Abstract: The increased emphasis on STEM related careers and the use of science in everyday
life makes learning science content and concepts critical for all students especially for those
with disabilities. As suggested by the National Resource Council (2012), more emphasis is being
placed on being able to critically think about science concepts in and outside of the classroom.
Additionally, the Next Generation Science Standards are asking teachers and students to better
understand how science is connected to the everyday world through the use of inquiry-based
methods. The manuscript focuses on the use of a structured argument-based inquiry approach to
science instruction called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). The SWH approach has shown
some initial success in improving science achievement for students with disabilities. The current
study compares treatment and comparison groups of students with disabilities in the area of
science achievement. Treatment group students were taught using the SWH approach, while
the comparison groups were taught using traditional science teaching. The authors found that
students in the SWH groups scored significantly better than the comparison groups on post-test
science achievement scores. The authors also found stronger effect size results for SWH groups
as well. Implications for teaching science to students with disabilities are discussed.
1
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
2
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
effort to improve science achieve and to mirror discussions, collaborate in the practices
the practices of science, inquiry-based science of science, and perform hands-on activi-
instruction is now considered the preferred ties (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The use of
method of instruction for all students (National inquiry-based instruction is the preferred
Research Council, [NRC], 2012). teaching method; however, it is not without
complications. Defining what inquiry-based
The focus on improving science instruc- instruction is and how it should look is not
tion by promoting and supporting the use of entirely clear in the research or practitioner
inquiry-based instruction is for moving away literature (Rizzo & Taylor, 2016; Therrien,
from textbook and lecture style teaching in an et al., 2011; Therrien, Taylor Watt, Kaleden-
effort to better align science learning with the berg, 2014). Various terminologies have
practices of science (Next Generation Science been used in the literature to describe what
Standards [NGSS] Lead States, 2013). Prior can be categorized as inquiry-based instruc-
to the promotion of inquiry-based instruc- tion (e.g., inquiry-based, hands-on instruc-
tion, science instruction consisted of teachers tion, discovery learning). As described by
lecturing to their students who simply record Klahr and Li (2005) inquiry-based instruc-
the information and attempt to memorize tion may have a number of components and
it for the test. Through that process, the stu- variables that make research vary.
dents are not truly learning the material and
what they do “learn” is often forgotten after The NRC (2012) suggested that inquiry-
they have taken the exam possibly leaving stu- based instruction include students learn
dents with disabilities further behind. The use how to: collect, use, and interpret data;
of inquiry-based instruction has the support make claims using evidence, and discuss
from the professional science community (The science as debate to support claims with evi-
American Association for the Advancement of dence from data. Further, previous research
Science, AAAS), science education commu- support the use of hands-on activities as
nity (National Science Teachers Association, a component to inquiry-based instruc-
NSTA), and the national educational initiatives tion (NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012;
(Next Generation Science Standards, NGSS). Therrien et al., 2014). Even with the sugges-
Further, inquiry-based science instruction tions from the NRC and NGSS, teaching
research for SWDs has some evidence of practices related to inquiry-based instruc-
success for learning science content (Rizzo tion can vary widely. Moreover, it has been
& Taylor, 2016; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007; suggested that inquiry approaches can and
Scruggs et al., 1993). should be considered as a spectrum and cat-
egorized (Martin-Hansen, 2002; Rizzo &
Inquiry-based Science Instruction for Taylor, 2016; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994;
Students with Disabilities Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007). In their
review of the effectiveness of all types of
Inquiry-based instruction places heavier inquiry-based instruction for students with
emphasis on student-directed personal disabilities, Rizzo and Taylor (2016) found
experiences in science. That is, stu- that when using the inquiry framework
dents have more opportunities to lead categorized by Martin-Hansen (2002) that
3
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
studies that used inquiry with more supports While numerous studies have shown the
were more effective for science learning. SWH to be an effective approach to teach-
ing science to general education students
Conceptual Framework and Purpose of (Hand & Norton-Meier, 2011), only one
Study study specifically focused on the effective-
ness of the SWH for students with disabili-
The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH, ties. Taylor et al. (2012) found that students
Hand & Keys, 1999) is an argument- with disabilities in SWH schools outper-
based science inquiry approach. The SWH formed their peers in non-SWH classrooms
approach is designed to involve students on standardized science measures over one
in inquiry, argumentation, and experimen- and multiple years. In an effort to add to the
tation as a means of learning science and research base regarding the SWH and stu-
improving critical thinking skills. Yore, dents with disabilities, this study analyzes
Bisanz, and Hand (2003) describe the SWH the differences in science achievement for
as being based on the theories that include students with disabilities with a comparison
writing-to-learn strategies (i.e., students group of students with disabilities. Specifi-
learn about science through writing about cally, the researchers attempt to answer the
science experiences), science literacy (i.e., following questions:
understanding the content, concepts, and
processes of science), and inquiry-based 1. Is there a significant difference in achieve-
instruction (i.e., collecting data, making ment on mean standardized science scores for
claims, testing hypotheses, and providing students with disabilities in SWH classrooms
evidence). The SWH approach was devel- when conducting pre-intervention and post-
oped to provide students an opportunity to intervention comparisons?
