Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Volume 17, Number 2
Spring 2004
From the Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 79 - 80
Trying to Do the Right Thing: Faculty Attitudes Toward Accommodating Students with
Learning Disabilities* ................................................................................................................................. 81 - 90
Jane McEldowney Jensen
Nancye McCrary
Kristina Krampe
Justin Cooper
College Students with Learning Disabilities Speak Out:
What It Takes to Be Successful in Postsecondary Education* ........................................................... 91 - 104
Michael E. Skinner
Structural Validity of the WAIS-III Among Postsecondary Students ................................................ 105 - 113
Marley W. Watkins
James M. Kuterbach
Rebecca J. Morgan
Julie L. FitzGerald
Rachel M. Neuhard
April G. Arthur
Leah B. Bucknavage
Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher
Education I: Disability Service Providers’ Perspective* .................................................................... 114 - 133
Catherine S. Fichten
Jennison V. Asuncion
Maria Barile
Myrtis E. Fossey
Chantal Robillard
Darlene Judd
Joan Wolforth
Joanne Senécal
Christian Généreux
Jean-Pierre Guimont
Daniel Lamb
Jean-Charles Juhel
Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education II:
Practical Recommendations for Disability Service Providers* ........................................................ 134 - 137
Catherine S. Fichten
Maria Barile
Myrtis E. Fossey
Chantal Robillard
Book Review Column: Faculty Disability Services Handbook ..........................................................138 – 140
Elaine Manglitz
Donna McCarty
*Indicates article accepted for publication by previous editor.
Editors
Nicole S. Ofiesh, The University of Arizona and James K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State
University
Associate Editors
Manju Banerjee, Acton, Massachusetts
Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University
Elaine Manglitz, Clayton College & State University
Editorial Assistants
Anne Dudley, University of Arizona
Devender Banda, The Pennsylvania State University
Editorial Review Board
Ron Blosser, Green River Community College
Loring Brinckerhoff, Educational Testing Service
Lyman Dukes III, University of South Florida
Catherine Fichten, Dawson College
Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sam Goodin, University of Michigan
K. Noel Gregg, University of Georgia
Richard Harris, Ball State University
Cheri Hoy, University of Georgia
Charles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University
Kristina Krampe, University of Kentucky
Scott Lissner, The Ohio State University
Joseph Madaus, University of Connecticut
Les McAllan, University of Arizona
Joan M. McGuire, University of Connecticut
David McNaughton, The Pennsylvania State University
Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas
Ward Newmeyer
David Parker, University of Connecticut
Betty Preus, College of St. Scholastica
Linda Price, Temple University
Frank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Charles Salzberg, Utah State University
Stuart Segal, University of Michigan
Judy Smithson, Illinois State University, Emeritus
Sharon K. Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School District
Daniel Ryan, University of Buffalo
Mary Catherine Scheeler, The Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley
Sally S. Scott, University of Connecticut
Stan Shaw, University of Connecticut
Marc Wilchesky, York University
AHEAD Board of Directors
Grady Landrum, President Wichita State University
Randy Borst, Immediate Past President and Acting Secretary University at Buffalo, SUNY
Jim Kessler, President-Elect University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Carol Funckes, Treasurer University of Arizona
Stephan Smith, Executive Director AHEAD
Joanie Friend, Director of Communication Metropolitan Community Colleges
Mike Shuttic, Director of Membership Oklahoma State University
Virginia Grubaugh, Director of Professional Development University of Michigan
Linda Walter, Director of Marketing Seton Hall University
Ruth Warick, Director of Constituent Relations – International University of British Columbia
Jean Ashmore, Director of Constituent Relations – US Rice University
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Author Guidelines
The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes manuscript submissions
that are of an innovative nature and relevant to the theory and practice of providing
postsecondary support services to students with disabilities. Guidelines for authors are as follows:
Content
Manuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:
• Research: Reports original quantitative or qualitative research;
• Integration: Integrates research of others in a meaningful way; compares or contrasts
theories; critiques results; and/or provides context for future exploration.
• Innovation: Proposes innovation of theory, approach, or process of service delivery based on
reviews of the literature and research.
• Policy Analysis: Provides analysis, critique and implications of public policy, statutes,
regulation, and litigation.
Format
All manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication
Manual (5th ed.), American Psychological Association, 2001. *
• Manuscripts should not exceed 20-25 typewritten pages.
• Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second
(see pages 63-65 of APA Manual). Authors should also avoid the use of sexist language and
the generic masculine pronoun.
• Manuscripts should have a title page that provides the names and affiliations of all authors
and the address of the principal author. (Authors should refrain from entering their names on
pages of the manuscript.)
• An abstract of 100-150 words should accompany all manuscripts. Abstracts must be typed
and double-spaced on a separate sheet of paper.
• An original and four (4) hard copies of the manuscript should be furnished.
• An electronic copy of the manuscript should be provided on disk with platform and software
clearly labeled. (PC, Microsoft Word preferred)
• Authors should request upon submission of manuscript if editorial communication will be
needed in accessible format (e.g. electronic copy).
• A cover letter should indicate whether or not the manuscript has been published or submitted
elsewhere for consideration of publication.
*For information on changes in the fifth edition, see www.apastyle.org/fifthchanges.html. For
responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at
www.apastyle.org/faqs.html.
Special Issue Guidelines
Guidelines for authors who want to propose special issues can be found on the AHEAD website
at www.ahead.org
Please note:
• Do not send original artwork during the manuscript review process; it will be requested upon
article acceptance.
• Authors will be notified by mail upon receipt of their manuscript.
Mailing address
Manuscripts should be submitted directly to the editors at either of the following addresses:
Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
College of Education
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology
Room 435b
Tucson, AZ 85721
James K. McAfee, Ph.D.
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Education
227 CEDAR
University Park, PA 16802
Upon acceptance for publication
For manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the
editor:
• An electronic copy of the final manuscript on a 3.5" disk (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) with
word processing software and level of computer system clearly defined.
• A hard copy of the final manuscript.
• A signed and completed Copyright Transfer form.
• A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author.
Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The Journal
reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of
changes.
Welcome to the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Nicole Ofiesh & James McAfee
With this, the spring 2004 issue, we mark our first production as the new editors of the
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED). We are pleased and excited to
engage in this endeavor and would like to share with you our backgrounds, ideas for the JPED,
and our commitment to the Journal’s authors and readers.
Who We Are
Nicole Ofiesh is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona with expertise in
secondary and postsecondary students with learning disabilities. She earned her Ph.D. from
Penn State in 1997 with an emphasis on students with disabilities in higher education. Formerly,
Nicole has worked as a special education teacher and as a learning disabilities specialist at both
a four-year university and community college. She consults nationally on issues related to testing
and persons with disabilities.
Jim McAfee is Associate Professor at Penn State. He earned his Ph.D. from Georgia State
University in 1980. His major areas of interest are transition and disability law. Jim is an Appellate
Officer for the due process system in Pennsylvania and is a former school principal,
superintendent and dean of academic affairs.
We bring a range of editorial experiences to our roles and have served for several years as
editorial board members for the JPED. Through our editorial experiences, we have come to the
shared belief that the strength of a journal lies in the dialogue it evokes. We are pleased to be
able to represent divergent viewpoints of a scholarly nature on issues related to postsecondary
education and disability.
Piloting a Steady Course
We have met regularly since we accepted the reins of the Journal in September 2003 and
have developed plans to continue the growth of the Journal initiated under our able predecessors,
most recently, Dr. Sally Scott. We have opted to maintain the current editorial structure of the
Journal, with three Associate Editors, who oversee book reviews, Dr. Elaine Manglitz; provide
support for new authors, Ms. Manju Banerjee; and maintain outreach, Ms. Liz Getzel. We have
added two editorial assistants, Ms. Anne Dudley and Mr. Devender Banda.
In this issue, you will find the names of several new members of the Editorial Board. We
welcome these individuals and the expertise they bring to the field of postsecondary education
and disability. We have made some changes to the author guidelines including the development
of guidelines for authors who wish to propose special topical issues. If you visit the JPED website
you will find a link to these guidelines as well as a link for new authors which provides additional
information about the editorial process and writing according to APA guidelines.
Our Commitment
We promise to foster a professional relationship with the authors and readers of the JPED
with respect to a timely turnaround for the processing of manuscripts, expedient processing of
manuscripts in alternative formats, renewed dedication to expanding the readership of the JPED,
ongoing support to new authors, and a venue that supports open dialogue with objectivity.
Our first Issue
The contents of this issue represent a range of topics from technology to assessment. In the
first article Jensen, McCrary, Krampe, and Cooper provide an intensive view of faculty attitudes
toward students with learning disabilities. Unlike the many survey studies conducted on this topic,
Jensen, et al were able to delve more deeply into the motivations behind attitudes and provide us
with a more complete view of perceived faculty dilemmas and misunderstandings about a
disability subject to many preconceived notions. Skinner then provides a complement to the
Jensen article with the view from the students’ vantage point. Together, the first two articles
provide some grist for a dialogue about what it means to provide an appropriate experience to
students with learning disabilities on a college campus. In a unique study, Watkins, Kuterbach,
Morgan, Fitzgerald, Neuhard, Arthur, and Bucknavage offer an empirical, specific and useful
analysis of one of the most frequently used psychometric instruments- the WAIS-III. As disability
service providers seek to buttress practice with empirical support, professional publications have
an obligation to solicit and support investigations of practices that may be based more on tradition
or theory than data. The Watkins, et al article furnishes a data-based foundation for the continued
use of the instrument as a diagnostic and identification tool. Finally, this issue contains a pair of
related articles about technology access on college campuses produced by multi-agency
research teams in Canada. In the first article, the authors examined the state of access to
technology in the Canadian postsecondary educational system. This investigation resulted in
identification of a set of three major needs. The needs identified in the first article are translated
by a second team into a set of practical recommendations for disability service providers.
We are excited by the content of our first issue and we are already well on our way to
creating our second and third issues fueled by a substantial increase in high quality submissions
and a call for focused topical issues. Please feel free to contact either of us to provide feedback
and suggestions.
