Inquiry learning in a special education setting: managing the cognitive loads of intellectually disabled students

References

• Bannert, M. 2002. “Managing Cognitive Load: Recent Trends in Cognitive Load Theory.” Learning and Instruction 12 (1): 139–146. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00021-4.10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00021-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrouillet, P., S. Bernardin, S. Portrat, E. Vergauwe, and V. Camos. 2007. “Time and Cognitive Load in Working Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33 (3): 570–585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E., P. A. Kirschner, and J. Sweller. 2012. “Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction.” American Educator 36 (1): 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Courtade, G. R., D. M. Browder, F. Spooner, and W. DiBiase. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtade, G. R., F. Spooner, and D. M. Browder. 2007. “Review of Studies with Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Which Link to Science Standards.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 32 (1): 43–49.10.2511/rpsd.32.1.43
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, N. 2001. “The Magical Number 4 in Short-term Memory: A Reconsideration of Mental Storage Capacity.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1): 152–153. doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.edlis.ied.edu.hk/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curriculum Development Council. 2001. Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development. Hong Kong: The Curriculum Development Council.
   Google Scholar
• Curriculum Development Council. 2002. General Studies for Primary Schools Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 – Primary 6). Hong Kong: The Curriculum Development Council.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 2004. Democracy and Education. New York: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., F. R. Conant, and J. G. Greeno. 2007. “Progressive Refinement of Hypotheses in Video-supported Research.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by Ricki Goldman, Roy Pea, Brigid Barron, and Sharon J. Derry, 239–254. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Golan, R., E. A. Kyza, B. J. Reiser, and D. C. Edelson. 2002. “Scaffolding the Task of Analyzing Animal Behavior with the Animal Landlord Software.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 4.
   Google Scholar
• Grossen, B. J., D. W. Carnine, N. R. Romance, and M. R. Vitale. 2007. “Effective Strategies for Teaching Science.” In Effective Teaching Strategies that Accommodate Diverse Learners, edited by Michael D. Coyne, Edward J. Kame’enui, and Douglas W. Carnine, 171–201. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., and H. S. Barrows. 2006. “Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 1 (1): 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).” Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368.10.1080/00461520701263368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honebein, P. C., T. M. Duffy, and B. J. Fishman. 1993. “Constructivism and the Design of Learning Environments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning.” In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, edited by Thomas M. Duffy, Joost Lowyck, and David H. Jonassen, 87–108. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-78069-1
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., and L. Christensen. 2000. Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. 2009. “Knowledge Elaboration: A Cognitive Load Perspective.” Learning and Instruction 19 (5): 402–410. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. 2011. “Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?” Educational Psychology Review 23 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A. 2002. “Cognitive Load Theory: Implications of Cognitive Load Theory on the Design of Learning.” Learning and Instruction 12 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00014-7.10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlthau, C. C., L. K. Maniotes, and A. K. Caspari. 2007. Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
   Google Scholar
• Leppink, J., F. Paas, C. P. M. Van der Vleuten, T. Van Gog, and J. J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2013. “Development of an Instrument for Measuring Different Types of Cognitive Load.” Behavior Research Methods 45 (4): 1058–1072.10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leppink, J., F. Paas, T. Van Gog, C. P. M. van der Vleuten, and J. J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2014. “Effects of Pairs of Problems and Examples on Task Performance and Different Types of Cognitive Load.” Learning and Instruction 30: 32–42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, A., and B. Norwich. 2001. “A Critical Review of Systematic Evidence Concerning Distinctive Pedagogies for Pupils with Difficulties in Learning.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 1 (1): doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2001.00122.x.
