DE GRUYTER Chemistry Teacher International.

2019; 20180026

Thomas Baumann1 / Insa Melle1

Evaluation of a digital UDL-based learning

environment in inclusive chemistry education
1 TU Dortmund University, Chemistry and Chemical Biology/Chemical Education, Otto-Hahn-Str. 6 Dortmund, Germany, E-

mail: thomas.baumann@tu-dortmund.de, insa.melle@tu-dortmund.de

Abstract:
To comply with the United Nations’ (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities teaching units have
to be universally accessible to all students. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers one possible way of
creating an inclusive teaching unit that should be accessible to as many students as possible. New technologies
and media are very suitable for providing flexible materials and are therefore of particular importance to the
UDL. To investigate the effect of a digital multimedia learning environment on students with and without spe-
cial educational needs (SEN) we developed a learning software according to the UDL for two 90 min courses
for the lower secondary chemistry course. We examined the learning environment in inclusive German class-
rooms with n = 89 students at the age of 13–15, including n = 16 SEN-students. For this, we used a chemistry
performance test in form of a multiple-choice test in a pre-post-follow-up-design as well as a test for the atti-
tude of the students towards the learning software. Additionally, we recorded the activities on the screens of
selected learners. The chemistry performance concerning chemical reactions significantly increased through
the intervention. Moreover, the students gave a positive feedback on the learning software. The results of the
study suggest that the digital learning unit is suitable for learning about chemical reactions. The analysis of the
videos shows that students with and without SEN use the functions of the software mostly adequate. In this
paper first results are presented, further analysis will follow.
Keywords: digitisation, inclusion, reaction, SEN, UDL
DOI: 10.1515/cti-2018-0026

Introduction
Various laws (107th Congress of the United States, 2002; Bundestag, 2002; United Nations, 2006) passed in re-
cent years have ensured that everyone has the right to equal participation in school life. In Northrhine-Westfalia
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

(NRW, a federal state of Germany), where this project took place, the United Nations’ (UN) Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities was incorporated into the school law in 2013 (Ministerium für Schule und
Weiterbildung NRW 2013). With the new school law, inclusive teaching became mandatory for our county.
The enactment of these laws means a noticeable increase in diversity in the classrooms. Actually, the govern-
ment distinguishes between students with special educational needs (SEN) and without. A need for special
educational support for children is identified when children and adolescents with very comprehensive im-
pairments or disabilities are in need of a very high level of individual support (Ministerium für Schule und
Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016). Special educational needs are caused, for example, by
a learning disability, an emotional and social disorder or through physical and motor impairments.
However, the research situation on joint schooling of students with and without SEN and its effects on learn-
ing performance is very ambiguous. This is, for instance, due to unclear definitions in the individual studies and
the different research designs, which make it difficult to make general statements (Lindsay, 2007). Hence, the
research findings can cautiously be interpreted in such a way that there is at least no difference between joint
schooling and segregated schooling (Gebhardt, Heine, & Sälzer, 2015; Löser & Werning, 2013). Hattie (2010)
found, however, that learning in homogeneous groups is, in principle, disadvantageous compared to learning
in heterogeneous groups concerning the learning performance although without taking possible special educa-
tional needs into account. There is also some empirical evidence that integrative schooling is advantageous for
pupils with learning disabilities (see for example Kronig, Haeberlin, & Eckhart, 2000; Rouse & Florian, 2006).
This only applies to pupils with learning problems and not to those with behavioural problems for whom no
improvement in performance can be proven (Ellinger & Stein, 2012, p. 96).

Insa Melle is the corresponding author.

© 2019 IUPAC & De Gruyter.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

1
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

So far, there are few practicable approaches for inclusive teaching (Hoffmann & Menthe, 2015; Langermann,
2006) which is why didactic research is gradually taking on this task (Musenberg & Riegert, 2015). Through
concrete and everyday phenomena (Menthe & Hoffmann, 2015), practical experimentation and inquiry-based
learning (Abels, 2013; McCarthy, 2005; Roald, 2002; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993), science
teaching offers a wide range of opportunities for access and social interaction. In addition to action-oriented
and inquiry-based learning (O’Leary, 2016), cooperative learning in inclusive chemistry classes for pupils with
special needs is particularly effective (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005; O’Leary, 2016).
To address heterogeneity in classes, the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) de-
mands the use of appropriate, complementary and alternative methods, resources and materials to support
the learning process. The aim of this project is therefore to develop and evaluate a multimedia, digital, individ-
ual and universally accessible teaching unit to meet the requirements of the UN-Convention.
Booth and Ainscow stated (2002, p. 3) “Inclusion is about minimising all barriers in education for all students.”
Thus, minimising barriers grants accessibility to the curriculum and increases the participation of all students
(CAST, 2018; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Especially in science education typical barriers can occur (Price,
Johnson, & Barnett, 2012). This seems to be one of the main challenges when acting in an inclusive school system
(European Commission, 2010).
Therefore, we decided to develop a learning software for the computer because new technologies offer the
possibility to reduce barriers to learning (CAST, 2018; Edyburn, 2010) and make teaching varied and effective
(Tulodziecki, Herzig, & Grafe, 2010). Additionally, the computer is a tool that is already frequently used at
public schools and most likely available for whole classes so that all students can work on their own devices
(Pietzner, 2014).
We decided to carry out the project in the lower grades of Gesamtschule, a form of secondary schools, as these
schools have the largest variety of students concerning their cognitive ability (Auernheimer, 2013; Baumert
et al., 2001). Additionally, in the lower secondary level we find the largest proportion of students with SEN
(Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2016). We developed a learning
software that deals with the introduction to the topic ‘chemical reaction’. The students were in the first year of
the chemistry course in grade 7 or 8 (13–15 years).

