Embracing the Complexity of Inclusive Science Classrooms: Professional Development through Collaboration

by Lori Lyman DiGisi, Andrea Nix, Karen Daniels, Leslie Kramer and Susan Cyr
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC)

(Reprinted with permission from a Special Issue on Teacher as Researcher, edited by Kenneth Tobin, in Research in Science Education (1999), 29(2), 247-268.
For more information on this special issue see: http://www.fed.qut.edu.au/asera/projects/

Abstract

Designing a Collaborative Research Project

In 1993, an agenda was developed for the Technology, Educational Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program at the US Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). This agenda requested that researchers propose projects where practitioners were involved with them on collaborative research. Developing an intervention that included practitioners in its design, implementation, and evaluation, and that was also sensitive to the complexity of daily life in classrooms of students with disabilities required a significant innovation on the part of the researchers. Zorfass and DiGisi of Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC) synthesized the research literature from the fields of science, special education, technology, and school reform to determine what practices were most effective for teaching inquiry-based science to students with disabilities (see proposal for Project ASSIST, 1996). Together with administrators in special education, technology, and science, school principals, and teachers from the Cambridge, MA public schools, Zorfass and DiGisi designed an intervention termed the Action Reflection Process to enable practitioners to access and implement the most effective strategies for teaching science to students with disabilities.

The central idea of the Action Reflection Process was that school staff from special education, science, technology, and library/media departments would meet on a regular basis together with classroom teachers to collaboratively analyze student work, reflect on instruction, and implement strategies for effective instruction. During these weekly meetings, specialists would share research-based strategies from their traditionally "individual" disciplines with teachers, providing ongoing professional development in science, technology, and special education, and subsequently enabling teachers to use these strategies to help students with disabilities achieve in science.

The idea of sharing expertise within the school was strongly supported by the professional development literature (Fullan, 1993; Slavin, 1990; Miller, Lord, and Dorney, 1994). Taking this as a central tenet, the Project ASSIST design aimed to address a number of identified school-based needs. Teachers needed opportunities to discuss curriculum in an ongoing manner with other professionals knowledgeable in the fields of science, special education, and technology. School professionals own a great deal of knowledge about effective teaching in each of their disciplines, but there was rarely time for teachers and specialists to share their knowledge in a meaningful way. Further, when specialists would develop a deeper understanding of both the students and the science curriculum, they are able to provide services that better supported students' learning within the curriculum (Shure, Morocco, DiGisi, and Yenkin, in press).

Teachers and specialists needed to engage in this collaboration through a structured discussion around student work to understand what students were actually learning, and to modify their practice accordingly (Schmoker, 1996; ATLAS, 1996, Hatch and Seidel, 1997). To collaborate successfully, team members needed to understand that the work they were doing followed the principles of no-fault, collaboration, and consensus (Comer, 1992; ATLAS, 1996). Taken from the work of James Comer, these principles set forth a safe climate in which professionals will work together to solve problems without blaming each other, the child, or the environment. They will collaborate in this problem solving and they will acknowledge each member's contribution to the process, coming to consensus after each member feels that they have been heard. Finally, in order for these team meetings to occur on a regular basis, their work needed to be sanctioned and supported by the school administrative structures (Elmore, 1990; Schmoker, 1996; Fullan, 1993; Shure, Morocco, DiGisi, and Yenkin, in press).

Understanding the Context of Inclusive Schools

It is clear that the classrooms of today are diverse, complex places. Teachers need to be clear about the concepts they are teaching, then plan opportunities for students with a wide range of abilities to access these concepts with varied amounts of support. For example, a third grade teacher could be teaching a unit on rocks and minerals to 20 children. Of those, many will need the teacher to model how a scientist observes minerals and records her findings. Some children may need a larger hand lens to observe the rocks and minerals because a typical hand lens may be too difficult to grasp or look through. Some children may need support in writing down their observations using a tool such as a "word bank" of scientific words, or a carefully structured journal page. A child with developmental delays that put her three to four years behind her typically developing peers in language, cognitive reasoning, and fine motor control may not be able to record her observations using paper and pencil. This child may learn to record her observations of differences in size, color, and texture of minerals by dictating to an adult and/or using computer programs that read the names of the minerals and the colors to her. She may use specially prepared keyboards with a button that has a picture of quartz and the words rose quartz on it, a button that says is, and several buttons that let her choose a color word such as pink, blue, black, or white. Goals for this child may be that she learn some science concepts about rocks and minerals, at the same time improving her language, sight word vocabulary, and communication skills. These concerns are further compounded by the unique learning needs of a range of students, as well as by the myraid demands of classroom life. It is clear that teachers today must be armed with many different tools and strategies for addressing all students' needs.

Empirical research studies have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how to teach students effectively, and they have provided strong evidence for specific strategies for supporting the learning of students with disabilities within controlled and/or separate settings (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1994; Gersten, Lloyd, and Baker, 1998). Yet, how is a teacher to learn which strategies work best for which students? How does she plan effective science instruction with effective modifications for students with disabilities? How does she coordinate her curriculum with the specialists who work with the students in her classroom? How do specialists coordinate their services with the curriculum? Interventions that involve the teaching and learning of students with a wide range of abilities in classrooms need to include all the professionals who work with children, and need to respond to the complexity of daily life in classrooms with students with disabilities. Project ASSIST was created to meet these diverse needs.

Goals of Project ASSIST

Project ASSIST was designed to improve the achievement of students with disabilities within the general science curriculum in grades K-6. Drawing from the most effective empirical research on teaching science to students with disabilities, and feedback from practitioners, we established the following goals for Project ASSIST:

The Action Reflection Process is the central structure of Project ASSIST collaborative research. It has three components:

Using student work as a focal point for discussion and analysis, classroom teachers and practitioners from science, special education, and technology form a team to discuss student learning on a regular basis. They analyze and reflect on student work from three students: a typical learner; a student with an individualized education plan (IEP); and a student whom a teacher determines is at-risk based on her own criteria. Teachers share student work from three points in the unit: a pre-test; a mid-point embedded assessment; and a final assessment, so that the discussion and documentation focuses on student learning over time. The ongoing process is guided by a facilitator and two tools: 1) a protocol for analyzing student work; and 2) an action reflection tool for documenting the team's collaborative work. Following the learning from student work protocol, teams first describe what they see in the three students' work objectively, then they interpret what they believe the students understand about the science concepts, and then determine subsequent instructional strategies and use of technology tools to increase all students' learning. Based on this discussion, classroom teachers and specialists implement suggestions, and reflect together on the effectiveness of implemented strategies at the next meeting.

Once the researchers and practitioners collaborated on the design of the intervention, it was necessary to work within existing school structures to determine how it would be implemented. The next section provides three research stories of how teachers used the Action Reflection Process to understand and support their work with students, fostering learning in science for all students. In Project ASSIST, teachers collaboratively follow the work of three students throughout a science unit, documenting their analysis of the work, strategies they decide upon, and their reflections of what is successful. These three teachers took the work to a new level, analyzing one student to create a research story and an analysis of their own growth as professionals. The first research story, written by a science staff development teacher, describes how she used the Action Reflection Process to develop strategies to support one student's learning about magnets. The second research story, written by a speech and language pathologist, illustrates how through collaboratively planning science lessons with a classroom team, she was able to bring her expertise to support one student's learning both in the classroom and during speech therapy sessions. The third research story, written by a fifth grade teacher describes how she integrates several professional development initiatives into her science teaching to gain new insights into students' understanding.

Three Research Stories

Using the Action Reflection Process to Individualize for a Student with Special Needs: A Science Staff Developer's View by Susan Cyr

Inclusion, inquiry-based activities, integrated curriculum, thematic teaching-these are all terms that have crept into the educational lexicon since I began teaching in 1986. But what do they all mean in the classroom of the 1990s and beyond? As a classroom teacher, I was confronted with the concept of inquiry-based teaching, first in mathematics and then in science. At about the same time, our school district moved toward effectively including all students in elementary education. Therefore, classrooms became more heterogeneous in regard to learning styles and abilities. What could I, with a master's degree in special education, or my colleagues with no training in special education, do to modify science lessons to really improve the learning of students with educational challenges?

After three years of implementing an inquiry-based integrated curriculum in a self-contained fifth grade, I left the classroom and became a science staff development teacher, working with other teachers to enhance the teaching of science in their own classes. I work in 52 classrooms with hundreds of students in grades K-6. I work with 24 different science units in the three major science areas of Life, Physical, and Earth Science. As I go from classroom to classroom, I am intrigued by how teachers include the students with special needs into their science activities. For some teachers this is an easy integration, for others, more difficult.

This is the story of my work with one child who has developmental delays. At the time she was in a self-contained, 2nd/3rd grade classroom. Her teacher was a colleague with whom I had successfully collaborated in the past. She was introducing the class to the concept of magnets: specifically, what they are, and how they react to various objects in the classroom. I was present for the introductory lesson in which the teacher allowed the students to explore with the magnets prior to asking them to more formally experiment with them. She allowed approximately seven minutes for the students to explore and then asked for the students' attention. I noticed that Arrie was not focusing on the teacher, but instead continued to test her magnet against any object she could, including the hair of the child in front of her. I continued to observe Arrie for the entire period, as her interactions with the magnet intrigued me. I was curious to see if she could accomplish the assigned task, which was to test the magnet against a specific set of objects.

At the same time, I was involved with Project ASSIST, a professional development project that works with teachers to share resources, integrate technology, and adapt the curriculum so that all students can learn. As a part of the Action Reflection Process, I needed to choose one student to observe closely. After spending this class period with Arrie, I decide that she would be the focus of my research. Following the Project ASSIST protocol, I gathered information on: Arrie as a student; the science curriculum; supports or modifications that enable Arrie to learn; evidence of Arrie's science learning; and technology that enhances or supports her learning in science.

