Monitoring Learning-Disabled Students in Mainstream Science Classes F. Carlisle ~oanne lizabeth Andrews Learning Disabilities Program Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois
While science classes are believed to be interactive learning environments, offering varied ways for students to learn, some experts believe that learning disabled (LD) students should be monitored closely in such settings because of difficulties adjusting to the social, behavioral, and academic demands. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether LD fourth and sixth graders show difficulties adjusting to the demands of their mainstream science classes and to investigate two means of assessing LD students' functioning in these classes: paired questionnaires for teachers and students and a science curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Subjects include 31 fourth graders (9 LD) and 38 sixth graders (13 LD). Results show that the LD students had significant weaknesses on some subtests of the science CBA relative to their peers; additionally, they rated themselves and were rated by their teachers significantly more negatively than their Non-LD peers. These results suggest the potential value of monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Case studies of LD students reveal mismatches in the perception of the student and teacher regarding the The research project reported herein was made possible by the support of the Naomi Williams Donnelley Research Grant of the Chicago Community Trust. In addition, we are grateful for the assistance of the District 65 administration and the school administrators, science teachers, and students of the Chute, Lincoln, King Laboratory, and Orrington Schools in Evanston, Illinois. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 43, 1993. Copyright 9 1993 by The Orton Dyslexia Society ISSN 0736-9387
217
218
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
student's adjustment and classroom habits. Examination of these case studies is used to suggest ways in which the collaboration of student and teacher as well as regular and special education teachers might aid the student.
Introduction Students with learning disabilities (LD) are commonly placed in mainstream content-area classes because teachers believe such students can be easily integrated into such classes (see Scruggs and Mastropieri 1993). Our conversations with science teachers and special education personnel have indicated that mainstream science classes are considered an accessible learning environment for LD students because the approaches to teaching offer so many avenues of learning; students with specific difficulties may find ways to compensate for their learning problems. A further argument is that all students in grades 4 through 8 are learning how to learn from science textbooks, and so the LD students are not at a particular disadvantage. However, some experts in the field of learning disabilities have expressed the view that LD students are at risk for significant academic difficulties in mainstream classes because of the need to meet the social, behavioral, and intellectual demands of learning in a regular classroom environment (Lovitt et al. 1986; Bender and Smith 1990). They suggest that LD students' performance in the mainstream content-area course must be closely monitored. However, it is not clear that these warnings apply to LD students placed in mainstream science classes. One purpose of this project was to examine these beliefs. We sought to determine whether LD students in the fourth and sixth grades are at risk for learning difficulties not only because of their performance in reading science textbooks, but also because of their adjustment to the expectations of their teachers. In doing so, we devised two methods of monitoring LD students in science classes. One involves curriculum-based assessment of comprehension of texts. The other is assessment of the student's classroom habits, study habits or skills, and learning capabilities as a way to monitor the student's adjustment to the learning requirements of a given classroom. In this report we discuss the extent to which fourth- and sixth-grade LD students are significantly less able to cope with the learning standards of mainstream classes, and we present the results of our preliminary investigation of the methods we devised for monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Classroom Adjustment Students' adjustment to learning in a mainstream classroom may be affected not only by their intellectual and behavioral characteristics
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
219
but also by their teachers' standards and attitudes (Bender and Smith 1990; Durrant, Cunningham, and Voelker 1990). Content-area teachers may not feel obliged to be responsive to individual differences (Brady et al. 1992; Jenkins, Pious, and Jewel11990; Zigmond, Levin, and Laurie 1985). Research results from studies of teacher attitudes toward what constitutes "teachable" students suggest that characteristics commonly associated with learning disabilities might result in LD students being viewed less than positively by regular education teachers, both in terms of their behavioral characteristics and their academic capabilities (Kornblau and Keogh 1980; Truesdell and Abramson 1992). Zigmond and her associates (1985) found that 65 percent of the teachers in their study reported that LD students differed from the other students in skill competence; they also viewed LD students as placing more burden on them in terms of attention and preparation of lessons. Further evidence of differential regard for and treatment of LD students comes from observational studies which have shown that teachers interact differently with handicapped and with non-handicapped students in subtle ways that may affect their learning (see Alves and Gottlieb 1986). An additional concern is that LD students have been found to differ from their peers in their perceptions of their academic competence (Chapman 1988; Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Durrant, Cunningham, and Voelker 1990; Kistner et al. 1987). Low academic self-concept may have a negative impact on the students' adjustment to learning in a mainstream environment; a significant relationship has been found between academic self-concept and students' achievement as measured by grades (Marsh 1992; Truesdell and Abramson 1992). Of particular interest, the results of recent studies have suggested that academic self-concept should not be regarded as a unitary construct (Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Marsh 1990); students' attitudes toward their own strengths and weaknesses need to be assessed in domain-specific areas because they are likely to have very different views of themselves in different academic contexts. An LD student's rating of his/her academic competence and behavior and the teacher's rating of that student are sometimes discrepant. In cases where the student's rating is higher than the teacher's, the discrepancy may indicate that a student has an inflated view of his/her scholastic competence; it may also reflect denial of problems or eagerness to prevent undesirable outcomes (e.g., more attention to their learning problems) (see Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992). Cases where the student's rating is lower than the teacher's may suggest low selfesteem. Regardless of the cause or nature of the discrepancy between a teacher's and a student's views of the student's academic capabilities and attitudes, such discrepancies may limit the student's ability to improve his/her functioning in that course. Discrepancies, as well as over-
220
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
all low ratings, might profitably be addressed by teacher-student conferences and/or by collaboration with the special education personnel. Calfee and Hiebert (1991) remark that few teachers make an effort to determine whether their perceptions of students' problems and attitudes conform with the students' own views. It has been proposed that effective assessment of reading and other academic skills may be enriched by collaborative efforts on the part of the teacher and the student (Valencia and Pearson 1988). To achieve this goal, questionnaires might be devised to contain items that reflect the learning habits and skills that characterize successful work in particular content areas. In keeping with the research findings on academic self-concept and the belief that science classes are interactive, multimodal learning environments, we considered it important to engage the science teachers in the process of developing a teacher/student questionnaire which would specify aspects of adjustment and functioning they considered important in their classrooms. Thus, the science teachers worked collaboratively with us to develop a list of target behaviors that reflected their expectations and standards. Assessment of Comprehension of Science Textbooks
A second way to determine whether LD students can be successful in regular science classes involved assessment of their ability to understand their science textbooks. These books pose challenges for all young readers (Armbruster et al. 1991; Konopak et al. 1990), but it seemed likely that a significant number of the LD students in grades 4 through 6 might have pronounced difficulties reading and learning from their science textbooks, if only because so many LD students have language-based learning disabilities with associated difficulties in reading (Lovitt et al. 1986; Lyon 1985). Such difficulties are unlikely to be addressed in the science classes because studies have shown that little instruction or guidance in reading science textbooks is given (Armbruster et al. 1991; Konopak et al. 1990). Science textbooks may present particular challenges to young readers in a number of ways. One is recognizing and/or working out the pronunciation of multisyllabic, multimorphemic words, some of which are technical and specific to topics in science. In theory, by fifth or sixth grade, word recognition skills are accurate and rapid enough so that students can comprehend passages at a comparable level (grade level or above) by listening and by reading (Sticht and James 1984), but this may not be the case in reading science texts. A second potential problem is the unfamiliar vocabulary; science texts have been found to be particularly dense in their presentation of information and to present or use relatively unfamiliar terms at a frequent rate (Konopak 1991). While specialized vocabulary words are generally defined in the
LD STVDE~rrs XN SCIENCE CLASSES
221
text, it is not clear that such definitions are sufficient to convey meaning to the students. In addition, other uncommon words are not defined in the text but are salient to the meaning of the passage. An example in the passage in Appendix A is the word "livestock," which is not likely to be familiar to a large number of fourth graders and cannot be clearly inferred from the text passage. A related problem is that comprehension of some passages may depend heavily on the students' having appropriate background knowledge (Meyer 1991). A final problem is that the relations among ideas are not always clearly specified. In the passage in Appendix A, the sentence "Seaweed has many uses" follows a sentence stating that people eat fish and fed fish to livestock. No clue is given to tell the reader that this is another example of ocean resources. For the purposes of monitoring students' comprehension of their science textbooks, curriculum-based assessment (CBA) is likely to provide the most helpful information. To assess students' comprehension, given the particular problems associated with reading science textbooks, we considered it important to design a test with developmentally sensitive subtests; these were Word Recognition, Vocabulary, Listening Passages, and Reading Passages. A further issue was what type of task to use in assessing comprehension (listening and reading). In their discussion of methods appropriate for CBA, Salvia and Hughes (1990) recommend using either sentence verification or retelling. Since retelling of passages is an expressive language task, which therefore might underestimate the comprehension of LD students, sentence verification was selected as the task for the Listening and Reading Passages subtests. Sentence verification is a method of assessing comprehension that entails judging test sentences to determine whether they contain ideas that were or were not in the passage (Carlisle 1989a, 1989b; Royer, Hastings, and Hook 1979). This method of assessment offers a relatively direct comparison of listening and reading comprehension. Design of the Study The general goal of the study was the development and investigation of methods for monitoring the progress of LD students in mainstream science classes. The first issue we sought to address was whether performances on the science CBA and the teacher/student questionnaires suggested that the LD students did in fact need to be monitored in mainstream science classrooms. This concern was reflected in the following research questions: 1) Do the LD and Non-LD students in the fourth and sixth grades differ on their performances on the components of the Science Comprehension Test (Word Recognition, Vocabulary, Listening Passages, and Reading Passages)? 2) Do the LD and Non-LD students at these grade levels differ on their performances on the Student Questionnaire and the Teacher Question-
222
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
naire? 3) Do more LD students than Non-LD students at these grade levels have both negative Student Questionnaire ratings and negative Teacher Questionnaire ratings, relative to the group? The second issue we needed to begin to address was whether the information we proposed to gather would have some value in the process of monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Would these methods of gathering information be useful to students and teachers in determining problems that stand in the way of successful adjustment to and learning in the mainstream? With this concern in mind, the last section of the paper gives case studies of two students to show how strengths and weaknesses in functioning might be identified and subsequently addressed by the teachers (regular and special education) and the student.
