This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Woodward, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Role of Models in Secondary Science Instruction

John Woodward received his doctorate in special education from the University of Oregon in 1985. He is currently an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound. His research interests are in the area of curriculum design, technology, and school reform. Address: John Woodward, School of Education, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416.

This article reviews common curricular alternatives for addressing the needs of secondary students with learning disabilities in science. For the most part, special education strategies for modifying science materials reflect generic techniques. Support for these methods is based on the argument that they place relatively few demands on teachers. Moreover, these methods readily apply to the commercial texts used in general and special education classrooms, however, the increasing complexity of secondary materials, as well as the call for a richer understanding of science. Make techniques like direct instruction, mnemonics, and graphic organizers less tenable. A curriculum revision method that emphasizes models and context-rich problem solving is proposed as a contemporary alternative.

Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, 94-104 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/074193259401500205


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. R. Ketterlin-Geller, J. D. McCoy, T. Twyman, and G. Tindal How Do Critical Thinking Measures Fit Within Standards-Based Reform? Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2003; 28(3-4): 37 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. McCleery and G. A. Tindal Teaching the Scientific Method to At-Risk Students and Students with Learning Disabilities Through Concept Anchoring and Explicit Instruction Remedial and Special Education, January 1, 1999; 20(1): 7 - 18. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Tindal and V. Nolet SERVING STUDENTS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL CONTENT CLASSES: A HEURISTIC STUDY OF CRITICAL VARIABLES LINKING INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT Journal of Special Education, January 1, 1996; 29(4): 414 - 432. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. G. McKenzie Special Educators as Secondary Content Teachers: How Justifiable? Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, October 1, 1995; 18(4): 275 - 282. [Abstract] [PDF]