References
[1]. Holahan, G., McFarland, J., & Piccillo, B. A. (1994).
Elementary school science for students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 86-93.
[2]. Mercer, C.D.(1997). Students with learning disabilities.
Upper Saddle River, NJ; Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
[3]. Goldman, S., Pellegrino, J., and Mertz, D. (1988).
Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy
changes in learning-disabled students. Cognition and
Instruction, 5(3), 223-265.
[4]. Lawson, A. E. (1994). Research on the acquisition of
science knowledge: Epistemiological foundations of
cognition. In Gabel, D. (ed), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing
Company, 131-176. New York.
[5]. Aldridge, B. (1992). Project on scope, sequence, and
coordination: A new synthesis for improving science
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
1(1), 13-21.
[6]. Simpson, R. D., Koballa, Jr., T. R., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley,
IIL, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of
science learning. In Gabel, D. (ed), Handbook of research
on science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing
Company, 211-234. New York.
[7]. Hofmeister, A. M. & Lubke, M. M. (1988). Expert system:
Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 11, 287-291.
[8]. CTGV. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship
to situated Cognition, Educational Researcher (1916) , 2-
10.
[9]. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[10]. Hofmeister, Engelmann & Carnine, (1989). Computer
technology, Science Education and students with Learning
disabilities.
[11]. Bos, C. S. & Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching
students with learning and behavioral problems (3rd ed).
Allyn and Bacon. Boston, Massachusetts.
[12]. Fortner, R. W. (1990). How to combine language arts
and science in the classroom. Science Activities, 27(4), 34-
37.
[13]. Cuffaro, H. K. (1984). Microcomputer in education:
Why is earlier better? Teacher College Record, 85(65), 559-
568.
[14]. Champagne, A. B. & Klpofer , L. E. (1984). Research in
Science education: Cognitive psychology perspective. In
D. Holdzkom and P. B. Lutz (Eds), Research within reach:
Science education. National Science Teacher Association.
Washington, DC.
[15]. Mayer & chandler (2001), Experiment 2.
[16]. Staver, J. R. (1986). The effects of problem format,
number of independent variables, and their interaction on
student performance on a control of variables reasoning
problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6),
533-542.
[17]. Kumar, D. D., White, A. L., & Helgeson, S. L. (1994a). A
study of the effect of HyperCard and pen-paper
performance assessment methods on expert-novice
chemistry problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(3), 187-200.
[18]. Jackson, B (1988). A comparison between computerbased
and traditional assessment tests, and their effects on
pupil learning and scoring. School Science Review,
96(249), 809-815.
[19]. Songer, N. B. (1989). Technological tools for scientific
thinking and discovery. Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities, 5, 23-41.
[20]. Goldenberg, E, Russell, S., & Carter, C. (1984).
Computers, education and special needs. Addison-
Wesley. Reading, MA.
[21]. Egelston-Dodd, J. (1995). Proceedings. Working
Conference on science for persons with disabilities.
University of Northern lowa. Cedar Falls, lowa.
