Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

If Science Teachers Are Positively Inclined Toward Inclusive Education, Why Is It So Difficult?

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the unique challenges that students with learning disabilities (LD) experience in science studies and addresses the question of the extent to which science teachers are willing and prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms. We employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB), according to which behavioral intentions are a function of individuals’ attitudes toward the behavior, their subjective norms, and their perceived control—i.e., their perception of the simplicity and benefits of performing the behavior. The study comprised 215 junior high school science teachers, who answered a TPB-based quantitative questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to support and enrich the findings and conclusions. We found that teachers held positive attitudes and were willing to adapt their teaching methods (perceived control), which correlated and contributed to their behavioral intention. In terms of subjective norms, however, they felt a lack of support and ongoing guidance in providing the appropriate pedagogy to meet the needs of students with LD. We therefore recommend that educational policy makers and school management devote attention and resources to providing professional training and appropriate instructional materials and to establishing frameworks for meaningful cooperation between the science teachers and special education staff. This could ensure the efficient cooperation and coordination of all the involved parties and send a positive message of support to the science teachers who are the actual implementers of change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Bachkman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: a view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: a project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2010). Future of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Future-of-the-Internet-IV.aspx

  • Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) (2011). Guide to the National Quality Standards. Canberra: ACECQA. Available at: http://acecqa.gov.au/Uploads/files/National%20Quality%20Framework%20Resources%20Kit/2-DE_03_National%20Quality%20Standard_v8_Secn1.pdf

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, R. K., & Oldham, B. R. (1985). Teacher’s perceptions of mainstreaming in an inquiry oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69, 619–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4–29 Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED463146.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Seattle, April, 2001.

  • Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming—implementing effective instruction for students with learning-disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (2007). Science talking: the research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. York: University of York, Department of Educational Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, S. (2006). Attitudes in education. The Science Teacher, 73(3), 52–56 Available at: https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-146082751/attitudes-in-education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, J. R. (2010). Note-taking skills of middle school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 530–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for children’s difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 527–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. P. (2003). Promoting effective instruction for struggling secondary students: introduction to the special issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 70–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagran, B., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Attitudes of Slovene teachers towards the inclusion of pupils with different types of special needs in primary school. Educational Studies, 37(2), 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and students with mild disabilities: principles of universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 160–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J. F., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Krooczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 428–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A., & Lazer, Y. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of students according to categories of the exceptionality and severity and the perception of their abilities to cope with these students in the inclusive classroom. Topics in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 19(2), 95–105 (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cologon, K. (2015). Inclusion in education: towards equality for students with disability. Australia: Children with Disability Available at: http://apo.org.au/resource/inclusion-education-towards-equality-students-disability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative, (CCSS) (2010). Common core state standards: preparing America’s students for college and career. Retrieved from: http:// www.corestandards.org

  • Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods procedures. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, (p. 203–224). Sage publications.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Second edition. Available at: http://doc1.lbfl.li/aca/FLMF022364.pdf

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePoy, E., & Gibson, S. (2008). Disability studies: origins, current conflict, and resolution. Review of Disability Studies, 4(4), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y.,. J., Tal, R.,. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies—can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, B. J., Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Enhancing literacy proficiency in adolescents and young adults. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 600–625). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Dor, Y. (2014). Ministry of Education policy on learning disabilities—a status report with a view of the past and future. Mifgash – Journal for Social Educational Work, 39, 255–270 (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), (2015). Available at: http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

  • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2010). Presage of a paradigm shift: beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galyam, N., & Grange, L. (2003). Teaching thinking skills in science to learners with special needs. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, B., & Greer, J. (1995). Questions and answers about inclusion: what every teacher should know. Clearing House, 68, 339–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Pullen, P. (2012). Exceptional learners: an introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: a review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R.P., & Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf

  • Hendley, D., Stables, S., & Stables, A. (1996). Pupils’ subject preferences at key stage 3 in South Wales. Educational Studies, 22, 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, A., McLellan, L., & Bauman, A. (2000). Health promotion needs of young people with disabilities: a population study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, 352–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Dung, J. J., & Yang, Y. L. (2007). Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel Ministry of Education (2007). Learning disabilities and learning difficulties: definition and principles for diagnosis and treatment. CEO Circular D. Jerusalem: Ministry of Culture and Education (in Hebrew).

  • Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) (1997). Retrieved from: http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/idea/pl105-17.pdf

  • Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 384–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial studies. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Choutka, C. M., & Treadway, P. S. (2002). A collaborative approach to planning in the content areas for students with learning disabilities: accessing the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.,. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. American Educational Research Association, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004). Primary teachers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1787–1811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, S & Lewis, A,R. (2013). Survey on teaching science to K-12 students with learning disabilities: teachers preparedness and attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Charleston. SC.

