Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities: Subverting the Myths of Labeling Through...

Research in Science Education 32: 55–79, 2002.© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities:Subverting the Myths of Labeling Through Teachers’ Caring and Enthusiasm

Michalinos Zembylas1 and Lynn Isenbarger2

1Michigan State University2Yankee Ridge Elementary School

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe and analyse the role of a teacher’s caring and enthusiasm inan inclusive science classroom. Using stories, interviews, and action research, it is revealed that thisteacher’s approach focuses on two major ideas: (a) Combining activity-oriented science curriculumwith the building of caring relationships in her classroom; and (b) Developing enthusiasm for scienceand fulfilling students’ personal purposes. A case study of one student labeled as “learning disabled”is analysed and provides evidence of his remarkable growth in terms of his academic and behavioralperformance over a period of two years. Based on the results of this study a number of ways ofsubverting labeling are suggested and two qualitative hypotheses for further research in this areaare proposed. The main suggestion of this study is that thinking behind labels in the context of aninclusive science classroom needs to be revised in light of the role of teacher caring.

The students were gathered around the table, each playing with their own handfulof ooblek.1 Ben cried out in delight as the substance oozed and dripped between hisfingers when he clenched his fist. “Look, Mrs. I! Watch this!” and he again gatheredup the ooblek and squished it in his fist, smiling as it ran down the back of his hand.Next, Ben put his ooblek into a bowl.

“Now watch,” he instructed to any and all who would listen, and he stuck his fingerinto the glop, and pulled it out again quickly, amazed that nothing had stuck to hisfinger, unlike when he had made the fist. Ben and his classmates had been trying tofigure out just what sort of a substance ooblek was – a liquid or a solid. Variousideas had been bandied about, with Ben participating vociferously. The studentsexperimented for quite some time without coming to a consensus.

While cleaning up from the experiment, Ben and another student, Jay, came over tome and asked if they could keep their ooblek in plastic bags. “We want to experimentsome more,” explained Jay in his usual forthright manner. “We want to come induring lunch recess. I’ve got a circuit board that I’m going to bring in, and we wantto see if we can use electricity and make the ooblek move. Is that okay with you?”

I was thrilled to see the boys so excited and desirous of continuing their scienceexploration. I agreed to allow the boys to come in the next day for some moreexperimentation. The boys beamed at each other.

56 M. ZEMBYLAS AND L. ISENBARGER

Will you write a note to my parents saying I can bring the circuit board? Oh, and do you have any reallybig batteries? You know, the BIG kind, I think we’re going to need a BIG battery to make the ooblekmove. Maybe even a couple of big batteries. . . .

Without waiting for my reply about the note, Ben and Jay walked off, planningfurther experiments with the ooblek and the circuit board.

The next morning Jay came to school with an enormous circuit board, a large bagof batteries, and another bag filled with colored wires and small light bulbs. Afterhastily eating lunch, the two boys hurried back to our classroom, with a third boyin tow. “We were telling Greg about our experiment and we told him you wouldn’tmind if he came and worked with us. He’s very interested in what we are doing,”explained Ben offhandedly as he spread out batteries, wires, light bulbs, and ooblek.The three heads bent over the board and the students discussed and argued andexperimented, sometimes exclaiming out loud when a light bulb would flash oranother “result” would happen. When the bell rang, signaling that lunch recess wasover, the boys were dismayed. “We’re not finished! Mrs. I., can we do this againtomorrow?”

This became the pattern for the next two weeks. Every day the three boys wouldrush through their lunches and return to their circuit board. Batteries and wires werestrewn everywhere as the boys worked. Although the original idea was to see if theooblek could be made to move by the use of electricity, the boys followed manyother tangents and ideas. At one point the slime was in the middle of the circuitboard, studded with twinkling light bulbs. Another day they discovered that ooblekwould burn if the ends of wires that were attached to batteries were held against it.(I vetoed their pleas for even larger batteries at this point.)

The experimenting ended only because I had some end-of-the-year commitmentsthat prevented me from being able to stay in the room over lunch on a dailybasis.

Purpose of This Study

The above story narrated by Lynn as she experienced it in her classroom mightsound like a normal event involving a group of enthusiastic students who are extra-ordinarily engaged and fascinated with exploring this substance (ooblek) that admit-tedly has unexpected properties. However, we might be surprised to find out that Benis labeled as a student with learning disabilities, and Jay as a child with emotionaldisabilities. Clearly, these children exhibit some exceptional scientific skills andhabits – for example, the ability and attitude of scientific inquiry (curiosity, problem-solving) and the skill to communicate ideas and plans to each other. Why are thesechildren labeled as children with disabilities? Judging from their performance (bothacademic and behavioral) during this incident and other episodes we will narrate laterin this paper, it is not clear at all how and why these children have been assigned thislabel. Such incidents make us wonder about the meaning of disability labels and

TEACHING SCIENCE TO STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES 57

challenge us to become more sensitive to what the children can do instead of whatthey cannot.

For example, what if we consider Ben’s and Jay’s abilities in the context of aninclusive classroom in which an investigative approach in science learning is beingused and their teacher approaches them and science with passion, love, and caring?What if these children are embraced with love and caring for what they are able to doand are encouraged to use their own talents and follow their own interests in learningscience? Will their academic and behavioral performance improve? Are they stillgoing to be labeled as children with “X disabilities”?

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the role of a teacher’s caringand enthusiasm in an inclusive science classroom. This study could be seen as apilot study which could be used to generate hypotheses about the place of caringrelationships in the context of inclusive science classrooms, an area of research thathas not received much attention. Caring relationships and enthusiasm for the subjectmatter emerged as important components in encouraging a special education studentto reach his potential in an inclusive setting.

Theoretical Framework

This study is formed by and builds upon three different lines of research. Becauseour investigation was the first, to our knowledge, to examine the role of teacher caringand enthusiasm in an inclusive science classroom, we drew broadly from these otherareas, using them as a general outline, rather than a linear conceptual framework,to guide us theoretically. First, we considered studies on learning disabilities in sci-ence. In this body of research, we looked at the efforts of researchers to identifycharacteristics of teachers and factors in the classroom that lead to successful resultsof engaging students with disabilities in science learning. Second, we looked at thework on caring (especially Nel Noddings’ work). In this line of research, we exploredwhat it might mean for teachers to be caring. Finally, we considered the work onstereotyping in schools and we explored teachers’ expectations on the maintenanceand breaking of stereotypes, especially those stereotypes related to labeling childrenwith special needs. In the following, we briefly discuss how these three lines ofresearch informed our study.

Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities

First of all, to say that science has been a neglected area for students with disabil-ities is an understatement (Holahan, McFarland, & Piccillo, 1994). Science teachersgenerally have little training or experience with disabilities, and special educatorshave little or no exposure to science (Cawley, 1994). Many researchers have fo-cused their efforts on finding ways to help teachers become more knowledgeableabout students with disabilities and how to successfully engage these students in


science learning. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1994a), for example, identify seven vari-ables that are meaningfully associated with mainstreaming success in science classes,across categories of disability and grade level. These variables include adminis-trative support, support from special education personnel, an accepting, positiveclassroom environment, appropriate curriculum, effective general teaching skills,peer assistance, and disability-specific teaching skills. These same variables werealso observed in another classroom in which it was found that activity-based ap-proaches were highly effective for science learning in classroom environments whichincluded diverse learners (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Bohs, 1994).

Science is considered one of the most valuable subjects for students with dis-abilities (Cawley, 1994; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994; Patton, 1993, 1995; Scruggs,Mastropieri, & Boon, 1998). There are several advantages of teaching science to stu-dents with disabilities: science provides opportunities to engage in hands-on learningactivities, it encourages participation and inquisitiveness, it promotes group interac-tion and participation, and it provides a space where students with disabilities canfeel successful (Atwood & Oldham, 1985). Several research studies provide evidencethat students with disabilities interact very positively with activities-oriented sciencecurricula; such curricula are effective in facilitating knowledge of science content,manipulative skills and science process skills (Bay, Staver, Bryan, & Hale, 1992;Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Butcher, 1997; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1993, 1994b). Inclusive, hands-on science instruction results not onlyin successful participation of students with disabilities but also in successful scienceachievement of these students – superior performance on content recall, higher levelthinking, verbal elaboration and affective measures (Mastropieri et al., 1998). Also,students with disabilities are likely to encounter fewer difficulties with languageand literacy demands when they participate in activities-oriented science curricula(Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993). To the extent that hands-on ac-tivities are developmentally appropriate and carefully structured, science learning forLD students (students with learning disabilities) is successful (Mastropieri, Scruggs,& Butcher, 1997). Hands-on science activities have also been found to be more mo-tivating and may therefore encourage more appropriate classroom behavior (Scruggs& Mastropieri, 1995). Overall, students with disabilities benefit from concrete mean-ingful learning experiences, the reduction of language and literacy demands, theability to work co-operatively with peers, and the provision of appropriate structuredquestioning and coaching provided (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Boon, 1998).

During the last decade, research in science education for students with disabilitieshas extended our knowledge of characteristics of these students relevant to sciencelearning, the effects of various interventions on science learning, attitudes of sci-ence teachers towards students with disabilities, and effective inclusion strategies inscience education (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Boon, 1998). However, researchers inthis area indicate the need to conduct more studies in inclusive science classroomsin order to explore science teaching and learning for students with disabilities. Thestudy we describe here is a response to this call.


Caring Teaching

Educators such as Noddings (1984, 1992) and Gilligan (1988) suggest that caringis an important aspect of education. Noddings (1984) has described caring as rela-tional. A relation is caring if both carer and cared-for contribute appropriately. Thecarer attends non-selectively for the cared-for. The recipient of the care, the cared-for, contributes to the relationship by responding in some positive way to the effortsof the carer. Some relationships (e.g., teacher–student) are unequal by their verynature and one person (i.e., the teacher) has almost exclusive responsibility as carer.What does it mean then for the teacher to be caring? It primarily means that whatthe teacher receives in an act of caring is a sense of what the student cares about,and because the teacher cares about what matters to the student, the caring teacher’scommitment to the student is to set him or her free to pursue his or her own interestsand talents.

Caring is about longing for the goodness of all students. As Noddings points out:

When a teacher asks a question in class and a student responds, she receives not just the response butthe student. What he says matters, whether it is right or wrong, and she probes gently for clarification,interpretation, contribution. She is not seeking the answer but the involvement of the cared-for. (1984,p. 176)

The caring teacher then is one who receives the students and looks at the subjectmatter with them. The emphasis is on needs, relations, and responses, and suggestsattention to all of the needs and cares of students – not only to how they learn inscience. Caring requires teachers to elicit and listen to how students are feeling, toevaluate their purposes, to help them to engage in self-evaluation, and to help themgrow as participants in caring relations (Noddings, 1992). Consequently, teachersmay need to be more receptive and learn new skills. As teachers, writes Noddings:

we may have to learn new subject matter to maintain the growth of our best students, and we may haveto change our methods entirely to work effectively with students who have great difficulty learning. In afundamental, essential way, caring implies a quest for competence. (1996, p. 162)

A previous study of exploring caring in science classrooms (Van Sickle & Spector,1996) described caring science teachers as involved in a variety of teacher-student-content relationships. Just as studying caring in regular science classrooms, it is alsoimportant to study caring and enthusiasm in inclusive science classrooms. Our studybuilds on and extends the work on the above two lines of research that are asso-ciated with caring and with successful science teaching for students with learningdisabilities, and in particular, it examines more deeply the effect of two aspects:an accepting, caring and enthusiastic classroom environment and effective generalteaching skills. Caring supplies an important ethical outlook for research on studentswith special needs. We explore the role of teacher’s enthusiasm for science andcaring for children, and her instructional practices related to creating an accepting,positive classroom environment in an inclusive science classroom. Activity-based


science curricula and approaches have been thoroughly investigated in inclusive andspecial education classrooms; however, we feel that the role of teacher’s caring andenthusiasm in the context of science classrooms that include students with variouslearning disabilities needs more attention. This article is about caring teaching inscience and feeling positively about all the children we teach.

Stereotypes and Labeling in Schools

How teachers and schools treat children with special needs has a huge impacton a child’s intellectual and emotional development as well as his or her self-esteem(Jussim & Fleming, 1996; Stephan, 1999). Teachers’ expectations may be pernicioussources of stereotype maintenance (e.g., Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990), espe-cially for children with special needs, because teachers can point to the actual behav-ior and performance of these children as evidence for the validity of their stereotypes.Most social psychological research and research in education suggest that the devel-opment and maintenance of stereotypes may follow four steps: (a) teachers (and otherstudents) may develop erroneous expectations; (b) teachers’ expectations influencehow they treat students; (c) students react to teachers’ expectations with behaviorthat confirms the expectation; this affects the students’ self-concept, achievementmotivation, and level of aspiration; (d) if teachers’ treatment is consistent over time,and if the students do not actively resist or change it in some way, it will tend toshape the students’ achievement and behavior (see Brophy & Good, 1974; Jussim &Fleming, 1996; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Stephan & Stephan, 1996).

The basis of stereotyping is categorisation (Stephan, 1999). When we create socialcategories in schools and attach labels such as “learning disabled child,” we focuson the characteristics that make the children in that category similar and that dis-tinguish them from others (the normal ones), while ignoring the differences amongthe individual members of that group. Not to mention that labeling itself is a socialevent (Rist & Harrell, 1982) – we would add, a political one too – that may serveagendas other than the intellectual and emotional growth of the labeled child. Theresult of this categorisation and labeling translates into low expectations for studentswith special needs – who are often gifted in areas not emphasised in a traditionalclassroom. To label children as learning disabled is to emphasise the aspects of theiridentities that differentiates them from other children, instead of identifying theirareas of strength and talent. As long as students with disabilities are stereotyped anddescribed as disabled rather than differently abled or capable in any way, schoolsare presented with the image of individuals incapable of a productive contributionand participation in the school community. Also, the detrimental aspects associatedwith labeling include more teacher criticism, and teachers holding more negativestereotypes which in turn influence the judgments of the performance of studentswith special needs, increased levels of peer rejection, and learned helplessness onthe part of the child as a result of the self-attribution and internalisation of the labelfirst applied by others (Rist & Harrell, 1982).


