewith David. Although he did not use his computerized equipment to com-

municate very much – he still communicated his eye-gaze board, facial

expressions, and body movements spoke volumes. I was a little nervous in

the beginning but soon relaxed after I realized I could treat him like a nor-

mal kid.’’ David had minimal gross motor control, used a wheelchair and

an alternative communication device for all activities. Table 2 provides

additional reflections from these and other educators as reported during the

workshop.

The second category many teacher participants commented on washow the students at the workshop challenged and changed their expecta-

tions of what students could do. Pat, a science educator, provides a good

example, ‘‘What I learned the most and was the most amazed with was the

capability of the students to do the labs – their physical ability to do –

especially with the help of the adapted equipment.’’ It should come as no

surprise that the students were as capable of learning as their typical peers.

Many students, just like those attending CLASS Workshops, have devel-

oped a combination of persistence, excellent organizational skills, knowl-

edge of assistive technology, and the ability to invoke the necessary supportsystems or agencies when dealing with all kinds of barriers (Seymour &

Hunter, 1998). Most educators reflected on what they could begin to expect

from students, especially in cooperative group work (Table 3, see Jim.6,

Tina.6, Charlotte.6, Tara.6). For example, special educator Amy said, ‘‘I

learned that after a few short days, students with disabilities can work in

cooperative groups and get along fabulously. Each can contribute in a way

that draws out the strengths of individuals for the common goal of com-

pleting the task. Each student can share jobs, change jobs and laugh at the

same time.’’ Nancy, a science teacher wrote, ‘‘I learned that teamingworked effectively for groups consisting of students with varying levels of

abilities. It was heart warming to see the cooperation and concern for each

otherÕs strengths/weaknesses. Stacy, Jerome, and David were a very effec-

tive team. WOW. They can take a lot of credit here!’’ Anna also mused, ‘‘I

reaffirmed that ‘doing scienceÕ is the best method for all students. When




T a b l e 2

A d d i t i o n a l P a r t i c i p a n t J o u r n a l E n t r i e s R e fl e c t i n g S u b - t h e m e : K n o w i n g a n d V a l u i n g I n d i v i d u a l S t u d e n t s

P a r t i c i p a n t

S t u d e n t a s v a l u e d l e a r n e r

J o u r n a l e n t r y a

K n o w i n g a n d v a l u i n g i n d i v

i d u a l s t u d e n t s

D o t . 4 b

I f a c e d m y f e a r s a n d w o r k e

d w i t h D a v i d t o d a y . . I t h i n k

i t i s a l l t o o e a s y t o l e a v e s t u

d e n t s l i k e D a v i d o u t b e c a u s

e y o u

h a v e t o l e a r n h o w t o ‘ ‘ c o n n e c t ’ ’ i n a d i ff e r e n t w a y t h a n w h a t y o u

Õ r e u s e d t o

N a n c y . 4

I n c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h J o s h ,

I h a d t r o u b l e c r e a t i n g a b

o n d .

H e w a s r e s p e c t f u l , b u t

w a s n

Õ t c l i c k i n g w i t h a g i v e - a

n d - t a k e

o r a l o r b o d y l a n g u a g e r e s p o n s e .

I w a s t h a n k f u l f o r t h

e b e h a v i o r m o d p e r k s u g g e s

t i o n s m a d e b y o t h e r s . H e d o

e s

a d j u s t w h e n h i s f a v o r i t e t h i n g s a r e u s e d a s a c a r r o t . U

n t i l I g o t t o k n o w J o s h b e t t e r , I t h i n k t h a t h e w o u l d n e

e d a n

a i d e t o b e f u l l y i n c l u s i v e i n m y l a b s

N a n c y . 5

T o d a y w a s m y fi r s t d a y w i t h T o d d a n d c o m m u n i c a t i n g

w i t h h i m w a s a b r e e z e . H e w a s a t t e n t i v e , l e t s y o u k n o w

w h a t

h e w a n t s / n e e d s a n d t a k e s

s u g g e s t i o n s t o h e a r t a n d m a k e s g o o d d e c i s i o n s f o r h i m s e l f

T a r a . 5

I l e a r n e d t h a t J e r o m e i s e x t r e m e l y d e t e r m i n e d ! . . . . . .

B e f o r e h e w a s t e n h e w a s l i k e h i s t y p i c a l p e e r s .

J e r o m e b e l i e

v e s h i s

s t r e n g t h s a r e h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s .

