Scholarlink

Background <p>The purpose of this scoping review is to describe how the literature has discussed and studied disability in undergraduate-level STEM courses in the United States. A Critical Disability Studies lens informed our inclusion criteria.</p> Results <p>We considered extensive lists of disability types and diagnoses and concluded that “disability” as a search term best captured educational experiences rather than medical approaches. After screening nearly 9000 abstracts, we identified a final set of 409 dissertations, articles, conference papers, commentaries, briefs and news items. Sources appeared in discipline-based education research (DBER), STEM disciplinary and education journals as well as DBER conferences. Under 10% of sources included 2-year college settings. The largest groups of sources focused on disability writ large (39%, vs. specific categories) and across STEM (38%, vs. specific disciplines). Students were the main research participants (80%). Instructors were the main target of recommendations (84%). In terms of solutions, the largest group (<i>n</i> = 111) advocated for Universal Design, followed by accommodations (<i>n</i> = 94), and technology developed or tested with persons with disabilities (<i>n</i> = 90). Sources which the authors framed as empirical studies less frequently disclosed positionality as a person with a disability (16%) than non-empirical sources (21%). Quantitative (<i>n</i> = 125), qualitative (<i>n</i> = 99), and mixed methods (<i>n</i> = 64) approaches were well-represented. The most common data collection methods were surveys, assessments or task completions (<i>n</i> = 161 sources), followed by interviews (<i>n</i> = 109), observations (<i>n</i> = 44), document analyses (<i>n</i> = 18), and institutional student records (<i>n</i> = 14).</p> Conclusions <p>More research is needed that centers the experiences of students with disabilities, focuses on specific disability types, employs critical quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and otherwise avoids implicit deficit views of disabled students. Citations to the qualifying sources are available in a public Zotero library.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A scoping review on U.S. undergraduate students with disabilities in STEM courses and STEM majors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月16日

查看全文
  • Maura Borrego,
  • Ariel Chasen,
  • Hannah Chapman Tripp,
  • Emily Landgren,
  • Elisa Koolman

摘要

Background

The purpose of this scoping review is to describe how the literature has discussed and studied disability in undergraduate-level STEM courses in the United States. A Critical Disability Studies lens informed our inclusion criteria.

Results

We considered extensive lists of disability types and diagnoses and concluded that “disability” as a search term best captured educational experiences rather than medical approaches. After screening nearly 9000 abstracts, we identified a final set of 409 dissertations, articles, conference papers, commentaries, briefs and news items. Sources appeared in discipline-based education research (DBER), STEM disciplinary and education journals as well as DBER conferences. Under 10% of sources included 2-year college settings. The largest groups of sources focused on disability writ large (39%, vs. specific categories) and across STEM (38%, vs. specific disciplines). Students were the main research participants (80%). Instructors were the main target of recommendations (84%). In terms of solutions, the largest group (n = 111) advocated for Universal Design, followed by accommodations (n = 94), and technology developed or tested with persons with disabilities (n = 90). Sources which the authors framed as empirical studies less frequently disclosed positionality as a person with a disability (16%) than non-empirical sources (21%). Quantitative (n = 125), qualitative (n = 99), and mixed methods (n = 64) approaches were well-represented. The most common data collection methods were surveys, assessments or task completions (n = 161 sources), followed by interviews (n = 109), observations (n = 44), document analyses (n = 18), and institutional student records (n = 14).

Conclusions

More research is needed that centers the experiences of students with disabilities, focuses on specific disability types, employs critical quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and otherwise avoids implicit deficit views of disabled students. Citations to the qualifying sources are available in a public Zotero library.