The dangers inherent in the above categorisations of labeling and negative stereo-typing have commonly been viewed from a sociological perspective. However, theproblems of categorisation, according to Wilson (2000), go deeper, nor can they besolved by trying to abandon the notion of categorisation altogether. Wilson arguesthat there are two basic ways in which conceptualisations and categorisations maybe “partisan.” The first consists of giving the categories-titles a very vague meaning –educators may narrow them or widen them or cut across them. For example, disabil-ity is a very general term: everyone lacks some ability. Nevertheless, such vaguenessmay lead to abuse, because it leaves it open to people to import their own prejudicesand values into terminology. This has a direct effect upon practice, not only by neg-ative stereotyping but by guiding teachers’ thought and behavior in very profoundways. The second way that categorisations are partisan, according to Wilson, is thatthey represent concerns and values which are ideologically questionable. Thus, if weidentify some things rather than others as a case of learning disabilities, we operatewith predetermined value criteria.

We take certain kinds of learning as valuable or important as against other kinds [. . .] We take certainkinds of abilities to be important, and include the lack of those rather than other kinds under the title of‘disability.’ We single out certain needs and not others, having made prior value judgments about them.(Wilson, 2000, p. 818)

Wilson continues and points out that in the field of education we are often tooquick to identify phenomena and set up categories, together with certain institution-alised practices designed to deal with them. Perhaps this is inevitable, however, “wepay a heavy price if, whilst taking practical action, we fail to reflect adequately on themoves we are making” (p. 819). By giving learning disabilities a particular name, thiscategorisation becomes institutionalised and teachers deny themselves the opportu-nity to face the real questions under the labeling. Wilson puts this very powerfully:Insofar as that is so, the construction and use of special categories appears as a kindof laziness. I am a teacher, I know my pupils well, I am concerned for all of themand want to do justice to them all: that is my job as an educator (p. 820). It is anopen question as to what is gained that would improve a teacher’s performance bythe construction of institutionalised labels such as learning disabilities. In a sense, allchildren need special attention and need to be cared for. It may well be the case thatsome categorisations make sure that certain kinds of children are properly cateredfor. But it is not clear how much extra information a teacher gains if he or she istold that a child suffers from “attention deficit disorder.” Sometimes this may beenlightening or helpful, Wilson points out, but in general a teacher does best to attendmore closely to the particular children with whom he or she has to deal, without thebenefit or theoretical labels. None of these ideas, of course, suggest that these labelsare malicious or improperly motivated. However, it is questionable whether theyhave a beneficial impact on teaching practice. The issue is not that they should beabolished, but that they need to be revised in light of a teacher’s responsibility tocare for the well being of all students in his or her classroom.


Research Design

The data of this study came from a two year long action research project (see El-liot, 1991; Hubbard & Power, 1993; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995) we conducted duringthe 1998–1999 and 1999–2000 academic years, and aimed at developing strategiesfor helping students with special needs to improve their excitement and participationin science. A university science educator (Michalinos) and a teacher (Lynn) collab-orated and examined Lynn’s teaching practices in science in an effort to make thosepractices more meaningful and empowering for students who were labeled as havingvarious disabilities. The process of critical reflection not only focused on Lynn’spractice, but also extended to the socio-cultural aspects of the science classroomin which Lynn taught. Our general concern was to find out whether teachers’ caringand enthusiasm for science enabled children with learning disabilities to demonstratebetter attitudes toward science and improved their skills in scientific inquiry. In otherwords, we wanted to find ways to empower these students and reflect on whether theirempowerment made any difference in their learning experiences and their academicand behavioral performances. The decision to focus our research on a case study ofone teacher (Lynn) and one student (Ben) was justified by the need to look in somedetail at the question of what specifically can be learned from a single pilot casebefore undertaking a population of cases. The goal of the study was to generate somehypotheses and identify characteristics of caring and enthusiasm in inclusive scienceclassrooms. A range of hypotheses that take the form of qualitative hypotheses areidentified at the end of this article and their exploration would be an excellent topicfor future confirming studies.

The teacher, Lynn, works with fourth/fifth graders in a medium sized universitycity in Illinois. She teaches activity-based, inclusive science based on the district cur-riculum but she also elicits children’s ideas and encourages them to research topicsof their own interest. Lynn has been characterised by various university instructorsas well as colleagues at the elementary school in which she works in as dedicated,caring and enthusiastic in working with students. She has been teaching for threeyears and is also working for a master’s degree in education.

Lynn taught a fourth/fifth grade multiage class for the first two years of her teach-ing career and a straight fifth grade class for the third. Class sizes ranged from 21–24students. Special education teachers in the school prefer to pull students out for math-ematics and language arts only; no support is provided for other subjects. Eight ofLynn’s fourth/fifth graders were labeled with learning disabilities, four with ADHD,four received Title2 services, one was EMH (educably mentally handicapped), andone was suspected of having Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Lynn began collaboratingwith Michalinos during the time she was working towards her teacher certification;together we implemented many activity-based instructional units on various topicsthat emphasised the integration of science with art, mathematics and social studies.However, a growing concern we had was that we felt very uncomfortable with theuse of labels (by other staff members, parents, and the school administration) to referto certain students as students with learning disabilities. The reason we felt so was


partly because we experimented with different strategies to engage these childrenin science and we discovered that using open-ended inquiries and supporting stu-dents emotionally seemed to subvert these labels. We wondered how we could helpstudents with learning disabilities become more empowered to experience sciencein meaningful ways that improved their participation, attitudes and performance to-wards science. We also wanted to become more educated and knowledgeable aboutstudents with special needs.

Therefore, we decided to use action research as the vehicle to investigate ourquestions and concerns because this methodology stressed the involvement of boththe students and ourselves in creating collaboratively a more just and meaningfulscience classroom. The cyclical nature of action research (Kemmis & McTaggart,1988) – planning and action, observation and reflection – allowed us the opportunityto identify our concerns and goals for doing this, devise plans for action, evaluatethe success of our efforts, and move forward to new concerns and questions. Thedata collection that seemed to fit more to this methodology and the recurring cycleswere Lynn’s reflective journal, the students’ science binders (where they kept alltheir notes, thoughts/ideas and assignments), class notes and recordings, documentsof student work, and Lynn’s planning related to the various aspects of her scienceteaching.

Lynn’s journal and her students’ science binders were valuable in documenting thesocio-cultural context of the classroom as well as the focus of students’ intellectualand emotional development in science. The personal nature of these sources broughtattention to areas of students’ development that were not evident from traditionaldocuments such as tests or homework assignments. This was particularly true forreceiving information about students’ values and attitudes as those were relevant toscience. Tests and homework assignments were useful in assessing students’ graspof the science content knowledge that was achieved by the end of a unit or a seriesof activities. Recordings and notes of class discussions and science investigationsprovided another valuable data source in our evaluation of different aspects of ourproject.

