Science Instruction for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Page 1

http://rse.sagepub.com/Remedial and Special Education

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/10/0741932513503557The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0741932513503557

published online 11 October 2013Remedial and Special EducationWilliam J. Therrien, Jonte C. Taylor, Sarah Watt and Erica R. Kaldenberg

Science Instruction for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Remedial and Special EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Oct 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Iowa Libraries on October 17, 2013rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 2

Remedial and Special EducationXX(X) 1 –13© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0741932513503557rase.sagepub.com

Article

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are characterized by a range of non-academic and academic behavioral problems (Lane, Wehby, & Barton-Arwood, 2005). Studies have shown that students with EBD make less academic progress, earn lower grades, and have more disciplinary referrals than students in any other disability categories (Bradley, Henderson, & Monfore, 2004; Wagner et al., 2003). Until recently, interventions for students with EBD have primarily addressed non-academic difficulties (Dunlap & Childs, 1996; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002). These non-academic difficulties include externaliz-ing and internalizing behaviors that impact students’ abili-ties to relate to teachers and peers, utilize problem-solving skills, and follow classroom and school rules.

One reason why interventions for students with EBD tar-get non-academic behavior is to improve student behavior to the point that they can be educated in general education settings alongside their non-disabled peers (Furlong, Morrison, & Jimerson, 2004). With the increased emphasis of placing students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that came with the amendments to the Individuals With Disabilities Act in 1997 (IDEA, 1997), approximately 80% of students with EBD are currently receiving most of their core instruction in the general education setting (Gaylord, Quinn, McComas, & Lehr, 2005). These chang-ing factors combined with the large gaps in students’ with EBD academic achievement in core content areas (Lane,

2004) has resulted in academic instruction for students with EBD, particularly in regular education settings, coming to the forefront.

The recent research that has focused on academic instruction for students with EBD has found that targeting academic outcomes often leads to non-academic behavioral improvements. For instance, Lane (2004) conducted a review of research that looked at academic instruction for students with EBD. She examined a total of 26 studies including 14 studies in the area of reading, 11 in math, and 1 in writing. In general, Lane (2004) found that academic focused intervention studies reported both positive effects on students with EBD academic achievement and on non-academic behaviors.

Despite the increased focus on academic instruction for students with EBD, one area that has yet to receive much attention is classroom science instruction. The lack of atten-tion to science instruction is unfortunate and may put stu-dents with EBD at a distinct disadvantage to acquire critical

503557 RSEXXX10.1177/0741932513503557Remedial and Special EducationTherrien et al.research-article2013

1University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA2The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA3Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:William J. Therrien, University of Iowa, N254 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52241, USA. Email: [email protected]

Science Instruction for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

William J. Therrien, PhD1, Jonte C. Taylor, PhD2, Sarah Watt, PhD3, and Erica R. Kaldenberg, MA1

AbstractThis review examined classroom science instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). A total of 11 group and single-subject studies were analyzed. Across all group studies, a conservatively calculated mean effect size of .471 was obtained indicating the interventions as a whole had at least a small to moderate impact on students’ with EBD achievement. Findings were further analyzed by student characteristics, intervention type, dependent measures utilized, and study variables. A significant result of these subanalyses indicates that while additional research is needed, students with EBD may benefit from inquiry approaches provided the method implemented includes enough structure to ensure student engagement. Results also suggest that mnemonic instruction is highly effective at increasing students’ with EBD knowledge and retention of science facts.

Keywordsacademic achievement, general education, curriculum, evidence-based practice, emotional and behavioral disorders, exceptionalities, science, instruction

Page 3

2 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

knowledge and skills. The United States Department of Labor predicts there will be tremendous job growth in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) related fields over the next 20 years (Terrell, 2007). Furthermore, they note that even the lowest paying voca-tions in STEM fields pay a livable wage (Terrell, 2007). Therefore, professionals that provide educational program to students with EBD must ensure their students master basic competencies in science if they hope to equip them with the skills needed in the 21st century.

Approaches to Teaching Science

Traditionally, science instruction in general education class-rooms used textbook or lecture style presentations as the main instructional method. Both these instructional types can be problematic for students with EBD as they often have limited content knowledge, difficulty connecting prior knowledge to new information, and poor academic motiva-tion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2000a). In recent years, the field of science education has promoted the use of inquiry-based science instruction as the preferred instructional method as it replicates typical science practices (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1997; National Science Teachers Association Board of Directors, 2004).

The most recent review of literature regarding students with EBD and science instruction was conducted by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1995). In their review, they categorized interventions used into two broad groups: activities-oriented and content-oriented approaches. Hands-on and discovery learning strategies are the primary instructional modes included under activities-oriented approaches (i.e., inquiry) to teaching science (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995). Unfortunately, the term inquiry-based instruction has not been clearly defined and its instructional components vary widely across studies (Klahr & Li, 2005). While the specific features of inquiry instruction may differ across approaches, the National Research Council (2012) in the recent frame-work on K–12 science education clearly defines common components found within inquiry-based instruction. These components include practices with an emphasis on data, evi-dence as a foundation for claims, and the use of argumenta-tion and analysis of evidence to develop ideas about science. It is also reasonable to conclude that all inquiry approaches include the use of hands-on learning in combination with these other instructional components. All inquiry approaches can generally be located along a continuum from pure dis-covery approaches that are completely student directed to teacher directed approaches (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007).

Unfortunately, the impact of inquiry-based instruction for students specifically with EBD is unclear. It may be pos-sible that the hands-on aspect of inquiry-based instruction increases the motivation for EBD students to stay engaged. If this were true, students with EBD would benefit

academically. On the other side though, it may be possible that the reduced structure associated with inquiry approaches could decrease time-on-task behavior. This lack of structure could in turn result in lower academic achievement for stu-dents with EBD.

Although few researchers have examined the efficacy of science interventions for students with disabilities, Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, and Gorsh (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of science instruction for students with learn-ing disabilities (LD). They found that (a) teacher directed inquiry-based instruction and (b) mnemonics were effective at improving science-related outcomes for students with LD. Therefore, to expand on this research, the purpose of this review was to synthesize the efficacy of classroom sci-ence instruction for students with EBD. Utilizing the analy-sis framework developed by Therrien and colleagues (2011), we specifically sought to answer the following questions: (a) What classroom based instructional methods are effective at increasing the science achievement of stu-dents with EBD? (b) What additional science intervention study characteristics produce higher effect size (ES) for stu-dents with EBD?

