View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Instructional Framework for Teaching STEM to Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Instructional Framework for Teaching STEM to Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Leah Wood (ORCID 0000-0002-5385-9797), Bree Jimenez (ORCID 0000-0003-0837-4587), Ginevra Courtade (ORCID 0000-0002-8973-4144)
Source: School Science and Mathematics. 2025 125(1):75-87.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 2201407
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: STEM Education, Students with Disabilities, Moderate Intellectual Disability, Severe Intellectual Disability, Guides, Evidence Based Practice, Special Education, Thinking Skills, Accessibility (for Disabled)
DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12673
ISSN: 0036-6803
1949-8594
Abstract: Answering questions and solving problems are critical skills that affect the quality of life for all people. The content areas of science and engineering traditionally and most directly address the processes of inquiry and problem-solving. While there is an increasing body of research surrounding teaching academic content (i.e., mathematics and science) as well as skills that are critical to support student success in these areas (i.e., communication and self-determination), the research supporting instruction of math, science, and engineering practices and processes are only emerging. The purpose of this article is to provide a research-based framework for instructional design that provides ideas for cognitive accessibility and supports for students with MSD in STEM. The framework aims to guide teachers in considering why to teach STEM, what to teach, and how to teach it. The framework guides teachers to use evidence-based practices in special education to teach students to know about STEM (i.e., academic content), do STEM practices and processes (i.e., critical thinking skills combined into routines for asking questions or solving problems), and think in ways that support this learning (i.e., metacognitive behaviors).
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1460338
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHiaXwBFCvTnMCPGRHtfd2TAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG8Mg3yc97DJeHpgjQIBEICBm5ZcwlDWevrBhQim-KaNepi929tFClAJKrCwF2SgJtsiWrURyqSAM51PQioq89F-irBV6GxqgYmC-ifaU8oiIQ7uX8KIiG97fQcxy6rDOPl9hMs4x8GqF5EtF-bIfw4zDlzgCPkm6f_lOSPhG7EedUUnoSPjHxM-jP5pIDqRh_Xh7lw3mg786FiVyeCONAzB8DaawfZcKwnCKJrR
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183823211;ssm01feb.25;2025Mar20.07:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183823211-1">An instructional framework for teaching STEM to students with moderate to severe disabilities </title> <p>Answering questions and solving problems are critical skills that affect the quality of life for all people. The content areas of science and engineering traditionally and most directly address the processes of inquiry and problem‐solving. While there is an increasing body of research surrounding teaching academic content (i.e., mathematics and science) as well as skills that are critical to support student success in these areas (i.e., communication and self‐determination), the research supporting instruction of math, science, and engineering practices and processes are only emerging. The purpose of this article is to provide a research‐based framework for instructional design that provides ideas for cognitive accessibility and supports for students with MSD in STEM. The framework aims to guide teachers in considering why to teach STEM, what to teach, and how to teach it. The framework guides teachers to use evidence‐based practices in special education to teach students to know about STEM (i.e., academic content), do STEM practices and processes (i.e., critical thinking skills combined into routines for asking questions or solving problems), and think in ways that support this learning (i.e., metacognitive behaviors).</p> <p>Keywords: instruction framework; instructional practices; intellectual disability; STEM</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In his book <emph>All Life is Problem Solving</emph>, philosopher Karl Popper suggested that life is essentially a series of problems humans attempt to solve (Popper, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref1">51</reflink>]). Many problems are recurring or routine, like being hungry. Other problems are periodic, like needing money to buy a car. Problems are contextualized by environmental or situational factors (e.g., being hungry and having access to food vs. not having access to food changes the magnitude of the problem). We regularly experience wants or needs that require solutions, and we often make choices to solve or construct those solutions. Similarly, all people wonder about things. Throughout life we seek knowledge and understanding by asking and attempting to answer questions about the natural and social world. Through inquiry, people can gain information that helps to solve problems. Our ability to answer questions and solve problems can improve our overall quality of life (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The extent to which people successfully answer questions and solve problems depends on the processes they choose to use. K‐12 education provides the opportunity to influence these choices. Ultimately, the purpose of education is to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and practices necessary to effectively engage in processes for answering questions and solving problems (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref3">31</reflink>]). This purpose transcends STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education. In a review of reading instruction practices for students with disabilities, Mastropieri and Scruggs ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]) asserted the most essential academic outcome is learning how to comprehend. In other words, we teach literacy, just as we teach math, science, or social studies, in order to teach students to make sense of the world around them. Similarly, the ultimate purpose of mathematics instruction is to teach students to solve problems (Van de Walle et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref5">67</reflink>]). Scruggs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]) described the historical inquiry process as an essential outcome of social studies instruction. Similarly, STEM inherently focuses on teaching students to answer questions and solve problems. Though the content, practices, and processes vary across subject matter, the core objective of teaching students to think for themselves is the common thread.</p> <p>Consequently, teaching is more than engaging students in activities. Students can successfully follow steps to hands‐on problem‐solving activities but still do not necessarily learn (Ashman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]). Teaching is more than memorizing content. Educators do not teach identification and understanding of academic vocabulary so that students can recall words in isolation; educators teach academic vocabulary so that students can understand the practices and processes they are engaged in (Scruggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). The challenge of teaching is ensuring students learn to apply knowledge and skills to complex processes that can yield answers and solutions. Learning how to answer questions and solve problems is not enough. A desired outcome of teaching is that students generalize and independently use these processes across real‐world contexts (Scruggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ability to answer questions and solve problems is beneficial to all people, including students with moderate and severe intellectual disability (MSD). Students with MSD typically have an IQ of 55 or below and need additional support in adaptive behavior (i.e., conceptual, social, or daily living skills; American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]). Knight et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>]) argued students with extensive support needs, including students with MSD, can benefit from opportunities to improve communication and social skills while engaging in science and engineering practices (i.e., doing science and engineering). Yet, educators have historically excluded students with MSD from instruction in such practices (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]). Students with MSD have had limited opportunities to engage in practices like asking questions or identifying problems. Without these component practices, students are not likely to achieve the outcomes of answering questions and solving problems.