   Google Scholar
• Mastropieri, M. A., T. E. Scruggs, R. Boon, and K. Butcher Carter. 2001. “Correlates of Inquiry Learning in Science: Constructing Concepts of Density and Buoyancy.” Remedial and Special Education 22 (3): 130–137.10.1177/074193250102200301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastropieri, M. A., T. E. Scruggs, and K. Butcher. 1997. “How Effective is Inquiry Learning for Students with Mild Disabilities?” The Journal of Special Education 31 (2): 199–211.10.1177/002246699703100203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. 2004. “Should There be a Three-strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?” American Psychologist 59 (1): 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F. 2014. “Inquiry Instruction.” In The Language of Science Education, edited by William F. McComas, 52–54. Rotterdam: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_49.10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0
   Google Scholar
• Norwich, B., and A. Lewis. 2009. “Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs170–186.” In Approaching Difficulties in Literacy Development: Assessment, Pedagogy and Programmes, edited by Felicity Fletcher-Campbell, Janet Soler, and Gavin Reid, 170–186. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Paas, F. 1992. “Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-load Approach.” Journal of Educational Psychology 84 (4): 429–434.10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., A. Renkl, and J. Sweller. 2003. “Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments.” Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. M. Van Gerven. 2003. “Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory.” Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., T. Van Gog, and J. Sweller. 2010. “Cognitive Load Theory: New Conceptualizations, Specifications, and Integrated Research Perspectives.” Educational Psychology Review 22 (2): 115–121. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8.10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palincsar, A. Sullivan, K. M. Collins, N. L. Marano, and S. J. Magnusson. 2000. “Investigating the Engagement and Learning of Students with Learning Disabilities in Guided Inquiry Science Teaching.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 31 (3): 240–251.10.1044/0161-1461.3103.240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, E., P. Chandler, and J. Sweller. 2002. “Assimilating Complex Information.” Learning and Instruction 12 (1): 61–86. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintana, C., B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, J. Krajcik, E. Fretz, R. G. Duncan, E. Kyza, D. Edelson, and E. Soloway. 2004. “A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (3): 337–386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J. 2004. “Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (3): 273–304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheiter, K., P. Gerjets, B. Vollmann, and R. Catrambone. 2009. “The Impact of Learner Characteristics on Information Utilization Strategies, Cognitive Load Experienced, and Performance in Hypermedia Learning.” Learning and Instruction 19 (5): 387–401. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.004.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scruggs, T. E., M. A. Mastropieri, and C. M. Okolo. 2008. “Science and Social Studies for Students with Disabilities.” Focus on Exceptional Children 41 (2): 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smart, K. L., and N. Csapo. 2007. “Learning by Doing: Engaging Students Through Learner-Centered Activities.” Business Communication Quarterly 70 (4): 451–457. doi:10.1177/10805699070700040302.10.1177/10805699070700040302
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. 1994. “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design.” Learning and Instruction 4 (4): 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. 2010. “Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load.” Educational Psychology Review 22 (2): 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., J. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., J. J. G. Van Merrienboer, and F. Paas. 1998. “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design.” Educational Psychology Review 10 (3): 250–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., P. A. Kirschner, and L. Kester. 2003. “Taking the Load Off a Learner’s Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning.” Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2.10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and J. Sweller. 2005. “Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions.” Educational Psychology Review 17 (2): 147–177. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and J. Sweller. 2010. “Cognitive Load Theory in Health Professional Education: Design Principles and Strategies.” Medical Education 44 (1): 86–93. doi:10.1111/j/1365-2923.2009.03498.x.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoeven, L., W. Schnotz, and F. Paas. 2009. “Cognitive Load in Interactive Knowledge Construction.” Learning and Instruction 19 (5): 369–375. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.002.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, J. R., and S. W. Lin. 2008. “Examining Reflective Thinking: A Study of Changes in Methods Students’ Conceptions and Understandings of Inquiry Teaching.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 6 (3): 459–479. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9085-8.10.1007/s10763-007-9085-8
   Google Scholar
• Wehmeyer, M. L. 2006. “Universal Design for Learning, Access to the General Education Curriculum and Students With Mild Mental Retardation.” Exceptionality 14 (4): 225–235. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1404_4.10.1207/s15327035ex1404_4
   Google Scholar
• Yeung, S. Y. S. 2009. “Is Student-centered Pedagogy Impossible in Hong Kong? The Case of Inquiry in Classrooms.” Asia Pacific Education Review 10 (3): 377–386. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9028-x.10.1007/s12564-009-9028-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yore, L. D., L. Henriques, B. Crawford, L. Smith, S. Gomez-Zwiep, and J. Tillotson. 2008. “Selecting and Using Inquiry Approaches to Teach Science: The Influence of Context in Elementary, Middle, and Secondary Schools.” In Inquiry in the Classroom: Realities and Opportunities, edited by Eleanor Abrams, Sherry A. Sutherland, and Peggy Clohessy Silva, 39–87. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar