Reflections of Educators in Pursuit of Inclusive Science Classrooms Susan A. Kirch Elementary 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; e-mail: mary.bargerhuff@wright.edu Heidi Cowan Department of Biological Sciences c/o CLASS, Wright State University, 235A Biological Sciences Building, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA; e-mail: [email protected]Michele Wheatly College of Science and Mathematics, Wright State University, 134 Oelman Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA; e-mail: [email protected]General edu cati on scie nce teachers are mee ting incr eas ingl y dive rse class- roo ms of stud ent s that include studen ts with disabil ities . A one -wee k, sum- me r, res ide nti al works hop was offe red to interes ted science and spe cia leducato rs who worked thro ugh lab experime nts one-on-one with stud ents 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 surve y and re flec tive jou rna l entrie s was use d to monit or participants experience. Here we discuss the findings from this benchmark stu dy and dis cuss how others mi ght adapt thi s pro fe ssi onal devel opmen t 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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
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’’,
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,
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 : a l l c a t e g o r i e
s
T i n a
S c i E d
N o
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 : a l l c a t e g o r i e
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
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 .
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-
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.’’
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