Science learning is the right of every child and young person. This right is particularly emphasised today, with school education in almost all European countries being inclusive. Students who participate in science education may have different Special Education Needs (SEN; cf. Villanueva, Taylor, Therrien & Hand 2012).

In science education, students may find it difficult to understand the relationship between theoretical and conceptual knowledge or between practical knowledge and the processes of producing knowledge. The students may also experience difficulties in writing, written and spoken language used in science. The mathematical and numerical presentations are characteristic in science, and they can cause problems for some students. Academic performance is also influenced, for example, by the limitations of working memory, socio-emotional challenges, or mental symptoms (Authors 2021). We must remember that there are Highly Able Students (HAS, cf. Ireland, Bowles, Brindle & Nikakis 2020) in science classrooms who need teachers’ attention, too. It is also important to identify the need for supporting students who come from different social, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds. Challenges can then relate, for example, to differences in world views, a new study language or cultural backgrounds (Authors 2021).

The learning of pupils in need of support in science has been studied relatively little and the changes required by an inclusive school have not been adequately considered in the teaching of science in teacher education. This has become increasingly necessary in Europe and worldwide as teaching of SEN students in inclusive science classroom settings has become more preliminary in many educational contexts (cf. Kang & Martin 2018).

Science education has been considered to be beneficial for improving functioning in specific disability areas (Taylor & Villenueva 2017). For instance, inquiry-based science education is considered suiting very well for the diversity of learners: “Science taps into a different way of thinking and exploring — an excellent way for students who may struggle with other academic subjects to experience success” (Melber 2004).

One solution to adjust the various needs of diverse science learners is differentiated instruction. This kind of instruction means changes in content, product, and process: taking into account “how students respond to information presented, and the choice of particular methods, strategies, or approaches to teach content/skills” (Tobin & Tippet 2014). Intentional differentiated instruction for SEN or diverse students has mostly seemed to take place in reading, writing and mathematics classrooms and is seldom applied, for instance, to science (cf. Pablico, Diack & Lawson 2017).

The need for differentiated science instruction has led us to include the topic in science teacher education. We have implemented a course of 3 ECTS on inclusive practices in science education in which one task for student teacher teams of 3-4 participants was to differentiate one textbook and one inquiry-based assignment to SEN students in two different ways. At an earlier phase of the course, the student teachers familiarised themselves with the following special needs: dyslexia, spatial learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and problems with executive functions. Our research question in this study is: What kinds of assignments did the science student teachers design for SEN students?

The context of our study consists of a course (3 ECTS) belonging to Subject Teachers Pedagogical Studies (60 ECTS) at University of Eastern Finland. There were altogether 28 Master Level science student teachers (SSTs) of whom 26 students gave permission for using their products in this study. The target group were formed into ten teams of 2-3 students: students in five teams (altogether 13 students) were majoring in biology or geography and five teams majoring in chemistry or physics (13). All of them had experiences from at least one teaching practice period at University Training School. There were five meetings of 2-3 hours (totally 12 hours) and around 50 hours for independent teamwork. During the course, the SST teams got acquainted with the concept of inclusion by pondering the diversity of students there are in general science classes and what kinds of demands it is causing for science teaching at lower and upper secondary schools. Then they familiarised themselves with the following special needs: dyslexia, spatial learning disabilities, ADHD, and problems with executive functions. Each team also interviewed two teachers, preferably a science teacher and a special teacher on the inclusive practices in their schools. Furthermore, there was an online lecture given by a special education researcher who spoke about equity in education and the basis of inclusion in Finnish schools. She emphasised the meaning of instructional planning for implementing teaching in inclusive classes. In the final part of the course, the SST teams were given a task to differentiate one textbook and one inquiry-based assignment to SEN students in two different ways; the original assignments were chosen for the most used science textbooks by each team. The teams created altogether 40 variated assignments, of which 20 were textbook-like and 20 instructions for inquiries. The teams were asked to describe what kind of special needs were the assignments differentiated for and how they had modified the original ones. Based on the inductive content analysis, we first read through all the differentiated assignments with the modification descriptions. Then looked for the different ways to modify the assignments and categorised them. Finally, we compared the modifications to the needs of diverse learners.

In the descriptions of ten SST teams, it was found that 7 of the textbook-like assignments (TLAs) were differentiated for the students with executive function problems, 5 for supporting students with dyslexia, and 3 for spatial learning disabilities. Furthermore, 5 TLAs were differentiated for HAS, to whom was not paid attention during the course instruction. Within inquiry instructions (IIs) there were 7 modified instructions for supporting the students with executive function problems, 6 instructions differentiated for HAS, 4 for the support with dyslexia, 3 for spatial learning disability support, and 2 for the students with ADHD. One chemistry/physics team described that the same modification suits well for both students with executive function problems and ADHD, and another, biology/geography team wrote that the same differentiated instruction supports the students with dyslexia and problems with executive functions. The differentiation means within TLAs were classified into the following categories regarding SEN: visualisation, clarification, text resolution, segmentation, closed questions, and ICT-support. For HAS, the differentiation categories: more (applied) tasks, more advanced context, and supporting free time interest in science. The categories for supporting SEN in the ILLs: text resolution, clarifying learning environments, more closed inquiry instructions, precise steps for inquiry, oral instructions, visualisation, use of videos, safety precautions, and personal support. For HAS, the teams differentiated the IIs to be more open in their nature. Our results show that the SSTs took into their account various special education needs in differentiating both TLAs and IIs in many ways. They deliberately paid attention to HAS needs, too, showing that there is a need to extend curricular differentiation for gifted students in science classrooms (Ireland et al. 2020). Some teams recognised that the same modification of assignments may support different kinds of SEN, giving an important message of the usefulness of curricular differentiation for all students.

Authors. (2021). Ireland, C., Bowles, T. V., Brindle, K. A., & Nikakis, S. (2020). Curriculum differentiation’s capacity to extend gifted students in secondary mixed-ability science classes. Talent, 10, 40-61 . Kang, D. Y., & Martin, S. (2018). Improving learning opportunities for special education needs (SEN) students by engaging pre-service science teachers in an informal experiential learning course. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38, 319-347. Pablico, J., Diack, M. & Lawson, A. (2017). Differentiated Instruction in the High School Science Classroom: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16, 30-54. Melber, L. (2004). Inquiry for everyone: Authentic science experiences for students with special needs. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1, Article 4. Taylor, J. C. & Villenueva, M., G. (2017). Research in Science Education for Students with Special Education Needs. In M. Tejero Hughes & E. Talbott (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education, (pp. 231-252). London: Wiley. Tobin, R. & Tippet, C., D. (2014). Possibilities and Potential Barriers: Learning to Plan for Differentiated Instruction in Elementary Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 423-443. Villanueva, M.G., Taylor, J., Therrien, W. & Hand, B. (2012). Science education for students with special needs. Studies in Science Education,48, 187–215.