To aid in the development of a globally competitive workforce, federal policymakers have expressed the priority of preparing students and adults with disabilities to succeed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Yet, no research has examined the extent to which information-processing, literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills in technologically rich environments may associate with having a STEM degree for various disability populations. This study analyzed the United States nationally representative data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) to examine associations between adult skills and having a STEM degree for people with and without disabilities. No direct associations were found between adult skills and having a STEM degree for people with learning disabilities or for people without disabilities. These groups’ information processing, literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills were not determining factors in STEM degree attainment. However, findings suggest a significant association between problem-solving skills and having a STEM degree for people with visual and/or hearing impairments. Policy implications are discussed.
AdelmanC (2006) The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College. US Department of Education. ERIC.
2.
AlstonRJHamptonJL (2000) Science and engineering as viable career choices for students with disabilities: a survey of parents and teachers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin43(3): 158–164.
3.
AunioPKorhonenJRagpotL, et al. (2021) An early numeracy intervention for first-graders at risk for mathematical learning difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly55: 252–262.
4.
BellECSilvermanAM (2018) The impact of attitudes and access to mentors on the interest in STEM for teens and adults who are blind.
5.
BettencourtGKimballEWellsRS (2018) Disability in postsecondary STEM learning environments: what faculty focus groups reveal about definitions and obstacles to effective support. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability31(4).
6.
Blatto-ValleeGKellyRRGaustadMG, et al. (2007) Visual–spatial representation in mathematical problem solving by deaf and hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education12(4): 432–448.
7.
BraunDCClarkMDMarchutAE, et al. (2018) Welcoming deaf students into STEM: Recommendations for university science education. CBE—Life Sciences Education17(3): es10.
8.
BurgstahlerS (1994) Increasing the representation of people with disabilities in science, engineering, and mathematics. Information Technology and Disability1(4): 4.
9.
BurkamDTLeeVE (2003) Mathematics, Foreign Language, and Science Coursetaking and the NELS: 88 Transcript Data. Working Paper No. 2003-01. National Center for Education Statistics. ERIC.
10.
BurrelliJ (2007) What the Data Show about Students with Disabilities in STEM. Manoa, HI: National Science Foundation.
11.
CaudillSB (1988) An advantage of the linear probability model over probit or logit. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics50(4): 425–427.
12.
ChrysochoouMZaghiAESyharatCM, et al. (2021) Redesigning engineering education for neurodiversity: new standards for inclusive courses. In: 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2021.
13.
CohenJ (1992) Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. In: Psychological Bulletin, 1992. Citeseer.
14.
CohenPWestSGAikenLS (2014) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Psychology press.
Committee on STEM Education (2018) Charting a Course for Success: america’s Strategy for STEM Education. December. National Science and Technology Council.
18.
CoxDR (1972) Regression models and life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)34(2): 187–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x.
19.
CsikszentmihalyiMSchneiderB (2001) Becoming Adult: How Teenagers Prepare for the World of Work. Basic Books.
DuekerSADayJM (2020) Using standardized assessment to identify and teach prerequisite numeracy skills to learners with disabilities using video modeling. Psychology in the Schools59(4).
22.
DunnCRabrenKSTaylorSL, et al. (2012) Assisting students with high-incidence disabilities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic48(1): 47–54. DOI: 10.1177/1053451212443151.
23.
EcclesJ (1983) Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. Achievement and Achievement Motives. Freeman.
24.
EcclesJSWigfieldA (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology53(1): 109–132. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
25.
FeinbergIGreenbergDFrijtersJ (2015) Understanding health information seeking behaviors of adults with low literacy, numeracy, and problem solving skills: Results from the 2012 US PIAAC study. US PIAAC Study.
26.
FriedensenRLauterbachAKimballE, et al. (2021) Students with high-incidence disabilities in STEM: barriers Encountered in postsecondary learning environments. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability34(1): 77–90.
27.
GoodmanMFinneganRMohadjerL, et al. (2013) Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments Among US Adults: Results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies 2012. First Look. NCES 2014-008. National center for education statistics. ERIC.
GormallyCBrickmanPHallarB, et al. (2009) Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International journal for the scholarship of teaching and learning3(2): n2.
30.
HanushekEASchwerdtGWiederholdS, et al. (2015) Returns to skills around the world: evidence from PIAAC. European Economic Review73: 103–130.
31.
HatfieldDShafferDW (2006) Press Play: Designing an Epistemic Game Engine for Journalism. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
32.
HatwellYMartinez-SarrochiF (2003) The tactile reading of maps and drawings, and the access of blind people to works of art. Touching for Knowing: 255–273.
33.
HedrickBDizenMCollinsK, et al. (2010) Perceptions of college students with and without disabilities and effects of STEM and non-STEM Enrollment on student engagement and institutional involvement. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability23(2): 129–136.
34.
HewettRKeilSDouglasG (2015) Experiences of blind and partially sighted young people as they make the transition into Higher Education. Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research, University of Birmingham.
35.
HewettRDouglasGMcLindenM, et al. (2017) Developing an inclusive learning environment for students with visual impairment in higher education: progressive mutual accommodation and learner experiences in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Special Needs Education32(1): 89–109.
36.
HewettRDouglasGMcLindenM, et al. (2020) Balancing inclusive design, adjustments and personal agency: progressive mutual accommodations and the experiences of university students with vision impairment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Inclusive Education24(7): 754–770.
37.
Institute of Educational Sciences (2016) The Condition of Education 2016. 2016–144. U.S. Department of Education.
38.
IsaacsonMDSchleppenbachDLloydL (2014) Increasing STEM accessibility in students with print disabilities through MathSpeak. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities14(1): 3.
39.
JitendraAKStarJR (2011) Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in inclusive mathematics classrooms: the role of schema-based instruction on mathematical problem-solving. Theory into Practice50(1): 12–19.
40.
KantowskiMG (1977) Processes involved in mathematical problem solving. Journal for research in mathematics education8(3): 163–180.
41.
KennedyMJWexlerJ (2013) Helping students succeed within secondary-level STEM content: using the “T” in STEM to improve literacy skills. Teaching Exceptional Children45(4): 26–33.
42.
KirchnerCSmithB (2005) Transition to what? Education and employment outcomes for visually impaired youths after high school. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness99(8): 499–504.
43.
LangHG (2002) Higher education for deaf students: research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education7(4): 267–280.
44.
LeddyMH (2010a) Broadening the Participation of People with Disabilities in Health-Related Research. 22 January. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Advisory Council.
45.
LeddyMH (2010b) Technology to advance high school and undergraduate students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Special Education Technology25(3): 3–8.
46.
LeeC (2021) Information processing and moral problem solving. Computational Economics57(3): 911–922.
47.
LeeVEFrankKA (1990) Students’ characteristics that facilitate the transfer from two-year to four-year colleges. Sociology of Education. JSTOR: 178–193.
48.
LovettBJNelsonJMLindstromW (2015) Documenting hidden disabilities in higher education: analysis of recent guidance from the association on higher education and disability (AHEAD). Journal of Disability Policy Studies26(1): 44–53. DOI: 10.1177/1044207314533383.
49.
LucknerJLMcNeillJH (1994) Performance of a group of deaf and hard-of-hearing students and a comparison group of hearing students on a series of problem-solving tasks. American Annals of the Deaf: 371–377.
50.
MannDRWittenburgDC (2015) Starting behind: wage and employment differentials between young adults with and without disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies26(2): 89–99. DOI: 10.1177/1044207315583898.
51.
MarinoMT (2009) Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality17(2): 88–102.
52.
MarinoMTGotchCMIsraelM, et al. (2014) UDL in the middle school science classroom: can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly37(2): 87–99.
53.
MarscharkMEverhartVS (1999) Problem-solving by deaf and hearing students: Twenty questions. Deafness and Education International1(2): 65–82.
54.
MauW-CJ (2016) Characteristics of US students that pursued a STEM major and factors that predicted their persistence in degree completion. Universal Journal of Educational Research4(6): 1495–1500.
55.
McComasWF (2014) 21st century skills. In: The Language of Science Education. Brill, pp. 1–110.
National Science Board (2010) Appendix Table 2-35: First university degrees, by selected region and country/economy: 2006 or most recent year, science and engineering indicators 2010 (NSB 10-1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/appendix
58.
National Science Foundation (2002) NSF’s Program for Persons with Disabilities: A Decade of Innovation and Progress. NSF 02-094. National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02094/nsf02094.pdf (accessed 7 October 2022).
59.
National Science Foundation (2021) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021. Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/(accessed 21 November 2021).
60.
NewellASimonHA (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
OkrentABurkeA (2021) The Stem Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers. Alexandria, VA: National Science Board. Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212 (accessed 7 October 2022).
66.
PagliaroCM (2015) Developing numeracy in individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. In: KnoorsHMarscharkM (eds) Educating Deaf Learners: Creating a Global Evidence Base. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–195.
67.
PIAAC Expert Group in Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments (2009) PIAAC Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments: A Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Papers 36, OECD Education Working Papers, 20 November. DOI: 10.1787/220262483674.
68.
PIAAC Literacy Expert Group (2009) PIAAC Literacy: A Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Papers 34, OECD Education Working Papers, 20 November. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/220348414075.
69.
PIAAC Numeracy Expert Group (2009) PIAAC Numeracy: A Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Papers 35, OECD Education Working Papers, 24 November. DOI: 10.1787/220337421165.
70.
Rappolt-SchlichtmannGDaleySGLimS, et al. (2013) Universal Design for Learning and elementary school science: exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal of educational psychology105(4): 1210.
71.
Riegle-CrumbC (2006) The path through math: course sequences and academic performance at the intersection of race-ethnicity and gender. American Journal of Education113(1): 101–122.
72.
RuleACStefanichGPHaselhuhnCW, et al. (2009) A working conference on students with disabilities in STEM coursework and careers. Online Submission. ERIC.
73.
SahinA (2013) STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research14(1): 5–11.
74.
SalzmanH (2013) What shortages? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues in Science and Technology29(4). JSTOR: 58–67.
75.
SchmidtJARosenbergJMBeymerPN (2018) A person‐in‐context approach to student engagement in science: examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching55(1): 19–43.
76.
SchneiderBKirstMHessFM (2003) Strategies for success: high school and beyond. Brookings Papers on Education Policy (6): 55–93.
77.
Schreiber-BarschSCurdtWGundlachH (2020) Whose voices matter? Adults with learning difficulties and the emancipatory potential of numeracy practices. ZDM52(3): 581–592.
78.
SmithSMBlankenshipSE (1991) Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. The American journal of psychology. 104: 61–87.
79.
SoldnerMRowan-KenyonHInkelasKK, et al. (2012) Supporting students’ intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: the role of living-learning programs among other social-cognitive factors. The Journal of Higher Education83(3): 311–336.
80.
SupaloCAMalloukTEAmorosiC, et al. (2009) Using adaptive tools and techniques to teach a class of students who are blind or low-vision. Journal of Chemical Education86(5): 587.
81.
SupaloCAIsaacsonMDLombardiMV (2014) Making hands-on science learning accessible for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Chemical Education91(2): 195–199.
82.
TaborPDDibleyDHackenbergAJ, et al. (2020) Numeracy for All Learners: Teaching Mathematics to Students with Special Needs. Sage.
83.
TinklinTRiddellSWilsonA (2004) Disabled students in higher education: A Centre for Higher Educational Sociology (CES) Briefing. Centre for Educational Sociology. Available at: http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF_Files/Brief032.pdf
84.
TwymanTTindalG (2006) Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology21(2): 5–16.
U.S. Department of Education (2017) Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. NETP17. Available at: https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf (accessed 8 October 2022).
89.
Van ScoyFMcLaughlinDFullmerA (2005) Auditory augmentation of haptic graphs: developing a graphic tool for teaching precalculus skill to blind students. In: Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display, 2005. Citeseer.
90.
Von DavierMGonzalezEMislevyR (2009) What are plausible values and why are they useful. IERI Monograph Series2(1): 9–36.
91.
WestM (2012) STEM Education and the Workplace. Office of the Chief Scientist Canberra.
92.
WigfieldA (1994) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review6(1): 49–78.
93.
WigfieldAEcclesJS (2000) Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology25(1): 68–81.
94.
WigfieldATonksSKlaudaSL (2009) Expectancy-Value Th eory. In: Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, pp. 69–90.
95.
XueYLarsonRC (2015) STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly labor review 2015. NIH Public Access.
96.
ZimmermanBJRingleJ (1981) Effects of model persistence and statements of confidence on children’s self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology73(4): 485.
97.
ZollmanA (2012) Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics112(1): 12–19.