Method Subject Selection Sixty-nine LD and Non-LD students from one school district in suburban Chicago (in four elementary and middle school buildings) participated in the study. The diverse ethnic background of the students in this district include Black (43.8 percent), White (47.9 percent), Hispanic (4.6 percent), Asian/P. Islander (3.6 percent), and Native American (.1 percent). Thirty-one fourth graders (9 LD, 22 Non-LD) and 38 sixth graders (13 LD, 25 Non-LD) agreed to participate. The LD students were previously evaluated through the school system and classified as having specific learning disabilities, according to the criteria in Illinois state regulations. All students were currently receiving special education services. The district is dedicated to placing students in the mainstream classroom setting. As part of the project, all students were given two standardized measures of reading, the Woodcock-Johnson (WJ) Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests. At both grade levels, there were significant differences between the LD and Non-LD groups, as Table I shows. The LD students' performances on both measures of reading were weaker than those of their Non-LD peers. Materials The following experimental measures were used:
1. Science Comprehension Test: a. Listening and Reading Passages: Four passages were chosen from the Silver Burdett Science text used at the fourth- and sixth-grade levels (Mallinson et al. 1984/1985). The passages were drawn from units of
LD STVDENTS ~N SCI~NCt CLASSES
223
Table I Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students in the Fourth and Sixth Grades on Letter-Word and Passage Comprehension of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (Standard Scores) Groups Letter-Word Passage Comp Grade 4 LD 84.3 92.9 (n = 9) (10.4) (8.4) Non-LD 120.9 116.4 (n = 22) (14.9) (10.3) Grade 6 LD 95.2 92.3 (n = 13) (15.6) (7.4) Non-LD 110.2 111.2 (n = 25) (16.4) (15.8)
study that had not been used for class instruction. Readability tests (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium 1982) were used to identify two passages that were at or below grade level and two that were somewhat above grade level, which we termed "easy" and "difficult" passages; the students' performances on the easy and difficult passage did not differ significantly at either grade level, so the two types were collapsed for purposes of assessing passage comprehension. Each passage was accompanied by a 12-item sentence verification test. The four types of test sentences used in the verification test were chosen to reflect what might be comprehension problems affecting the understanding of science passages; as illustrated in Appendix A, these are: 1) the Paraphrase, which was used to assess the student's ability to recognize the same idea expressed in different words; 2) the Integrated Sentence, which assessed the student's ability to integrate information across sentences in the passage; 3) the Surface-Level Teaser, which assessed recognition of the meaning of sentences, rather than surfacelevel memory for phrases that were in the passage; and 4) the Nontopical Sentence, which assessed the student's ability to determine the ideational boundary of the passage. The sentences were presented in random order. Each passage was used for both Listening and Reading in a counterbalanced design. The reliability of the comprehension component (Listening and Reading Passages) was .81 for the fourth grade and .85 for the sixth grade (Spearman-Brown coefficients). b. Word Recognition Test: Twenty words were selected from the science passages at each grade level to constitute a test of word reading. The word list included words of two to four syllables, most of which
224
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
were phonetically regular (e.g., "movement" for the fourth grade and "continents" for the sixth grade); a few at each grade level contained an irregular element (e.g., "certain" for fourth grade and "strengthens" for the sixth grade). The words were selected to be moderately common in the students' texts (Carroll, Davies, and Richman 1971). c. Vocabulary Test: This subtest assessed knowledge of words used in the passages, words that appeared to be central to the comprehension of the passages. Some were explained in the text (e.g., "resource" in the fourth grade passage that appears in Figure 1), while others were not. Examples of fourth-grade words were "resource" and "tide"; examples of sixth-grade words were "continent" and "theory." Each word was presented orally, and the student told the meaning of the word. A descending five-point scoring system was used to score the responses: Complete, Partial, Context Only, Incorrect, and No Response. Two research assistants scored each definition and then compared their scores; differences were resolved by discussion. Some students took the vocabulary subtest before the comprehension subtests, and some afterward (see Procedures); their performances did not differ based on time of administration (p > .05). 2. The Teacher and Student Questionnaires: a. Teacher Questionnaire: The 25-item test was devised to include behaviors or activities that the teachers indicated were related to students' success in learning in their science classes. Items were developed in group and individual discussions with the science teachers, who also evaluated a preliminary form of the questionnaire. Items were selected to make up four clusters: Reading/Writing activities, Listening/Speaking activities, Motivation/Study Habits, and Attention/ Organization. The teacher was asked to indicate the extent to which a given item was found to be characteristic of the student on a four-point scale--"Usually or Always," "Often," "Sometimes," or "Rarely or Never." Sample items from the Teacher Questionnaire are shown in Figure 1. The internal consistency of the Teacher Questionnaire (SpearmanBrown coefficient) was .97 for the fourth grade; reliability for the complete questionnaire for the sixth grade was not calculated because a significant number of items were left blank by the teachers for occasional students. b. Student Questionnaire: The Student Questionnaire was devised to pattern the content of the Teacher Questionnaire as closely as possible, item by item. However, the format was quite different. The questions were presented in a format designed by Harter (1985); the students read two parts of a sentence, identifying which part was more like them. They then indicated whether the descriptor was "sort of" or "really" like them. Figure 1 shows several items from the Student
LD STUDENTSIN SCIENCE CLASSES
225
Teacher Questionnaire
To what degree does each phrase characterize the student? Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
3. Understands teacher's explanations. [ ]
[]
[]
[]
4. Keeps desk and locker organized.
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
5. Concentrates on work at desk.
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
1. Follows written directions. 2. Needs more time than others to finish a test.
Student Questionnaire Really True for me
Sort of True for me
1.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids have trouble BUT Other kids find it easy following written to follow written directions, directions.
[ ]
[ ]
2.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids need extra BUT Other kids have enough [ ] time to finish tests, time to finish tests.
[ ]
3.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids like to read to learn new things,
BUT Other kids don't like to read as a way to learn,
[ ]
[ ]
4.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids don't keep BUT Other kids keep their desks and notebooks desks and notebooks organized, organized.
[ ]
[ ]
Figure 1.
Sort of Really True Tme for me for me
Sample items from the Teacher Questionnaire and the Student Questionnaire
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( S p e a r m a n B r o w n c o e f f i c i e n t ) w a s .85 for t h e f o u r t h g r a d e a n d .91 for t h e s i x t h grade. Procedures Tests were administered during the spring. Each student participated in two 30-minute sessions. In one session, the student was given m o s t of t h e S c i e n c e C o m p r e h e n s i o n Test ( L i s t e n i n g a n d R e a d i n g P a s -
226
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
sages, Word Recognition). A task of picture interpretation was also used but is not reported in this paper. In the other session, the student was given the Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests, the Vocabulary test, and the Student Questionnaire. The order of the testing sessions was counterbalanced at each grade level, but order of administration did not affect the test results significantly. The word recognition and the listening and reading passages were presented on a Zenith Data Systems Computer.