Trying to Do the Right Thing:
Faculty Attitudes Toward Accommodating Students with Learning Disabilities
Jane McEldowney Jensen
Nancye McCrary
Kristina Krampe
University of Kentucky
Justin Cooper
Eastern Kentucky University
Abstract
The following study explores faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities at a large research
university. In the first phase of a three-year demonstration project, 14 instructional staff, including
teaching assistants, faculty, and faculty serving as administrators, were interviewed to determine
their informational needs and attitudes toward students with disabilities. Analysis of these
narrative interviews reveals that the participants viewed learning disabilities differently from other
disabilities and had questions regarding providing classroom accommodations for students with
learning disabilities. This uncertainty stems from preexisting attitudes toward students in general,
principles of academic freedom, and questions of the legitimacy of learning disability diagnosis.
Recommendations for open discussion of faculty and student responsibilities toward teaching and
learning on campus are discussed.
This article explores the relationships between instructional staff and students with learning
disabilities and highlights the power of preexisting attitudes to color perceptions of present events
(Polkinghorne, 1988). Previous survey research of faculty attitudes toward accommodations for
college students with disabilities has demonstrated that, despite limited experience with
individuals with disabilities and limited knowledge of disability legislation, most faculty express a
willingness to make classroom accommodations and consider teaching adaptations (Leyser,
Vogel, & Wyland, 1998). Our research further explores faculty attitudes through narrative
interviews.
Background of the Study
This research was part of the development phase of a three-year demonstration project
addressing the post-secondary institutional environment for students with disabilities (Krampe &
Berdine, in press). A central goal of this phase of the project was to clarify campus policies and
procedures regarding students with disabilities and to determine points of conflict and
informational needs relative to students with disabilities that might be addressed in a web-based
resource that was the end product of the demonstration.1 Focused interviews were conducted to
examine the attitudes and informational needs of university administration, instructional staff, and
support personnel. In this article, we focus on the interviews conducted with instructional staff and
their perceptions of students with learning disabilities.
The instructional staff who participated in the interview study are not necessarily
representative of the faculty as a whole. Because participants were recruited for their knowledge
of the campus, its policies, and its students, they represent those instructors most likely to be
aware of the legal requirements of reasonable accommodation and most likely to have positive
attitudes toward improvements in undergraduate education. It is all the more interesting,
therefore, that our interview data revealed that these instructors viewed learning disabilities
differently from other disabilities and had questions regarding providing classroom
accommodations for students with learning disabilities.
Related Literature
According to Tinto (1993), an integral part of student persistence is the ability of the student
to develop meaningful relationships in the college community. One important aspect of the
relationship that must be cultivated is the student-faculty relationship (Astin, 1993). However, for
various reasons, including the lack of communication described below, students in general often
fail to develop these integral relationships with faculty members (Graff, 1999). Students with
learning disabilities are even less likely than their nondisabled peers to develop meaningful
relationships with faculty members (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000; Fichten & Goodrick, 1990).
Although research has shown that most faculty members are willing to provide
accommodations for students with learning disabilities (Leyser et al., 1998; Scott, 1994), it has
also been demonstrated that faculty members struggle with ethical concerns regarding the effects
of those accommodations on the academic integrity of individual courses, overall programs, and
the institution as a whole (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000). Our research confirms Bourke and
Strehorn’s explanation that numerous factors such as faculty belief in the efficacy of
accommodations, ease of implementation, and type of accommodation affect the way faculty
members feel about providing accommodations. Research by Fichten and Goodrick (1990)
indicates that professors prefer students who approach them and initiate dialogue; however,
Norton (1997) found that students were not comfortable approaching faculty members to request
accommodations. Furthermore, research has shown that students with disabilities are less likely
than their peers without disabilities to seek out help from professors or other sources when
special considerations may be needed (Fichten & Goodrick, 1990). In their study, Fichten and
Goodrick found that students frequently would only approach professors for assistance as a last
resort.
Students with learning disabilities benefit from interaction with faculty members (Fichten &
Goodrick, 1990). This benefit is not restricted to students with learning disabilities, however, as
previous studies have confirmed that students in general who interact with and work closely with
faculty experience positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1993). What is significant is the way in
which the special needs of students with disabilities—accommodations such as extended test
times and substitutions for particular coursework—challenge previously held beliefs of faculty and
instructional staff regarding the academic integrity of their work. That challenge arises in ways
that cannot be captured in abstract discussions of teaching and learning.
The challenges of serving college students with disabilities are likely to increase in the future.
Specifically, students with learning disabilities are already a rapidly growing population on the
college campus. In 1999, the National Center for Educational Statistics released a
comprehensive report profiling students with disabilities in postsecondary educational settings
(Horn & Berktold, 1999). At that time, approximately 6% of the undergraduate college student
population were estimated to have a disability. Roughly 29% of students with disabilities were
diagnosed as having learning disabilities. The population of students with learning disabilities is
increasing on college campuses due to increased societal influences on postsecondary
education. First, federal legislation, such as ADA and the reauthorization of IDEA, places a
greater emphasis on the possibility that students with disabilities can attend and succeed in
college. Second, the number of students with mild disabilities (e.g., LD, ADHD) has grown in the
K-12 setting, which translates to larger numbers enrolling in postsecondary schools. Finally,
advances in medicine mean that we have more individuals with disabilities at all age levels.
Although the numbers of students with learning disabilities enrolling nationally in
postsecondary settings are encouraging, the rates of persistence are not. Overall persistence
rates (i.e., still in college or graduated after five years) for students with learning disabilities were
52% compared to 64% for nondisabled students. Further, only 36% of students with learning
disabilities received a degree within five years in contrast to 50% of nondisabled students
(Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). These rates of persistence indicated that students
with learning disabilities are not experiencing the same rates of academic success as their
nondisabled peers. This discrepancy was the impetus for the federal funding of demonstration
projects to improve the quality of postsecondary education for students with disabilities—funding
that supported this project.
Method
The goal of our interview study was to identify points of conflict on campus and to
delineate areas of information needed to improve the quality of education for students with
disabilities at a comprehensive research university. The results of this inquiry were used in the
knowledge base development phase of the project (Krampe & Berdine, in press). This phase
included quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection consisting of a university-wide
survey distributed on-line and focused interviews with administrators, instructional staff, and
students. Fifty-two individuals participated in individual interviews. The participants included
academic administrators, auxiliary service administrators, instructors, and students with
disabilities. An advisory committee made up of administrators and students with disabilities was
consulted at each stage of the project.
This article focuses on the interviews conducted with instructional staff including faculty,
administrators who currently teach undergraduates and a group interview with three teaching
assistants.2
Selection of Participants
Using purposive sampling, interview participants were recruited for their experience
teaching on the campus under study and their expressed interest in undergraduate education. 3
The research team attempted to achieve representation from across the core curriculum of
undergraduate education, including four of the six undergraduate colleges. Members of the
project advisory committee were asked to recommend instructors with experience teaching
undergraduate core courses (courses that most first- and second-year students would be likely to
take to meet baccalaureate requirements) and who had an interest in serving students. It was
understood that these criteria would naturally result in participants who were more aware of
campus policies and issues of undergraduate education than the average faculty member. These
instructors were then contacted with a request to participate. If they were not able to participate,
we asked for further referrals and those individuals were contacted.
The resulting group of participants included at least one representative from the faculty of the
colleges of education, engineering, and communication and at least one member of the faculty
from the departments of psychology, political science, and history in the college of arts and
sciences. In addition, the group included three teaching assistants from the department of English
with at least two years of undergraduate teaching experience. Of the participating faculty, four
were serving as academic administrators at the time of the interview. Once interview participants
had been selected, the advisory committee was again consulted to ensure their satisfaction that
the pool of participants was broad enough to offer rich responses relative to perceptions of
students with disabilities.
Data Collection
The interviews were loosely structured around a set of grand tour questions. Spradley (1979)
defines grand tour questions as those intended to focus participants on a particular topic without
restricting their interpretation of that topic or its scope. Our interview questions included the
following:
1. What memorable experiences have you had with students with disabilities?
2. What is your understanding of the term disability?
3. What information would be helpful to you in accommodating students with disabilities in your
job?
4. What types of questions related to educating students with disabilities have you been asked
by others?
As participants responded to these questions, they were questioned further and asked to
elaborate on their comments. Thus, each interview unfolded as a narrative derived from the
participant’s personal experiences and perspective. The interviews were audio taped and
transcribed.
Analysis
The interview transcripts were analyzed through a process of open and focused coding from
multiple independent readings of the transcripts by four members of the research team (Emerson,
Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Each transcript was read independently and coded openly, creating a
rudimentary scheme of codes. The team then met and constructed a focused scheme that
included all the insights of the first reading. Each transcript was reread at least once using the
focused codes to identify rich case examples for reporting (Glesne, 1999). The process of
multiple readings with multiple readers increases the credibility of our analysis by allowing for
triangulation of our analytic readings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Results: “Doing the Right Thing”
Several strong themes emerged from the analysis. Overall, comments by the instructors
centered on their desire to do the right thing, meaning that they were willing to make classroom
accommodations and felt a duty to do so. Participants were generally aware of campus
procedures regarding certification of disability by the disability resource office and of their legal
obligations to provide reasonable accommodation. At the same time, there was distinct overriding
concern to protect academic integrity. Particularly when discussing learning disabilities,
participants’ comments reflected a deep mistrust of how learning disabilities are assessed and
how far faculty and instructional staff should be expected to go to accommodate students with
learning disabilities. This grudging acceptance of students with learning disabilities was further
complicated by comments indicating a general distrust of all student motives, making it unclear at
times whether respondents were describing students with disabilities or students in general.
There seemed to be an attitude that students habitually try to cheat the system and get through
college without really doing what is expected.
Faculty in the study regularly distinguished their comments about the logistics of
accommodating students with physical or sensory disabilities from their uncertainty about
providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Despite official letters of
accommodation from the Disability Resource Center on campus, disabilities that are not visible,
such as learning disabilities, were difficult for the faculty in our study to recognize and their
comments reflected that ambiguity. One administrator complained that it was difficult to engage
teaching assistants in a dialogue about working with students with disabilities because, “They
don’t think they’re going to have them in their classes; they never noticed students with
disabilities when they were in college and can’t imagine working with them now.” Furthermore,
learning disabilities often incorporate subtle markers such as language or social behaviors that
can be misread as having other causes, including a lack of academic preparation or lack of
organizational skills. For this reason, the faculty often could not distinguish between students with
learning disabilities and unprepared students.