My first instinct was to gather as much information about Arrie as I could. I spent some time discussing issues with her teacher, who told me that Arrie has difficulty focusing, not only in science, but in all subject areas. Arrie is a 12-year-old girl. There are 22 students in her class: 14 second graders and 8 third graders. Arrie was moved to this classroom from a self-contained classroom for students with special needs-mild to moderate developmental delays-six months prior to my observation. The plan originally called for Arrie to be integrated into some general education classes, but scheduling was difficult and the decision was made to place Arrie in the 2nd/3rd grade classroom for the full day.

Arrie is a verbal child and converses well. She has difficulty knowing when to speak and when to hold her thoughts. She frequently calls out and sometimes struggles with peers because she has difficulty listening to other students when they are speaking. Arrie attends well when an adult is sitting with her. When the special education teacher is in the room, she is able to focus on the content of the lesson, with gentle reminders to pay attention. However, without an adult to structure her learning, Arrie is unable to focus on a lesson for more than two or three minutes. She is fidgety and moves constantly. She touches the students around her, which makes them uncomfortable. Her behavior disrupts the lesson, as well as interferes with social relations with her peers. Arrie's abilities vary in each of the subject areas. She is able to read at a 2.5 grade level independently (though her instructional level is low first grade). She does not understand written directions on her own and needs to have them verbally explained. She is able to add three digit numbers with carrying, and is beginning to subtract with borrowing.

The classroom teacher and I discussed what could be done to support Arrie. One strategy was to try and ignore the negative behavior, (e.g., distracting others) and reinforce when she is focusing on the lesson. This adaptation met with limited success. Next we moved her away from other students. This rearranging of seats seems to have the most impact; with fewer distractions, she was better able to focus on her work.

We also decided to give Arrie directions one at a time, a strategy that worked very well. This meant that the classroom assistant had to spend more time with Arrie, thus giving her one-on-one attention, but the benefits were apparent. For example, in science, the teaching assistant gave Arrie one task to complete. When she completed that task, the assistant gave another. We modified the steps it took to complete the assignment. At times we gave her different assignments but stayed on the same topic.

Having had these discussions, I developed a better understanding of Arrie and how she learns. I worked with Arrie and her classmates while they discussed what magnets are, what they do, and how they react to various objects. The teacher introduced the terms "attracts to" and "does not attract to" as the concept words for this particular lesson; the assigned task was to test whether a magnet attracts or does not attract when positioned near a variety of objects. Arrie was still at the exploration stage with the magnets, and I felt that she needed more time to explore not only items on her desk, but items and people in the classroom as well. Science class is both exciting and frustrating for Arrie. She is truly excited by the hands-on process of learning. However, she is unable to focus on more that one concept at a time and this is difficult when many concepts are being explored at once. During this unit, Arrie was so absorbed in simply testing the magnet on any object around her that she was not able to focus on the directions given by the teacher. She was up out of her seat and testing for magnetism with larger objects around the room, rather than the smaller assigned materials on her desk. I realized, for this child, that time for exploration is a crucial factor in her learning science concepts. While the other students were able to re-focus after seven minutes of exploration, Arrie needed a longer period of time to test the magnets on a greater number of objects.

After discussing my observations with her teacher, I arranged for Arrie to spend additional one-on-one time with me exploring this concept of magnetism. I allowed her to set the pace, but I made other modifications as well. I chose larger magnets which were easier for Arrie to manipulate; and since she is so verbal, I talked to her and asked her to explain her thinking. Using these simple changes made an incredible difference in Arrie's understanding of magnetism. I allowed her to spend a considerable amount of time exploring, and then sat back to watch for her response. She was fascinated with the idea of polarity, though she didn't know the word for what fascinated her. She kept trying to push the magnets together when they wouldn't meet. She said they looked the same, so why didn't they "work?" by which she meant, "why don't they attract?" I chose to bring in magnets with marked poles to our next session. I showed her the "N" and "S" on the magnet, and suggested that she try and put the magnets together. This activity held her attention for quite some time as she pushed one magnet away using the other one. Finally, I introduced the notion how opposites attract, and we worked on this concept for a while. It took a number of sessions, but she finally observed that "the N and the S match, but not the N and the other N. How come?" Arrie was engaged in hands-on science, she was asking questions, and she was making progress toward learning science concepts.

I decided that I needed to record Arrie's thoughts. She wrote her first ideas on lined paper, and it was evident that she had difficulty expressing herself in this modality. More specifically, she had difficulty holding the pencil and in executing the fine motor skills it takes to write. My observation of her motor difficulties led me to try some of the technology interventions that I learned from working with Project ASSIST.

I introduced a computer program entitled KidWorks 2, published by Edmark, which allows a child to use words and pictures to write. Using the keyboard, she typed in the words, "A magnet will stick to . . ." and inserted clip art pictures of a car, a bicycle, and a nail. Next, she typed in "A magnet will not stick to . . ." and chose pictures of an apple, a cloud, and a pencil. In this way, she was able to attempt her own explanation of what magnets can and cannot do (Figure 1).