As we engaged in this kind of research we interpreted and theorised about whatLynn was doing and our goal was to create what Cochran-Smith and Little (1999)refer to as an “inquiry community” where everyone involved:

generate local knowledge, envision and theorise their practice, and interpret and interrogate the theoryand research of others. Fundamental to this notion is the idea that the work of inquiry communities isboth social and political; that is, it involves making problematic the current arrangements of schooling;the ways in which knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and used; and teachers’ individual and collectiveroles in bringing about change. (1999, p. 289)

In this article, we want to problematise the perception that labels such as LDdetermine one’s achievements for life or signify something deeper about someone.Although we realise that there may be biological traits that result in certain disabil-ities, we agree with Kliewer and Biklen that “disability labels are ideas not facts”


(1996, p. 83). Besides, the very definitions of disabilities are constantly being re-defined, as many research studies indicate in special education. Here we want tojoin those who challenge the meaning of disabilities and subvert the idea that stu-dents “have” certain disabilities as if they “own” them or as if these disabilities are“with” them. Through the account that we provide in this article, we show how Ben’sperformance, for example, directly contradicts the notion that he “has” a “learningdisability.” We believe it is possible that success stories like the one we narrate heremay suggest different ways of looking at students who have special needs. Maybeour failure as educators to discover ways to motivate all students and encourage theirtalents rests easily in our illusion that some of them are “LD students,” as if the labelcan be taken out of context and be attached to them. Perhaps it is time we re-think themeanings of such labels and consider them within the cultural and political contextin which these are constructed.

Data Analysis

Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1994) guided thedata collection and analysis. We searched for general statements about relationshipsamong categories of data that developed over time. We chose to use a “runningtheoretical discussion” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 31), using conceptual categoriesand their properties. To generate these conceptual categories and their properties,we searched for patterns in the data that were consistent over time. This interactiveprocess continued until the categories developed became saturated and we felt thatadditional data were yielding little new information for the purposes of this study.At the end, these categories were used as the basis of development of two qualitativehypotheses which we discuss in the Implications section of this article.

“A Child Full of Ideas” (Written by Lynn)

Ben came into my classroom as a fourth grader. The makeup of the class consistedof two grades (fourth and fifth) and a mix of races, genders, and abilities. Fourthgraders would return to me the following year as fifth graders, spending a total oftwo years in my classroom. Ben arrived with a string of labels attached to his name.He is considered learning disabled, speech impaired, and receives guidance fromthe school social worker for difficulties with social skills. He lives with his singleparent mother and sister, but sees his father weekly. Ben has also been diagnosedwith ADHD, but he was not medicated.

It was obvious that first day of class that Ben was also considered a social outcastby his peers. As I gathered my students on the carpet for morning announcements,Ben sat in the back and apart from the other children. As a “getting to know you”exercise, I asked my students to tell me three things about themselves – somethingthey liked to do, their family, etc. I modeled the exercise by telling the class about


my family, my favorite movie, and that I liked to ride my bicycle. One by one, thechildren stood up and introduced themselves. A few needed a little encouragement,but when Ben’s turn came, he would not make eye contact with me, shook his headwith downcast eyes, and indicated he had nothing to share. With a little prompting,I discovered that he had a three wheel bike at his father’s home that he rode onweekends.

That bicycling connection helped to forge our first link and I built upon it in theearly days of my association with Ben. I would ask him about riding his bike, and,when I found out he didn’t wear a helmet, we discussed safety issues and concerns.Soon the helmet became a sort of joke between us. He would tell me he had riddenhis bike the previous afternoon, I would reply, “And I am sure you wore a helmet,right?” and his eyes would sparkle as he replied that he had. He began to offer bits andpieces of his life outside of school, and I discovered that he raised rabbits, enjoyedexploring the farmland around his home, and that he considered his older sister abother.

The next breakthrough with Ben came about during current events discussions. Asweeks passed and the students became a cohesive group, and as Ben felt comfortablewith his fellow classmates and me, he began venturing comments in front of hispeers. Some were outlandish and wildly imaginative, but one of our classroom ruleswas that laughing at other students was not tolerated, and Ben became bolder ashe tested his peers’ obedience to this rule. Soon his hand was up constantly duringcurrent events, and although at times what he said was disjointed and garbled due tohis learning and speech difficulties, his peers generally accepted his contribution tothe discussion.

The first time someone disagreed with his opinion on a topic, though, he wassurprised and a look of frustration crossed his face. I watched him to see how hewould handle the situation. Ben’s hand shot back up and he was able to give a lengthy,impassioned rebuttal while staying calm and refraining from making accusations andinflammatory comments about the person who had disagreed with him. Ben wasmaking progress.

The place where Ben crossed the threshold into accepted member of the classroomwas in science. I schedule science daily for a half an hour in the afternoon, withrecess following. Thus, when the students become really engaged in an experimentor science project, we have some flexibility built into the schedule. Frequently muchof recess is absorbed by science.

I have a science apron that I made to protect my clothing from splashes and spillsduring science. Originally I planned to wear it only when we were using materialsthat might stain my clothes; due to Ben it became a signal for “playing with science.”Though the other students picked up on the cue that the apron meant we were about toexperiment, it was Ben who began calling me Mrs. Frizzle after the fictional scienceteacher who leads her class on adventures in books and videos.

Ben loved science. In fact, at the end of our two years together, he wrote, “Myfavorite subject is science because it interests me of everything we’ve done over theyears.” (Sic) Whenever I would reach for my apron, his eyes would light up and he’dgrin and say, “It’s Mrs. Frizzle! I’ll bet we’re gonna play with science now!”


No longer too shy to contribute ideas and suggestions, Ben was an active memberof any group he worked in. The withdrawn, afraid-to-speak child seemed to havedisappeared. He put forth hypotheses, took charge of experiments, and often wasso intrigued by his discoveries that, when his group was ready to move on to thenext step in the procedure, Ben balked, wanting to go off onto tangents and explore.His fellow group members had to work hard to convince Ben to continue with theexperiment, and often a compromise was hammered out wherein the group wouldfinish the experiment and then explore after the assignment was completed.

Ben was full of ideas. They didn’t always make sense, and at times frustrated otherstudents who were at a different level of understanding, but I was pleased to see Benbecome willing to argue his case and stand up for what he believed was a good idea,and to be able to do so without fear of ridicule from his peers.

An example of this attitude occurred when our class was studying sound. I broughtin an old record player and a John Denver album. Not only did I want the students tosee what an old style record player looked like, but more importantly, to allow themto play with the speeds (33, 45, and 78 rpm) and hear how the same record soundeddifferently when played at those different speeds. Their experimenting went on forquite some time, and the students were making good connections. At this point I wassatisfied that the lesson had been a success and I began to transition into recess.

But Ben wasn’t ready to stop. “That record looks like a giant CD,” he stated. Thenhe paused for a moment as his classmates began to chime in, comparing the vinylrecord to the CDs they were much more familiar with.

“CDs are played by lasers, right?” he asked. Upon hearing confirmation that theywere, Ben made a connection and came up with a question. “Well,” he ventured, “ifthat’s the case, then why don’t we get out your laser pointer, Mrs. I., and see if wecan play the record with it? It’s a laser with a red light, just like the one in a Diskman,so it should work.” Ben stuck out his chin as he did whenever he knew he had openedhimself up for possible debate or criticism of his ideas.

