Angelo Ruggiero

Exc 3304/04/Sp. 03

Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including Students With

Disabilities Into the General Education Science Classroom. Exceptional Children, 68 (4), 423-435.

PROBLEM: This article addresses a project that analyzes the achievement and behavior of students in science classes where students with disabilities are included in the general education classroom in comparison to classrooms not including students with disabilities.

SUBJECTS: The study included 45 general science education teachers and special education teachers along with 114 junior high school students from an inner-city school with a poverty level of 97%. Specifically the study included two seventh grade general education classes, two eighth grade general education classes and two seventh and eighth grade combined special education classes. One of each of the general education classes was with inclusion. From the sample population 51.8% of the students were male and 48.2% were female, with 72% belonging to a minority group.

PROCEDURE: The teachers, both general and special educators, completed an extensive 100-hour training course to enhance the science program of their school. The 45 teachers were divided into 15 teams of 3. Their main goal was for the general education teachers to develop an understanding for the needs of special education students and for the special education teacher to develop an understanding for science, both with an emphasis on “hands on” activities. The data was gathered from final exams, final grades, discipline referrals, and attendance. The special education students were given the same work. Tests were modified for the students’ IEP’s but, “no changes were made in the test of the scoring” (Cawley, et al., 2002, p. 430). Behavior was recorded based on the number of referrals per class.

RESULTS: The results from this study are quite different from a regular study. Since there was no true hypothesis to test the results just illustrate what the authors saw. They do not go into great detail about the results for the final exams and final grades, but their information shows that students in the non-inclusion classroom did better than the students in the inclusion classroom. The behavior shows that all students had a lower rate of referrals in science class as compared to other classes. Attendance was also recorded, but not much attention was given to this data.

CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the passing rate for the special education students was higher compared to the general education students. They also stated that “the behavior of the SE [special education] students posed no problem in the science class, and the behavior of the GE [general education] students was not affected in a negative way by the presence of the SE students” (Cawley, et al., 2002, p. 432). It was also concluded that the science class is best suited for the concentration of the LRE in an appropriate education since, “the science class is characterized by extensive interpersonal contact between and among students and teacher(s)” (Cawley, et al., 2002, p. 432).

REFLECTIONS: The information in this study is very vague. It was hard to tell the true meaning or hypothesis of the study. The evidence is supportive of Cawley, et al. statements, but I do not feel that it was done in the best format for the study. They only looked at an inner-school with a poverty level of 97%. I believe that the results would very tremendously if they looked at a school in a suburban area with a much lower poverty level. Although I am not a great advocate of special education I will have to agree with the authors that the science classroom is the least restrictive environment. Friend and Bursuck (2002, p. 2) state the concept of LRE for many students is participation in the general education classroom. The science classroom give the students the greatest amount of ‘hands-on” activities which allow for student teacher involvement. I know that when I have my own science classroom I will have special education students in my general education classroom as the basic form of an LRE as mandated in P.L. 94-142, the Education for the Handicapped Act. After reading this article I know that I will be able to meet the needs of most special education students with “hands-on” activities in my general education classroom; believed to be the LRE by Cawley, et al. (2002, p. 432). I believe that teaching science cannot be done without an extensive amount of “hands-on” activities.

References:

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2002). Including Students With Special Needs: A Practical

Guide for Classroom Teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.