Sources of conflict for the participants in our study with regard to interpreting reasonable
accommodation for students with learning disabilities were preexisting attitudes toward students
in general, principles of academic freedom in the classroom, and questions about the legitimacy
of diagnosing learning disabilities. The following sections highlight the key questions held by the
instructional staff: How do I do the right thing? How do I know “hidden” disabilities are legitimate?
And, How do I know they’re not just trying to “beat the system”?
How Do I Do the Right Thing?
When defining the term “disability,” most of the respondents referred to the need for
accommodation. Most of the faculty and instructors in the study indicated that they wanted to
meet their responsibilities as teachers, but were unclear as to what “reasonable accommodation”
means in the college classroom. “Issues of reasonable accommodation hit some faculty as just a
broadside whack,” one senior faculty member explained. The issue of accommodation for
students with learning disabilities included more than providing an equal opportunity to students
with special needs; for many faculty members, it became an issue of fairness for all. Not only do
accommodations take time on the part of the instructor, but there was also a sense of injustice.
“… It’s unfair to give accommodations to some and not others,” one instructor explained.
Implied in the attitude of “doing the right thing” is the student’s responsibility for his or her
learning, including knowing how to ask for help. For example, one instructor commented on the
need to encourage students to identify themselves:
Perhaps we haven’t been as effective in making students feel comfortable identifying the
fact that they have a disability. I know there are students who have disabilities who
would qualify for some accommodation to be made, but they are reluctant to identify.
And maybe there is a place where the university needs to work more in terms of its
atmosphere or its making students feel like it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for
them to bring this information forward.
Certainly, students should feel comfortable asking for accommodations and talking to their
instructors about their needs; however, research on student populations has shown that students
in general are often reluctant to talk to instructional staff, and students with disabilities are even
less likely to initiate a dialogue with faculty (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000; Fichten & Goodrick, 1990).
Thus, the difficulty in communication may run in both directions. Neither faculty nor students are
likely to easily begin a dialogue and both expect the other to initiate the conversation.
Responsibility for learning also raises the issue of effective pedagogy. Assuming that a
student has taken the responsibility to coordinate the support he or she needs, accommodation
further implies that the current methods of instruction are appropriate for all students. The two
issues were often intertwined in our interviews; as one social science professor told us:
I want to do this. I want to help. You know … I’ve got 300 people. How do I determine if
this person has a disability that I truly should drop everything and accommodate, or
whatever?
This instructor saw helping as changing the way he would normally teach a very large class
in order to accommodate one student. This required more time on the part of the instructor, time
that may be deducted from the attention paid to hundreds of other students. When the rights of a
student with disabilities are framed in this reasoning of “fairness,” it becomes easier to see the
ambiguity for faculty surrounding accommodation and “doing the right thing”.
How Do I Know “Invisible” Disabilities Are Legitimate?
The following comment from one of the administrators echoed the sentiments implied or
stated in many of our interviews:
Some of the problems are the diagnostic instruments and the people that are using them
and controlling them are not as refined as we need them to be. So there are people who
are using learning disabilities as a way of getting their children into better schools
because they have longer time to take exams and make a better score. … So there is a
basic distrust that I think … there is a distrust of the secondary school’s data and now
there’s a distrust of the data coming in about special needs…
The implication that a diagnosis of a learning disability may be false or that students, or their
parents, may be using questionable diagnoses to improve their chances to succeed academically
only adds to the ambiguity surrounding the responsibility of the instructor to accommodate
students with learning disabilities.
Furthermore, all learning disabilities were not viewed equally. One faculty member explained,
The very good examples are a student that is doing extremely well in everything except
one area. Let’s say math. He’s got a (3.3) average and he’s taken the math course twice
and failed. To me, there’s something wrong. This is a motivated student. And the test
scores come back and in this particular case … there’s a legitimate science behind that.
We talked about the foreign language learning disability. I think the science behind that
becomes much weaker. There is no test that I know of that you can give and know, to
validly measure the inability to learn a foreign language.
Public awareness of learning disabilities in math and reading made such claims easier to
accept; but, when such diagnoses translate into a difficulty in a subject area like foreign
languages or science, our participants suspected the validity of the diagnosis. Participants in the
study gave other examples, including cases of students who were able to pass introductory
courses but not the subsequent upper-level courses. These examples not only raised questions
of the diagnostic process, they also highlighted how attitudes regarding why individuals seek out
a diagnosis and under what conditions they ask for accommodation influenced how faculty
members view their responsibilities toward helping students.
Another point raised regarding substitutions and accommodations had to do with whether or
not students with learning disabilities are able to keep up, despite receiving accommodations.
One instructor explained,
I’m letting them have another place to take the exam and a longer period, but still what
they are producing, for the most part, is less organized than the students I’ve been
giving A’s on or sometimes even B’s on. And I’m finding that some students want to use
that learning disability that, “have a right to the B because of my problem.” And yet I
say, “Well, we’re giving the longer period of time to take the exam, but I have to grade
your exam in relationship to the other students.”
Some instructors questioned whether providing accommodations for students with learning
disabilities may, in some ways, mean providing remediation as well. And again, the issue of
fairness to all students was a constant concern.
How Do I Know They’re Not Just Trying to “Beat the System”?
The instructional staff in our study held deep-seated attitudes about students that not only
influenced the structure of their classes, but also how they perceived and work with students. Our
study indicated that faculty concerns regarding students were not limited to students requiring
accommodation. When trying to explain their unease with providing alternatives for students with
learning disabilities, interview participants shared attitudes they held toward students in general.
Conflicts between faculty expectations for students and the reality of student performance
became apparent.
Making reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities was complicated by
instructors’ beliefs regarding the academic motivation of students in general. Thus, their
comments tended to focus on the “fairness” of providing one student with a service or opportunity,
but not another. Underlying these comments lay an assumption that students are, on the whole,
looking for the easy way out of intellectual work. If this is true, then “fairness” refers to a system to
control for cheating or academic “slacking.” In this framework, students with disabilities may be
seen as providing excuses rather than evidence and, if all students are seen as generally
devious, then all excuses are suspect.
When referring to student behaviors, two opposing stances prevailed in the interview
responses: (a) students in general will try to get by with as little effort as possible, and (b) faculty
feel burdened by requests for extra work or alterations in their instructional practices. These two
views, while representing conflicts in how instructors and students view the roles of each other,
also derived from quite similar attitudes about power relations in postsecondary education.
Although we asked about instructional accommodations, our interview participants responded
by verbalizing attitudes about power and responsibility. For instance, the attitude of instructors as
“gatekeepers” was often constructed as a responsibility to protect academic integrity. Given all
the possible constructions of teaching and learning, we found little deviation in faculty attitudes
toward their responsibilities to convey information, measure the extent to which information is
remembered, and prevent students from an innate tendency to get by with the least amount of
effort.
Discussion: Examining Attitudes
Although instructors at a research university have other responsibilities, most of the
participants in our study described themselves as teachers. The role of “teacher,” however,
includes a wide range of expectations regarding the responsibility of the instructor in student
learning. This responsibility is often narrowly defined as a responsibility to evaluate, often causing
tensions when evaluation practices such as testing are altered by accommodation. We do not
wish to paint these instructors as “bad” teachers. Rather, our research indicates that faculty
attitudes—accurate or not—influence their interactions with students. Making meaning of rapidly
changing conditions, in this case increasing numbers of students with disabilities in
postsecondary education, is often anchored in preexisting beliefs and attitudes (Anderson, Reder,
& Simon, 1996).
Questions of pedagogy are rarely raised in university settings outside of isolated workshops
and orientation sessions; most university instructors teach as they were taught and consider
these techniques appropriate for “college-level work.” However, since instructors in higher
education typically were above-average students in college, the learning strategies and resources
they use and have used in the past are probably different from those of their current students
(McGrath & Spear, 1991). As a result, expectations faculty members hold for themselves as
teachers are likely to fall short of the instructional support that most students need in order to be
successful. As one administrator explained:
In some ways it’s [providing accommodations] easy. The technology is out there. The
methods of accommodation are fairly straightforward. … So I think that’s one thing that
people need to know how. And I think it implies more than just a technical knowledge.
They may not know how to communicate with students maybe on a more intimate level.
… When you have a student with a disability, I think that sort of forces the issue of
learning how to communicate with that person. That’s something that a lot of instructors
are not good at.
A lack of academic support in the classroom becomes magnified when a student has a
disability that makes traditional or typical classroom practices less effective for successful
learning and requires communication between instructor and student to work out better
strategies.
For example, instructors’ mental constructions of “typical” college students may exclude the
possibility of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with learning difficulties. In such
cases, preexisting understandings about who “belongs” in college serve as perceptual screens
that can prevent creative approaches to requests for academic accommodations. Even though
instructional personnel know that the question of whether to admit a student has already been
determined and, in any case, does not fall within their responsibilities, doubt about a student’s
suitability to the institution or the course arises all too often when they are faced with students’
requests for accommodations. Thus, beliefs serve as perceptual screens that inhibit ability to
imagine new and different possibilities (Wertsch, 1998).
Attitudes have been defined as “predispositions to respond” that “provide direction for
subsequent actions” (Simonson & Maushak, 1996, p. 984). Such predisposed responses to
requests for instructional accommodations may in fact be a foundation for polarity between
students and faculty. For example, if a faculty member views herself as a gatekeeper, upholding
academic standards of postsecondary education and preventing unprepared students from
“getting by,” her approach may convey a struggle for power with students rather than an effort to
negotiate a reasonable accommodation with those who have legitimate claims.
