Federal legislation requires equitable access to education for all students at all levels, including in the postsecondary setting. While there have been a few studies in the chemistry education research literature base focused on how to support students with specific disabilities, this work seems to exist as a separate stream of research without direct impact on curriculum development and the overall community. This study focused on investigating how well three sets of general chemistry curricular materials support variations in students’ abilities, interests, and needs. To accomplish this, we compared the curricular materials with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, which describes steps to account for variations in ability among learners during curriculum development. The UDL framework is organized into three guidelines (multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement), further delineated by nine principles and thirty-one finer-grained checkpoints for designing courses. We looked for examples of enactment of the UDL checkpoints in a representative sample of activities. Across all three sets of curricular materials, only four of the thirty-one checkpoints were enacted in at least 75% of the activities, indicating high enactment. On the other hand, eleven of the checkpoints were enacted in less than 25% of the activities, indicating low enactment. Overall, there is much room for improvement in consistently providing support for learner variation within these general chemistry curricular materials. We argue that some of the burden of making curricular materials supportive of all students lies with curriculum developers and provide recommendations for improving support and accessibility.

Educators and education researchers in postsecondary physics have rarely centered (i.e., intentionally directed attention to) the experiences of students with disabilities, leading to an instructional environment that is not designed to support students with disabilities. In this study, we interviewed five students who identified with the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and were enrolled in introductory physics courses at a public four-year institution. We framed our investigation with a social relational perspective of disability, which posits that an individual's impairments (referred to as diagnosis characteristics in this paper) interact with social structures to result in disabling barriers (i.e., characteristics of social structures which prevent equal access for individuals with disabilities). We analyzed interview transcripts with interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). We found that the participating students discussed diagnosis characteristics including difficulties with focus, being prone to distractions, difficulties with keeping mental track of tasks and structures, and thinking often about abstract concepts. Diagnosis characteristics identified as challenges could result in negative selfperceptions, possibly as a result of internalized ableism. However, students also expressed that understanding their diagnosis led to benefits such as making more informed choices about their study strategies (e.g., using a planner or chunking their studying time). In alignment with our social relational perspective of disability, we found that course design could support or hinder participants' ability to use their preferred planning or studying strategies. We also found that students experienced increased barriers in their physics courses compared to other courses, specifically due to the increased time needed to process information and a lack of guidance for how to effectively study content for conceptual understanding. SCALE-UP courses introduced supports due to increased student autonomy but could also introduce barriers due to increased distractions. We present recommendations that instructors can implement to increase course supports. Researchers need to continue to center the experiences of students with disabilities in STEM courses so that researchers and practitioners can identify disciplinarily specific strategies to support student engagement and learning.

Federal legislation specifies equitable access to education for all students at all levels of education, including postsecondary. To explore how well the physics education research (PER) community is currently serving students who inherently vary in needs, abilities, and interests, four research-based curricula (Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking, Physics by Inquiry, and Next Generation Physical Science and Everyday Thinking) were compared with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. This framework originates in the education literature base and is composed of 3 guiding principles (1. Provide multiple means of representation, 2. provide multiple means of action and expression, and 3. provide multiple means for engagement) further described by 9 principles and 31 checkpoints. The UDL guidelines provide a framework for designing courses to be supportive of and accessible to all learners, taking into account variations among learners during curriculum development. Activities in these four curricula were analyzed for alignment between the in-class curricular elements and the UDL guidelines. Overall, all of the curricula aligned with two of the checkpoints: foster collaboration and community and support planning and strategy development. However, the curricula were unaligned with many of the checkpoints, specifically with regards to providing multiple means of engagement. Who we are prepared to teach indicates who we expect to participate in the physics community. We propose suggestions for modifications to existing curricula and for future curricula to better support all learners. We also argue that, if these research-based curricula do not meet federal legislative guidelines about accessibility for all students, the burden of creating an accessible environment and complying with these federal laws falls on the instructors, which could deter them from using the curricula. If we as a community want instructors to use high quality, research-based curricula, curriculum developers should prioritize supporting all learners.

Recently, the National Research Council's framework for next generation science standards highlighted "computational thinking" as one of its "fundamental practices". 9 th Grade students taking a physics course that employed the Modeling Instruction curriculum were taught to construct computational models of physical systems. Student computational thinking was assessed using a proctored programming assignment, written essay, and a series of think-aloud interviews, where the students produced and discussed a computational model of a baseball in motion via a high-level programming environment (VPython). Roughly a third of the students in the study were successful in completing the programming assignment. Student success on this assessment was tied to how students synthesized their knowledge of physics and computation. On the essay and interview assessments, students displayed unique views of the relationship between force and motion; those who spoke of this relationship in causal (rather than observational) terms tended to have more success in the programming exercise.