Making STEM Accessible to Postsecondary Students with Disabilities

Postsecondary Institutions, STEM, and Student with Disabilities
An Online Multimedia “Book”

Edited by Sheryl Burgstahler
© 2015 University of Washington

Making STEM Accessible to Postsecondary Students with Disabilities is available in HTML and PDF versions. For the HTML version, follow the table of contents below. This book can also be downloaded in PDF format.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded the Alliance for Students with Disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) since 2002 (award #HRD-0227995 and HRD-0833504). Washington State supports ongoing efforts as part of the DO-IT Center. AccessSTEM joins other projects funded by the Research and Disabilities Education program of the National Science Foundation. Consult the RDE Collaborative Dissemination for resources developed through these efforts.

We want to make sure our products are helpful and resourceful. If you have any feedback on this book, please email us at


Making STEM Accessible to Postsecondary Students with Disabilities was years in the making. It includes content developed—and routinely updated—from the earliest days of the DO-IT Center—where “DO-IT” stands for Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology. DO-IT began with our first round of funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1992. Since then, DO-IT has hosted dozens of projects funded externally by federal agencies, corporations, foundations, and private parties. Many of DO-IT’s activities continue to be funded by NSF. Current projects include AccessSTEM, AccessComputing, AccessEngineering, AccessERC, and AccessCyberlearning. You’ll notice the similarity in the titles. Most of our projects are about access—access to education at all levels, access to careers, access to technology, access to physical spaces, access to all life activities for everyone, with a particular focus on individuals with disabilities. The ultimate goal is a more inclusive society where everyone, regardless of their personal characteristics, can participate and contribute according to their abilities and interests. Consult the DO-IT website for information about specific projects along with relevant videos, publications, and other resources.

This publication pulls together resources that are particularly useful to postsecondary educators and administrators who strive to make science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities. This includes computing facilities, science and engineering labs, classrooms, makerspaces, online resources, curriculum, and instruction. Highlighted are strategies that are easy to implement when designing STEM facilities or instructional practices, as well as those that are more difficult but will yield long-term results (e.g., changing the culture of a STEM department to be more inclusive of individuals with disabilities). Although focused on postsecondary institutions, most of the content in this publication is relevant to K-12 STEM courses, labs, and programs as well.

Making STEM Accessible to Postsecondary Students with Disabilities is an online multimedia “book.” It includes links to videos and publications within the "book." The video presentations are particularly useful to those new to the field and to learners who prefer to view images related to the content and hear the perspectives of people with disabilities and practitioners regarding specific content areas.

All of the content in this publication are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Videos are captioned and audio described and publications are available in two formats, fully accessible hypertext markup language (HTML) and Portable Document Format (PDF), which is ideal for creating printed documents that can be used for individual study and presentation handouts. Each document includes permission to make multiple copies for presentation participants and for distribution in other ways. To make individual documents in print-ready format, you’ll notice that there is some repetitive content in some introductory paragraphs and in the resources and credits at the end. DO-IT documents are updated regularly and some videos are occasionally updated as well. Anytime you access this book online you will be linking to the most current version of the products.

The book contains the following chapters.

Chapter 1     Introduction

Chapter 2     Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Chapter 3     Teaching Students with Disabilities

Chapter 4     Making Services Accessible to Students with Disabilities

Chapter 5     Assistive Technology for Students with Disabilities

Chapter 6     Accessible Technology Design

Chapter 7     Access to STEM for Students with Disabilities

Chapter 8     Incorporating UD and Disability Topics Into the Curriculum

Chapter 9     Institutional Change and More Resources

This content is useful to anyone who desires to make STEM learning settings welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities. If you wish to join the effort to support that goal or if you have been in the field for many years, you are likely to  find something useful here—whether you are learning this material for the first time, prefer viewing and hearing content or reading it, wish to focus on only a few content areas or read all of the content from cover to cover, are an administrator of practitioner, are looking for videos and handouts to use in delivering a presentation or workshop, or wish to find related products or projects.

Because content included in this online book is easy to update and it is easy to add new materials, consider it a work in progress. Please share with me your recommendations for updates to individual products currently included in the book as well as for new publications or videos that would make it more complete.

Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph. D.
Director, Accessible Technology Services, including DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology) and UW Access Technology Centers
Affiliate Professor, College of Education
University of Washington, Seattle

Chapter 1: Introduction

By Sheryl Burgstahler, Editor

This chapter provides an overview of the need for interventions to increase the participation and success of individuals with disabilities in science technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); theoretical and conceptual frameworks for interventions, as well as a summary of the content included in the remaining chapters of this multimedia “book.”