</p> <p>There are many barriers that impact the extent to which students with MSD learn STEM. Students with MSD typically require extensive support to access their grade‐level curriculum and benefit from learning. Particular barriers to STEM education for students with disabilities include difficulty with language and communication, comprehension, executive functioning, and mathematical reasoning (Mastropieri & Scruggs, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]). To overcome these barriers and promote accessibility, researchers have identified many evidence‐based practices for teaching academics, including areas of STEM, to this population of students (Spooner et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref14">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teaching students with MSD to answer questions and solve problems also requires a clear understanding of the <emph>knowing</emph> skills (e.g., content knowledge), the <emph>doing</emph> skills (e.g., science and engineering practices), and the metacognitive <emph>thinking</emph> skills (e.g., habits of mind, self‐determination) that compose the processes for determining answers and solutions. This is particularly true for students who may lack the necessary foundational or conceptual knowledge. For example, to ask a question, students need to understand the concept of questions (e.g., "Where are my shoes?" is a question, "These are my shoes." is NOT a question). To understand the concept of a question, students need to know the meaning of question words (e.g., "who" is asking about people). Additionally, students with MSD may need explicit instruction on how to generate or construct a question (Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref15">70</reflink>]; Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). Similarly, to solve a problem, students must first understand what problems are and be able to identify or articulate a problem (e.g., Browder et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Quality STEM education can provide opportunities for all students to learn to answer questions and solve problems about the world. The value of STEM education is when students learn to generalize these inquiry‐ and problem‐solving processes to daily life (Mastropieri & Scruggs, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). In science education, for example, there are functional implications for teaching all students through a process of inquiry to "do science" as opposed to memorizing facts (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]); all students, including students with MSD, can learn how to answer questions or solve problems about daily life (Spooner et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]). For students with MSD, this could include STEM education that promotes independence, as the practices are related to authentic, student‐driven questioning, discovery, and dissemination of ideas.</p> <p>The purpose of this article is to provide a research‐based framework (see Table 1) for an instructional process that provides ideas for cognitive and intellectual accessibility and support for students with MSD in STEM education. By looking at processes for answering questions and solving problems, we focus on how to teach science, engineering, and mathematical behaviors (both <emph>thinking</emph> and <emph>doing</emph>) through the application of established evidence‐based practices. Systematically and explicitly teaching students with MSD to acquire this knowledge, build fluency, and generalize skills to real‐world processes like answering questions and solving problems will be the cornerstone of this framework.</p> <p>1 TABLE Research‐base for an instructional framework for teaching STEM to students with MSD.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Framework component</th><th align="left">Foundations for framework component</th><th align="left">Supporting research</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Why teach students with MSD to answer questions and solve problems?</td><td align="left">Teaching scientific practices has considerable potential for students with MSD, especially in improving communication skills. Engaging in these practices can provide students with communication difficulties with a structure for collaborative group activities, sharing ideas, and discussing outcomes.Engineering education empowers students to apply principles from science and mathematics to address real‐world challenges.Engineering instruction can offer an effective format for systematic instruction in mathematics, science, and technology for students with disabilities; naturally integrating opportunities to enhance students' self‐determination skills.Absence of problem‐solving activities results in students grasping only the how of computation, rather than understanding the why and when to apply mathematical skills.</td><td align="left">Miller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2015</xref>); Spooner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2011</xref>); Cunningham and Carlsen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2014</xref>); Jimenez, Croft, Twine, and Gorey (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Browder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">How should we design STEM instruction for students with MSD?</td><td align="left">Use systematic instruction (instructional routines)‐based on decades of research and evidence‐based practices for teaching students with MSD to acquire, generalize, and maintain knowledge and skills.Develop personally relevant curricula for students with MSD (prioritizing).Use EBPs for teaching science content and practices (a) multiple exemplar training, (b) task analytic instruction, and (c) time delay.Use EBPs for teaching mathematics (a) implementing systematic instruction, (b) utilizing technology‐aided instruction, (c) employing graphic organizers, (d) utilizing manipulatives, and (e) delivering explicit instruction.Use EBPs for teaching academics (a) time delay and (b) task analytic instruction.</td><td align="left">Collins (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2021</xref>); Trela and Jimenez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2013</xref>); Knight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2020</xref>); Spooner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2019</xref>); Spooner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2012</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">What STEM content and practices should be taught to students with MSD?</td><td align="left">Doing (Practices)Students with MSD can learn science practices (i.e., planning/carrying out investigations; constructing explanations; engaging in argument from evidence; obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information).Students with MSD can learn to ask and answer questions in the context of science instruction.Students with MSD can learn problem‐solving in the context of mathematics using modified schema‐based instruction.</td><td align="left">Courtade et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2010</xref>); Knight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2018</xref>); Smith et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2013</xref>); Wood et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2020</xref>); Browder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2018</xref>); Root, Saunders, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Knowing (Content)Students with MSD can learn science content (disciplinary core ideas; e.g., physical science: convection, energy, properties, states of matter; life science: genetics, heredity).Students with MSD can learn mathematics content (e.g., number identification; algebraic equations; Pythagorean theorem).Students with MSD can learn additional academic skills with the use of time delay and task analytic instruction (EBPs).</td><td align="left">Collins et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2011</xref>); Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, and DiBiase (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2012</xref>); Knight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2013</xref>); Riggs et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2013</xref>); Please see Knight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2020</xref>) for additional citations. Baker et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2015</xref>); Creech‐Galloway et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2013</xref>); Skibo et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2011</xref>); Please see Spooner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2019</xref>) for additional citations. Spooner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2012</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Thinking (Metacognition)Students with MSD can learn engineering Habits of Mind (i.e., sees self as a problem solver; investigate properties and uses of materials; persist and learn from failure).Students with MSD can use modified schema‐based instruction (MSBI) to solve mathematical word problemsSelf‐determination interventions for students with MSD positively affect academic skills (i.e., organization of assignments; math productivity).Students with MSD can successfully use self‐determination skills in the context of science, mathematics, and engineering instruction (i.e., self‐monitoring, problem‐solving, self‐directed learning) Gilley; Jimenez</td><td align="left">Jimenez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Root, Browder, et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2017</xref>); Fowler et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2007</xref>); Gilley et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2021</xref>); Miller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2015</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: EBP, evidence‐based practices; MSD, moderate and severe intellectual disability; STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-3">INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183823211-4">Overview</hd> <p>The instructional framework for teaching STEM to students with MSD is organized by the "why," the "how," and the "what" (see Figure 1). While this framework aims to support STEM instruction specifically, the underpinnings of the "why" and the "how" apply to all academic instruction for students with MSD. The "why" is based on changing priorities related to the primary focus of education for students with MSD, a paradigm shift from teaching primarily functional life skills to teaching access to grade‐aligned academics (e.g., Courtade et al.,). This shift is foundational to our framework for designing instruction to teach students with MSD to answer questions and solve problems (to extend beyond rote memorization and performing academic practices in isolation). The "how" is based on decades of research and evidence‐based practices for teaching students with MSD to acquire, generalize, and maintain knowledge and skills. Three teacher behaviors that are critical for designing STEM instruction are: (a) identifying instructional routines for teaching students to answer questions and solve problems, (b) prioritizing what to teach, and (c) selecting evidence‐based practices for teaching students with MSD. However, the "what" is specific to the essential elements of STEM instruction for all students. Teachers should prioritize what to teach across three distinct domains: (a) science and engineering practices (<emph>doing</emph> STEM), (b) knowledge of content (<emph>knowing</emph> STEM), and (c) metacognition thinking dispositions (<emph>thinking</emph> about doing STEM). Through this instructional process, students with MSD should be able to gain meaningful and lasting outcomes. Instead of talking about the world, students can answer their own questions. Rather than learning about solutions to world problems, students can design solutions themselves.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01feb25/ssm12673-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm12673-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Framework for teaching STEM to students with moderate and severe intellectual disability (Wood, Jimenez, & Courtade, [72])." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183823211-6">Routines</hd> <p>Teaching students to answer questions and solve problems requires routines or multistep processes for doing something. Routines are how people do or approach things, and they are shaped by environmental influences. For instance, your routine for getting ready in the morning might change if you sleep through your alarm. We learn and refine routines over time, through trial and error, and from how routines have been modeled to us. Routines can also be flawed or inefficient. For example, if a beginning reader's routine for reading words in text does not include blending and segmenting sounds, the student might not be proficient. Processes are formalized routines that are largely accepted as efficient and effective methods for accomplishing tasks. In education, routines are also referred to as instructional strategies or practices. Once a person has identified a question to answer or a problem to solve, they need a routine for achieving the desired outcome of an answer or solution.</p> <p>Researchers and educators have developed quality routines for teaching STEM education. Guided inquiry and the 5E instructional model (Bybee et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]) are both iterations of inquiry‐based processes for teaching students to answer scientific questions. The engineering design process is a routine for solving problems across disciplines. In mathematics, schema‐based instruction is a process for solving mathematical word problems (Jitendra et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]). Teachers have the opportunity to teach students efficient processes for obtaining these outcomes. The first step in designing quality STEM instruction is creating or selecting a routine.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-7">Routines for science</hd> <p>Routines for science education have evolved from text‐based to inquiry‐based, with broad agreement that instructional methods should be based on inquiry (Palincsar et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). Since the 1950s, the field of education has embraced a constructivist approach to teaching science in which students are led to construct their own knowledge of the discipline (Duran & Duran, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). There are a range of inquiry‐based routines, including many variations of the scientific method (Cullinane et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]). Steps range from three to eight and generally include variations of the following steps: observing, making hypotheses, experimenting, analyzing data, confirming or rejecting the hypothesis, and drawing conclusions (Cullinane et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>]). The 5E model of investigative science is another routine that focuses more intently on higher‐order thinking skills and consists of a cyclical process in which students learn to engage, explore, explain, extend, and evaluate (Unlu & Dokme, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref27">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>For students with disabilities, both text‐based instruction and inquiry‐based instruction present many barriers. Palincsar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]) described the complexity of the multiple literacies of inquiry‐based instruction. To engage in inquiry, students must also engage in mathematical thinking, reading, writing, and communication (Palincsar et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]). Students may have difficulty making inferences or gaining conceptual understanding. Guided inquiry (Kuhlthau et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref30">34</reflink>]) is a variation of inquiry‐based instruction and was designed as a routine for supporting conceptual understanding for students with and without disabilities. The routine for guided inquiry, as defined by Kuhlthau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]), includes initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation. One iteration of this routine integrates supports for the demands of multiliteracies (Palincsar et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, over the past two decades research teams have modified science routines further to make inquiry accessible for students with MSD. In 2010, Courtade et al. task analyzed the five phases of guided inquiry identified by Magnusson and Palincsar ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]): engage, investigate, describe, and report. By specifying particular behaviors within each phase, Courtade et al. created a 12‐step guidedinquiry routine. Additional supports embedded in the routine included reductions in vocabulary demands, the use of graphic organizers, and multiple presentations of core vocabulary and concepts.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-8">Routines for engineering</hd> <p>Engineers use a systematic problem‐solving strategy, or routine, to develop solutions to problems. Similar to science, multiple versions of the engineering design process can be found across curricula and engineering k‐12 education; however, they are all composed of three phases: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) define the problem, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) develop possible solutions, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) optimize the design solution. Starting with problems in real‐life contexts, early childhood 12th‐grade educators have used engineering design processes to use knowledge and concepts from various content areas (e.g., science, math, art, and technology). There are several processes for engineering design, but most of them are supported in the model proposed by Cunningham and Hester ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]) which includes an iterative model composed of five steps: (a) ask, (b) imagine, (c) plan, (d) create, and (e) improve. Vale et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref38">66</reflink>]) specifically addressed the need to support pre‐service educators in engaging their k‐12 students in the engineering design process by adapting Cunningham and Hester's model to make specific steps of the process more salient. For example, they expanded it into a 7‐step process that expanded the improvement, specifically outlining (re) building, (re) testing, and evaluating, and then (re)building to finally develop a solution.</p> <p>Little to no research has been conducted on engineering design processes for students with MSD; however, one study (Jimenez et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]) did use an engineering design process outlined by Engineering is Elementary ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]). Jimenez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]) investigated the impact of a universally designed engineering curriculum on the engineering behaviors (i.e., habits of mind) of elementary students with intellectual disability and autism. In order to provide accessibility for students with MSD to utilize the engineering routine in this curriculum, authors used the Universal Design for Learning framework (CAST, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]) to accept learner variability as a strength to be leveraged rather than a challenge to overcome.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-9">Routines for mathematics</hd> <p>In the publication <emph>An Agenda for Action</emph> (1980), the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics clearly identified problem‐solving and reasoning as the fundamental focus of mathematical education. The purpose of learning mathematical behaviors is the ability to solve math problems in real‐world contexts (NCTM, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]). Traditionally, mathematics teachers have modeled specific routines for solving specific types of problems (e.g., solving multistep computation problems, finding the perimeter and area of a shape, and solving linear equations). Word problems are contextualized and give students a specific purpose for solving the problem.</p> <p>Students with mathematical difficulties or other mild disabilities may struggle to solve math word problems due to difficulty comprehending both the text and the underlying concepts (Morin et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref44">42</reflink>]). Additionally, word problem‐solving requires students to independently construct their own model for solving the problem (Fuchs et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). Students who are struggling or emerging readers can overload their working memory with the effort of decoding. This imbalance in cognitive load can make conceptual understanding difficult (Sweller et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref46">63</reflink>]). Students may struggle with either procedural skills (e.g., computational fluency), conceptual skills (e.g., solving problems), or both (Morin et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]). Students with disabilities may struggle to understand underlying concepts in word problems and ineffective strategy use (Morin et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref48">42</reflink>]). Supporting the particular needs of students with disabilities requires implementing explicit routines with embedded cognitive strategies to support conceptual understanding.</p> <p>Schema‐based instruction (SBI) is a word problem‐solving routine based on schema theory (Marshall, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref49">38</reflink>], as cited in Hott et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]). Marshall's model for learning suggests students are successful in both solving and understanding word problems when they are taught to identify and understand the problem type (e.g., group, compare) necessary to solve a problem. The basic structure of this routine includes (a) <emph>identification</emph> (recognizing the schema or foundational structure of the word problem), (b) <emph>elaboration</emph> (matching the computational information to the features of the schema), (c) <emph>planning</emph> (developing a plan for solving), and (d) <emph>self‐regulation</emph> (applying knowledge of executive functioning to manage their own behaviors).</p> <p>Spooner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref51">61</reflink>]) developed a modified schema‐based instruction (MSBI) approach to teach mathematical problem‐solving skills to students with MSD. The primary objective of MSBI is to enable students to recognize problem structures within word problems, enhancing their ability to apply these skills to real‐world situations. MSBI comprises four key components: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>) reading word problems aloud, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>) building a conceptual understanding of the problem, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>) solving the problem procedurally, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>) applying problem‐solving skills to real‐life situations. Similar to SBI, critical elements for MSBI include teaching various mathematical problem types (e.g., grouping, comparing, changing), and metacognitive strategy instruction involving task analyses with self‐monitoring think‐alouds. However, MSBI differs by using visual representations (i.e., graphic organizers); using a task analysis; and teaching using explicit and systematic instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-10">Priorities</hd> <p>Prioritized learning is essential in STEM education for students with MSD to provide tailored, achievable, and meaningful educational experiences that empower students. The knowledge, thinking, and doing skills of STEM education are crucial components of equitable education for all students. Students with MSD need specially designed instruction tailored to their specific level of functioning, ensuring that they receive appropriate support and accommodations. With focused STEM instruction, prioritizing specific goals helps teachers focus on essential concepts and skills, reducing overwhelm and facilitating better student understanding.</p> <p>Prioritized learning goals can be tailored to each student's unique strengths and challenges, making STEM education more accessible and inclusive for a broader range of learners. STEM education is not just about preparing students for a specific job, rather it is about fostering critical thinking and problem‐solving skills. Within the fields of special and general education, much overlap can be found in how these skills are articulated through math, science and engineering practices (e.g., Common Core State Standards [CCSS] in Mathematics, 2010; Leinwand et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>]; National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]), self‐determination (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]; Wehmeyer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref60">68</reflink>]), and Habits of Mind (Cuoco et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]; Harel, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref62">26</reflink>]; Lucas & Hanson, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref63">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prioritized learning should align with state and national education standards (e.g., CCSS, NCTM, Next Generation Science Standards), ensuring that students receive an education that is aligned to the content standards (i.e., "knowing"), as well as the "thinking and doing" essential to progress within those standards. Clearly outlining the content knowledge, practices, and metacognition needed within STEM education makes it easier to assess and measure student progress. These data are valuable for both educators and parents in tracking the effectiveness of instructional strategies and making informed decisions about adjustments to STEM learning for all students, including those with MSD.</p> <p>Early cognitive science research proposed that effective thinking involves multiple elements: ability, inclination (motivation), and sensitivity, essentially defined as dispositions (Perkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref64">50</reflink>]). Ability refers to the skill and capability to think effectively, inclination is the motivation to use these skills, and sensitivity is the awareness of when and how to apply these cognitive abilities. Research has suggested that many individuals possess the necessary skills and motivation but may need to develop greater sensitivity in knowing when to employ them. For students with MSD, it may also be essential to cultivate inclination and sensitivity and explicitly support and develop cognitive abilities to enhance overall thinking and doing capabilities.