His proposition sparked an enormous discussion. The class was divided as to theiropinions about Ben’s idea. Many children thought he’d come up with a great idea;others were convinced it would never work, but unable to explain why. All, thatis, except for Tim, who had had some experience with electronics. Tim was soimpassioned that he was literally moving his entire body as he gesticulated whileexplaining why Ben’s suggestion would never work.

“It doesn’t make sense!” he snapped. “It’ll never work because the laser pointerisn’t connected to the record player or to any amplifiers. You gotta have those thingsfor it to work.” Several students, Ben included, rebutted Tim’s remarks. “Hey, therearen’t any amplifiers on my CD player and it still plays!” “The record is attached tothe record player so it’s attached to the speakers. You’ll be able to hear it.”

This debate raged on for quite some time before a student finally said, “Well, let’stry it and see what happens. Mrs. I, can we use your laser pointer and see whathappens?”

I had stayed out of the controversy until this point, but I agreed to get out the laserpointer and handed it to a student sitting next to the stereo. The record player was


turned on, but this time, instead of setting the needle down on the vinyl, the laserpointer was held directly over the spinning disk and the red beam aimed down ontothe album.

No one spoke, straining to hear if any music was coming from the machine. “See, I told you it wouldn’twork,” crowed Tim. “I hear it! I hear it!” claimed several students. “Turn up the volume! Maybe it wasturned off!” cried Ben. Again the room was still, the volume knob turned to high, and the laser beamturned on. The children experimented until the bell rang, signaling the end of the school day. Not onestudent mentioned that we’d completely missed recess.

I was excited that Ben had made the connection between the record player anda Diskman. Not only did he prompt thinking and discussion among his peers, buthe took an active leadership role in the experiment with all students gaining newknowledge as a result.

Findings

Lynn was able to build caring and enthusiasm in her classroom that seems to haveproduced some remarkable results. In a world full of reports of inadequacy andfailure, studying what works in inclusive science classrooms is refreshing for thefuture of students with special needs. Lynn was able to create a classroom that herstudents wanted to be and where they wanted to learn. Without wishing to simplifythe complexities of the interrelationships between factors in this study, it seems thatLynn’s approach focused on two major ideas: (a) combining activity-oriented sciencecurriculum with the building of caring relationships in her classroom; and (b), devel-oping enthusiasm for science and fulfilling students’ personal purposes. We discussthese below.

A Combination of Activity-Oriented Science Curriculum and Caring Teaching

The combination of an activity-oriented science curriculum and caring teachingconstruct an approach that is successful for students with learning disabilities inLynn’s classroom. The positive outcomes of this approach are not only associatedwith the curriculum employed or its substantial adaptations throughout the variousaction research cycles in which we were engaged, but also with Lynn’s enthusiasmand caring.

First of all, the various classroom incidents that we have described so far suggestthat the view of science that Lynn is promoting in her classroom is dynamic, de-picting science as an on-going negotiation of materials and ideas and as a constantprocess of discovery and exploration, rather than a set of facts to be memorised.Her students with learning disabilities cover content in more depth and they useconcrete materials that they themselves suggest; they are actively engaged in gather-ing data, generating and implementing investigations, observing their consequences,


comparing data, and engaging in discussions that stem from experimental results.Lynn includes some structure and suggests guidelines, but the main responsibilityto inquire is left to the students. She plans instruction around problems and issues,and she builds on the experiences of the students. All students in her class becomeinvolved in planning and evaluating their own science investigations. She explains:

Having students involved in the planning and implementation of their science projects, experiments, andexplorations gives them a sense that the project is theirs, and naturally draws them into what we are doing.Were I to make all the decisions and tell them what to do, the children would not have the same feeling ofownership, of pride in their work, that they do when they have been actively involved in the entire process.

Lynn’s success with students with learning disabilities may be associated withincreasing the variety of activities by enhancing students’ responsibility to designtheir own activities and conducting investigations at their own pace. Lynn employsbehavior management techniques to keep students focused on the tasks at hand –such as establishing and keeping positive attitudes about students’ (mis)behavior,establishing requirements for student behavior early on during the academic year,and encouraging students to engage in collaborative projects. Although she carefullystructures the tasks that her students with learning disabilities have to do, she pro-vides enough space for them to employ self-questioning activities independently ofwhat she asks them to do. As a beginning teacher, this took Lynn some time to getused to. She notes:

It was difficult for me to let go of my students’ learning, and trust them to discover things on their own.As a student, I was taught by rote learning and memorisation, so the notion of inquiry based learningwas not comfortable for me. However, I saw immediate success with my students with disabilities whenI first relaxed and allowed them to play with their science materials. The ideas they came up with, theknowledge they acquired, has far greater meaning to them than if had I simply stood and lectured to them,required memorisation of facts, or forced them to stay within the guidelines on their lab sheets. My goalis always to provide the support they needed to make the most of their talents.

Lynn believes that focusing on each individual’s talents helps students find “whatthey are best at, what they are interested in doing, what’s important to them.” There-fore, even when she provides some structure and guidelines to her students withspecial needs, she tries very hard not to suppress their thinking and block theirinitiatives. She points out:

Often they come up with ideas that I had never thought of, ideas that make sense and are natural extensionsand explorations of the topic. Rather than simply answering their question (if I know the answer!) and thuspotentially ending the line of thought/exploration, I reply that they have come up with a good question andask them to share their own opinion about what they think is right or might happen. I try hard to encouragethem to think and wonder. If we’re experimenting when an idea arises, I allow them to try it out, even if itmeans adjusting my own schedule of teaching. I also keep a supply of items handy that might be neededif a student’s ideas need materials beyond what has already been provided.

As Lynn further explains, providing structure in some activities aims at focusingchildren’s attention and modeling positive attitudes toward doing scientific investiga-tions. Therefore, her strategies don’t seem to inhibit students’ efforts to conduct their


own investigations; on the contrary, these strategies create a supporting environmentand a focus that is needed during the initial steps of a scientific investigation.

However, determining which curriculum approaches and strategies to science ed-ucation are likely to lead to better outcomes for students with disabilities is half thechallenge; the other half is to have teachers who are caring and enthusiastic, andprovide a nurturing environment for their students who have special needs so thatthey can succeed. Lynn models caring because she encourages self-affirmation in herstudents. She talks about and encourages legitimate student interests, and she sharesher own interests in science. Her approach is directed in creating, maintaining andenhancing relations of care and trust. Students are encouraged to support each otherand, as she explains, activities and group work may enhance achievement scores inscience, but they can also provide caring occasions.

The major component in Lynn’s caring teaching is the notion of confirmation (seeNoddings, 1984). Lynn provides opportunities for students with special needs tointeract with peers and to pursue their interests so that she can encourage their devel-opment. Care and confirmation leads Lynn and her students with special needs notonly to real connections between science and everyday life but also to a wide range ofpossibilities for self-development. This is a central aspect of confirmation accordingto Noddings (1984): “When we attribute the best possible motive consonant withreality to the cared-for, we confirm him; that is, we reveal to him an attainable imageof himself that is lovelier than that manifested in his present acts. In an importantsense, we embrace him as one with his present acts” (p. 193). As Lynn explains:

Students frequently come into the classroom with a low feeling of self worth or unaware of their ownpotential as a learner. I try to find something positive about every student and then encourage them tobuild on that. And, once a student begins to feel valued, (and more importantly, starts to value himself orherself), then the student is able to progress from there, both academically and socially.

Caring for students with learning disabilities means helping them grow and de-velop their talents; caring is a relationship that one develops with another person andimplies finding and honoring the other’s gifts. To care for students does not simplymean that a teacher has to help them to love science or to fill the gaps that they havein their content knowledge. Above all, to care for students means that a teacher needsto take on the students’ realities and begin to build relations by acting accordingly.

Finally, Lynn suggests that confirming students’ talents and making them responsi-ble for their own learning seems to decrease the incidence of inappropriate behavior.As she points out, at the beginning of the school year her students with learningdisabilities lack motivation and interest, they seem to have low self-esteem, and theyshow inappropriate behavior under several circumstances. However, by increasingtheir responsibility and providing them space for free inquiry, she notices a decreasein their inappropriate behavior. For example, when Reed, a student labeled withemotional disabilities, was having difficulty cooperating with the other membersof his group while still clearly interested in an ongoing experiment, she gave himanother set of the materials, moved him to an unoccupied space in the classroom,and allowed him to follow his own ideas without having to conflict with the other


students in his group. Reed’s explorations fit in well with the unit on oceanographythe students were studying, and his experiment was left out for observations andrecording of results for several weeks. In addition, the other students in the classbecame interested in what Reed had done, and began checking his beaker dailyalong with him, thus having the added effect of drawing Reed into the classroomcommunity. A less caring teacher might have handled this situation quite differently.Instead of encouraging Reed to pursue his interests, she might have punished him forthe symptom – aggressive behavior – and isolated him even further. But gradually,she helped other students become interested in what Reed what doing and supportedhim in moving closer to his own best self.

Developing Enthusiasm for Science and Fulfilling Students’ Personal Purposes

Throughout the history of special education, educators tended to focus on thedeficits of students with disabilities instead of identifying their strengths and plan-ning curriculum accordingly (Poplin, 1984, as cited in Caseau & Norman, 1997). Onthe contrary, Lynn’s approach focuses on providing meaningful science teaching forstudents with learning disabilities, identifying their strengths and taking advantage oftheir talents and personal purposes, rather than building the curriculum on what theylack. Additionally, her demonstrated enthusiasm for science helps students developsimilar feelings for it too. For example, Lynn explains that:

I find science to be a fascinating topic, and experiments and explorations like puzzles to figure out. I’vediscovered that when science is approached as something that is fun and exciting, student interest issparked, particularly among my students with disabilities who enjoy playing with science.

Therefore, having chosen the best science curriculum does not ensure successwith the students who have special needs. Brigham, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (1992)found that increased levels of teacher enthusiasm during a science unit resulted insubstantial increases of learning and on-task behavior in classes of students withlearning disabilities, even when the same hands-on science curriculum was beingused in all conditions. Teacher attitudes are very important in general, but even moresignificant in implementing inclusive instruction effectively (Scruggs & Mastropieri,1996). Similarly, our study confirms these findings and suggests further that Lynn’senthusiasm seems to make a difference in the academic and behavioral performanceof her students with learning disabilities in science when accompanied by inquiryscience instruction.

Lynn helps her students develop their own enthusiasm for science through a num-ber of opportunities that create an atmosphere guided by care for students’ personalpurposes. Evidence of a positive and enthusiastic atmosphere in Lynn’s classroomcan be seen from the fact that she is caring and accepting of divergent answersand other unexpected reactions from all her students. She knows her students verywell, and interacts with them in a friendly and kind manner. Students with learning


disabilities, in particular, are aware of this and appreciate her caring and kindness.Lynn once kept Sandra, a student with learning disabilities, after school. Sandra hadbeen avoiding doing her work throughout the school day. Lynn helped Sandra tofinish all her assignments, and before dismissing her to go home, asked the studentif she understood why she had had to stay after school. Lynn was expecting a replysomewhat along the lines of, “I had to stay because I didn’t do my work when I wassupposed to, so I needed to stay and get it done.” To Lynn’s surprise, though, Sandrareplied simply, “Because you care about me.” Lynn admits that to this day that thiswas one of her most profound teaching moments.

Lynn’s enthusiasm for science influences the attitudes of children with learningdisabilities. Her students feel loved and cared for, therefore, they are able to learnin a positive environment that encourages their pursuit of personal talents and gifts.Once when asked how it feels to come to science class, Ben replied that his favoritesubject was science because it interests him. This interest that Ben developed inscience influenced not only his academic performance in science, but also his overallschool performance and attitude.

Lynn constantly reflects on how she interacts with her students with special needs.A major goal she has, as she explains, is “providing strategies and opportunities thathelp improve students’ self-esteem, motivation and social skills.” For example, asshe points out:

Responding to a student’s query by saying, “What a great question!” encourages more questions and ex-ploration as the students learn that their questions are welcome and a valuable part of science exploration.Furthermore, I may ask them why they think a particular topic we are looking at is relevant. Why do theysuppose I want them to know about it? Their answers are often thoughtful and insightful, and when thestudents understand why they need to learn something, they are more amenable and apt to make a greatereffort to learn.

Overall, Lynn’s approach of (a) combining activity-oriented science curriculumwith the building of caring relationships in her classroom, and (b) developing en-thusiasm for science and fulfilling students’ personal purposes suggests some ideasabout changing stereotypes of students with learning disabilities. First of all, herapproach indicates how problems with labeling children may have to do with theplace and meaning of learning disability within the school culture and its politics.We join debates in recent years about the labels attached to children and we areconcerned with the following issues: Does assigning a particular label to a childhelp that individual in any way? What does this label really mean? It is well knownthat learning disabilities have been a perceived basis for stereotyping, prejudice anddiscrimination (cf. Kliewer & Biklen, 1996). Our study shows that when Lynn’sstudents talents were identified and consistently nurtured, then not only stereotypingin her classroom was cast aside but also there was evidence of improvement in somestudents’ academic performance (as Lynn’s story indicates in the next section).

Second, another characteristic of Lynn’s approach is the role of caring in counter-acting stereotypes about students with disabilities. Lynn’s decision, behaviors, andactions suggest that she avoids blaming children with special needs for engaging in


behaviors in which the school disapproves. Instead of being prone to seek evidencethat confirms preconceptions about students with special needs, Lynn highlights theareas of strengths of these students and makes sure they spend plenty of time onthose, because she believes that “that’s where they will find success and build apositive self-image.” These are the areas that she aims at strengthening by providingconfirming opportunities. According to Lynn, the positive moods created as a resultof these confirming opportunities seem to increase the motivation of these students.A less caring teacher might be inclined to take disciplinary action that would beconvenient for her but it would be a disservice for these students.

Finally, Lynn’s approach indicates that for altering or transcending labeling ofchildren it is important to create classroom environments that elicit positive emo-tions, rather than negative ones (cf. Fein & Spencer, 1997). To dilute the impact ofnegative attitudes and emotions that other students might have for students with spe-cial needs, Lynn aims at creating positive emotions linked with students with specialneeds. These linkages are created by associating students with special needs withpositive experiences that emphasise the recognition of the talents of these studentsfrom the all of their classmates. Her use of mixed cooperative groups, for example,along with allowing students with special needs to capitalise on their personal pur-poses and talents enable students with special needs to experience positive emotionsand increase their self-image and achievement, without decreasing the achievementof the rest of the students.