Theoretical background
Today’s media concept is strongly linked to the term ‘digital’, therefore the word ‘media’ is used to describe
‘digital media’ in this work.
The term medium is multifaceted and the meanings are often used synonymously. In this work, media are
primarily understood as transporters of information (Kerres, 2013; Tulodziecki & Herzig, 2004). Information
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

and communication technologies can offer new ways of access and opportunities for participation, as they al-
low to flexibly adapt to the requirements of the user. Moreover, the user can process the content through the
use of media (Mayer, 2014; Miesenberger, 2012). For example, media can represent things from the micro or
macro area or even topics that are not visible (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004). They enable experience where direct
experience is not possible. For instance, the students can observe an experiment that the teacher cannot per-
form during the lesson due to reasons of safety or complexity (Tulodziecki & Herzig, 2004). In addition, many
media use multiple channels, in the sense of multi-channel learning, which increases the retention capacity
(Bolfing, 2017; Clark & Mayer, 2011; Mayer & Anderson, 1991; Paivio, 1990). The computer offers the oppor-
tunity to make teaching varied and effective, taking into account different learning requirements (Tulodziecki
et al., 2010). Computers have many integrated support options for example the reading aloud function or screen
magnification (Stefanich, 2001; Ulrich, 2017). Teachers can use digital media for the individualisation and dif-
ferentiation of students, e.g. when a learning computer is provided and students can work on the learning
contents at their own pace (Hillmayr, Reinhold, Ziernwald, & Reiss, 2017; Tulodziecki & Herzig, 2004).
To make the software accessible for every student we used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The
framework of UDL consists of instructional approaches that provide students with alternatives and choices in
the materials, contexts and contents. A successful learning environment should be supportive and challenging
for the students while minimising barriers. This requires flexible teaching methods and materials. New tech-
nologies and media are very suitable to provide flexible materials and are therefore of great importance for the
UDL. The UDL uses three principles that are based on findings on how the brain learns (affective, recognition
and strategic brain network) and on educational research. CAST developed the principles to guide the design,
selection and application of learning tools, methods and environments. To provide more detail, the principles
are broken down into guidelines and checkpoints to take the variability of the learners into account. These
checkpoints under the guidelines suggest specific practices for implementation. The UDL can be summarised

2
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

in a table, where three principles and nine guidelines are given (see Figure 1). These guidelines can be further
broken down into checkpoints, but for reasons of scope, the individual checkpoints cannot be fully listed here.
The checkpoints can be retrieved on the homepage of CAST (2018). To provide an example, checkpoints for
Guideline 5: Language & Symbols are ‘Clarify vocabulary & symbols’, ‘Support decoding of text, mathematical
notation and symbols’ as well as ‘Illustrate through multiple media’ (CAST, 2018). This can be achieved, for
example, by providing a glossary with the meanings of chemical symbols or chemical terms since they can
be confusing for novice-learners. The glossary could be in textual and auditive format to help students with
the pronunciation of new vocabulary. Guideline 3: Self-Regulation demands e.g. ‘Develop self-assessment and
reflection’ (CAST, 2018), which can be achieved if the students assess themselves after the lesson or instruction.
By implementing the UDL it should be possible to reduce barriers in methods and materials, thus providing
access to information and learning for all students, e.g. with different abilities and motivation (CAST, 2018;
Edyburn, 2010; Meyer et al., 2014).

Figure 1: Summarised table of the UDL (cf. CAST, 2018).

As a teaching method, we chose the method of Exposition. The method of exposition is primarily a present-
ing method that focuses the presentation of the teaching content. By allocating learning paths and material
structures, the learning environment guides the learner. It offers the opportunity to systematically convey con-
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

tent knowledge (Kerres, 2013). An example of an expository method is the concept of direct instruction by
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) which has been empirically researched many times (cf. Rosenshine, 1995).
We structured the digital learning environment according to a topic-centered process. The topic-centered
process is a framework for creating digital learning environments and consists of four elements. The presenta-
tion of a topic is followed by the activation of the learner through an exercise. Afterwards, tests of the learning
progress of the topic can follow. These steps can repeat for several topics in a unit. Finally, the unit can be
completed with a project (Kerres, 2013). We did not consider all elements, as we did not implement the tests
after each topic and the project at the end of the session. Various studies have shown that the targeted control
of the learning process through structured instructions affects the learning success positively (Fuchs et al. 2013;
2015; Hattie, 2010; Klahr & Nigam, 2004). Mastropieri and Scruggs (2014) thus recommend a clear structure
in the instruction and point out that this is an essential condition for success in inclusive teaching, which is
particularly helpful for students with disabilities (cf. Wellenreuther, 2016).

Literature review
Various studies and meta-surveys show that digitised learning environments have a slight advantage over tradi-
tional teaching (Hattie, 2010; Hillmayr et al., 2017; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami,
& Schmid, 2011). For example, Hillmayr et al. (2017) found an intermediate effect and Kulik and Kulik (1991) a
small effect. When the computer is used as a complete substitution for the instruction Tamim et al. (2011) also
found an intermediate effect. However, an increased abortion rate of up to 50 % could be determined when
using computer-assisted learning courses, as these place a very high requirement on learning interest (Keegan,
2013; Lee & Choi, 2011; Moore, 2013).