H e p l a n s t o a t t e n d c o l l e g e a n d g e t a d e g r e e i n a c t i n g o r a s a m o v i e d i r e c t o r .

T h e s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t t o l d J e r o m e h e w o u l d n o t b e

s u c c e s s f u l i n a p r i v a t e ‘ ‘ r e g u l a r ’ ’ s c h o o l b u t h e p r o v e d t h e m

w r o n g !

( V a l u i n g i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s i n g e n e r a l )

D o t . 6

T h e f u n n y t h i n g i s — a c c o m m o d a t i o n s c o m e p r e t t y n a t u r a l l y w h e n y o u r e a l l y k n o w t h e s t u d e n t . Y o u c a n a n t i c i p

a t e

n e e d s , a n d y o u c a n

Õ t b e a

f r a i d t o a s k t h e m q u e s t i o n s .

C o m m u n i c a t i o n i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t o o l w h e n i t c o m

e s t o

e d u c a t i o n — a n d t h e o n l y

w a y y o u c a n o p e n l y a n d h o n e s t l y c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h s t u d e n t s i s w h e n y o u h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d

a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m

P a t . 6

I f e e l l e s s a p p r e h e n s i v e t o w

o r k w i t h a s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d

c h i l d .

T h e e x p e r i e n c e p r o v i d e d m e w i t h m a n y d i ff e r e n t

k i n d s

o f i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s .

I l e a r n e d h o w c a p a b

l e t h e y r e a l l y c a n b e i f w e a

s e d u c a t o r s g i v e t h e m a c h a n c e a n d

t r y t o m e e t t h e i r n e e d s s o

t h e y c a n ‘ ‘ d o ’ ’ l i k e t h e r e g u

l a r e d k i d s

a

T h e n u m b e r f o l l o w i n g e a c h n a m e i n d i c a t e s w h i c h d a y o f t h e w o r k s h o p

t h e c o m m e n t w a s e n t e r e d i n t h e j o u r n a l .




students are engaged and are expected to think, apply, model and internal-

ize science method/content they will succeed. Every capable student is enti-

tled to be included in hands-on learning with their peers.’’

Self as Learner and Facilitator of Learning

Educators seeking to create inclusive environments for students with

disabilities need to be able to recognize and eliminate both physical and

curricular barriers. In order to overcome these obstacles educators should

Table 3

Additional Participant Journal Entries Reflecting Sub-theme: Expectations of Students

Participant Student as valued learnerJournal entrya Expectations of what students can do in science

Justin.3 Today I learned not to underestimate the abilities of a student by

drawing conclusions too quickly. As I got to know my student I

was amazed at how much he knows, was able to do. I had to

remind myself to be patient and not ‘‘do’’ for him. As time pas-

sed I became more comfortable with waiting

Charlotte.4 When dealing with special needs population the information is pre-

sented the same. However, the pace differs. Dependent upon the

needs modification is necessary. Some need the informationspoon-fed other just need more time to actualize the activities

Jim.6b DonÕt underestimate a student!

Statements about expectations of what students can do in collaborative groups:

Jim.6 I picked up several important tips from the [flight unit] activities:

The beauty of getting kids to work in teams for a common goal,

my personal need to back-off at times and let the kids figure

things out, I loved the idea of collecting data and using post-its

on a chart and a framework of structure for an activity is essen-

tialTina.6 Working together in cooperative groups is an important experience

for all students...As an educator in the regular ed classroom, I

am reminded of the importance of ensuring that all students

work in a climate that allows their full participation

Charlotte.6 [the students] worked marvelously with each other: encouragement,

acknowledgement and problem solving was performed by the

students

Tara.6 I learned student group work forces teachers to place more focus

on the studentsÕ relationships with peers versus teachers teaching

in one-on-one. The one-on-one approach tends to provide atemptation that is less challenging for students. I learned obser-

vation and experience are the best teachers

a The number following each name indicates which day of the workshop the com-

ment was entered in the journal.




be familiar with supports available for staff and students, effective instruc-

tional practices, and curricular adaptations (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997).

According to the pre-workshop survey, all of the participants felt ‘‘ade-

quately’’ (3 score on a 5-point Likert scale) to ‘‘completely’’ (5 score) pre-

pared to convey a clear instructional purpose, 93% felt prepared to supply

immediate, academically related feedback during lesson sequence, 86%

could apply diagnostic and corrective procedures, 93% reported confidence

in making instructional decisions based on student performance data, 93%

reported ability to implement closure techniques, and all participants repor-

ted providing for periodic review (Figure 2).