Results Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students on the Science Test
Our first question was whether the LD and Non-LD students in the mainstream science classes differed from their peers on the Science Comprehension Test. To answer this question, we calculated each student's percent correct score on the different subtests. The groups' scores are given in Table II. Correlations of students' performance on the Word Recognition subtest and the WJ Letter-Word Identification subtest were .78 for the fourth grade and .81 for the sixth grade; correlations of their performances on the Reading Passages and the WJ Passage Comprehension subtest were .55 for the fourth grade and .40 for the sixth grade. The two tests of comprehension appear to be measuring somewhat different comprehension capabilities. The LD and Non-LD students were compared at each grade level
Table II Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students in the Fourth and Sixth Grades on the Science Comprehension Tests (percent correct) Wd Recog Groups Accuracy Vocabulary Listening Comp Reading Comp Grade 4 LD 58.3 60.0 61.2 72.3 (n = 9) (25.5) (5.8) (16.4) (10.3) Non-LD 91.6 69.1 81.7 84.0 (n = 22) (7.3) (13.2) (11.3) (10.8) Grade 6 LD 70.4 51.1 66.3 74.4 (n = 13) (19.9) (10.7) (13.0) (13.6) Non-LD 90.0 61.3 77.3 80.3 (n = 25) (13.3) (18.2) (15.5) (11.1)
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
227
but not across grade levels, since the Science Comprehension Tests at the two grade levels were made from different course materials. For the fourth grade, the LD students were significantly weaker than their peers on the Reading Passages, t(30) = 2.768, p < .05; the Listening Passages, t(30) = 3.956, p < .001; and Word Recognition, t(30) = 5.694, p < .001. They were weaker than their peers on Vocabulary too, but this difference was not quite significant, t(30) -- 1.972, p = .06. For the sixth grade, the LD students were significantly weaker than their peers on the Listening Passages, t(37) = 2.152, p < .05; and Word Recognition, t(37) = 3.588, p < .001. They were not significantly weaker on the Reading Passages, t(37) = 1.456, p = .15, or on Vocabulary, t(37) = 1.849, p = .07. Comparison of LD and Non-LD Student and Teacher Questionnaires
Our second research question concerned the degree to which the LD students and their teachers gave ratings that indicated poorer skills and behaviors in the science classroom. To answer this question, we summed the items of each cluster and calculated each as percent of possible score that could be earned for that cluster. Fewer items were included in the clusters on the Teacher Questionnaire for the sixth graders because some items required more knowledge about their students than some of the sixth-grade teachers felt they had (e.g., "Uses a dictionary to look up unfamiliar words"). Table III shows the scores that resulted for the LD and Non-LD students at each grade level; the clusters were Reading/Writing Behaviors, Listening/Speaking Behaviors, Motivation and Study Habits, and Organization and Attention. Again we compared the LD and Non-LD groups at each grade level but not across grade levels. For the fourth-grade Student Questionnaire, the results of a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) with a group factor (LD and Non-LD) and four dependent variables (the clusters) indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,26) = 5.398, p < .01, and significant differences between the group on two of the clusters (univariate F tests)--Reading/Writing Behaviors, F(1,29) = 15.122, p < .001, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,29) = 7.252, p < .05. The LD and Non-LD ratings did not differ significantly for Listening/ Speaking Behaviors or for Organization/Attention (p > .05). For the fourth-grade Teacher Questionnaire, the same type of MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,24) = 16.507, p < .001. The groups differed significantly on all four clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,27) = 53.699, p < .001, Listening/Speaking Activities, F(1,27) = 20.191, p < .001, Organization/Attention, F(1,27) = 42.584, p < .001, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,27) = 15.992, p < .001. On the sixth-grade Student Questionnaire, the same type of MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(44,33) = 5.590, p < .01.
e~ ~
t/'l '~
e~N~
ge
==o~=
.= .o
II
228
~0
It
II
II
LD STUDENTS x~r SCXE~CCECLASSES
229
Differences between groups on the clusters were significant for two clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,36) = 9.030, p < .01, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,36) = 9.403, p < .01, but not on Listening/ Speaking Behaviors or Organization/Attention (p > .05). On the Teacher Questionnaire, the MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,30) = 4.854, p < .01. The univariate tests showed significant group differences on each of the clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,33) = 7.624, p < .01; Listening/Speaking Activities, F(1,33) = 15.144, p < .001; Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,33) = 15.313, p < .001; and Organization/Attention, F(1,33) = 10.435, p < .01. Correspondence of Student and Teacher Ratings
Our last question was whether the total ratings on the Student and Teacher Questionnaires would indicate group differences in overall adjustment to the mainstream classes. First, Pearson correlations were carried out to determine the relationship between the Student and Teacher Questionnaires for the fourth and sixth grades. The correlation of the Student and Teacher Questionnaires was.34, p = .07 for the fourth grade and .59, p < .001 for the sixth grade. Since the sixthgrade teacher questionnaires had significant missing data, the decision was made to include only the fourth-grade data in the subsequent analysis. The total scores for the Teacher and Student Questionnaires were standardized (transformed into z scores); these scores were plotted to show the correspondence of student and teacher ratings for the LD and Non-LD students. Figure 2 shows the resulting scattergram. Of particular interest is the fact that five of the eight LD students (63 percent) fall in the negative quadrant for both student and teacher ratings, whereas only one of the Non-LD students falls in this quadrant. Thus, a majority of the LD students did not perceive themselves or were not perceived by their teachers as having the characteristics associated with effective adjustment to the mainstream class. The three remaining LD students fall into the quadrant indicating negative teacher ratings but positive ratings of themselves, relative to the group norm. Five Non-LD students are in the quadrant that shows negative student ratings but positive teacher ratings. Thus, in this fourth-grade group, LD students were more likely than Non-LD students to rate themselves more positively than their teachers.
Discussion
We began this study with the purpose of examining two methods of monitoring LD students placed in mainstream science classes--a
230
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
3
I
I
I
I
I
2 0
3.
0
0
Oo~176
0 0
% O~ E~
o
0
0
-:1.-
0
0
--2
-3
-
-3
I
I
I
I
I
-2
-I
0
1
2
3
SQT Legend: Q
LD
O
Non-LD
Figure 2. Plot of Teacher and Student Questionnaire Results (Standardized) for LD Non-LD Fourth Grades science CBA and student/teacher questionnaires for assessing their perceptions of the student's activities and behavior in the science class. We found that in many of the areas we assessed the LD students as a group were not as able to work effectively with their textbooks and were not as well-adjusted to the standards and requirements of the classroom as their Non-LD peers. Our results, therefore, indicate that for many LD students successful achievement in a mainstream science class is a challenging goal. As others have suggested (e.g., Truesdell and Abramson 1992), we conclude that LD students need to be carefully monitored in their adjustment to and progress in mainstream science classes at the middle school and junior high levels.
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
231
Comparison of Teacher and Student Questionnaires
Comparison of the student and teacher questionnaire results indicates that at both the fourth- and sixth-grade levels, the LD students rated themselves significantly less positively than their peers in the areas of Reading/Writing activities and Motivation and Study Habits. The teachers rated the LD students at both grade levels significantly more negatively than their peers on all four clusters. These results echo the findings of others (e.g., Zigmond, Levin, and Laurie 1985) which suggest that mainstream teachers have generally negative views of the capabilities and attitudes of LD students. The analysis of the correspondence between teacher and student questionnaires at the fourthgrade level gives further reason for concern. Sixty-three percent of the LD students fell in the quadrant with negative teacher and student ratings, relative to their peers. Thus, not only did the teachers have negative views of the LD students' capabilities and behavior, but also the students portrayed themselves in a relatively negative light. Other researchers have reported general low academic self-concept for LD students (e.g., Chapman 1988), but our data are specific to the students' view of themselves in the context of their mainstream science classes. Along with students who rate themselves as negatively as their teachers do, we found that some students (more LD than Non-LD) rated themselves significantly more positively than their teachers did. For these students, there is the danger that they may be assessing their own capabilities and adjustment to the mainstream classroom unrealistically. As noted earlier, other researchers have suggested different reasons for such overestimation (Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Kisther et al. 1987). One is that the student in fact has difficulties with social perception and is not effectively processing cues from the teacher and from classmates that signal trouble. A second reason is that the student may wish to avoid unpleasant outcomes (such as tutoring or extra work), and so presents himself or herself in a relatively positive light. A third reason is denial. The student prefers to claim more positive traits, unwilling or unable to accept negative feedback. Our data also show some students (most commonly Non-LD) who rated themselves less positively than their teacher did. The reason(s) for differences in the student's and teacher's perceptions might be uncovered through discussion between the students and their teachers. Performances on the Science Comprehension Test
The LD students at both grade levels were significantly weaker than their peers on the Word Recognition and the Listening Passage subtests. At the fourth-grade level, the LD students were also significantly weaker on the Reading Passages subtest. We should note, too, that the teachers rated the students as significantly less able on reading/
232
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
writing activities at both the fourth- and sixth-grade levels. On the Vocabulary subtest the LD and Non-LD did not differ at either grade level, though in both cases the group differences approached significance. It is of some interest to note that the Non-LD students had very little difficulty with the Word Recognition test, but considerable difficulty giving adequate definitions for the words on the Vocabulary subtest (on the average 60 to 70 percent correct). The LD students, as a group, were relatively weak on both. While the performances of the fourth and sixth graders indicate that science passages are, in fact, difficult for the students to understand, of particular interest for this project is the premise that performances on such a science comprehension test might provide indications of areas where particular work is needed for students to improve their comprehension of and learning from science passages. Such information cannot be gained simply from the analysis of group data. Case Studies
If the questionnaires and comprehension testing provide one way to foster collaborative problem solving between teachers and students, then it seems important to illustrate the kinds of issues that might be addressed, using the data we collected. For this reason, we have chosen to discuss two students with different profiles. The caution we need to provide at the outset is that our measures are still in preliminary stages of development; our purpose here is to describe the potential of this method, not to prescribe or diagnose specific problems. Case 1 illustrates a discrepancy between the student's and the teacher's perspectives of the student's learning and behavioral characteristics in the classroom. As Figure 3 shows, this fourth-grade LD boy gave himself a positive rating on the student questionnaire, but the teacher gave him a relatively low rating. Interestingly, although labeled "learning disabled," this boy answered accurately 96 percent of the questions on the Listening and Reading Passages, and his Word Recognition accuracy was 75 percent. On the WJ measures of word recognition and passage comprehension, he scored in the average range. While his performance suggests an adequate ability to comprehend his science passages, the teacher questionnaire indicates that the teacher did not see him as demonstrating good listening or reading skills in the classroom. Further, she indicated that his organization was a problem, whereas the student rated his organizational abilities as a strength. The teacher also noted that he had trouble concentrating on the work at hand. While it appears that this student has the potential to learn the science curriculum through listening and reading, his adjustment to this mainstream science class has not been entirely successful to date.
LD STUDENTS XN SCIENCE CLASSES
233
Teacher Questionnaire 100 90
80 O O t,. O
---
70 84
-
= =
a.
GR4 Student 1 Student 2
6050-
S
40
&
I
I
Ls
OA Area
Student Questionnaire 100 90
80 (D O
~.
70
a =
O
D. 60
"
GPA
Student 1 Student 2
50 40
I
I
i
I
F~V
LS
MSH
OA
Area
Figure 3.
Fourth-grade group mean and the performance of two LD students on Teacher and Student Questionnaires
His listening and reading strengths should allow him to acquire new information from his science text, but his organization and attentional difficulties may hinder his performance. Further, writing demands and time constraints may pose problems in the classroom. The teacher might use such information to open up avenues of discussion with the special education teacher. Together, they may modify the assessment formats. In addition, a discussion between the teacher and the student concerning differences in expectations and perceptions of behavior might be warranted. In particular, this student might need to have as-
234
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
pects of his work in the classroom structured for him to help him maintain attention and organization. Case 2 presents the profile of a student who may struggle with reading assignments in the textbook somewhat, and yet may otherwise be adjusting well to the mainstream classroom. This boy had below average listening comprehension scores and standardized reading scores. Despite his relatively weak comprehension capabilities, the teacher rated the student as handling the classroom demands adequately. In terms of his listening and reading characteristics in the classroom, the teacher indicated that the student was picking up new information well by listening and reading and that he was an active participant in listening and reading activities. Further, the teacher rated the student as well organized and sufficiently motivated. One area of concern that is highlighted by the questionnaire results is the student's need for more time when taking tests or finishing his work. Perhaps the teacher could accommodate this need in the classroom or could collaborate with the special education teacher to find methods to address this problem. On most of the questions, the student did not rate himself as highly as the teacher did. Together, the teacher and student might uncover reasons for the discrepancies in their perception of his activities and capabilities. Although this discussion has focused on the use of the science CBA and questionnaire results for LD students, the information may also be effective for identifying Non-LD students who are having difficulty in the classroom. These students, too, might benefit from a conference with their teacher to determine the reasons for negative ratings of their performance or discrepancies between the student's and teacher's perceptions. Concluding Remarks At present, mildly handicapped students in grades 4 through 8 commonly learn science with their non-disabled peers in mainstream science classes, but our contact with science teachers has indicated that they feel the LD students need help to learn science effectivelyin these classes. The teachers' impressions were borne out by the results of our study, which indicate that, as a group, fourth- and sixth-grade LD students are at risk for significant difficulties learning science in mainstream classes because of a broad array of the academic and behavioral weaknesses. The purpose of this study was to find methods of gathering information that would reflect the conditions and learning requirements the students were exposed to in their mainstream science classes. These included a science CBA and questionnaires that reflected the science teachers' standards for classroom activities and behavior. While we
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
235
hope that the instruments we have developed can serve as models for others, they might not be appropriate if used without changes in different content areas or at different grade levels. In much the same way that researchers find academic self-concept to be domain specific, we expect that teachers' teaching styles, values, and approaches to instruction, as well as the curriculum of different school districts, can affect the validity of testing of comprehension capabilities in different content areas. Further work is needed to determine whether this is the case. Recent models of effective education for mildly handicapped children in regular classes have indicated that collaboration of regular and special educators is a promising way to monitor the progress of such students (Idol 1989; Polsgrove and McNeil 1989; West and Idol 1990). While collaboration of regular and special educators has received considerable attention in the research literature recently, relatively little attention has been given to the collaboration of students and teachers. Here the teacher takes on the role of co-conspirator in investigating and finding ways to solve the student's learning problems in a given classroom environment (Valencia and Pearson 1988). These two systems have the common goal of joint problem solving, but there is an additional benefit to the involvement of students in the process. This is that the students are put in a position of informed responsibility. As opposed to being regarded simply the recipients of education, they may assist in understanding and designing ways to address their own learning problems. The results of our study lead us to believe that both types of collaboration are called for, given the nature of the LD students' problems in their mainstream science classes.
References Aires, A. J. and Gottlieb, J. 1986. Teacher interactions with mainstreamed handicapped students and their non-handicapped peers. Learning Disability Quarterly 9:77-83. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., and Meyer, L. A. 1991. Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior23(1):35-59. Bender, W. N. and Smith, J. K. 1990. Classroom behavior of children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 23(5):298-305. Brady, M. P., Swank, P. R., Taylor, R. D., and Freiberg, J. 1992. Teacher interaction in mainstream social studies and science classes. Exceptional Children 58(6):530-540. Calfee, R. and Hiebert, E. 1991. Classroom assessment of reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, and E D. Pearson (eds.). Handbookof Reading Research, Vol II. NY: Longman. Carlisle, ]. E 1989a. Diagnosing comprehension deficits through listening and reading. Annals of Dyslexia 39:159-176. Carlisle, J. E 1989b. The use of the sentence verification technique in diagnostic assess-
236
IN
THE CLASSROOM A N D
BEYOND
ment of listening and reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research 5(1):33-44. Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richman, B. 1971. Word Frequency Book. NY: American Heritage Publishing Co. Chapman, J. W. 1988. Cognitive-motivational characteristics and academic achievement of learning disabled children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 80(3):357-365. Clever, A., Bear, G., and Juvonen, J. 1992. Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education 26(2):125-138. Durrant, J. E., Cunningham, C. E., and Voelker, S. 1990. Academic, social, and general self-concepts of behavioral subgroups of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4):657-663. Harter, S. 1985. Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of Denver. Idol, L. 1989. The resource/consulting teacher: An integrated model of service delivery. Remedial and Special Education 10(6):38-48. Jenkins, J. R., Pious, C. G., and Jewell, M. 1990. Special education and the regular education initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children 56(6):479-491. Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., and Robbins, F. 1987. Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly 10:37-44. Konopak, B. C. 1991. Teaching vocabulary to improve science learning. In C. M. Santa and D. E. Alvermann (eds.). Science Learning: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Konopak, B., Cothern, N., Jampole, E., Mitchell, M., Dean, R., Holoman, L., Everett, M., Weems, N., and Arceneaux, L. 1990. Reading instruction in science at the transitional grades: Beliefs versus practice. In J. Zutell, S. McCormick, M. Connolly, and P. O'Keefe (eds.). Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from multiple paradigms. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kornblau, B. W. and Keogh, B. K. 1980. Teachers' perceptions and educational decisions. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1:87-101. Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., and Benedetti, D. 1986. Adapting science materials for regular and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education 7(1):31-39. Lyon, R. 1985. Educational validation studies of learning disabilities subtypes. In B. Rourke (ed.). Learning Disabilities in Children: Advances in subtype analysis. NY: Guilford Press. Mallinson, G. G., Mallinson, J. B., Smallwood, W. L., and Valentino, C. 1984/1985. Science (Level 4 and 6). Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett. Marsh, H. W. 1990. The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4):623-636. Marsh, H. W. 1992. Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(1):35-42. Meyer, L. A. 1991. Are science textbooks considerate? In C. M. Santa and D. E. Alvermann (eds.). Science Learning: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. 1982. Finding readability levels. School
Utilities 2. Polsgrove, L. and McNeil, M. 1989. The consultation process: Research and practice. Remedial and Special Education 10(1):6-13, 20. Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., and Hook, C. 1979. A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior 11(4):355-363. Salvia, J. and Hughes, C. 1990. Curriculum-based assessment: Testing what is taught. NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
237
Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M. A. 1993. Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedialand Special Education 14(1):15-24. Sticht, T. and James, H. J. 1984. Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson (ed.). Handbookof Reading Research. NY: Longman. Truesdell, L. A. and Abramson, T. 1992. Academic behavior and grades of mainstreamed students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children 58(5):392-398. Valencia, S. W. and Pearson, P. D. 1988. Principles for classroom comprehension assessment. Remedialand Special Education 9(1):26-35. West, F. J. and Idol, L. 1990. Collaborative consultation in the education of mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedialand Special Education 11(1):22-31. Zigmond, N., Levin, E., and Laurie, T. E. 1985. Managing the mainstream: An analysis of teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities 18(9):535-541.
Appendix A Excerpt from a fourth-grade passage and four of the sentence verification test items Ocean Resources One way we use oceans is for their resources. A resource is a useful material taken from the earth. Minerals are resources found in the oceans. Some minerals are found in small black rocks on the ocean floor. These rocks are called nodules. Nodules contain minerals such as copper and nickel. Food from the sea is also an important resource. People eat fish and also feed fish to livestock. Seaweed has many uses. Did you know that seaweed is used to make some types of ice cream, candy, and medicines? Natural gas and oil are resources that can be found beneath the ocean floor. As our oil and natural gas supplies on land are used up, we will need the oil and gas under the oceans. The tides can be used to produce energy. This is called tidal power. The rise and fall of the water supplies the energy to make electricity... 1. Travel on the oceans can be dangerous in storms. (Nontopical Information; correct response NO) 2. Copper and nickel are found in small black rocks. (Integrated Sentence; correct response YES) 3. Fish can be used to feed both people and animals. (Paraphrase; correct response YES) 4. Our oil and natural gas supplies are stored in large tanks near the shore. (Surface-level "Teaser"; correct answer NO)
While science classes are believed to be interactive learning environments, offering varied ways for students to learn, some experts believe that learning disabled (LD) students should be monitored closely in such settings because of difficulties adjusting to the social, behavioral, and academic demands. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether LD fourth and sixth graders show difficulties adjusting to the demands of their mainstream science classes and to investigate two means of assessing LD students' functioning in these classes: paired questionnaires for teachers and students and a science curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Subjects include 31 fourth graders (9 LD) and 38 sixth graders (13 LD). Results show that the LD students had significant weaknesses on some subtests of the science CBA relative to their peers; additionally, they rated themselves and were rated by their teachers significantly more negatively than their Non-LD peers. These results suggest the potential value of monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Case studies of LD students reveal mismatches in the perception of the student and teacher regarding the The research project reported herein was made possible by the support of the Naomi Williams Donnelley Research Grant of the Chicago Community Trust. In addition, we are grateful for the assistance of the District 65 administration and the school administrators, science teachers, and students of the Chute, Lincoln, King Laboratory, and Orrington Schools in Evanston, Illinois. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 43, 1993. Copyright 9 1993 by The Orton Dyslexia Society ISSN 0736-9387
217
218
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
student's adjustment and classroom habits. Examination of these case studies is used to suggest ways in which the collaboration of student and teacher as well as regular and special education teachers might aid the student.
Introduction Students with learning disabilities (LD) are commonly placed in mainstream content-area classes because teachers believe such students can be easily integrated into such classes (see Scruggs and Mastropieri 1993). Our conversations with science teachers and special education personnel have indicated that mainstream science classes are considered an accessible learning environment for LD students because the approaches to teaching offer so many avenues of learning; students with specific difficulties may find ways to compensate for their learning problems. A further argument is that all students in grades 4 through 8 are learning how to learn from science textbooks, and so the LD students are not at a particular disadvantage. However, some experts in the field of learning disabilities have expressed the view that LD students are at risk for significant academic difficulties in mainstream classes because of the need to meet the social, behavioral, and intellectual demands of learning in a regular classroom environment (Lovitt et al. 1986; Bender and Smith 1990). They suggest that LD students' performance in the mainstream content-area course must be closely monitored. However, it is not clear that these warnings apply to LD students placed in mainstream science classes. One purpose of this project was to examine these beliefs. We sought to determine whether LD students in the fourth and sixth grades are at risk for learning difficulties not only because of their performance in reading science textbooks, but also because of their adjustment to the expectations of their teachers. In doing so, we devised two methods of monitoring LD students in science classes. One involves curriculum-based assessment of comprehension of texts. The other is assessment of the student's classroom habits, study habits or skills, and learning capabilities as a way to monitor the student's adjustment to the learning requirements of a given classroom. In this report we discuss the extent to which fourth- and sixth-grade LD students are significantly less able to cope with the learning standards of mainstream classes, and we present the results of our preliminary investigation of the methods we devised for monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Classroom Adjustment Students' adjustment to learning in a mainstream classroom may be affected not only by their intellectual and behavioral characteristics
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
219
but also by their teachers' standards and attitudes (Bender and Smith 1990; Durrant, Cunningham, and Voelker 1990). Content-area teachers may not feel obliged to be responsive to individual differences (Brady et al. 1992; Jenkins, Pious, and Jewel11990; Zigmond, Levin, and Laurie 1985). Research results from studies of teacher attitudes toward what constitutes "teachable" students suggest that characteristics commonly associated with learning disabilities might result in LD students being viewed less than positively by regular education teachers, both in terms of their behavioral characteristics and their academic capabilities (Kornblau and Keogh 1980; Truesdell and Abramson 1992). Zigmond and her associates (1985) found that 65 percent of the teachers in their study reported that LD students differed from the other students in skill competence; they also viewed LD students as placing more burden on them in terms of attention and preparation of lessons. Further evidence of differential regard for and treatment of LD students comes from observational studies which have shown that teachers interact differently with handicapped and with non-handicapped students in subtle ways that may affect their learning (see Alves and Gottlieb 1986). An additional concern is that LD students have been found to differ from their peers in their perceptions of their academic competence (Chapman 1988; Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Durrant, Cunningham, and Voelker 1990; Kistner et al. 1987). Low academic self-concept may have a negative impact on the students' adjustment to learning in a mainstream environment; a significant relationship has been found between academic self-concept and students' achievement as measured by grades (Marsh 1992; Truesdell and Abramson 1992). Of particular interest, the results of recent studies have suggested that academic self-concept should not be regarded as a unitary construct (Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Marsh 1990); students' attitudes toward their own strengths and weaknesses need to be assessed in domain-specific areas because they are likely to have very different views of themselves in different academic contexts. An LD student's rating of his/her academic competence and behavior and the teacher's rating of that student are sometimes discrepant. In cases where the student's rating is higher than the teacher's, the discrepancy may indicate that a student has an inflated view of his/her scholastic competence; it may also reflect denial of problems or eagerness to prevent undesirable outcomes (e.g., more attention to their learning problems) (see Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992). Cases where the student's rating is lower than the teacher's may suggest low selfesteem. Regardless of the cause or nature of the discrepancy between a teacher's and a student's views of the student's academic capabilities and attitudes, such discrepancies may limit the student's ability to improve his/her functioning in that course. Discrepancies, as well as over-
220
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
all low ratings, might profitably be addressed by teacher-student conferences and/or by collaboration with the special education personnel. Calfee and Hiebert (1991) remark that few teachers make an effort to determine whether their perceptions of students' problems and attitudes conform with the students' own views. It has been proposed that effective assessment of reading and other academic skills may be enriched by collaborative efforts on the part of the teacher and the student (Valencia and Pearson 1988). To achieve this goal, questionnaires might be devised to contain items that reflect the learning habits and skills that characterize successful work in particular content areas. In keeping with the research findings on academic self-concept and the belief that science classes are interactive, multimodal learning environments, we considered it important to engage the science teachers in the process of developing a teacher/student questionnaire which would specify aspects of adjustment and functioning they considered important in their classrooms. Thus, the science teachers worked collaboratively with us to develop a list of target behaviors that reflected their expectations and standards. Assessment of Comprehension of Science Textbooks
A second way to determine whether LD students can be successful in regular science classes involved assessment of their ability to understand their science textbooks. These books pose challenges for all young readers (Armbruster et al. 1991; Konopak et al. 1990), but it seemed likely that a significant number of the LD students in grades 4 through 6 might have pronounced difficulties reading and learning from their science textbooks, if only because so many LD students have language-based learning disabilities with associated difficulties in reading (Lovitt et al. 1986; Lyon 1985). Such difficulties are unlikely to be addressed in the science classes because studies have shown that little instruction or guidance in reading science textbooks is given (Armbruster et al. 1991; Konopak et al. 1990). Science textbooks may present particular challenges to young readers in a number of ways. One is recognizing and/or working out the pronunciation of multisyllabic, multimorphemic words, some of which are technical and specific to topics in science. In theory, by fifth or sixth grade, word recognition skills are accurate and rapid enough so that students can comprehend passages at a comparable level (grade level or above) by listening and by reading (Sticht and James 1984), but this may not be the case in reading science texts. A second potential problem is the unfamiliar vocabulary; science texts have been found to be particularly dense in their presentation of information and to present or use relatively unfamiliar terms at a frequent rate (Konopak 1991). While specialized vocabulary words are generally defined in the
LD STVDE~rrs XN SCIENCE CLASSES
221
text, it is not clear that such definitions are sufficient to convey meaning to the students. In addition, other uncommon words are not defined in the text but are salient to the meaning of the passage. An example in the passage in Appendix A is the word "livestock," which is not likely to be familiar to a large number of fourth graders and cannot be clearly inferred from the text passage. A related problem is that comprehension of some passages may depend heavily on the students' having appropriate background knowledge (Meyer 1991). A final problem is that the relations among ideas are not always clearly specified. In the passage in Appendix A, the sentence "Seaweed has many uses" follows a sentence stating that people eat fish and fed fish to livestock. No clue is given to tell the reader that this is another example of ocean resources. For the purposes of monitoring students' comprehension of their science textbooks, curriculum-based assessment (CBA) is likely to provide the most helpful information. To assess students' comprehension, given the particular problems associated with reading science textbooks, we considered it important to design a test with developmentally sensitive subtests; these were Word Recognition, Vocabulary, Listening Passages, and Reading Passages. A further issue was what type of task to use in assessing comprehension (listening and reading). In their discussion of methods appropriate for CBA, Salvia and Hughes (1990) recommend using either sentence verification or retelling. Since retelling of passages is an expressive language task, which therefore might underestimate the comprehension of LD students, sentence verification was selected as the task for the Listening and Reading Passages subtests. Sentence verification is a method of assessing comprehension that entails judging test sentences to determine whether they contain ideas that were or were not in the passage (Carlisle 1989a, 1989b; Royer, Hastings, and Hook 1979). This method of assessment offers a relatively direct comparison of listening and reading comprehension. Design of the Study The general goal of the study was the development and investigation of methods for monitoring the progress of LD students in mainstream science classes. The first issue we sought to address was whether performances on the science CBA and the teacher/student questionnaires suggested that the LD students did in fact need to be monitored in mainstream science classrooms. This concern was reflected in the following research questions: 1) Do the LD and Non-LD students in the fourth and sixth grades differ on their performances on the components of the Science Comprehension Test (Word Recognition, Vocabulary, Listening Passages, and Reading Passages)? 2) Do the LD and Non-LD students at these grade levels differ on their performances on the Student Questionnaire and the Teacher Question-
222
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
naire? 3) Do more LD students than Non-LD students at these grade levels have both negative Student Questionnaire ratings and negative Teacher Questionnaire ratings, relative to the group? The second issue we needed to begin to address was whether the information we proposed to gather would have some value in the process of monitoring LD students in mainstream science classes. Would these methods of gathering information be useful to students and teachers in determining problems that stand in the way of successful adjustment to and learning in the mainstream? With this concern in mind, the last section of the paper gives case studies of two students to show how strengths and weaknesses in functioning might be identified and subsequently addressed by the teachers (regular and special education) and the student.