Encouraged by her attempts at writing with the computer and wanting to show that she could "do the same as the other kids," Arrie wrote her next piece after talking through her ideas with me. She also wanted to write without the "baby lines" that guided her first attempts at writing with the computer, and so she wrote in a blank space:

Finally, after more exploration and work with the various size magnets, Arrie dictated the following piece about magnets and what she understands about them:

Her verbal abilities served as the foundation, as they are her strength. Arrie made progress in learning not only about magnets, but about a number of other important things as well. The process of exploring scientific concepts, asking questions, making discoveries, developing hypotheses, and testing ideas are critical skills in all areas of life. These were skills that Arrie was gaining both facility with and confidence in, and both of us were very proud of her successes.

The lessons learned did not simply involve the scientific concepts of magnets and magnetism, nor were they learned only by Arrie. All students in the classroom were exposed to a variety of materials, technology, abilities, and modifications. In my experience, when an activity is presented in a variety of modalities, all students-those with learning disabilities and "typical" students alike-learn at a deeper level. This is not to say that all students will learn the same concept from a specific activity, nor will all students learn from a single interaction. However, my close observation and notes on my work with Arrie, a child with developmental delays, revealed that the rewards that can be realized as a result of making a few simple adaptations or modifications can be enormous. Modifications that were particularly effective for Arrie were using software to help facilitate her writing, allowing extra time for hands-on work, and spending a few extra minutes, one-on-one, speaking to her about what she was thinking. Indeed, these are strategies that can be every bit as beneficial to a child who is considered to be a strong student as they would be for a student with an IEP.

 

Changes in the Special Educator's Role, and in One Student's Science Learning by Karen Daniels

Project ASSIST provided the vehicle for individualized speech therapy goals to be translated into shared teaching of the main curriculum topics, lesson development, and modifications for children with special needs within the classroom. The Action Reflection Process brings together a team of teachers and specialists to co-construct classroom lessons targeted to three types of children: typical, at risk, and those with an individualized educational program (IEP). As a speech and language pathologist, my input has focused on supporting a child with an IEP, but often I suggest strategies for several students or an entire class.

For the past two years, I have participated in collaborative research with Project ASSIST. My role in this process has been twofold. I serve as a speech and language pathologist, and I also function as a liaison between the Project ASSIST staff and the teachers, administrators, students, and other specialists at the school. Each of these roles entails careful consideration and planning within the classroom science curriculum units.

In accordance with state guidelines, Massachusetts education plans contain three types of services: 1) consultation with the team of specialists and teachers; 2) direct services within the classroom; and, 3) direct services outside the classroom. Because of changes in service delivery and Project ASSIST's goals, when writing an IEP for a student and implementing the speech and language services it outlines, I consider language concepts and curriculum goals. Therefore, I must understand the classroom content and curriculum, and identify opportunities for in-classroom service delivery. Under Massachusetts law this aspect is most pertinent when I deliver services within choice A (consultation) and choice B (in class).

During the first year of my involvement with Project ASSIST, I began working with Daniel (not his real name), a second-grade student with significant disabilities. Daniel was diagnosed with global developmental delay. He had difficulty understanding long directions, using words to express his ideas clearly, and coordinating hand and full-body movements. It was particularly hard for Daniel to listen and understand directions in the noisy environment of an active classroom. He consistently exhibited a strong preference for engaging in repetitive solitary play rather than working on curriculum-based assignments. When teachers and specialists encouraged Daniel to participate, even minimally, he would often refuse. He struggled to understand the concepts of time, quantity, and space. His reading was described as emergent at a pre-kindergarten level, as he was just learning to recognize letter names and the sequence of the alphabet. He became easily frustrated when given paper-and-pencil tasks; he would often shred his papers into small pieces and distribute them on the floor around his desk.

Given Daniel's multiple issues, he was a challenging child to teach. Teachers and specialists agreed to share responsibility for teaching Daniel the scientific concepts in the second grade curriculum. The second grade team, consisting of the teacher, an inclusion specialist, a science staff development teacher, Project ASSIST staff members (bringing science and research knowledge), and myself (bringing linguistic and conceptual knowledge), agreed to coordinate work on these goals, specifically during science activities. As a team, we would use the action reflection tool to reflect more deeply on the science content and instruction. I eagerly awaited each of these structured work sessions, in which I could familiarize myself with the curriculum and collaborate with colleagues.

During the first year, our team met once a month to discuss three specific children in the classroom, of which Daniel was one. At the initial meetings, we struggled to follow the protocol and make deeper, more reflective statements that were directly related to the subject matter. Sometimes we would stray from the goals or get too involved in trying to identify a concise statement for the big idea. However, Project ASSIST staff members always guided us back to identifying the big ideas of the science unit, and focusing on how best to teach them. We used the work of the three "focal" students as a focal point to determine what students already knew, and needed to know, about a unit of study on habitats. What was the "big idea" we wanted the students to learn about the unit? What were the previously introduced science process skills that related to this topic?

Through our work together, we learned about what areas of expertise each person brought to the process, and decided how to divide up the responsibility of teaching the observation and recording skills students needed to start this unit on habitats. My role as a speech and language pathologist changed drastically from the traditional role I had learned about in graduate school. No longer was I in an isolated area of the school building teaching speech sounds from a list of words printed alphabetically in a workbook. Instead, the rich context of the science lesson helped me to identify two or three key words that Daniel needed to know, and I suggested how to set the stage for more conversation that would help Daniel express himself. The presence of Daniel's peer group also created more spontaneous associations and discussions of topics that could later be used to further develop Daniel's language skills (Duckworth, 1987; Gallas, 1995).

Throughout the Project ASSIST planning process, teachers and specialists would ask for clarification of possible strategies that their colleagues presented. In this way, the process supported the requirements for in-service within professional development guidelines, and team consultation as outlined in the IEP. When evaluating this process as a professional development activity (a Massachusetts state requirement in order to renew one's teaching certification), I found this type of learning most powerful because it was directly related to the teaching context, and because it strengthened and broadened our working relationships (Fullan, 1993). The students with special education needs also benefited from this process. No longer were they plucked from the middle of the lesson to go to "speech therapy", but instead they received multiple in-class opportunities to discover and share in the experience of the science lesson (e.g., vocabulary, phrases to explain events, and sequencing of ideas in a single topic). If extended time to complete an activity and/or additional teacher support was needed by any student in the class, then one of the teachers would step in, using our deeper understanding of the student's needs and the science content. The Action Reflection Process fostered richer learning environments, which provided more repetition and time on task that the teachers and specialists so desperately sought, given the significant learning needs of children on IEPs (Bashir, 1989).

Given Daniel's limited language and literacy skills, a coordinated effort was all the more essential when teaching science and providing science-based activities. I guided the team first to recognize my need to build a solid foundation: comprehending science concepts and process. Teachers needed to develop a deeper understanding of specific science concepts and processes first; then, as a full team, we discussed and highlighted unit vocabulary and concepts. My next important step in the team process was to help identify ways in which to immerse Daniel in a world full of relevant vocabulary. More specifically, I led discussions on establishing a small core of words and phrases he would need to use when talking about science (Jorgensen, 1997; Wilcox, et al., 1991).

Other supports and modifications found their way into Daniel's classroom routine as the action reflection team meetings continued. I outlined the benefits of using concrete objects for Daniel to use in all science activities. Brainstorming a list of adaptations to be used in each lesson was necessary; this discussion also supported the occupational therapist's focus on improving Daniel's hand development and coordination. Teachers now began to recognize Daniel's strong need to hold items in his hand. This helped him maintain attention for a longer period of time, reminded him of the topic of discussion, and facilitated language for his verbal response. Team members realized how easily this modification of Daniel's use of the materials supplemented their science goals. The team documented the opportunities that arose for Daniel to carry a clipboard for pictures and notes, write on stacks of index cards, use scientific tools (e.g., hand lens, magnifying glass, ruler), and gather remnants of items in the roped-off section of ground during a field trip. Supplemental documenting tools, such as rubber stamps to assist him during measurement activities, were also explored.

Daniel's progress in science was reflected in the quantity and quality of his work. In an early lesson, a simple habitat chart was assigned to the full class. It required the identification of five elements necessary for an organism to survive in a habitat. On this paper two responses were written down for Daniel. His response contained alternative vocabulary terms related to the local habitat: he used words for water such as ponds, ocean, and a sink and said bugs were a viable food source (Figure 3).

In a supplemental speech and language lesson, Daniel created a collection of six different animals which fellow classmates were researching. He selected, pasted, and printed his choices on a pre-made grid sheet. During this activity he completed six items. The overall length of time he spent on the activity increased to 15 or 20 minutes from less than 5 minutes in the previous semester. Also, as Daniel selected each picture, the student studying that particular animal would share at least two pertinent aspects of its habitat. This intervention step provided Daniel with the opportunity to listen to more complex language. This sequence of activities broadened Daniel's interest in his peers' research on habitats, increased his overall level of participation, and exposed him to additional linguistic terms. Supplementing the verbal language with the visual graphs and picture symbols, Daniel focused and listened to more complex habitat vocabulary words and concepts (e.g., lives, eats, breathes, swims, flies, pond).

Thus small-group peer interactions, picture-based activities, and teacher assistance (e.g., transcription of ideas onto paper) were all necessary for Daniel to demonstrate his fundamental knowledge about habitats. Most significantly, Daniel's original refusal to work on classroom-based activities (beginning of second grade) was replaced with a stronger interest in science work (end of second grade).

The following year the science department reassigned the habitats unit to the third grade. The new teacher and interns were also introduced to the Action Reflection Process. We began by highlighting the use of visual graphs, charts, and pictures to both the teachers and the students. We stressed the importance of such visual aides to support all children's ongoing success in understanding science concepts and connections between the previous year's study and the continuation of the habitats unit.

An example of an early journal entry showed Daniel's observation of a local vernal pool. In order for him to succeed in completing his work, this activity incorporated a clipboard, movement (walking to the vernal pool), peer models, and an adult transcriber. He verbally responded to eight items. Given the establishment of this richly supported and adapted learning context, his overall time spent studying science and verbal responses increased.

As Daniel's interest and attention skills developed, more focused team discussions centered on children's learning to list fundamental science processes. As a specialist, I felt the need for Daniel to further sharpen his observational skills. An important language skill for children this age is to begin to recognize and appreciate multiple views and perspectives. The full third grade team agreed with this focus, and also expressed their desire for all children to recognize and list the basic needs of an organism and then judge whether animals' needs are being met (complete vs. incomplete habitats). Other science process goals the team listed as important included a child's ability to describe, observe, explore, ask questions, gather data, communicate information, and use simple tools (e.g., a hand-held magnifying glass).

The team discussed how to select and teach the most basic of these processes for a child with special needs. The science staff development teacher noted the necessity for all children in primary grade levels to receive specific instruction representing science processes by using graphs, charts, outlines, and lists. She suggested that forms, charts, and diagrams be filled in with the full group, so that children could practice recording skills needed to become better scientists. During a team meeting, a teacher recommended that the 8.5 x 11" paper have a single-line border, making the illustration space explicit. The children were instructed to include labels and arrows to clearly mark the elements included in their science drawings. A modification made for Daniel included the use of small index cards (3 x 2") when introducing a science lesson that required the process skill of listing (e.g., natural elements observed within a small segment of a habitat). Daniel was asked to fill in one idea per card. Children worked in pairs in this lesson, and an adult monitored their work.

Another area of progress was Daniel's development of more complex social interactions with his peers. At the beginning of second grade, Daniel was playing by himself and refusing to engage in science-related activities. He was unsuccessful in interacting with his peers in order to complete a simple assignment. Individual interactions, small-group conversations, and then large-group discussions were used to help him expand and practice his science language. His third grade team also allowed Daniel to physically move around during various science-based activities in order to obtain a more global sense of the assignment. This strategy also supported additional objectives, including increasing body awareness gained by maneuvering through the desks and items in the class, and verbal questioning and inquiry skills such as how to form and ask a good science question. The way the brain is arranged, the movement and language strips are next to each other; therefore, movement stimulates expressive language. As a result of these strategies, Daniel's work now also included more representational drawings (e.g., a dead frog) and reports about sounds he heard in the environment (Figure 4). Notably, by the end of third grade, Daniel was able to join and actively participate in a small group discussion, and work with one other child to learn basic research skills (e.g., observing, recording).

Throughout this process, I noticed the benefits of the classroom service delivery model. The students, teachers, and specialists were learning a great deal from each other. During our planning time, the teacher and science staff development teacher made the science concepts more understandable, concrete, and real. I gained a deeper knowledge of science concepts and processes. Our team learned from each other, and then used this deeper knowledge to help each child to better understand science concepts and process. As the special educator on the team, I provided specific suggestions, adaptations, and modifications for teaching children with special needs. Based on this collaborative effort, Daniel, a student with severe special needs, demonstrated progress in science. The strategies developed and implemented for this student were used with success with other students in the class as well. In this way we met the overarching goal of our collaborative work-to help all students achieve in science.

 

 

The Impact of the Project ASSIST Process on One Teacher's Thinking and Practice by Leslie Kramer

As the head teacher in a fifth grade inclusion classroom this year, I was eager to learn new content and methods for teaching science and social studies and new ways of infusing the arts into the curriculum to reach all learners. Project ASSIST offered a thoughtful, effective organizing structure for teacher planning and reflection in science and other content areas. Project ASSIST's guiding questions included:

Project ASSIST, with its dual emphasis on (1) teacher reflection and (2) teaching and assessment for all learners, was emerging as a model for the other two professional development initiatives I was involved in (Archaeology and Artworks). The project had a whole-effort structure, from planning meetings and organizing questions to post-observation check-ins and follow-up teaching plans. Its format supported both innovative teaching as a way to reach all learners and focused reflection, based on teachers' expectations and lesson results. And, because Project ASSIST was designed to help teachers reach all learners, it could integrate both content and methods for the other two initiatives into science, as well as other academic areas.

Nina, one of my students, needed a way to keep the handmade ice-cube container she had been working on closed. She had tried using masking tape on the plastic surface, with mixed results. The tape stuck to both the top and the bottom, but required an extra amount at the bending point to allow for opening and closing. The tape ends looked sloppy and unfinished, no matter how clean her cut was. Nina's mouth pinched in frustration; she was determined to work with the materials until her handiwork met both the insulation requirements and her personal aesthetic standards.

By using the Project ASSIST model of observing one student from a number of perspectives (Levine, 1994), I could develop a more complex model of Nina. These perspectives included a description of the student's strengths and needs, any teaching modifications, technology, media and materials, science content and inquiry skills, and teaching instruction. Since Nina placed great importance on the creation of form as well as function, I found myself incorporating my learning from Artworks into how I was understanding her efforts. A major component of Artworks is careful observation and perspective taking: careful observation of fine arts, such as sculpture or drama, and perspective taking from various viewpoints, such as one of the characters, a visitor from a different period, or a contrasting idea.

Watching Nina work helped me continue to construct my understanding of her learning strengths and needs. I had already developed an initial mental description, including her preference for low-tech materials, with the exception of our classroom microscopes. I could see her preferences for work environment (seating, lighting, noise level, proximity to other students and teachers), materials, organization, work and break times, pacing, and instructional support needs. I could also learn more about how Nina understood the placement and purpose of insulation by observing how she went about constructing and testing her container. I could watch her retool her invention, using particular materials. Would she be limited or satisfied with what was available? I knew Nina would ask for a desired material if she didn't see it displayed. I also knew she understood this assignment. But did she understand the science concepts too? We had been observing water in various forms (liquid, solid, vapor) and had been discussing insulation. Her actions and final product revealed her understanding to me.

Nina searched methodically through all the available materials in the classroom in order to construct her insulated ice-cube container. She poked through bags of materials for insulation, holding in her left hand two plastic take-out container lids and a square of bubble paper. She had let several other students go ahead of her, her eyes scanning the materials stacked around the room, so she was the last one to choose the materials that would best match her sketch. Bringing her selections over to a row of desks where her friends had begun working earlier, she arranged the materials in a frame around her workspace. Nina then placed the two lids so that they would form a container with an inside space. She wiggled them together for a few minutes to see if they would snap together. When they didn't, she planned for a hinge.

Nina made the first hinge with a strip of masking tape. She ripped the tape hinge off the lids. It was no good, she explained; when the container was in the "open" position, the tape bulged out. Nina wrinkled her nose at this, even when asked to think about why the tape did that. She then requested yarn. She looked through the yarn bag and asked for green and gold. I couldn't find green yarn, just gold. Nina said, "Keep looking. Oh, yeah, can I have a safety pin too?" I found the safety pin, as well as some green yarn, and gave her a yard each of green and gold.

Nina returned to her work area, lined up the strands side by side, and tied a knot at one end to secure them together. She then began braiding the yarn, tugging at each strand. After about two inches of braiding, she tied a knot and snipped off the remaining yarn. She again lined up the lids, punched a hole halfway along the length of each lid, pushed the braid through the holes, and tied the ends together. On the opposite side, Nina punched another set of holes, snaked three strands of yarn through, and tied up the ends like a bow. She tested the hinge and the tight closure, wiggling the lids from side to side and pulling at the braid and tie. Opening the ice-cube container, Nina arranged the insulating materials in a way that revealed her understanding of how insulation works. She dripped glue in and around one of the concave lids. She then sprinkled a few wood shavings on the glue and pressed the bubble sheet over that, and glued the Styrofoam pellets inside the opposite lid. Finally, she set the open container to dry at the side of her workspace.

Nina persisted at the task until it met every requirement. She checked her plans, modified them when necessary, and showed her understanding of what ice needs to stay frozen. Her final product was tidy: no glue drips or torn materials. Her Styrofoam pellets were symmetrically placed, and the wood shavings were uniformly sprinkled over the glue. In addition to her container working effectively, it had to look a certain way. Unlike the work of most of the other students, whose construction looked more randomly patched together, Nina's work was elegant:, with a daintily tied bow whose knot belied its strength, and a plain exterior, with all the interior insulation visible through the clear plastic.

Before participating in Project ASSIST and Artworks, I might have assessed Nina's understanding almost solely on her final product: then, I might have dissected, understood, and described Nina's container, much as I would examine a work of art. Now, with the support and affirmation of both the Action Reflection Process and Artworks, I placed greater importance on the process as a critical piece of the assessment. Nina's container told a story; I had witnessed some of the action narrative as she worked. She acted out her understanding of how an insulated container works. Her colors told the story of her need for her personal style to be incorporated into her process and product. It is possible that, even without Project ASSIST and Artworks, I would have approached Nina's assessment with this visual/action perspective anyway, but without these programs I might have missed the rich complexity of observing the whole of her learning.

Good staff development gives teachers tools for the classroom. Outstanding staff development helps teachers ask more compelling questions about our own understanding of teaching. If we believe that our students learn best with meaningful curricula, adequate time, appropriate materials, supportive learning groups, and varied ways to show understanding and lingering questions, then we as teachers need those same conditions for providing multifaceted learning experiences. This requires time to think and plan within mandated frameworks, discuss, gather appropriate materials, teach, observe, manage, assess, reflect, revise, and plan for next time.

Time is also needed to integrate the different cognitive and content strands of two or more initiatives. Staff developers and administrators must continue to be patient and acknowledge aloud how rigorous this work is, and perhaps most importantly, remember just how much courage it takes for a teacher to invite another adult to observe her closely, to try out new ideas, many times to stumble and grumble, and yet to return to the revision table to reflect.