Not only does experience with instructional strategies, curricula, and

resources that support inclusion help teachers and students overcome barri-

ers, teachers in inclusive classrooms should also know of and use a varietyof strategies to design, select, and modify activities for students with dis-

abilities (King-Sears, 1997; Lloyd, Forness, & Kavale, 1998). An educatorÕs

work with parents, guardians, and other professionals should extend to

include planning appropriate education programs for these students. Fur-

thermore, teachers need to feel comfortable communicating with students

and helping them use metacognitive (Swaggart, 1998) and mnemonic strate-

gies (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998) to support their learning. Prior to the

start of the workshop, most educators reported feeling adequate-to-com-

pletely prepared for performing a variety of teaching tasks including:designing, selecting, and modifying activities (71%), modifying testing and

assessment (79%), working with parents and guardians in planning activi-

ties (50%), working with other professionals in planning activities (86%),

using metacognitive strategies to assist students (64%), and felt comfort-

able working with students (93%) (Figure 3).

0 20 40 60 80 100

provide periodicreview

closure techniques

use data makeinstruct. decisions

apply diag. & correct.proceedures

supply immediatefeedback

convey clear instruct.purpose

T a s k

Percentage of Teacher Participants (N= 14)

Figure 2. Percentage of teacher participants (N = 14) adequately-to-completely pre-

pared to implement strategies for teaching science to students with disabilities.




The results from the survey instrument revealed that these 14 experi-

enced classroom teachers felt confident in their skills and knowledge base of

strategies shown to be successful for teaching students with disabilities in

general. Throughout the workshop, however, they clearly indicated uncer-

tainty in their abilities to teach science to these students. First, some partici-pants reflected on fear and anxiety about working with the students at the

workshop—feelings that can deter them from creating truly inclusive envi-

ronments. Three participants mentioned recognizing their own fears. For

example, Stephanie, a science educator, reflected on how she felt meeting

the students and their families for the first time at the welcoming picnic,

‘‘IÕm slowly learning about disabilities. When I arrived I was very uncom-

fortable with disabilities. Sunday evening I was ready to jump out of my

skin. Much of my fatigue yesterday was from staying in control of my feel-

ings.’’ Three teachers described confronting their feelings and misconcep-tions about individuals with disabilities during the discussion at the

disability awareness workshop held on the second day. Dot, also a science

educator wrote, ‘‘The discussion of disabilities was interesting and I liked

the way the discussion was framed. It was good to look at the positives and

negatives and to actually acknowledge that those were my feelings. I come

from a culture where you just donÕt talk about that kind of stuff.’’ Amy

mentioned she ‘‘was made aware of disabilities through activities that con-

fronted my concerns and fears.’’ Chris said she was ‘‘more comfortable with

physical than mental disabilities. That I am hesitant – not knowing what isappropriate. But hesitant can leave the other person feeling isolated.’’

Throughout the workshop, four participants also revealed recognizing

how their behaviors might impede students with disabilities. Amy saw her-

self as inflexible and too serious and explained that she learned this

‘‘through having students who required more patience and persistence.’’

0 20 40 60 80 100

feel comfortable withstudents

meta cognitivestrategies

work with prof. toplan

work with parents toplan

modify assessments

design/ modify

activities

T a s k

Percentage of Teacher Participants (N=14)

Figure 3. Percentage of teacher participants (N = 14) adequately-to-completely pre-

pared to accomplish tasks important for teaching science to students with disabilities.




Dot recognized similar behavior in herself as she wrote, ‘‘I see myself talk-

ing, jumping right in and pretty much commandeering whatÕs going on –

and I wish I wouldnÕt do that so much.’’ Tina reported learning ‘‘how

much I donÕt know about teaching students with disabilities,’’ and Dot

continued, ‘‘the only way we grow is by stepping out of our comfort zones

– and thatÕs what IÕm doing.’’ Overall, six participants recorded 10 state-

ments over the course of 3 days related to ‘‘knowledge of self’’ in this

study.