Need for Interventions

To fill increasing numbers of positions in STEM, the U.S. must draw from a talent pool that includes all demographic groups, including those with disabilities (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001; Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2015; Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2006). Although increasing numbers of individuals with disabilities are attending college, with their initial interest in STEM similar to that of their nondisabled peers, they experience far less academic and career success in STEM (National Science Foundation, 2015; Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001, November), and those who are also minorities, females, and/or veterans face multiple challenges (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Freeman, 2004; Gil-Kashiwabara, Hogansen, Geenan, Powers, & Powers, 2007; Leake, et al., 2006).

However, success stories in STEM fields demonstrate that opportunities do exist for students with disabilities who successfully overcome barriers imposed by (1) inaccessible facilities, curricula, websites, technology, and student services; insufficient accommodations and supports; and others’ low expectations as well as (2) inadequate personal skills in academics and self-advocacy and access to STEM role models and peers with disabilities (DO-IT, 1993-2015; Stern, & Woods, 2001). To support NSF’s mandate to apply the best ideas from the most capable researchers and educators, efforts should be made to increase participation in STEM by citizens with disabilities. Professors, student services, and other campus units can play important roles in this effort.

The evidence base for practices of the DO-IT Center—where DO-IT stands for Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology—comes from literature reviews, student outcome data, suggestions from practitioners, and input from students with disabilities (DO-IT, (n.d.). In 2007, SRI International was commissioned to evaluate the alliance program funded by the Research in Disabilities Education (RDE) program at NSF; DO-IT’s AccessSTEM project was rated highly with respect to its organization, activities, and results. The research team concluded that the most important things participants gained from DO-IT participation with respect to transition and retention outcomes were

  • A sense of belonging (both academic and social integration),
  • Involvement (in academic and social life),
  • Sense of purpose (through internships, workshops, networking, and mentoring), and
  • Self-determination skills (skill building, and practice).

Theoretical and Philosophical Foundations for Practices

Over the course of DO-IT projects, effective student interventions were organized into a model of inputs to promote movement through critical junctures (DO-IT, n.d.)—e.g., STEM degree completion—that have also been identified by other researchers and practitioners as effective ways to bring students from underrepresented groups into STEM fields (Allen, Bonous-Hammarch, & Teranishi, 2006; Burgstahler, Bellman, & Lopez, 2004; Burgstahler & Chang, 2008, 2009; Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001; Burgstahler & Cronheim, 2001; Isakson & Burgstahler, 2008; Luecking & Fabian 2000; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Stern & Woods, 2001; Stewart, et al., 2009; Valentine, et al., 2009).

Critical Junctures flowchart

Observations of AccessSTEM staff and others suggest that:

  • students with disabilities have little access to peers and mentors with disabilities;
  • individuals face common issues as well as unique challenges related to specific disabilities;
  • both academic and non-academic (e.g., self-advocacy) issues must be addressed;
  • motivational activities are needed to recruit students without initial interests in STEM; and
  • comprehensive retention interventions produce more positive outcomes than isolated efforts.

The content presented in this publication embraces disability as a diversity issue; a social model of disability; a universal design approach in transforming technology, courses, and student services; social justice education practices to engage students with disabilities in activities that increase their success while promoting positive change on campus; and a multi-faceted view of retention. Components of this theoretical and conceptual framework are described in the paragraphs that follow.

Disability and Diversity. Traditional efforts to assist students with disabilities on campuses nationwide embrace a “medical model” of disability, in which focus is on the “deficit” of the individual and how the person can be rehabilitated or how accommodations can be made so that they can fit into an established environment and access information (Loewen & Pollard, 2010; Moriarty, 2007). In contrast, the “social model” of disability and other integrated approaches within the field of disability studies (DePoy & Gibson, 2008a; DePoy & Gibson, 2008b; Gabel & Peters, 2010) consider variations in abilities—like those with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity—a natural part of the human experience and suggest that more attention should be devoted to designing products and environments—including courses, technology, and student services—that are welcoming and accessible to everyone.

Universal Design. Universal design (UD)—defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, n.d.)—is an approach that is consistent with the social model of disability, addresses other diversity issues as well, and has the potential to reduce the need for some individual accommodations. UD challenges society to construct a world where everyone can participate with maximum independence (Loewen & Pollard, 2010).

When UD principles are applied in a postsecondary institution, educational products and environments meet the needs of potential students with a wide variety of characteristics. Disability is just one of many characteristics that a student might possess. For example, one student could be an English-language learner, six feet tall, male, thirty years old, an excellent reader, primarily a visual learner, and deaf. UD requires consideration of all characteristics of potential users, including abilities and disabilities, when developing a course or service.

UD can be applied to any product or environment. For example, a typical service counter in a career services office is not accessible to everyone, including students who are short in stature, use wheelchairs, and cannot stand for extended periods of time. Applying UD principles might result in the design of a counter that has multiple heights-the standard height designed for individuals within the typical range of height and who use the counter while standing up and a shorter height for those who are shorter than average, use a wheelchair for mobility, or prefer to interact with service staff from a seated position.

Making a product or an environment accessible to people with disabilities often benefits others. For example, automatic door openers benefit students, faculty, and staff using walkers and wheelchairs, but also benefit people carrying books and holding babies, as well as elderly citizens. Sidewalk curb cuts, designed to make sidewalks and streets accessible to those using wheelchairs, are often used by students on skateboards, parents with baby strollers, and delivery staff with carts. When television displays in restaurants, museums, and other public areas are captioned, programming is accessible not only to people who are deaf but also to others who cannot hear the audio in noisy areas.

UD is a goal that puts a high value on diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. It is also a process. Rich details about UD applications to higher education can be found the DO-IT’s Center on Universal Design in Education (n.d.) and in the book Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (Burgstahler, 2008). The following paragraphs summarize the process, principles, and applications of UD.

Process of Universal Design: The process of UD requires a macro view of the application being considered as well as a micro view of subparts of the application. The following list suggests a process that can be used to apply UD in a postsecondary setting.

  • Identify the application. Specify the product or environment to which you wish to apply universal design.
  • Define the universe. Describe the overall population (e.g., users of service), and then describe the diverse characteristics of potential members of the population for which the application is designed (e.g., students, faculty, and staff with diverse characteristics with respect to gender; age; size; ethnicity and race; native language; learning style; and abilities to see, hear, manipulate objects, read, and communicate).
  • Involve consumers. Consider and involve people with diverse characteristics (as identified in Step 2) in all phases of the development, implementation, and evaluation of the application. Also gain perspectives through diversity programs, such as the campus disability services office.
  • Adopt guidelines or standards. Create or select existing universal design guidelines or standards. Integrate them with other best practices within the field of the specific application.
  • Apply guidelines or standards. Apply universal design in concert with best practices within the field (as identified in Step 4) to the overall design of the application, all subcomponents of the application, and all ongoing operations (e.g., procurement processes, staff training) to maximize the benefit of the application to individuals with the wide variety of characteristics identified in Step 2.
  • Plan for accommodations. Develop processes to address accommodation requests (e.g., purchase of assistive technology, arrangement for sign language interpreters) from individuals for whom the design of the application does not automatically provide access.
  • Train and support. Tailor and deliver ongoing training and support to stakeholders (e.g., instructors, computer support staff, procurement officers, volunteers). Share institutional goals with respect to diversity and inclusion and practices for ensuring welcoming, accessible, and inclusive experiences for everyone.
  • Evaluate. Include universal design measures in periodic evaluations of the application; evaluate the application with a diverse group of users, and make modifications based on feedback. Provide ways to collect input from users (e.g., through online and printed instruments and communications with staff; Burgstahler, 2015).

Principles of Universal Design: At the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University, a group of architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental design researchers established seven principles of UD to provide guidance in the design of products and environments. Following are the CUD principles of UD, each paired with an example of its application:

  • Equitable use. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. For example, a website that is designed to be accessible to everyone, including people who are blind, employs this principle.
  • Flexibility in use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. An example is a museum that allows visitors to choose to read or listen to the description of the contents of a display case.
  • Simple and intuitive. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Science lab equipment with clear and intuitive control buttons is an example of an application of this principle.
  • Perceptible information. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. An example of this principle is captioned television programming projected in noisy restaurants.
  • Tolerance for error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. An example of a product applying this principle is software applications that provide guidance when the user makes an inappropriate selection.
  • Low physical effort. The design can be used efficiently, comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue. Doors that open automatically for people with a wide variety of physical characteristics demonstrate the application of this principle.
  • Size and space for approach and use. Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility. A flexible work area designed for use by employees with a variety of physical characteristics and abilities is an example of applying this principle. (Burgstahler, 2015)

Social Justice Education and Self-Determination

Social justice education is an educational philosophy committed to equity and social change, with its goals clustering around three main areas: social responsibility, student empowerment, and the equitable distribution of resources (Bell & Griffin, 1997; Loewen & Pollard, 2010). Combined with UD and the view of disability as a diversity issue, this student-centered approach is one response to the challenge of addressing the needs of students with disabilities along with members of other marginalized groups (Hackman & Rauscher, 2007) and engaging students with disabilities as agents of change as they develop their own self-determination skills (Cory, White, & Stuckey, 2010).

Self-determination skills—that allow people to take charge of their lives—are critical to postsecondary success all students with disabilities. Characteristics of postsecondary campuses that support self-determination for students with disabilities include self-determined role models, self-determination skill instruction, opportunities for students to make choices, positive relationships with others, and availability of specific support services. In addition, universal design of instruction, fosters self-determination by offering students multiple opportunities for learning (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003).


Factors impacting student retention occur within individuals, the institution, and the external community (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Tinto, 1993). Current studies reflect a shift from a focus on the student to the institution and from the general student population to “non-traditional” students (Berge & Huang, 2004). Berge and Haung (Berge & Huang, 2004) propose a holistic, customizable model of retention that encourages institutions to consider the interconnectivities among personal, institutional, and circumstantial factors.

Personal Variables

Institutional Variables

Circumstantial Variables

Demographic Variables:
age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parent educational levels/expectations


Individual Variables:
academic skills/abilities, motivation, goals, commitment


Prior Educational Experiences: record of academic achievements, prior school experiences

Bureaucratic Variables: Mission/policy, budgeting/funding, institutional awareness/participation


Academic Variables: structural/normative systems


Social Variables: social system, mechanisms for social integration

Institutional Interactions: academic/bureaucratic/ social interactions


Interactions External to Institution: life, work, family/other circumstances

Change efforts to make STEM courses and related services more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities can build on Berge and Haung’s multifaceted conceptualization of retention by employing practices that:

  • encourage commitment (on the part of students with disabilities, faculty, IT managers, student service units, and the institution).
  • enhance integration (by transforming existing services to be more inclusive of students with disabilities).
  • improve delivery systems (for both general student support services and specialized services for students with disabilities).
  • increase person-environmental fit (through systemic changes in departments, courses, labs, and student services).
  • improve outcomes (as measured by STEM degree attainment and course/service ratings of students with disabilities).

Components of a Model for Change Toward More Inclusive Practices

Review of research and practice leads to the following vision of postsecondary offerings that are responsive to the needs of STEM students with disabilities.

  • Priorities. Institution, college, and department vision, mission, and value statements reflect a high value with respect to diversity, including that defined by disability.
  • Data collection and reporting. Data collection and reporting routines reflect high priorities with respect to diversity, thus including information relevant to STEM students with disabilities.
  • UD and accommodations. All departments, courses, technology units, and student services are welcoming and accessible to all students, including those with disabilities. Their practices (with respect to planning, policies, and evaluation; physical environments and products; teaching practices; staff training; information resources and technology; and events) are designed to meet the needs of all students, specifically students with disabilities.

Systemic change efforts toward a campus environment that is more inclusive of students is particularly powerful when bottom-up strategies are combined with top-down support (Amabile, 2002; Burgstahler, 2005; Steffy, 1993; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005).

Change Management. Change can be viewed from three perspectives: The reason for change, the content of change, and the process of change (Levy & Merry, 1986). Federal legislation requiring full access to campus offerings to individuals with disabilities and increasing numbers of students with disabilities attending postsecondary institutions provide two solid external reasons for changes in practices. Content presented in the remaining chapters of this book provide additional motivations for change, such as the desire for consistent and equitable practices. Also provided is the content for change—such as universal design checklists for instruction and student services.

ADKAR: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement

The process for change can be guided by a change management model, such as the ADKAR (people-oriented model, which attempts to overcome some of the commonly-reported problems with the people dimension of change management. Change agents can align their interventions with the five ADKAR fundamental processes for promoting and sustaining change—Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement.



Awareness of the need to change. Make sure personnel understand why the desired change is needed and what will be the result of the change.

Through meetings, trainings, online communication and resources, increase knowledge and skills of faculty and staff regarding opportunities for students with disabilities in STEM fields, about the social model of disability and UD, and how their application can make courses and student services more inclusive and students with disabilities more successful.

Desire to participate and support change. Motivate personnel to make changes.

Show stakeholders how UD practices can improve teaching and technology/student services overall and be integrated into existing practices.

Knowledge of how to change (and what the change looks like). Ensure that personnel know how to make the desired change.

Meet with faculty and IT/service personnel to go through DO-IT checklists of UD strategies for instruction and/or student services (organized under categories such as planning, policies, and evaluation; instructional practices; physical environments; staff training; information resources, technology; events), rate progress (e.g., accomplished already, partially implemented, not done at all, not applicable to the unit); rate each strategy remaining with respect to (1) level of importance and (2) implantation difficulty; and use the results to help the individual or unit focus on high priority strategies, as well as “low-hanging fruit” (readily achievable changes a unit can easily make to improve accessibility). Explore ways the unit/individual will proceed with making changes.

Ability to implement the change on a day-to-day basis. Give personnel the information, resources, and training they need to implement change.

Offer training to prepare participants to apply UD and provide accommodations to computers/labs, resources, and instruction (Burgstahler, 2015); and encourage students with disabilities to pursue STEM. Help individuals/units translate ideas into goals and objectives, determine annual priorities, and record progress.

Reinforcement to keep the change in place. Implement a system to sustain the change.

Encourage campus units to integrate changes into their vision, mission, values statements; practices; and data collection and reporting routines.

Replication of the Model. There are various steps institutions might take increase the STEM interest, learning, participation, persistence, and graduation of students with disabilities:

  • Seek top-down support and engage campus leadership in determining project goals, objectives, timeline, and deliverables that are consistent with the campus vision, mission, and values. 
  • Form (1) a leadership team with representatives from the faculty and campus units that are most important for supporting the success of students with disabilities in STEM at institution, college, and department levels and (2) a leadership team of STEM students with disabilities. Develop charges, set up communication mechanisms, and timelines. Provide training, deliver tools that will empower them to be effective agents of change, and evaluate their success. Engage in activities to review and transform vision, mission, and values statements; practices; and data collection and reporting routines of relevant campus units.
  • Throughout combined efforts, engage with advocates and students with disabilities to determine which activities for students with disabilities are best hosted by mainstream campus services for all students or tailored to the unique needs for community-building and skill-building for this population.
  • Conduct an annual capacity-building institute that includes the two leadership groups and other key stakeholders. Deliver progress reports and develop proceedings with recommendations for furthering the project goal. Deliver the recommendations to appropriate campus leaders and advisory boards. Offer incentives such as capacity-building awards.
  • Conduct formative evaluation to guide the campus efforts and summative evaluation to measure outputs, outcomes, and impacts; adjust practices based on results.
  • Share lessons learned and evidence-based practices with stakeholder groups.

The remaining chapters of this multimedia "book" are described below.

Chapter 2 Experiences of Students with Disabilities—How students with disabilities view the impact of their disabilities and their experiences in educational settings

Chapter 3 Teaching Students with Disabilities—How accommodations and universal design make on-site and online education welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 4 Making Services Accessible to Students with Disabilities—How student services, departments, and the entire campus can be designed to be welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 5 Assistive Technology for Students with Disabilities—How assistive technology provides access to computers for students with disabilities

Chapter 6 Accessible Technology Design—How technology can be designed so that is accessible to everyone, including users with disabilities

Chapter 7 Access to STEM for Students with Disabilities—How STEM learning can be made welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities

Chapter 8 Incorporating UD and Disability Topics Into the Curriculum—How appropriate disability and UD content can be integrated into existing courses

Chapter 9 Institutional Changes and More Resources—How departments and institutions can become more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

Chapter 2: Experiences of Students with Disabilities

Chapter 3: Teaching Students with Disabilities

Chapter 4: Making Services Accessible to Students with Disabilities

How student services, departments, and the entire campus can be designed to be welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities.

VIEW     Equal Access: Student Services

READ     Equal Access: Student Services

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Tutoring and Learning Centers

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of Career Services

VIEW     Equal Access: Universal Design of an Academic Department

READ     Equal Access: Universal Design of an Academic Department

Chapter 5: Assistive Technology for Students with Disabilities

Chapter 6: Accessible Technology Design

Chapter 7: Access to STEM for Students with Disabilities

Chapter 8: Incorporating UD and Disability Topics Into the Curriculum

How appropriate disability and UD content can be integrated into existing courses.

READ     Universal Design of Web Pages in Class Projects

READ     WebD2: A Promising Practice in Integrating Accessibility Topics into Curriculum

Chapter 9: Institutional Change and More Resources


Allen, W., Bonous-Hammarch, M., & Teranishi, R. T. (2006). Higher education in a global society (Vol. 5). Achieving diversity, equity and excellence. (Advances in education in diverse communities: Research policy and practice). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M. (2002). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. Washington, DC: Author.