Method

Literature Search

Prior to looking for articles, we formed search criteria for the studies that would be considered for review. Articles must have been (a) published in a peer review journal in 1980 or later (b) focused on classroom-based interventions in the area of science. Classroom based interventions were defined as core or supplemental instruction that enhanced students’ knowledge of science concepts and was not geared solely toward improving reading skills, (c) was experimental or quasi-experimental (including both group and single-subject designs) in nature, and (d) included school-aged (i.e., Grades K–12) participants with EBD as subjects (results did not have to be disaggregated for subjects with EBD).

All studies from three previous literature reviews on sci-ence education and students with disabilities were initially collected (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995). Next, a search of ERIC and PsycINFO was completed dating from 1995 to 2010 using keywords: science and emotional disturbance; science and emotional disorder*; science and behavior* disorder*; science and exceptional children; science and special education. A hand-search of the following journals from 2005 to 2010 was also conducted: Behavioral Disorders, Exceptional Children, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Journal of Special Education, and Science Education. These search methods produced 34 articles that met our initial criteria.

Page 4

Therrien et al. 3

The 34 articles were then reviewed in more depth to ensure they met the inclusion criteria and to determine whether they were amenable to meta-analysis techniques. Through the review process, we excluded 23 articles. Eight of these articles were excluded because they did not evalu-ate a science intervention (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002; Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998; McFarland & Shepard, 1995; Pomplun, 1997, 1998; Rogevich & Perin, 2008; Scruggs & Marsing, 1987; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Veit, & Osguthorpe, 1986). Another 6 articles were excluded because they did not include stu-dents with EBD (Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1992; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Butcher, 1997; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Whittaker, & Bakken, 1994; Nolet & Tindal, 1994; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Sullivan, & Hesser, 1993). Eight more articles were excluded because they were conceptual or qualitative articles (Okilwa & Shelby, 2010; Parmar, Deluca, & Janczak, 1994; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 2000a, 2000b). The MacDougall, Schnur, Berger, and Vernon (1981) article was excluded because the presentation of data was not condu-cive for calculating an ES.

After completing this review process, 11 articles were identified as meeting all inclusion criteria (Bay, Staver, Bryan, & Hale, 1992; Bowman-Perrott, 2009; Bowman-Perrott, Greenwood, & Tapia, 2007; Cavanaugh, Heward, & Donelson, 1996; Kern, Bambara, & Fogt, 2002; King-Sears, Mercer, & Sindelar, 1992; Mastropieri, Emerick, & Scruggs, 1988; Mastropieri et al., 1998; Mastropieri et al., 2006; McCarthy, 2005; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Sullivan, 1994). However, the Bowman-Perrott (2009) article was excluded because it reported on the same data set as the Bowman-Perrott et al. (2007) article. Therefore, a total of 10 articles that included 11 studies (group, n = 8; single subject, n = 3) were analyzed.

Coding

For the purpose of analysis, the articles were then coded for seven criteria. Random assignment indicated whether the subjects were randomly assigned to experimental groups (0 = non-random, 1 = random, 2 = single subject). EBD bro-ken down indicated whether the results of students with EBD were analyzed separately (0 = no, 1 = yes). Grade level of subjects was identified and coded for each study. Intervention types were coded as either inquiry instruction, supplemental-mnemonic instruction, or supplemental-non-mnemonic instruction (0 = inquiry instruction, 1 = mne-monic instruction, 3 = supplemental other than mnemonics). Intervention duration was recorded in number sessions. Intervention location was coded as regular education or special education (0 = regular education, 1 = special educa-tion). Dependent measures were coded as immediate (i.e.,

measure taken right after instruction), delayed (i.e., mea-sure taken after a delay between instruction and assess-ment), generalization (i.e., measure that did not test the same content as that covered in the instructional sessions), or behavior (i.e., non-academic measure of students engage-ment or disengagement during instructional sessions; 0 = immediate, 1 = delayed, 2 = generalization, 3 = behavior).

The studies (n = 11) in the final sample were concur-rently coded by four raters. Any disagreements were recon-ciled during the coding sessions with the reconciled codes used in the subsequent analyses.

ES Calculations

Group studies. For the group studies, the standardized mean difference between treatment and control group was calcu-lated. Depending on the statistical information provided in the article, the standardized mean difference was calculated in one of the following four ways (Therrien et al., 2011): (a) Using treatment and control groups’ means and standard deviations, (b) using t-values from independent t test results, (c) using F-values from analysis of variance (ANOVA) results, (d) using the mean square errors (MSE) and pretest–posttest correlations for calculating the pooled SD and then using the standard formula listed in (a) above to determine the ES for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results. Miss-ing correlations were estimated using a conservative esti-mate of .7 as higher correlations lead to lower ESs and all known correlations were in the .4 to .5 range. Across group studies, a total of 21 ESs were calculated.

After the standardized mean differences were calculated, each was scaled to Hedges’s g to account for the overesti-mation that occurs when calculating ES using studies with small sample sizes (Hedges, 1981). Standard errors (SE) and weights (w) were determined so that an accurate model of the effects in the analysis could be produced (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

Finally, if a study had more than one ES per dependent measure category (e.g., two immediate dependent mea-sures), the smaller ES value was used. Although we report the average overall, immediate, delayed, generalization, and behavioral ESs, the most conservative immediate mea-sure was used to analyze the specific study components (e.g., intervention type).

Single-subject studies. To evaluate the efficacy of the single-subject research studies, we calculated two indices: the per-centage of non-overlapping data (PND) and the percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND). PND represents the percent of the intervention data points that surpass the high-est baseline data point (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987). To calculate PND, it is necessary to determine the highest (or lowest depending on the intervention) data point in the baseline phase (Phase A) and how many data points

Page 5

4 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

in the intervention phase (Phase B) exceed this point. The PND for the subject is the percent of data points in the inter-vention phase that are higher than the highest data point in the baseline phase. When evaluating PNDs, Scruggs et al. (1987) suggest that the most effective interventions have a PND greater than 70, mildly effective interventions have a PND between 50 and 70, and interventions with no observ-able differences have a PND less than 50.

