Search Results
Author: Gottfried, Michael A.
Resulting in 1 citation.
| 1. |
Gottfried, Michael A. Bozick, Robert Rose, Ernest Moore, Ravaris L. |
|
Does Career and Technical Education Strengthen the STEM Pipeline? Comparing Students With and Without Disabilities Journal of Disability Policy Studies 26,4 (March 2016): 232-244. Also: http://dps.sagepub.com/content/26/4/232.abstract Cohort(s): NLSY97 Publisher: Sage Publications Keyword(s): College Major/Field of Study/Courses; Disability; High School Curriculum; STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) Permission to reprint the abstract has not been received from the publisher. Despite the strategic investment of the Perkins IV legislation to promote a broader application of career and technical education (CTE) to all students, it is unclear whether these initiatives distinctively support the needs of students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields of study. This is a critical lapse in the research, as knowing the efficacy of CTE experiences in promoting the STEM pipeline will be important for policy makers as they consider new or revised educational policies to support the pursuit and persistence of students with disabilities into STEM fields. This study evaluates whether two CTE experiences (applied STEM course taking and school-based experiential programs) in high school differentially predict the declaration of STEM college majors for students with and without disabilities. Assessing nationally representative data, the analyses suggest that CTE experiences consisting of applied STEM courses and school-based experiential programs may both be sufficient to move through the STEM pipeline for students in the general population, but both are insufficient for supporting students with disabilities. |
|
|
Bibliography Citation
Gottfried, Michael A., Robert Bozick, Ernest Rose and Ravaris L. Moore. "Does Career and Technical Education Strengthen the STEM Pipeline? Comparing Students With and Without Disabilities." Journal of Disability Policy Studies 26,4 (March 2016): 232-244.
|