Towards Inclusive Science Education: Accessible Practices and Perceptions Within a Multidimensional Science Context for Students Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision
By Cary A. Supalo, Danielle Guzman-Orth, Teresa C. King, Cara C. Laitusis, and Jonathan Steinberg
Cary A. Supalo, Ph.D., serves as a research developer at ETS in Princeton, New Jersey.
Danielle Guzman-Orth, Ph. D., is a senior research scientist in Research and Measurement Sciences at ETS in Princeton, New Jersey.
Teresa C. King, M.A., is a senior research project manager in Research and Measurement Sciences at ETS in Princeton, New Jersey.
Cara C. Laitusis, Ph.D., is a managing principal research scientist in Research and Measurement Sciences at ETS in Princeton, New Jersey.
Jonathan Steinberg, M.A., is a manager of data analysis and computational research in the Research & Development Division at ETS in Princeton, New Jersey.
Abstract
This study was designed to explore how inclusive science education practices are implemented into mainstream science classrooms. To do this, we sought to describe teachers’ perceptions of and practices in teaching multidimensional, inquiry-based science to students who are blind or have low vision (BLV). A survey was designed to elicit information from science teachers. Teachers were targeted in states that adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and who taught BLV students in their science classrooms. Results were analyzed and our findings suggested that the teachers had mixed perceptions about their comfort levels with the NGSS, and how it impacted their ability to teach multidimensional science. There was little variation found in their approaches to instructional practices, although they reported using accommodations frequently in the classroom. We share our interpretations for inclusive teaching practices. We close with implications for future research to enhance equitable STEM education opportunities for BLV students.
Keywords
Blind, Next Generation Science Standards, accommodations, multidimensional science, teaching, curriculum, high school education, methodology, STEM-education
Introduction
Advances in the educational field are ever-changing, most recently with the national shift toward new frameworks for K-12 science education that emphasize inquiry-based multidimensional science, where students are engaged in active opportunities for learning and doing science (National Research Council, 2012). The integration of three dimensions of science learning (i.e., science and engineering practices [SEPs], crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas) through new standards that are organized to promote the integrated approach to STEM introduces new opportunities to promote access for all learners through the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; National Research Council, 2013).
The NGSS explicitly includes performance expectations, which are a means of integrating the eight SEPs and disciplinary core ideas in the NGSS so that students move beyond knowing science to doing science. The SEPs include: (1) asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering); (2) developing and using models; (3) planning and carrying out investigations; (4) analyzing and interpreting data; (5) using mathematics and computational thinking; (6) constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering); (7) engaging in argument from evidence; and (8) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
The SEPs introduce specific practices to promote integrated, dynamic, and interactive science education with the emphasis on doing science (Scalise & Clarke-Midura, 2018). Paramount to these efforts is the ongoing push for teachers to meet the new standards to adopt inclusive and equitable learning experiences for students with disabilities (Koehler & Wild, 2019; Murphy & Haller, 2015; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2013). As such, this study focuses on how educators perceive and engage in inclusive learning experiences, particularly for students who are blind or have low vision (BLV; Moore, 2016; Supalo, 2016; Watson & Johnson, 2007; Wild & Allen, 2019).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research questions guiding this investigation are:
- What perceptions do teachers have about teaching multidimensional science content to their BLV students?
- How is multidimensional science standards-based content taught by science content teachers?
We hypothesize that, despite teachers’ emerging familiarity with the NGSS, their perceptions and pedagogical practices will vary across the range of students and their individual needs, and teachers’ perceived preparation to meet those needs. To address these questions, an online survey instrument was developed for science teachers who have had experience teaching science to BLV students after their state’s adoption of the NGSS.
Method
Participants
This study used survey methodology to explore a specific phenomenon across a select group of participants fitting the target inclusion criteria (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Bennett et al., 2011; Draugalis & Plaza, 2009; Yaşar et al., 2006). Purposeful sampling was used to identify the target respondents for the study (Palinkas et al., 2015). Inclusion criteria for the study included: (a) science teachers, (b) teaching standards-based multidimensional science, and (c) have taught at least one BLV student in their science classes within the last 3 years. The range of students’ disability presentation (i.e., blind, low vision) was used for interpretation purposes as allowable and was not a purposeful sampling characteristic to minimize risk of further reducing eligible respondents.