make broad conceptual framework connec- 2. Is there a significant difference in achieve-
tions to science knowledge through debate ment on mean standardized science scores for
with peers and experimentation design students with disabilities in SWH classrooms
while allowing multiple means of display- when conducting post-intervention compari-
ing content to help with deep understand- sons with a comparison group?
ing of science themes and concepts (Taylor 3. Do students with disabilities in SWH class-
et al., 2011). Hand and Keys (1999) devel- rooms display larger effect sizes on mean stan-
oped the SWH in a manner that requires dardized science scores when conducting pre-
students to use “questions, claims, and evi- intervention and post-intervention compari-
dence” to display their understanding of sons with a comparison group?
science content and concepts. The SWH
provides science instruction and science METHOD
learning from a student directed, teacher
guided manner honing in on improving Participants
student understanding of science content
knowledge, scientific processing skills, and Nine treatment (SWH) and nine compari-
general critical thinking skills. sons schools with similar student population
characteristics (matched pairs) participated
4
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
in the study. Treatment participants were provides science instruction and science
schools a part of a research project examin- learning from a student directed, teacher
ing the effects of a specific science instruc- guided manner honing in on improving
tional method on student science achieve- student understanding of science content
ment. The study was conducted in rural areas knowledge, scientific processing skills, and
of a Midwest state. Each school reflected a general critical thinking skills.
homogeneous group with similar student
population distributions by ethnicity, SES, The SWH mainly stresses the use of argu-
and special needs status. These school dis- ment-based inquiry, it also incorporates a
tricts consist of approximately 5% minority number of other intervention methods and
students and 95% white students. Gender strategies to provide students with dis-
distribution was nearly identical across the abilities added support at the pre-instruc-
treatment and comparison groups, and was tion, during instruction, and post instruc-
predominantly female (nearly 53%). Third, tional phases of science teaching. Prior to
fourth, and fifth grades students with Indi- instruction, teachers plan for the possibility
vidualized Education Programs (IEP) and in of connecting student ideas to broad topics
inclusive science classrooms were included or “big ideas”. During instruction, The
in both treatment and comparison groups. SWH encourages teachers to use individ-
ual, small group, and whole class instruc-
The study had 463 students (treatment and tion in a manner as seamless as possible
comparison groups) with IEPs in inclusive to give students time to share information
science classrooms. During the pre-interven- and knowledge as well as reflect on their
tion phase, the treatment group had 238 stu- own understanding. The SWH requires stu-
dents with 225 students in the comparison dents to keep science notebooks or journals
group. Due to attrition at post-intervention, and document their experiences with learn-
there were 208 treatment students and 199 ing new and different information. Post
comparisons students. The final total number instruction, teachers are encouraged to use
of students at post-intervention was 407. a multitude of methods (multimodal repre-
sentations) to have students express what
Intervention they have learned during the course of the
instruction in both content understanding
The SWH (Hand & Keys, 1999) is a and knowledge growth.