Method Subject Selection Sixty-nine LD and Non-LD students from one school district in suburban Chicago (in four elementary and middle school buildings) participated in the study. The diverse ethnic background of the students in this district include Black (43.8 percent), White (47.9 percent), Hispanic (4.6 percent), Asian/P. Islander (3.6 percent), and Native American (.1 percent). Thirty-one fourth graders (9 LD, 22 Non-LD) and 38 sixth graders (13 LD, 25 Non-LD) agreed to participate. The LD students were previously evaluated through the school system and classified as having specific learning disabilities, according to the criteria in Illinois state regulations. All students were currently receiving special education services. The district is dedicated to placing students in the mainstream classroom setting. As part of the project, all students were given two standardized measures of reading, the Woodcock-Johnson (WJ) Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests. At both grade levels, there were significant differences between the LD and Non-LD groups, as Table I shows. The LD students' performances on both measures of reading were weaker than those of their Non-LD peers. Materials The following experimental measures were used:
1. Science Comprehension Test: a. Listening and Reading Passages: Four passages were chosen from the Silver Burdett Science text used at the fourth- and sixth-grade levels (Mallinson et al. 1984/1985). The passages were drawn from units of
LD STVDENTS ~N SCI~NCt CLASSES
223
Table I Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students in the Fourth and Sixth Grades on Letter-Word and Passage Comprehension of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (Standard Scores) Groups Letter-Word Passage Comp Grade 4 LD 84.3 92.9 (n = 9) (10.4) (8.4) Non-LD 120.9 116.4 (n = 22) (14.9) (10.3) Grade 6 LD 95.2 92.3 (n = 13) (15.6) (7.4) Non-LD 110.2 111.2 (n = 25) (16.4) (15.8)
study that had not been used for class instruction. Readability tests (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium 1982) were used to identify two passages that were at or below grade level and two that were somewhat above grade level, which we termed "easy" and "difficult" passages; the students' performances on the easy and difficult passage did not differ significantly at either grade level, so the two types were collapsed for purposes of assessing passage comprehension. Each passage was accompanied by a 12-item sentence verification test. The four types of test sentences used in the verification test were chosen to reflect what might be comprehension problems affecting the understanding of science passages; as illustrated in Appendix A, these are: 1) the Paraphrase, which was used to assess the student's ability to recognize the same idea expressed in different words; 2) the Integrated Sentence, which assessed the student's ability to integrate information across sentences in the passage; 3) the Surface-Level Teaser, which assessed recognition of the meaning of sentences, rather than surfacelevel memory for phrases that were in the passage; and 4) the Nontopical Sentence, which assessed the student's ability to determine the ideational boundary of the passage. The sentences were presented in random order. Each passage was used for both Listening and Reading in a counterbalanced design. The reliability of the comprehension component (Listening and Reading Passages) was .81 for the fourth grade and .85 for the sixth grade (Spearman-Brown coefficients). b. Word Recognition Test: Twenty words were selected from the science passages at each grade level to constitute a test of word reading. The word list included words of two to four syllables, most of which
224
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
were phonetically regular (e.g., "movement" for the fourth grade and "continents" for the sixth grade); a few at each grade level contained an irregular element (e.g., "certain" for fourth grade and "strengthens" for the sixth grade). The words were selected to be moderately common in the students' texts (Carroll, Davies, and Richman 1971). c. Vocabulary Test: This subtest assessed knowledge of words used in the passages, words that appeared to be central to the comprehension of the passages. Some were explained in the text (e.g., "resource" in the fourth grade passage that appears in Figure 1), while others were not. Examples of fourth-grade words were "resource" and "tide"; examples of sixth-grade words were "continent" and "theory." Each word was presented orally, and the student told the meaning of the word. A descending five-point scoring system was used to score the responses: Complete, Partial, Context Only, Incorrect, and No Response. Two research assistants scored each definition and then compared their scores; differences were resolved by discussion. Some students took the vocabulary subtest before the comprehension subtests, and some afterward (see Procedures); their performances did not differ based on time of administration (p > .05). 2. The Teacher and Student Questionnaires: a. Teacher Questionnaire: The 25-item test was devised to include behaviors or activities that the teachers indicated were related to students' success in learning in their science classes. Items were developed in group and individual discussions with the science teachers, who also evaluated a preliminary form of the questionnaire. Items were selected to make up four clusters: Reading/Writing activities, Listening/Speaking activities, Motivation/Study Habits, and Attention/ Organization. The teacher was asked to indicate the extent to which a given item was found to be characteristic of the student on a four-point scale--"Usually or Always," "Often," "Sometimes," or "Rarely or Never." Sample items from the Teacher Questionnaire are shown in Figure 1. The internal consistency of the Teacher Questionnaire (SpearmanBrown coefficient) was .97 for the fourth grade; reliability for the complete questionnaire for the sixth grade was not calculated because a significant number of items were left blank by the teachers for occasional students. b. Student Questionnaire: The Student Questionnaire was devised to pattern the content of the Teacher Questionnaire as closely as possible, item by item. However, the format was quite different. The questions were presented in a format designed by Harter (1985); the students read two parts of a sentence, identifying which part was more like them. They then indicated whether the descriptor was "sort of" or "really" like them. Figure 1 shows several items from the Student
LD STUDENTSIN SCIENCE CLASSES
225
Teacher Questionnaire
To what degree does each phrase characterize the student? Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
3. Understands teacher's explanations. [ ]
[]
[]
[]
4. Keeps desk and locker organized.
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
5. Concentrates on work at desk.
[ ]
[]
[]
[]
1. Follows written directions. 2. Needs more time than others to finish a test.
Student Questionnaire Really True for me
Sort of True for me
1.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids have trouble BUT Other kids find it easy following written to follow written directions, directions.
[ ]
[ ]
2.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids need extra BUT Other kids have enough [ ] time to finish tests, time to finish tests.
[ ]
3.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids like to read to learn new things,
BUT Other kids don't like to read as a way to learn,
[ ]
[ ]
4.
[ ]
[ ]
Some kids don't keep BUT Other kids keep their desks and notebooks desks and notebooks organized, organized.
[ ]
[ ]
Figure 1.
Sort of Really True Tme for me for me
Sample items from the Teacher Questionnaire and the Student Questionnaire
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( S p e a r m a n B r o w n c o e f f i c i e n t ) w a s .85 for t h e f o u r t h g r a d e a n d .91 for t h e s i x t h grade. Procedures Tests were administered during the spring. Each student participated in two 30-minute sessions. In one session, the student was given m o s t of t h e S c i e n c e C o m p r e h e n s i o n Test ( L i s t e n i n g a n d R e a d i n g P a s -
226
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
sages, Word Recognition). A task of picture interpretation was also used but is not reported in this paper. In the other session, the student was given the Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests, the Vocabulary test, and the Student Questionnaire. The order of the testing sessions was counterbalanced at each grade level, but order of administration did not affect the test results significantly. The word recognition and the listening and reading passages were presented on a Zenith Data Systems Computer.