The percent of all non-overlapping data (PAND) explains the percent of all data remaining after removing the mini-mum number of data points which would eliminate all data overlap between Phase A and Phase B (Parker, Hagan-Burke, & Vannest, 2007). Both PND and PAND examine the non-overlapping data points between phases, but as Parker and colleagues (2007) explain, “PAND uses all data from both phases, avoiding criticism leveled at PND for wastefulness and overemphasis on one unreliable data point” (p. 196). To calculate PAND, the total number of points that overlap are divided by the total number of points in the phases. If these points were removed, the lines con-necting the data points in each phase would be completely separate. For the most effective interventions, Parker et al. (2007) found PND and PAND to be very similar with num-bers greater than 50 demonstrating moderate effects and numbers closer to 100 showing the most effective interven-tions. Finally, to calculate the study indices, we calculated PND and PAND for each subject within each study. Then we took the average of the subject PNDs and PANDs to give us the ESs for the study.

Analysis

Usually in meta-analyses, once ESs are calculated, single and group study results are scaled to a comparable statistic and statistical techniques such as modified weighted regres-sion (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) or Hedges (1982) analog to ANOVA are conducted. In this situation, however, tech-niques such as these were inappropriate due to the limited number of studies included in the analysis. Instead, we uti-lized an approach similar to Slavin’s (1986) Best Evidence Synthesis by investigating the research questions by exam-ining the weighted means and confidence intervals for group studies and the mean PAND and mean PND indices (both indices separately) from each single-subject study. Moreover, to provide a deeper contextual perspective of the studies reviewed, we describe the studies descriptively by instructional type (inquiry, mnemonic, supplemental instruction non-mnemonic).

Results

Overall Effects

The purpose of this article was to examine classroom-based science instruction for students with EBD. A total of

11 studies published between 1980 and 2010 were reviewed. Across all group studies using the most conser-vative immediate, delayed, generalization, and behavior measure for each study, a mean ES of .471 (SE = .077) was calculated for the group studies (n = 8) indicating the interventions as a whole had at least a small to moderate positive effect on students’ with EBD achievement in sci-ence (small effect, ES = below .50; medium effect, ES = .50-.80; and large effect, ES = above .80; Cohen, 1988). The single-subject studies were not aggregated due to the small number of studies (n = 3), but instead were analyzed individually at the study level. For these studies, a PND and a PAND range of 50 to 100 was obtained indicating a minimal to a high effect.

In addition to the overall ES, ESs were also calculated for immediate, delayed, and generalization dependent mea-sures. This procedure produced a total of 22 ESs. Immediate measures accounted for 64% of the dependent measures implemented across studies. The mean ES across immedi-ate measures was .567. Delayed measures accounted for 32% of the dependent measures utilized. The mean ES for the delayed measures was .820. Two generalization mea-sures were implemented in the studies reviewed. The mean ES for the generalization measures were .254. Only one group study (McCarthy, 2005) implemented a behavioral measure, which obtained an ES of .080. Descriptions of the dependent variables are reported in Table 1.

Comparison of Instructional Strategies

Inquiry instruction. A total of four studies compared tradi-tional instruction (e.g., textbook based with lecture) to inquiry instruction. Each inquiry treatment condition included (a) hands-on instructional activities and (b) teacher directed experiments conducted by the student. The group studies (n = 3) that fell into this category pro-duced an immediate mean ES of .844, and the one single subject produced a mean PND of 93.75% and a PAND of 57.5%. The ESs for each individual inquiry study are reported in Table 1.

Two of the four studies in this category compared inquiry instruction to a control condition that relied heavily on the science textbook for content knowledge acquisition. In addition to using the text, Mastropieri and colleagues (1998) also incorporated teacher presentation, guided practice, class discussion, and videotapes to instruct students in the textbook condition. While in the inquiry instruction condi-tion, Mastropieri and colleagues modified the curriculum and materials to meet the needs of the students and students were given time for group work, observation, and reflec-tion. The intervention took place 3 days a week for 7 weeks, and resulted in students in the activities-based classroom scoring significantly higher than students in the textbook condition on the academic multiple choice, performance, and elaboration post-tests.

Page 6

5

Tab

le 1

. C

hara

cter

istic

s of

Qua

lifyi

ng S

tudi

es.

Art

icle

Sam

ple

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Effe

ct s

ize

Pa

rtic

ipan

tsG

rade

sA

ssig

nmen

tES

(SE

) / P

ND

Inqu

iry

(n =

4)

Ba

y, S

tave

r, B

ryan

, and

Hal

e

(19

92)

Dat

a pr

ovid

ed t

o lo

ok

only

at

stud

ents

with

EB

D

107

tota

l 6

with

EBD

4

in d

isco

very

2

in d

irec

t in

stru

ctio

n

4–6

Stud

ents

wer

e in

stru

cted

in

smal

l gro

ups

outs

ide

the

gene

ral

educ

atio

n se

ttin

g

Ran

dom

ly a

ssig

ned

to

cond

ition

sIm

med

iate

pos

t-te

st

20 q

uest

ions

T

rue

and

fals

e

Mul

tiple

cho

ice

M

atch

ing

2.51

9 (1

.004

)

Del

ayed

pos

t-te

st

Sam

e as

imm

edia

te

Adm

inis

tere

d 2

wee

ks la

ter

1.71

2 (.8

51)

Gen

eral

izat

ion

test

2

wee

ks la

ter

−0.

330

(.699

)

K

ern,

Bam

bara

, and

Fog

t (2

002)

6 to

tal

All

stud

ents

with

EB

D

Age

s 13

–14

Mid

dle

scho

ol

alte

rnat

ive

sett

ing

ABA

B de

sign

C

lass

es a

cted

as

thei

r ow

n co

ntro

l

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e en

gage

d ob

serv

ers

rota

ted

betw

een

10-s

inte

rval

s fo

r

1 m

in p

er s

tude

nt fo

r an

ave

rage

of

28 m

in p

er le

sson

PND

87.

5%

PAN

D 7

5%

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e de

stru

ctiv

e be

havi

or d

id n

ot o

ccur

PND

100

%PA

ND

40%

M

astr

opie

ri e

t al

. (19

98)

Dat

a pr

ovid

ed t

o lo

ok

at a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

75 t

otal

1

stud

ent

with

EBD

4 Gen

eral

ed

ucat

ion

clas

sroo

m

Non

-ran

dom

ly b

y te

ache

r to

con

ditio

nsIm

med

iate

pos

t-te

sts

20-p

oint

mul

tiple

cho

ice

test

.531

(.2

46)

10

-item

con

cept

ual u

nder

stan

ding

te

st2.

