Our findings indicate that typical students, at-risk students, and students with mild and moderate disabilities improved in their science learning when their teachers participated in the Action Reflection Process. Moreover, students with disabilities increased at the same or greater rates than their typical peers when teachers implemented adaptations specifically designed to promote understanding of the science concepts. Based on this evidence, we conclude that when teachers, curriculum specialists, special educators, and media specialists shared their expertise through the Action Reflection Process, they developed methods of supporting students with disabilities that made a difference in these students' science learning. We believe that these successes are due to the fact that teachers received suggestions for modifications and support for students with disabilities within the context of the academic arena; through ongoing review of students' understanding of the concepts, teachers were able to direct instruction and support where it was needed.

The data for students with severe disabilities were analyzed separately, using an alternate assessment.


Teachers and Special Educators

The Action Reflection Process had a unique impact on teachers and special educators. Many perceived changes in their roles, or changed their own teaching and assessment practices. Members of the teams began to collaborate with one another to support student learning. The process also engaged new and sometimes resistant teachers. Each facet of this impact is described below.

Overall, teachers who participated in the process demonstrated new instructional practices. Special educators saw science as an opportunity to support students with disabilities, and the modifications they provided were effective. Teachers became more aware of their assessment practices. Teachers and specialists saw the value of collaboration in supporting students' science learning. The process was successful at engaging new and reluctant teachers through creating a safe environment for them to share their work; yet, teachers' continued use of the process depended on the active involvement of the principal and the science staff development teacher.

We also have evidence of impact on the professionalism of the staff. Through the Action Reflection Process, science staff development teachers, classroom teachers, and special educators have published articles and presented at national conferences. This has disseminated the Action Reflection Process beyond our efforts, and promoted these practitioners into the national spotlight in their respective areas.

The District

There are two important ways in which the Action Reflection Process had an impact across the district: assessment and collaboration.

Assessment

The district now has a way to collect ongoing assessment data of students' science learning to inform its understanding of the district's performance on high-stakes testing.

Throughout the three years of this project, Massachusetts was developing and distributing its Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). As the first tests were administered and the results returned to the district, district leaders struggled to make sense of where these formal high-stakes assessments fit into their educational policy and procedures. In the science department, they were able to compile the MCAS data and compare it to the informal assessments of student work they had been collecting on their own. Teachers participating in the Action Reflection Process requested that a member of the science department talk with them about how the students at their school had done on the MCAS. This helped the teachers understand what students were struggling with based on the curriculum, and what students were struggling with based on difficulty communicating their understanding in writing. This led the same group of teachers to request that other teachers in their building who were integrating writing and science present their ideas to their cluster group. This further aligned the action reflection process with the district goals, because it provided a structured way to look at student work and see what students understood and how they communicated this understanding in writing. Further, it promoted collaboration among the teaching staff across grade levels and across disciplines.

In addition, special educators have now been empowered to develop alternate assessments for students with severe disabilities by demonstrating these students science concept development.

Collaboration

Collaboration among professionals was a district goal and an evaluation requirement for more senior teachers. Principals promoted collaboration among their faculty, although principals did not have a structured way to bring professionals together around student work. The Action Reflection Process brought together professionals, particularly those who supported the learning of students with disabilities, with classroom teachers, and library/media/technology and content specialists. Prior to the process, science staff development teachers, special educators, and library/media/technology specialists had only collaborated with classroom teachers. Through the process, they shared their expertise with one another, identifying science content goals and sharing strategies to support students with disabilities. Through their collaboration, these professionals developed an understanding of how they complemented one another in helping students meet the district goals. For example, the literacy specialist, who had been working with supporting students' narrative writing, wanted to work with teachers in the upper grades on expository writing. Through the Action Reflection Process, she was able to see how students responded to the science curriculum in writing, and to learn about the science concepts from the science staff developer. She then shared her own expertise on how to support students in writing. This led to the science staff development teachers looking closely at the connection between science and literacy. The literacy specialist commented:

"Just having the right people at the table with whatever the teacher's question is--I think that is really important. If they want more ideas about special education, then the specialist is there. If they want more technology, then the tech person is there."

"I think that the [Action Reflection Process] is very useful, especially for inclusion kids. [I ask] what is important for this student to know in the time we have with him or her? I think that the [action reflection] tool provides the structure so that you get prepared. For example, how included is Student A with an IEP, compared to Students B and C? What modifications can we make for all kids, especially when we are dealing with more abstract concepts? This kind of work can go into a portfolio for students and help you build an understanding of the child. It also provides us with opportunities to see what students know, including typical kids. Sometimes we don't spend enough time looking at the typical children. [The process] provides opportunities for more dialogue."