Attitudes and beliefs as “habits of mind” make it difficult to solve problems in new ways. Thus,
as students and faculty make meaning of accommodations in the classroom by associating those
events with existing understandings, they build schemas that become dominant mechanisms for
restructuring memory and organizing behavior. As a result, recall is often distorted to fit existing
schema (Anderson et al., 1996). Providing information through campus orientations or faculty
workshops without addressing a priori attitudes about faculty expectations of students in general,
and attitudes toward learning disabilities specifically, may not effectively change the dominant
mechanisms individuals use for sense making in practice and, therefore, not change the
adversarial relationship in the classroom.
Academic Freedom and Learning Disabilities
The tension between providing reasonable accommodation and the ambiguities regarding the
responsibilities of teaching and learning are not new. Guckenberger v. Boston University directly
addressed the tensions involved in providing accommodations to students with disabilities on two
fronts involving academic freedom: (a) the rights of the institution to decide how to recognize a
learning disability and (b) the rights of the institution to decide what is a reasonable
accommodation (Bors, 1999). In that case, the president of the university publicly aired his
skepticism of the diagnosis of learning disabilities, refused to recognize some students as having
a disability, and refused to provide the letters of accommodation to others. The court’s decision
resulted in perceived victory for both sides. University policy to refuse to offer course substitutions
that would alter program requirements for a liberal arts degree was upheld and the plaintiff’s claim
that the university did not use appropriate procedures for assessing requests for accommodations
was also upheld in the court’s judgment (Bors, 1999).
However, Guckenberger did not delve into epistemological questions regarding the manner in
which courses are taught or the pedagogical responsibilities of instructors and students discussed
in this article. The principle of academic freedom that protects postsecondary institutions’ rights to
control their academic standards was upheld but not complete freedom to refuse students’
requests for accommodation. However, the implication of Guckenberger for faculty-student
relationships is important to our thesis. Faculty members have autonomy in the classroom to
decide their own standards, and students have the right to demand reasonable accommodation.
If communication between the two parties is not well established, it is likely that an adversarial, or
at least unproductive, relationship will ensue.
Requests for accommodations such as extra time for testing, taking tests in an environment
free from extraneous sound or movement, or extended time to complete assignments raise
fundamental epistemological issues for instructional staff. For instance, when a student with a
documented disability requests extended time to complete an assignment, the request brings into
focus a range of perspectives on how we know and evaluate what is known or understood and
who is responsible or accountable for students knowing. While such questions are fundamental in
the field of K-12 education, they are rarely raised in most courses of study in the postsecondary
arena.
Learning differences in a postsecondary environment, especially in a research university, are
overshadowed not only by standardized levels of achievement, but also by standard expectations
of “academic” behavior. In this educational environment, crucial epistemological and pedagogical
questions are often rhetorical. Such questions rarely lead to further inquiry, instructional
adaptations, or changes in the ways information is delivered or learning is evaluated. However,
when differences exist and accommodations are mandated, questions regarding how learning
occurs and how the acquisition of knowledge is demonstrated or evaluated become active
inquiries that have the potential to lead beyond rhetoric. As one participant in our study from the
college of engineering explained:
It’s these sorts of problems that challenge us to think out of the box, which is what
the field of engineering is all about. The term engineering comes from ingenuity and
students with [learning] disabilities challenge us to be more resourceful and creative in
how we teach and how we measure academic achievement.
Recommendations
Changing faculty attitudes toward students with learning disabilities should start with open
discussion of the responsibilities involved in teaching and learning on the part of both faculty and
students. The didactic information that is provided in most faculty orientation sessions regarding
legal requirements and processes of accommodation is not enough. Based on our study, it may
be beneficial for disability service practitioners to address preconceived notions regarding the
different kinds of disabilities faculty may encounter in their classrooms and recognize how those
preconceptions are shaped by instructors’ attitudes toward students in general. Although they
want to be good teachers, faculty may have doubts about the process of diagnosis and
documentation or of their own abilities to meet students’ needs. Recognizing these doubts may
be an effective way to engage instructional staff in dialogue.
Instructors need information regarding the process of diagnosis, guidelines for working with
students with disabilities, and resources for providing accommodations. However, an open and
honest discussion of reasonable expectations for student work in general, relative to instructional
staff’s understandings of their role as teachers, is also necessary to clarify what it means to make
reasonable accommodations. The principle of universal design may be a useful approach to this
discussion. Most people recognize the democratic fairness of universal design in architecture—
that widening a doorway, for example, makes it easier for all users to enter and exit. Likewise,
universal design in the classroom—clarifying curricular expectations for all students—may
improve communication between instructors and their students. Content enhancement routines,
for example, such as those developed by the Center for Research on Learning at Kansas
University are beneficial for all students, and helpful to students with learning disabilities (for a full
list of publications on content enhancement, go to http://www.ku-crl.org/htmlfiles/articles/article1.html). These kinds of teaching strategies focus on the content to be learned rather competitive
measures of achievement, alleviating the tension reasonable accommodations may cause to an
instructor’s sense of fairness and academic freedom.
Pedagogical discussions of content enhancement and clear course expectations require
collaboration across campus and would require administrative support. Centers for teaching and
learning, for example, may be appropriate partners for disability services—a relationship that is
often underdeveloped. For example, the formative assessment process required by our project
resulted in increased dialogue across campus about serving students with disabilities. Just by
setting up the interviews, we were able to raise epistemological and pedagogical questions that
stimulated active or goal-oriented discourse across the institution. Going further, as part of the
demonstration project, we captured the most salient parts of the interview conversations, which
emphasized points of conflict between students with learning disabilities and instructional staff,
and presented them as learning activities, embedded with questions and responses, in an on-line
learning environment. This learning environment is now being used to a limited degree in
instructional orientation sessions and in departmental conversations, but further institutional
commitment is necessary to continue use and promote further conversations on campus.
A similar process of examining processes and policies on campus is recommended. This
might include meeting with administrators, lead instructors of core classes, and disability support
service practitioners to clarify current practices and policies. We were told that often individuals
who support students with disabilities and their counterparts in academic affairs rarely meet
unless there is a problem to be resolved; therefore, a proactive session to define what is
reasonable and what is ideal for students with disabilities can be very beneficial. We also found it
beneficial to bring an outside voice to this process as we did with a project manager who was not
under the supervision of any of the participating units.
Finally, our inquiry revealed the need for further research into faculty attitudes toward
students with disabilities. These attitudes are not formed in isolation; therefore, it is strongly
recommended that future inquiry examine instructors’ perspectives on student learning behaviors
in general so that the provision of reasonable accommodations for students with learning
disabilities may be understood in that context. A deeper understanding of how instructional staff
understand and interpret their responsibility for student learning will inform the ways in which the
legal requirements for accommodating students with disabilities may be presented by disability
service providers and campus administrators.
References
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational
Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
Bourke, A.B., & Strehorn, K.C. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of instructional
accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 2632.
Bors, P.L. (1999). Academic freedom faces learning disabilities: Guckenberger v. Boston
University. Journal of College and University Law, 25(3), 581-612.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Fichten, C.S., & Goodrick, G. (1990). Getting along in college: Recommendations for college
students with disabilities and their professors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34(2), 103125.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An Introduction. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Graff, G. (1999). The academic language gap. Clearing House, 72(3), 140-142.
Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in post-secondary education: A profile of
preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Krampe, K. & Berdine, W. (in press). University of Kentucky Engaging Differences Project:
Providing information about accommodation online and just in time. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., & Wyland, S. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students
with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 13(3).
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications.
McGrath, D., & Spear, M.B. (1991). The Academic crisis of the community college. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school
attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 119-127.
Norton, S.M. (1997). Examination accommodations for community college students with learning
disabilities: How are they viewed by faculty and students? Community College Journal of
Research & Practice, 21, 51-69.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Scott, S.S. (1994). Determining reasonable academic adjustments for college students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(7), 403-412.
Simonson, M. and Maushak, N. (1996). (in Jonassen, D.). Instructional technology and attutude
change. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York,
NY: Scholastic Press.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The Ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Notes
1
Procedures for providing reasonable accommodation to students with disabilities on this
campus are administered by a Disability Resource Center (DRC). Individuals employed by
the university are introduced to policies and legal requirements regarding accommodation
during staff orientations. This is true for instructional staff as well; however, students are
2
3
ultimately responsible for notifying their instructors of their need for accommodation by
providing documentation in the form of a letter from the DRC outlining the type of
accommodation they require.
Three teaching assistants were interviewed as a group due to scheduling difficulties. The
interviewer followed the same protocol as in individual interviews.
Purposeful or theoretical sampling refers to a process whereby the researcher determines a
sampling criteria based on theory or relevant existing research and then recruits individuals
who meet those criteria (Glesne, 1999).
About the Authors
Jane McEldowney Jensen is Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies at the
University of Kentucky. She received her Ph.D. in cultural anthropology and higher education
from Indiana University. Her research focuses on educational aspirations and college student
success.
Nancye McCrary is Assistant Research Professor and Program Evaluator for the
Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning. Her research interests involve
the use of qualitative inquiry, electronic user tracking records, and survey methods to examine
the efficacy of aesthetic mediation in instruction.
Justin T. Cooper is Assistant Professor of Learning and Behavioral Disorders in the
Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University. His research interests include
metacognitive strategy instruction, the academic and social-behavioral success of college
students with disabilities, and effective systems of support for persons with disabilities in postsecondary settings.
Kristina M. Krampe is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. She was the co-principal investigator and
project director for the Engaging Differences Project. Currently, she is the co-principal investigator
for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning.
College Students with Learning Disabilities Speak Out:
What It Takes to Be Successful in Postsecondary Education
Michael E. Skinner, Ph.D.
College of Charleston
Abstract
Erin sat in her graduation regalia waiting patiently for her name to be called to receive her
long-awaited college diploma. In many ways, the thoughts going through her mind were identical
to those of her classmates: excitement, relief, pride, and an eager anticipation of the future.