guided argument-based approach to class-
room science inquiry. The SWH approach Teacher and student templates
involves the use of inquiry, argumentation,
and experimentation as a means of learn- To scaffold the teaching and learning
ing science and improving critical think- process during science instruction, the
ing skills. Hand and Keys (1999) devel- SWH uses teacher and student templates
oped the SWH in a manner that requires (see Table 1). The teacher template pro-
students to use “questions, claims, and evi- vides teachers with a guide to help under-
dence” to display their understanding of stand the activities and processes as they
science content and concepts. The SWH relate to the SWH approach. Teachers were
5
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
directed to use the templates to help con- their classroom needs. The student tem-
struction lessons, instructional activities, plate emphasizes the elements to under-
and to be mindful of the process that stu- stand the scientific process. Using the tem-
dents may need to understand content and plates, students develop questions, make
concepts. Teachers were taught to use the claims, and provide evidence to support or
templates as pedagogical support, but were reject claims.
also encouraged to adjust the sequence for
Table 1: Student and Teacher Template for the Science Writing Heuristic Approach
Reading How do my ideas compare with Negotiations phase III - comparing science
others ideas? ideas to textbooks for other printed
resources.
6
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
7
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
3) effect size comparison on pre/post-interven- phases on ITBS science standard scores for
tion standard science scores for treatment and both the treatment and the comparison stu-
comparison groups (question 3). The research- dents. Results from both students groups
ers used t-test comparisons for questions one indicate growth with groups. Treatment
and two and effect size analyses (Cohen’s d) for group students had a mean score improve-
question three. T-test scores were conducted at ment from 117.23 to 122.75. T-test results
the 0.05 alpha level for significant mean dif- for the treatment group was significantly
ferences. As described by Cohen (1988), effect different at 0.05 alpha level [t(208) = 7.7590,
size interpretations consist of: small effect, ES p < 0.001]. Comparison group student had a
= below 0.50; medium effect, ES = 0.50-0.80; mean score improvement of 117.34 to 119.52.
and large effect, ES = above 0.80. T-test results for the comparison group indi-
cate a significant difference from pre to post
An analysis of pre-intervention test scores intervention [t(1199) = 2.7002, p < 0.007].
was conducted to determine if there was a See Table 3 for complete results table.
significant difference between treatment and
comparison groups prior to intervention.Both Between Groups Mean Analysis (Question
groups had similar pre-intervention means #2)
and number of participants. Results indicate
no significant difference during pre-interven- Post-intervention analysis was conducted
tion between groups, t(462) = 0.153, p < 0.879, between treatment and comparison groups.
95% CI [0.153, 0.879] (see Table 2). When comparing post-test differences only
between groups, there is a significant differ-
Within Group Mean Analyses (Question #1) ence at the 0.05 alpha level. The treatment
group out-performed the comparison group
The authors analyzed means and standard significantly as indicated by the t-test results
deviations from pre- to post-intervention [t(407) = 4.0189, p < 0.001] (see Table 3).
8
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
Table 3: Within and Between Pre/Post t-test Analyses for Treatment and Comparison Groups
Within Group
Treatment
Note. CI = confidence intervals; SD = standard deviation. *significant at the < 0.01 level. a =
post-test intervention analysis.
Cohen’s d 95% CI
Within and Between Groups Effect Size while the comparison group scores resulted
Analyses (Question #3) a small effect size improvement (d = 0.260)
as indicated from pre- to post-test interven-
Effect size analyses of the pre- and post- tion mean standard scores. Analysis of post-
intervention mean differences within groups test mean differences between treatment
and post-intervention between groups indi- and comparison groups indicate a moder-
cate improvements in achievements. The ate effect size improvement (d = 0.400). See
treatment group scores resulted in a mod- Table 4 for complete effect size results.
erate effect size improvement (d = 0.740),
9
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
10
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
student with emotional and behavior dis- 1994), mnemonic instruction (Scruggs, Mas-
abilities, etc.). As such, in-depth analy- tropieri, Berkeley, & Marshak, 2010), and
sis on how the intervention may have sup- peer learning strategies (Bowman-Perrott,
ported achievement for specific disability Greenwood, & Tapia, 2007).