3
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

Special education schools use the computer already more frequently than regular schools, especially as
prosthetic aids. Students should be helped by the use of computers to read, write, and solve tasks (Mihajlovic,
2012). Additionally, Bosse and Pola (2017) conclude from their qualitative study that the use of multimedia
and movies, which were designed according to inclusive design guidelines and which offer different ways for
students in inclusive classrooms to absorb information have a positive impact on the motivation. If they are
used on blended learning platforms, it can enhance everybody’s ability to learn. However, the use and research
on digital media and support services for students with and without educational needs is still in its infancy and
needs to be continued (Bosse & Pola, 2017; Cumming & Draper Rodríguez, 2017). In science education, research
focusses besides the teaching of scientific content through digital media the use of aids for experimentation.
Video recordings can be used to observe processes (Becker, Klein, Gößling, & Kuhn, 2017; Hilfert-Rüppel &
Sieve, 2017), while infrared cameras (Greinert & Weßnigk, 2017) and augmented reality (Thyssen, 2017) enhance
sensory perception. Existing assistive technologies can also be expanded to make them accessible to students
with disabilities in the case of Vitoriano, Teles, Rizzatti, and de Lima (2016), who developed a thermometer for
the visually impaired.
Although the individual checkpoints of the UDL have been extensively researched and thus the evidence
of the UDL has been confirmed (CAST, 2019; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, 2012), research about the UDL in explicit
learning environments is not sufficient yet. The flexibility and variability in UDL-based teaching makes stan-
dardised research hardly possible (King-Sears et al., 2015; Schlüter, Melle, & Wember, 2016). Nevertheless, there
are some studies in science education, which evaluate the effectiveness of UDL-based learning environments.
Marino (2009) was able to teach equal science content to students with severe and low reading abilities in sixth
to eighth grade with a UDL-based physics lesson unit that included technological means to promote reading
comprehension. Moreover, Marino et al. (2014) implemented video games and alternative print-based texts ac-
cording to the UDL guidelines over the course of a school year in four inclusive science classrooms dealing
with biological topics. However, they could not obtain clear results regarding the effectiveness of the UDL-
based learning environments. In the study by Marino et al. (2014), students with learning disabilities benefited
more from traditional teaching than from UDL units, partly due to the learning content of teachers who taught
traditionally. King-Sears et al. (2015) modified materials according to the UDL guidelines for chemistry classes
by adding structuring aids and videos. They found in their intervention that especially pupils with learning
disabilities benefited from the UDL unit, while students without SEN benefited more from traditional teaching.

The learning software and the teaching unit

A predecessor project in our group by Michna and Melle (2018) serves as a model for the digital learning en-
vironment. The predecessor project based upon paper-pencil materials, which were designed according to the
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

UDL with a strong focus on self-regulated learning and instructions for the topic of ‘chemical reaction’ for 8th
grade students in the initial tuition chemistry course in the Gesamtschule. Here, the teacher gave an information
service in form of PowerPoint-presentations at the beginning of each lesson. Afterwards, the students received
a self-assessment sheet with which they estimated how well they understood what they have heard and then
decided how well they wanted to understand the topic. On the self-assessment sheet, the students got informed
on which of the differentiated tasks and information texts, they had to work on to achieve their personal goal.
There was also an experimental part with highly structured UDL-based experiment instructions, which con-
sisted of detailed work steps and pictures. The experiments deepened the understanding of the topics of the
first lesson and gave a foresight on the topics on the second part of the learning environment. The experiments
examplified chemical reactions, through the oxidation of ironwool and carbonising sugar as well as physical
processes through solvation of salt in water and regaining it or through melting wax. Michna and Melle (2018)
tested the developed materials in inclusive and non-inclusive classes. The residual analysis showed that there
is no significant difference between the two groups (n = 158, p = 0.849, φ = 0.01; with φ effect size for Wilcoxon
signed rank test). Moreover, the students feedback was equally positive regarding the teaching unit (Class with-
out SEN M = 2.25; Class with SEN M = 2.14, n = 172; p = 0.253; δ = 0.15; with Cohens δ effect size for independent
groups). This shows that UDL-based learning environments with instructional- and self-regulated elements are
suitable for teaching chemical topics in inclusive classes.
We used an authoring software to revise and expand the materials and to use new technologies to create
the learning software. The authoring software is called Mediator 9.0 (MatchWare A/S, 2016) and offers the same
possibilities as Microsoft Word or PowerPoint when creating the program interface. However, Mediator 9.0 makes
it possible to implement interactivity for the user. As for the project of Michna and Melle (2018) we designed
the learning software for the basic concept of chemical reaction for the initial tuition in chemistry, which con-
sists of two parts each for a 90 min-lesson (see also Figure 2). We have digitised the information input, the