The dissemination window for the survey ran through the 2017-2018 academic calendar years, due to the challenges in finding participants to fit the inclusion criteria. The survey instrument included filtering criteria, and only the 12 certified science teachers who fit the inclusion criteria and completed the survey were recorded by the system. There were four teachers from California, two teachers from Illinois, and one teacher from each of the following states: Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, and Washington. Teachers reported working in a variety of educational settings, including public school (n = 7), charter school (n = 1), and residential schools for the blind (n = 4). Half of the sample (n = 6) indicated they had taught one to five BLV students in the past 3 years. The other half of the sample (n = 6) indicated they had taught 21 or more BLV students. Half of the sample (n = 6) had taught science 1 to 10 years. The other half of the sample (n = 6) taught science 11 years or more.
Survey Instrument
A survey instrument was designed to identify teachers’ perceptions and practices to make multidimensional science accessible. Self-report data was collected regarding the types of accommodations that were provided during instruction.
The survey content underwent three rounds of iterative development by the authors. The content was independently reviewed by content experts at the authors’ institution with expertise in multidimensional science represented through the NGSS and science teacher research. External feedback was also collected from two science TVIs. The survey instrument included questions probing demographics and teachers’ perceptions (Ramey-Gassert et al., 1996), as well as specific science access methods and access technologies (Supalo et al., 2014). Response options included multiple choice, Likert, and fill-in-the-blank constructed responses.
The survey was programmed online using the Qualtrics online survey tool. The final survey instrument was electronically delivered and consisted of six sections: (a) a copy of the study purpose and informed consent, (b) background questions of the teacher and background characteristics of their BLV student(s), (c) teachers’ perceptions regarding their preparedness for teaching and their perceived familiarity with the NGSS, (d) teachers’ accessible instructional practices, (e) the use of accommodations or other adaptations to make instructional practices accessible to their students, and (f) challenges teachers experienced when teaching the NGSS content and making it accessible.
Procedures
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was attained to conduct the study. Recruitment procedures included in-person and electronic outreach in an attempt to oversample initially due to the narrow eligibility criteria. In-person recruitment was conducted at the 2017 annual conference of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in Anaheim, California, where the study was presented to the science educators of students with disabilities special interest group and promoted via a booth in the exhibit hall. Electronic outreach included sending emails to previous science teacher study participants, electronically requesting professional organizations to disseminate an announcement about the availability of the survey to their memberships, sharing the study details and survey instrument link with the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), and inviting interested teachers to participate via social media (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter). The survey was also shared with the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation for the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) state affiliates and was distributed to teachers of the visually impaired to assist in the recruitment of science teachers.
Analysis
The data was downloaded from Qualtrics into Microsoft Excel and organized across participants. We calculated simple descriptive statistics (frequencies) for reporting, rather than calculate percentages to minimize risk of overinterpretation with the small sample size. Participants’ written responses were reviewed by the authors and added in the relevant sections to contextualize the descriptive results. We present key findings in the following results section.
Results
The findings reflect teaching approaches for all-inclusive classes of sighted and blind students. Generally, like our hypotheses, the findings suggest that teachers expressed mixed feelings and confidence levels regarding teaching the NGSS to their students. Some variation in teacher self-perceptions seemed to emerge in conjunction with the various SEPs. Additionally, we found that teachers reported using a variety of access methodologies, ranging from no tech (e.g., preferential seating), as well as some high tech (e.g., assistive technology software, voicing lab tools). Interestingly, some teachers also expressed variation in their self-perceived ability to fully include BLV students in instructional practices, i.e., doing science. Additional details are reported in depth in the following section across three main areas of teacher perceptions, instructional practices, and instructional accommodations.
Teacher Perceptions of Teaching BLV Students
Teacher perceptions were recorded across their familiarity with the multidimensional standards, their confidence in understanding the SEPs for inquiry-based teaching, and their perceived ability to accommodate students when teaching multidimensional science.
Data suggest teachers’ mixed familiarity with multidimensional science standards and teaching the multidimensional standards, and the teachers’ varying familiarity of the standards did not seem to change based on the number of BLV students taught throughout their teaching career.
