This article describes a framework for how to provide more accessible, relevant, and effective instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to all students. The STEM FOR ALL initiative asserts that all students, including those with disabilities and other diverse learning needs, should be included in meaningful STEM education and develop expertise in STEM areas as well as 21st century skills associated with STEM learning. This framework is described through the lens of Bronfrenbrenner's (1977, 1994) ecological model, which provides a mechanism for understanding the interconnected and complex interactions that occur across multiple systems (e.g., policy makers, curriculum developers, teachers, and students) within the current STEM education infrastructures. Examples and lessons learned from the Furthering Urban STEM Innovation, Outreach, & New Research(UC|FUSION) research and outreach STEM center illustrate how the model is currently applied in Ohio schools and how it could be adapted to other local, regional, and national STEM FOR ALL initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldiS.JinY.SkemerM.GreenP. J.HergetD. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (NCES 2008-016). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
2.
BashamJ. D.MeyerH.PerryE. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 339–359.
3.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G. (2007). Increasing young children's oral vocabulary repertories through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107, 251–271.
4.
BergerudD.LovittT. C.HortonS. (1988). The effectiveness of textbook adaptations in life science for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 70–76.
5.
BronfenbrennerU. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 515–532.
6.
BronfenbrennerU. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Elsevier. (Reprinted from GauvainM.ColeM., Eds. Readings on the development of children, 2nd ed., pp. 37–43, by GauvainM.ColeM., Eds., 1993, New York, NY: Freeman)
7.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.HammillD. O. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177.
CawleyJ. F.HaydenS.CadeE.Baker-KroczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
10.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S. (2001). Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17(2), 105–125.
11.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2008). Universal Design for Learning guidelines, Version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
12.
ChristensenC. M.HornM. B.JohnsonC. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
13.
CrockettJ. B. (2004). Taking stock of science in the schoolhouse: Four ideas to foster effective instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 189–199.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. W.E.B. DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1, 213–246.
15.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
EdyburnD. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41.
18.
GlaserC.RiethH. J.KinzerC. K.ColburnJ. K.PeterJ. (1999). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Education Technology, 14(2), 27–43.
19.
GrovesF. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 231–235.
KaufmanD.MossD. M.OsbornT. A. (2003). Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to learning and teaching. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
22.
KurttsS. A.MatthewsC. E.SmallwoodT. (2009). (Dis)Solving the differences: A physical science lesson using universal design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(3), 151–160.
23.
Langley-TurnbaughS. J.WilsonG.LovewellL. (2009). Increasing the accessibility of science for all students. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 13, 1–8.
24.
LawrenzF.HuffmanD.ThomasK. (2006). Synthesis of STEM education evaluation ideas. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 105–108.
25.
LeeM.ErdoganI. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327.
26.
MarinoM. (2010). Defining a technology research agenda for elementary and secondary students with learning and other higher incidence disabilities in inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(1), 1–27.
National Academies of Science, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
29.
National Academies of Science, Committee on Science Learning K–8. (2007). Taking Science to School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
34.
National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
38.
RubinJ.ChisnellD. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
39.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(2), 163–173.
40.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.OkoloC. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–25.
41.
StanfordB.ReevesS. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, Plus, 5(6), Article 4. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss6/art4.
42.
VaughnS.BosC. S.SchummJ. S. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at risk students in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
WigginsG. P.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
44.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.