4
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

self-assessment sheets and the differentiated tasks and information texts. We have deliberately not replaced
the experimental part with simulation or virtual labs, since real experiments contain an additional social di-
mension, in contrast to the digital learning environment in which the students should learn as independently
as possible. Thus, we inserted audio recordings of the text sections, videos and various tasks into the learning
software in order to comply with the guidelines of the UDL. The first part of the learning software covers the
topics Chemical reaction, Chemical equation and Physical process while the second part covers the topics Oxidation,
Constancy of mass and Submicroscopic level. Each topic includes an information-input, a self-assessment and var-
ious tasks. Similar to the learning environment of Michna and Melle (2018) the students estimate themselves
and choose the desired goal in the software. Then the software guides the students through their respective
learning paths. Within the learning software, the learners have to go through a topic with its information in-
put, the self-assessment and the tasks before they can address the next topic. The topics build upon each other
and they are not freely selectable at the beginning. Between the two parts, there is an experimental phase. The
experiment instructions were adopted and used unchanged by (Michna & Melle, 2018). Moreover, the learner
is free to repeat the content at any time. In Table 1, the UDL-elements implemented in the software and the ful-
filled checkpoints are listed. Some of the implemented UDL-elements are similar to elements of the concepts of
individual support (Trautmann & Wischer, 2011) and self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1986). An example
of the new functions is that each section of the text is set to an audio file and we integrated various pictures,
which support the presented information. There are various differentiated tasks (multiple-choice-tasks, fill-in-
tasks and drag-and-drop-tasks) on the learning path, which become more difficult depending on the desired
goal. In all tasks, the students receive direct feedback at least through a correct or false message or are provided
with a sample solution to correct their response. Figure 3 shows an example of a page. Here the students have
to identify specific characteristics of copper and copper sulphide.
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

Figure 2: Teaching unit and structure of the learning software.

Table 1: Implemented UDL-elements and the fulfilled checkpoints (cf. CAST, 2018, on that homepage also the check-
points are described in detail, see also Figure 1).
Implemented elements UDL guideline Checkpoint
Easy language 4; 5 4.2; 4.3; 5.2; 5.3
Audio files 4; 5 5.5
Videos 4 4.1; 4.2
Context oriented tasks and information texts 6; 7 6.1; 7.2
Self-assessment 3; 8 3.1; 3.3; 9.1
Various tasks 7 7.1
Differentiated learning paths 2 2.2
Chapter overview/progress bar 2; 9 2.1; 9.1; 9.4
Repeating structures, terms and phrases 6; 9 6.2; 9.1
Optional repetition or skipping 1; 3 1.1; 3.3
Different physical actions during the tasks 1; 7 7.1
Easy control 7 7.2
Iconic and pictographic support 5 5.3; 5.5
Feedback and sample solution for the tasks 2; 8 2.4; 8.4
Self-regulated experiments 1; 3; 7 1.1; 3.1; 7.1
Possible peer and teacher support 2 2.3

5
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

Computers as an alternative to traditional teaching 7 7.2

Figure 3: Example of a page.

Research questions
In order to explore the complexity of inclusive learning settings and their effect on learners, it makes sense to
examine them in a multi-perspective way. As Ragin (2009, p. 35) concluded “the goal of diversity-oriented research
is to find a middle path between treating analytic objects as members of fixed, homogeneous populations, on the one hand,
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

and focusing exclusively on the specificity of individual cases, on the other.” Therefore, a mixed method approach
(Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 184) was chosen in this project to evaluate the learning software and the teaching
unit.
Based on the theoretical background, the question arises whether a digital UDL-based learning environment
leads to a growth in knowledge regarding the topic of ‘chemical reaction’ of all learners in inclusive classrooms.
Additionally, we suppose that all students would have a positive attitude towards the learning software, because
it has a high motivational aspect and everyone should be able to participate in the lesson. Participation, however,
can only be achieved if the students are able to use the functions of the software appropriately. To evaluate the
learning software regarding the aspects listed above we formulated the following research questions.

Q1: Do the students (with and without SEN) increase their chemical performance concerning the topic ‘chem-
ical reaction’?
Q2: Do the students (with and without SEN) have a positive attitude towards learning?

Q3: Do the students (with and without SEN) use the functions of the learning software adequately?

If the students can learn with the learning software, regardless if they have a SEN or not, they should perform
better in a chemistry performance test about the topic ‘chemical reaction’ after the intervention. Besides, the
students with and without SEN should have a positive attitude towards the learning software after working
with it. For this purpose, we used an attitude test and conducted it directly after both lessons with the software.
We analysed the screen recordings to conclude if the students use the functions of the software adequately.

6
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

Methods and design

Participants

The learning software was tested in lower secondary schools (age 13–15), grade seven and eight in four public
general schools in Germany in (n = 89). In three schools a whole class participated, whereas in the fourth school
only seven students participated in the study. Overall, two students with emotional-social disorder and twelve
students with learning disorder participated in the study. In addition, a student with hearing problems and a
student for whom the diagnosis of emotional-social disorder has been recently cancelled took part in the study.
Due to the length of the intervention and the tests as well as sickness of the students, we had to exclude many
students from our calculations when we analysed the chemistry performance test because we only calculated
with students who attended the whole intervention and the pre- and post-tests. For the analysis of attitude test,
we included only students who participated in the two courses in which the learning software was used. In
particular, the students with SEN take part in the lessons relatively irregular, which is why about 50 % of the
students with SEN had to be excluded. For the study, we tested n = 64 students including students with SEN
throughout the whole investigation for the chemistry performance test (cf. Table 2). For the attitude test the
data set of n = 75 students could be used (cf. Table 3).

Table 2: Results of the chemistry performance test of the study.

Students n M pre M post p ϕ d
All 64 0.29 0.47 <0.001 0.84 1.118
7th grade 31 0.21 0.37 <0.001 0.80 1.378
8th grade 33 0.36 0.57 <0.001 0.86 1.300
SEN 8 0.20 0.35 <0.001 0.90 1.734
SEN 7th grade 4 0.18 0.33 0.066 0.92 1.219
SEN 8th grade 4 0.22 0.38 0.066 0.79 4.214
Without SEN 56 0.30 0.49 <0.001 0.83 1.119

With M, mean proportion of correct answers; ϕ, effect size for Wilcoxon signed rank test; d, Cohens d effect size for dependent groups.
SEN, special educational needs.