Results Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students on the Science Test
Our first question was whether the LD and Non-LD students in the mainstream science classes differed from their peers on the Science Comprehension Test. To answer this question, we calculated each student's percent correct score on the different subtests. The groups' scores are given in Table II. Correlations of students' performance on the Word Recognition subtest and the WJ Letter-Word Identification subtest were .78 for the fourth grade and .81 for the sixth grade; correlations of their performances on the Reading Passages and the WJ Passage Comprehension subtest were .55 for the fourth grade and .40 for the sixth grade. The two tests of comprehension appear to be measuring somewhat different comprehension capabilities. The LD and Non-LD students were compared at each grade level
Table II Comparisons of LD and Non-LD Students in the Fourth and Sixth Grades on the Science Comprehension Tests (percent correct) Wd Recog Groups Accuracy Vocabulary Listening Comp Reading Comp Grade 4 LD 58.3 60.0 61.2 72.3 (n = 9) (25.5) (5.8) (16.4) (10.3) Non-LD 91.6 69.1 81.7 84.0 (n = 22) (7.3) (13.2) (11.3) (10.8) Grade 6 LD 70.4 51.1 66.3 74.4 (n = 13) (19.9) (10.7) (13.0) (13.6) Non-LD 90.0 61.3 77.3 80.3 (n = 25) (13.3) (18.2) (15.5) (11.1)
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
227
but not across grade levels, since the Science Comprehension Tests at the two grade levels were made from different course materials. For the fourth grade, the LD students were significantly weaker than their peers on the Reading Passages, t(30) = 2.768, p < .05; the Listening Passages, t(30) = 3.956, p < .001; and Word Recognition, t(30) = 5.694, p < .001. They were weaker than their peers on Vocabulary too, but this difference was not quite significant, t(30) -- 1.972, p = .06. For the sixth grade, the LD students were significantly weaker than their peers on the Listening Passages, t(37) = 2.152, p < .05; and Word Recognition, t(37) = 3.588, p < .001. They were not significantly weaker on the Reading Passages, t(37) = 1.456, p = .15, or on Vocabulary, t(37) = 1.849, p = .07. Comparison of LD and Non-LD Student and Teacher Questionnaires
Our second research question concerned the degree to which the LD students and their teachers gave ratings that indicated poorer skills and behaviors in the science classroom. To answer this question, we summed the items of each cluster and calculated each as percent of possible score that could be earned for that cluster. Fewer items were included in the clusters on the Teacher Questionnaire for the sixth graders because some items required more knowledge about their students than some of the sixth-grade teachers felt they had (e.g., "Uses a dictionary to look up unfamiliar words"). Table III shows the scores that resulted for the LD and Non-LD students at each grade level; the clusters were Reading/Writing Behaviors, Listening/Speaking Behaviors, Motivation and Study Habits, and Organization and Attention. Again we compared the LD and Non-LD groups at each grade level but not across grade levels. For the fourth-grade Student Questionnaire, the results of a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) with a group factor (LD and Non-LD) and four dependent variables (the clusters) indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,26) = 5.398, p < .01, and significant differences between the group on two of the clusters (univariate F tests)--Reading/Writing Behaviors, F(1,29) = 15.122, p < .001, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,29) = 7.252, p < .05. The LD and Non-LD ratings did not differ significantly for Listening/ Speaking Behaviors or for Organization/Attention (p > .05). For the fourth-grade Teacher Questionnaire, the same type of MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,24) = 16.507, p < .001. The groups differed significantly on all four clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,27) = 53.699, p < .001, Listening/Speaking Activities, F(1,27) = 20.191, p < .001, Organization/Attention, F(1,27) = 42.584, p < .001, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,27) = 15.992, p < .001. On the sixth-grade Student Questionnaire, the same type of MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(44,33) = 5.590, p < .01.
e~ ~
t/'l '~
e~N~
ge
==o~=
.= .o
II
228
~0
It
II
II
LD STUDENTS x~r SCXE~CCECLASSES
229
Differences between groups on the clusters were significant for two clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,36) = 9.030, p < .01, and Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,36) = 9.403, p < .01, but not on Listening/ Speaking Behaviors or Organization/Attention (p > .05). On the Teacher Questionnaire, the MANOVA indicated a significant effect overall, F(4,30) = 4.854, p < .01. The univariate tests showed significant group differences on each of the clusters: Reading/Writing Activities, F(1,33) = 7.624, p < .01; Listening/Speaking Activities, F(1,33) = 15.144, p < .001; Motivation/Study Habits, F(1,33) = 15.313, p < .001; and Organization/Attention, F(1,33) = 10.435, p < .01. Correspondence of Student and Teacher Ratings
Our last question was whether the total ratings on the Student and Teacher Questionnaires would indicate group differences in overall adjustment to the mainstream classes. First, Pearson correlations were carried out to determine the relationship between the Student and Teacher Questionnaires for the fourth and sixth grades. The correlation of the Student and Teacher Questionnaires was.34, p = .07 for the fourth grade and .59, p < .001 for the sixth grade. Since the sixthgrade teacher questionnaires had significant missing data, the decision was made to include only the fourth-grade data in the subsequent analysis. The total scores for the Teacher and Student Questionnaires were standardized (transformed into z scores); these scores were plotted to show the correspondence of student and teacher ratings for the LD and Non-LD students. Figure 2 shows the resulting scattergram. Of particular interest is the fact that five of the eight LD students (63 percent) fall in the negative quadrant for both student and teacher ratings, whereas only one of the Non-LD students falls in this quadrant. Thus, a majority of the LD students did not perceive themselves or were not perceived by their teachers as having the characteristics associated with effective adjustment to the mainstream class. The three remaining LD students fall into the quadrant indicating negative teacher ratings but positive ratings of themselves, relative to the group norm. Five Non-LD students are in the quadrant that shows negative student ratings but positive teacher ratings. Thus, in this fourth-grade group, LD students were more likely than Non-LD students to rate themselves more positively than their teachers.
Discussion
We began this study with the purpose of examining two methods of monitoring LD students placed in mainstream science classes--a
230
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
3
I
I
I
I
I
2 0
3.
0
0
Oo~176
0 0
% O~ E~
o
0
0
-:1.-
0
0
--2
-3
-
-3
I
I
I
I
I
-2
-I
0
1
2
3
SQT Legend: Q
LD
O
Non-LD
Figure 2. Plot of Teacher and Student Questionnaire Results (Standardized) for LD Non-LD Fourth Grades science CBA and student/teacher questionnaires for assessing their perceptions of the student's activities and behavior in the science class. We found that in many of the areas we assessed the LD students as a group were not as able to work effectively with their textbooks and were not as well-adjusted to the standards and requirements of the classroom as their Non-LD peers. Our results, therefore, indicate that for many LD students successful achievement in a mainstream science class is a challenging goal. As others have suggested (e.g., Truesdell and Abramson 1992), we conclude that LD students need to be carefully monitored in their adjustment to and progress in mainstream science classes at the middle school and junior high levels.
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
231
Comparison of Teacher and Student Questionnaires
Comparison of the student and teacher questionnaire results indicates that at both the fourth- and sixth-grade levels, the LD students rated themselves significantly less positively than their peers in the areas of Reading/Writing activities and Motivation and Study Habits. The teachers rated the LD students at both grade levels significantly more negatively than their peers on all four clusters. These results echo the findings of others (e.g., Zigmond, Levin, and Laurie 1985) which suggest that mainstream teachers have generally negative views of the capabilities and attitudes of LD students. The analysis of the correspondence between teacher and student questionnaires at the fourthgrade level gives further reason for concern. Sixty-three percent of the LD students fell in the quadrant with negative teacher and student ratings, relative to their peers. Thus, not only did the teachers have negative views of the LD students' capabilities and behavior, but also the students portrayed themselves in a relatively negative light. Other researchers have reported general low academic self-concept for LD students (e.g., Chapman 1988), but our data are specific to the students' view of themselves in the context of their mainstream science classes. Along with students who rate themselves as negatively as their teachers do, we found that some students (more LD than Non-LD) rated themselves significantly more positively than their teachers did. For these students, there is the danger that they may be assessing their own capabilities and adjustment to the mainstream classroom unrealistically. As noted earlier, other researchers have suggested different reasons for such overestimation (Clever, Bear, and Juvonen 1992; Kisther et al. 1987). One is that the student in fact has difficulties with social perception and is not effectively processing cues from the teacher and from classmates that signal trouble. A second reason is that the student may wish to avoid unpleasant outcomes (such as tutoring or extra work), and so presents himself or herself in a relatively positive light. A third reason is denial. The student prefers to claim more positive traits, unwilling or unable to accept negative feedback. Our data also show some students (most commonly Non-LD) who rated themselves less positively than their teacher did. The reason(s) for differences in the student's and teacher's perceptions might be uncovered through discussion between the students and their teachers. Performances on the Science Comprehension Test
The LD students at both grade levels were significantly weaker than their peers on the Word Recognition and the Listening Passage subtests. At the fourth-grade level, the LD students were also significantly weaker on the Reading Passages subtest. We should note, too, that the teachers rated the students as significantly less able on reading/
232
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
writing activities at both the fourth- and sixth-grade levels. On the Vocabulary subtest the LD and Non-LD did not differ at either grade level, though in both cases the group differences approached significance. It is of some interest to note that the Non-LD students had very little difficulty with the Word Recognition test, but considerable difficulty giving adequate definitions for the words on the Vocabulary subtest (on the average 60 to 70 percent correct). The LD students, as a group, were relatively weak on both. While the performances of the fourth and sixth graders indicate that science passages are, in fact, difficult for the students to understand, of particular interest for this project is the premise that performances on such a science comprehension test might provide indications of areas where particular work is needed for students to improve their comprehension of and learning from science passages. Such information cannot be gained simply from the analysis of group data. Case Studies
If the questionnaires and comprehension testing provide one way to foster collaborative problem solving between teachers and students, then it seems important to illustrate the kinds of issues that might be addressed, using the data we collected. For this reason, we have chosen to discuss two students with different profiles. The caution we need to provide at the outset is that our measures are still in preliminary stages of development; our purpose here is to describe the potential of this method, not to prescribe or diagnose specific problems. Case 1 illustrates a discrepancy between the student's and the teacher's perspectives of the student's learning and behavioral characteristics in the classroom. As Figure 3 shows, this fourth-grade LD boy gave himself a positive rating on the student questionnaire, but the teacher gave him a relatively low rating. Interestingly, although labeled "learning disabled," this boy answered accurately 96 percent of the questions on the Listening and Reading Passages, and his Word Recognition accuracy was 75 percent. On the WJ measures of word recognition and passage comprehension, he scored in the average range. While his performance suggests an adequate ability to comprehend his science passages, the teacher questionnaire indicates that the teacher did not see him as demonstrating good listening or reading skills in the classroom. Further, she indicated that his organization was a problem, whereas the student rated his organizational abilities as a strength. The teacher also noted that he had trouble concentrating on the work at hand. While it appears that this student has the potential to learn the science curriculum through listening and reading, his adjustment to this mainstream science class has not been entirely successful to date.
