STEM Education - AHEAD

111 Pages·2011·1.16 MB·English

J o u r n a l o f
P o s t s e c o n d a r y
J
o
u
r
n E d u c a t i o n a n d
a
l
o
f
P
o
D i s a b i l i t y
s
t
s
E
c
o
n
D Volume 24(4), Winter 2011
a
r
y
E
D
u sPEcial issuE:
c
a
t STEM Education
i
o
n
a
n
D
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
on® • V
i
ion on Educat ability 2olume
at r is 4 4(4
soci ghe d D e 20 ) • W
As Hi An it in
u te
DS r
, A 20
e 1
vS 1
iU •
ADr8 Pa
g
r7 e
e0 s
nt8 2
6
Ee2 3
C -
C g 3
eN 7
Hrc, or 0
eed.
mlla
mvie Association on
sh AHEAD
ACoer.a Higher Education
tw ®
7 nw And Disability
u
0
1Hw
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Executive Editor
David R. Parker, CRG (Children’s Resource Group)
Special Issue Editor
Sheryl Burgstahler, University of Washington
Managing Editor
Richard Allegra, AHEAD
Editorial Review Board
Manju Banerjee - University of Connecticut Joan McGuire - University of Connecticut
Loring Brinckerhoff - Educational Testing Service Janet Medina - McDaniel College
Stephanie Cawthon - University of Texas at Austin Deborah Merchant -K eene State College
Connie Chiba - University of California, Berkeley Ward Newmeyer - Dartmouth College
Justin Cooper - Eastern Kentucky University Christine O’Dell - University of California, Davis
Lyman Dukes III - University of South Florida at St. Petersburg Nicole Ofiesh - Notre Dame de Namur University
Sharon Field Hoffman - Wayne State University Betty Preus - College of St. Scholastica
Joanie Friend - St. Louis Community College Kelly Drew Roberts - University of Hawaii at Manoa
Elizabeth Evans Getzel -V irginia Commonwealth University Frank R. Rusch - The Pennsylvania State University
Christie L. Gilson - Moravian College Daniel Ryan - SUNY at Buffalo
Sam Goodin - University of Michigan Mary Catherine Scheeler - Pennsylvania State Univ. Green Valley
Wendy S. Harbour - Syracuse University Sally Scott - University of Mary Washington
Cheri Hoy - University of Georgia Stuart S. Segal - University of Michigan
Charles A. Hughes - The Pennsylvania State University Stan Shaw - University of Connecticut
Michael John Humphrey - Boise State University Sharon K. Suritsky - Upper St. Clair School District
Tori Kearns - East Georgia College Tomone Takahashi - Shinshu University, Japan
Kristina Krampe - Eastern Kentucky University Colleen A. Thoma - Virginia Commonwealth University
Sue Kroeger - University of Arizona Audrey Trainor - University of Wisconsin - Madison
Tracy Knight Lackey - Jackson State University Mary Lee Vance - University of Montana
Ruth C. Loew - Educational Testing Service Ruth Warick - University of British Columbia
Pamela Luft - Kent State University Kristine Webb - University of North Florida
Joseph W. Madaus - University of Connecticut Marc Wilchesky - York University
Elaine Manglitz - Clayton College & State University Lee Woods - Boise State University
Matthew Marino - Washington State University
Practice Brief Review Board AHEAD Board of Directors
Doris A. Bitler - George Mason University Jean Ashmore, President; Emeritus, Rice University
Melinda S. Burchard - Messiah College L. Scott Lissner, President-Elect; The Ohio State University
Trey J. Duffy - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Terra Beethe, Secretary; Bellevue University
Martha Jacques Engstrom - Indiana University Michael Johnson, Treasurer; Monroe Community College -
Alberto Guzman - University of Arizona Damon City Campus
Andrea Henry - Massasoit Community College Jamie Axelrod, Director; Northern Arizona University
Andrew Jason Kaiser - St. Ambrose University Scott Bay, Director; Emeritus, Anoka Ramsey Community
Colleen Lewis - Columbia University College
Larry Markle - Ball State University Gaeir Dietrich, Director; High Tech Center Training Unit,
Lori R. Muskat - Georgia School of Professional Psychology, California Community Colleges
Argosy - Atlanta Alberto Guzman, Director; University of Arizona
Linda Nissembaum - St. Louis Community College Katheryne Staeger-Wilson, Director; Missouri State University
Jack Trammell - Randolph-Macon College Tom Thompson, Director; Emeritus, Harper College
Susan A. Vogel - Northern Illinois University Mary Lee Vance, Director; University of Montana
Margaret P.Weiss - University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Ron Stewart, Lead Standing Committee Chair; High Tech
Center Training Unit, California Community Colleges
Stephan J. Hamlin-Smith, (ex-officio) Executive Director;
AHEAD
The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is published in accessible formats. Please contact AHEAD to discuss hard copy
subscription requests. All members of the Association on Higher Education And Disability receive the Journal.
© 2011, The Association on Higher EducationA nd Disability, 107 Commerce Centre Drive #204, Huntersville, NC 28078 USA
Table of Contents
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Volume 24(4)
From the STEM Special Issue Editor 265 - 267
Sheryl Burgstahler
Perceptions of Self-Effi cacy Among STEM Students with Disabilities 269 - 283
Ronda J. Jenson
Alexis N. Petri
Arden D. Day
Kevin Z. Truman
Kate Duffy
Recruitment of Students with Disabilities: 285 - 299
Exploration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Jay K. Martin
Norma J. Stumbo
Liam G. Martin,
Kimberly D. Collins
Bradley N. Hedrick
Dan Nordstrom
Michelle Peterson
Using Student Learning Communities to Recruit 301 - 316
STEM Students with Disabilities
Margaretha Vreeburg Izzo
Alexa Murray
Sarah Priest
Bianca McArrell
Asynchronous Online Access as an Accommodation on Students 317 - 330
with LD and/or ADHD in Postsecondary STEM Courses
Laura Graves
Paul A. Asunda
Stacey J. Plant
Chester Goad
Evaluation of Programmatic Interventions to Improve 331 - 349
Postsecondary STEM Education for Students with
Disabilities: Findings from SciTrain University
Nathan W. Moon
Tristan T. Utschig
Robert L. Todd
Ariyana Bozzorg
The Impact of a Working Conference Focused on Supporting 351 - 367
Students with Disabilities in STEM
Audrey C. Rule
Greg P. Stefanich
Robert M. Boody
Book Review 369 - 370
Greg P. Stefanich
Author Guidelines Inside Back Cover
264 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(4)
Burgstahler; From the Editor 265
FROM THE STEM SPECIAL ISSUE EDITOR
SHERYL BURGSTAHLER
Not only is there a shortage of talented science, based training for STEM faculty. Their multi-faceted
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) evaluation suggests the effi cacy of these practices in
professionals in general, but people with disabilities enhancing the abilities of STEM faculty to make in-
are also underrepresented in their attainment of STEM struction more accessible to students with disabilities.
degrees and careers. The authors of this special issue of Next, Rule, Stefanich, and Boody report outcomes of
the Journal of Special Education and Disability (JPED) a two-day working conference. Evidence presented
report interventions for students with disabilities and suggests that a short-term working conference can sig-
for faculty and resources that might, ultimately, help nifi cantly impact educators’ preparedness, responsive-
to bridge the gap between participation of individuals ness to make accommodations, and attitudes toward
with and without disabilities in STEM. the inclusion of students with disabilities in STEM
and other courses.
The fi rst article serves to increase our understand-
ing of the problem. Jenson, Petri, Duffy, Day, and Tru- Finally, Stefanich reviews a comprehensive set
man report several cross-cutting themes that emerged of materials developed through a collaborative effort
from the responses of students with disabilities within of STEM and special educators hosted by the DO-IT
a focus group. Findings reported include that instruc- Center at the University of Washington. Acknowledging
tors set the tone for learning and consequently highly that few practicing STEM educators have had access to
infl uence students’ confi dence, motivation, anxiety adequate preparation or to resources for addressing the
and stress, self-effi cacy and, ultimately, success in diversity of students in their classes, he concludes that
demanding STEM courses. the comprehensive content and multimedia presentation
materials in Making Math, Science, and Technology
Interventions for Students with Disabilities Instruction Accessible to Students with Disabilities can
In the second article, Martin, Stumbo, Hedrick, help pre-service and in-service educators more effec-
Collins, Nordstrom, Peterson, and Martin report tively deliver STEM instruction.
promising recruiting practices for increasing the par-
ticipation of individuals with disabilities in STEM. Implications for Future Research and Practice
Their refl ections may help others develop strategies to Americans with disabilities are underrepresented
encourage students with disabilities to pursue STEM. with respect to STEM degree attainment and careers.