Table 3: Results of the attitude-test in the study.

Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

Students n M fb1 M fb2 p ϕ d

All 75 1.80 1.81 0.897 0.02 0.021
7th grade 33 1.76 1.81 0.937 0.01 0.097
8th grade 42 1.83 1.81 0.889 0.02 0.035
SEN 12 2.24 2.05 0.230 0.35 0.244
Without SEN 63 1.71 1.76 0.696 0.05 0.095

M, mean score of a 5-point Likert scale I totally agree (1, positive) to I totally disagree (5, negative); fb, feedback; ϕ, effect size for Wilcoxon
signed rank test; d, Cohens d effect size for dependent groups.
SEN, special educational needs.

Instruments and data collection

We collected the quantitative data in form of a chemistry performance test in a one-group pre-post-follow-up-
test-design (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 202). The intervention lasted 225 min (two times 90 min and one time 45
min, cf. Figure 2). The chemistry performance test was developed by Michna and Melle (2018). The test con-
tained 24 multiple choice questions with one correct answer out of five possible options. It was not changed as
the topic of the intervention is the same and its reliability was satisfying with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.795 (Michna
& Melle, 2018). The chemistry performance test was evaluated in terms of objectivity (e.g. standardised imple-
mentation and data entry), reliability (see below) and validity. The content validity was ensured by an expert
validation (Lienert & Raatz, 1998) with researchers in chemical education. For reliability analysis, Cronbach’s
alpha was calculated again with the data of the presented study. The reliability of the questionnaire is identic

7
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

to Michna and Melle (2018) and satisfying (cf. Blanz, 2015), with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.795 and the selectivity
for most of the items is convincing (>0.30), only the selectivity of seven items is under 0.30 (Döring & Bortz,
2016, p. 478). The test was conducted 1 week before the intervention to assess the pre-knowledge on chemical
reactions and 1 week after the intervention, as well 3 weeks after the intervention.
Additionally, a standardised intellectual performance test, which included one scale of the Culture-Fair-Test
by Weiß (1998) to measure students’ intellectual performance, was used 1 week before the intervention, too.
The third instrument assesses the students’ self-concept, which was adapted (some items included the term
‘physics’, this word was replaced by ‘chemistry’) from the standardised DISK-grid (Rost, Sparfeldt, & Schilling,
2007) and was conducted before the intervention as well.
An attitude test, which has been developed by the authors of this paper, to measure the attitude of the
students towards the learning software was used right after the lessons with the computer. It contains 30 items
which were rated by the students on a five-point-Likert-scale ranging from 1 = totally agree to 5 = totally disagree.
The attitude test was evaluated in terms of objectivity (e.g. standardised implementation and data entry),
reliability (see below) and validity. To ensure the content validity an expert validation (Lienert & Raatz, 1998)
was done with researchers in chemical education. The selectivity for most of the items is convincing, only the
selectivity of two items are under 0.30 (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 478). The Cronbach alpha measure of internal
consistency reliability for this test is 0.906.
The qualitative data were collected during the intervention in form of screen recording and the activity on
the screens of six specially chosen learners of each class were recorded. These learners were chosen according
to the intellectual performance test. We divided the sample into three percentiles of intellectual performance,
which describe a high-, middle- and low-performance group. From each group we selected two students who
were recorded to represent the diversity as best as possible. Furthermore, we selected students with SEN, who
were mostly in the low-performance group. A low-inferent coding manual was developed for analysing the
screen recordings in order to be able to make statements about the extent to which the functions of the learning
program are used. The analysis unit is one page of the software, which the student visited and worked on. As the
observer can determine very precisely whether the student used a function of the software or not, the coding
manual is low-inferent. For example, the codes were “Audio file played” or “Tasks done”. To determine the
quality of the coding manual, we calculated Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen’s κ, nominal scaled data) for two observers
(Wirtz & Caspar, 2002). The agreement of the two raters is very satisfactory (Fleiss & Cohen, 1973) with Cohen’s
κ = 0.864.

Data analysis
For the analysis of the data we used the software IBM SPSS Statistics. To answer the first research question we
have done a classical significance-test to analyse whether the chemistry performance of the students change or
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

not. Some of the data of the chemistry performance test are not normally distributed, therefore, we used the
Wilcoxon-test for all data. The same test is used for the attitude-test. Additionally, we compared the residual
results of the pre-post data sets to assess if the students with and without SEN learn alike. To make a statement
about the usage behaviour of students with the learning software we analysed the videos with the software
MAXQDA. We examined and compared the number of the given codes.

Results
The content knowledge of chemical reactions was significantly increased from Mpre = 0.27 to Mpost = 0.47 (n
= 64, cf. Table 2). Grade seven students had a lower score in the pre-test than grade eight students. However,
both showed a significant increase regarding the chemistry performance. The students with SEN (n = 8) were
also able to increase their chemistry performance significantly, however, not as much as the students without
SEN. Cohens d for the students with SEN of the 8th grade differs significantly from the other effect sizes. This is
due to the very low standard deviation of the results in contrast to the other standard deviations. Additionally,
the follow-up results of the chemistry performance test compared with the post-results show that there is no
significant increase or decrease for any of the groups considered.
Figure 4 lists the individual results of every students who participated through the whole unit additional to
the means of the results of the students with SEN (red) and without SEN (blue). The longitudinal plot makes it
possible to make qualitative and quantitative statements about the results of the students. The analysis of the
plot is also limited. Some of the students’ results are similar, so some lines overlap and are not clearly distin-
guishable from each other. For example, only six outcomes of students with SEN can be seen in the plot, but
there are actually eight students with SEN in the plot (cf. Table 2). Figure 4 shows that the results of the students

8
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

with SEN mix with the lower half of the results of the students without SEN. The learning gains (difference
between post and pre in the chemistry performance test) are similar for both groups, which is confirmed by a
residual analysis, showing no significant differences (n = 64, p = 0.215, ϕ = 0.15).