Transcending the Label of an LD Child (Written by Lynn)

Ben continued to progress both socially and academically, and his success spreadfrom science to other academic subjects. Mathematics was one such area. In ourbuilding all fourth and fifth grade students are given the same math assessment test,and then the students are divided into five math groups based on the results of theassessment. Ben’s score placed him into the lowest math group, but within that group,he shone. Frequently I heard from his math teacher that he was involved in learning,and helping other classmates. In fact, she considered Ben to be an asset to her mathgroup because he was such a hard worker and a leader. In addition, she commentedthat the way he approached solving math was in a gifted manner as opposed to atangled student’s approach. “He might not be able to explain what he means so thatthe other students understand how he got the answer, but I know what he means,” sheobserved.

At the end of my two years with Ben, I had a meeting with the school’s special ed-ucation consultant to prepare his records for his future teachers at the middle school.“Of course, we must include the fact that Ben has a severe attention problem andis ADHD,” she advised. “I am not seeing an attention problem, nor does he act asthough he’s hyperactive,” I replied. The LD consultant was surprised and reiteratedthat Ben had quite a lengthy history of attention problems with his former classroomteachers. I was equally adamant that Ben was not inattentive in class. In fact, by


the end of his second year with me, he was so closely involved in every discussionor lesson, and his hand constantly up to offer opinions, comments, and ideas, thatI had to make a real effort to ensure that every student in the class got a turn toparticipate! Quite a change from the withdrawn child who had sat on the carpet twoyears ago, and felt as though he had nothing to share with his classmates and teacher,and certainly not a child that was distracted and disengaged.

Since I had Ben’s mathematics teacher’s comments about his participation in herclass to back up my own observations that he did not exhibit attention problems orhyperactive tendencies, the other teacher and I compromised by noting that, in thepast, Ben seemed to have difficulty paying attention in class but that during the pasttwo years he had not exhibited either hyperactivity or inattentiveness in school.

Ben’s mother scheduled a conference with me at the end of the second (5th grade)year during parent/teacher conference time. To my surprise, not only did she arrive,but also Ben, his older sister, his father, and his father’s girlfriend were in tow. Priorto this I had not met Ben’s father; he had not come in for conferences nor had hecommunicated with me in any way. Ben strode confidently into the room, announcedthat he wanted to show his family the class pet (a hamster) and not only that, tookpride in taking his family around the room, pointing out his desk, work that was ondisplay, and myriad other interesting things around the room.

And then we all sat down and celebrated Ben’s accomplishments. I had preparedhis report card as well as some other items, but this particular conference wentbeyond that.

Ben had grown tremendously as a learner. During his fourth grade year, he hadseveral incomplete assignments in science as well as some from which he was ex-cused because he had been unable to comprehend and complete them. Despite thesedifficulties, though, he scored a higher grade on a test over the oceanography unitthan a gifted student who usually earned higher test scores than any other student inthe classroom! Ben’s scores were even more surprising during his fifth grade year.For two of the units that were studied (Light and Simple Machines) he scored everysingle point possible on all his assignments and had no incompletes!

But not only did he do well according to traditional assessment methods, his skillsof scientific inquiry and his attitude towards science as well as other academic areasdramatically increased. School became a place Ben wanted to be, where he foundsuccess in academic and social areas. He enjoyed learning and approached his studieswith enthusiasm.

Fortunately I had a fifteen-minute break scheduled after Ben’s conference, sohis family and I were able to use that time as we applauded Ben’s two years ofaccomplishments. Ben was pleased to direct the conversation and tell his familyabout things he had done in school, especially since he could show them his projectsand papers while we talked. He was thorough in his explanations, and his familywas terribly proud of him. When Ben stated his goal in life was to be a chef, hisfather pointed to all his science projects and encouraged his son to be a scientist and“then you could get a job at the university and be set for life!” As the family left,Ben continued to beam and chatter while walking away, still sharing his academicaccomplishments with his family.


The end of the school year is difficult when you have been with your students fortwo years. This year, as the final bell rang and the students filed out my classroomdoor, I received many hugs and farewell messages. Ben approached me and I askedhim if I could give him a hug. He thought a handshake would be better. As we shookhands to say goodbye, Ben said quietly, “I wish I didn’t have to go. I want to stayhere forever.”

Discussion and Implications

In this article, we narrated a success story in the inclusion of a student with specialneeds and we advanced two arguments. First, we discussed how Lynn’s caring andenthusiasm made a difference in creating a supportive environment for science learn-ing and for improving the academic performance of Ben. Second, we discussed howLynn’s approach of empowering Ben to assume responsibility for his own learning,and providing him with hands-on activities to develop his strengths and interests,subverted his labeling and exclusion. In this final part, first we entertain some possi-ble explanations of Ben’s dramatic changes, then we suggest two ways of subvertinglabeling based on the results of our study, and finally we propose two qualitativehypotheses for further research in this area.

First of all, there may be several explanations for Ben’s changes and for some ofthe positive reactions that other students exhibited. A skeptic might suggest that therewas no effect from Lynn’s caring teaching and that Ben might have bloomed duringthis time period without Lynn’s intervention. Although it is difficult to be certainwhy this was the case, a number of interpretations suggest that Lynn’s approach wasimportant in Ben’s changes. First, if Lynn had been a less caring teacher it wouldhave been more likely that she would expect Ben to be a slow learner because of hislearning disabilities, thus she would have not assigned challenging materials to him– or let him pursue his personal purposes – and would have given him less feedbackand encouragement while working on these materials. However, this was not the caseand there were plenty of events in Lynn’s narration that confirmed the impact of hercaring approach on Ben’s behavior and achievement.

Second, most teachers in Lynn’s school had low expectations from Ben whichmight have led him not to try very hard in his school work. Ben reacted to beingtreated in this manner by acting in ways that confirmed these teachers’ low expec-tations regarding his behavior and his academic performance. However, this wasnot the case with Lynn. Her high expectations of him along with the caring rela-tionships she established motivated Ben to try for his best. These expectations wereconstructed within a context of flexible set of goals and activities for science inves-tigations that had meaning for Ben’s needs. Lynn was able to construct a classroomenvironment in which Ben felt a sense of success and accomplishment.

Third, there is the possibility that the support from Ben’s family during that timemight have been catalytic in his change. However, there was enough evidence thatthe personal and other problems in his family had a negative effect on Ben’s behavior


and feeling of self-confidence. In other words, the results of our study suggest thatafter two years of being in Lynn’s classroom, Ben made significant progress in waysthat justify the influence of Lynn’s approach. These results direct our attention totwo ways with which Lynn seems to subvert labeling and to break stereotypes aboutstudents with learning disabilities:

1. Strengthening or creating positive emotions and traits and weakening percep-tions of negative emotions and traits by emphasising caring relationships amongherself-students-content.

2. Reducing the use of labeling and stereotyping by activating students’ talents andby having high expectations.

Although stereotypes may be impossible to avoid, one possible way of breaking themis by having high expectations. Caring is not just a warm, fuzzy feeling that makespeople kind and likable; it implies a continuous search for competence (Noddings,1995). When we care, we want the very best for those we care for. The combina-tion of caring and high expectations may provide a way of altering labeling andstereotyping.

