Students with disabilities (SWDs) are less likely to establish themselves successfully in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers. Researchers have identified barriers to participation in STEM, including deficits in mathematics and science, executive functioning skills, self-efficacy, and lack of exposure to STEM experiences. Researchers found students who participate in STEM clubs have higher grades in STEM content areas, have better attitudes toward school, and are more likely to graduate. This study aimed to understand student and parent perceptions about the influences and challenges to participation in STEM clubs. The researchers used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design that began with a survey, followed by focus groups and interviews with parents and SWDs. We identified four salient meta-themes regarding what influences students to join and stay in a STEM club: fun and the subject matter, social and peer interactions, parent and teacher initiative, and a “semblance of normal.” In addition, we identified meta-themes on the barriers for SWDs to join and stay in STEM clubs. These include being a good fit, having no student interest, others not making accommodations, and overwhelmed parents. The researchers conclude with implications for educators to make STEM clubs more inclusive.
AlversonC. Y.NaranjoJ. M.YamamotoS.UnruhD. K. (2010). Methods for collecting postschool outcomes data on young adults with disabilities: A literature synthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(3), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728810378680
4.
AndersenL.WardT. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence plans of the ninth-grade, high-ability students: A comparison between Black, Hispanic, and White students. Science Education, 98(2), 216–242.
5.
BashamJ. D.MarinoM. T.HuntC. L.HanK. (2020). Considering STEM for learners with disabilities and other diverse needs. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 128–137). Routledge.
6.
BergerC.DeutschN.CuadrosO.FrancoE.RojasM.RouxG.SánchezF. (2020). Adolescent peer processes in extracurricular activities: Identifying developmental opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, Article 105457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105457
7.
BittingerJ. D.WellsR. S.KimballE. W. (2019). STEM career aspirations for high school students with individualized education programs. The Education Forum, 85(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080-00131725.2020.1772928
8.
BlanchardM.GutierrezK.HabigB.GuptaP.AdamsJ. (2020). Informal STEM program learning. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 138–151). Routledge.
9.
BuckG. A.FrancisD. C.Wilkins-YelK. G. (2020). Research on gender equity in STEM education. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 289–299). Routledge.
10.
CameronR. (2016). The role of qualitative methods in mixed methods designs. In TownsendK.LoudounR.LewinD. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods on human resource management: Innovative techniques (pp. 13–19). Edward Elgar Publishing.
11.
CochranG. L.BovedaM.Prescod-WeinsteinC. (2020). Intersectionality in STEM education research. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 257–266). Routledge.
12.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.SuttonI. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities, 4(1), 67–100.
13.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.GreeneJ. C.MeadanH.SantosR. M. (2020). Mixed methods in early childhood special education research: Purposes, challenges, and guidance. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119873096
14.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.LoveH.ScottI. M. (2021). Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924030
15.
CosterW.LawM.DebellG.LiljenquistK.KaoY. C.KhetaniM.TeplickyR. (2013). School participation, supports and barriers of students with and without disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(4), 535–543.
16.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
17.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
18.
CutucacheC.BohamT.LuhrJ.SommersA.StevensonN.SointuE.Makitalo-SieglK.KärkkäinenS.ValtonenT.GrandgenettN.TapprichW. (2018). NE STEM 4U afterschool interventions leads to gains in STEM content knowledge for middle school youth. Cogent Education, 5, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1558915
19.
DeCuir-GunbyJ. T.SchutzP. A. (2017). Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical guide for beginning researchers. SAGE.
20.
DymondS. K.Rooney-KronM.BurkeM. M.AgranM. (2020). Characteristics of secondary age students with intellectual disability who participate in school-sponsored extracurricular activities. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919851194
21.
EndersonM. C.ReedP. A.GrantM. R. (2020). Secondary STEM teacher education. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 349–360). Routledge.
22.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
26.
GriffithsA. J.NashA. M.MaupinZ.MathurS. K. (2020). Her voice: Engaging and preparing girls with disabilities for science, technology, engineering, and math careers. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee/2020358223
27.
HapgoodS.CzerniakC. M.BrennemanK.ClementsD. H.DuschlR. A.FleerM.GreenfieldD.HadaniH.RomanceN.SaramaJ.SchwarzC.VanMeeterenB. (2020). The importance of early STEM education. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 87–100). Routledge.
28.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 (2004).
29.
JamesW.BustamanteC.LamonsK.ScanlonE.ChiniJ. J. (2020). Disabling barriers experienced by students with disabilities in postsecondary introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 1–20.
30.
JeannisH.JosephJ.GoldbergM.SeelmanK.SchmelerM.CooperR. A. (2018). Full-participation of students with physical disabilities in science and engineering laboratories. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(2), 186–193.
31.
JongC.PriddieC.RobertsT.MuseusS. D. (2020). Race-related factors in STEM. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 278–288). Routledge.
32.
KreiderC. M.MedinaS.SlamkaM. R. (2019). Strategies for coping with time-related and productivity challenges of young people with learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Children, 6(28), 1–13.
33.
LapanR.AoyagiM.KaysonM. (2007). Helping rural adolescents make successful postsecondary transitions: A longitudinal study. Professional School Counseling, 10, 266–272. https://doi.org/10.5330/prsc.10.3.u6j3j64h48p27w25
34.
LipscombS.HaimsonJ.LiuA. Y.BurghardtJ.JohnsonD. R.ThurlowM. L. (2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 — Volume 2: Comparisons across disability groups: Executive summary (NCEE 2017-4019). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
35.
LuftJ. A.DiamondJ. M.ZhangC.WhiteD. Y. (2020). Research on K-12 STEM professional development programs. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 361–374). Routledge.
36.
Makitalo-SieglK.KohnleC.FischerF. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on helping-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.
37.
MalteseA. V.TaiR. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. participants. Science Education Policy, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441
38.
Mohr-SchroederM. J.BushS. B.MaiorcaC.NickelsM. (2020). Moving toward an equity-based approach to STEM education. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 29–38). Routledge.
39.
MoonN. W.ToddR. L.MortonD. L.IveyE. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice from middle grades through university education. Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology.
40.
MorganD. L. (2019). Basic and advanced focus groups. SAGE.
41.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Left Coast Press.
42.
National Science Board. (2014, February). Science and engineering indicators 2014 (NAB 14-01).
43.
NesmithS. M.CooperS. (2020). Elementary STEM learning. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 101–114). Routledge.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE.
46.
PenceA. R.DymondS. K. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about the participation of students with severe disabilities in school clubs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 4, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915626009
47.
ReganE.DeWittJ. (2015). Attitudes, interest, and factors affecting STEM enrollment behavior: An overview of relevant literature. In HenriksenE. K.DillonJ.RyderJ. (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 63–88). Springer.
48.
RicciJ. M.ClevengerK. A.SellersS.DavenportS.PfeifferK. A. (2020). Associations between extracurricular activity participation and health-related variables in underrepresented children. Sports Medicine and Health Science, 2(2), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhs.2020.06.001
49.
SaldañaJ. (2016). First cycle coding methods. In SaldañaJ. (Ed.), The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.) (pp. 67–206). SAGE.
50.
SchafftK. A.JacksonA. Y. (Eds.). (2011). Rural education for the twenty-first century: Identity, place, and community in a globalizing world. Pennsylvania State University.
51.
Shannon-BakerP. (2015). “But I wanted to appear happy”: How using arts-informed and mixed methods approaches complicate qualitatively driven research on culture shock. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400204
52.
Shannon-BakerP. (2019). Three major types of mixed methods research: Qualitative oriented mixed methods research [Massive Open Online Course module]. Mixed Methods International Research Association.
53.
SnodgrassM. R.MeadanH. (2018). A boy and his AAC team: Building instructional competence across team members. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1491059
54.
SpencerK. (2017, January 22). Not all towns are created equal, digitally: How a Colorado school district struggles to give its students a technology boost [The Hechinger Report]. Teachers College, Columbia University. http://hechingerreport.org/not-all-towns-are-created-equal-digitally/
55.
StrayhornT. L. (2015). Factors influencing Black males’ preparation for college and success in STEM majors: A mixed methods study. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 39(1), 45–63. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1688657629
56.
SuhE. K.HoffmanL.ZollmanA. (2020). STEM inclusion research for English Language Learners (ELLs). In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 311–321). Routledge.
57.
TashakkoriA.JohnsonR. B.TeddlieC. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). SAGE.
YinR. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