LD STUDENTS XN SCIENCE CLASSES
233
Teacher Questionnaire 100 90
80 O O t,. O
---
70 84
-
= =
a.
GR4 Student 1 Student 2
6050-
S
40
&
I
I
Ls
OA Area
Student Questionnaire 100 90
80 (D O
~.
70
a =
O
D. 60
"
GPA
Student 1 Student 2
50 40
I
I
i
I
F~V
LS
MSH
OA
Area
Figure 3.
Fourth-grade group mean and the performance of two LD students on Teacher and Student Questionnaires
His listening and reading strengths should allow him to acquire new information from his science text, but his organization and attentional difficulties may hinder his performance. Further, writing demands and time constraints may pose problems in the classroom. The teacher might use such information to open up avenues of discussion with the special education teacher. Together, they may modify the assessment formats. In addition, a discussion between the teacher and the student concerning differences in expectations and perceptions of behavior might be warranted. In particular, this student might need to have as-
234
IN THE CLASSROOM AND BEYOND
pects of his work in the classroom structured for him to help him maintain attention and organization. Case 2 presents the profile of a student who may struggle with reading assignments in the textbook somewhat, and yet may otherwise be adjusting well to the mainstream classroom. This boy had below average listening comprehension scores and standardized reading scores. Despite his relatively weak comprehension capabilities, the teacher rated the student as handling the classroom demands adequately. In terms of his listening and reading characteristics in the classroom, the teacher indicated that the student was picking up new information well by listening and reading and that he was an active participant in listening and reading activities. Further, the teacher rated the student as well organized and sufficiently motivated. One area of concern that is highlighted by the questionnaire results is the student's need for more time when taking tests or finishing his work. Perhaps the teacher could accommodate this need in the classroom or could collaborate with the special education teacher to find methods to address this problem. On most of the questions, the student did not rate himself as highly as the teacher did. Together, the teacher and student might uncover reasons for the discrepancies in their perception of his activities and capabilities. Although this discussion has focused on the use of the science CBA and questionnaire results for LD students, the information may also be effective for identifying Non-LD students who are having difficulty in the classroom. These students, too, might benefit from a conference with their teacher to determine the reasons for negative ratings of their performance or discrepancies between the student's and teacher's perceptions. Concluding Remarks At present, mildly handicapped students in grades 4 through 8 commonly learn science with their non-disabled peers in mainstream science classes, but our contact with science teachers has indicated that they feel the LD students need help to learn science effectivelyin these classes. The teachers' impressions were borne out by the results of our study, which indicate that, as a group, fourth- and sixth-grade LD students are at risk for significant difficulties learning science in mainstream classes because of a broad array of the academic and behavioral weaknesses. The purpose of this study was to find methods of gathering information that would reflect the conditions and learning requirements the students were exposed to in their mainstream science classes. These included a science CBA and questionnaires that reflected the science teachers' standards for classroom activities and behavior. While we
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
235
hope that the instruments we have developed can serve as models for others, they might not be appropriate if used without changes in different content areas or at different grade levels. In much the same way that researchers find academic self-concept to be domain specific, we expect that teachers' teaching styles, values, and approaches to instruction, as well as the curriculum of different school districts, can affect the validity of testing of comprehension capabilities in different content areas. Further work is needed to determine whether this is the case. Recent models of effective education for mildly handicapped children in regular classes have indicated that collaboration of regular and special educators is a promising way to monitor the progress of such students (Idol 1989; Polsgrove and McNeil 1989; West and Idol 1990). While collaboration of regular and special educators has received considerable attention in the research literature recently, relatively little attention has been given to the collaboration of students and teachers. Here the teacher takes on the role of co-conspirator in investigating and finding ways to solve the student's learning problems in a given classroom environment (Valencia and Pearson 1988). These two systems have the common goal of joint problem solving, but there is an additional benefit to the involvement of students in the process. This is that the students are put in a position of informed responsibility. As opposed to being regarded simply the recipients of education, they may assist in understanding and designing ways to address their own learning problems. The results of our study lead us to believe that both types of collaboration are called for, given the nature of the LD students' problems in their mainstream science classes.
References Aires, A. J. and Gottlieb, J. 1986. Teacher interactions with mainstreamed handicapped students and their non-handicapped peers. Learning Disability Quarterly 9:77-83. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., and Meyer, L. A. 1991. Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior23(1):35-59. Bender, W. N. and Smith, J. K. 1990. Classroom behavior of children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 23(5):298-305. Brady, M. P., Swank, P. R., Taylor, R. D., and Freiberg, J. 1992. Teacher interaction in mainstream social studies and science classes. Exceptional Children 58(6):530-540. Calfee, R. and Hiebert, E. 1991. Classroom assessment of reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, and E D. Pearson (eds.). Handbookof Reading Research, Vol II. NY: Longman. Carlisle, ]. E 1989a. Diagnosing comprehension deficits through listening and reading. Annals of Dyslexia 39:159-176. Carlisle, J. E 1989b. The use of the sentence verification technique in diagnostic assess-
236
IN
THE CLASSROOM A N D
BEYOND
ment of listening and reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research 5(1):33-44. Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richman, B. 1971. Word Frequency Book. NY: American Heritage Publishing Co. Chapman, J. W. 1988. Cognitive-motivational characteristics and academic achievement of learning disabled children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 80(3):357-365. Clever, A., Bear, G., and Juvonen, J. 1992. Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education 26(2):125-138. Durrant, J. E., Cunningham, C. E., and Voelker, S. 1990. Academic, social, and general self-concepts of behavioral subgroups of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4):657-663. Harter, S. 1985. Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of Denver. Idol, L. 1989. The resource/consulting teacher: An integrated model of service delivery. Remedial and Special Education 10(6):38-48. Jenkins, J. R., Pious, C. G., and Jewell, M. 1990. Special education and the regular education initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children 56(6):479-491. Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., and Robbins, F. 1987. Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly 10:37-44. Konopak, B. C. 1991. Teaching vocabulary to improve science learning. In C. M. Santa and D. E. Alvermann (eds.). Science Learning: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Konopak, B., Cothern, N., Jampole, E., Mitchell, M., Dean, R., Holoman, L., Everett, M., Weems, N., and Arceneaux, L. 1990. Reading instruction in science at the transitional grades: Beliefs versus practice. In J. Zutell, S. McCormick, M. Connolly, and P. O'Keefe (eds.). Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from multiple paradigms. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kornblau, B. W. and Keogh, B. K. 1980. Teachers' perceptions and educational decisions. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1:87-101. Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., and Benedetti, D. 1986. Adapting science materials for regular and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education 7(1):31-39. Lyon, R. 1985. Educational validation studies of learning disabilities subtypes. In B. Rourke (ed.). Learning Disabilities in Children: Advances in subtype analysis. NY: Guilford Press. Mallinson, G. G., Mallinson, J. B., Smallwood, W. L., and Valentino, C. 1984/1985. Science (Level 4 and 6). Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett. Marsh, H. W. 1990. The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4):623-636. Marsh, H. W. 1992. Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(1):35-42. Meyer, L. A. 1991. Are science textbooks considerate? In C. M. Santa and D. E. Alvermann (eds.). Science Learning: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. 1982. Finding readability levels. School
Utilities 2. Polsgrove, L. and McNeil, M. 1989. The consultation process: Research and practice. Remedial and Special Education 10(1):6-13, 20. Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., and Hook, C. 1979. A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior 11(4):355-363. Salvia, J. and Hughes, C. 1990. Curriculum-based assessment: Testing what is taught. NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.
LD STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
237
Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M. A. 1993. Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedialand Special Education 14(1):15-24. Sticht, T. and James, H. J. 1984. Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson (ed.). Handbookof Reading Research. NY: Longman. Truesdell, L. A. and Abramson, T. 1992. Academic behavior and grades of mainstreamed students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children 58(5):392-398. Valencia, S. W. and Pearson, P. D. 1988. Principles for classroom comprehension assessment. Remedialand Special Education 9(1):26-35. West, F. J. and Idol, L. 1990. Collaborative consultation in the education of mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedialand Special Education 11(1):22-31. Zigmond, N., Levin, E., and Laurie, T. E. 1985. Managing the mainstream: An analysis of teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities 18(9):535-541.
Appendix A Excerpt from a fourth-grade passage and four of the sentence verification test items Ocean Resources One way we use oceans is for their resources. A resource is a useful material taken from the earth. Minerals are resources found in the oceans. Some minerals are found in small black rocks on the ocean floor. These rocks are called nodules. Nodules contain minerals such as copper and nickel. Food from the sea is also an important resource. People eat fish and also feed fish to livestock. Seaweed has many uses. Did you know that seaweed is used to make some types of ice cream, candy, and medicines? Natural gas and oil are resources that can be found beneath the ocean floor. As our oil and natural gas supplies on land are used up, we will need the oil and gas under the oceans. The tides can be used to produce energy. This is called tidal power. The rise and fall of the water supplies the energy to make electricity... 1. Travel on the oceans can be dangerous in storms. (Nontopical Information; correct response NO) 2. Copper and nickel are found in small black rocks. (Integrated Sentence; correct response YES) 3. Fish can be used to feed both people and animals. (Paraphrase; correct response YES) 4. Our oil and natural gas supplies are stored in large tanks near the shore. (Surface-level "Teaser"; correct answer NO)