  • Kapanadze, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting reform in science education in central and eastern Europe—reflections and perspectives from the project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(1), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenneth, K. A., Spaulding, L. S., & Beam, A. P. (2009). A time to define: making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, W., & Senior, J. (2008). Developing inclusive schools: a systematic approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 65–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawec, J., Huang, J., Montague, M., Kressler, B., & De Alba, A. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knowledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifshitz, H., & Naor, M. (2001). Student-teachers’ willingness to mainstream pupils with special needs in relation to track and severity of the disability. In Hebrew. Megamot, 41, 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. H. (2012). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: theory, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane, L., & Woolfson, M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. R., & Kahn, S. A. M. I. (2014). Special needs and talents in science learning. In: G. N. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.) Handbook of research on science education, 2, 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. R., & Stefanich, G. P. (2007). Special needs and talents in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research in science education (pp. 287–318). Lawrence Erlbaum Press: New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, M. (2000). Learning disability in class, educational dilemmas in the new reality, implications in teacher training and advanced courses. Tel-Aviv: Mofet Publishing (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Boon, R., & Carter, K. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. (2003). Reading comprehension for secondary students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). A place where living things affect and depend on each other: qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82(2), 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, J., DeWit, D. J., King, K., Miller, L. M., & Killip, S. (2004). High school aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: the role of school and student. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 287–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller, B., & Wahl, E. (2000). Appendix E; Science for all: including each student. In NSTA Pathways to the science standards (pp. 147-160): NSTA.

  • Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute for Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, K., Marder, C., & Schiller, E. (2009). Research in disabilities education program evaluation: study 1 methods and results. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Joint Committee of Learning Disabilities Perspectives. The International Dyslexia Association, 23(4), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCLB – No Child Left Behind. (2002). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, no child left behind. Washington, D.C: A Desktop Reference 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Joint Committee of Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). (1994). Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • National science education standards (NRC). (1996). National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, K., Caseau, D., & Stefanich, G. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: survey results. Science Education, 82(127), 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Retrieved from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf

  • OECD (2016). “PISA 2015 Science Framework”, in PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264255425-3-en

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections (a report to the Nuffield Foundation). London: the Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.pollen-europa.net/pollen dev/Images Editor/Nuffield report.pdf.

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, J. R., & Andre, K. E. (1989). Individualizing for science and social studied. In J. Wood (Ed.), Mainstreaming: a practical approach for teachers (pp. 301–351). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., Nanty, I., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Metacognition and low achievement in mathematics: the effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills to solve mathematical word problems. Thiking & Reasonink, 16(3), 198–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schibeci, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Portrayals of science and scientists, and ‘science for citizenship’. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Council Declaration on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (2014). Avalable at: http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-governance/

  • Scruggs, T. E., Brigham, F. J., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2013). Common core science standards: implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 92–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: a qualitative study of 3 reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 785–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/ inclusion, 1958–1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, U., Loreman, T. T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shechtman, Z., & Leichtentritt, J. (2004). Affective teaching: a method to enhance classroom management. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 323–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shkedi, A. (2004). Second-order theoretical analysis: a method for constructing theoretical explanation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 627–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., & Smith, K. E. (2000). I believe in inclusion, but ... : regular education early childhood teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2), 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effect in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, M. (2005). Teaching science to middle school students with learning problems. Science Scope, 29(2), 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on intervention for adolescent with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ acceptance of technology: assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. P. (2011). Metacognition in science education: past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement on the science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K (2007). Inquiry-based science instruction for students with disabilities. In J. Luft., R.L Bell, & J.Gess-Newsome. (Ed). Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Chp. 7. NSTA press.

  • van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., van Der Molen, J. H. W., & Asma, L. J. F. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: a new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96, 158–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, E., & Kellough, R. D. (1997). Science for the elementary and middle school (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prantice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2011). Science for all: engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinburgh, M. (2007). The effect of Tenebrio obscurus on elementary preservice teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 801–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. (1996). Inclusion: criteria for the preparation of education personnel. Remedial and Special Education, 17(5), 323–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude-behavior theories for predicting science teachers’ intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 819–844.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The School of Education, Bar Ilan University, 5290002, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Ornit Spektor-Levy & Merav Yifrach

Authors
  1. Ornit Spektor-Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merav Yifrach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ornit Spektor-Levy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spektor-Levy, O., Yifrach, M. If Science Teachers Are Positively Inclined Toward Inclusive Education, Why Is It So Difficult?. Res Sci Educ 49, 737–766 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9636-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9636-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation