Abstract
There is a growing need for colleges and universities to provide training for faculty members about students with disabilities. In this study, a representative sample of 214 directors of disability service offices
(DSOs) responded to a survey that called for their opinions about various aspects of faculty training programs. Specifically, they responded to questions about the need for training, about the factors which they believe lead to a successful training program, problems in getting faculty to participate, concerns of faculty, the content for a training program, the duration or length of training sessions, the types of activities which should be included in training and the best formats with which to deliver training. A detailed summary of their responses is presented in the results along with some discussion of key issues.
Generally, DSO directors are not satisfied with their institutions’ current faculty training programs and believe a far more substantial effort would be in order. They note the difficulty in getting many faculty members to attend training sessions, and the overwhelming majority recommended that, as a practical matter, sessions need to be limited to one or two hours. Participants had many consistent opinions about preferred content, faculty concerns, and formats for training.
Young people with disabilities in the United States aspire to higher education. According to Gardner
(1999), 86% of eighth-grade students with disabilities who responded to a National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) survey planned to go on to some form of postsecondary education. That same study noted a dramatic increase in the number of individuals with disabilities actually enrolled in postsecondary education. For example, 63% of the eighth-grade students who aspired to postsecondary education were pursuing postsecondary education within two years of their high school graduation. Further, in 1978, an
NCES survey of full-time, first-year freshman in colleges and universities throughout the United States indicated that 2.6% of full-time freshman reported having at least one disability. By 1998, that figure had risen to more than 9% (Gardner, 1999).
It appears that postsecondary education graduates with disabilities do about as well as their nondisabled counterparts with regard to the probability of employment in their chosen fields and in the compensation they receive (Horn & Berktold, 1999). However, students with disabilities are less likely to graduate from college (Gardner, 1999; Horn & Berktold, 1999). One factor that is important to the success of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions is the knowledge and attitudes of the faculty about students with disabilities.

By and large, faculty members are seen by students with disabilities as sensitive and willing to cooperate with accommodations, although there are exceptions (Hill, 1996). Importantly, a study of faculty attitudes by Leyser, Vogel, Wyland, and Brulle (1998) indicated that faculty members who had more information about students with disabilities were more positive toward them and that faculty members who had more personal contact with individuals with disabilities were more positive toward students with disabilities in their classes. Moreover, 88% of the faculty members indicated a willingness to accommodate students with disabilities and a belief that they should integrate students with disabilities.
Unfortunately, Leyser et al. (1998) also found that 83.5% of these faculty members reported limited contact with students with disabilities, 40% had limited knowledge and skills to make accommodations, and 55% reported being unfamiliar with campus resources and services that might help students with disabilities.
Perhaps, most to the point for current purposes, 82% of these faculty members reported that they had limited or no training about the needs of students with disabilities.
Further substantiating these findings, West et al. (1993) stated that a frequent barrier to students with disabilities in higher education is a lack of understanding regarding accommodations. Similarly, Lundeberg and Svien (1988) and Tomlan, Farrell, and Geis (1989) suggest that training be provided to faculty members to increase their understanding of students with disabilities.
These studies clearly point to a need for institutions of higher education (IHEs) to provide training about students with disabilities for faculty members as well as for teaching assistants and administrators; indeed, many IHEs have begun to do that (Lewis & Farris, 1999). However, designing a successful training program requires some critical information. For example, what should be included in a training program about students with disabilities for postsecondary faculty? What are the best ways for such training to be delivered? How lengthy should a training program be? As a practical matter, how much time can faculty members reasonably be expected to devote to training? What other factors affect the likely success of a faculty training program?
While the literature states that training for faculty is sorely needed, it does not provide empirical data on what a faculty training program should contain. This study attempted to gather knowledgeable opinions about these and other questions. While many individuals might provide intelligent commentary on these questions, we decided that perhaps the professionals who direct the disabilities services offices (DSOs) at colleges and universities are in the best position to do so. This study, then, surveyed DSO directors throughout the United States about issues related to developing a training program for higher education faculty.
Method
Participants
The population from which the study sample was drawn were members of the Association on Higher
Education and Disability (AHEAD) who were listed as the director/coordinator of their institution’s disability service office (DSO) in the 1999 AHEAD directory. One director/coordinator was selected from each IHE for a total population of 613. If an IHE listing included both a director and a coordinator, the director was selected to be included in the population. Of that population, the Canadian (26) directors were excluded because different laws pertaining to students with disabilities in the United States and Canada might lead to confounding results if the populations were combined. Further, Utah directors (13) were excluded because they had been exposed to an earlier draft of the survey instrument in a pilot study. Thus, their inclusion in the final study might have compromised the integrity of the results. In addition, 66 individuals who were identified in the directory could not be found at their listed numbers. Thus, the total population was reduced to 508 respondents who were distributed across the 10 federal rehabilitation regions. After one month, a follow-up e-mail was sent to participants who did not respond to the initial survey.
In order to better describe the population of participating institutions, we present the distribution of the sample across the 10 federal rehabilitation regions (in Table 1). The distribution of participating institutions across Carnegie classifications (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998) are presented in
Table 2. The Carnegie Foundation created a system of classifications for institutions of higher education so that these characteristics could be described and compared to similar institutions. The classifications range from two-year community colleges to large public and private research institutions. The present study used the 1994 Carnegie classification system to create a representative sample.

Of the 508 surveys that were sent out, 214 were returned, for a return rate of 42.1%. The response rates by region ranged from 18.2% to 47.9%. The rate of return by the Carnegie class of the institutions ranged from 17.9% to 50%, and the average student enrollment for the responding institutions (10,237) was similar to that of the nonresponding institutions (9,562).
Table 1
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Unknown
Totals
Average return rate
Geographic Distribution of Participating Institutions by Federal Rehabilitation Region
I
Region
II
III
IV
States in region
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT
NJ, NY, PR
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC, TN
IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
IA, KS, MO, NE
CO, MT, ND, SD, WY
AZ, CA, HI, NV
AK, ID, OR, WA
Surveys sent Responses
36
Response rate
12 33.3%
56
57
73
94
41
32
22
64
33
508
25
24
32
45
17
11
4
26
15
3
214
44.6%
42.1%
43.8%
47.9%
41.5%
34.4%
18.2%
40.6%
45.5%
NA
42.1%
Note.
States in region are represented by postal abbreviation.
Table 2
Summary of Carnegie Classifications for Participating Institutions
Carnegie Percentage of Percentage of classification Total sent sent returned
Percentage returned

AA
BACH/MAST
DOC/RES
OTHER
Not listed
Unknown
Total
144
183
129
6
46
0
508
28.3%
36.0%
25.4%
1.2%
9.1%
0.0%
100.0%
25.2%
29.0%
23.4%
0.9%
7.5%
14.0%
100.0%
37.5%
33.9%
38.8%
33.3%
34.8%
NA
42.1%
Average return rate (total)
Note. BACH/MAST includes bachelor’s and master’s classifications I and II. DOC/RES includes doctoral and research classifications I and II. OTHER includes all other
Carnegie classifications that did not fall under the previously listed categories.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument consisted of 11 questions asking participants to report on their opinions on accommodations for students with disabilities and on what should be included in a curriculum for training faculty at their IHE (see Table 3). Survey questions called for three types of responses. One type (e.g., No.
1, “Are you satisfied with your institution’s current efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?”) required respondents to check “Yes,” “No,” or “Other.” If they checked “Other,” they were expected to write an explanation. A second type of question (e.g., No. 2, “What attributes do you believe make faculty training effective/successful?”) called for open-ended, constructed responses. A final question (No. 12) simply asked for any other suggestions that the respondents might care to offer about faculty training.
Pilot Study
The survey instrument was reviewed for content validity by members of the project staff and by a group of attendees at the 1999 Utah AHEAD conference. Following analysis of comments regarding content validity and prior to use of the survey instrument, the survey was piloted with all 13 of the DSO directors in public and private colleges and universities in Utah. The survey draft was sent to these directors with a cover letter from the DSO director at Utah State University that provided an introduction to and a description of the purpose of the study. It also invited the directors to provide feedback on the clarity and wording of the survey, as well as the content. These directors also responded to questions on the survey.
Table 3
Summary of Disability Service Directors Responses
Question Answer
1. Are you satisfied with your institution ’ s current efforts to
Yes
No
Numbe r
Percenta
53
128 ge
25
61 teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?
2. What attributes do you
Other
Total respondents
Faculty and administrator support
29
210
39
14
100
19

believe make faculty training effective/successful?
3. Is getting faculty to participate in training a problem at your institution?
4. How can administrators be encouraged to support faculty training?
5. What do you believe faculty are concerned about?
Hands-on active training
Make the training relevant
Make it mandatory
Small departmental training with question-and- answer session
Brief, applicable to faculty situation(s)
Total respondents
Yes
No
Other
Total respondents
Educate administrators regarding legal obligations under ADA and 504
Present case law reviews
Arrange direct contact for administrators with students with disabilities
Other
Total respondents
Maintaining academic standards
Rights and responsibilities of faculty
Course modifications
Rights and responsibilities of students
Students disclosing disabilities to professors
6. Should faculty training include examples of both correct and incorrect methods of handling a situation?
(table continues)
Other
Eligibility
Confidentiality
Classroom aides (interpreters, etc.)
Other
Total respondents
Yes
No
Total respondents
7. What media are faculty comfortable using in training?
Live presentation
Videotape
Web-based information
Phone assistance
CD-ROM
DVD
176
113
98
86
58
23
161
123
106
28
206
199
171
158
96
77
71
36
34
20
214
36
34
26
24
24
204
153
35
21
209
180
19
11
210
78
60
51
14
100
93
80
74
45
36
33
17
16
9
100
18
17
13
12
12
100
73
17
10
100
86
9
5
100
85
55
48
42
28
11

8. What length is practical for a faculty training workshop?
9. What types of activities should be included in a faculty training workshop?
10. What topics should be covered in the curriculum?
11. Do you have other suggestions for us?
Other
Total respondents
1-2 hours
1 hour
Longer than 2 hours
Other
Total respondents
Question-and-answer sessions
Presentation by experts
Case studies
Involvement of students with disabilities
Student and faculty success stories
Use of videos
Web-based activities
Other
Total respondents
Institution ’ s campus disability services
Who to contact for information and assistance
Legal foundations (ADA, 504, etc.)
Ethical considerations (e.g., privacy)
Information regarding specific disabilities (e.g., LD, sensory impairment) and implications for learning
Designing accommodations for students
Other
Total respondents
Teach faculty the process a student goes through in order to receive accommodations
Use faculty as mentors for other faculty
Get support from campus administration
Develop a guide for faculty use
Total respondents
Note. The number of responses and percentages for several items do not equal the numbers indicated by “total respondents” because disability service directors sometimes provided more than one answer for each questions.
Finally, these respondents were contacted afterward by telephone and asked to provide their general opinion of the survey and to make suggestions that they thought would improve its clarity and relevance.
All 13 directors responded. The final survey instrument incorporated this feedback.
25
206
95
86
7
23
12
100
45
40
3
11
100 213
194
153
148
127
118
96
37
22
214
209
205
202
194
98
96
94
91
190
156
89
73
16 7
214 100
91
71
69
59
55
45
17
10
100
6
4
3
3
51
12
8
6
6
100

Results
Table 3 presents the results of the survey summarized for each question. Many questions called for comments as well as quantitative responses. In some cases, a large number of respondents offered the same or very similar comments. In many cases, however, a particular comment was only offered by one or two respondents. To save space, only comments made by three or more respondents are included in Table 3.
Question 1.
“Are you satisfied with your institution’s current efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities?” Twenty-five percent of respondents said “yes” while 61% said “no” and 14% said “other.” It is clear from these findings that the large majority of DSO directors are not currently satisfied with the faculty training efforts at their own institutions. Of those who checked “other,” some indicated that they were somewhat satisfied while others noted that they have a hard time getting large numbers of faculty to attend training sessions and that they believe they need a way to make faculty training mandatory at their institutions.
Question 2.
“What attributes do you believe make faculty training effective and successful?” This question elicited a large number of suggestions and comments. Nineteen percent of the respondents indicated their belief that the training program needs faculty and administrative support and that training should include some experiential activities that include students with disabilities giving testimonies and real-life examples. Further, a large number indicated that training should be hands-on and active (18%), relevant to faculty members (17%), mandatory for faculty (13%), organized in small departmental groups
(12%), and applicable to faculty situations (12%). It was also suggested that training include question-andanswer sessions and expert speakers and DSO professional staff. Multiple respondents also suggested incentives for faculty to participate, a handbook or other written material that faculty can refer to when training is completed, practical techniques for the classroom, information about the law, that training be informal and fun, and that professors be involved in providing the training.
Many additional comments were offered by four or fewer people. Some noted that training not dwell overly long on legal obligations; that training include responsibilities of faculty, staff, students, and the
DSO; and that training address a balance of faculty and student concerns. It was further suggested that training employ faculty who themselves have a disability, that the importance or rationale for accommodations be emphasized, that time be reserved for open discussions during training sessions, that knowledge of participants be assessed before and after training, that adjunct professors be included in training, that disability-related training be considered part of training in diversity issues, that administrators be included in training, and that training on disability issues somehow be connected to tenure and promotion decisions.
Question 3.
“Is getting faculty to participate in training a problem at your institution?” The overwhelming majority of respondents (73%) said yes. Those who checked “other” offered a number of suggestions including make training mandatory, target new faculty and teaching assistants as well as regular faculty, provide on-line training, include training in disabilities as part of a full-day training along with other events, conduct training at regular department meetings, keep sessions short, compensate faculty for attending training, and get central administration to publicly support and participate in training.
Question 4.
“How can administrators be encouraged to support faculty training?” Seventy-eight percent responded that the best vehicle was to educate administrators about the legal obligations of their institution under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act. Sixty percent suggested that administrators be presented with case law reviews and over 50% recommended that administrators be put in direct contact with students with disabilities.
Comments included “help the administration view this training as important to the institution,” “make them understand the risk to the institution if training is not provided,” “bring in a speaker from outside the institution to get their attention and their support,” “educate administrators on how cost-effective most accommodations are if done properly,” “give administrators a clear plan for training that describes what will be covered and how it will improve services at their IHE,” and “help them understand how accommodations level the playing field so that students with disabilities can be successful.”
Question 5.
“What do you believe faculty are most concerned about?” A large degree of consistency was noted in DSO directors’ responses to this question. Ninety-three percent indicated that faculty are concerned with maintaining academic standards, 80% suggested that faculty are concerned about their rights and responsibilities, and 74% noted that they are concerned about course modifications. At lower percentages, DSO directors reported that faculty are concerned about the rights and responsibilities of students, the problem of students disclosing their disabilities to professors, the process by which students

become eligible for accommodations, the issue of confidentiality, and about having other people in their classrooms, such as interpreters. Nine percent reported other concerns, including work and time commitments, possible liability for the faculty member, fairness to other students (i.e., students without disabilities), academic freedom, and where to get support in their efforts to accommodate students with disabilities. Some DSO directors also reported that they believe there is a frequent concern among faculty about issues surrounding accommodated testing and, at least in some cases, about the possibility of students cheating on examinations.
Question 6.
“Should faculty training include examples of both correct and incorrect methods of handling a situation?” The overwhelming majority (86%) said yes. Nine percent answered no and 5% checked the “other” box. Some respondents suggested that only correct examples be used, and several indicated that confidentiality is often misunderstood and inadvertently violated by faculty and, thus, should be a target of some examples. Additional comments were that, “since time for training is limited, examples should be brief” and “student responsibility needs to be emphasized in some examples.” Finally, one respondent suggested, “It is important to include lots of time for discussion with examples.”
Question 7.
“What media are faculty comfortable with?” There was a strong consensus that live presentations would be well received by faculty. In addition, a number of DSO directors indicated that videotape, web-based information, and phone assistance would also be useful. Twenty-eight percent indicated that CD-ROM would be acceptable to faculty and 11% suggested the same for DVD.
Suggestions within the “other” category included using printed literature in the form of handbooks, newsletters, fact sheets, and so forth. Some DSO directors also suggested e-mail, PowerPoint presentations, role-playing, one-on-one assistance for individual faculty members, and multimedia approaches to training. Some comments emphasized that it is not the media that makes training successful; it is the people. Finally, several respondents suggested that live interaction is preferable when it is possible.
Question 8.
“What length is practical for a faculty training workshop?” Forty-five percent indicated that a 1- to 2-hour workshop would be practical; 40% indicated that 1 hour would be practical. Only 3% believed that a workshop longer than 2 hours would be practical. Comments included suggestions that training be individualized and that a series of short workshops would be preferable. A substantial number of respondents commented that adequate training requires more then a couple of hours but, given faculty commitments and general preferences, long training sessions are not feasible.
Question 9.
“What types of activities should be included in a faculty training workshop?” Over 90% of the respondents believed that question-and-answer sessions are critical. This was followed by suggestions for presentations by experts (71%), case studies (69%), the involvement of students with disabilities in training (59%), the use of student and faculty success stories (55%), and the presentation of videos (45%). Seventeen percent suggested the use of web-based activities. Other suggestions were to include simulations and role-playing, involve faculty members in presentations, use faculty members with disabilities as trainers, use PowerPoint presentations, involve central administrators in training, review legal issues and case law, and provide materials to faculty that they can keep for future reference. Some respondents also said that it is important to use a variety of formats since faculty members have different learning styles. Many respondents also noted that it is important to include food or refreshments in training sessions.
Question 10.
“What topics should be covered in the curriculum for faculty training?” Ninety-eight percent indicated that information about the institution’s campus disability services should be included in training along with who to contact for information and assistance. Ninety-six percent also believed that it is important to cover the legal foundations that govern higher education for students with disabilities. Over
90% of the respondents further noted that ethical considerations should be included as well as information about specific disabilities (89%) and their implications for learning. Seventy-three percent responded that faculty ought to receive training in designing accommodations for students. Other suggestions were to include approaches to teaching (e.g., Universal Design); implementation of accommodations in the classroom; “dos and don’ts” on policies and procedures; use of appropriate disability language; information about accommodated testing procedures and policies and about course waivers and substitutions; information about available resources, assistive technology, and emergency evacuation plans; the concept of student and faculty as a team; issues surrounding curriculum modifications; and information about faculty members’ responsibility in the decision-making process.
Question 11.
“Do you have other suggestions?” Indeed, DSO directors had many suggestions. The most common was the need for faculty to know the process a student goes through in order to receive accommodations. Other frequent comments were that faculty should serve as mentors for other faculty,

that it is imperative to get support from central administration for faculty training, and that there should be a written guide that faculty can get information from. Additional individual suggestions included creating an ongoing faculty advisory committee to address disability needs, teaching the reasons why testing for learning disabilities is useful and why accommodations are credible, delivering faculty training department by department, addressing distance learning issues, using new faculty orientations to provide training, allowing faculty to voice their concerns so that these concerns can be addressed in training, including issues of dormitory living for students with disabilities in training, rewarding outstanding faculty with public recognition and certificates, and remembering that trainers should know that 1-2% of faculty do not (and will not) support accommodations for students with disabilities (especially those with invisible disabilities).
DSO directors also suggested that the institution’s risk-management office be solicited to support faculty training, that successful students and graduates who have disabilities be used in training, that training sessions be followed with peer coaching by faculty members in the same departments as those receiving training, that instruction on reasonable versus unreasonable accommodation be included in training, that training sessions be used to build trust between the DSO and the faculty, that training directly address faculty who refuse to accommodate, that faculty be given assistance in determining the essential elements in their courses, and that instruction on the concept of essential skills be included in training.
Finally, DSO directors suggested that faculty receive assistance handling students who make unreasonable requests or who are otherwise difficult; be provided with written description of the process for determining accommodations; that a statement appear on all syllabi include a statement that students with physical, learning, or psychological disabilities are to see someone in the DSO; that all types of disabilities be included in training; that training address cultural issues within disability; and that academic departments be taught to be proactive rather than reactive to disability issues.
Discussion
One point of first importance reflected in the results of this study is that a large majority of DSO directors at colleges and universities throughout the United States are not satisfied with their institution’s efforts to teach faculty to accommodate students with disabilities. Faculty training sessions are one of the interventions that a college or university can undertake to further faculty development (Tomlan et al.,
1989). However, DSO directors consistently report that it is difficult to get faculty to participate in training, a point that is supported in the literature (Scott & Gregg, 2000). Indeed, one respondent commented, “It is always the same group of individuals who show up for these sorts of training . . . and they are not the ones who most need it.” A critical question then is how can all or most faculty be encouraged to participate in training programs directed at accommodating students with disabilities? The most direct method would be to require participation; and, in fact, a large number of DSO directors advocated exactly that. Further, some of the respondents who noted that faculty participation was not a problem also commented that it was not a problem because it was mandatory at their institutions.
Why then is faculty participation in training not required at most institutions? The answer to that question must come from central administrators at colleges and universities. DSO directors did suggest that educating central administrators about the institution’s legal obligations under the laws and supplementing such education with case law reviews and with direct contact with students with disabilities might help persuade administrators to more strongly support or even mandate training for faculty members.
DSO directors provided many important recommendations about desirable content, formats, and methods of delivery they believe would lead to a successful faculty training program. A large majority indicated that it is critical that faculty training address: on-campus disability services, where assistance can be obtained, legal foundations, ethical considerations, information about specific disabilities, and how to design accommodations. Two topics, among others, that were only mentioned by a few respondents but seem likely to gain salience in the future are disability issues related to distance education and to Universal
Design of Instruction (Scott, McGuire, & Foley, in press).
It would be interesting to know how similar the opinions of the DSO directors are to those of faculty or students. Such a comparison would be an interesting topic for a future study. Leyser et al. (1998) found that faculty identified areas in which they would like to receive training. Classroom accommodations headed the list at 42.6%, followed by programs and services on campus (34.3%), testing accommodations
(31.7%), and legal issues (20%).
DSO directors made numerous suggestions about what they believed would make a faculty training program effective. Most common were recommendations that it be made directly relevant and applicable

to faculty members’ situations and as interactive as possible with many opportunities for questions and answers and for discussion. They were also very clear about their perceptions of issues that greatly concern faculty: maintaining academic standards, faculty rights and responsibilities, and course modifications.
While DSO directors indicated that it is desirable to use a variety of methods for delivering training, live presentations were far and away the most popular recommendation. However, using a variety of methods and, in particular, providing a written handbook for faculty were also commonly recommended.
The research also supports the use of multiple presentation methods because of the time constraints faculty members work under (Scott & Gregg, 2000). DSO directors also suggested that a wide variety of presenters be included such as disability experts, DSO staff members, students with disabilities, faculty members, and administrators.
One of the most challenging aspects of developing a successful faculty training program derives from the fact that almost all of the DSO directors indicated that, as a practical matter, a faculty training program cannot be more than 2 hours long. In fact, 40% of the responders indicted that 1 hour is the maximum practical time faculty can or will devote to this type of training. This is congruent with research showing that college faculty have heavy time constraints (Bess, 1997). The dilemma, then, is how to reconcile the amount of content that DSO directors recommend with their observation that the time allotted for training must be limited to two hours or less, especially considering their almost universal assertion that training be very interactive and that a lot of time be devoted to questions and discussions. Perhaps the dilemma is best summed up by a comment made by one respondent that “adequate training really requires more than a couple of hours but... longer training sessions simply are not feasible.” One approach might be to first provide condensed group or web-based individual training sessions that focus on only the most essential content, include some question-and-answers, and when possible interaction with students with disabilities.
These initial sessions could be supplemented with written material, supplementary training sessions, and/or additional web-based information along with individual assistance on an as-needed basis. Another approach would be for colleges and universities to consider supporting or compensating faculty for attending training so it can be expanded beyond the 1-2 hour minimum and perhaps presented in a series of group sessions or web-based units.
It is clear that substantial numbers of individuals with disabilities will continue to enroll in postsecondary institutions. Thus, college and university instructors may expect to have students with disabilities regularly attending their classes, labs, and field sites. The success of these students will depend to a large degree on the willingness and ability of their instructors to accept them in good faith, to provide good, accessible instruction, and to help provide the accommodations they need to participate more equitably. Substantial training for faculty, staff, and administrators will be essential to accomplish this outcome and, for the most part, it is not occurring with sufficient consistency. This study has provided information that can usefully be factored into the design and delivery of an effective training program.