In the third article, Izzo, Murray, Priest, and McArrell Although the authors of the articles in this issue present
report evidence that student learning communities promising interventions and resources, additional rig-
for high school and college students with disabilities orous research studies are needed to move this young
interested in pursuing STEM degrees show promise fi eld of study forward. Such studies would engage large
for enhancing self-advocacy and career development samples of participants, compare outcomes with those
skills. In the fourth article, Graves, Asunda, Plant, and of well-matched comparison groups, test interventions
Goad share fi ndings from their study that suggest offer- in a variety of settings (e.g., online, on-site, at different
ing asynchronous access to instructional content may types of schools), use multiple evaluation techniques,
enhance the learning experiences of students enrolled gather perceptions from multiple stakeholder groups,
in STEM courses. and conduct longitudinal investigations to determine
long-term effects. Such studies are expensive and
Professional Development Interventions and Ma- therefore are likely to require external funding from
terials for STEM Educators government or other agencies. With large sample sizes
The fi fth and sixth articles explore the effective- of students, analysis could explore the relationship
ness of professional development offerings for STEM between type of disability and the effectiveness of
faculty. Moon, Utschig, Todd, and Bozzorg share a support activities. It is also important to explore why
case study of a combination of in-person and web- participants and nonparticipant peers who have apti-
266 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(4)
tude and interest in STEM do not pursue these fi elds. A major challenge in evaluating institutional
Specifi cally for professional development of faculty, change is accurately measuring alterations in the
more outcomes research is needed regarding teach- number of students with disabilities on campus and
ing practices and performance of students in classes those specifi cally pursuing STEM over the course of
of trained and untrained faculty and of students in a an intervention period. Without these data, it is diffi cult
specifi c course taught before and after an instructor to know if progress is being made on an individual
receives training. campus and nationwide. Often, changes in the number
of registered users of a postsecondary institution’s dis-
Originally applied to the development of physical ability services offi ce is used to measure changes in
spaces, technology, and consumer products, universal enrollment of students with disabilities, including those
design (UD) has more recently emerged as a paradigm in STEM, on that campus. However, the number of
for the development of instruction, curriculum, and students with disabilities who choose to disclose their
assessment that addresses the needs of students with disabilities to these service units is often estimated
a wide variety of characteristics. Although UD holds at less than 50% (Smith, 2009). Further, we cannot
promise for reducing the need for disability-related assume that this group is a representative sample of
accommodations and benefi ting all students, further students with disabilities on that campus.
research is required to identify and test the effi cacy of
specifi c UD practices when applied to STEM instruc- Changes in disability services registrations is also
tion. In addition, all researchers and practitioners who an unreliable measure of success in increasing STEM
explore interventions to increase participation and/ enrollment of students with disabilities, because some
or success in STEM should be encouraged to address project interventions are likely to increase disclosure
disability-related issues within the design of the inter- numbers (e.g., recruitment of students with disabilities
ventions and reporting of the results for individuals with to an institution and to STEM degree programs) and
disabilities. For example, a research study that tests the some are likely to decrease disclosure numbers (e.g.,
effi cacy of a teaching practice on the success of women implementation of UD strategies that make STEM labs
in STEM could compare the success of women with and and instruction more accessible, offering assistive tech-
without disabilities in both intervention and comparison nology ubiquitously rather than as an accommodation
groups. Similarly, a study testing the impact of using a only for registered students with disabilities). These
technology-based teaching tool should include students numbers also do not account for how the availability
with a variety of disabilities. of personal devices impacts whether a student with a
disability registers for accommodations. For example,
STEM instructors should also consider how their receiving a cochlear implant, personal communication
courses might increase in quality by infusing the UD device, or power wheelchair may result in a STEM
philosophy within their curricula. For example, if the student no longer needing an accommodation that was
creation of software is part of an assignment in an once required; comparison data would refl ect one fewer
IT course, the instructor could require that students STEM student with a disability on campus if disability
apply UD principles as they develop their software service fi gures were used to measure change in STEM
interfaces so that they are usable by potential users enrollment of students with disabilities.
with disabilities.
To correct this problem, postsecondary institu-
Besides evaluating individual programs for stu- tions nationwide should be encouraged to collect and
dents and instructors, signifi cant efforts are needed report data on disability status that does not require
to identify best practices for campus-wide systemic self-disclosure to the disability services offi ce and
changes in policy and practice. These efforts should is collected after a student has been accepted to the
consider implications of new technologies; respec- institution. Although still subject to the limitations of
tive roles of campus units such as disability services, self-report and different understandings of what con-
teaching and learning centers, computing centers; and stitutes a “disability,” such data would include students
proliferation of modern approaches that include the with disabilities who do not require accommodations
social model of disability and UD. as well as those who do not wish to disclose during the
Burgstahler; From the Editor 267
application process because of concerns with respect Author Notes
to discrimination.
