Over the past 20‐plus years, the instructional approach referred to as “explicit instruction” has been increasingly mentioned as an instructional method in the learning disabilities literature. Explicit instruction is not a unitary intervention, but can be a combination of over a dozen teaching behaviors or components used to design and deliver instruction. This multicomponent aspect likely contributes to the variability of the descriptions and definitions of explicit instruction found in journals, books, and other published documents. Because explicit instruction has become a prominent and often discussed topic in special education, we attempt to define and describe the term more precisely in order to increase the clarity and consistency of its use in both research and practice. In addition, we expand our discussion to include a brief historical perspective of the evolution of explicit instruction from earlier programs and research efforts such as “Direct Instruction” and “direct instruction,” as well as providing a summary of its effectiveness, especially for students with learning disabilities.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the use of explicit instruction in the curriculum area of science where non‐explicit approaches (e.g., discovery learning) are often used. While there has been a relative paucity of research on explicit instruction in science classrooms, we argue that explicit instruction, particularly when it is embedded within an inquiry approach aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards, has the potential to increase achievement in science for students with LD. Based on previous research, we provide potential ways to implement the five core instructional components of explicit instruction in today's inquiry‐based science classrooms.

Research on the internationalization of inclusive policies for students with special needs is still developing alongside the shifting implementation of practice. This analysis seeks to understand the process of adopting inclusive policies in Jordan and the subsequent implementation through a modified comparative case study framework. Current research demonstrates how global forces have led to the adoption of a national inclusive education policy that local programs redefine and negotiate in implementation. The paper uses emerging frameworks from Schuelka (2018b) and existing comparative case study methodology from Bartlett and Vavrus (2006; 2009; 2014; 2017) to structure an in-depth analysis of the macro, mesa and micro levels of inclusive policy adoption and implementation across time. Jordan is a developing nation and in a strategic geographic location, two factors which bring multiple international organizations into its borders. This has had a significant effect on the development of education policy. At the same time, local construction of disability and inclusion continue to marginalize students with disabilities, especially in rural communities. This paper will outline the current state of inclusive education at the international, national and local levels in Jordan based on a review of policy and academic literature.

This study, which was reviewed through the Registered Report process, examined the initial efficacy of the Scientific Explorers program (Sci2) on second-grade students’ science achievement. Sci2 is grounded in the growing body of empirical research on science instruction, embedding principles of explicit instruction within a guided inquiry-based design framework. Eighteen second-grade classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions. A cluster randomized controlled trial was employed, with 294 students nested within classrooms and classrooms nested within condition. The Sci2 program was implemented for a total of 10 lessons (5 hr) in treatment classrooms, whereas control classrooms provided business-as-usual science instruction. Overall treatment effects were observed on three of four science outcome measures. The reported effects were moderate to large, with effect sizes (Hedges’ g) ranging from 0.48 to 0.94. Moderation analyses indicated that science knowledge at pretest did not moderate Sci2’s effects. Implications for practice and research are discussed.