However, further study and increased administrative support for this endeavor is required.
Limitations
At least four limitations to this study bear mention. First, the study did not account for the nonresponders who may have had different opinions than the responders. Second, the way people respond to questions depends on how they were asked. Thus, if we had posed the questions differently, we might have received different answers to some unknown extent. Third, the study looked at the opinions of DSO directors; faculty and students might have had different opinions. Finally, a lot of variation occurred in the responses to some questions. For example, with regard to how long a training session should be, the large majority indicated that faculty training sessions should be less than 2 hours. However, there were exceptions. Moreover, some responders might have envisioned multiple 1- to 2-hour sessions, while others might have been thinking of one 2-hour session. Analogous interpretations of questions exist for other categories of responding such as preferred content, delivery media, and so on. In summary, it is important to keep in mind the variability across institutions rather than just considering mean or modal responses. The appropriate conclusion is that design of a faculty training program needs to be tailored to the individual needs, preferences, and available resources of each institution and these vary widely.
Suggestions for Future Research
This study provided a look at what elements DSO directors think should be incorporated into an effective training program. Future studies might beneficially examine faculty opinions on what would constitute an effective training program, as it would be important to know how faculty opinions differ from those of DSO directors. Likewise, it would be worth investigating what students with disabilities think

faculty members need to know. The same should be said of higher education administrators and staff members.
The best mix of training forums to reach the most faculty members is also an area that calls for further study. This survey focused on group training formats, since live interaction was the format recommended most by DSO directors. However, workshops are not the only or necessarily the best approach to faculty training. For example, Scott and Gregg (2000) recommended a mixture of group and individual training forums to first provide general (foundation) knowledge and later to provide information tailored to the specific, immediate needs of individual faculty members. Web-based instruction might beneficially replace group training for some faculty, although that would eliminate the live, face-to-face interaction with DSO staff and students with disabilities that many DSO directors in this study strongly recommend. It will require considerable research to settle the question of which combination of training formats will best satisfy the needs of various groups of faculty in our highly diverse higher educational institutions.
Bess, J. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively.
Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Gardner, D. (1999). Recent study focuses on preparation and outcomes of students with disabilities.
Information from HEATH, National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with
Disabilities . Retrieved (11/22/99) from http://www.acenet.edu/about/programs/Access&Equity/HEATH/newsletter/1999/10 october/recent_study.html
Hill, J. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding adequacy of services and willingness of faculty to make accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
12 (1), 22-43.
Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Statistical Analysis Report No. 1999-187). Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Statistical
Analysis Report No. 1999-046). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 13 (3), 5-19.
Lundeberg, M., & Svien, K. (1988). Developing faculty understanding of college students with LD.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 , 299-300, 306.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). 1997 directory of postsecondary institutions, volume I,
Degree-granting institutions.
NCES 98-299-I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Scott, S., & Gregg, G. (2000). Meeting the evolving educational needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (2), 158-167.
Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Foley, T. (in press). Universal Design for Instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom.
Equity and Excellence in Education.
Tomlan, P., Farrell, M., & Geis, J. (1989). The 3 S’s of staff development: Scope, sequence, and structure.
In J. Vander Putten (Ed.), Researching new heights (pp. 23-32). Columbus, OH: Association on
Handicapped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary Education.
West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ipsen, S., & Martin, E. (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children, 59 , 456-
467.

Charles L. Salzberg is a Professor of Special Education and the Head of the Special Education and
Rehabilitation Department at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Ohio.
Lloyd Peterson is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Ohio State University, Columbus,
Christopher C. Debrand is a doctoral student in the Business Information Systems Department at
Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Rebecca J. Blair is a graduate student in the Masters of Business Administration program at Utah
State University, Logan, Utah.
Anna C. Carsey holds a bachelor’s degree from the Family and Human Development Department at
Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Alexis S. Johnson is a former undergraduate student from Utah State University, Logan, Utah.