Figure 4: Longitudinal plot of the results of the chemistry-performance-test (Light blue, students without SEN; Orange,
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

students with SEN; blue, mean of students without SEN; Red, mean of students with SEN).

The students’ attitude towards the learning software is positive with Mfb1 = 1.80 for the first part and Mfb2 =
1.81 for the second part on the 5-point-Likert-scale ranging from 1 as positive to 5 as negative (cf. Table 3). There
is no significant difference between the students’ attitudes towards the first lesson and the second lesson. This
applies to students with and without disabilities. The difference in the attitudes towards the software between
the students with SEN and without SEN is not significant either (Mfb1 , p = 0.087; Mfb2 , p = 0.196).
We divided the evaluation of the screen recordings according to the UDL Principles (cf. Figure 1). Regarding
the second principle, we can evaluate how the learners used the audio and video files. With the help of the low-
inferent coding manual, very detailed statements can be made about what each user is doing on each page of
the learning software and whether the UDL functions are being used or not. On 41 % of the pages visited by
the students, an audio file was used. In 5 % of the cases in which an audio file was played, the learner repeated
the audio file and in 11 % of the cases, the file was terminated early. The students watched the videos in 85 %
of the possible cases. In 20 % of the cases the student watched the video, the student repeated it. The students
have also changed the volume independently in 10 % of the cases.
Regarding the third principle of the UDL, we can judge how the students have solved the various tasks in
the digital learning environment. If the students completed the various tasks on a page, we can assume that
the students have used the functions of the tasks of the learning software properly. Additionally, we evaluated
if the students not only finished all the tasks on a page but also if the students achieved the correct results of
the page. In about 85 % of all cases, the students processed the tasks on the pages completely (cf. Figure 5).

9
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

Figure 5: Task usage and results divided in groups according to the intellectual performance test in *L, low performance;
*M, middle performance; *H, high performance; n, evaluated videos of the two parts of the learning software.

Furthermore, it is interesting to compare three different groups, which we classified according to the intellec-
tual performance test: There is no big difference between the groups. The high performance students complete
more offered tasks than the other students do. About 90 % of the results of the pages of the high performance
students were correct or partially correct. The middle performance students had more unfinished pages with
no tasks done at all than the lower performance group but this is also not significant.

Discussion
The chemistry performance on the subject of chemical reaction can be increased with the multimedia, digital
learning environment for students with and without SEN. The attitude test confirms that the students perceive
learning with the learning program as attractive. These results indicate that using the learning software twice
does not lead to a decrease in the positive attitude towards the learning unit. This quantitative data of the
study must be considered carefully due to the sample size, although it is generally difficult to obtain statistically
meaningful data on SEN-students with a reliably diagnosed need for support in inclusive classrooms, as these
only have a relatively small proportion in school classes.
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

Moreover, the students use implemented UDL functions with varying intensity. The evaluation of the screen
recordings shows that the learners used the audio recordings and as well the videos intensively. Consequently,
these two UDL functions seem to be appropriate. Additionally, the usage of the offered tasks are quite positive.

Outlook
One of the main problems is how to evaluate the usage of the learning software regarding the first UDL-
principle. An option is to compare the screen recordings with the attitude test. Currently, we develop a high-
inferent coding manual for the screen recordings with a qualitative approach. In addition, we will carry out fur-
ther correlation analyses, for example between the individual tests and the attitude test and the screen record-
ings. With the longitudinal plot as well as the results of the low-inferent and the high-inferent coding manual
it will be possible to make detailed statements of the learners. These will be statements about the competence
and the willingness to use the software and how exactly the learner used the software to get the results.

Conclusion
The results indicate that the learning software can be used profitably for heterogeneous learning groups and
students with and without SEN. It offers pupils with and without special educational needs the opportunity
to learn in an individualised and differentiated way on a common learning object. Besides, it gives the teacher
the freedom to help each pupil individually. The mixed-methods approach to the analysis of inclusive teaching

10
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

seems to be a purposeful approach to research to get individual results but also to make statements about
different groups of learning. Furthermore, we as researchers have to make considerations as to how inclusive
teaching can be meaningfully researched without neglecting the individuality of the individual, and on the
other hand to make general statements.

Acknowledgement

I want to thank my research group at TU Dortmund for their support with my Ph.D.-project and all participating
students and teachers.