In addition to seeing themselves learning important lessons, half of the

participants specifically reflected on concerns about returning to their class-

rooms where they would face a much larger group of students in a high-

stakes environment. These statements (N = 13) were categorized as ‘‘call

to action at home’’ and recorded over 5 days from eight participants(Table 4 lists additional statements not discussed here). Designing and

implementing inclusive science classrooms are two related, but different

Table 4

Additional Participant Journal Entries Reflecting Sub-theme: Call to Action

Participant Self as learner and facilitator of learning

Journal entrya Call to actionb

Pat.1u What remains unclear is how to make science more accessible tomy students when resources are limited. For example, if adaptive

technology is not supplied—not available—what or how do I

meet the childÕs needs without ‘‘watering down’’ the concepts.

Hopefully, I am sure that this will become more clear [sic] as I

progress throughout the weekÕs activities

Tina.3u It is unclear to me how I am going to transfer some of this knowl-

edge to my own classroom where I will not have access to much

of the special tools and there are 20–25 students and myself and

teacherÕs aide (or perhaps a spec. ed. teacher if I Õm lucky)

Chris.4u With 2:1 and 1:1 teacher:student ratio weÕre struggling, what hap-pens when it becomes a 1:30? Or 2:30 ratio? All IÕve really been

able to do is rely on other students to help. Are there strategies

to facilitate peer assistance?

Jim.4u How do you meet diverse needs when you have a class of 25? I

could see Instructor A struggling a bit when JoshÕs needs and

behavior threatened to take us off course/and the other kids were

waiting for us to move on. While it made me feel better that

even she struggled with this, I am still unsure how to accomplish

this. SomeoneÕs needs are going to be unmet either way. Is that

ok?

a The number following each name indicates which day of the workshop the com-

ment was entered in the journal.b All statements listed here were in response to the daily prompt: ‘‘what remains

unclear?’’




processes. These seasoned educators were well aware of the difference and

struggled throughout the workshop with how they would ‘‘make inclusion

work’’ when they returned to their large classes of students with a wide

range of abilities. ‘‘The same question keeps coming up. ‘How do you plan

a lesson that meets wide ranging cognitive abilities in a class of 24–30 stu-

dents???Õ It barely seems possible in a setting with 7 kids and 16 adults!’’

Jim beseeched. Pat echoed these sentiments, ‘‘While I am truly amazed

with the ‘capabilitiesÕ, ‘willingnessÕ and ‘super personalitiesÕ of these kids, I

am unsure how in the real trenches at home with a class of 20 reg. ed kids

and maybe 4–5 of inclusion kids that I would be able to stay focused with

my reg. ed. kids and also with my inclusion kids. How do I move on with

the lab activity when my reg. ed kids are ready but my inclusion kids

havenÕt finished – need more time – etc.?’’ Five of 14 participants notedthis concern and four of them made more than one journal entry over the

course of the workshop. This concern was not limited to science educators

as one special educator, Justin, wrote, ‘‘I am still unclear about how I can

bring inclusion to my school and specifically my classroom.’’

Two different special educators commented on how they perceived the

attitudes of their colleagues and wondered how to create a high level of

enthusiasm in their schools and classes. Steven asked, ‘‘How can we reach

the educators who are not even willing to try to accommodate students

with disabilities?’’ and Tara expressed similar concerns, ‘‘How can we cre-ate the same enthusiasm, motivation, and inclusive environment in our

classroom and among our staff? How do we convince administrators that

‘regularÕ teachers need to learn how to use technology to provide accom-

modations to students?’’ Those participants that did not comment were

already in co-teaching partnerships or in schools where inclusion was sup-

ported by the administration.

Physical Environment as Fundamental Support to Learning

Physical adaptations not only make the curriculum more accessible,

they communicate to everyone that all individuals are important (Stefanich,

2001). The invention of appropriate and effective supports for learning

within an environment is often accomplished through collaboration among

people from multiple disciplines. This concept of ‘‘invented supports’’ is

another essential principle in the philosophy of inclusion (Diaz-Greenberg

et al., 2000; Villa & Thousand, 1995). Many practicing scientists have

described accommodations that made their professional work accessible

(Blumenkopf et al., 1996; Vermeij, 1997). Variations on equipment and fur-niture have been explored and perfected by the interdisciplinary CLASS

project staff. Plastic was substituted for glass whenever possible, and no-

slip pads covered working surfaces to stabilize containers of liquids. Talk-

ing calculators and balances simplified measurement for students with

visual impairments or difficulty with reading. Teachers found that salad




tongs, measuring cups and spoons, large funnels, squeeze bottles made it

easier for students to manipulate, measure, and weigh chemicals and solu-

tions. Steven, a special educator, enjoyed learning about several new lab

tools including, ‘‘the funnel, blue spoon grasp, a variety of spoons,

enhancement equipment, and three dimensional model[s],’’ and Jim, a sci-

ence educator, wrote about feeling liberated when he ‘‘realize[d] that scien-

tific equipment is what I choose it to be – not just whatÕs in the cabinet.’’