type was not possible. Lastly, participant
attrition may have contributed to the final Future research involving the SWH approach
results of the study. The researchers were should focus on using the approach in more
not fully able to identify all of the reasons educational settings with SWDs. Additional
for participant attrition. settings should include other locales (i.e.,
outside of the Midwest) and various socio-
CONCLUSION economic settings (i.e., urban, rural, and
suburban areas). Examination of the SWH
SWDs can be successful in science classrooms approach and its effectiveness with spe-
with the appropriate approach and supports. cific disability types should be considered
The study suggests some effectiveness in as potential research area as well. Addition-
using the SWH approach in teaching science ally, researchers should focus on supports
content to students with disabilities. The study and strategies that enhance or assist stu-
results indicate that there can be significant dents with disabilities in science classrooms.
growth in science learning can be achieved for The importance of understanding science
SWDs over the course of a year. While both content and concepts should not be under-
the treatment and comparison groups showed stated or overlooked. Students with disabili-
significant growth from pre-test to post-test, ties can benefit from understanding science
when comparing strictly post-test differences as both an avenue for employment and as a
between groups, the SWH group scored sig- part of general life and living skills.
nificantly better than the comparison group.
Furthermore, effect size comparisons show ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
that using the SWH approach had a stronger
effect on science achievement than the typical The research reported here was supported
science instruction when compared using stan- by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
dardized assessment. Department of Education, through Grant
R305B10005 to The University of Iowa. The
Past research has shown that SWDs can be suc- opinions expressed are those of the authors
cessful in SWH classrooms and in a broader and do not represent views of the Institute or
context, inquiry-based learning classrooms. the U.S. Department of Education.
Previous studies have provided evidence to
support various types of supports that could
help SWDs be successful in science class-
rooms, and particularly inquiry-based class-
rooms. Some of the successful strategies and
supports have included the use of supported
inquiry (Taylor et al, 2012), teaching of spe-
cific science facts (Scruggs and Mastropieri,
11
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
12
Argument-based Science Inquiry to Improve Science Achievement
13
Vol. 21, No. 1 - 2018
Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities
Stage, E. K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L.,
Daro, P. A., & Hampton, S. B. (2013). Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011).
Opportunities and challenges in next Science instruction for students with
generation standards. Science, 340(6130), learning disabilities: A meta-analysis.
276-277. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 26, 188-203. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
Steele, M. (2004). Teaching science to 5826.2011.00340.x
middle school students with learning
problems. Preventing School Failure, Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S.,
49(1), 19–22. Kaldenberg, E. (2014). Science
instruction for students with emotional
Strike, K. A. (1997). Toward a coherent and behavioral disorders. Remedial and
constructivism. In J. Novak (Ed.), Special Education, 35(1), 15-27. doi:
Proceedings of the 2nd International 10.1177/0741932513503557
Seminar Misconceptions and
Educational Strategies in Science Villanueva, M. G. (2010). Integrated teaching
and Mathematics, Vol. 1. Ithaca, NY: strategies model for improved scientific
Cornell University, 481-489. literacy in second-language learners.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Taylor, J. C., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University,
E., Watt, S., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
(2011). Using an inquiry-based teaching
approach to improve science outcomes White House, Office of the Press Secretary.
for students with disabilities: Snapshot (2011, January 25). Remarks by the
and longitudinal data. Journal of president in the state of union address.
Science Education for Students with Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.
Disabilities, 15(1), 27-39. gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-
president-state-union-address.
Taylor, J. C., Chanlen, N., Therrien, W.
J., Hand, B. (2014). Improving critical Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B.
thinking with science inquiry. Academic M. (2003). Examining the literacy
Exchange Quarterly, 18(1), 77-84. component of science literacy: 25 years
of language arts and science research.
Terrell, N. (2007). STEM occupations: International Journal of Science
High-tech jobs for a high-tech Education, 25, 689-725.
economy. Occupational Outlook
Quarterly, 51(1), 26.
14