Review Reports - Freshman Experiences Among Neurodivergent Students Following a STEM-Focused High School-to-College Transition Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review “Freshman Experiences Among Neurodivergent Students: Following a STEM-Focused High School-to-College Transition Program.” The manuscript discusses a qualitative study that involved interviewing college students with disabilities who participated in a transition program in high school. The results address the students’ experiences in their first semester in college and their perspectives on the impact of the transition program. Overall, I believe the results could be strengthened to clarify answers to each of the research questions. Additionally, the discussion could be strengthened to address the specific ways this study added to the literature; there is little mention of the other research that has already investigated (a) factors that lead to increased postsecondary enrollment and success for students with disabilities and (b) other transition programs that address college preparation, self-advocacy, and support. I offer the additional specific recommendations:

Abstract, introduce abbreviations

Line 25, “fewer”

Line 33, clarify what is meant by “enter the workforce.” Does this just mean more college equals higher rates of employment per the report?

Lines 47-48, clarify what is meant by “not all high schools provide transition supports for SWDs.” Are schools not complying with IDEA (2004) in the development of the transition component of IEPs? Or are schools not providing adequate/high-quality support per expert recommendations? What transition services should be provided to increase college enrollment/persistence and decrease bullying and physical/mental health problems?

Line 61, missing a period.

Lines 70-72, are these under-/over-representations for SWDs larger than the under-/over-representations for the general population related to race/gender?

Line 76, what is meant by “scaffolding supports”? Who is providing these supports, the high school, the college, both, others?

Lines 95-97, since the transition program included SWDs beyond just ASD, this section could be broadened. Additional literature addressing transition for students with LD, ADHD, and physical impairments could bolster this section.

Lines 155-167, were steps taken to recruit female students? I understand they are underrepresented in STEM majors, but in limitations/future directions you could discuss potential actions you could take to make the 5-day sleep-away camp more welcoming, safe, etc. for females.

Table 1, the term “disability” is used throughout the paper. Some of the conditions listed have nothing to do with “health.” You could use both if you preferred (i.e., Disability or Health Condition).

Line 191, “Braun”

Lines 190-193, additional transparency and reflexivity in data collection and data analysis needed.

Lines 203-208, RQ1 used the word “level,” but this section doesn’t seem to fully answer that.

Line 237, is there actually a deadline to register with the DRC to request accommodations at this university? I feel like there shouldn’t be, legally, since people can acquire and/or be identified with disabilities at any time. This might be addressed further in the discussion section.

Lines 336-340, the answer to RQ3 should be addressed more clearly. What were the most salient factors that contributed to participants’ decision of what to study?

Lines 355-357, sum up the common thread among the “experiences and influences” to answer RQ3.

Lines 381-384, more clearly answer RQ4. I understand the findings are nuanced and the college transition program helped in a variety of ways, but what were the major findings of this study?

Lines 429-430, were any students utilizing state vocational rehabilitation services in college? Did the transition program address the availability of these services?

Lines 455-467, there is research on why many students with disabilities don’t register with a DRC. This research should be discussed here. There is also research on self-advocacy programming for high school and college students with disabilities, including teaching students about their rights and how to register for services. This research should be addressed in this section, too.

Lines 472-474, there is literature on research-based predictors of postsecondary outcomes for SWDs. You could address that literature here and explain how this study adds to the literature.

Line 486, the purpose of qualitative research isn’t to be generalizable. You might restate this.

Lines 503-515, additional discussion of the transition program should be included. How can the transition program be improved, expanded, and further studied in the future?

Lines 484-515, STEM isn’t mentioned in this section. What future research should be conducted to increase access to STEM majors/careers for SWDs?

Author Response

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and insightful suggestions. We addressed all of the comments in the areas noted below. Note: Revisions were inserted in the numbered manuscript using red text. The line numbers originally referenced below by the reviewer may no longer match the numbers in the revision. Revised manuscript attached.

I offer the additional specific recommendations:

Abstract, introduce abbreviations

Response: This change was made for SWD and STEM

Line 25, “fewer”

Response: This was revised.

Line 33, clarify what is meant by “enter the workforce.” Does this just mean more college equals higher rates of employment per the report?

Response: Yes, we mean to convey that more college equals higher rates of employment based on BLS findings. We added some additional text to clarify the statement.

Response: Line 72 - We revised this statement based on the Mazzotti et al., 2024 article. The authors suggested that, while schools might be complying with legislation, schools are not meeting the needs of SWDs. We added additional literature (Stevens et al., 2024; McCall, 2015; DuPaul et al., 2021) in this section Lines (103-113) that provides some guidance on methods/predictors to increase college enrollment/persistence and decrease bullying and physical/mental health problems.

Line 61, missing a period.

Response: A period was added.

Lines 70-72, are these under-/over-representations for SWDs larger than the under-/over-representations for the general population related to race/gender?

Response: We added an additional citation (Lee, 2011) to the manuscript (Lines 95-98). No, it does not appear that these under-/over-representations for SWDs are larger than the under-/over-representations for the general population. However, based on the Lee (2014) article it is not possible to make this determination due to sample sizes. Lee (2014) completed a logistic regression where Race was coded as racial majority groups in STEM fields (i.e., White or Asian-American) = 1 and racial minority groups in STEM fields (i.e., African-American, Hispanic, American-Indian, or Multi/other races) =0. White and Asian-American were combined into one variable based on Lee’s (2011) findings of overrepresentation of these two groups in STEM majors among nondisabled students.

Line 76, what is meant by “scaffolding supports”? Who is providing these supports, the high school, the college, both, others?

Response: We provided additional information (Lines 103-105) defining scaffolding supports and examples of how different stakeholders can provide these supports preferably before students begin college.

Response: Additional literature was added in this section and to the reference list to address the transition to college among more heterogenous groups of students with disabilities.

Response: Specific steps were not taken to recruit female students. The participants for the current study were recruited after they participated in a 2023 college transition program. This was a state-level grant funded program that was open to anyone who met the following criteria: 1) high school SWDs in their junior year; 2) documentation such as an individualized education plan (IEP) or 504 accommodation plan; 3) willingness to engage in STEM career exploration; and 4) intent to enroll in post-secondary education. We added a sentence (Lines 667-671) to the Limitations and Future Research section that recommends more transition program focus on subgroups of SWDs (women with autism), rather than programs that serve a broad population of SWDs.

Response: Table 1 was revised to include Disability or Health Condition.

Line 191, “Braun”

Response: Braun was changed to the correct spelling.

Lines 190-193, additional transparency and reflexivity in data collection and data analysis needed.

Response: We included an appendix to present the entire interview protocol. We also further explained the data analysis procedure (Lines 286-295): “Three members of the research team served as primary coders. We developed an initial codebook deductively from the CCR domains and then inductively refined subcodes to capture unanticipated, recurring patterns in the data. Both coders independently coded two transcripts and compared coding to discuss discrepancies, clarify code definitions, and revise the codebook. Remaining transcripts were then divided between coders, with regular meetings to review challenging excerpts and reach consensus. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached, and a senior member of the team was consulted when needed. We maintained an audit trail documenting codebook revisions and analytic decisions throughout the process.”

Lines 203-208, RQ1 used the word “level,” but this section doesn’t seem to fully answer that.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. RQ1 preliminary aims to capture students’ engagement (type and amount) in the first year, so we revised the RQ as “how much” to better reflect our intention and align with our results. Line 238

Response: This is an excellent point. There is no deadline to establish services and we addressed this in the discussion section. Lines 592-595

Lines 336-340, the answer to RQ3 should be addressed more clearly. What were the most salient factors that contributed to participants’ decision of what to study?

Response: We revised the RQ3 results section to pinpoint the main contributor to students’ career choice: “In general, personal interests developed early on, along with experiences gained through activities and programs they participated in before college, contributed significantly to their choice of academic focus. This underscores the value of extracurricular programs such as Huskies BELONG in shaping students’ career choices” Lines 460-462

Lines 355-357, sum up the common thread among the “experiences and influences” to answer RQ3.

Response: In this section, we addressed the comment along with the last one to better answer RQ3.

Lines 381-384, more clearly answer RQ4. I understand the findings are nuanced and the college transition program helped in a variety of ways, but what were the major findings of this study?

Response: We added a summary sentence to highlight the major finding in RQ4: To a certain degree, this experience provided students with opportunities to acclimate to the college environment, practice independent living and support routines, and develop a clearer sense of what college life would actually be like. Lines 489-492

Lines 429-430, were any students utilizing state vocational rehabilitation services in college? Did the transition program address the availability of these services?

Response: Yes, we know that participants and their family members (e.g., parents) were given referral links for vocational rehabilitation services during the 2023 transition program. Unfortunately, we did not ask all participants on the survey or interview about their use of vocational rehabilitation services while in college. The two participants that left college after their first semester, reported plans to seek help from their local vocational rehabilitation office.

Response: Research on potential reasons why students do not use DRC services was added to this section. Lines 585-589. Additional discussion and citations on self-advocacy programming were added in this section as well. Lines 561-566

Lines 472-474, there is literature on research-based predictors of postsecondary outcomes for SWDs. You could address that literature here and explain how this study adds to the literature.

Response: Additional literature on research-based predictors of postsecondary outcomes for SWDs was added to this section, including how this study adds to the literature. Lines 561-571

Line 486, the purpose of qualitative research isn’t to be generalizable. You might restate this.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. We restated it as “these findings should be understood as context-specific and may not fully capture the experiences of SWDs in other regions or institutional settings” Lines 652-656

Lines 503-515, additional discussion of the transition program should be included. How can the transition program be improved, expanded, and further studied in the future?

Response: We revised the discussion to address the future direction of transition programs: “ By addressing the unique challenges faced by this population and leveraging their strengths, such programs can serve as a vital bridge between secondary education and meaningful participation in STEM higher education and careers. Future iterations of the transition program could be improved and expanded by starting earlier in high school, incorporating more sustained STEM-focused experiences (e.g., campus labs, mentoring, job shadowing), and strengthening collaboration among schools, families, and university disability/resource offices. These program enhancements should be systematically evaluated in future research to identify which components most effectively support SWDs’ access to and persistence in STEM pathways. Failure to address the transition needs of high school SWDs may lead to more negative outcomes such as lower quality of life among these individuals as well as continued unemployment/underemployment and greater dependence on taxpayer-funded social support programs.” Lines 634-648

Lines 484-515, STEM isn’t mentioned in this section. What future research should be conducted to increase access to STEM majors/careers for SWDs?

Response: We expanded this section by adding discussion about STEM recruitment as well" future research should specifically examine how transition programs can be designed to increase access to and persistence in STEM majors and careers for SWDs, for example by integrating STEM-focused mentoring, early exposure to college-level math and science coursework, supported experiences in laboratory or research settings, and collaboration with disability resource offices to address access barriers in STEM learning environments”. Lines 623-628

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity for reviewing the manuscript “Freshman experiences among neurodivergent students following a STEM-focused high school-to-college transition program”. This manuscript addresses an important and timely area of research: the college transition experiences of neurodivergent students. The topic aligns with current gaps in the literature on neurodivergent learners, STEM pathways, and college and career readiness (CCR). The manuscript is well organised, clearly written, and incorporates meaningful student voice through interview excerpts. These strengths make the paper potentially valuable to scholarship on inclusive education and transition support.

However, in its current form, the manuscript does not yet provide a sufficiently strong or analytically clear connection between the transition program and the students’ subsequent college experiences. The findings read largely as descriptive accounts of first-year experience rather than evidence of how a STEM-focused transition intervention shaped academic behaviours, interpersonal engagement, self-advocacy, or STEM identity. The manuscript would benefit from deeper theoretical integration, more methodological detail, and a clearer articulation of mechanisms linking program components to observed outcomes.

For these reasons, I recommend major revisions before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Conceptual clarity and framing

Neurodiversity Terminology

The manuscript begins by correctly defining neurodivergent groups (ASD, ADHD, LD, etc.).
However, throughout the paper the term “SWDs” (students with disabilities) is more consistently used.
Recommendation: Clarify whether the authors are intentionally shifting between social model and medical model terminology, or whether the study conceptualises neurodivergence within a disability framework. This needs intentional alignment with contemporary inclusive education language.

Overlap Between ASD-Specific Literature and Broader Neurodivergence

The literature review heavily centres on ASD, even though participants have a wider range of conditions.
Recommendation: Justify this focus or expand the review to include ADHD, LD, mental health, and intersectionality literature.

Need for Greater Methodological Detail

The methods section requires additional detail to allow readers to assess rigour.

Specific elements requiring clarification include:

Interview procedures: number of coders, coding process, whether coding was inductive/deductive, and how disagreements were resolved.
Researcher positionality: given that participants received services from the authors’ institution, potential power dynamics and participant familiarity need to be acknowledged.
Survey instrument: provide examples, categories of items, or include the full instrument as an appendix.
Recruitment and response rate: clarify how students were contacted, how many reminders were sent, and whether any declined participation.

Adding these details would strengthen transparency and credibility.

Insufficient Analytical Connection Between the Transition Program and College Experiences

The central purpose of the study is to understand the freshman-year experiences of neurodivergent students following participation in a STEM-focused transition program. However, the analysis does not clearly demonstrate how specific program components influenced or shaped students’ later academic, social, or career outcomes.

Most findings reflect general first-year challenges (e.g., time management, adjusting to workload, navigating campus resources) that are common to many neurodivergent and neurotypical students.
The analysis does not strongly connect these experiences to skills, exposure, or preparation explicitly developed during the transition program.
The STEM-specific elements of the program are not clearly linked to students’ STEM identity, persistence, or major choice.

Recommendation:
More explicitly analyse mechanisms of influence. For example:

Which program activities correspond to which CCR domains?
Which program elements appeared most influential in preparing students for college?
How did STEM exploration shape academic decision-making?
How did the program affect self-advocacy, help-seeking, and use of accommodations?

A conceptual figure mapping may help clarify these relationships.

Strengthening Theoretical Integration and Interpretation of Outcomes

While the manuscript references the College and Career Readiness (CCR) framework and uses it to structure coding, this framework is not deeply integrated into the results or discussion. The current analysis primarily provides descriptive accounts of students’ first-year experiences, with limited explanation of how these experiences map onto CCR competencies that the transition program aimed to develop. Strengthening this connection is essential to demonstrating the program’s effectiveness.

A deeper CCR-based interpretation would also help illuminate important outcome differences within the sample. For example, two participants did not continue into their second semester, yet the manuscript does not thoroughly explore how their experiences diverged from students who persisted in areas such as academic engagement, help-seeking behaviours, course load decisions, or self-advocacy—key CCR domains. Similarly, the finding that most students did not use campus disability services is mentioned but not examined critically in relation to whether the transition program sufficiently developed CCR skills such as disclosure, resource navigation, or ownership of learning.

Finally, the STEM dimension of the program remains underdeveloped in the analysis. Given the program’s explicit STEM focus, the manuscript should more clearly explain whether and how the program contributed to STEM identity formation, shaped major or career choices, or supported students’ navigation of STEM coursework. These are crucial aspects of both the “Career Development” (CD) domain of CCR and the stated aims of the intervention.

Recommendation:
More explicitly integrate the CCR domains into the interpretation of findings by showing how specific program activities aligned with (or failed to support) AEP, OL, IE, and CD skills demonstrated during students’ freshman year. This would also allow for a deeper analysis of non-persistence, help-seeking behaviour, and STEM-specific outcomes. Doing so will significantly strengthen the theoretical contribution and clarify the mechanisms through which the program may influence college readiness and success.

If the authors can more clearly demonstrate how the program shaped students’ CCR competencies, academic readiness, self-advocacy, or STEM engagement, the paper will have a strong and meaningful impact on the field.

Author Response

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and insightful feedback!

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s structured suggestions. Below, we address the framework, the method details and connection with transition programs in details. Note: Revisions were inserted in the numbered manuscript using red text.

For these reasons, I recommend major revisions before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Conceptual clarity and framing

Neurodiversity Terminology

The manuscript begins by correctly defining neurodivergent groups (ASD, ADHD, LD, etc.).
However, throughout the paper the term “SWDs” (students with disabilities) is more consistently used.
Recommendation: Clarify whether the authors are intentionally shifting between social model and medical model terminology, or whether the study conceptualises neurodivergence within a disability framework. This needs intentional alignment with contemporary inclusive education language.

Response: We added one section to define SWDs and neurodivergent students clearly:

Throughout this manuscript, we use “students with disabilities (SWDs)” to align with the legal and educational categories used by schools, state agencies, and the transition program. Many of these students are also neurodivergent (e.g., ADHD, autism, learning disabilities). Our use of disability language is grounded in a social/interactional model, which emphasizes how educational environments and supports shape students’ opportunities, rather than framing neurodivergence as an individual deficit. We therefore use both terms intentionally: “SWDs” when referring to formal eligibility and services, and “neurodivergent students” when foregrounding diverse ways of thinking and learning. Lines 137-145

Overlap Between ASD-Specific Literature and Broader Neurodivergence

Response: Additional literature was added in this section to address the transition to college among heterogenous groups of students with disabilities. Additional discussion and citations on self-advocacy programming and research-based predictors of postsecondary outcomes for SWDs were added in the Discussion section as well.

Need for Greater Methodological Detail

The methods section requires additional detail to allow readers to assess rigor.

Specific elements requiring clarification include:

Interview procedures: number of coders, coding process, whether coding was inductive/deductive, and how disagreements were resolved.
Researcher positionality: given that participants received services from the authors’ institution, potential power dynamics and participant familiarity need to be acknowledged.
Survey instrument: provide examples, categories of items, or include the full instrument as an appendix.
Recruitment and response rate: clarify how students were contacted, how many reminders were sent, and whether any declined participation.

Adding these details would strengthen transparency and credibility.

Response: We added the following to address the comments here, we also included appendix for the survey instrument:

Three members of the research team served as primary coders. We developed an initial codebook deductively from the CCR domains and then inductively refined subcodes to capture unanticipated, recurring patterns in the data. Both coders independently coded two transcripts and compared coding to discuss discrepancies, clarify code definitions, and revise the codebook. Remaining transcripts were then divided between coders, with regular meetings to review challenging excerpts and reach consensus. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached, and a senior member of the team was consulted when needed. We maintained an audit trail documenting codebook revisions and analytic decisions throughout the process. Lines 286-295

“..and recruitment materials emphasized that participation was voluntary, would not affect students’ access to services, and that responses would be de-identified before analysis” Lines 247-249

Students were contacted via university email with an initial invitation and one reminder message. Lines 253-254

Insufficient Analytical Connection Between the Transition Program and College Experiences

Most findings reflect general first-year challenges (e.g., time management, adjusting to workload, navigating campus resources) that are common to many neurodivergent and neurotypical students.
The analysis does not strongly connect these experiences to skills, exposure, or preparation explicitly developed during the transition program.
The STEM-specific elements of the program are not clearly linked to students’ STEM identity, persistence, or major choice.

Recommendation:
More explicitly analyse mechanisms of influence. For example:

Which program activities correspond to which CCR domains?
Which program elements appeared most influential in preparing students for college?
How did STEM exploration shape academic decision-making?
How did the program affect self-advocacy, help-seeking, and use of accommodations?

A conceptual figure mapping may help clarify these relationships.

Response: CCR domains were added and explained earlier in the manuscript (i.e., STEM-Focused High School-to-College Transition Program section) and Figure 1 was added to map program activities to CCR domains. Lines 184-195

In the Discussion, we added additional thoughts on how STEM exploration helped shape participant decision making: “Our findings suggest that STEM-focused exploration activities within the transition program contributed to CD competencies by helping some students confirm their interest and sense of belonging in STEM, while enabling others to make more informed decisions to pursue non-STEM majors. Future iterations of the transition program could be improved and expanded by starting earlier in high school, incorporating more sustained STEM-focused experiences (e.g., campus labs, mentoring, job shadowing), and strengthening collaboration among schools, families, and university disability/resource offices.” Lines 636-643

We added additional comments on the program’s influence on participant readiness for college: “Based on participants responses, involvement in the residential summer program was the most helpful in preparing them for college. This makes sense as it was the most in-tense part of the program, requiring participants to live on campus for a week and consistently engage in CCR activities. Other components of the program were online and could be completed based on individual participants’ schedules.” Lines 553-558

We added additional thoughts on how the program helped with self-advocacy, help-seeking, and use of accommodations: “From a CCR perspective, this suggests that OL and IE competencies related to self-advocacy, disclosure, and resource navigation were only partially developed, indicating a need for more explicit, practice-based preparation in these areas. Previous research on self-advocacy among SWDs suggests that education on postsecondary policies and procedures, coupled with practical or role-playing experience may lead to an increase in use of campus resources (e.g., academic accommodations) (Holzberg & Ferraro, 2021; Pfeifer et al., 2021).” Lines 604-610

Strengthening Theoretical Integration and Interpretation of Outcomes

Response: We added the following in the discussion section to address the recommended edits:

“Using the CCR framework, we organized students’ narratives around Academic Engagement and Processes (AEP), Ownership of Learning (OL), Interpersonal Engagement (IE), and Career Development (CD) to better understand how the transition program supported key college- and career-readiness competencies.” Lines 546-550

From a CCR perspective, this suggests that OL and IE competencies related to self-advocacy, disclosure, and resource navigation were only partially developed, indicating a need for more explicit, practice-based preparation in these areas. Lines 604-606

Our findings suggest that STEM-focused exploration activities within the transition program contributed to CD competencies by helping some students confirm their interest and sense of belonging in STEM, while enabling others to make more informed decisions to pursue non-STEM majors.” Lines 636-640

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors clearly addressed each recommendation. The manuscript is much improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made improvements based on the previous comments.