Many modifications to workstations made the equipment and supplies

accessible. The university laboratory benches were built higher to accom-

modate individuals in wheelchairs, but in the absence of sensible design,

teachers were shown how school tables could be raised and supported with

a few cinder blocks to provide better access. Sinks and shelves were built to

create easy access to equipment, materials, and supplies. Still, they did notalways serve all individuals as witnessed by Justin who learned from the

lab assistants ‘‘how to set up make-shift shelves on the end of a lab table

to hold microscopes.’’ One of the student participants, Kim, reminded us

that our students with disabilities are the best teachers for how to make

appropriate accommodations as she instructed educator participants on

how to made adjustments to her wheelchair so that she could look through

the microscope in a seated position. Four participants logged nine remarks

on these adaptations in their journals. For additional comments refer to

Table 5.

Recommendations

The CLASS project has spent several years developing, delivering, and

refining a direct-experience workshop model to help teachers create inclu-

sive environments for individuals with disabilities. Based on the knowledge

and skills of the workshop developers, the focus of these workshops (1998–

2001, 2003) has been on providing experiences and resources for accommo-

dating students with low-incidence disabilities, such as physical and or sen-sory disabilities, with the assumption that these students could pursue

advanced degrees in science, math, technology, or engineering. In the work-

shop session reported on here (2003) this was the first time students with

autism and autistic-like traits were included in the workshop sessions. The

strategies and activities used to accommodate all students during the work-

shop were based upon the experience of the CLASS project staff as well as

established approaches to inclusive education (Stefanich, 2001; Tomlinson,

1999; Villa & Thousand, 1995).

It is assumed that the major themes identified in this study are notunique to this group of educators, but are consistent with previous findings

and will be supported and expanded upon by future studies. Under this

supposition, we point to three potentially useful experiences that profes-

sional development designers should consider for teachers beginning to

work in inclusive classroom settings including: (1) opportunities for




involvement with individuals with disabilities and discussion of disability

awareness, (2) experience with assistive technology and adapting equip-

ment, and (3) consideration of organizational structures and implementa-

tion.

Involvement with Individuals with Disabilities and Disability Awareness

Most participants in the CLASS workshop found that having the time

to get to know individual students helped them communicate with the stu-

dents and learn about their needs in science. Recognizing a student as val-

ued learner is a first step to including that student in classroom activities

and to preventing the student from being a passive observer in the science

classroom. This theme (student as valued learner) is consistent with findings

of previous work. For example, Caseau and Norman (1997, p. 65) suggest

that undergraduate and graduate methods courses should ‘‘help teachers

develop sensitivity toward others who may have differences they are notaccustomed to or comfortable with. Provide activities they can use to foster

this sensitivity and understanding in their own students.’’ To help practicing

and prospective teachers develop skills in addressing the needs of students

with disabilities, professional development activities could include sessions

on disability awareness and etiquette. In addition to the activities conducted

Table 5

Additional Participant Journal Entries Reflecting Theme III: Physical Environment as

Fundamental Support to Learning

Participant

Physical environment as fundamental support to learningJournal entrya

Steven.1 I felt like a kid in a candy store when we were in the assistive tech-

nology lab. There are some amazing tools to help student[s] con-

nect with information. I am very glad that I had the opportunity

to try those programs. I hope I can help students in my school

district that would benefit from this technology to be able to get

this technology

Nancy.3 I learned that technological assists can be time and energy consum-ing for the students. I appreciate the staff assistance with this

and felt comfortable with eye gaze and most of all the big smile

that is the biggest ‘‘yes’’ feedback I could have asked for

Steven.5 I like the small pans, water bottles, and tooth brushes [sic] for

cleaning the fossils. Having the books to serve as an option for

mental breaks during the lab was extremely helpful

Jim.6 [From the flight unit] I learned certain lab logistics—the Velcro,

the tall ring stands, the foot pump—were great ideas

a

The number following each name indicates which day of the workshop the com-ment was entered in the journal.




for the CLASS workshop, readers should consult Stefanich (2001), which

describes a series of professional development activities to illustrate specific

types of difficulties often experienced by students with a disability such as a

motor/orthopedic impairment, visual impairment, hearing impairment,

learning disability, or cognitive impairment. Ideally, prospective teachers

need as many opportunities to meet and talk with individuals with disabili-

ties as possible. They should discuss types of accommodations and pedagog-

ical styles that specific individuals with disabilities have found effective when

learning science in school (Kirch et al., 2005). As shown here, however,

practicing teachers benefit enormously from these opportunities as well. One

of the principles of inclusion is for teachers to treat students with disabilities

as valued learners in the classroom and to shift from thinking in terms of

what a student cannot do to recognizing what they can do. We believe theseelements will prove to be essential for community building in the classroom,

for helping students advocate for themselves, and teaching students to real-

ize self-determination.

