3.2 Is the selection of participants biased? The selection of student participants was not biased because all SLD students were given the opportunity to participate. As for the educators, the selection is slightly unclear.  The text notes that all adults participating are also white. This introduces a bias all on its own. (133) The article also notes a limitation of selection as not random. (140). 

3.3 Will the participants selected provide a credible answer to the research question? Yes, students were carefully selected to address this question.

3.4 How involved is the researcher in the setting? Will the researcher's involvement affect the findings? Researcher did some observation. However, there was a second observer, so I do not think this involvement would affect findings. 

3.5 Are data collectors trained? Some, but not all appeared to be trained as collectors. See 3.4. Also, under Observations, prior to the start of the study, 2 practice observations were conducted with a second observer, a doctoral student in SPED. This observer was trained.

3.6 Are multiple methods of data collection used? Multiple methods of data collection were used to evaluate student knowledge including: 

-student portfolio **teacher collected** 

-observation 

-Student interview (134) The interviewer is not specified. 
-Educator interview.

-Lab Assessment

4.2 Are there direct quotes from participants?  

Yes. Under the Results section - Knowledge of Inquiry. Multiple direct quotes from student participants.  

Yes. This study used professionals with a wide knowledge of science. One of the teachers is quoted as saying "I should have read their IEPs - or read them more recently than I have." (138). This appears to be a frequent oversight of inclusion curriculum where the primary teacher is not a SPED teacher.  The only immersion lacking appears to be that of the SPED teacher.

4.4 Is there an analysis of triangulation? Yes. (140 - under Limitations. 2nd paragraph. 

4.5 Is there consideration of researcher bias or perspective in interpreting the results? This does not appear to be present in the study. 

5.2 Is the credibility of the findings addressed in terms of reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness? The study addresses the fact that there was a second observer, however, there is no specific mention of reliability, credibility or trustworthiness. 

5.3 Are the results discussed in relation to previous research? Yes, there is lots of research pulled into the discussion to back up the statements made.

5.4 Do the conclusions follow from the interpretation of the results? Are the conclusions consistent with what is known from previous research? The only thing that follows is limitations and future practice. However the limitations and future practice do seem consistent and in line with previous research. 

5.5 Are appropriate limitations indicated? Yes, the limitations are documented and include small sample size and nonrandom nature of classroom participants which may limit the generalization of study findings. 

5.6 Are appropriate recommendations and implications indicated?Recommendations from documented limitations include providing more time in the field to strengthen case study data. Multiple sources of data should be collected and triangulated. 

1.2  Does the researcher have the skill and training needed to conduct the study? Both researchers are professors in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

1.3 Is the problem feasible? The problem is feasible; "It is important to understand how students with LD gain process knowledge in science by studying this real-life contemporary phenomenon in the natural setting of a general education science classroom." (p. 133)

1.4  Is the problem significant? The problem is significant.Although students with LD are frequently included in general education classrooms, how and if  they truly access the curriculum remains undetermined." (p. 132)

1.5 Is there a clear conceptual and theoretical framework for the problem? There is a clear conceptual framework for the problem; the intersection between inquiry-based science and access to science by students with learning disabilities. The authors discuss the movement in science through national next generation science standards (NGSS) to connect process and content in science has changed more middle-grades classes to inquiry-based settings. They ask, is inquiry appropriate for students with learning disabilities?

1.6 Does the introduction include an overview of the design of the study? The introduction includes an overview of the design of the study on page 133. They propose three research questions and introduced their methods as a comparative analysis to compare case outcomes for more generalized explanations.

1.7  Is the purpose of the study clearly stated? The purpose of this study was clear. Case studies had been recorded with these students in their science classes the previous year, and this study aims to compare case studies, looking at how well students acquired process knowledge, how they engaged in curriculum to acquire both process and content, and what strategies the students and teachers used to facilitate understanding.

2.2 Is the review up to date? Two older studies were referenced (1992 and 1994), but most references were from 2011 to 2016. The article was published in 2018, so it is up-to-date.

2.3  Does the review establish an adequate background and theoretical framework for the study? The review establishes three things: 1. Science should be taught through incorporating processes with content. 2. Students with learning disabilities are less likely to access science curriculum in the general education science class; 3. Science is more inquiry-based, which may not be the best approach for those students with learning disabilities.

2.4 Is the review well organized? The review is well organized in that it establishes the argument for better science teaching and the question about that teaching being accessible to students with learning disabilities.

2.5 Is the literature analyzed as well as summarized? In addition to summarizing the literature, the authors also analyze it. They analyze the move to inductive thinking, citing the US Department of Education's report that there is low achievement in middle school science, and pointing out that this inquiry relies on verbal and written language, which may be difficult for LD students to obtain adequately.