004

(.292

)

M

cCar

thy

(200

5)

18 t

otal

A

ll st

uden

ts w

ith

EBD

Jr. H

igh

Self-

cont

aine

d;

part

ial

hosp

italiz

atio

n

Stud

ents

wer

e no

t ra

ndom

ly a

ssig

ned;

te

ache

rs w

ere

rand

omly

as

sign

ed t

o by

coi

n fli

p

Imm

edia

te p

ost-

test

s

16

-poi

nt m

ultip

le c

hoic

e te

st1.

905

(.550

)

20-p

oint

sho

rt a

nsw

er t

est

3.86

6 (.7

85)

T

wo

perf

orm

ance

ass

essm

ents

2.02

8 (.5

62)

Beha

vior

10

-poi

nt s

cale

A

war

ded

the

pres

ence

of b

ehav

iors

du

ring

eac

h cl

ass

for

each

stu

dent

.080

(.4

49)

Mne

mon

ic (

n =

2)

K

ing-

Sear

s (1

992)

No

data

pro

vide

d to

look

on

ly a

t st

uden

ts w

ith

EBD

37 t

otal

7

with

EBD

1

stud

ent

in t

he

im

pose

d ke

ywor

d

mne

mon

ic

5

in t

he in

duce

d

key

wor

d

mne

mon

ic g

roup

6–8

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

clas

sroo

m

Ran

dom

ly a

ssig

ned

to

cond

ition

s by

tea

cher

Imm

edia

te p

ost-

test

Fr

ee r

ecal

l of 4

8 de

finiti

ons

and

mat

chin

g du

ring

Wee

k 4

1.73

6 (.4

97)

In fa

vor

of im

pose

d ke

ywor

d co

nditi

on

M

astr

opie

ri, E

mer

ick,

and

Sc

rugg

s (1

988)

7 to

tal

All

stud

ents

with

EB

D

1–4

Self-

cont

aine

d cl

assr

oom

Cou

nter

-bal

ance

d de

sign

Imm

edia

te p

ost-

test

Voc

abul

ary

reca

ll0.

930

(.412

)D

elay

ed p

ost-

test

(sa

me

as im

med

iate

m

easu

re)

1.09

1 (0

.439

)

(con

tinue

d)

Page 7

6

Art

icle

Sam

ple

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Effe

ct s

ize

Pa

rtic

ipan

tsG

rade

sA

ssig

nmen

tES

(SE

) / P

ND

Supp

lem

enta

l non

-mne

mon

ic (

n =

4)

Bo

wm

an-P

erro

tt,

Gre

enw

ood,

and

Tap

ia

(200

7)

11 t

otal

A

ll st

uden

ts w

ith

EBD

9–12

A

ltern

ativ

e sc

hool

set

ting

Alte

rnat

ing

Tre

atm

ent

Des

ign

Imm

edia

te p

ost-

test

(de

scri

ptio

ns o

f th

e w

eekl

y te

sts

wer

e no

t in

clud

ed)

PND

50%

PA

ND

72.

2%

Num

ber

of in

terv

als

on-t

ask

Cla

ssro

oms

1 an

d 2

com

bine

d 30

s

time

sam

plin

g pr

oced

ure

for

roug

hly

26 m

in p

er s

tude

nt

PND

100

%PA

ND

100

%

C

avan

augh

, Hew

ard,

and

D

onel

son

(199

6)

N

o da

ta p

rovi

ded

to lo

ok

only

at

stud

ents

with

EB

D

23 t

otal

8 st

uden

ts w

ith E

BD9 Su

pple

men

tal a

t-ri

sk p

rogr

am

Alte

rnat

ing

Tre

atm

ent

Des

igns

Nex

t da

y te

sts

usin

g pa

ssiv

e re

spon

se

as b

asel

ine

and

activ

e re

spon

se a

s in

terv

entio

n

1

× 1

2 re

view

PND

57.

1%PA

ND

81.

3%

2 ×

12

revi

ewPN

D 7

5%PA

ND

85.

7%

2 ×

6 r

evie

wPN

D 5

7.1%

PAN

D 7

1.4%

M

astr

opie

ri e

t al

. (20

06)

Dat

a pr

ovid

ed t

o lo

ok

at a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

213

tota

l 7

stud

ents

with

EBD

8 Gen

eral

ed

ucat

ion

clas

sroo

ms

Cla

sses

mat

ched

and

the

n as

sign

ed r

ando

mly

Ea

ch le

ad t

each

er t

augh

t at

le

ast

1 of

eac

h co

nditi

on

Imm

edia

te

Sc

ienc

e co

nten

t po

st-t

est

.330

(.1

37)

Gen

eral

izat

ion

Hig

h-st

akes

sci

ence

tes

t at

end

of

the

year

.276

(.1

37)

Sc

rugg

s, M

astr

opie

ri, a

nd

Sulli

van

(199

4)

D

ata

prov

ided

to

look

at

all

stud

ents

with

di

sabi

litie

s

36 t

otal

1

stud

ent

with

EBD

4–5

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

Stud

ents

ass

igne

d ra

ndom

ly t

o 1

of 3

co

nditi

ons

Stud

y A

(ex

peri

men

ter

prov

ided

vs.

co

ntro

l)

Im

med

iate

Fa

ctua

l rec

all

.475

(.4

00)

Cau

sal e

xpla

natio

n4.

423

(.750

)

Del

ayed

(1

wee

k af

ter

inst

ruct

ion)

Fa

ctua

l rec

all

.289

(.5

21)

Cau

sal e

xpla

natio

n1.

424

(.588

)St

udy

B (s

tude

nt g

ener

ated

vs.

co

ntro

l)

Im

med

iate

Fa

ctua

l rec

all

.649

(.4

05)

Cau

sal e

xpla

natio

n4.

703

(.785

)

Del

ayed

(1

wee

k af

ter

inst

ruct

ion)

Fa

ctua

l rec

all

.617

(.5

48)

Cau

sal e

xpla

natio

n1.