More often than not, school structures normalise the labeling of students with spe-cial needs based on ambiguous classifications and political reasons. Labeling drawsour attention away from understanding, respecting and caring about the individual asa competent and talented person. Our study suggests that an important considerationin educating students with special needs in science is to understand and respect theirtalents and strengths. This demands sensitivity and receptivity and requires that wesee beyond the labels, set those aside and focus on understanding each child. Conse-quently, our study implies that no matter how good the science curriculum is, studentswith special needs may find it difficult to succeed if caring and enthusiastic teachersdo not nurture their needs and talents. Lynn was successful with her students whohad special needs not only because she was using an activity-oriented curriculum,but also because she took a very personal interest in the fulfillment of each of herstudents’ talents and needs. Her case suggests future attention to further investigationof the role of caring and enthusiasm in the successful inclusion of students withspecial needs in regular education science classes.

More research is needed in inclusive science classrooms to explore a variety ofaspects of science teaching and learning. The following two qualitative hypothesesthat are derived from our study can be used to guide future research in the area:

1. If we want to reinforce a child’s efforts at studying science – even if these effortsdon’t immediately produce better results – it is very important that caring re-lationships among teacher–students-content are created, activity-based curriculaare promoted and high expectations are maintained for all students.

2. To the extent that we cease to use labeling as a means of stereotyping studentswith special needs, it is more likely that we view these students as individu-als with talents and strengths and provide them the caring, space and time foraltering their labeling.


The above two qualitative hypotheses can play an important role in efforts toexplore how teachers may provide effective and empowering science learning experi-ences for students with special needs. Future research can examine these hypothesesand the degree to which they promote (or not) the successful accommodation of di-verse learners in science classes. For example, there is a need for future exploration ofhow teachers’ caring and enthusiasm affect other components of science instructionand learning for students with special needs – for example, teacher’s planning, theselection of activities, the collaboration with other teachers in the school, assessmentstrategies of students’ learning, and so forth.

To conclude, in this article we have argued that labels are words for us to challenge.What do we intend by them? What do we really gain by using them? Whose interestsdo these labels serve? Traditionally the meaning of these labels has forced individualsinto the marginalisation and the stigmatisation that goes along with the notion thatthe labeled student is somehow defective, less than normal. By no means do weclaim that our argument here about the importance of teacher’s caring and enthusiasmprovides a magic recipe for completely overturning the current attitudes and policiesabout students with special needs. However, we do claim that teachers’ caring andenthusiasm can help us unravel the uniqueness of the students labeled. Ben’s casemay seem like an extraordinary event of one child who blossomed under the rightcircumstances. We should not settle for less. There are a lot of Bens out there waitingfor us to do something in order for them to celebrate their gifts and abilities.

Notes

1. Ooblek is an unusual substance made when cornstarch and water are mixed.(We used 16 oz. (454 g) of cornstarch and 1.75 cups of water.) It has unexpectedproperties. When pushed upon, it remains solid. If lifted, it becomes liquid. Ooblekappears in the popular Dr. Seuss story Bartholomew and the Ooblek.

2. Title services refer to a federally funded program for at risk students and “slowlearners” who don’t qualify for other special education services. Title students mustbe a least a grade level behind in math and/or reading to be eligible for these services.

Correspondence: Michalinos Zembylas, Michigan State University,325 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

References

Atwood, R. K. & Oldham, B. R. (1985). Teachers’ perceptions of mainstreamingin an inquiry oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69, 619–624.

Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for themildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 29, 555–570.


Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). The effect of teacherenthusiasm on the learning and behaviour of learning disabled students. LearningDisabilities Research & Practice, 7, 68–73.

Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and conse-quences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Caseau, D. & Norman, K. (1997). Special education teachers use science-technology-society (STS) themes to teach science to students with learningdisabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 55–68.

Cawley, J. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 15, 67–71.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Little, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Reviewof research in education, 24, 249–305. Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: OpenUniversity Press.

Fein, S. & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming theself through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,31–44.

Gilligan, C. (Ed.). (1988). Mapping the moral domain. Cambridge, MA: Center forthe Study of Gender, Education and Human Development.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Ruvolo, C. M. (1990). Stereotype-based expectan-

cies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of SocialIssues, 46, 35–60.

Holahan, G. G., McFarland, J., & Piccillo, B. A. (1994). Elementary school sciencefor students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 86–93.

Hubbard, R. & Power, B. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook forteacher-researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Jussim, L. & Fleming, C. (1996). Self-fulfilling prophecies and the maintenanceof social stereotypes: The role of dyadic interactions and social forces. InC. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping(pp. 161–192). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.).Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Kliewer, C. & Biklen, D. (1996). Who wants to be called retarded? In W. Stain-back & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives (pp. 83–95). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities.Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text-based vs. activities-oriented sciencecurricula for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 34–43.


Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Bohs, K. (1994). Mainstreaming an emotion-ally handicapped student in science. A qualitative investigation. In T. E. Scruggs& M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities(Vol. 8, pp. 131–146). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquirylearning for students with mild disabilities? The Journal of Special Education,31, 199–211.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L.,et al. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”:Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching.Science Education, 82, 163–180.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 675–679.Noddings, N. (1996). The caring professional. In S. Gordon, P. Benner & N. Nod-

dings (Eds.), Caregiving: Readings in knowledge, practice, ethics and politics(pp. 160–172). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Noffke, S. & Stevenson, R. B. (1995). Educational action research: Becomingpractically critical. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

Patton, J. R. (1993). Individualising for science and social studies. In J. Wood(Ed.), Mainstreaming: A practical approach for teachers (2nd ed., pp. 366–413).Columbus, OH: Merill.

Patton, J. R. (1995). Teaching science to students with special needs. TeachingExceptional Children, 27(4), 4–5.

Poplin, M. (1984). Summary, rationalisations, apologies and farewell: What we don’tknow about the learning disabled. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 133.

Rist, R. C. & Harrell, J. E. (1982). Labeling the learning disabled child: The socialecology of educational practice. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 146–160.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher ex-pectation and pupil’s intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education:Implications for mainstream instruction for students with disabilities. Remedialand Special Education, 15, 15–24.

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994a). Successful mainstreaming in elemen-tary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 31, 785–811.

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994b). The construction of scientific knowl-edge by students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28,307–321.

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Science education for students withbehavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 3, 322–334.


Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of main-streaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63,59–74.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for studentswith disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32,21–44.

Scruggs, T. T., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Readingvs. doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry oriented approachesto science education in special education classrooms. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 27, 1–15.

Stephan, W. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Stephan, W. G. & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup relations. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Sickle, M. & Spector, B. (1996). Caring relationships in science classrooms:A symbolic interaction study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 433–453.

Wilson, J. (2000). “Learning difficulties,” “disability,” and “special needs”: Someproblems of partisan conceptualisation. Disability & Society, 15, 817–824.

Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities: Subverting the Myths of Labeling Through...

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Science to Students with Learning Disabilities: Subverting the Myths of Labeling Through...