References
107th Congress of the United States (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In Public Law 107–110. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Abels, S. (2013). Differenzierung und Individualisierung. Individuelle Lernvoraussetzungen als Orientierung für die Unterrichtsplanung.
Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 24(135), 31–35.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’
understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Auernheimer, G. (2013). Die Frage der Struktur des deutschen Bildungssystems – ein Tabu. In G. Auernheimer (Ed.), Schieflagen im Bildungssys-
tem. Die Benachteiligung der Migrantenkinder (5th ed., pp. 8–11). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W., et al. (Eds.) (2001). PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schü-
lerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2017). Technologie-unterstütztes Lernen im Physikunterricht mittels mobiler Videoanalyse. In J.
Meßinger-Koppelt, S. Schanze, & J. Groß (Eds.), Lernprozesse mit digitalen Werkzeugen unterstützen. Perspektiven aus der Didaktik naturwis-
senschaftlicher Fächer (1st ed., pp. 119–131). Hamburg: Joachim Herz Stiftung Verlag.
Blanz, M. (2015). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für die Soziale Arbeit: Grundlagen und Anwendungen (1. Auflage). Stuttgart: Verlag W.
Kohlhammer.
Bolfing, A. (2017). Selbstbestimmung und Inklusion mithilfe moderner Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT). Schweiz-
erische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik. (3), 14–21.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools (2nd ed.). Bristol: CSIE.
Bosse, I. K., & Pola, A. (2017). Applying movie and multimedia to the inclusive learning and teaching in Germany: Problems and solutions. In
M. Antona & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10279). Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Human and
Technological Environments. 11th International Conference, UAHCI 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14,
2017, Proceedings, Part III (pp. 129–142). Cham, s.l.: Springer International Publishing.
Bundestag (2002). Gesetz zur Gleichstellung von Menschen mit Behinderungen: (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz – BGG). Retrieved July 6,
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

2019, from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgg/BJNR146800002.html.

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved November 24, 2018, from http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
CAST (2019). Research Evidence. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from http://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/research-evidence.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA, USA: Pfeiffer.
Cumming, T. M., & Draper Rodríguez, C. (2017). A meta-analysis of mobile technology supporting individuals with disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 51(3), 164–176.
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5. vollständig überarbeitete, aktual-
isierte und erweiterte Auflage). Springer-Lehrbuch. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second
decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.
Ellinger, S., & Stein, R. (2012). Effekte inklusiver Beschulung: Forschungsstand im Förderschwerpunktemotionale und soziale Entwicklung.
Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 4(2), 85–109.
European Commission (2010). Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities: EU disability strategy 2010–2020: Summary of the main
outcomes of the public consultation. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=5356&langId=en.
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 613–619.
Fuchs, L. S., Schumacher, R. F., Long, J., Namkung, J., Hamlett, C. L., Cirino, P. T., et al. (2013). Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of
fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 683–700.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., et al. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-
low-performing students. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134–157.
Gebhardt, M., Heine, J.-H., & Sälzer, C. (2015). Schulische Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern ohne sonderpädagogischen
Förderbedarf im gemeinsamen Unterricht. Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 84(3), 246.
Greinert, L., & Weßnigk, S. (2017). Infrarotkameras zur Erweiterung der Sinneswahrnehmung Sehen. In J. Meßinger-Koppelt, S. Schanze &
J. Groß (Eds.), Lernprozesse mit digitalen Werkzeugen unterstützen. Perspektiven aus der Didaktik naturwissenschaftlicher Fächer (1st ed., pp.
161–176). Hamburg: Joachim Herz Stiftung Verlag.
Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Reprinted.). New York: Routledge.

11
 Baumann and Melle DE GRUYTER

Hilfert-Rüppel, D., & Sieve, B. F. (2017). Entschleunigen biologischer und chemischer Abläufe durch Zeitlupenaufnahmen. In J. Meßinger-
Koppelt, S. Schanze & J. Groß (Eds.), Lernprozesse mit digitalen Werkzeugen unterstützen. Perspektiven aus der Didaktik naturwissenschaftlicher
Fächer (1st ed., pp. 147–160). Hamburg: Joachim Herz Stiftung Verlag.
Hillmayr, D., Reinhold, F., Ziernwald, L., & Reiss, K. (2017). Digitale Medien im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht der Sekundarstufe:
Einsatzmöglichkeiten, Umsetzung und Wirksamkeit. Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Hoffmann, T., & Menthe, J. (2015). Sonderpädagogische Aspekte inklusiven Chemieunterrichts in der Sekundarstufe. In O. Musenberg & J.
Riegert (Eds.), Inklusiver Fachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe (pp. 141–158). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Keegan, D. (2013). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). Routledge studies in distance education. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Kerres, M. (2013). Mediendidaktik: Konzeption und Entwicklung mediengestützter Lernangebote. (4., vollst. überarb. Aufl.). Informatik 10-2012.
München: Oldenbourg.
King-Sears, M. E., Johnson, T. M., Berkeley, S., Weiss, M. P., Peters-Burton, E. E., Evmenova, A. S., et al. (2015). An exploratory study of universal
design for teaching chemistry to students with and without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 84–96.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effect of direct instruction and discovery learn-
ing. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
Kronig, W., Haeberlin, U., & Eckhart, M. (2000). Immigrantenkinder und schulische Selektion: Pädagogische Visionen, theoretische Erklärungen und
empirische Untersuchungen zur Wirkung integrierender und separierender Schulformen in den Grundschuljahren. Beiträge zur Heil- und Sonderpäd-
agogik (Vol. 26). Bern: Haupt.
Kulik, C.-L., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An update analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Langermann, K. (2006). Akzeptanz naturwissenschaftlicher Phänomene bei geistig behinderten Vorschulkindern: Untersuchungen zur affektiven und
kognitiven Rezeption natuwissenschaftlicher Experimente. Zugl.: Bielefeld, Univ., Diss. (1. Aufl.). Göttingen: Cuvillier.
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course a review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618.
Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. The British Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 77(Pt 1), 1–24.
Löser, J. M., & Werning, R. (2013). Inklusion aus internationaler Perspektive – ein Forschungsüberblick. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 6(1),
21–33.
Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17(2), 88–102.
Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87–99.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Cognition and learning in diverse settings. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Cognition and
learning in diverse settings (advances in learning and behavioral disabilities)(Vol. 18, pp. 99–110). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2014). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiated instruction (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
MatchWare A/S (2016). Mediator 9.0. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://www.matchware.com/ge/products/mediator/.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Jour-
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

nal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 245–263.