499

(.615

)

Not

e. S

ome

ESs

are

diffe

rent

tha

n ES

s re

port

ed in

The

rrie

n et

al.

(201

1) d

ue t

o th

e fo

llow

ing:

Whe

n ab

le, w

e ca

lcul

ated

ESs

usi

ng s

tude

nts

with

EBD

onl

y; a

nd u

nequ

al s

ampl

e si

zes

wer

e ta

ken

into

ac

coun

t in

thi

s an

alys

is. E

BD =

em

otio

nal/b

ehav

ior

diso

rder

; ES

= e

ffect

siz

e; P

ND

= p

erce

nt o

f non

-ove

rlap

ping

dat

a po

ints

; PA

ND

= p

erce

nt o

f all

non-

over

lapp

ing

data

.

Tab

le 1

. (co

ntin

ued)

Page 8

Therrien et al. 7

Traditional textbook instruction was compared with inquiry-based science instruction in McCarthy (2005). Similar to Mastropieri et al. (1998), the textbook condition included teacher demonstration, textbook discussion, and independent practice. The inquiry condition included a time for review and small group experiments. Large group discussion over experiment concepts and results was also a key feature of the treatment condition. Each of the inter-vention sessions lasted 45 min and took place 3 days a week for 8 weeks. Results indicated that students receiving the hands-on, inquiry-based, instruction performed signifi-cantly higher than students in the textbook condition on a hands-on and short answer science content assessment. There were no significant differences between groups on the multiple choice science measure or in regard to student behavior.

A single-subject design was used in Kern and colleagues (2002) to compare a lecture/written assignment instruc-tional style (baseline phase) to a hands-on inquiry approach (intervention phase). Along with the hands-on materials used in the intervention, the treatment condition also focused on providing students multiple opportunities to choose instructional activities. A classroom behavior sys-tem was used throughout the study. The intervention took place for 11 days, and each session was 40 min. Findings showed that when these curricular modifications were in place, students had increased levels of engagement and exhibited fewer problem behaviors.

The last inquiry study (Bay et al., 1992) included a direct instruction condition, which used graphic organizers, teacher modeling, and guided/independent practice work-sheets. This was compared to a discovery teaching condi-tion (i.e., inquiry) where students were taught using hands-on materials, the relationships between concepts were highlighted, experiments were conducted, and stu-dents made and tested predictions. Each condition consisted of five sessions lasting 40 to 60 min each. Students in both conditions performed equally well on the immediate perfor-mance-based post-test, but students in the discovery teach-ing condition outperformed students in the comparison condition on similar performance-based delayed and gener-alization measures.

Supplemental-mnemonic instruction. Mnemonic studies (n = 2) obtained an ES of 1.258 (see Table 1 for the ES from the individual mnemonic studies). Both these group studies used keyword mnemonics: A keyword and illustration com-bination are taught and in turn used by students as a prompt to remember the definition of the targeted vocabulary word (Atkinson, 1975).

In the first mnemonic strategy study (King-Sears et al., 1992), 48 vocabulary words were taught in one of three conditions: systematic teaching (control), induced key-word instruction, or imposed keyword instruction. In the

systematic condition, students were presented with vocab-ulary words, asked to say the word out loud, and then were presented with the picture prompt to help them remember the word. In the induced keyword condition, the student developed the mnemonic after they were instructed on how to create mnemonics, whereas in the imposed keyword condition, the teacher provided the mnemonic. The inter-vention was conducted during a 4-week period, which resulted in students in both the induced and imposed key-word instructional groups making significant progress on weekly and cumulative vocabulary post-tests, over their counterparts in the systematic teaching group.

The second study examining the use of keyword mne-monics was conducted by Mastropieri, Emerick, and Scruggs (1988). During the first week of the study, half of the students received traditional vocabulary instruction using index cards with definitions on one side and the vocabulary word on the other side. The other half of the students were taught using keyword mnemonics. In the sec-ond week, new science content was introduced and the groups were taught using the alternate method. The science vocabulary instruction took place 3 days a week for 2 weeks. Results from the study indicated that students in the key-word mnemonics condition significantly outperformed stu-dents receiving traditional vocabulary instruction on daily and cumulative vocabulary tests. Students in the treatment condition also scored significantly higher than the control group on a delayed vocabulary measure indicating high lev-els of vocabulary retention.

Supplemental non-mnemonic instruction. The five supple-mental studies that make up this category include peer-assisted learning (n = 2) studies and non-mnemonic strategies geared to ensure students retain science facts (n = 3). The supplemental group studies (n = 3) produced a mean ES of .374. The mean PND from the single-subject studies was 69% and the mean PAND from the single-subject stud-ies was 83% (see Table 1).

Cavanaugh et al. (1996) used a single-subject approach to examine active vocabulary review using response cards to a passive vocabulary review method where the teacher read the definition out loud to students. In this study, 12 sci-ence facts were randomly assigned to two conditions. Each condition was compared using the following: 1 by 12 for-mat (e.g., 12 lesson points were reviewed once each), 2 by 12 format, and 2 by 6 format (e.g., 6 points were reviewed twice). The passive review was used during the baseline period and active review was used as the intervention phase. The review process took place during a 30-min science les-son. The results of the study indicated that students in the active/response card review session scored higher on both the next-day and weekly vocabulary assessments.

Scruggs et al. (1994) also measured students’ retention of science facts. This study was unique in that it produced

Page 9

8 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

two separate ESs: one for the condition where an explana-tion of a given science concept was provided by the experi-menter and one for a condition where the student generated his or her own explanation of the fact. Each of the treatment conditions was compared to a control condition where the students were asked to remember 14 facts about animals that were stated by the teacher. One 15-min session was taught using one of the three conditions. “Students in the student-generated explanation condition scored descrip-tively highest on all three measures” (Scruggs et al., 1994, p. 454). Results from the two treatment conditions (i.e., stu-dent generated and experimenter-provided explanation) were not significantly different on the immediate recall and explanation measures. However, both treatment conditions significantly outperformed the control condition on the delayed measure.