However, Erin was also experiencing many emotions that only her fellow students with learning
disabilities could understand. She vividly recalled the frustration she had felt when making the
transition from a high school system where all of her educational programming was prescribed by
law and structured for her by teachers and parents, to the college setting where SHE was
responsible for advocating for herself. She recalled the anger she had felt toward a high school
experience that failed to prepare her for the strange new world college presented for a student
with a learning disability. No teacher, counselor, or psychologist had ever discussed her specific
weaknesses with her. Nor had school personnel described the laws that apply to students with
disabilities after they leave the structured confines of public education. Furthermore, Erin hadn’t
had a clue as to the academic accommodations available to her. She remembered hearing about
the section of Spanish modified for students with learning disabilities only AFTER she had failed
the course in her first semester as a freshman. She also remembered how her trip to Disability
Services changed her life. Gradually, with the assistance of DS, Erin learned the art of selfdetermination. Armed with proper documentation and support from DS personnel, Erin gradually
gained the confidence she needed to discuss her learning needs with professors and request
legitimate accommodations. Erin also remembered the unwavering support from her family and
her friends in the LD support group. But, most of all, Erin realized that her success was due to
her perseverance, reflected in her willingness to spend large amounts of time studying, often
while other students were socializing.
Suddenly, Erin heard her name called. Her thoughts immediately reverted back to the
commencement ceremony. She proudly accepted her diploma, waved to her family in the
audience, and walked off of the stage, confident in the belief that the skills, knowledge, and selfdetermination she had acquired in college would serve her well in the future.
Erin’s story is a common one. College-bound students with learning disabilities (LD) are
frequently unprepared for the challenges presented by higher education. Murray, Goldstein,
Nourse, and Edgar (2000), for example, found that 80% of students with LD enrolled in
postsecondary education had not graduated five years after completing high school. This
compared to a nongraduation rate for students without LD of only 56%.
Despite the problems students with LD are likely to encounter in postsecondary programs,
the number of students with learning disabilities enrolled in postsecondary institutions has
increased dramatically over the past 25 years. From 1976 to 1990 the number of freshmen with
documented learning disabilities entering postsecondary programs increased tenfold (Norlander,
Shaw, & McGuire, 1990). Of the 9% of undergraduate postsecondary students reporting
disabilities in 1996, students with learning disabilities accounted for approximately 35% - by far
the most populous disability category (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996). As of the
1997-1998 academic year, an estimated 428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled in
colleges in this country, almost half of them diagnosed as LD (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1999).
Perhaps the greatest impetus for the increased focus on adults with LD and subsequent
increases in college enrollments came in the form of the 1988 definition of LD proposed and
adopted by the National Joint Committee for Learning Disabilities (NJCLD, 1999). Among other
changes to the accepted definition of LD, the NJCLD definition focused on learning disabilities as
a lifespan issue. This increased focus on late adolescents and adults with LD was also evident in
dramatic increase in the number of articles appearing in the professional literature dealing with
issues relevant to this population (Patton & Polloway, 1996).
In addition to the acknowledgment by professionals that learning disabilities typically
presented life-long obstacles, other factors contributing to the rise in the number of students with
LD enrolling in postsecondary education include (a) adherence to the legal mandates of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which require “reasonable accommodations” for students
with disabilities; (b) a dramatic increase in compensatory technologies such as powerful word
processing programs; and (c) transitions plans written into Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs) in high school as a required by reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).
Characteristics of Older Adolescent and Adult Learners with LD
Our knowledge of the characteristics of older adolescents and adults with LD indicates that
they are more likely than their nondisabled peers to experience problems successfully navigating
higher education. We know, for example, that, similar to children with LD, adolescents and adults
with LD are more likely than their non disabled peers to demonstrate (a) problems with study
skills such as test-taking and preparation, note-taking, and listening comprehension; (b) difficulty
organizing themselves for learning and life tasks; (c) social skill deficits; (d) academic deficits in
reading, written expression, and mathematics; (e) low self-esteem; and (f) higher school dropout
rates (deBettencourt, Zigmond, & Thornton, 1989; Deshler & Lenz, 1989; Kish, 1991; Mercer,
1997; Omizo & Omizo, 1988; White, 1992). Increased demands placed on older adolescents and
adults, such as employment and postsecondary education, typically make learning disabilities
more complex to diagnose and treat (Mercer, 1997; Skinner, 1998; Polloway, Smith, & Patton,
1984).
Characteristics of “Successful” People with LD
General adjustment. Although much of the existing professional literature describes the
weaknesses of students with disabilities, several investigators have focused on describing factors
associated with the life, vocational, and academic adjustment of this population. Minskoff (1994),
for example, identified several factors that are predictive of successful adjustment for people with
LD. These included (a) severity of the LD; (b) degree of support from family; (c) socioeconomic
status (SES); (d) completion of high school; (e) quality of education at elementary and secondary
levels; and (f) quality of vocational and postsecondary experiences.
Working with “highly successful” people with LD (based on income, job classification,
educational level, prominence in one’s field, and job satisfaction), Ginsberg, Gerber, and Reiff
(1994) found that, compared to the “moderately” successful group, “highly successful” people with
LD demonstrated an ability to take control of their lives. They noted, for example, that highly
successful people with LD expressed a strong desire to excel, were goal oriented, and were able
to reconceptualize their learning problems into something positive and functional. External
manifestations of these internal decisions included (a) persistence; (b) the ability to choose
occupations in which they could capitalize on their strengths and minimize their learning
problems; (c) “learned creativity” — or, the ability to devise novel means to an end; and (d) the
ability and willingness to seek out and use supportive people.
Adjustment to postsecondary settings. Several studies have systematically investigated
those characteristics of students with LD that are predictive of success specifically in
postsecondary settings. Hartzell and Compton (1984), for example, conducted a follow-up study
of 114 students with LD ages 15 to 27 years. People in their sample who graduated from college
reported strong family support, the availability of individualized tutoring, and above-average
verbal IQ. Graduates in this study also showed signs of “mild” to “moderate” learning disabilities,
as opposed to “severe” learning problems.
Analyzing data from 107 students with LD who entered college between 1980 and 1988,
Vogel, Hruby, and Adelman (1993) compared the characteristics of students who successfully
completed their undergraduate degrees with students who had been dismissed or who had
dropped out due to academic failure. Results indicated that, compared to nongraduates,
graduates (a) were less likely to be placed in a self-contained classroom during elementary,
middle, and high school; (b) had completed almost twice as many English courses; and (c) were
more likely to have received private tutoring that lasted for an extended time period.
Greenbaum, Graham, and Scales (1995) investigated the status of 49 students with LD who
attended the University of Maryland between 1980 and 1992. Results indicated several factors
that the authors felt were essential to the success of these students, including (a) mild to
moderate (versus severe) learning problems; (b) above-average IQ; (c) higher-than-average
socioeconomic status (SES); (d) awareness of the nature of their disabilities; (e) motivation and
perseverance; and (e) support and guidance from “significant others,” including teachers, family,
friends, and college faculty.
Analyzing the quantitative data from a 20-year longitudinal study of individuals with LD,
Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, and Herman (1999) identified six personal attitudes and behaviors
that were good predictors of success. These include self-awareness, perseverance, proactivity,
emotional stability, goal setting, and the use of support systems. Factors with considerably less
predictive power included IQ, academic achievement, life stressors, age, gender, SES, and
ethnicity.
Based on anecdotal reports and personal life stories, Smith, Dowdy, Polloway, and Blalock
(1997) identified nine “strategies” frequently used by adults with LD to increase the probability of
successful outcomes. These included:
1. proactiveness or taking control of one’s life;
2. distribution of challenges over time (time management);
3. acceptance of one’s learning disability and developing an understanding of both strengths and weaknesses;
4. development of a positive outlook on life;
5. realistic goal setting and goal-directedness;
6. positive stress reduction strategies;
7. overall perseverance;
8. ability to recruit, accept, use, and acknowledge support from others; and
9. ability to apply these attributes at the right time, in the right circumstances. (p. 263)
Although determined through varying research methodologies, the literature summarized
above noted similarities in variables that appear to be predictive of successful adjustment to life,
and, more specifically, college for students with LD. Briefly, successful students were likely to be
self-directed and goal-oriented, aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses, willing to
persevere under adverse conditions, and posses a strong system of family and/or professional
support. The purpose of the present study was to add to this literature by further identifying
variables that facilitate the academic success of college students with LD.
Method
Participants
Purposive sampling was used to select participants for this study. Purposive sampling, also
referred to as “judgment sampling,” requires the researcher to select a small sample of
participants for in-depth study based on experience and knowledge of the group to be sampled
(Gary & Airasian, 2003). The qualitative nature of this research (i.e., the use of extensive
interviews and subsequent transcriptions) precluded the use of random sampling and the
resulting large number of participants. In consultation with the director of Disability Services at
the participating institution, 30 students who graduated between 1996 and 2001, were formally
identified as LD, and had received assistance through Disability Services were identified. The
goal was to obtain interviews from 20 participants, but 30 were identified to allow for lack of
availability. As anticipated, availability issues precluded some graduates from participating,
resulting in the desired sample size of 20. While random sampling was not used, an attempt was
made during the selection process to choose a diverse group of participants in terms of gender,
ethnicity, and academic achievement (i.e., GPA).
All 20 participants had graduated from the same mid-sized liberal arts college located in the
southeastern United States. Most participants (i.e., 13) had completed their degrees during the
2000 or 2001 academic years. The other six participants had graduated between 1996 and 1999.
Interviews were conducted during the 2001-2002 academic year. Ten males and 10 females
participated in the study. The median age for participants was 26.2, with a range from 22 to 54.
Ethnically, the group consisted of 14 Caucasians, 4 African Americans, 1 Asian/Pacific Islander,
and 1 non-resident alien. Their mean GPA was 2.57. Participants graduated in a variety of
disciplines, with business being the most popular and communications coming in a close second.
Twelve of the participants were identified as having LD during their college experience,
although they all reported struggling throughout their elementary and postsecondary school
years. Three students were identified in high school, two in middle school, and three were
officially diagnosed as LD during their elementary years. Fifteen of the 20 participants received
course alternatives during their college experiences. Specifically, 13 received alternatives to the
language requirement and 5 qualified for and completed alternative math courses. Finally, all 20
students indicated that they were deemed eligible for and had participated in various
accommodations. Accommodations received by participants included:
1. extended time for testing - 17 students
2. separate testing facility - 12 students
3. alternate testing format (e.g., oral versus written) - 3 students
4. books on tape - 3 students
5. notetaker - 2 students
6. reader - 1 student
7. “other” - 3 students
Instrumentation
Two instruments were used. First, a structured, written, pre-interview questionnaire was
developed to collect preliminary information on each participant prior to the extended verbal
interview. Information gathered with this instrument included gender, ethnicity, graduation
information, time of LD diagnosis, course alternatives, and academic accommodations. The
primary data collection tool for the study was an extensive, semi-structured interview, consisting
of 12 questions asked of all students interviewed (see Table 1).
Table 1
Questions Included on Semi-Structured Interview Instrument
1.
Describe your specific learning disability.
2.
When was your learning disability formally identified? Describe this process.
3.
What laws are you familiar with that apply to people with learning disabilities
in college? To your knowledge, have you made use of any of these laws in
high school or college?
4.
Who was most instrumental in your decision to attend college? What did
they do which influenced your decision?
5.
Describe your search for a college and the your experiences during the
admissions process.
6.
Describe how and why you became involved with the learning disabilities
program at this college.
7.
What was your major area of study? Describe your the decision making
process you went through to choose that major.
8.
Describe the major factors (e.g., people, organizations, programs, etc.) that
facilitated or were detrimental to your success in college.
9.
Describe the academic accommodations and course alternatives for which
you qualified. Which of these were most helpful and and why?
10.
Describe your experiences with faculty.
11.
Describe your current professional and personal situation.
12.
Is there any other information that you would like to share concerning your
experiences as an adult college student with a learning disability?
Before data collection, pilot versions of both instruments were developed. Questions on the
written pre-interview questionnaire were designed to elicit basic background information from
each participant. The pilot version of the questionnaire was revised based on feedback from the
director of Disability Services, two graduate students, and input from the Institutional Review
Board.
The semi-structured interview instrument, the main tool for data collection used during the
interviews, was developed using similar steps. Based on knowledge of the field, the existing
literature, and discussions with personnel who work with college students with LD, the
investigator developed an initial set of questions. This instrument was then administered to the
graduate students who provided feedback on the pre-interview questionnaire. Changes were
made in the instrument (e.g., wording, order of questions, length of questions, etc.) based on their
feedback. Additional revisions were based on feedback from the director of Disability Services
and the Institutional Review Board.
Design and Procedures
After obtaining informed consent from participants, a written pre-interview questionnaire and
an informed consent form were mailed to them. When participants returned the questionnaire
and informed consent form, the investigator contacted them to arrange a time and date for the
interview. Most interviews took place within one week after receipt of the pre-interview
questionnaires. Five interviews were conducted face-to-face. Due to the relocation of many of
the participants, 15 interviews were completed by telephone. The investigator conducted all
interviews. All interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. All participants were asked
the questions delineated previously. In addition, the researcher frequently asked follow-up
questions and requested elaboration on specific statements. The average interview lasted 34.5
minutes, with a range from 23.6 to 45.8 minutes.
After the initial analysis completed by the investigator, 5 of the 20 transcripts were randomly
selected and evaluated by a graduate student familiar with the project to provide an estimate of
interrater reliability. The second reader was provided with the major themes and associated
definitions initially identified by the investigator (see Table 2). She was asked to read the five
transcripts and to identify themes from the table.
Coefficients of reliability ranged from a low of .82 to a high of 1.00. The mean coefficient
across all five reliability checks was .91
Table 2
Common Themes* Identified in the Transcripts of the 20 Students Interviewed
Code
Theme
Operational Definition
KN
Knowledge of disability
and Concomitant
Accommodations
Statements that describe the nature of a disability
and/or provide insight into strategies that serve to
overcome learning differences.
EPE
Explanation of PsychoEducation Evaluation
Statements that describe attempts by educational
or psychological professionals to explain or interpret results of psychoeducational evaluations.
KDL
Knowledge of Disability Law
Statements in which the student makes reference
to, implicitly or explicitly, public law that affects
students in postsecondary settings.
SA
Self-Advocacy
Statements that document student experiences
communicating their rights or needs to
people in positions of authority or making
decisions and/or acting independently.
ACA
Accommodations and
Course Alternatives
Statements that describe student experiences
with or opinions about accommodations
or course alternatives.
SS
Support System(s)
Statements describing student experiences with
or opinions about people or agencies who have
provided educational or other kinds of support.
PER
Perseverance
Statements that describe the amount of time
or effort exerted by students to complete
educational or life tasks.
Statements that describe students’ future
educational, vocational or personal plans.
______________________________________________________________________
GS
Goal Setting
* Identified by 10 or more students.
Results and Discussion
The 20 transcripts were analyzed based on procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin
(1990) for evaluating qualitative data. Specifically, the constant-comparison method was used.
First, potential common themes were identified and refined during multiple readings of the
transcripts by the investigator. These themes were labeled and operationally defined. For
example, “knowledge of disability and concomitant accommodations” was a theme initially
identified based on the first reading of the transcripts. This was defined as: “Statements that
describe the nature of a disability and/or provide insight into strategies that serve to overcome
learning differences.” During future readings, statements that fit this definition were coded as
“KN” on the transcripts. The same procedure was followed for other potential “themes” identified
during the initial reading. If a minimum of 10 students provided statements consistent with a
specific definition and code, it was considered a “common theme” for data analysis purposes.
Several questions, although resulting in interesting information, did not produce “common
themes” as sought in the present study. For example, Question 1 (see Table 1) produced a wide
range of responses concerning specific disabilities. However, participants’ responses to this
question were typically very short and diverse, providing information that was not common across
multiple participants. Participants responded to Questions 5, 6, and 7 in a similarly brief and
diverse manner.
Themes
As stated previously, analysis of the transcripts revealed eight common themes. These
themes and their relationship to previous research are described in the remainder of this article.
Theme #1: Knowledge of disability and concomitant accommodations. Seventeen of the 20
students interviewed discussed the disability-related knowledge they had gained over their
academic careers and strategies they had adopted to circumvent these problems. For example,
a student dually diagnosed with a learning disability and attention deficit hyperactive disorder
(ADHD) commented:
I’ve always had tremendous problems remembering information — from notes and
textbooks. I had to come up with my own study scheme in which I used various colors highlighted colors - to outline things. I mean, my notebooks were very outlined and
detailed. The only way that I could remember is to associate it with a color. For
example, if I took a test, I would remember that green was a major topic and blue was a
subtopic and if it was an important issue within that subtopic it would be orange.
(Interview #17)
Comments from other students consistently indicated that, although they might not be able to
put an official label on their limitations (e.g., short-term memory deficit), they were well aware of
them and had developed compensatory strategies. Samples of these comments include:
I retyped the italics in my book or boldface items and the concepts that went with them.
I’m a slow typer so it really banged it in. Typing out things from the books or my notes
allowed me to make my own study guide which really worked for me. I mean, studying for
tests has always been difficult for me. But, I’ve learn little tricks that allow me to do better.
(Interview #4)
Concentration — in class and when I’m studying — is a big problem for me. It always has
been. In class, I sat right in front. I took my time, trying not to feel rushed and using a
calculator whenever I needed it for math. I also used a dictionary or computer when I
needed it. I try to do everything that is available. At home when I studied I never had
other noise. I took a lot of notes on my reading and I rewrote them several times. It was a
lot of repetition. But, rewriting my notes seemed to really help me remember. (Interview
#9)
I was an obsessive-compulsive studier. I had to learn to manage my time. I would make
little like schedules for myself — breaking it down to: “Ok, you get five minutes to eat
between 5:10 and 5:15.” I developed very good organizational skills growing up and I was
able to use that in college with my study techniques. I’d highlight the chapters of the book
and then go through and take notes on that. I was very into notetaking. I used notecards,
too. They were great tools for organizing my studying. I put as much information down on
a notecard as I could. That was very helpful. (Interview #2).
It was clear from the comments from the sample of 20 students with LD who had successfully
graduated from college that they were aware of their learning weaknesses and had developed
strategies for minimizing them. These results are corroborated by findings of previous studies
that emphasized the importance of student self-awareness of the nature of their disability as a
precondition for academic success (Greenbaum et al.,1995; Raskind et al., 1999).
Unfortunately, many high school graduates with LD enter postsecondary institutions with very
little knowledge of their disability and its potential effects on their learning (Aune, 1991;
Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993; Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Skinner, 1998). Students who lack
an awareness of their specific strengths and weaknesses and matching compensatory strategies
are more likely to experience academic failure.
Theme #2: Explanation of psychoeducational evaluation. In order for students with LD to
develop an awareness of their disability, as described above, results of psychoeducational
evaluations should be clearly explained to them, along with implications for potential
compensatory strategies. Twelve of the 20 students in the study commented on the follow-up to
the psychoeducational evaluation they experienced. Representative samples of comments
include:
Oh, yes, I have the report. It is a huge long, long, long report — like 10 pages. But, I
don’t remember ever getting an explanation of the results from the psychologist. He did
recommend that I go see a doctor to get medication. (Interview #4)
He did talk with me briefly, but I can’t remember what all he told me. It was all kind of like
a blur. My mom was there, too. I do have a copy of the report. But, I have not really
talked about it with anyone or understand it. (Interview #12)
She sent the information to my family. But, I don’t recall if we actually went into her office
again and she talked to us about the results. I don’t think she did that. She did send a
copy of the report to my parents. (Interview #16)
Yes, she did. She had a conference with just me and with my parents. She explained
the testing — what she found out — so it made my problems make sense to me. It
answered some questions. Like: “Oh… that’s why I have difficulty with math and
remembering numbers — I can’t remember a sequence of numbers. They all get
jumbled.” (Interview #8)
Of the 12 participants who made substantive comments about this topic, nine responses
were similar to the first three cited above. That is, they remembered the experiences but had
very little recollection of a detailed explanation of the results by the examining psychologist.
Three of the students reported positive experiences with the debriefing by the psychologist, as
illustrated by the statement from Interview #8. Although memory may have played a role in how
much information participants were able to recall, it is important to note that many of these
participants were initially identified as LD in high school or college.