Experience with Assistive Technology and Adapting Equipment

Both science educators and special educators appreciated the time to

explore the latest in assistive technology and felt that it would help them

participate in the ‘‘invention of supports’’ in the future, or at least knowwhere to look for what is available for their students. After an initial in-

school or after-school professional development session, follow-up meetings

could provide educators with up-dates in the form of short demonstrations

supplemented with opportunities for teachers to test the technology and

discuss how it might benefit the learning of specific students in their science

classroom(s).

There is much more ‘‘invention,’’ however, involved in making equip-

ment used in the science laboratory accessible. We found that workshop

participants were eager to brainstorm with students and staff about adapta-tions that could be made to laboratory equipment and supplies, especially

after being exposed to the variety of examples used throughout the week,

but the right mix of creative minds may have made this particular group of

participants unique.

Consideration of Organizational Structures and Implementation

One of the weaknesses of the CLASS workshop, revealed by the par-

ticipantsÕ

reflections, was that sufficient ideas, strategies, and examples of how participants could implement what they learned at the workshop in

their large classes of 25–30 students were not provided. Although the work-

shop staff was multidisciplinary, modeled team teaching, and encouraged

participants to establish cooperative teaching teams ‘‘back home,’’ many

educators argued that this was not possible at their school sites without




substantial administrative support. In these recommendations, we acknowl-

edge that one benefit to professional development sessions that originate at

a school or in a district may be administrative involvement. An invested

administration can work with educators to identify the organizational

structures that inhibit team teaching and replace them with structures that

support collaboration and implementation of inclusive practices in a more

typical classroom environment of 25–30 students (Blaisdell, 2001). This

suggestion, however, is not offered lightly. The establishment of a collabo-

rative environment takes tremendous effort and commitment by all

involved (Stefanich, 2001). Sites considering pursuing a collaborative envi-

ronment should be sure to visit other sites and interview participants about

procedures, effective strategies, and areas of concern. Furthermore, teacher

partners should have similar belief systems, be able and willing to commu-nicate and work together as a team to solve problems, set goals, and share

roles and responsibilities (Blaisdell, 2001).

Summary and Future Directions

There is some evidence from this outstanding group of educators that

students with disabilities can and should be educated in science alongside

their typical peers. Through multidisciplinary collaboration with an innova-

tive spirit, students with disabilities can participate in inquiry-based scienceactivities, and contribute to the collective knowledge of the class. The

CLASS Project is looking forward to expanding its efforts toward this end

in a variety of ways. One of the most promising that departs somewhat

from the format described herein while adhering to the overall goal of

increasing the participation of students with disabilities in the sciences is a

collaborative effort made possible by an additional National Science Foun-

dation grant. The CLASS Project is currently teaming with the Ohio

Resource Center (ORC) (www.ohiorc.org) to develop appropriate accom-

modations and adaptations to peer-reviewed, standards-based lesson plansin the areas of science, math, and reading.

The ORC, located at the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse and affil-

iated with the Ohio State University, is a virtual resource center that identi-

fies, evaluates, catalogs, and disseminates the highest quality web-based

lesson plans and other resource materials for teachers and teacher educa-

tors throughout the country. A discipline-specific review board using a

research-based rubric rigorously evaluates any resources appearing on the

ORC site. Those resources deemed acceptable by the ORC are correlated

with national and Ohio academic content standards before being launchedon the website. One of the primary concerns users of this website raise is

the need for lesson plan accommodations that will provide a higher level of

access to learning for students with disabilities. The CLASS Project teams

saw this as a perfect opportunity to expand disseminate their message to a

wider audience.




Educators who teach students with disabilities need effective lesson

plans that are universally designed to meet national and state standards

while simultaneously accommodating the needs and strengths of individual

learners. While the CLASS Project has developed many resources over the

years and provided in-service to teachers from all over the United States,

dissemination of our work has been somewhat limited to a small number

of professionals. The ORC website provides an opportunity to reach a

broad national audience. Currently, multiple educator teams, composed of

both content specialists and special educators, hired and trained by CLASS

Project staff are collaborating to adapt ORC lessons to serve the needs of

students in grades 7–12 who have disabilities ranging from sensory and

physical impairments to learning and emotional disabilities. Once approved

by the ORC reviewers these adapted lessons will be posted on the ORCwebsite. At that point, any educator who teaches science, math, or reading

to students with disabilities in inclusive settings will have practical, eco-

nomical, research-based ideas for meeting studentsÕ learning needs. While

this cannot replace the invaluable tool of co-teaching described in this

paper, it will provide teachers who lack opportunities to co-teach with

another alternative.

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foun-

dation (DUE-CCLI 0089396). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency. The authors grate-

fully acknowledge discussions with and editorial comments from their col-

leagues Mabel Asante, Robert Eschenauer, Monique Ferrell, Helene

Furani, Bill Profreidt, Wayne Reed, Veronica Shipp, and Julian Williams.

References

Bargerhuff, M. E., & Wheatly, M. (2004). Teaching with CLASS: Creating

laboratory access for science students. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 27 (3), 318–321.

Bargerhuff, M. E., Kirch, S. A., & Wheatly, M. (in press). Collaborating

with CLASS: Creating laboratory access for science students with dis-

abilities. Electronic Journal of Science Education.

Berda, M., & Blaisdell, M. J. (1998). Science projects for all students: Inclu-sive science activities. New York: Facts on File.

Bigge, J. L., Best, S. J., & Heller, K. W. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching individuals

with physical, health, or multiple disabilities (4th edn.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill.




Blaisdell, M. J. (2001). A collaborative view of the science classroom. In G.

Stefanich (Ed.). Teaching in inclusive classrooms, theory and foundations

(pp. 69–80). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Blumenkopf, T. A., Stern, V., Swanson, A. B., & Wohlers, H. D. (Eds.).

(1996). Working chemists with disabilities. Washington, DC: American

Chemical Society (ACS).

Bogdan, R., & Bilken, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bohning, K., & Stefanich, G. (2001). Best practice – curricular and instruc-

tional adaptations for special needs students in effective schools. In G.

Stefanich (Ed.), Teaching in inclusive classrooms, theory and foundations

(pp. 101–114). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Brown, S., Harwood, S., & Vahid, B. (1998). 500 tips for working with chil-dren with special needs. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Burgstahler, S., & Nourse, S. (2000). Accommodating students with disabili-

ties in math and science. Seattle, WA: DO-IT, University of Washing-

ton.

Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004).

Moving toward inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education,

25(2), 104–116.

Caseau, D, & Norman, K. (1997). Special education teachers use Science-

Technology-Society (STS) themes to teach science to students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(1), 55–68.

Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including

students with disabilities into the general education science classroom.

Exceptional Children, 68(4), 423–435.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and

knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Diaz-Greenberg, R., Thousand, J., Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Nevin, A.

(2000). What teachers need to know about the struggle for self-deter-

mination (conscientization) and self-regulation: Adults with disabilityspeak about their education experiences. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 16, 873–887.

Finson, K. D., Ormsbee, C. K., Jensen, M., & Powers, D. T. (1997). Sci-

ence in the mainstream: Retooling science activities. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 8(3), 219–232.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (2002). Inclusion: A service, not a place: A

whole school approach. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.

GPO (General Printing Office), Revised July 1, 2002. Code of federal regu-

lations, Title 34, Volume 2, Chapter 3, Part 300.7 (34CFR300.7)‘‘Child with a disability’’. http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassem-

ble.cgi?title=200234 Retrieved November 30, 2005.

Grice, N. (2002). Touch the universe: A NASA Braille book of astronomy.

Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.




Hammrich, P., Price, L., & Slesaransky-Poe, G. (2001). Daughters with dis-

abilities: Breaking down barriers. Electronic Journal of Science Educa-

tion, [Online serial] 5(4), article 4. Available: http://unr.edu/homepage/

crowther/ejse/hammrichetal.html.

Hamre, B., & Oyler, C. (2004). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms:

Learning from a collaborative inquiry group. Journal of Teacher Edu-

cation, 55(2), 154–163.

Hassard, J. (2000). Science as inquiry: Active learning, project-based, web-

assisted, and active assessment strategies to enhance student learning.