The last two studies that met our criteria examined the impact of peer tutoring/assistance on science achievement. In the first study (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2007), students were paired with a partner. Each student was given the opportunity to be both a tutor and a tutee. The intervention sessions consisted of vocabulary review and either compre-hension practice or study guide completion. During the intervention, a behavior monitoring system was also used in conjunction with the classroom token economy. The tutor-ing strategy lasted 4 weeks and was implemented 3 days a week for 30-min sessions. When looking at the two class-rooms that implemented this intervention, only one class-room saw a slight increase in science test scores among students. But when looking at the behavior measure, stu-dents in both classrooms showed an increase in the amount of their time spent on-task.

The impact peers can play on science achievement was also studied in Mastropieri et al. (2006). In this study, a tra-ditional lecture-based instructional method was compared with a peer-assisted instructional method. The first group used lecture, notes provided by the teacher, experiments, and worksheets. In the peer-assisted condition, the same teacher presentation as in the comparison condition was used, but differentiated activities replaced worksheet time. This study took place during a 12-week science unit. The researchers concluded that differentiated learning using peer partners had a positive effect on both the science con-tent post-tests as well as on the state high-stakes tests.

Comparison of Study Characteristics

In addition to aggregating studies based on the instructional focus of the intervention, our coding procedure allowed us to look at the following moderating variables: location of the intervention (e.g., general education setting), duration of the intervention, grade level of students, the assignment of participants to treatments (e.g., randomly assigned), and if the results were reported separately for students with

EBD. The immediate ES means, SE, and confidence inter-vals for each of these variables are reported in Table 2.

Discussion

Similar to the Therrien and colleagues (2011) review that examined classroom science programs for students with LD, the vast majority of dependent measures in this review were immediate or delayed assessments of science knowl-edge or skill acquisition. Overall, there was a large impact on these measures (immediate ES = .567; delayed ES = .820). Measures aggregated within this category typically involved assessments of science factual knowledge includ-ing multiple choice and short answer tests and oral recall. The dependent measures for studies examining inquiry instruction consisted of multiple choice, matching, true/false, and short-answer questions. The mnemonic studies contained dependent measures examining the percent of immediate definition recall and some matching items. The supplemental non-mnemonic studies included dependent measures that assessed explanations and active responses from students. Although the sizable impact on delayed mea-sures is encouraging, it should be noted that the reported length of time between instruction and delayed post-test was extremely short (i.e., 2 weeks or less between instruc-tion and assessment). Furthermore, we must take into con-sideration that not all studies reported delayed measures thus potentially inflating the average ES of the delayed measures. Additional research is needed to explore the effi-cacy of science interventions on students’ knowledge and skill maintenance.

Since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates science to be a required assessment area, evaluating the impact of science instruction on generalized achievement measures is critical. However, only two studies reported generalization measures, and the mean ES increase in achievement was small (ES = .254). Results from one study (Mastropieri et al., 2006) were promising as it indicated that peer-assisted sci-ence instruction utilizing tiered material has the potential to impact student achievement on an end of the year science assessment.

Although the studies included in this review were spe-cifically selected because of their inclusion of students with EBD, there were a surprising limited number of articles (i.e., 1 group and 2 single subject) that included behavioral measures. Results on behavioral measures were mixed. Bowman and colleagues (2007) reported strong results (PND = 100; PAND = 100) for class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) on students’ on-task behavior. Kern and colleagues (2002) obtained positive results on increasing student engagement (PND = 87.5; PAND = 75) and reducing destructive behavior (PND = 100; PAND = 40) via hands-on instruction and providing students choices within instructional activities. McCarthy (2005), however, reported

Page 10

Therrien et al. 9

a non-significant difference (ES = .080) on a behavioral scale between students in inquiry science instruction and those in traditional lecture/textbook instruction.

Furthermore, all of the studies that collected behavioral data were conducted within special education placements (e.g., alternative schools) and not within general education science classroom. More research is needed to ascertain if various approaches to science instruction can positively impact the behavior of students with EBD within traditional classrooms. This question is particularly pertinent to the investigation of inquiry instruction as proponents contend that the applied nature of inquiry instruction increases stu-dent engagement while others contend that the lack of struc-ture sometimes associated with inquiry instruction can be problematic for students with EBD.

Comparison of Instructional Strategies

All content area instruction, but particularly science, var-ies greatly in instructional practices, the amount of con-tent covered, and often in the diverse nature of student learners included in the classrooms. As the comparisons

of instructional strategies are examined, it is critical to keep the nature of the instructional setting, content, and the student population at the forefront of the discussion.

Inquiry instruction. Across all inquiry studies, a large ES (group ES = .844; mean PND of 93.75% and a mean PAND of 57.5%) was obtained. While showing promising results, it is too early to draw conclusions about the potential impact of inquiry-based approaches on students’ with EBD achievement. Although we examined a 30-year period, only 4 experimental studies that examined inquiry approaches for students with EBD were found. Furthermore, across all these studies, only 35 students with EBD were included. Additional studies need to be conducted to ascertain if and under what conditions inquiry instruction positively impacts students’ with EBD achievement.

In addition, definitional issues of the type of instruc-tional components and supports contained within effective inquiry for students with EBD needs to be examined. Studies on inquiry approaches have been criticized for often lacking clear operational definitions of the interven-tion that can be replicated or applied by others outside of

Table 2. Mean Effect Sizes, Standard Errors and Confidence Intervals for Categories Analyzed.

95% Confidence interval

Category designation Mean ES (SE) Low High

Overall ES—Dependent measure Immediate .567 (.102) .367 .767 Delayed .820 (.271) .288 1.352 Generalization .254 (.135) −.010 .517 Behavior .080 (.449) −.800 .960Intervention—Instructional focus Inquiry .844 (.219) .415 1.274 Supplemental-mnemonic 1.258 (.317) .636 1.880 Supplemental non-mnemonic .374 (.124) .131 .616Study characteristic—Location Regular education .378 (.120) .142 .613 Special education 1.062 (.194) .682 1.442Study characteristic—Duration Short .691 (.174) .349 1.032 Long .503 (.126) .256 .750Study Characteristic—Grade Level Kindergarten through 5th grade .768 (.160) .454 1.081 6th through 12th grade .430 (.133) .170 .690Study characteristic—Random assignment Randomly assigned .942 (.207) .536 1.348 Not randomly assigned .447 (.117) .217 0.677Study characteristic—Results for students with EBD reported separately Reported separately 1.401 (.313) .787 2.015 Not reported separately .468 (.108) .257 .680

Note. This table contains the effects for group studies only. Effect sizes were calculated using the most conservative immediate dependent measures. The overall effect size was calculated using all dependent measures. ES = effect size; SE = standard error.