Unpacking teachers’ perceptions further, we surveyed their confidence in understanding each of the NGSS’s SEPs, not their reported ability to teach each practice. Table 1 shows the overview of the teachers’ self-reported confidence rating for understanding the SEPs.
Table 1
Teacher’s Self-Reported Confidence Rating for Understanding the SEPs in the NGSS
| Science and Engineering Practice | Very or somewhat confident |
Neutral level of confidence |
Not very confident |
Not applicable to my teaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1a. Asking questions (for science) |
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1b. Defining problems (for engineering) |
6 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2. Developing and using models |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3. Planning and carrying out investigations |
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4. Analyzing and interpreting data |
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking |
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
6a. Constructing explanations (for science) |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
6b. Designing solutions (for engineering) |
8 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
7. Engaging in argument from evidence |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
Of the eight SEPs (10, if separating SEP 1a and 1b and 6a and 6b), teachers reported they were mostly confident (very confident or somewhat confident) of their own professional understanding of the SEPs. This confidence rating varied slightly for SEP 1b (defining problems for engineering), where teachers rated they were confident (n = 6), neutral (n = 4), not very confident (n = 1), or indicating that it was not applicable for their teaching (n = 1). Other SEPs where teachers reported they were neutral in their confidence rating included SEP 2, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8. Teacher 007 reported being not very confident for SEPs 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Interestingly, Teacher 004 reported that along with SEP 1b (defining problems for engineering), SEP 6b (designing solutions for engineering) was also not applicable to their teaching.
Related to teacher perceptions, we also probed their perceived ability to accommodate their blind students when teaching the SEPs in the NGSS. By accommodations, we meant providing additional materials, technology, or supports for the students to use to provide access. Table 2 illustrates teachers’ self-reported student accommodation practices.
Table 2
Teachers’ Self-Report Regarding Perceived Ability to Appropriately Accommodate Their BLV Students When Teaching the SEPs
| Science and Engineering Practice | Always have a solution (80-100%) |
Often have a solution (60-79%) |
Sometimes have a solution (40-59%) |
Not applicable to my teaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1a. Asking questions (for science) |
7 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1b. Defining problems (for engineering) |
5 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2. Developing and using models |
3 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
3. Planning and carrying out investigations |
4 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
4. Analyzing and interpreting data |
3 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking |
2 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
6a. Constructing explanations (for science) |
5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
6b. Designing solutions (for engineering) |
2 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
7. Engaging in argument from evidence |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
Science teachers reported they were often (i.e., 60-79% of the time) able to accommodate appropriately their BLV students when teaching across the SEPs.
Instructional Practices
Summaries of instructional practices that science teachers engage in are important to understand how teachers are providing inquiry-based instructional opportunities for BLV students to participate in learning and doing science. The data presented in Table 3 illustrates the range in teacher-provided opportunities for BLV students to engage in each of the SEPs.
Table 3
Frequency of Teacher-Designed Instructional Opportunities for Students Across the SEPs
| Science and Engineering Practice | Daily or almost daily |
Often (once or twice a week) |
Sometimes (once or twice a month) |
Rarely (a few times a year) |
Not applicable to my teaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1a. Asking questions (for science) |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1b. Defining problems (for engineering) |
3 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2. Developing and using models |
4 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3. Planning and carrying out investigations |
3 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4. Analyzing and interpreting data |
2 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
6a. Constructing explanations (for science) |
7 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
6b. Designing solutions (for engineering) |
1 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7. Engaging in argument from evidence |
5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information |
7 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
When asked how often the teachers provide opportunities to engage in each of the SEPs, most teachers reported that they provide opportunities for each practice daily or often. However, teachers also reported having some challenges with making specific activities accessible, like those that are more based on abstract or visual phenomena, like scientific models (Teachers 004, 006, and 008), simulations (Teacher 010), and hands-on lab experiences (Teachers 002 and 009).
We also probed the type and frequency of each of the activities the teachers implemented. The data in Table 4 showcases a range of activities (see Column 1, Classroom Activity).