</p> <p>Expanding upon the work of Jimenez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref65">29</reflink>]), this framework for teaching students with MSD STEM focuses on learner's metacognition (i.e., habits of mind, self‐determination), realizing their relevance to all learning. For example, while socially directed, engineering capitalizes on the need for personally relevant curricula for students with MSD (Trela & Jimenez, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref66">64</reflink>]) through design challenges situated within real‐life contexts. The same is true for applied real‐life mathematics and science inquiry models of instruction. With increased interest in STEM education for students with MSD, practices and habits of mind highlight the importance of problem‐solving skills (e.g., systems thinking, creativity) and other skills imperative to developing ethical solutions (e.g., collaboration and communication). With continued value on the balance between general curriculum access and personally relevant skill instruction for students with MSD (Courtade et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]), directed attention to STEM‐focused behaviors and mindsets within science and engineering education is necessary (Jimenez et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-11">Doing skills</hd> <p>Although noteworthy growth in research on mathematics and science content instruction for students with MSD has occurred over the past two decades (Spooner et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref70">60</reflink>]), research in STEM areas with this specific student population is significantly lacking in the investigation of math, science, and engineering practices. In 2020, Knight et al. synthesized the research for teaching science to students with MSD; however, only 12 methodologically sound studies were located. Unlike previous literature reviews focused on science content (Courtade et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]; Spooner et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref72">59</reflink>]), this review sought to determine the evidence for teaching NGSS science practices (e.g., asking questions, communicating findings). Illuminating the need for additional research in this area of study, only four studies explicitly sought to teach science practices (Courtade et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]; Jimenez et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>]; Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref76">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Multiple STEM areas (e.g., math, science, engineering) have developed practices to help educators think beyond content learning. Practices have been developed to emphasize those learning behaviors and doing behaviors in math, science, or engineering. For example, in mathematics, a practice may focus on making sense of problems and persevering through them. Similarly, in science, we ask students to ask questions, and in engineering, to define problems. The actual problems, questions, and making sense of problems are specific to the content area, and the processes often employed to solve them (e.g., inquiry process) include specific "doing" behaviors that we would like to see students engage in. The question becomes, what do these look like for all students? What do these practices look like for students with moderate to severe intellectual disability?</p> <p>More recent research in STEM education shows we have seen that these behavioral actions are typically not emphasized for students with disabilities. In the research review by Knight et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]), often, the content area was the focus or the dependent variable of investigations with little focus on measuring how students solved problems or answered questions. Through more recent emphasis in K‐12 education on the practices students should engage in (e.g., science and engineering practices; NRC, 2014), educators are now expected to support student growth within these practices as they demonstrate the behaviors of "engineers," "mathematicians," and "scientists."</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-12">Knowing skills</hd> <p>Content knowledge in STEM education refers to a deep understanding of the subject matter within the fields of STEM. It encompasses knowing the fundamental theories, concepts, and facts relevant to each discipline. Content knowledge (often in the shape of state and national standards) forms the fundamental underpinning of academic instruction within the United States, serving as the framework upon which school and classroom curriculum is built and providing educators with the means to assess whether students are meeting expected performance levels.</p> <p>Educators can effectively incorporate students with MSD into the same academic instruction as their peers by understanding content standards and prioritizing knowledge and concepts. Alternate achievement standards are a set of academic expectations and performance criteria designed specifically for students with significant cognitive disabilities (federal terminology inclusive of students with MSD) or other disabilities that may prevent them from meeting the same academic standards as their typically developing peers. These standards provide an alternative way for these students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in core subjects such as mathematics, English language arts, and science. The goal of alternate achievement standards is to ensure that students with MSD have access to a meaningful and appropriate education tailored to their individual needs while holding them to high expectations for learning and growth. For example, while each state may develop its own alternate achievement standards aligned with their state standards in mathematics or science, at the national level, the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Essential Elements ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]) delineate grade‐level‐specific expectations regarding what students with the most significant cognitive disabilities should know and be able to do. The Essential Elements are related to college‐ and career‐readiness standards for students in the general population at a reduced depth, breadth, and complexity.</p> <p>Content knowledge serves as the foundation for students to answer questions and problem‐solving skills. Because STEM subjects often involve critical thinking and analysis, prioritized content knowledge can provide students with MSD the necessary tools to analyze information, make informed decisions, and draw logical conclusions. As showcased in the widespread adoption of practices and habits of mind across mathematics, science, and engineering (e.g., Common Core State Standards), the content itself is not enough. Knowing how to teach prioritized content is critical for ensuring access to STEM for students with MSD.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-13">Thinking skills</hd> <p>Cognitive disposition is the tendency to act mentally in a certain way in response to certain situations. Many students with MSD have challenges with executive functioning, working memory, and self‐regulation of their behavior (Onnivello et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref79">46</reflink>]; Pennington & Ozonoff, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]). For STEM learning outcomes to be meaningful, instruction for students with MSD should embed explicit instruction in metacognition, including habits of mind and self‐determination. By making metacognition a key component of the instructional planning process for STEM education for students with MSD, explicit attention to math, science, or engineering thinking can be made salient both for the educator and learner.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-14">Habits of mind</hd> <p>Metacognition is frequently linked to habits of mind due to their shared connection to human cognition. Metacognitive abilities center on managing one's thoughts, while habits of mind revolve around the capacity to think critically and draw conclusions about those thoughts. The idea of habits of mind emphasizes the need to help students think about whatever content area in which they are engaging. For example, in mathematics, we want students to think about the <emph>way</emph> mathematicians do math. Mathematics educators and mathematicians seem to have considerable interest in helping students develop mathematical habits of mind. Some habits of mind cut across multiple disciplines, while some are content‐specific. Habits of mind exhibit dual essential traits, a cognitive or thinking aspect and a habitual aspect (fluency of and maintained over time). It is important to note that habits of mind are closely intertwined with practices, as they both include ways of thinking and doing and are typically left to the implicit curriculum (Selden & Selden, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-15">Self‐Determination</hd> <p>Self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref82">19</reflink>]) provides a valuable framework for understanding and improving engagement in STEM education. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are designed to help students become self‐directed and independent learners. For students with MSD, research has shown positive outcomes for self‐determined behavior such as goal setting, self‐monitoring, and self‐management (Fowler et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>]; McLeskey et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref84">40</reflink>]; Wehmeyer, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref85">69</reflink>]). By addressing students' basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, educators can create more effective learning experiences aligned with the practices and dispositions of doing and thinking in STEM. Recent research in engineering education for students with MSD suggests engineering instruction may support student development of self‐determination skills, such as problem‐solving, self‐efficacy, and self‐regulated learning for this population of students (Jimenez et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-16">Evidence‐based practices (EBPs) for teaching STEM content to students with MSD</hd> <p>As previously mentioned, there is still a lack of research surrounding the practices or "doing and thinking" skills. However, noteworthy growth in mathematics and science <emph>content</emph> instruction research for students with MSD has occurred over the past few decades (Browder et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref87">5</reflink>]; Spooner et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref88">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref89">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref90">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-17">EBPs for teaching science</hd> <p>Courtade et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref91">11</reflink>]), examined literature spanning from 1985 to 2005 to assess the extent to which there was research of science instruction for students with MSD. Over the course of the 20 years under study, the authors identified 11 experiments that taught content aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NSES) by the National Research Council (1996). The standards encompassed various aspects of science, including science as inquiry, physical science, life science, earth and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and history and the nature of science. Of the 11 experiments documented, eight of them incorporated content skills taught that aligned with the standard related to science from personal and social perspectives. This content standard included topics like safety, health, exercise, and nutrition. The review's findings suggested that systematic instruction was used prominently as the instructional intervention in the studies.</p> <p>Spooner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref92">59</reflink>]) published a comprehensive literature review on teaching science content to students with MSD. The review, which included literature from 1985 to 2009, was conducted not only to examine the degree to which science content instruction for this population was being researched but also to evaluate if any of the procedures used could be deemed as evidence‐based practices. Spooner et al. found 17 experimental studies and analyzed the studies for research quality. Of the 17, 14 studies were deemed high or adequate quality. As with Courtade et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>]), the authors categorized studies according to the National Science Education Standards (NSES). The standards being addressed were similar to those found by Author et al. (i.e., physical science, life science, earth and space science), but there was a notable decrease in the number of studies that focused on science in personal and social perspectives and an increase in studies related to other NSES. In addition, systematic instruction was found to be an evidence‐based practice for teaching science content.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-18">EBPs for teaching mathematics</hd> <p>Similar to research on teaching mathematics to students with MSD, two major literature reviews have addressed how to teach mathematics <emph>content</emph> to students with MSD. In 2008, Browder et al. conducted a comprehensive review and meta‐analysis to explore how to teach mathematics to students with MSD. The researchers identified only 19 studies that met quality indicators for research design. When the authors categorized the studies based on the components of the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards, such as number and operations, measurement, algebra, geometry, and data analysis, they discovered that 13 studies focused on measurement, while 6 studies centered on numbers and operations. Although the review provided evidence that students with MSD could learn mathematics, the authors also noted a lack of research support for mathematics instruction across all standards.</p> <p>Spooner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref94">62</reflink>]) released an updated review regarding mathematics instruction to students with MSD. The aim of this review was to build upon the work of Browder et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref95">5</reflink>]) by examining literature published from 2005 to 2016 to identify contemporary evidence‐based practices. Spooner et al. discovered 36 studies that initially met the inclusion criteria for their review, and among them, 25 studies were assessed as having high or adequate quality according to indicator criteria. When comparing the mathematical content standards addressed in both reviews, Spooner et al. noticed a stronger emphasis on algebra, while the attention to measurement had decreased. Furthermore, they observed a growing number of studies that concentrated on geometry, particularly emphasizing skills aligned with grade‐level standards. The emphasis on grade alignment is crucial because NCTM (2018) emphasizes that "any STEM activity claiming to address mathematics should adhere to the grade level's mathematics content and mathematical practices with integrity." Additionally, Spooner et al. identified five EBPs for teaching mathematics to students with MSD based on high‐quality research studies. These practices encompass (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) implementing systematic instruction, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>) utilizing technology‐aided instruction, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref98">3</reflink>) employing graphic organizers, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref99">4</reflink>) utilizing manipulatives, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>) delivering explicit instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-19">Closing</hd> <p>There is a need for STEM education beyond content alone for all students, including those with MSD. Prioritized mathematics, science, and engineering practices, paired with the metacognitive behaviors associated (e.g., habits of mind, self‐determination skills), are the subskills necessary to perform broader cognitive processes: asking questions and solving problems. The ability to wonder about something new, formulate a question, develop a procedure to try to answer that question, and then evaluate one's findings is an information‐seeking process that humans regularly use to gain an understanding of the natural world. Similarly, identifying a problem, thinking of possible solutions to the problem, testing those solutions, and revising the solutions as needed is a similarly useful and important human process. Gaining understanding through information and developing solutions to problems are complex processes that are inherent in a high quality of life. These processes are compositions of content area knowledge supported by <emph>thinking</emph> and <emph>doing</emph> skills. Systematically teaching students to master and build fluency in the skills can lead to meaningful and successful applications for the sake of engaging in critical human processes (i.e., asking questions and solving problems).</p> <p>In closing, we offer recommendations for action across stakeholders. Practitioners can utilize this framework to develop and deliver high‐quality STEM instruction to students with MSD. This involves prioritizing relevant and meaningful content and employing well‐established evidence‐based instructional practices. These practices not only facilitate the teaching of STEM but also empower students to apply STEM practices and processes in their everyday lives. Researchers can improve and strengthen this framework by investigating metacognition for students with MSD. Special education research has historically aimed to make learning explicit and systematic to make it accessible to all learners. Now is the time to better understand the relationship between the doing and thinking skills of students with the MSD. Finally, policymakers should prioritize funding STEM education research for students with disabilities, including students with MSD. Together, we can help set expectations and develop opportunities to provide accessible STEM education for all students.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-20">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2201407.