Assignment: Recommending Evidence-Based Practices

EvaluatingEvidence-BasedPracticeinTeachingScienceContenttoStudentsWithSevereDevelopmentalDisabilities.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Assignment: Recommending Evidence-Based Practices

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2011. Vol, 36, No, 1-2, 62-75

Evaluating Evidence-Based Practice in Teaching Science Content to Students With Severe Developmental Disabilities

Fred Spooner, Vicki Knight', Diane Browder, Bree Jimenez, and Warren DiBiase University of North Carolina at Charlotte

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted for articles published between 1985 and May 2009 to (a) examine the degree to which science content was taught to sttidents with severe developmental disabilities and (b) and evahiate instructional procedtires in science as evidence- based practices. The review was organized by a conceptual model developed for science content. Seventeen experi- ments were analyzed for research qtiality where science content was taught to this population; 14 of these studies were viewed to be of high or adequate quality. In general, we found systematic instruction as an overarching in- structional package to be an evidence-based practice for teaching science content, Ftirthermore, components of sys- tematic instrtiction (ie,, task analytic instrtiction and time delay) were analyzed. We discuss the otitcomes to reftect how to teach science, what science content to teach, why to teach science, and recommendations for future research and practice.

D E S C R I P T O R S : students with severe developmental disabilities, science evidenced-based practices, teaching sci- ence to students with severe developmental disabUities, comprehensive literature review of teaching science skiUs to students with severe developmental disabUities

UntU the last decade, there have been few resources on teaching science to students with severe develop- mental disabilities. In a comprehensive review of the re- search, Courtade, Spooner. and Browder (2007) found only 11 experiments with any "link" to the National Science Education Standards (NSES, National Research Council [NRC], 1996), These studies linked because the target-dependent variable matched some of the content

Support for this research was provided in part by grant R324AQ080014 from the US, Department of Education, Insti- tute of Education Sciences, awarded to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, The opinions expressed do not neces- sarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Edu- cation, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Dr, Fred Spooner, Department of Special Education and Child De- velopment, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. 9201 University City Boulevard. Chariotte. NC 28223-0001, E-mail: fhspoone@uncc,edu

'Vicki Knight, now at University of Kentucky, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling,

recommended by the NSES as judged by a science con- tent expert. Most of these studies were not intended to demonstrate science learning per se but instead targeted skiUs of daily living with some overlap with science. For this reason, 8 of the 11 studies would be considered to fall under the NSES standard on science in personal and social perspectives. Methods to teach other standards such as inquiry, physical science, life science, earth and space science, and science and technology have not re- ceived much attendon.

To provide more focus on science instruction, educa- tors need (a) a rationale for teaching science, (b) guide- lines for selecting content and goals for achievement, and (c) methods that will be effective for science leaming. Perhaps the most important rationale for teaching science is to include students with severe developmental disabil- ides in the full educational opportunity of their schools. For example, in a notable early article on this topic, Siegel- Causey, McMorris. McGowen. and Sands-Buss (1998) de- scribed how to include students with severe disabilides in general science classes. These authors discussed a four- step incltision strategy, which incorporated planning, se- lecting classes, accommodating, and collaborating for a junior high school student. The authors also reported that both the educators and student benefited because of the opportunity to attend general education classes at his neighborhood school. Besides promoting educadonal opportunity, some other reasons to teach science to all Students, including those with severe disabilities, are to promote wonder and understanding of the natural world. Science also provides a format for posing questions and sharing discoveries. For example, students may gain under- standing of why earthquakes occur while working with models in earth science, or they may experience the won- der of seeing a life cycle through a classroom butterfly project. Students can have the opportunity to pose ques- dons (e,g,. Why did the building shake?) or make pre- dictions (e,g,. What day wUl the butterflies appear?), A final reason for providing the opportunity for science leaming is that science, like reading and mathematics, is one of the three academic areas for which schools must report accountability (No Child Left Behind Act. 2002),

The content for science instruction is typically pre- scribed by the state's science standards and the curricu- lum selected for the grade level in which the student is

Science Evidence-Based Practice 63

enrolled. One of the challenges in promoting science learning for students with severe disabilities is to identify priorities within this content. Although some students may achieve grade level expectations, others need tar- gets for alternate achievement. The NSES place a prior- ity on inquiry-based science learning. The NRC defines inquiry as "a set of interrelated processes by which sci- entists and students pose questions about the natural world and investigate phenomena; in doing so, students acquire knowledge and develop a rich understanding of concepts, principles, models, and theories" (NRC, 1996, p. 214).

Conceptual Model of Science for Students With Severe Developmental Disabilities

We propose that inquiry also be the priority within science learning for students with severe disabilities. For example, students should learn the skills necessary to interpret the world around them by asking questions such as "How did the puddle of water disappear from the morning to the afternoon?" using inquiry skills to develop steps to make a prediction, experiment, and find answers to their questions. Although learning about topics like chemical reactions, human cells, and what plants need to survive are valuable, what is even more important is the acquisition of skills the student can use both in and outside of school to learn about the natural environment. Students need the opportunity to learn to make predictions and pose questions and then en- gage with materials to test these predictions or find answers. Figure 1 provides a diagram of how the "why"

and "what" of teaching science to students with se- vere disabilities can be conceptualized. The large in- quiry circle within the science content illustrates its priority status among the science standards (the other standards are shown below the large inquiry circle). By focusing on inquiry, students develop the ability to pose questions and share discoveries (circle to the right), which contributes to wonder and understanding of the natural world, and ultimately promotes quality of life (see Figure 1).

Our conceptual model of science can be supplemented with a series of questions for professionals to consider about teaching science content to students with severe disabilities. For example, what is the goal of teaching sci- ence to the students I serve? How can I make science meaningful while promoting authentic science learning? How can I focus instruction in science to accomplish the goal of promoting wonder and understanding of the natural world? In general, we propose that the over- arching goal of science is for students to attain wonder and understanding about their natural world which can promote enhanced quality of life. Ouality of life, includ- ing components like happiness, satisfaction, choice and control over one's life, and self-determination has long been an important hallmark of training and service de- livery in the area of severe disabilities (e.g., Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990; Brown, 1991; Brown & Lehr, 1993; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, L997).

Besides having a rationale for teaching science and some guidance for selecting content, educators also need methods that are likely to be effective for science

Observe ExperimenU Infer HypoAesi

Gain wonder ana understanding of the natural wor/d and my place in it.

Quality of Life Employment, hobbies civic responsibilities, personal weli-tjeing

Ability to pose questions ana share discoveries

Figure 1. Conceptual model of science for students with severe developmental disabilities.

64 Spooner et al.

learning by students with severe developmental disabil- ities. In the last decade, interest in teaching science to students with severe disabilities has grown as evidenced by botb book chapters (Cooper-Duffy & Perlmutter, 2006; Spooner, DiBiase, & Courtade-Little, 2006) and several new studies (e.g., Jameson, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, & Polychronis, 2007; Jameson, McDonnell, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2008; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, Riesen, & Kercher, 2006; Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson, 2003). Overall, these new studies are not categorically different from earlier work (focus on skill acquisition, used systematic instruc- tion as basic instructional practice). On the other hand, because these newer studies are post No Child Left Be- hind Act (2002), they tend to include more general edu- cation teachers as the person responsible for delivery of instruction and include skills that address a broader range of science standards.

Evidence-Based Practices Although many guidelines for teaching science have

practical appeal, educators also need informafion on wbicb methods have been shown to be effective. Inter- venfions that can be supported by a body of bigh-quality studies are known as "evidence-based practices" (EBP; Odom et al., 2005). Odom et al. set the framework for the development of research quality indicators (OIs) and guidelines to evaluate practices across different method- ologies (e.g., qualitative, Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005; group experimental and quasiexperimental, Gersten et al., 2005; single-subject, Horner et al., 2005), which are used in special education research. Although there are multiple guidelines for de- fining this research quality, most are specific to tbe type of research design. For single-subject research, the guide- lines proposed by Horner et al. bave most often been applied to these types of studies (e.g., Browder, Ahlgrim- Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009; Chard, Ketterlin- Geller, Baker, Doabler, & Apichatabutra, 2009; Lane, Kalberg, & Shepcard, 2009; Test, Richter, Knight, & Spooner, 2010). These guidelines are especially relevant to identifying EBPs for students with severe disabilities because so much of the research uses single-subject re- search designs (McDonnell & O'Neill, 2003; Spooner & Browder, 2003).

In a recent review, Courtade et al. (2007) examined the literature from 1985 to 2005 for the degree to which there was evidence that science had been taught to stu- dents with severe developmental disabilities. For the 20 years that were studied, 11 experiments were found, which taught content referenced to the NSES (NRC, 1996, science as inquiry, physical science, life science, earth and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and history and nature of science). Of the 11 experiments that were doc- umented, eight of these experiments had content (i.e., skills taught) represented in the standard on science in

personal and social perspectives, content standard F (e.g., safety, health, exercise, and nutrition). This review sug- gested that systematic instruction was an EBP, but no formal analysis of EBP was conducted due to the limited scope of the literature in science at that time.

With the increased focus on teaching academic content to students with severe disabilities, new research in science has occurred since the Courtade et al. (2(X)7) review. The purpose of this paper is to extend the prior review by Courtade et al. (2007) to identify this newer literature and also to evaluate these studies to idenfify if systematic instruction is an EBP for teaching science. Extending the Courtade et al. review was a two-step process. First, studies needed to be located wbere science content was taught to students with severe developmental disabilifies (e.g., study included at least one participant with a moderate to severe disability, primary dependent variable included measures of achievement of science-related skills as indicated by NSES). Some of these newer studies have targeted de- pendent variables like vocabulary words and conducting experiments variables that are derived from the general science curriculum-like science vocabulary words and skills for conducting experiments. That is, there are now studies in which the content was more specifically related to science educafion curriculum or curricular goals than what the prior review found. The second task was then to determine if a sufficient number of these studies met criterion to draw the conclusion that systemafic instruc- tion was an EBP. When these newer studies are combined with the prior studies identified by Courtade et al. (2007), there now is a sufficient pool of research on which to apply the Homer et al. (2005) criteria to identify EBPs for teaching science.

Method

Literature Search Procedures To determine the evidence base for teaching science

to students with severe developmental disabilities, we first developed a conceptual framework for teaching sci- ence to this population. To do this, a team of experts, including experts in the field of severe disabilities and a science education researcher, met to discuss the purpose and overall outcomes of teaching science to students with severe disabilifies (a list of the experts and their creden- tials can be made available by the senior author).

Next, we developed an operational definition of sys- tematic instruction based on a number of references in the literature (e.g., Collins, 2007; Snell, 1983; Stokes & Baer, 1977; Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). The opera- tional definition was developed to evaluate whether the studies in this review used systematic instruction. For the purposes of this study, systematic instruction in- corporates (a) instruction of socially meaningful skills, (b) by defining target skills which are observable and measureable, (c) using data to demonstrate that skills were acquired as a result of the intervention, (d) using

Science Evidence-Based Practice 65

behavioral principles to promote transfer of stimulus control including differential reinforcement, systematic prompting and fading, and error correction, and (e) producing behavior change that can be generalized to other contexts, skills, people, and/or materials.

After we operationally defined systematic instruction, we then used a list of terms similar to the terms used in the Courtade et al. (2007) review to update and expand the extant list of 11 articles. Search terms in science were dedved from the eight Science Content Standards iden- tified by the NSES. We added some additional terms to the list of terms (e.g., access to general curdculum) to gather a comprehensive list of articles. The list of terms were established and confirmed by both an expert in severe disabilities and a science content expert. The final list of 27 terms were dedved from NSES content stan- dards (e.g., inquiry and physical science) and key science terms (e.g., motion, sun, and moon) and were used in combination with describing the student population (e.g., moderate mental retardation, severe disabilifies, and au- tism). A complete list of terms can be made available by the senior author. Based on the list of key terms, a lit- erature search was conducted using InfoTrac, Masterfile Premier, ERIC, PsychlNFO, and Academic Search Elite electronic databases.

A comprehensive list of 17 articles for teaching science content to students with severe disabilities was compiled, and all studies were retained for analysis. The odginal 11 studies from Courtade et al. also appeared in the new list that resulted from the current search. The list included the 11 studies from the Courtade et al. (2007) review based on their inclusion edteria, which was a clear focus on the acquisition of science skills with the exclusion of studies if the skill would not typically be taught within the general educafion classroom (e.g., crossing the street); however, safety skill instruction more closely aligned to what is taught in a general education classroom was included (e.g., verbally descdbe surround- ings when lost; relative posifion in physical science). The inclusion criteda for the six additional studies were based on the same criteda as Courtade et al., as well as the requirement of acquisifion of science skills aligned to general curriculum science standards. All studies from the prior review, as well as the new studies included in this review, met the following inclusion cdteda: (a) used a single-subject design that can demonstrate experimen- tal control, (b) published in a peer reviewed joumal in English between the years of 1985 and May 2009, (c) in- cluded at least one school-aged participant who could be classified as having a severe developmental disability (e.g., student has an 10 of 55 or below, and/or a partici- pant descdption of the student as having a severe devel- opmental disability), and (d) included an intervention which focused on teaching science content to the stu- dents, even if it was not the focus of the study (i.e., a study whieh evaluated embedded instruction across content areas). Studies were excluded based on the following:

(a) studies that included a science key term but did not measure a science skill as a dependent variable (e.g., a study that evaluated computer-assisted instruction to teach functional sight words), (b) studies that evaluated "par- ficipation" in science content if the reviewers could not determine an operafional definition of the skill from the article (e.g., participation according to the article meant listening to a lecture), and (c) studies in whieh the science skill under investigation would not generally be taught in a general education classroom (e.g., fire safety skills were excluded).

After a comprehensive list of the articles was deter- mined, we coded the studies using the OIs for single- subject design (Horner et al., 2005). The procedures used for this part of the coding process were similar to those used to evaluate the application of the Horner et al. Oís in the article on time delay by Browder et al. (2009). Although Horner et al. is the best available ed- teria for evaluating an EBP using single-subject studies, the OIs may need to be refined. For example. Cook, Tankersley, and Landrum (2009) asked special educa- fion scholars to apply the OIs to a group of empirical literature, and the reviewers had several recommenda- tions for changes. Reviewers recommended operation- ally defining the indicators, adding and deleting certain elements and weighting the OIs in order of signifi- cance. For example, Horner et al. (2005) recomtnend that within the participant description, studies should include the test(s) used to classify a student's disability. For purposes of this review, tests for classification were not considered to be an essential indicator of quality. In addition, for the social validity indicator, the import- ance of the dependent vadable eould either be described or inferred. The ability of a teaeher to implement the intervention was added to the cost-effective and prac- tical edteria, as this was determined to be indication of eost and practicality.

Second, each experiment was coded on the following: (a) the instruction used (i.e., the independent variable), (b) the specific response (i.e., dependent variable), (c) the science content standard (e.g., according to defini- tions and descriptions by the NSES, such as Science and Inquiry), (d) the person responsible for the primary instrucfion used in the study, (e) the context of the study (e.g., general education classroom), (f) training for gen- eralization and maintenance across settings, materials, and people, and (g) other benefits to instrucfion (e.g., promotion of self-determination and use of assistive and other technologies).

Using the coding form, experiments were read and coded by doctoral students in the dissertation phase of the special education program. There was one pdmary coder for each of the studies, and a second coder to determine reliability. After the studies were hand coded, the data were entered into a stafisfical database program (SPSS, 2004). Frequencies and types of each of the above study characteristics were calculated.

66 Spooner et al.

Table 1 QIs Identified in Science Literature

Indicator Spooner

et al, (1989)"

Marchand- Gast Martella Watson Winterling

et al, (1992)" et al, (1992) et al, (1992) et al, (1992)"

Browder Collins and and Shear

Stinson (1995)" (1996)"

Participants Described suffieiently Selection described sufficiently Setting Setting described sufficiently DV Described with replieable

precision Ouantifiable Measurement described to

replieable precision Measurement occurred

repeatedly Interobserver agreement data

reported IV Described with replieable

precision Systematically manipulated Procedural fidelity

described Baseline Procedures Phase provided evidence

of pattern, prior to intervention

Deseribed with replieable precision

Results Three demonstrations of

experimental effect Design controlled threats

to internal validity Effects replicated, indicate

external validity Social Validity DV socially important Magnitude of change in

DV due to intervention socially important

IV is cost effective/practical IV is implemented over

time, typical contexts/ typical agents

Indicators met/Total indicators

Y Y

20/20

7/7

Y Y

20/20

111

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

16/20

6/7

N N

Y N

N N

9/20

2/7

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

111

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

111

Y Y

20/20

7/7

Note. Y = yes. N = no. DV = dependent variable. IV = independent variable, " High quality of evidenee (as defined by NSTTAC). " Acceptable level of evidenee.

Determination of an EBP for Teaching Science After coding the studies, our objecfive was to deter-

mine if systematic instructional procedures implemented in the investigations could be considered as EBPs. The determinafion of whether systemafic instruction was an EBP was derived from the Horner et al. (2005) criteria using the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center's (NSTTAC, 2010; Test et al., 2009) decision rules for conducting a literature review. Accord- ing to NSTTAC, high-quality studies must meet all OIs,

whereas acceptable studies meet all OIs except Study 2 (participant selection). Study 11 (procedural fidelity), and one of Studies 17-20 (social validity).

In addition, the research team agreed that, to qualify as a quality study, the study had to meet all of the items listed under the indicator for results, graph, and design. In other words, the results indicator was considered crifi- cal. For example, a study would only qualify if all of the items under the results indicator were met (e.g., Marchand- Martella, Martella, Christensen, Agran. & Young, 1992).

Science Evidence-Based Practice 67

Table 1 (continued)

Collins and McDonnell Jameson Jameson Griffen Utley et al, Taber et al. Riesen et al, Taber et al, Agran et al. et al, Collins et al, et al, et al. (1996)" (2001) (2003)" (2003)" (2006)" (2(K)6)" (2007)" (2007)" (2008)"

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

111

Y N

Y Y

12/20

3/7

Y N

Y Y

19/20

6/7

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

7/7

Y N

Y Y

19/20

6/7

Y N

Y Y

19/20

6/7

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

7/7

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

19/20

111

Y Y

20/20

111

Y Y

20/20

111

When the "quality" studies (NSTTAC, 2010. Test et al,. 2009) were identified, they were then reviewed to determine if they met the criteria for an EBP according to Horner et al,: (a) the number of quality studies was at least 5, (b) the number of researchers represented in this set of experiments was at least 3. (c) the number of participants across this set of studies was at least 20, and (d) the number of geographic locations represented was at least 3, According to NSTTAC (2010) decision rules, single-subject designs have a "strong" level of evidence

of causal inference if (a) there are five high-quality studies (i,e,, studies that meet all QIs). (b) three inde- pendent research teams, (c) the studies demonstrate a functional relationship, and (d) there is no contradictory evidence from a study reflecting strong evidence. In ad- dition. NSTTAC notes that there is a "moderate" level of evidence of causal inference for a group of single- subject studies, which (a) include three high-quality or acceptable studies (i.e,. acceptable studies meet aU QIs except Studies 2 and 11 and one of Studies 10-17),

68 Spooner et al.

(b) have one to two independent research teams, and (c) must demonstrate a functional relationship.