Page 11

10 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

the respective research teams (Klahr & Li, 2005). Inquiry interventions evaluated here are best described as struc-tured inquiry approaches as the experiments conducted were directed by the teacher. Additional research is war-ranted to determine what instructional components are essential for students with EBD within a science inquiry approach.

Mnemonics instruction. Apart from the studies that examined inquiry-based instruction, the remaining articles investi-gated supplemental supports aimed at improving the sci-ence achievement of students with EBD. Similar to previous literature reviews (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 1998; Therrien et al., 2011), supplemental instruction with mnemonics resulted in a significant improvement (ES = 1.258) in the acquisition and retention of science factual knowledge for students with EBD. The consistently positive and strong results reported for mnemonic instruction within this review and across numerous other studies (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Marshak, 2010) and reviews (e.g., Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007) provide the solid and extensive evidence needed to recommend the use of mnemonic instruction to increase students’ factual knowledge.

Supplemental non-mnemonics instruction. Along with mne-monic instruction, the efficacy of four other supplemental interventions was examined. Instructional approaches aggregated within this category included peer tutoring, response card instruction, and the inclusion of casual expla-nations to improve acquisition and retention of science facts. Across these studies, an overall group mean ES of .374 and a mean PND of 69% (PAND of 83%) was obtained. Only peer tutoring was examined in more than one study. Results from these studies indicate emerging evidence of the potential effectiveness of peer tutoring with students with EBD in science. Bowman-Perrott and colleagues (2007) reported the improvement of student behavior and achievement within a peer tutoring modeling while Mas-tropieri and colleagues (2006) reported improvement in stu-dent achievement on a high-stakes end-of-the-year achievement test after being involved in a peer tutoring pro-gram that used scaffolded material. Further research is war-ranted to examine the use of peer tutoring within science classroom as well as to examine the other instructional approaches aggregated within this category.

Comparison of Study Characteristics

Location. Along with type of instruction, the instructional location and intervention duration were examined. Location of instruction significantly impacted ES magnitude with interventions implemented within special education set-tings obtaining an overall group mean ES of 1.062 and

those implemented in general education classrooms obtain-ing an overall mean ES of .378. All single-subject studies were conducted in special education settings. The high level of interobserver agreement of treatment implementation (100%) and observed behaviors (83–99.3) found in the sin-gle-subject designs may suggest that fidelity of implement-ing the intervention is higher in special education settings. Although speculative, the higher score obtained by students with EBD in special education settings as compared to gen-eral education settings may indicate the need for the imple-mentation of systematic and intensive behavioral supports for inquiry approaches to be effective. These supports are often found in specialized placements for students with EBD and typically are missing within the general education classroom.

Duration. The duration of the interventions across group and single-subject studies averaged 15.5 sessions with a range of 1 to approximately 60 sessions. Overall group ESs suggest short-duration (i.e., 15 min or less) interventions (ES = .691) were more effective than long-duration (i.e., 30 min or more) interventions (ES = .503). This result is likely due to the type and timing of the assessment measures uti-lized. Short duration studies implemented immediate exper-imenter designed measures that were very sensitive to student growth. While longer duration studies were more likely to implement non-experimenter generated delayed and/or generalization measures that were less sensitive to student growth. Therefore, instead of being an indication of the superiority of short duration intervention, the higher ES for short duration interventions is likely due to the differ-ences between the measures used in the short- and long-duration studies.

Student characteristics. An in-depth examination of student characteristics was not possible due to the inconsistent reporting of demographic information across the studies reviewed. An examination of results based on student grade level was possible. Only students in Grades 4 through 9 were well represented in the studies reviewed. An ES com-parison based on grade level indicated that younger students (i.e., Grades 1–5) obtained a higher mean ES (.768) than the ES (.430) obtained by older students (i.e., Grades 6–12). This result aligns with the findings reported for students with LD (Therrien et al., 2011) and indicates that it may be easier to positively impact science achievement of students with EBD at younger grades.

Study characteristics. Two variables associated with group study design were investigated: assignment of students to conditions and whether students with EBD results were reported separately. Studies that assigned students ran-domly to conditions had a higher mean ES (.942) than stud-ies that did not assign students randomly (ES = .447). Only

Page 12

Therrien et al. 11

three of the eight group studies reported results separately for students with EBD. A comparison of mean ES based on whether the results for students with EBD were reported separately indicates a higher ES for studies that reported results only for students with EBD (ES = 1.401) compared with studies that did not report the results for students with EBD separately (ES = .468). This finding provides prelimi-nary justification that students with EBD may be as or more responsive to effective science instruction than their non-disabled peers.

Limitations

There are four limitations to the conclusions of this analy-sis. First, although a 30-year time period was examined, only 11 studies that involved 72 students with EBD were found and included in this analysis. Significant additional research is therefore needed to fully ascertain the impact of classroom-based science instruction on students with EBD achievement. Second, the measures implemented within the studies reviewed were, in general, experimenter-generated proximal measures of student achievement. Most of the included dependent measures did not assess for understand-ing but rather factual recall, and only a few studies exam-ined distal measures of student achievement. Future studies must examine the impact of classroom science instruction on distal measures (e.g., high-stakes tests) of science achievement. Third, only a few studies examined the impact of classroom science instruction on non-academic measures such as student engagement. Future studies must assess the impact of science instruction on students’ with EBD behav-ior and task engagement. Conducting these studies is par-ticularly important for instructional approaches such as science inquiry that tend to be less structured than tradi-tional lecture and textbook approaches to science instruc-tion. Finally, the majority of the studies included in this review examined the effects of the interventions on small populations of students with researchers as the primary interventionists. To generalize these findings, it is important that future research replicates these findings with larger sample sizes and examines the feasibility and fidelity of teachers implementing these practices within their own classrooms.

Conclusion

The overall results indicate that classroom-based science instruction has the potential to increase students with EBD achievement on proximal measures of science content and process knowledge. Evidence is strongest for the use of mnemonics to increase the acquisition and retention of stu-dents’ with EBD science factual knowledge. Preliminary evidence indicates that students with EBD may benefit from inquiry methods that include the implementation of

hands-on experiments conducted under the direction of the teacher. Additional research is needed to verify this prelimi-nary finding and to determine what instructional compo-nents are needed within a science inquiry approach for students with EBD to be successful both behaviorally and academically.