Conclusion

These stories illustrate the power of analyzing student work in collaboration with others. The goal of Project ASSIST was to develop a sustainable model for professional development that would enable all teachers to help students with special needs achieve in science. Since Cuban (1997) describes teachers as the gatekeepers of reform., we knew that if teachers did not own the Action Reflection Process, there would be little hope of utilization or sustainability. While the three teachers included in this article took their research to a more formal level, we invited all teachers and specialists to engage in the design, analysis, and results of the Action Reflection Process-a structured form of collaborative professional development-where they were the researchers studying the improvement of their students' learning over time.

We knew that while teachers and specialists engaged in the analysis of their students' learning for the purposes of report cards or individualized education plans, they rarely had time to share their insights or reflect on student understanding with multiple perspectives. There was no precedent for teachers and specialists to collaboratively study and document science learning in depth. This meant that there was no way of knowing if their teaching practices in science were effective. Through the Action Reflection Process, teachers collected, analyzed, and reflected on the work of three students within the context of their daily work. Teachers began to report seeing the value of using pretests, journal entries, and final assessments to analyze and document student learning. One teacher reported, "Looking through the portfolios provided by Project ASSIST at report card time, I noticed a tremendous improvement in skills, particularly observation. [I also learned that] lessons can be easily adapted for learning disabled students to meet the same objectives" (Ann, Final evaluation, December 1998). Most often teachers reported learning a great deal from students' science journals. A teacher reported, "I learned how valuable the journal is-not only for assessment purposes but for checking in regularly to see what's going on [with] each student" (Aimee, final evaluation, February 1999).

As principals and teachers engage in discussions about how to sustain the Action Reflection Process without the researchers, teachers' responsibility for documenting student learning in science is a key topic of discussion. We found that with time to collaborate, and a supportive structure for that collaboration, teachers shared expertise, engaged in careful study of students' learning, and applied that learning to their science teaching. As researchers, we taught them how to continuously analyze student work to see the impact of their teaching on students' understanding of science content and processes; as collaborators, they taught us how to change the Action Reflection Process so that it would be utilized in schools. It is our hope that they are so strongly committed to the benefits of analyzing student work and documenting student progress, they will continue to engage in this type of collaborative professional development. These research stories are a strong indicator of the impact that the Action Reflection Process has had on teachers' practice thus far. We celebrate their accomplishments as teachers, and anticipate their future achievements as researchers and teacher leaders.

 

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Grant Number H180U60008.

 

References

Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (1995). No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in America's Elementary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning, and Assessment for All Students). (1996). Learning from Student Work. Arlington, VA: New American Schools Development Corporation.

Bashir, A. (1989). Language intervention and the curriculum. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(3), 181-191.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2(2): 141-78.

Carnine, D. (1995). The professional context for collaboration and collaborative research. Remedial and Special Education. 16(6): 368-71.

Comer, J. (1992). A brief history and summary of the school development program. New Haven: Unpublished paper.

Cuban, L. (1997, January). Implementation of researcher-designed innovations. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs-Technology, Media, and Materials, Cross-project Meeting. Washington, DC: January 28.

DiGisi, L., & Willet, J. (1995). What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 32(2): 123-42.

Duckworth, E. (1987). The virtues of not knowing. In E. Duckworth (Ed.), "The having of wonderful ideas" and other essays on teaching and learning (pp. 64-69). New York: Teachers College Press.

Elmore, R. (1990). Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Federal Register. (August 10, 1995). Request for Proposals: Technology, Educational Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. Vol. 60, N. 154: CFDA 84.180U

Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gersten, R., Lloyd, J. W., & Baker, S. (1998). Designing High Quality Research in Special Education: Group Experimental Design. Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Hatch, T., & Seidel, S. (1997). Putting student work on the table. Phi Kappa Phi Journal National Forum. 77(1): 18-21.

Huxley, A. (1953). Foreword. In Chakravarty, A. The Indian Testimony. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications.

Jorgensen, C. (1997). Designing inclusive curricula right from the start. In C. Jorgensen (Ed.), Restructuring high schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 107-143). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Levine, M. (1994). Educational care: A system for understanding and helping children with learning problems at home and in school. Cambridge, MA: Educators' Publishing Service, Inc.

Malouf, D., & Schiller, E. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children. 61(5): 414-24.

Miller, B., Lord, B., & Dorney, J. (1994). Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton: Education Development Center, Inc.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Issues in conducting intervention research: Secondary students. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (eds.), Research Issues in Learning Disabilities: Theory, Methodology, Assessment, and Ethics (pp. 130-45). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Shure, A., Morocco, C., DiGisi, L., & Yenkin, L. (in press). Schoolwide collaborative planning: Improving student achievement in inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wilcox, M.J., Kouri, T.A., & Caswell, S.B. (1991). Early language intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual treatment. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 1(1), 49-62.

Zorfass, J. & DiGisi, L. (1996). Project ASSIST: All Students in Supported Inquiry-Based Science with Technology. Proposal funded by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Technology, Educational Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities. CFDA 84.180U.