Once the quality and acceptable studies were deter- mined, information for characteristics of only the quality studies was evaluated. To make the determination of whether the intervention used in the quality studies was evidence-based to teach science content, the researchers used the decision rules from NSTTAC, as described in the previous paragraph.

We analyzed the 17 studies. Of these, five studies were determined to have a "strong" level of evidence, and an additional nine appeared to meet a "moderate" level of evidence. These 14 studies were then considered to determine whether systematic instruction could be considered an EBP for teaching science content to students with severe disabilities. Once the experiments were read and coded, a table of indicators and studies meeting each indicator as shown in Table 1 was created (see Table 1).

Interrater Reliability on QIs and Characteristics of Studies

Interrater reliability was established on all of the 17 experiments included in the review. A doctoral stu- dent served as the second rater and independently coded the experiments. Each experiment was compared item- by-item recording agreements and disagreements. Inter- rater reliabihty was calculated for both the QIs according to Homer et al. (2005) as well as the descriptive findings of the studies. Through consensus, all disagreements were resolved. Mean interrater reliability for the QIs was 94.1%, with a range of 80-100% for individual items within an indicator. Mean interrater reliability for the descriptive findings of the studies was 97%, with a range of 85-100%.

Results

Quality of the Single-Subject Studies A total of 17 studies met the original inclusion criteria

for interventions on teaching science to students with severe developmental disabilities. Descriptive informa- tion on the QIs is included in Table 1. Of the original 17 studies, 14 studies were either high quality (i.e., five studies) or acceptable quality (i.e., nine studies) to be included in the subsequent analysis to determine if sys- tematic instruction should be considered an EBP for teaching science to students with severe disabilities. As can be observed from Table 1, 3 of the 17 studies (i.e., Marchand-Martella et al., 1992; Utiey et a l , 2001; Watson, Bain, & Houghton, 1992) did not qualify in the high- quality or acceptable quality range as either insufficient information about the study was available in the pub- lished report of the investigation (e.g., social validity, interobserver agreement) or there was an unclear dem- onstration of effect. We further analyzed the 14 studies in commenting on instruction components (independent and dependent variables), characteristics of the studies

(e.g., science standards addressed, person responsible for delivery of instruction, context of study), and methodo- logical limitations.

Instructional Cotnponents Independent variables

Of the quality and acceptable studies, all 14 were conducted using systematic instruction. For example, six studies used task analytic instruction (Browder & Shear, 1996; Gast, Winterling, Wolery, & Farmer, 1992; Spooner, Stem, & Test, 1989; Taber, Alberto, Hughes, & Seltzer, 2002; Taber, Alberto, Seltzer, & Hughes, 2003; Winterling, Gast, Wolery, & Farmer, 1992), seven used constant time delay (Collins & Griffen, 1996; Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, & Miller, 2007; Jameson et al., 2007, 2008; McDonnell et al., 2{X)6; Riesen et al., 2003; Winterling et al., 1992), and one used progressive time delay (CoUins & Stinson, 1995). Systematic instruc- tion embedded into a general education lesson was used in 5 of the 14 quality studies (Collins et al., 2007; Jameson et al., 2007, 2008; McDonnell et al., 2006; Riesen et al., 2003). Twelve of the 14 quality studies used multiple systemafic instruction strategies within the same interven- tion (e.g., task analytic instruction, least to most prompt- ing system, and verbal praise). Finally, no studies were located in which assistive technology was used.

Dependent variables Of the quality and acceptable studies, 7 of the 14 mea-

sured chained skills. For example, two studies focused on first aid skills (Gast et al., 1992; Spooner et al., 1989), one study on safety skills (Winterling et al., 1992), one study on weather-related sight words (Browder & Shear, 1996), two studies on mobility or assistance when lost in the community (Taber et a l , 2002, 2003), and one study on completing a task within a laboratory (Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 2006).

Of the quality and acceptable studies, 8 of the 14 mea- sured discrete skills. For example, two focused on reading product warning labels (Collins & Stinson, 1995; Collins & Griffen, 1996). Most studies (n = 5) included in the review focused on the acquisition of science-related vo- cabulary words and/or definitions (Agran et al., 2(X)6; Collins et al., 2007; Jameson et al., 2007,2008; McDonnell et al., 2006; Riesen et al., 2003).

Characteristics of the Study Science standards

Of the 14 quality and acceptable studies, six of the eight science standards outlined by the NSES (NRC, 1996) were found. One study was located in which unifying concepts, as defined by NSES, was included (Riesen et al., 2003). Six studies fell within the standards of physical science, three within the standard of life science (Agran et al., 2006; Jameson et al., 2008; McDonnell et al., 2006), and three within the standard of earth and space science (Browder & Shear, 1996; Collins et al., 2007;

Science Evidence-Based Practice 69

Jameson et al., 2007). Only one study included science as inquiry (Agran et al., 2006). Finally, no studies were found in which students were taught skills that fell within the science standards of science and technology or history and nature of science. Five of the 14 studies taught one or more skills that fell within more than one standard of science defined by NSES (Agran et al., 2006; CoUins et al., 2007: Jameson et al., 2007; McDonnell et al., 2006; Riesen et al., 2003).

Person responsible for the instruction Of the quahty and acceptable studies, multiple people

were responsible for instruction ranging from parapro- fessionals to peers (e.g.. Riesen et al., 2003; McDonnell et al., 2006). For example, 10 studies were located in which the special education teacher implemented in- struction (e.g., Browder & Shear, 1996; Gast et al., 1992; Taber et al., 2003), three in which the general educafion implemented instruction (Collins et al., 2007; Jameson et al., 2007; McDonnell et al., 2006), two in which taught by the paraprofessional (e.g., McDonnell et al., 2006; Riesen et al., 2003), and two in which a therapist (e.g., nurse, researcher) implemented the instrucfion (Spooner et al., 1989: Winterling et a l , 1992). In one study, the student was taught to self-monitor tbeir own science instruction (Agran et a l , 2006). Three studies were found in which peers were used to implement the independent variable (Agran et al., 2006; Collins et al., 2007; Jameson et al., 2008).

Context of the study Multiple studies (n = 10) involved teaching in two

contexts (e.g., general education classroom and special education classroom). Nine studies were implemented in the special education classroom and four within the community (e.g., Collins & Stinson, 1995; Collins et al., 2007). Six quality and acceptable studies were conducted within the general education classroom (Agran et al., 2006; Collins et al., 2007; Jameson et a l , 2007, 2008; McDonnell et al., 2006; Riesen et al., 2003). Additionally, science skills were taught in other school settings (e.g., computer laboratory) in 5 of the 14 quality studies (Browder & Shear, 1996; ColUns & Griffen, 1996; Taber et al., 2002, 2003; WinterUng et al., 1992).

Training for generalization and maintenance Generalization across materials was shown in nine

studies (Browder & Shear, 1996; Collins & Stinson, 1995; Collins et al., 2007; Gast et al., 1992; Jameson et al., 2007, 2008; Riesen et al., 2003; Spooner et a l , 1989; Winterling et al., 1992). Eight quality studies demonstrated general- izafion across people or settings (Collins & Stinson, 1995; Gast et al., 1992; Jameson et al., 2007; Spooner et a l , 1989; Taber et al., 2002, 2003). Ten of the 14 quality and acceptable studies included a measure of skill main- tenance (e.g., Agran et al., 2006; Spooner et al., 1989; Jameson et al., 2007).

Methodological Limitations There were a few methodological limitations found in

this review. First, researchers only provided a measure of procedural fidelity in 11 of the 14 studies (78.5%). Second, the magnitude of change in the dependent vari- able due to the intervenfion was determined to be so- cially important according to the author's analysis in only 8 of the 14 studies (57%). In most cases, this was primarily due to the fact that the authors did not include a formal measure of social validity. Finally, maintenance data were gathered in 11 of the 14 studies (78.5%).

As can be observed from Table 2, tbe 14 studies, which were of high and acceptable quality, yield support system- atic instruction as an EBP. In total, there were 10 re- searchers and 46 participants, and invesfigafions were conducted across six states to satisfy the Homer et al. (2005) criteria (number of researchers = 3, number of cumulative participants = 20, number of geographic loca- tions = 3). Table 2 depicts a breakdown of the study (e.g., author and year, independent variable, dependent vari- able, participants, location of tbe study; see Table 2).

Discussion The purpose of our work was to document the evi-

dence base for teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities by extending the origi- nal work conducted by Courtade and her colleagues through addressing the how, what, and why of science instruction in this new expanded review. First, we offer some guidance from the research on how to teach sci- ence through applying the Homer et al. (2005) QI crite- ria and NSTTAC (2010) guidelines for how to define an EBP. The outcomes of our analysis reveal that systematic instrucfion is an EBP to teach science content to stu- dents witb severe developmental disabilities.

How to Teach Science A closer examination of these outcomes suggests that

some components of systematic instruction may be espe- cially effective in tbe promotion of science skills. The strongest support was found for using task analytic in- struction to teach chained skills and for using time de- lay to teach discrete skills in science. A task analysis has been used to teach chained acfivity (e.g., application of first aid) that includes a science concept (e.g., preven- fion of infection). All criteria necessary to consider task analysis as evidence base were met based on the Horner et al. (2005) criteria (i.e., 5 studies, 3 researchers, 3 geo- graphical locafions, and 20 participants; see Table 2). Second, time delay was used to teach discrete skills in eight of the science studies (e.g., product warning labels, science vocabulary definitions), across three researchers in three geographical locations; however, the Horner et al. (2005) criteria for participants are not yet met (i.e., 18 participants). Five studies used embedded time delay instruction. Embedding systematic instruction (e.g., trials

70 Spooner et al.

.2 c u cg

on D. CO

II Q

u u li- li I

c c cd cd

"cd "cd C C

•oca

I o.

•s (U

ûi

£ 1

-a 2

4- H '^ CL. 2.^ ou c — V 3 0) ¿ V5 a?(U . c

£ oi) o

B -5

i. o

f S

^ — 00

i >, o 3

55 >

o-g) Si;?

.S H.

00 Ë •S o

H H H

J g K

I i h

c •

e ïï^ 8 -II

— c CO »..

O 0) <U w "K u 1.-

.a s - i

.•= o

c • 00 ¡a

^ 2 Ë ïd Cd D

•? - S o i ,

p c s ^'S. a ^^ a

I | - 5 i e o 3 8 • u "= i>i 1̂1 i '

.2 -u o c ^ ta .«i a .¡ï . CJ - J u tJ

C/5 t l . t/2 t/J

o. o

0) tj

: - D "

CO I D

p'Iip

T3 U

s. G" c tu .2

C/2 t/5 C/3 C/5 1/5 C/5

II f

Si I

Science Evidence-Based Practice 71

of science vocabulary leaming using time delay) is an especially appealing pracfice because it can be incorpo- rated during lessons in the general education science class Another option is the use of peers to promote science skills (e.g.. Collins et al.. 2007). Replications of these promising pracfices are needed to confirm their evidence base for science leaming.

When these practices for teaching science are com- pared to the recommendations of the NSES and the conceptual model shown in Figure 1. it is apparent that past science instruction has focused primarily on the student receiving information (e.g., vocabulary) or leam- itig a daily living skill that has some link to science (e.g,. community mobility with its link to spafial planning) rather than through the process of inquiry. Inquiry is both a process for teaching science as well as a set of skills students should acquire. In contrast, the process of inquiry is typically one in which the student discovers the concept and stems from a constructivist teaching philosophy (Flick & Lederman. 2004; Matthews. 1994; Tobin, 1993). At present, there is no research with stu- dents with severe developmental disabilities demonstrat- ing open-ended inquiry to be effecfive.