Menthe, J., & Hoffmann, T. (2015). Inklusiver Chemieunterricht: Chancen und Herausforderung. In O. Musenberg & J. Riegert (Eds.), Inklusiver
Fachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe (pp. 131–141). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from Wakefield MA:
CAST: http://www.udltheorypractice.cast.org/home?2.
Michna, D., & Melle, I. (2018). Inclusion in chemistry education in secondary school. In O. E. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. Childs
(Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education (pp. 1433–1440). Dublin.
Miesenberger, K. (2012). Sieben Fragen zur inklusiven Medienbildung. In I. Bosse (Ed.), LfM-Dokumentation (Vol. 45, pp. 27–57). Medienbildung
im Zeitalter der Inklusion. Düsseldorf: LfM.
Mihajlovic, C. (2012). Die Nutzung von Computer und Internet an Förderschulen. merz.medien + erziehung, 56(01/12), 25–31.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW (2013). Schulgesetz für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from
http://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Recht/Schulrecht/Schulgesetz/.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2016). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Nordrhein-Westfalen:
Statistische Daten und Kennziffern zur Inklusion – 2015/16.
Moore, M. G. (2013). Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Musenberg, O., & Riegert, J. (2015). Inklusiver Fachunterricht als didaktische Herausforderung. In O. Musenberg & J. Riegert (Eds.), Inklusiver
Fachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe (pp. 13–28). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
O’Leary, S. (2016). Science differentiation: professional development for teachers. In S. Markic & S. Abels (Eds.), Education in a competitive and
globalizing world. Science education towards inclusion (pp. 169–194). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford psychology series (Vol. 9). Oxfort: Oxford University Press.
Pietzner, V. (2014). Computer-based learning in chemistry classes. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 297–
311.
Price, J. F., Johnson, M., & Barnett, M. (2012). Universal design for learning in the science classroom. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose
(Eds.), What works for special-needs learners. Universal design for learning in the classroom. Practical applications (pp. 55–70). New York: Guil-
ford Publications, Inc.
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Fuzzy-set social science (reprint). Sociology political science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12
 DE GRUYTER Baumann and Melle

Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G. (Ed.) (2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge Mass: Harvard Education Press.
Roald, I. (2002). Norwegian deaf teachers’ reflections on their science education: Implications for instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 7(1), 57–73.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. A project of the American Edu-
cational Research Association (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262–268.
Rost, D. H., Sparfeldt, J. R., & Schilling, S. R. (2007). DISK-Gitter mit SKSLF-8. Differentielles Schulisches Selbstkonzept-Gitter mit Skala zur Erfassung
des Selbstkonzepts schulischer Leistungen und Fähigkeiten. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2006). Inclusion and achievement: Student achievement in secondary schools with higher and lower proportions of
pupils designated as having special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481–493.
Schlüter, A.-K., Melle, I., & Wember, F. B. (2016). Unterrichtsgestaltung in Klassen des Gemeinsamen Lernens: Universal Design for Learning.
Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute, 61, 270–285.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading versus doing: the relative effects of textbook-based and
inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1–15.
Stefanich, G. (2001). Science teaching in inclusive classrooms: models and applications. Cedar Falls, Iowa: Woolverton Printing Company.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of
technology on learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.
Thyssen, C. (2017). Audmented Reality (AR) im praktischen Unterricht. In J. Meßinger-Koppelt, S. Schanze, & J. Groß (Eds.), Lernprozesse mit
digitalen Werkzeugen unterstützen. Perspektiven aus der Didaktik naturwissenschaftlicher Fächer (1st ed., pp. 177–191). Hamburg: Joachim Herz
Stiftung Verlag.
Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2011). Heterogenität in der Schule: Eine kritische Einführung (1. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwis-
senschaften/Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH Wiesbaden.
Tulodziecki, G., & Herzig, B. (2004). Mediendidaktik: Medien in Lehr- und Lernprozessen. Handbuch Medienpädagogik: Bd. 2. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Tulodziecki, G., Herzig, B., & Grafe, S. (2010). Medienbildung in Schule und Unterricht: Grundlagen und Beispiele (1. Aufl.). UTB Erziehungswis-
senschaft, Schulpädagogik, allgemeine Didaktik(Vol. 3414). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Ulrich (2017). E-Books – Potenziale für den Umgang mit Diversität. In J. Meßinger-Koppelt, S. Schanze, & J. Groß (Eds.), Lernprozesse mit dig-
italen Werkzeugen unterstützen. Perspektiven aus der Didaktik naturwissenschaftlicher Fächer (1st ed., pp. 71–80). Hamburg: Joachim Herz
Stiftung Verlag.
United Nations (2006). UN-convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. Retrieved January 04, 2019, from
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
Vitoriano, F. A., Teles, V. L. G., Rizzatti, I. M., & de Lima, R. C. P. (2016). Promoting inclusive chemistry teaching by developing an accessible
thermometer for students with visual disabilities. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12), 2046–2051.
Weiß, R. H. (1998). Grundintelligenztest Skala 1 (CFT 20). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Wellenreuther, M. (2016). Direkte Instruktion – das hässliche Entlein der Pädagogik? Lehren – Friedrich Jahresheft XXXIV, 82–84.
Wirtz, M. A., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverläs-
sigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verl. für Psychologie.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–
313.
Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd

13