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not repre-sent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grants R305A090094 and R305B10005 to The University of Iowa.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Resources for science literacy: Professional development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821–828. doi:10.1037/h0077029

Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555–570. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290605

Bowman-Perrott, L. (2009). Classwide peer tutoring: An effec-tive strategy for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 259–267. doi:10.1177/1053451208330898

Bowman-Perrott, L., Greenwood, C. R., & Tapia, Y. (2007). The efficacy of CWPT used in secondary alternative school class-rooms with small teacher/pupil ratios and students with emo-tional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 65–87. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0014

Bradley, R., Henderson, K., & Monfore, D. A. (2004). A national perspective on children with emotional disorders. Behavior Disorders, 29, 211–223.

Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Teacher enthusiasm in learning disabilities classrooms: Effects on learning and behavior. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 68–73.

Cavanaugh, R. A., Heward, W. L., & Donelson, F. (1996). Effects of response cards during lesson closure on the academic per-formance of secondary. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 403–406. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-403

Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.

Page 13

12 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (1996). Intervention research in emo-tional and behavioral disorders: An analysis of studies from 1980 to 1993. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 125–136.

Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adoles-cents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65–78. doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-65

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2004). Externalizing behaviors of aggression and violence and the school context. In R. B. Rutherford Jr., M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 243–261). New York, NY: Guilford.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

Gaylord, V., Quinn, M., McComas, J., & Lehr, C. (Eds.). (2005). Impact: Feature issue on fostering success in school and beyond for students with emotional/behavioral disorders Vol. 18(2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/182/default.html

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107

Hedges, L. V. (1982). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a series of experiments. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 199–137. doi:10.3102/10769986007002119

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (1997). Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). Class-wide curricular modification to improve the behavior of students with emo-tional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 317–326.

King-Sears, M., Mercer, C. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonics: A strategy for sci-ence vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 22–33. doi:10.1177/074193259201300505

Klahr, D., & Li, J. (2005). Cognitive research and elementary sci-ence instruction: From the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 217–238. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-4423-5

Lane, K., Wehby, J., & Barton-Arwood, S. (2005). Students with and at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Meeting their social and academic needs. Preventing School Failure, 49, 6–9.

Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interven-tions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: 1990 to present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–486). New York, NY: Guilford.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

MacDougall, A., Schnur, R., Berger, C., & Vernon, D. (1981). The use of activity centered science activities to facilitate the mainstreaming of elementary school children with spe-cial needs. Science Education, 65, 467–475. doi:10.1002/sce.3730650502

Mastropieri, M. A., Emerick, K., & Scruggs, T. E. (1988). Mnemonic instruction of science concepts. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 48–56.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411. doi:10.3102/00346543062004377

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Applications of mne-monic strategies with students with mild mental disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 15, 34–43.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). Constructing more meaningful relationships in the classroom: Mnemonic research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 138–145.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild dis-abilities? Journal of Special Education, 31, 199–211. doi:10.1177/002246699703100203

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quan-titative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:2<163::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-C

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030101

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Whittaker, M. E. S., & Bakken, J. P. (1994). Applications of mnemonic strategies with stu-dents with mild mental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 34–43. doi:10.1177/074193259401500106

McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on sci-ence teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263. doi:10.1002/tea.20057

McFarland, J., & Shepard, T. (1995). Oral and written compo-sitions of students with learning disabilities in the content area of science. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 13–18.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association Board of Directors. (2004). National science teachers’ association position state-ment: Science inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1994). Instruction and learning in mid-dle school science classes: Implications for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28, 166–187. doi:10.1177/002246699402800204

Page 14

Therrien et al. 13

Okilwa, N. S. A., & Shelby, L. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of students with dis-abilities in grades 6 through 12: A synthesis of the lit-erature. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 450–463. doi:10.1177/0741932509355991

Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percent of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.

Parmar, R. S., Deluca, C. B., & Janczak, T. M. (1994). Investigations into the relationship between science and language abilities of students with mild disabili-ties. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 117–126. doi:10.1177/074193259401500207

Pomplun, M. (1997). When students with disabilities participate in cooperative groups. Exceptional Children, 64, 49–58.

Pomplun, M. (1998). Cooperative groups: Alternative assess-ment for students with disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 30, 1–17. doi:10.1177/002246699603000101

Rogevich, M. E., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on science sum-marization of a reading comprehension intervention for ado-lescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135–154.

Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic achievement for students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 330–341. doi:10.1177/07419325040250060101

Scruggs, T. E., & Marsing, L. (1987). Teaching test-taking skills to behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 240–244.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 15–24. doi:10.1177/074193259301400104

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994a). The construc-tion of scientific knowledge by students with mild dis-abilities. Journal of Special Education, 28, 307–321. doi:10.1177/002246699402800306

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994b). Successful main-streaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 785–811. doi:10.3102/00028312031004785

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Science education for students with behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 322–334.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000a). The effective-ness of mnemonic instruction for students with learn-ing and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173. doi:10.1023/A:1016640214368

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000b). Mnemonic strate-gies improve classroom learning and social behavior. Beyond Behavior, 10, 13–17.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learn-ing in special education: The case for constructed ver-sus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74. doi:10.1080/09362830701294144

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of text-book-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learn-ing in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 1–15. doi:10.1177/002246699302700101

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S. L., & Marshak, L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention In School & Clinic, 46, 79–86. doi:10.1177/1053451210374985

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quan-titative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33. doi:10.1177/07419325870080020

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Sullivan, G. S. (1994). Promoting relational thinking: Elaborative interrogation for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 450–457.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Sullivan, G. S., & Hesser, L. S. (1993). Improving reasoning and recall: The differential effects of elaborative interrogation and mnemonic elabora-tion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 233–240.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Veit, D. T., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986). Behaviorally disordered students as tutors: Effects on social behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 36–44.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An Alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X015009005

Terrell, N. (2007). STEM occupations: High-tech jobs for a high-tech economy. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 51(1), 26–33.

Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 188–203. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x

Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2–13.

Wagner, M., Marder, C., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Newman, L., Levine, P., . . .Sumi, C. (2003). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.