Instead, there is some emerging research showing that students with severe developmental disabilities may learn bow to learn through what science educators call directed inquiry. For example, Agran et al, (2006) taught three junior high school students with moderate to se- vere intellectual disabilities to successfully engage in stu- dent directed learning (e,g,, goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-instruction) to access tbe general curriculum. Al- though only one applicafion for this self-directed leaming model of instrucfion (SDLMI) was found that included some science learning, other studies applying SDLMI provide additional evidence for this approach (Agran. Blanchard. & Wehmeyer. 2000; Agran et al.. 2006; Wehmeyer. Palmer. Agran, Mithaug. & Martin. 2000). Some new studies (not in press at the time of this re- view) also provide emerging support that students with severe developmental disabilities can learn to use in- quiry. Courtade. Browder. Spooner. and DiBiase (2010) trained teachers to follow a task analysis to implement an inquiry-based lesson. As the teacher became more consistent in these steps, the students also increased their unprompted inquiry steps (e.g., to make a prediction). Jimenez. Browder. and Courtade (2009) evaluated the effects of a treatment package including multiple ex- emplar training, time delay, and a self-directed learning prompt (KWHL Chart) with three middle school stu- dents with moderate intellectual disabilities abihty. The KWHL Chart is a graphic organizer used to support the inquiry lesson by prompting four questions: (a) What do we know (K)? (h) What do we want to know (W)? (c) How do we find out (H)? And. what have we leamed (L)? The students not only learned to independently complete an inquiry lesson but generalized to untrained materials, concepts, and instructional setfing.

An important point to realize in considering these studies in which students with severe disabilities used inquiry is that, in each case, systematic instruction was applied for the students to master tbe self-directed leam- ing process. In Agran et al. (2006). the trainer modeled the goal setting, self-monitoring, or sell-instruction strat- egy, and tbe students had mulfiple opportunities to prac- tice with instructor cues as needed prior to applying the skill during general education activities. One important skill in Agran et al.'s work is that students learned to pose questions such as "What do I know about it now?" or "What can I do to make this happen?" In Jimenez et al. (2009), the instructor used a constant time delay procedure for the student to follow a KWHL Chart. Stu- dents generalized use of the chart to the general science class. When applying systematic instruction to teach stu- dents to use inquiry, some additional responses to teach tnight include making and confirming predictions, asking quesfions about a novel material or acfivity. or selecting a method to test a hypothesis.

Because systematic instruction has emerged as an EBP through this review and others on teaching academic con- tent (reading. Browder. Wakeman. Spooner, Ahlgrim- Delzell, & Algozzine. 2006; mathematics. Browder. Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell. Harris. & Wakeman. 2008, and science. Courtade et al., 2007). it is important to be clear in specifically defining tbe practice. Wolery et al. (1988) noted tbat systematic instruction is ba.sed on application of the principles of applied behavior analysis and that it also produces effecfive and generalized outcomes Most texts in severe disabilities describe planning tbese com- ponents of a systematic instruction plan: (a) defining a discrete or chained response to be measured as a demon- stration of leaming (i.e,. the objective), (b) using specific prompting and prompt fading procedures for the acquisi- fion of these responses (including reinforcement), and (c) planning for the generalization and maintenance of the response (Collins, 2007; Snell & Brown. 2(X)6; Westling & Fox, 2009),

What to Teach in Science In the earlier review by Courtade et al, (2007), most of

tbe studies were focused on teaching skills of daily living but also happened to overlap some science content. Al- though this continues to be an important goal and one way to approach science learning, tbe current review also provides emerging evidence that students with severe disabilities can leam science content derived from tbe general curriculum. One important aspect of this content is acquiring the vocabulary to be able to communicate science leaming. Some of tbe new studies bave focused on vocabulary that are multisyllabic like "precipitafion" (Collins et al., 2007) and are abstract terms like "solid" (Jameson et al., 2007), Besides learning to recognize the word itself, it is also important to demonstrate that stu- dents have some understanding of the concept it repre- sents. One way to do this is to have students define the

72 Spooner et al.

words (Jameson et al,, 2007; McDonneU et al,, 2006), Another option is to have students demonstrate under- standing of the concept through an experiment (Jimenez et al,, 2009), Teaching students to idendfy concepts through hands-on activities is especially important to promote opportunities for inquiry and to ensure generalization beyond rote learning of terms. As this review reveals, research is only now emerging on how to teach students to engage in experiments (e,g,, Agran et a l , 2006; Jimenez et al,. 2009), In contrast, students demonstrat- ing concept learning through the use of hands-on sci- ence has been used in several studies for students with high incidence disabilities (Palincsar. CoUins. Marono. & Magnusson, 20CK); Palincsar. Magnusson, CoUins. & Cutter, 2001; Scruggs & Mastropied. 1995),

Besides focusing on both vocabulary and concept leaming, consideration needs to be given to teaching the breadth of the science standards. These standards typi- cally will be derived from the general curriculum for the student's grade. More recent studies on science are ex- panding the scof)e of science standards addressed and perhaps refiect the influence of NCLB to address sci- ence learning. Most studies in the Courtade et al, (2007) review addressed the science standard personal and social perspectives (e,g,, health, safety). Recent studies evaluated skiUs linked to a broader range of science stan- dards, including unifying concepts (e,g,, Jameson et al,, 2007; Riesen et al,, 2003), physical science (e,g,. Riesen et al,. 2003; Taber et al,. 2002). life science (e,g,, Agran et al,, 2006; McDonnell et al,. 2006). and earth and space science (e,g,, Jameson et al,. 2007),

Why Teach Science Teaching science to students with severe disabilides

so that they can learn the content is not the primary reason for teaching science content. One important rea- son is to provide a full educational opportunity. One of the encouraging trends in the research on science for students with severe disabilities is that so many of the studies were conducted in general education settings or included generalization to a general science class. Six studies were conducted within the general educa- don classroom (Agran et al,, 2006; Collins et al,, 2007; Jameson et al,, 2007. 2008; McDonneU et a l . 2006; Riesen et a l , 2003), Multiple studies (n = 10) involved teaching in two contexts (e,g,. general education class- room and special education classroom),

A second reason may be to promote leaming of skiUs needed to function fully and safely in the community. For example, two studies focused on first aid skills (Gast et al,, 1992; Spooner et a l , 1989). one study on safety skills (Winterling et a l . 1992), and two studies on mobility or assistance when lost in the community (Taber et a l , 2(X)2. 2003), One of the current challenges in teaching students with severe disabilities is balancing the demands of the general curriculum with needs students may have to leam life skiUs that may be underemphasized or over-

looked in general curriculum. Science may provide a con- text in which students can build on conceptual leaming to practice funcdonal activides that incorporate these con- cepts. For example, while leaming about chemical re- actions, students may practice safety skills. While leaming about microbes, students may pracdce certain health habits.