This material is based upon work supported by the
STEM participation of students with disabilities is National Science Foundation under Award #CNS-
an important and timely topic for this issue of JPED. 1042260, #HRD-0833504 and # HRD-0929006. Any
Interventions and results reported in these articles opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions or recommenda-
can teach practitioners how to choose strategies and tions expressed in this material are those of the author
evaluate them, and help researchers identify research and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the National
questions for further investigation. It is important Science Foundation.
to keep an eye on what a level playing fi eld for all
students interested in STEM would look like from
multiple angles. For example, consider what might be
the fi rst response of a professor when a student who
is quadriplegic enrolls in his science class. Would he
be preoccupied with how much of his time might be
required to implement accommodations? Or, would he
value the unique perspective this student brings to his
fi eld of study, viewing differences in physical abilities
as simply a normal part of the human experience? Not
all important outcomes are easy to measure!
About the Guest Editor
Dr. Sheryl Burgstahler is an Affi liate Professor in the
College of Education and the founder and director of
the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetwork-
ing, and Technology) and the Access Technology
Centers at the University of Washington in Seattle. Her
projects and research focus on the successful transi-
tion of students with disabilities to college and careers
and on the application of UD to technology, learning
activities, physical spaces, and student services. She
has directed many NSF-funded projects to increase the
participation of students with disabilities in STEM fi elds.
Current projects include AccessSTEM and the RDE
Collaborative Dissemination Project. Dr. Burgstahler
is lead author and editor of the book Universal Design
in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. She
publishes extensively and has taught precollege and
postsecondary mathematics and computer programming
to students and technology, UD, and teaching methods
to pre-service and in-service educators. Dr. Burgstahler
can be reached at [email protected].
268
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24(4), 269 - 283 269
Perceptions of Self-Effi cacy Among
STEM Students with Disabilities
Ronda J. Jenson
Alexis N. Petri
Arden D. Day
Kevin Z. Truman
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kate Duffy
Metropolitan Community College – Penn Valley
Abstract
Numerous studies examine the relationship between self-efficacy and positive outcomes for postsecondary students.
Collectively they echo that self-efficacy is an essential component to positive outcomes. Relatively few studies
focused on students with disabilities majoring in STEM fields. Twenty postsecondary students with disabilities
participated in focus groups organized around Bandura’s key factors leading to self-efficacy: mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological reaction. By pairing participant-response devices, com-
monly known as “clickers,” with traditional qualitative methods, students provided their individual perspectives
as well as reacted to collective responses. Several cross-cutting themes emerged from the study. Instructors set
the tone for learning and consequently highly influence confidence, motivation, anxiety and stress, and ultimately
success. Applied learning is important, especially in team settings. A student’s sense of self influences his or her
perceptions of self-efficacy. The results offer insight into designing support services and measuring self-efficacy
with this population.
Keywords: Disability, higher education, STEM, self-efficacy
Individuals with disabilities, including military Undeniably there is a gap between the number of
veterans, have talents to offer and want to have careers STEM jobs the U.S. economy requires and the number
in science, technology, engineering, or mathemat- of students who are attaining their college education
ics (STEM), but often lack necessary education for in these fi elds (National Science Board, 2004). The
employment in those fi elds. Because gaps in support persistence and retention of all students in STEM fi elds
services often create barriers for this population, a is of critical importance. A recent analysis of postsec-
variety of new, focused programs are being made ondary STEM enrollment for students with and without
available to students with disabilities, such as peer disabilities suggests 1 in 5 students with disabilities
mentoring, assistance navigating college programs choose a STEM major (Lee, 2011). Additionally, this
and systems, career exploration, and college and career same study using data from the National Longitudinal
preparation workshops. As a needs assessment for a Transition Study-2 Wave 4 (Lee, 2011) reported a lower
Midwest program focused on postsecondary students rate of students with disabilities in STEM majors ac-
with disabilities, focus groups of college students with cessing accommodations compared to students with
disabilities were conducted on the topic of self-effi cacy. disabilities in other degree programs. Yet, the range
Data gained from these focus groups are being used of access and attitudinal barriers that postsecondary
by project staff to enhance supports provided to col- students face has been well-documented (Dowrick,
lege students with disabilities, including veterans with Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Stodden & Con-
service-connected disabilities. way, 2003; Webb, Patterson, Syverud, & Seabrooks-
270 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(4)
Blackmore, 2008). These studies pose further questions to persist when faced with challenges (Bandura, 1997;
regarding retention of people with disabilities in STEM Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Mastery experiences – feel-
majors and the nature of essential supports and strate- ings of accomplishment and success when faced with
gies to support their persistence. This study focuses on challenges – are linked to resilience, perseverance,
the student perspectives of confi dence in their ability to and reduced stress imposed by daunting tasks. Vicari-
persist in postsecondary STEM studies and the factors ous experiences refer to observing others succeed and
that promote or hinder their confi dence. consequently feeling an increased sense in one’s own
Perceived self-effi cacy has been linked in the ability to similarly succeed (Bandura, 1997; Schunk
literature to numerous personal factors that in turn & Pajares, 2009). When a person sees someone like
lead to desired outcomes. Successful college students him/herself succeed, he/she in turn can feel capable of
are more motivated to work toward goals (Bandura, mastering comparable tasks. Conversely, seeing a peer
1994; Kim, Newton, Downey, & Benton, 2010; van fail can reduce a person’s sense of self-effi cacy. The
Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, in press), more resilient third way that self-effi cacy can be changed is social
when faced with challenges (Kitsantas & Zimmer- persuasion: Infl uences of others who either uplift or
man, 2009; Reynolds & Weigand, 2010), more likely decrease a person’s feelings of confi dence and judg-
to continue in their studies (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, ment of personal capabilities. Encouragement from
2009; van Dinther et al., in press), and show greater parents, teachers, and peers whom students trust can
self-determination (Getzel & Thoma, 2008). As part of boost confi dence. When one is persuaded that he/she is
an ongoing evaluation of student needs, the purpose of capable, then one is more likely to put forth and sustain
this study was to explore and describe how postsecond- greater effort. Lastly, emotional reactions can heighten
ary students with disabilities studying in STEM fi elds or diminish confi dence. Feelings of stress, tension,
perceive themselves as effi cacious. The results of this and depressed mood have physical and psychological
study describe supports and strategies reported by the effects that negatively impact performance (Bandura,
students to promote their self-effi cacy. Additionally, 1994; Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
the results provide insight into the roles of college Fortunately, self-effi cacy beliefs are malleable and,
disability support (DS) services, peer mentors, course thus, can change over time (Cervone & Peake, 1986).
instructors, and general academic support services in Because self-effi cacy is not a static personal state and is
promoting and supporting self-effi cacy. linked to positive personal outcomes, it is an important
According to Bandura (1997), perceived self- focus and worthy of observation and study. For the
effi cacy is defi ned as “belief in one’s capabilities to general population of college students majoring in the
organize and execute the courses of action required STEM fi elds, self-effi cacy arises frequently in studies
to produce given attainment” (p. 2). In the literature of persistence and retention. What STEM students
studying college persistence, this personal sense of believe about their own self-effi cacy and responsibility
confi dence in abilities has been linked to goal setting for learning are linked to their academic persistence as
and success in college (Bandura, 1997; DeWitz, Wool- well as their achievement (Eccles & Wigfi eld, 2002;
sey, & Walsh, 2009; Hsieh, Sullivan, & Guerra, 2007). Hacket, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992; Lent et al.,
Additionally, the literature suggests self-effi cacy is a 2003; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Interestingly, the role
mediating variable between cognition and performance of instructors can become enmeshed with self-effi cacy.
(Rugutt, Ellett, & Culcross, 2003). In other words, There is an increase in the literature describing effec-
while skills and knowledge are important factors tive strategies for teaching postsecondary learners with
leading to success, students need a sense of effi cacy to disabilities at both 2-year and 4-year colleges (Mori-
use their skills, access support, and engage in learning arty, 2007; Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011). The
(Bandura, 1994). act of learning at the college level is much more than
Self-effi cacy theory identifi es four contributing a reaction to effective teaching; the goal of learning
factors to students’ sense of self-effi cacy: mastery in college is helping students transform abilities into
experiences, vicarious experiences, social persua- skills and operates as a training ground for life-long
sion, and self-management of physiological reactions learning (Zimmerman, 2002). When college students
(Bandura, 1994). Prior experiences resulting in posi- attribute their achievements to the infl uence of an in-
tive outcomes can boost confi dence and willingness structor rather than their increasing ability to regulate