Bell, A. M., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.

Berge, Z. L., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student Dropout problem with special attention to e-learning, DEOSNEWS, 13(5).

Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research Volume XII (J. C. Smart Ed.).

Burgstahler, S., (Ed.). (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Burgstahler, S. (2006). AccessSTEM: Progress of teens with disabilities toward STEM careers: Positive inputs leading to critical junctures. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from

Burgstahler S. (Ed.). (2005). Students with disabilities and campus services: Building the team presentation and resource materials. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from

Burgstahler, S., Bellman, S., & Lopez, S. (2004). Research to practice: DO-IT prepares students with disabilities for employment. National Association of Colleges and Employers Journal, LXV(1), 27–35.

Burgstahler, S., & Chang, C. (2008). Gender differences in perceived value of components of a program to promote academic and career success for students with disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 12(1).

Burgstahler, S., & Chang, C. (2009). Promising interventions for promoting STEM fields to students who have disabilities. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 5(2), 29–47.

Burgstahler, S., Crawford, L., & Acosta, J. (2001). Transition from two-year to four-year institutions for students with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(1), 25–38.

Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the Internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 59–74.

Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Universal design history. Retrieved from

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE). (2015). Broadening participation in STEM 2013–2014 biennial report. Arlington, VA: NSF.

The Center for Universal Design in Education. Overview. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from

Broadening participation in America’s science and engineering workforce. The 2009-2010 Biennial Reports to Congress. NSF: Author.

Cory, R. C., White, J. M., & Stuckey, Z. (2010). Disability studies theory to change disability services: A case study in student activism. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 29–37.

DePoy, E., & Gibson, S. (2008a). Disability studies: Origins, current conflict, and resolution. Review of Disability Studies, 4(4), 33–40.

DePoy, E., & Gibson, S. (2008b). Healing the disjuncture: Social work disability practice. In K. M. Sowers & C. N. Dulmus (Series Eds.), & B. W. White (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and Social welfare: Volume 1, The profession of social work (pp. 267–282). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT). (1993-2009). DO-IT snapshots. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from

DO-IT. (n.d.). Evidence-based practices of DO-IT. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved August 1, 2015, from

DO-IT. (2013). Increasing the participation of students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Lessons learned and resources from NSF's RDE projects. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from

Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (eds.) (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, National Research Council Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education.

Field, S., Sarver, M., & Shaw, S. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 339–349.

Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2010). Presage of a paradigm shift: Beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.

Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Hogansen, J. M., Geenan, S., Powers, K., & Powers, L. E. (2007). Improving transition outcomes for marginalized youth. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30(2), 80–91.

Hackman, H. W., & Rauscher, L. (2007). A pathway to access for all: Exploring the connections between universal instructional design and social justice education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 114–123.

Haitt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government and our community. Loveland, CO: Prosci.

Isakson, C., & Burgstahler, S. (2008). College preparation and participation: Reports from individuals who have speech and mobility disabilities. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 4(3), 18–32.

Leake, D., Burgstahler, S., Rickerson, N., Applequist, K., Izzo, M., Arai, M., & Picklesimer, T. (2006). Literature synthesis of key issues in supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities to succeed in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 149–165.

Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York: Praeger.

Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.

Luecking, R., & Fabian, E. (2000). Paid internships and employment success for youth in transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23, 205–222.

Moriarty, M.A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(3), 252–265.

National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilites in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from

Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2001, November). Improving the availability of community-based services for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2006). American competitiveness initiative: Leading the world in innovation. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Phelps, L.A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197–226.

Steffy, B. (1993). Top-down—bottom-up: Systemic change in Kentucky. Inventing New Systems, 51(1), 42–44.

Stern, V., & Woods, M. (2001). Roadmaps and rampways. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Stewart, D., Freeman, M., Law, M., Healy, H., Burke-Gaffney, J., Forhan, M.,… Guenther, S. (2009). The best journey to adult life for youth with disabilities: An evidence-based model and best practice guidelines for the transition to adulthood for youth with disabilities. Ontario, CA: Canchild Centre for Childhood Disability Research. Retrieved from

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Valentine, J. C., Hirschy, A. S., Bremer, C. D., Novillo, W., Castellano, M., & Banister, A. (2009). Systematic reviews of research: Postsecondary transitions identifying effective models and practices. Louisville, KY: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges and Universities.