In our conceptual model, we propose a third reason, which stems from the literature on why aU students leam science (NRC. 1996), that is, to promote wonder and un- derstanding about the natural world. Although "wonder" can be a difficult concept to define and measure, to the extent that students can ask quesdons, make predictions, pose hypotheses, and engage in relevant conversations, they are beginning to explore the natural world. This reason for science leaming is not well reflected in the literature on science leaming, although there have been some studies in which students did some self-directed exploration (e,g,. Agran et a l . 2006) or demonstrated conceptual understanding (e,g,, Jameson et a l , 2007), One way to promote the benefits of science learning would be to prioridze skills that teach students how to learn about their natural world so that even after graduation students continue to have ways to explore their world. In future research, students might leam to choose what to invesdgate (e,g,, selecting a picture for a topic), explore the topic (e,g,. through hands-on experiment or Internet exploration), make comparisons about this phenomena (e,g,. selecting terms to use to describe it), and report findings to the group (e,g,. using new vocabulary).

Recommendations for Future Research and Practice Recommendations for future research

Overall, the research on teaching science to students with severe disabilities is sdll a smaU collection of studies. Much more research is needed in this area of content leaming, AUhough there are muldple studies teaching daily living or community skills with some overlap to sci- ence, more research is needed in which the specific sci- ence concept to be learned in these activities is more clearly defined. For example, could a student learn to identify some of the characteristics of simple machines through a series of cooking activities using appliances to present these concepts, or could a student learn to iden- tify the boiling point of water during a cooking activity?

A second area for future research is to build on the research showing students can learn science vocabulary and its meaning (definitions) by demonstrating that stu- dents can recognize the concept in a hands-on activity. For example, can the student identify solids, liquids, and gases in everyday materials? Third, much more re- search is needed on teaching the concepts of science. One way to approach this leaming is through the use of more hands-on activities such as science experiments. This can also promote studying the process of inquiry and the goal of students gaining understanding about their natural world. Whereas students may not retain all

Science Evidence-Based Practice 73

of the specific science content (e.g., what is a solute?), if they have learned how to explore materials and pose questions, these may produce lifelong learning. Finally, studies should include formal measures of social validity to help demonstrate the value of the science outcomes achieved to the students with disabilities and other stake- holders (e.g., parents and teachers).

Recommendations for practice Systematic instruction (e.g., constant time delay and

task analytic instruction) was found in this review to be an evidence-based strategy for teaching science skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. Suc- cessful practice will likely include the components of systematic instruction beginning with defining a measur- able set of responses to be learned. These may include science vocabulary terms, science concept statements, and inquiry responses such as posing questions, making predictions, and conducting experiments. To teach these skills, systematic prompting can be applied. We especially recommend the use of time delay to teach the science vocabulary terms and definitions or concept statements related to the words. The steps to conduct an experi- ment might be taught through the use of a task analysis. Teachers should target the instruction of more com- plex science skills (e.g., such as the water cycle or self- direction of an inquiry based science lesson), in addition to fact-based skills (e.g., safety skills, vocabulary, and definitions). TTiese systematic prompfing strategies can be embedded in the general education lesson. It will be important to plan for the generalization and main- tenance of these skills. For example, it is important to teach and test the identification of concepts across materials and activities. Whereas the research reviewed provides a fundamental beginning point for science in- struction for this population, teachers will need to create applications of systematic instruction to cover the breadth and depth of science content.

Summary Science provides a unique content area for students

to learn how to direct their own learning. If inquiry is the priority of focus, students may begin to cultivate wonder and understanding about the natural world. Al- though this is a future goal, current research provides a model for applying systematic instruction primarily to fact-based skills like science vocabulary. Using system- atic instruction in science is an EBP. What is needed now is research demonstrating that these principles can be applied to more complex science concepts and to promote generalized inquiry skills.

References

Agran, M., Blanchard, C , & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). Promot- ing transition goals atid self-determination through student

*Indicates experiments included in the analysis.

self-directed learning: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Education und Training in Mental Relanialion and Developmental Disabilities, 35. 351-364.

*Agran. M., Cavin. M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the self-determined learning model of instruction. Research and Practice for Per- son with Severe Disabilities. 31. 230-241.

Bannerman. D. J., Sheldon. J. B.. Sherman, J. A.. & Harchik. A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with develop- mental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23. 79-89.

Brantlinger. E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson. V. (2(K)5). Qualitative studies in special educa- tion. Exceptional Children. 71. 197-207.

Browder. D. M., Ahlgrim-Debell. L.. Spoonor. F , Mims. P J.. & Baker, J. N. (2(K)9). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children. 75. 343-364.

*Browder, D. M.. & Shear, S. M. (1996). Interspersal of known items in a treatment package to teach sight words to students with behavior disorders. The Journal of Special Education. 29, 400-413.

Browder. D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell. L.. Harris, A., & Wakeman. S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathe- matics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Excep- tional Children. 74. 407-432.

Browder, Q M., Wakeman. S. Y. Sptxjner. F, Ahlgrim-Delzell. L.. & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children. 72, 392-408.

Brown, F. (1991). Creative daily scheduling: A noninstrusive approach to challenging behavior in community residences. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 23. 17-26.

Brown. F , & Lehr. D. (1993). Making activities meaningful for students with severe multiple disabilities. TEACHING Excep- tional Children. 25. 12-16.

Chard, D. J.. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K.. Doabler, C , & Apichatabutra, C (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children. 75. 263-281.

Collins. B. C. (2007). Moderate and severe disabilities: A founda- tional approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/ Prentice-Hall.

•Collins. B. C , Evans. A., Creech-Galloway, C, Karl. J., & Miller, A. (2007). Comparison of the acquisition and main- tenance of the teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 22. 220-233.