Table 4
Frequency and Type of Teacher-Designed Instructional Activities
| Classroom Activity | Daily or almost daily |
Often (once or twice a week) |
Sometimes (once or twice a month) |
Rarely (a few times a year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Provide direct instruction to explain science concepts |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
Demonstrate an experiment and have students observe |
3 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
Use activity sheets to reinforce skills or content |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Introduce and review science vocabulary |
4 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
Apply science concepts to explain natural events or real-world situations |
5 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
Talk to your students about things they do at home that are like what is done in science class (e.g., measuring, boiling water) |
4 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
Discuss students’ prior knowledge or experience related to the science topic or concept |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
Use open-ended questions to stimulate whole class discussion (most students participate) |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
Have students work with each other in small groups |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
Encourage students to explain concepts to one another |
5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
The data indicate teachers engage in most of these listed activities at least on a weekly basis. The one exception involves performing classroom demonstrations, more likely to occur once or twice a month. Teachers reported some concern with the challenges of providing equitable opportunities and expectations for performance (Teachers 002 and 006), particularly regarding abstract and visual-oriented phenomena (Teachers 001, 003, 004, and 010), and student-led activities (Teachers 008, 009 and 012). Teachers reported that despite best efforts to make content accessible, they could not successfully adapt some content, like models and observational activities (e.g., reactions, simulations, or laboratory experiments). Interestingly, despite all teachers reporting instances where content was not made accessible, six of the 12 teachers only considered this a minimal challenge, compared to five who considered it a moderate challenge, and one who considered it a major challenge.
Instructional Accommodations
In addition to the data collected about teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices for teaching multidimensional science, we also explored instructional accommodations. In this study, instructional accommodation refers to the methodological and/or technological interventions provided by the science teacher to help BLV students “do science.” The section on accommodations for inquiry-based science instruction included students’ accommodations legally mandated by the students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP), instructional adaptations, or modifications that may change the content expectations for students. We measured these across the SEPs in the NGSS.
In general, the findings suggest that all 12 teachers provided customized accessible solutions. For example, three teachers reported using strategic pairing as part of their access strategies:
- Teacher 002: “By providing one on one instruction and strategically place student directly in front of board. Modified instruction to make sure students are paired and can help in every possible lesson and lab.”
- Teacher 003: “As much hands on / inquiry as possible... sighted students will assist—instructional aide is provided.”
- Teacher 006: “The students had access to lab glassware that had larger, clear print so that they could participate in chemistry laboratory experience along with a full sighted student partner.”
Other teachers reported use of technology-rich methods:
- Teacher 001: “I helped the student by providing online simulations.”
- Teacher 004: “3D printed water molecules in order for students to tactually visualize the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the molecule.”
Others used common assistive technology resources:
- Teacher 007: “Text to Speech Technology.”
- Teacher 008: “By using email with JAWS and sending instructions before lab, using talking LabQuest and talking calculators, students were able to do the lab, take data, perform calculations, write report to demonstrate understanding of patterns in the data.”
Others reported using hands-on and multi-sensory methods:
- Teacher 009: “When developing models of organic molecules in Chemistry, instruction was differentiated for all students by providing a variety of instructional options, including textbooks (with large print options), web resources, and molecular model kits. Student [sic] with VI was able to use digital resources combined with manipulatives to complete her research and develop a model.”
- Teacher 011: “We were preparing for a field trip to count birds at a wetland area using sound identification. Students were presented with PIAF black and white prints of birds, colored images of birds, Braille and enlarged print copies that describe the birds, and audio calls of the birds. Students then took a ‘fun’ quiz prior to heading on the field trip, where they earned a piece of chocolate for each correctly identified bird based on its audio call. This activity took place over three days prior to the field trip.”
Examining the responses, however, it is also apparent that some educators used multiple means to accommodate content. For example, Teacher 003 (strategic pairing and hands-on experience) or Teacher 011 (embossed braille, large print, audio, and PIAF tactile graphics).
Additionally, the teachers in this study used textbook resources and published references (n = 8), and individual teacher networks consisting of other educators and colleagues to make content accessible (n = 7). Teachers reported involving TVIs (n = 5), in addition to accessing professional networks/organizations (n = 5), online resources (n = 4), professional development courses (n = 3), or other resources (n = 2).
Of the online resources, teachers reported frequenting the following sites: National Federation of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, American Printing House for the Blind, Perkins E-learning, Hadley Institute for the Blind, and the Texas School for the Blind.
Some of the participating science teachers did indicate they utilized audio-described videos when available. However, it was stated the usefulness of the audio description did not always emphasize key aspects of constructs that were being covered.
Specific to teaching across the SEPs, teachers reported the following accommodations: audio recording devices, human note takers, and magnification tools (n = 11); embossed braille (n = 6); braille note-taking device (n = 6); external video magnification (e.g., Closed Circuit Television [CCTV]; n = 5); and audio recording (n = 7-10). Additional accommodations reported specifically for SEP 1 included specialized seating, 3D printer models, the science teacher working directly with the blind student, having students work together as a group, and working with a teaching assistant or other paraprofessional staff.
Unpacking the relationship between teachers’ accommodations and the SEPs further, we also provided a list of accommodations (i.e., accessible instructional practices) based on findings from research and practice, and asked teachers to indicate if they use these accessible instructional practices to teach the SEPs. Table 5 shows the frequency of reported classroom accessibility practices across the SEPs.
Table 5
Teachers’ Reported Frequency of Accessibility Practice Use by SEP
| Accessibility Practice | SEP 1 |
SEP 2 |
SEP 3 |
SEP 4 |
SEP 5 |
SEP 6 |
SEP 7 |
SEP 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Provide copies of all lecture notes and handouts in braille |
1 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Provide copies of all lectures notes and handouts in large print |
4 |
4 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
Provide audio copies of all lecture notes and handouts |
10 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Use accessible electronic materials that may include PowerPoint slides |
3 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Use accessible online materials |
10 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
Use video content, simulations, or animations |
11 |
11 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
Use accessible laboratory equipment |
6 |
6 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
Use computer-assisted scientific data collection equipment |
10 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
Use handheld manipulatives |
6 |
6 |
10 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
10 |
Use tactile graphics |
8 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Use 3-dimensional models |
6 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
Used raised line drawings with or without audio |
7 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Use supplemental audio to convey visual information |
5 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Use sonification to convey non-speech information in an auditory way (such as to differentiate levels of an element) |
7 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Other |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Overall, the self-report data in Table 5 suggests that teachers differentially used the accessibility practices across the SEPs. For example, the teachers’ more frequently used accessibility practice for SEPs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 compared to other SEPs. Teachers reported using fewer accessibility practices to teach SEPs 4 (analyzing and interpreting data), 5 (using mathematics and computational thinking), and 7 (engaging in argument from evidence).
The more common accessibility practices were using accessible online materials, followed by handheld manipulatives, large print handouts, and accessible laboratory equipment. Interestingly, when looking at the reported frequency of use for the accessibility practices across the SEPs, teachers used embossed braille lecture notes/handouts the least, followed closely by sonification (using auditory feedback to convey non-speech information qualitatively). One teacher reported:
I do not usually provide notes to students, I expect them to take note [sic] in the appropriate format themselves unless there is a good reason they can't. They may use braille print or recording. When I hand out materials, I provide in [sic] accessible for [sic] each.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore how educators are creating inclusive, multidimensional, inquiry-based science instruction for their BLV students. We explored teacher perceptions and inclusive instructional practices and accommodations for BLV students in mainstream science classrooms teaching multidimensional science aligned to the NGSS.
Across the 12 respondents, findings suggested that as familiarity with the multidimensional standards increased, perceived difficulties of inclusive teaching seemed to increase as well. Despite any perceived challenges, teachers reported providing opportunities to “learn and do science” almost daily. Findings suggested teachers’ practices ranged considerably regarding seeking resources and implementing strategies in the classroom. We anticipate that teachers’ perceptions and practices could be due to systemic factors (Lumpe et al., 2000) and may also be shaped by the teachers’ institutional support. These factors may include access to resources, TVIs, highly supportive student parents, or even preparatory time, instructional time, and funds to purchase or develop accessible solutions (Supalo et al., 2014).