Parsippany, NJ: Good Year Books.

Houcutt, A. M., Martin, E. W., & McKinney, J. D. (1990). Historical and

legal context of mainstreaming. In J. W. Lloyd, N. L. Singh, & A. C.

Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives onconcepts, issues, and models (pp. 17–28). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Pub-

lishing.

Ingels, S. J., Scott, L. A., Taylor, J. R., Owings, J., & Quinn, P. (1998).

National education longitudinal study of 1988(NELS:88) base year

through second follow-up: Final methodology report. Washington, DC:

NCES. [Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pu-

bid=9806].

Johnson, H. M. (2003). Unspeakable conversations or how i spent one day

as a token cripple at Princeton University. The New York Times Maga-zine, February 16, 50–55.

Johnson, L. R. (2000). Inservice training to facilitate inclusion: An out-

comes evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 281–287.

Kahn, S. (2002). Including all students in hands-on learning. ENC Focus,

10(2), 14–17.

Kimmel, H., Deek, F. P., Farrell, M. L., & OÕShea, M. (1999). Meeting the

needs of diverse student populations: Comprehensive professional

development. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 241–249.

King-Sears, M. E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms.Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1–22.

Kirch, S. A., Bargerhuff, M. E., Turner, H., & Wheatly, M. (2005). Inclu-

sive science education: Classroom teacher and science educator experi-

ences in CLASS Workshops. School Science and Mathematics, 105(4),

175–196.

Lavoie, R. D., & Rosen, P. (Producers) (1989). How difficult can this be?

The F. A.T. city workshop [Motion picture]. (Available from the Public

Broadcasting Service, PO Box 279, Melbourne, FL 32902).

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Trans- forming AmericaÕs classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Lloyd, J. W., Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1998). Some methods are

more effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4),

195–200.




Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). Enhancing school success with

mnemonic strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 201–208.

Moroney, S. A., Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Jensen, M. M. (2003). Pre-

paring for successful inquiry in inclusive science classrooms. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 36(1), 18–25.

Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with

disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Edu-

cation, 82, 127–146.

National Research Council, NRC (1996). Inquiry and the national science

education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.

National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Science Resources Statis-

tics (May, 2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in sci-

ence and engineering: 2004. Arlington, VA: National ScienceFoundation. [Available at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/wmpd/pdf.htm].

Ormsbee, C. K., & Finson, K. D. (2000). Modifying science activities and

materials to enhance instruction for students with learning and behav-

ioral problems. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(1), 10–21.

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and profes-

sional development: 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-

cational Statistics. [Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001088].

Poppe, K., Miller, S., & Poppe, T. (1999). Sense of science. Louisville, KY:American Printing House for the Blind, Inc.

Reiff, H. B., Evans, E. D., & Cass, M. (1991). Special education require-

ments for general education certification: A national survey of current

practices. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 56–60.

Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (1998). Talking about disability: The educa-

tion and work experience of graduates and undergraduates with disabili-

ties in science, mathematics and engineering majors. Washington, DC:

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Stefanich, G. P., & Norman, K. I. (1996). Teaching science to students withdisabilities: Experiences and perceptions of classroom teachers and sci-

ence educators. Washington, DC: Association for the Education of

Teachers in Science (AETS).

Stefanich, G. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching in inclusive classrooms, theory and

foundations. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation (NSF).

Swaggart, B. L. (1998). Implementing a cognitive behavior management

program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 235–238.

Swanson, A. B., Miner, D. L., Carpenter, K., Woods, M., & Nieman, R.

(2001). Teaching chemistry to students with disabilities. Washington,DC: American Chemical Society Committee on Chemists With Dis-

abilities.

Thompson, S. J., Quenemoen, R. F., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E.

(2001). Alternative assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.




Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the

needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Vermeij, G. (1997). Privileged hands. New York: Freeman & Company.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1995). Creating inclusive schools. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive

adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation

or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 248–255.

Weisgerber, R. (1995). Science success for students with disabilities. New

York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Wood, T. S. (2001). Sourcebook for educators: CLASS: Creating laboratory

access for science students. Dayton, OH: Wright State University,CLASS Project.

Woods, M., & Stern, V. (2002). Roadmaps and rampways. Washington,

DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Documents

RESEÑA ARTÍCULO-Kirch-2007-Reflections_of_Educators_in_Pursuit_of_Inclusive_Science_Classrooms