»Collins, B. C , & Griffen. K. A. (1996). Teaching students with moderate disabilities to make safe responses to prod- uct warning labels. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 30-45.

»Collins, B. C . & Stinson. D. M. (1995). Teaching generalized reading of product warning labels to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key words. Exceptionality. 5, 163-181.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley. M., & Landrum, T J. (2009). Deter- mining evidence-based practices in special education. Excep- tional Children. 75. 365-383.

Cooper-Duffy, K., & Perlmutter. D. G. (2006). Developing math and science skills in general education contexts. In D. M. Browder & F Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabil- ities (pp. 245-276). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Courtade, G. R., Browder, D. M., Spooner, ¥., & DiBiase, W. (2010). Training teachers to use an inquiry-based task analysis

74 Spooner et al.

to teach science to students with moderate and severe dis- abilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45. 378-399.

Courtade. G., Spooner, F , & Browder, D. M. (2007). Review of studies with students witb significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe DLiabilities, 32, 43-49.

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.) (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications.

*Gast, D. L., WinterUng, V, Wolery, M., & Farmer, J. A. (1992). Teaching first-aid skills to students witb moderate handi- caps in small group instruction. Education & Treatment of Children, 15, 101-124.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton. D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group ex- perimental and quasi-experimental research in special educa- tion. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G.. Halle, J.. McGee, G., Qdom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). Tbe use of single-subject researcb to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Excep- tional Children, 71, 165-180.

•Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Riesen, T., & Polycbronis, S. (2001). A comparision of one to one embedded instruction in tbe general education classroom and one to one massed practice instruction in tbe special education classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 2 3 ^ 4 .

*Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. (2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellec- tual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346-363.

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. (2009). An exploratory study of self-directed science concept learn- ing by students witb moderate intellectual disabilities. Re- search and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 3 3 ^ 6 .

Lane, K. L.. Kalberg, J. R., & Shepcard, J. C. (2009). An ex- amination of tbe evidence base for functional-tjased interven- tions for students witb emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and bigb scbools. Exceptional Children, 75, 321-340.

Marcband-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C , Cbristensen, A. M., Agran, M., & Young, K. R. (1992). Teaching a first-aid skill to students witb disabilities using two training programs. Edu- cation & Treatment of Children, 15, 15-31.

Mattbews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

*McDonnelI, J.. Johnson, J., Polycbronis, S., Riesen, T., & Kercher, K. (2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded in- struction in general education classes with small group in- struction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125-138.

McDonnell, J. J., & Q'Neill, R. (2003). A perspective on single/ witbin subject researcb methods and "scientifically based researcb." Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 138-142.

National Researcb Council. (1996). National science education standards. Wasbington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2010). Decision rules. Retrieved from: bttp://www.nsttac.org/ ebp/LiteratureReview.aspx.

No Cbild Left Bebind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.l425(2002).

Qdom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Tbompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Researcb in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.

Palincsar, A. S., Collins, K., Marono, N., & Magnusson, S. J. (20(K)). Investigating tbe engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 31, 240-251.

Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a de- sign experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 15-32.

*Riesen, T., McDonnell, J., Jobnson, J. W., Polycbronis, S., & Jameson, M. (2003). A comparison of time delay and simultaneous prompting witbin embedded instruction in general education classes witb students witb moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education. 12. 241-260.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Science and stu- dents witb mental retardation: An analysis of curriculum features and learner characteristics. Science Education, 79, 251-271.

Siegel-Causey, E., McMorris, C , McGowen, S., & Sands-Buss, S. (1998). In junior bigb you take earth science: Including a student witb severe disabilities into an academic class. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31, 66-72.

Snell, M. E. (Ed.) (1983). Systematic instruction of the mod- erately and severely handicapped (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (Eds.) (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6tb ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Spooner, F, & Browder, D. M. (2003). Scientifically based researcb in education and students witb low incidence dis- abilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Dis- abilities, 28, lV-125.

Spooner, F, DiBiase, W, & Courtade-Little, G. (2006). Sci- ence standards and finding tbe links. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, á science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 229-244). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

»Spooner, F , Stem, B., & Test, D. W. (1989). Teacbing first aid skills to adolescents wbo are moderately mentally handi- capped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 341-351.

SPSS, Inc. (2004). SPSS for Windows (Rel.13.0) [Computer soft- ware]. Cbicago: Autbor.

Stokes, T. F, & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

»Taber, T. A., Alberto. P A., Hughes, M., & Seltzer, A. (2002). A strategy for students witb moderate disabilities wben lost in the community. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 141-152.

»Taber, T. A., Alberto, P. A., Seltzer, A., & Hugbes, M. (2003). Obtaining assistance wben lost in tbe community using cell phones. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Dis- abilities, 28, 105-116.

Test, D. W, Fowler, C. H., Ricbter, S. M., Wbite, J., MazzoUi, V, Walker, A. R., et al. (2009). Evidence-based practice in sec- ondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Indi- viduals, 32, 115-128. doi: 10.1177/0885728809336859

Test, D. W, Ricbter, S., Knigbt, V, & Spooner, F (2010). A com- prehensive review and meta-analysis of tbe social stories litera- ture. Focus on Auti.'im and Other Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication, doi: 10.1177/1088357609351573

Tobin, K. G. (Ed.) (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.

»Utley, C. A., Reddy, S. S.. Delquadri, J. C , Greenwood, C. R., Mortweet, S. L., & Bowman, V. (2001). Classwide peer tutor- ing: An effective teacbing procedure for facilitating tbe ac- quisition of bealtb education and safety facts witb students

Science Evidence-Based Practice 75

with developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children. 24. 1-27.

•Watson, M., Bain, A., & Houghton, S. (1992). A preliminary study in teaching self-protective skills to children with mod- erate and severe mental retardation. The Journal of Special Education. 26. 181-194.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The self- determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Chil- dren. 66, 439-453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disahilities. Exceptional Chil- dren, 63. 245-255.

Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching stttdents with .severe di.sabitities (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

»Winterling, V., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Farmer, J. A. (1992). Teaching safety skills to high school students with moder- ate disahilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 217-227.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teach- ing: Principles and procedure of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Received: May 10, 2010 Final Acceptance: March 1, 2011 Editor in Charge: David Westling

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.