CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationTeaching and Learning Programming

The Invisible Participants: How Computing Education Research Fails Students with Disabilities

Open access
Morrow, Nadia S. J., Irving, Atayliya, McKenzie, Jasmine, Smith, Alaina, Gilbert, Juan E.·2025·Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Research on Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology
DOI 10.1145/3704637.3734739
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Achieving accessibility in computer science education (CSEd) requires a comprehensive approach that includes research methodologies. While accessibility research in CSEd is growing, many studies still overlook disability inclusion, often due to inaccessible methods like surveys, interviews, and focus groups. These barriers, such as unclear language or lack of accommodations, exclude students with disabilities and create gaps in findings, leading to incomplete representation. To build truly accessible learning environments, it is essential to evaluate research methodologies and their barriers. This paper calls for broadening disability inclusion beyond a niche focus, addressing inaccessible methodologies and the lack of disability demographic data. Additionally, it provides guidance on designing disability-inclusive studies and reporting demographic data ethically to ensure more inclusive and accurate research outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3704637.3734739

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Systematic approaches to embedding accessibility and diversity in both technology development and computing curricula remain rare.

    “Despite widespread calls for inclusive education, systematic approaches to embedding accessibility and diversity in both technology development and computing curricula remain rare [2, 16, 17, 26].”

    From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    Sections 1.2 and 1.3 say inaccessible computing materials remain common and curricular accessibility is often reactive rather than built in. Sections 1.5 and 2 describe accessibility being added after technologies are developed, while section 1.4 identifies gaps in addressing students with intersecting marginalized identities. The paper does not establish that systematic approaches to diversity in technology development are rare. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Systematic studies that explicitly integrate the voices and perspectives of neurodivergent people and multi-perspective evaluations are still rare.

    “Despite these positive findings, important research gaps remain: systematic studies that explicitly integrate the voices and perspectives of neurodivergent people and multi-perspective evaluations are still rare [1, 6, 26, 40].”

    From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Abstract says many computing education studies overlook disability inclusion, and the “Going Forward” section urges researchers to involve students with disabilities as co-researchers rather than only as subjects. This supports a gap in incorporating disabled students’ perspectives, but the paper does not establish that studies specifically involving neurodivergent people or multi-perspective evaluations are rare. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Offering a low-stakes oral alternative enabled the peer expert to participate and contribute.

    “Offering a low-stakes oral alternative is a UDL-consistent accommodation that enabled the peer expert to participate and contribute, rather than merely to 'unmask' [4, 20, 26].”

    From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The sections on research methods and participation support offering accessible ways for students with disabilities to participate and contribute. The paper does not describe a peer expert being offered a low-stakes oral alternative or report that such an alternative enabled their participation; that specific outcome is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 6

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Oghenemaro Anuyah, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, and Ronald Metoyer. 2023. Characterizing the Technology Needs of Vulnerable Populations for Participation in Research and Design by Adopting Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 85, 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581221 · DOI
  2. Shetay Ashford-Hanserd, Shailen Singh, Ada Muoneke, and Phillip Eaglin. 2021. Teachers' Perceptions of Barriers Influencing African American and Hispanic Students with Disabilities' Participation in K-12 Computer Science Education. In 2021 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEEE, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT51740.2021.9620628 · DOI
  3. Brianna Blaser, Cynthia Bennett, Richard E. Ladner, Sheryl E. Burgstahler, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2019. Perspectives of Women with Disabilities in Computing. In Cracking the Digital Ceiling (1 ed.), Carol Frieze and Jeria L. Quesenberry (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108609081.010 · DOI
  4. Brianna Blaser, Richard E. Ladner, and Sheryl Burgstahler. 2018. Including Disability in Diversity. In 2018 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEEE, Baltimore, MD, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2018.8491717 · DOI
  5. Bryan A. Brown, J. Bryan Henderson, Salina Gray, Brian Donovan, Shayna Sullivan, Alexis Patterson, and William Waggstaff. 2016. From description to explanation: An empirical exploration of the African-American pipeline problem in STEM: FROM DESCRIPTION TO EXPLANATION. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, 1 (Jan. 2016), 146-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21249 · DOI
  6. J. Chiu Camilo Vieira and B. Velasquez. 2024. Towards a learning progression of sequencing and algorithm design for five-and six-years-old children engaging with an educational robot. Computer Science Education 34, 4 (2024), 596-616.https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2255058 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2255058 · DOI
  7. Si Chen, Desirée Kirst, Qi Wang, and Yun Huang. 2023. Exploring Think-aloud Method with Deaf and Hard of Hearing College Students. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (DIS'23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1757-1772. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3595980 · DOI
  8. Andy Coverdale, Sarah Lewthwaite, and Sarah Horton. 2024. Digital Accessibility Education in Context: Expert Perspectives on Building Capacity in Academia and the Workplace. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 17, 2 (June 2024), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3649508 · DOI
  9. Adrienne Decker. 2019. SIGCSE announces Top 10 Paper Awards. (March 2019).https://www.acm.org/media-center/2019/march/sigcse-top-10-papers
  10. Catherine S. Fichten, Jennison V. Asuncion, Maria Barile, Vittoria Ferraro, and Joan Wolforth. 2009. Accessibility of e-Learning and Computer and Information Technologies for Students with Visual Impairments in Postsecondary Education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 103, 9 (Sept. 2009), 543-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0910300905 · DOI
  11. Jennifer George. 2022. A Strategic Approach to a Disability Inclusive Academic Department. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info- exclusion. ACM, Lisbon Portugal, 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563137.3563156 · DOI
  12. L. E. Gin, F. A. Guerrero, K. M. Cooper, and S. E. Brownell. 2020. Is Active Learning Accessible? Exploring the Process of Providing Accommodations to Students with Disabilities. CBE Life Sciences Education 19, 4 (2020), es12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-03-0049 · DOI
  13. Luke Gusukuma, Austin Cory Bart, Dennis Kafura, and Jeremy Ernst. 2018. Misconception-Driven Feedback: Results from an Experimental Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Espoo, Finland) (ICER '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3231002 · DOI
  14. Choe Haidenhofer, Laurianne Sitbon, Chris P Beaumont, Maria Hoogstrate, and Jessica L Korte. 2024. From research participant to co-researcher: Chloe's story on co-designing inclusive technologies with people with intellectual disability. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (St. John's, NL, Canada) (ASSETS '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 19, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663548.3688541 · DOI
  15. Christina N. Harrington, Aashaka Desai, Aaleyah Lewis, Sanika Moharana, Anne Spencer Ross, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2023. Working at the Intersection of Race, Disability and Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (New York, NY, USA) (ASSETS '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 26, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597638.3608389 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sarah Heckman, Jeffrey C. Carver, Mark Sherriff, and Ahmed Al-zubidy. 2021. A Systematic Literature Review of Empiricism and Norms of Reporting in Computing Education Research Literature. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 22, 1, Article 3 (Oct. 2021), 46 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3470652 · DOI
  17. Lisa C. Kaczmarczyk, Elizabeth R. Petrick, J. Philip East, and Geoffrey L. Herman. 2010. Identifying student misconceptions of programming. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA, 107-111. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734299 · DOI
  18. Richard E. Ladner and Andreas Stefik. 2017. AccessCSforall: making computer science accessible to K-12 students in the United States. SIGACCESS Access.Comput. 118 (July 2017), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3124144.3124145 · DOI
  19. Auli Lepistö and Saila Ovaska. 2004. Usability evaluation involving participants with cognitive disabilities. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Tampere, Finland) (NordiCHI '04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 305-308. https://doi.org/10.1145/1028014.1028061 · DOI
  20. Colleen M. Lewis. 2023. Examples of Unsuccessful Use of Code Comprehension Strategies: A Resource for Developing Code Comprehension Pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research -Volume 1 (Chicago, IL, USA) (ICER '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568813.3600116 · DOI
  21. Rachel Lowy, Khushi Magiawala, Shravika Mittal, Kaely Hall, Jessica Roberts, and Jennifer G Kim. 2024. Research-Education Partnerships: A Co-Design Classroom for College Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW2, Article 511 (Nov. 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687050 · DOI
  22. Stephanie Lunn, Leila Zahedi, Monique Ross, and Matthew Ohland. 2021. Exploration of Intersectionality and Computer Science Demographics: Understanding the Historical Context of Shifts in Participation. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 21, 2, Article 10 (March 2021), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3445985 · DOI
  23. Kelly Mack. 2022. Accessible Communication and Materials in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Athens Greece, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3550408 · DOI
  24. Lilach Marom and Jennifer Hardwick. 2024. From access to inclusion: a call for a cultural shift in higher education. Higher Education (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01233-x · DOI
  25. Emma J. McDonnell, Kelly Avery Mack, Kathrin Gerling, Katta Spiel, Cynthia L. Bennett, Robin N. Brewer, Rua Mae Williams, and Garreth W. Tigwell. 2023. Tackling the Lack of a Practical Guide in Disability-Centered Research. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (New York, NY, USA) (ASSETS '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 106, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597638.3615650 · DOI
  26. Irina Nikivincze and Julie Ancis. 2018. Accessible but not usable: Improving practices for surveying people with disabilities. In 2018 RESNA Conference, CrystalCity,Virginia. https://resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2018/cac/Nikivincze. html.
  27. Mohd Kamal Othman, Syazni Jazlan, Fatin Afiqah Yamin, Shaziti Aman, Fitri Suraya Mohamad, Nurfarahani Norman Anuar, Abdulrazak Yahya Saleh, and Ahmad Azaini Abdul Manaf. 2023. Mapping Computational Thinking Skills Through Digital Games Co-Creation Activity Amongst Malaysian Sub-urban Children. Journal of Educational Computing Research 61, 2 (2023), 355-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221121106 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221121106 · DOI
  28. Isabel Ruthotto, Quintin Kreth, Jillian Stevens, Clare Trively, and Julia Melkers. 2020. Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education 151 (July 2020), 103854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103854 · DOI
  29. Kristen Shinohara, Mick McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2021. The Burden of Survival: How Doctoral Students in Computing Bridge the Chasm of Inaccessibility. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445277 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Melinda R Snodgrass, Maya Israel, and George C Reese. 2016. Instructional supports for students with disabilities in K-5 computing: Findings from a cross case analysis. Computers & Education 100 (2016), 1-17.
  31. Valerie Taylor and Richard Ladner. 2011. Data trends on minorities and people with disabilities in computing. Commun. ACM 54, 12 (Dec. 2011), 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/2043174.2043187 · DOI
  32. Filippo Trevisan. 2021. Making focus groups accessible and inclusive for people with communication disabilities: a research note. Qualitative Research 21, 4 (2021), 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120941846 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120941846 · DOI
  33. Ashok Kumar Veerasamy, Daryl D'Souza, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2016. Identifying Novice Student Programming Misconceptions and Errors From Summative Assessments. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45, 1 (2016), 50-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515627263 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515627263 · DOI

Authors
Morrow, N. S. J., Irving, A., McKenzie, J., Smith, A., & Gilbert, J. E.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Research on Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology
Publisher
ACM
Published
2025-07-14
Pages
115-121
DOI
10.1145/3704637.3734739
OpenAlex
W4413418837
Cited by
6
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1
FWCI
7.35
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
disability inclusion, accessibility, computer science education, students with disabilities, underrepresentation in research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review