Investigating Final Course Grades of Undergraduate Students with Disabilities in Large, Introductory STEM and Non‐STEM Courses
Authors: Goodwin Michael 
Published: May 2022

The main objective of this study was to compare trends in final course grades earned by undergraduate students with disabilities (DSS) with those earned by students without disabilities (non‐DSS) across various large enrollment, introductory science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses, and non‐STEM courses. It was hypothesized that a larger proportion of DSS students in both STEM and non‐STEM courses would earn lower grades compared to non‐DSS students. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that grades earned by DSS students between STEM and non‐STEM courses would be similar. Finally, it was hypothesized that a higher proportion of DSS students in anatomy would earn lower grades compared to non‐DSS students, and that the proportion of grades earned by DSS students in anatomy would be similar to DSS students in other STEM courses broadly.

Quantitative analysis involved using learning analytics to examine trends in final course grades earned. Retrospective de‐identified data was obtained for undergraduate students enrolled at Indiana University – Bloomington between Fall 2014‐Spring 2020 who either had or had not identified to the university as having a disability. Final course grades were compared across twelve large, introductory STEM courses, and six large, introductory non‐STEM courses.

The following results were observed:

1) DSS students in both STEM and non‐STEM courses were less likely to earn an A compared to non‐DSS students. The proportion of DSS students earning other grades in STEM and non‐STEM courses were similar to non‐DSS students. However, DSS students in both types of courses were twice as likely to withdraw from a course.

2) The proportion of DSS students enrolled in STEM courses who earned an A was less than half of that seen for DSS students enrolled in non‐STEM courses. DSS students enrolled in STEM courses were also less likely to earn a B, and approximately twice as likely to earn a C, D, F, or withdraw from a course compared to DSS students in non‐STEM courses.

3) Compared to non‐DSS students, DSS students enrolled in anatomy were less likely to earn an A, less than half as likely to earn a B, and more likely to earn a C or D. The proportion of DSS students who withdrew from anatomy was more than twice that of non‐DSS students.

4) Grades earned by DSS students in anatomy followed a bimodal distribution compared to a normal distribution across other STEM courses broadly. A greater proportion of DSS students enrolled in anatomy achieved an A compared to DSS students in other STEM courses broadly. They were also more likely to earn a C or D, but less than half as likely to earn a B. The proportion of DSS students earning an F or withdrawing from anatomy was similar to other STEM courses broadly.

Altogether, these observations suggest that while DSS students are less likely to earn higher grades in both STEM and non‐STEM courses compared to non‐DSS students, the effect is exacerbated for DSS students enrolled in STEM courses and demands further attention. Potential reasons for the bimodal grade distribution seen for DSS students in anatomy compared to other STEM courses broadly should also be probed further in order to understand why these students are more likely to earn either a higher or lower grade.