Regarding instructional and accommodation practices that teachers implement in their classrooms, it is not surprising to see the use of some strategies, like pairing of a sighted and a BLV student, despite mixed efficacy since the strategy increases the BLV students’ dependency, rather than fostering independence in the science classroom (Miner et al., 2001; Supalo, 2010). Another example is the limited use of audio support, despite emerging evidence for multisensory and auditory feedback to support active participation in laboratory experiments (Supalo, et al., 2016). Together these suggest that as teachers are emerging in their understanding of how to teach multidimensional, inquiry-based science, they likewise need professional development to grow their knowledge and implementation strategies for accessible science practices. These findings should be interpreted with caution though; despite the goal to use purposeful sampling, only 12 participants fit the eligibility criteria for the study. As such, we caution against the generalizability of the study findings.
Implications for Practitioners and Families
STEM educational experiences should be a collaboration between the science teacher, the TVI, and the BLV student and/or their parent or legal guardian (Supalo et al., 2014). It is critical for the parent and/or legal guardian to play an active role in making sure all accommodations available are indeed provided to their BLV child, and that the accommodations are efficacious in allowing students to independently learn and do science.
Call for Future Research
The study highlights the constellation of factors impacting access to multidimensional science in mainstream classrooms as teachers are still transitioning to NGSS-aligned curriculums. Future research should expand the sample size and collect more detailed information at different time points. This data could help explore differences in their science educational experiences are due to their disability or due to systemic factors (e.g., teacher training, collaborative team teaching), or even due to complexities elicited in the multidimensional science construct (e.g., sensory-based phenomena). Targeted investigations could provide necessary evidence to best identify areas where research could best support teachers and students engaging in multidisciplinary, inquiry-based science instruction.
Authors’ Note
We thank ETS for the funding to conduct this study. We have no conflicts of interest for this work.
References
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863
Bennett, C., Khangura, S., Brehaut, J. C., Graham, I. D., Moher, D., Potter, B. K., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2011). Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Medicine, 8(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069
Draugalis, J. R., & Plaza, C. M. (2009). Best practices for survey research reports revisited: Implications of target population, probability sampling, and response rate. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(8). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7308142
Koehler, K. E., & Wild, T. A. (2019). Students with visual impairments' access and participation in the science curriculum: Views of teachers of students with visual impairments. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 22(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.11.0003
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200003)37:3<275::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
Miner, D. L., Nieman, R., Swanson, A. B., & Woods, M., (Eds.). (2001). Teaching chemistry to students with disabilities: A manual for high schools, colleges, and graduate programs (4th ed.). American Chemical Society.
Moore, E. B. (2016). ConfChem conference on interactive visualizations for chemistry teaching and learning: Accessibility for PhET interactive simulations—Progress, challenges, and potential. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1160-1161. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00772
Murphy, A. F., & Haller, E. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the implementation of the literacy Common Core State Standards for English language learners and students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 510-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1073200
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80(3), pp. 283–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199606)80:3<283::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-A
Scalise, K., & Clarke‐Midura, J. (2018). The many faces of scientific inquiry: Effectively measuring what students do and not only what they say. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 1469-1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21464
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259301400104
Supalo, C. A. (2010). Teaching chemistry and other sciences to blind and low-vision students through hands-on learning experiences in high school science laboratories (Publication No. 3442959) [Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Supalo, C. A. (2016). ConfChem conference on interactive visualizations for chemistry teaching and learning: Concerns regarding accessible interfaces for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1156-1159. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00603
Supalo, C. A., Humphrey, J. R., Mallouk, T. E., Wohlers, H. D., & Carlsen, W. S. (2016). Examining the use of adaptive technologies to increase the hands-on participation of students with blindness or low vision in secondary-school chemistry and physics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1174–1189. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00141F
Supalo, C. A., Isaacson, M. D., & Lombardi, M. V. (2014). Making hands-on science learning accessible for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(2), 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3000765
Watson, S., & Johnston, L. (2007). Assistive technology in the inclusive science classroom. The Science Teacher, 74(3), 34-38.
Wild, T., & Allen, A. (2019). Policy analysis of science-based best practices for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(2), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0910300210
Yaşar, Ş., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a survey to assess k-12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00893.x
The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2023 to the National Federation of the Blind.