</p> <hd id="AN0183823211-21">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <ref id="AN0183823211-22"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2023). Defining criteria for intellectual disability. https://<ulink href="http://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition">www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ashman, G. (2023). Cognitive load theory. Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, J. N., Rivera, C. J., Morgan, J. J., & Reese, N. (2015). Teaching algebraic equations to middle school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 7 (2), 29 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B. A., & Trela, K. (2012). Grade‐aligned math instruction for secondary students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47 (3), 373 – 388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref87" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim‐Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta‐analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Lo, Y., Saunders, A. F., Root, J. R., Ley Davis, L., & Brosh, C. R. (2018). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disability to solve word problems. The Journal of Special Education, 51 (4), 222 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917721236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. BSCS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref42" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. <ulink href="http://udlguidelines.cast.org/">http://udlguidelines.cast.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Collins, B. C. (2021). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, B. C., Hager, K. L., & Galloway, C. C. (2011). Addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46 (1), 22 – 39. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880993">www.jstor.org/stable/23880993</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courtade, G., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. (2007). A review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities that link to science standards. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 32, 43 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courtade, G. R., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2010). Training teachers to use an inquiry‐based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45 (3), 378 – 399. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880112">www.jstor.org/stable/23880112</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards‐based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47 (1), 3 – 13. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880557">http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880557</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creech‐Galloway, C., Collins, B. C., Knight, V., & Bausch, M. (2013). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach the Pythagorean theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38 (4), 222 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cullinane, A., Hillier, J., Childs, A., & Erduran, S. (2023). Teacher's perceptions of Brandon's matrix as a framework for the teaching and assessment of scientific method in school science. Research in Science Education, 53, 193 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10044-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. In Proceedings of the American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Precollege engineering education. In N. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 747 – 758). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 15, 375 – 402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry‐based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3 (2), 49 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium. (2013). Dynamic learning maps essential elements for mathematics. University of Kansas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engineering is Elementary. (2019). Museum of Science Boston.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fowler, C. H., Konrad, M., Walker, A. R., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2007). Self‐determination interventions' effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42 (3), 270 – 285. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23879622">www.jstor.org/stable/23879622</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Sterba, S. K., Craddock, C., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Geary, D. C., & Changas, P. (2021). Closing the word‐problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema‐based word‐problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (1), 86 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilley, D. P., Root, J. R., & Cox, S. K. (2021). Development of mathematics and self‐determination skills for young adults with extensive support needs. The Journal of Special Education, 54 (4), 195 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920902768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 263 – 280). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hott, B. L., Peltier, C., Heiniger, S., Palacios, M., Le, M. T., & Chen, M. (2021). Using schema‐based instruction to improve the mathematical problem solving skills of a rural student with EBD. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 19 (2), 127 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Dibiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer‐mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 301 – 317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimenez, B. A., Croft, G., Twine, J., & Gorey, J. (2021). Development of engineering habits of mind for students with intellectual disability. The Journal of Special Education, 55 (3), 174 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211009960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jitendra, A. K., Petersen‐Brown, S., Lein, A. E., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kunkel, A. K., Jung, P. G., & Egan, A. M. (2015). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (1), 51 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, V., Wood, L., McKissick, B., & Kuntz, E. (2020). Teaching science content and practices to students with intellectual disability and autism. Remedial and Special Education, 41 (6), 327 – 340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, V. F., Collins, B., Spriggs, A. D., Sartini, E., & MacDonald, M. J. (2018). Scripted and unscripted science lessons for children with autism and intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 2542 – 2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3514-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, V. F., Spooner, F., Browder, D. M., Smith, B. R., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Using systematic instruction and graphic organizers to teach science concepts to students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28 (2), 115 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612475301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. M., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Libraries Unlimited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leinwand, S., Brahier, D. J., Huinker, D., Berry, R. Q., III, Dillon, F. L., Larson, M. R., Leiva, M. A., Martin, W. G., & Smith, M. S. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2014). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind to redesign engineering education for global competitiveness. SEFI Annual Conference 2014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. (1995). Learning environments as a site of science education reform. Theory into Practice, 34 (1), 43 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527890</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.‐D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017). High‐leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, B., Doughty, T., & Krockover, G. (2015). Using science inquiry methods to promote self‐determination and problem‐solving skills for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50 (3), 356 – 368. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24827516">www.jstor.org/stable/24827516</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morin, L. L., Watson, S. M. R., Hester, P., & Raver, S. (2017). The use of a bar model drawing to teach word problem solving to students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40 (2), 91 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Onnivello, S., Colaianni, S., Pulina, F., Locatelli, C., Marcolin, C., Ramacieri, G., Antonaros, F., Vione, B., Piovesan, A., & Lanfranchi, S. (2022). Executive functions and adaptive behaviour in individuals with down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 66 (1–2), 32 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12897</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 15 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Cutter, J., & Vincent, M. (2002). Supporting guided‐inquiry instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 (3), 88 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 51 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 39 (1), 1 – 21. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087298">http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087298</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popper, K. R. (1999). All life is problem solving. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riggs, L., Collins, B. C., Kleinert, H., & Knight, V. F. (2013). Teaching principles of heredity to high school students with moderate and severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38 (1), 30 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Root, J., Saunders, A., Spooner, F., & Brosh, C. (2017). Teaching personal finance mathematical problem solving to individuals with moderate intellectual disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40 (1), 5 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Lo, Y. (2017). Schema‐based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 38 (1), 42 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Okolo, C. M. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children., 41 (2), 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2005). Perspectives on advanced mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 1 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skibo, H., Mims, P., & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching number identification to students with severe disabilities using response cards. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46 (1), 124 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., Jimenez, B. A., & Browder, D. (2013). Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 1 – 31. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42900600">www.jstor.org/stable/42900600</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B. A., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence‐based practices in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36 (1/2), 62 – 75. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2012). Evidence‐based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33 (6), 374 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511421634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spooner, F., Saunders, A., Root, J., & Brosh, C. (2017). Promoting access to common core mathematics for students with severe disabilities through mathematical problem solving. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42 (3), 171 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917697119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spooner, F., Root, J. R., Saunders, A. F., & Browder, D. M. (2019). An updated evidence‐based practice review on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40 (3), 150 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trela, K., & Jimenez, B. A. (2013). From different to differentiated: Using "ecological framework" to support personally relevant access to general curriculum for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38 (2), 117 – 119. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unlu, Z. K., & Dokme, I. (2022). A systematic review of the 5E model in science education: Proposing a skill‐based STEM instructional model within the 21st century skills. International Journal of Science Education, 44 (13), 2110 – 2130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2114031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vale, I., Barbosa, A., Peixoto, A., & Fernandes, F. (2022). Solving problems through engineering design: An exploratory study with pre‐service teachers. Education Sciences, 12 (12), 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van De Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay‐Williams, J. M. (2023). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (11th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehmeyer, M. L. (2015). Framing the future: Self‐determination. Remedial and Special Education, 36 (1), 20 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514551281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehmeyer, M. L. (2020). The importance of self‐determination to the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: A perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (19), 7121. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, L., Browder, D. M., & Flynn, L. (2015). Teaching students with intellectual disability to use a self‐questioning strategy to comprehend social studies text for an inclusive setting. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40 (4), 275 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915592155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, L., Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2020). Teaching listening comprehension of science e‐texts for students with moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35 (4), 272 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419882421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, L., Jimenez, B., & Courtade, G. (2023). Framework for teaching STEM to students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. In Dr. Bree Jimenez's professional website https://sites.google.com/view/breejimenez/stem-resources?authuser=0</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Leah Wood; Bree Jimenez and Ginevra Courtade</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref90"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1460338
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Instructional Framework for Teaching STEM to Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leah+Wood%22">Leah Wood</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5385-9797">0000-0002-5385-9797</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bree+Jimenez%22">Bree Jimenez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0837-4587">0000-0003-0837-4587</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ginevra+Courtade%22">Ginevra Courtade</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8973-4144">0000-0002-8973-4144</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22School+Science+and+Mathematics%22"><i>School Science and Mathematics</i></searchLink>. 2025 125(1):75-87.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 2201407
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moderate+Intellectual+Disability%22">Moderate Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Severe+Intellectual+Disability%22">Severe Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guides%22">Guides</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accessibility+%28for+Disabled%29%22">Accessibility (for Disabled)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ssm.12673
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-6803<br />1949-8594
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Answering questions and solving problems are critical skills that affect the quality of life for all people. The content areas of science and engineering traditionally and most directly address the processes of inquiry and problem-solving. While there is an increasing body of research surrounding teaching academic content (i.e., mathematics and science) as well as skills that are critical to support student success in these areas (i.e., communication and self-determination), the research supporting instruction of math, science, and engineering practices and processes are only emerging. The purpose of this article is to provide a research-based framework for instructional design that provides ideas for cognitive accessibility and supports for students with MSD in STEM. The framework aims to guide teachers in considering why to teach STEM, what to teach, and how to teach it. The framework guides teachers to use evidence-based practices in special education to teach students to know about STEM (i.e., academic content), do STEM practices and processes (i.e., critical thinking skills combined into routines for asking questions or solving problems), and think in ways that support this learning (i.e., metacognitive behaviors).
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1460338
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1460338
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ssm.12673
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 75
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moderate Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Severe Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guides
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accessibility (for Disabled)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Instructional Framework for Teaching STEM to Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leah Wood
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bree Jimenez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ginevra Courtade
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-6803
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1949-8594
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 125
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: School Science and Mathematics
              Type: main
ResultId 1