As emphasized previously, it is common for students with LD to enter the ranks of college
students with very little knowledge of their learning problems (Aune, 1991; Brinckerhoff et al.,
1993; Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Skinner, 1998). Based on data from the present study, one likely
reason for this dearth of information may well be the lack of time and effort devoted to explaining
the results of psychoeducational evaluations. Students who lack this information may be more
likely to experience failure. Also, they may be less likely to develop the ability to advocate for
themselves; a skill essential to success in higher education.
Theme #3: Knowledge of disability law. All participants were asked the question: What
federal laws are you familiar with that apply to people with learning disabilities? All 20
participants responded to this query. Typical responses included:
I have no idea. (Interview #15)
There was a law passed in the 1990s, I think. That law stated that we had to have some
accommodations. (Interview #5)
The only law I know of is the Disability Act of 1976. I’m not sure what it says. But, I think
that it applies to college — and high school, too. (Interview #2)
None of the participants were aware of their specific rights or responsibilities under Section
504 or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Considered in the context of students leaving a
relatively controlled public school system, where student rights and educational programming are
systematically taken care of by educators and parents, and entering a setting in which students
must self-initiate the accommodation process, this almost total lack of knowledge of the legal
underpinnings of disability services in higher education is alarming. The issue of self-advocacy
becomes relevant here. That is, students are severely limited in their ability to advocate for
themselves if they are not aware of their legal rights and, more important, responsibilities.
Theme #4: Importance of self-advocacy . Skinner (1998) describes students as selfadvocates when they (a) understand their disability, (b) are aware of their legal rights, and (c) can
competently and tactfully communicate their rights and needs to those in positions of authority.
Similarly, Ginsberg et al. (1994) defined self-advocacy as the ability to find and make appropriate
use of supportive people. Self-determination is a broader and more contemporary term that
includes self-advocacy. Schloss, Alper, and Jayne (1993) defined self-determination as “the
ability of a person to consider options and make appropriate choices ....” (p. 215). Whatever term
or definition is used, we know that the ability to be proactive by taking control over one’s life and
learning is essential to the success of people with learning disabilities (Raskind et al., 1999; Smith
et al., 1997).
Eleven of the 20 students interviewed made comments that were relevant to their
experiences with self-advocacy. All of these were related to approaching instructors for
assistance, as exemplified below.
At first, I was petrified of the thought of asking a professor for accommodations — even if
I had my letter from (Disability Services). I know that they thought I was just lazy. I got a
little better at this as a junior and senior. Most professors were very helpful. (Interview
#3)
I worked at becoming comfortable asking professors for help. There were some that said
“no” — but, most were very helpful. I have a diplomatic type of personality. I don’t know
if this is from my learning disability or what. I was comfortable asking professors for, like,
untimed tests. Some of my friends in the program were afraid to approach professors. It
did not bother me. (Interview #9)
My professors helped me a lot. I would go to them a lot. I would bug them constantly
whenever I had a question or wanted to look over a paper or something like that. I guess
that was another thing that I figured out that I needed to do — going to my professors and
using them as much as possible. (Interview #14)
Reading these comments in light of Skinner’s (1998) definition of self-advocacy (i.e.,
knowledge of disability, awareness of legal rights, and the ability to competently and tactfully
communicate rights and needs to those in positions of authority), students interviewed for this
study reported adeptness at the third aspect of self-advocacy. That is, they expressed
confidence in approaching instructors to request appropriate accommodations related to their
specific learning disability. In turn, most students indicated that professors, with a few
exceptions, were receptive to their requests. Related to “knowledge of disability,” as mentioned
previously, participants indicated a good awareness of strengths and limitations related to their
LD. However, as suggested by the responses summarized in Theme #3, participants expressed
virtually no knowledge of their legal rights and responsibilities. Thus, the successful students with
LD in this study appeared to demonstrate competency in two aspects of Skinner’s definition of
self-advocacy (i.e., knowledge of disability and communication of rights and needs to authority
figures). However, they lacked the third component — an awareness of their legal rights.
Theme #5: Importance of accommodations and course alternatives. With proper
documentation, students with disabilities at the college from which the participants in this study
had graduated were permitted to request accommodations (e.g., extra time on examinations,
note-takers, etc.) and course alternatives to the mathematics and foreign language requirements.
As indicated earlier, most of the participants had at least one course alternative and all had
received accommodations. Without exception, comments from participants indicated the critical
importance of these academic adjustments to their success in college. Examples of comments
include:
I’ve had huge problems with learning a foreign language ever since high school. The
only way I even got credit for my high school Spanish classes was through a lot of hard
work, tutors, and teachers who were very generous with my grades. There is no way I
could have completed the language requirement. And, I had pretty good grades in my
other classes. The only course I ever failed (in college) was my first semester of
Spanish. (Interview #10)
I actually thought that the logic course I took in place of one of my math courses was
harder than math. But, looking back now, it probably allowed me to graduate. I failed
two math courses before I finally applied for (disability services). The psychologist said
that I had a disability in math. In a way, I was glad to hear her say that. It made me
realize that I was not stupid in math ... that I had a real problem. (Interview #11)
I was permitted to take extra time on tests — twice the time other students had. I also
took tests in (the disability services office). It was sometimes a hassle to schedule and I
know some of my professors did not like it. But, it was the only way I could really put
down what I knew on a test. It made a big difference in my grades in many classes. I
took tests in the classroom with regular time limits in some classes. I tried to do that as
much as I could. (Interview #16)
My handwriting is terrible. I’ve always had a really hard time taking notes in class. I just
couldn’t keep up with the professor. I tried using a laptop. But, I had more problems with
this. I mean, problems keeping up. I ended up getting a notetaker. She gave me a copy
of her notes. I used her notes to fill in the gaps in mine. It allowed me to take more
complete notes. It also helped my grade in several classes. (Interview #20)
These responses were typical of participants in this study. All were very positive about their
experiences with course alternatives and accommodations, and many felt that they meant the
difference between success and failure in their postsecondary experiences. Research evidence
corroborates the participants’ perceptions. For example, in his descriptive study of over 700
successful (i.e., graduates) and unsuccessful (i.e., nongraduates) college students with LD,
Skinner (1999) found that students who qualified for and took advantage of course alternatives to
math and/or foreign language were significantly more likely to graduate compared to students
who did not participate in alternative courses.
Theme #6: Importance of support systems. All 20 participants emphasized the importance
of support from family, friends, instructors, and/or academic support personnel (e.g., Disability
Services, College Skills Lab, etc.) to their success in college. Examples of typical comments
included:
My family was my main source of encouragement. Everyone in my family has a degree
in something. It was just expected. My parents provided tutoring throughout my school
years. They made it clear that they expected me to graduate, but, not in a pressure sort
of way. They were always there to help — very supportive. (Interview #19)
For me, it was definitely my professors ... and (Disability Services). But, for me, for my
kind of disability, it was nice to go and talk to the professors one-on-one and have them
explain it to me. At times it was frustrating, of course — trying to get to see them. But,
most were there a lot ... when you needed them. I lucked out. I had amazing professors
my four years of college. They were friendly and very willing to be there for me.
(Interview #6)
The College Skills Lab was also very important to me. The Writing Lab especially got me
through some very difficult assignments. They were also very friendly. It was also nice
to know that students getting help there were not just LD like me. ALL students came
here for help. That was kind of comforting feeling for me — very different from getting
special permission to take extra time on tests. (Interview #2)
I made friends with a few students in the same situation as I am — having a learning
disability. It was great for support — and my grades! We organized “study parties” on
the weekends. We were able to have some fun while working at the same time.
(Interview #10)
The positive effects of strong systems of support for students with LD are well documented in
the literature. The longitudinal study conducted by Raskind et al. (1999), for example,
documented the use of support systems as one of the salient characteristics of successful adults
with LD. Similarly, in their study of “highly successful” people with LD, Ginsberg et al. (1984)
emphasized the ability and willingness to seek out and use supportive people, and Greenbaum,
et al. (1995) focused on the importance of support and guidance from “significant others,”
including teachers, family, and instructors. Finally, Hartzell and Compton (1994) also
emphasized the positive relationship between family support and success for people with LD.
Theme #7: Importance of perseverance. Seventeen of the 20 participants interviewed
emphasized the hard work involved in their success in academia. Many also noted that the long
hours they put in studying were often at the expense of social experiences and relationships.
Sample statements relating to perseverance include:
I wish that I could talk to the new students in the program and let them know that they will
have to work a lot harder than their classmates if they are going to make it. They really
need to know this if they are going to be successful. For every one hour my friends
worked, I worked at least two or three hours. I guess I just came to accept that. But, it
was hard. (Interview #11)
If I were talking to students in high school with LD thinking about going to college, I’d tell
them to get used to working harder than many of their friends. Just accept it and don’t let
it bother you — if that’s possible. It starts in high school and continues on into college. It
bothered me a lot at first — they would be partying on a Thursday night and I was
working. But, I’ve seen the good consequences and it doesn’t bother me as much
anymore. (Interview #5)
As was true for the effects of support systems, the existing literature corroborates the
importance of perseverance to the probability of success for student with LD (e.g., Ginsberg et
al., 1994; Greenbaum et al., 1995; Raskind et al., 1999). It is important for students with LD in
postsecondary programs to acknowledge that, despite accommodations and course alternatives,
they will ultimately have to spend more time for the same academic outcome as compared to
their peers without LD.
Theme #8: Goal setting. Sixteen of the 20 study participants indicated that they set goals for
themselves and consciously planned their lives to accomplish these challenges. For many in the
sample, the major objective of concern was completing a college education. Typical comments
that reflected goal setting included:
My parents helped me to make decisions about things that I wanted to do in life. We had
a lot of talks about this. In fact, when I was in high school, they had me list the five major
things I wanted to accomplish by the time I was 25. That was hard. But, it seemed to
help me get focused. One of the items on the list was to graduate from college. Well, I
didn’t do it at 22 like I predicted, but I got it done ... I think I still have that list somewhere.
(Interview #13)
I just always knew that I was going to college and was going to graduate. I really never
even thought of not doing it. Even with my problems with reading and writing, I think I’ve
done a good job in school — all the way through. Part of my success in school, I think, is
that I’ve always had a plan. I’m sure that some of this comes from my family. My
brothers have both done really well in college. But, a lot of it is just me. I am determined.
That really helps. (Interview #20)
In a broader sense, the students’ goal orientation might best be interpreted in the context of
proactivity. Ginsberg et al. (1994) and Smith et al. (1997) identified proactivity as a common
feature among successful adults with LD. That is, successful people with LD appear to take
“control” of their lives. They act in purposeful ways that increase the probability that they will be
successful. Setting goals is one manifestation of this control.
Summary and Conclusion
The semi-structured interviews conducted in the present study indicated eight commonalities
among the responses of participating college graduates with LD. Specifically, many participants
indicated a sound knowledge of their specific disability(ies) and had learned to request or create
learning accommodations and adaptations they needed to be successful. However, responses
also suggested that the disability-specific knowledge they had gained was not due to a thorough
explanation and interpretation of assessment results. To the contrary, most participants indicated
that very little was done by examining psychologists to translate the results of often times
expensive and time-consuming evaluations into information usable for educational programming.
For students who received them, academic accommodations and course alternatives were
perceived as extremely important contributors to their success. Most of the 20 participants
emphasized the importance of self-advocacy and described how they had grown in this domain.
However, virtually no respondent revealed a working knowledge of legislation related to disability
programming in higher education — a likely prerequisite for successful self-advocacy in higher
education settings (e.g., Skinner, 1998). Finally, strong support systems, perseverance, and the
ability to set goals, all of which are supported by previous research, were commonly described as
playing major roles in participants’ ability to successfully navigate higher education settings.
Results of this study, combined with previous research, clearly delineate factors that are
predictive of success in postsecondary education for students with specific learning disabilities.
Nevertheless, facilitation of these abilities and characteristics is often not a high priority for high
schools preparing college-bound students with LD or for colleges working with freshmen who
have identified themselves as having LD. College and high school preparatory curricula for
students with LD transitioning into postsecondary settings should facilitate self-advocacy, impart
knowledge concerning the legal aspects of disability, provide competence in the use of learning
strategies, teach social skills for working with peers and professors, and provide students with the
knowledge necessary to interpret and use assessment results. Although few in number,
materials and programs do exist that are designed to facilitate this transition. In their book
Postsecondary Education and Transition for Students with Learning Disabilities, for example,
Brinckerhoff, McGuire, and Shaw (2002) provide students, teachers, and parents with a detailed
description of the knowledge and competencies needed by students with LD if they are to be
successful in postsecondary environments. The book provides an extremely useful document
titled: “A Timetable for Transition Planning for Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD” —
an extensive and detailed task analysis of what learners with LD must do, starting in Grade 8 and
proceeding through Grade 12, to prepare themselves for postsecondary success.
Some high schools have created programs designed to prepare students with LD for
postsecondary educational pursuits. For example, Spartanburg (South Carolina) County School
District No. 7, as a part of the School/Community Integration and Transition Grant funded by the
South Carolina Developmental Disabilities Council, created I Can Do This! An Instructional Unit
in Self-Advocacy for Students with Disabilities (Bresette, Green, Moore, Palmer, Prysock,
Walker, & Whitaker, 1994). The comprehensive I Can Do This materials prepare students for
success in postsecondary settings. Specifically, the program provides detailed lesson plans that
include objectives, materials, procedures, and evaluation strategies. The program also includes a
comprehensive packet for students titled: Handbook for Transition into Postsecondary Schools
(Whitaker, 1994). Although growing in number, more of these preparatory programs are needed
on the high school and early college levels.
At the inception of this article you were introduced to Erin, a student with a learning disability
reflecting on her college experiences as she was about to graduate. Erin’s story represents a
composite of the stories of many students with LD who are attempting to successfully find their
way through higher education while dealing with the challenges presented by learning differently
from many of their peers. High school and college preparation programs, grounded firmly on
research that documents the correlates of success in higher education for students with LD, can
be the catalyst to increasing the number of students with LD who graduate from college.
Limitations and Need for Additional Research
As is true with all research, the present study has limitations. First, data were collected from
a sample of students attending a medium-size liberal arts institution where the student-professor
ratio is fairly small and the faculty are informed of their responsibilities under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504. As such, results should be generalized with caution to students
in other settings. Second, 12 of the 20 students involved in the study were not identified as LD
until early in their postsecondary careers. Future studies should focus on students identified at
earlier ages and involve a variety of postsecondary environments. Third, studies should be
conducted that are more quantitative in nature and use randomized procedures for sample
section. The nonrandom, purposive sampling technique used in the present study, although
appropriate for this primarily qualitative investigation in which in-depth information from a select
group of participants was the goal, is limited in its ability to generalize to larger populations.
Fourth, only “successful” students were interviewed. Additional information can be gained in
future studies if “unsuccessful” students are included in the sample. Students who have not
experienced successful outcomes in postsecondary settings are in a better position to tell us what
doesn’t work. Fifth, the data analysis could have been improved with the addition of at least one
more reader during the examination of the transcripts for common themes. Although the high
reliability figures provided confidence in the consistency of the analysis in relation to the themes
identified by the investigator, another reader would likely have identified additional relevant
information. Finally, several interview questions were unsuccessful in eliciting relevant
information from participants. Validation procedures did not highlight the limitations of these
questions. Additional information may have been elicited from participants had all questions
prompted comprehensive responses.
A Final Word
Although increasing in quality and quantity, the body of literature relating to adult learners
with LD remains limited. We are just now uncovering correlates of success in postsecondary
settings for students with LD. Additional studies, both quantitative and qualitative, are required to
more fully understand the characteristics of this unique group of learners and to delineate
procedures likely to facilitate their positive academic outcomes.
References
Aune, E. (1991). A transition model for postsecondary bound students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 177-187.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition
for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for
students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
deBettencourt, L.U., Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1989). Follow-up of postsecondary-age rural
learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56, 40-49.
Dalke, C.L., & Schmitt, S. (1987). Meeting the transition needs of college-bound students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 176-180.
Deshler, D.D., & Lenz, B.K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 203-224.
Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Education research: Competencies for analysis and
application. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ginsberg, R., Gerber, P., & Reiff, H. (1994). Employment success for adults with learning
disabilities. In P.J. Gerber & H.B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting
problems and evolving issues (pp. 111-120). Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational
and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61, 460-472.
Hartzell, H.E., & Compton, C. (1984). Learning disability: A ten-year following. Pediatrics, 74,
1058-1064.
Kish, M. (1991). Counseling adolescents with LD. Intervention in School in Clinic, 27(1), 20-24.
Mercer, C.D. (1997). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Minskoff, E.H. (1994). Post-secondary education and vocational training: Keys to success for
adults with learning disabilities. In P.J. Gerber & H.B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in
adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 111-120). Stoneham, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Murray, C., Goldstein, D.E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school
attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Research & Practice, 15, 119-127.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). 1995-1996 national postsecondary student aid
study: Undergraduate data analysis system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary
education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1999). Learning disabilities: Issues in higher
education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 263-266.
Norlander, K.S., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1990). Competencies of postsecondary
educational personnel serving students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23, 426-431.
Omizo, M.M., & Omizo, S.A. (1988). Group counseling’s effects on self-concept and social
behavior among children with learning disabilities. Journal of Humanistic Education and
Development, 26, 109-117.
Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., & Patton, J.R. (1984). Learning disabilities: An adult development
perspective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 179-186.
Patton, J.R., & Polloway, E.A. (1996). Adults with learning disabilities: An emerging area of
professional interest and public attention. In J.R. Patton & E.A. Polloway (Eds.), Learning
disabilities: The challenges of adulthood. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Raskind, M.H., Goldberg, R.J., Higgins, E.L., & Herman, K.L. (1999). Patterns of change and
predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: Results from a twenty-year
longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 35-49.
Schloss, P.J., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1993). Self-determination for persons with disabilities:
Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 6(3), 215-225.
Skinner, M.E. (1998). Promoting self-advocacy among college students with learning disabilities.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(5), 278-283.
Skinner, M.E. (1999). Characteristics of “successful” and “unsuccessful” college students with
learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional
Children, Charlotte, NC.
Smith, T.E.C., Dowdy, C.A., Polloway, E.A., & Blalock, G.E. (1997). Children and adults with
learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publishing.
Vogel, S.A., Hruby, P.J., & Adelman, P.B. (1993). Educational and psychological factors in
successful and unsuccessful college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 8(1), 35-43.
White, W.J. (1992). The postschool adjustment of persons with learning disabilities: Current
status and future projections. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 448-456.
Structural Validity of the WAIS-III Among Postsecondary Students
Marley W. Watkins
James M. Kuterbach
Rebecca J. Morgan
Julie L. FitzGerald
Rachel M. Neuhard
April G. Arthur
Leah B. Bucknavage
The Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
The recent influx of students with disabilities into postsecondary education has generated a
concomitant increase in the demand for psychoeducational assessments that include a measure
of cognitive ability, either to identify ability-achievement discrepancies or to rule out alternate or
comorbid diagnoses. The most commonly recommended cognitive ability measure for adults is
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III). However, evidence regarding the
psychometric fitness of the WAIS-III for postsecondary assessments is needed. Of particular
interest is its structural validity among these students. This study applied exploratory factor
analysis to the WAIS-III scores of 183 students at a large Mid-Atlantic university who were
referred for determination of postsecondary disability eligibility. The same four-factor model
proposed by Wechsler (1997) for the general population was also appropriate for these students.
Thus, these results support the use of the WAIS-III with postsecondary students with suspected
disabilities.
Although students with disabilities attain postsecondary education at rates lower than their
peers without disabilities, they are increasingly entering colleges and universities. For example,
around 3% of college students reported disabilities in 1978 (Henderson, 1992), but this rate had
risen to 6% in 1996 and 9% in 2002 (NCES, 2000, 2003). Based on the latest compilation of self-
reports, there are currently more than 1.5 million postsecondary students with disabilities (NCES,
2003).
This influx of students with disabilities into postsecondary education has generated a
concomitant increase in the demand for psychoeducational assessments to substantiate the
presence of disabilities. While eligibility for special educational services in secondary schools is
governed by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), postsecondary eligibility is
guided by Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Students eligible for special education services under IDEA will not
necessarily be eligible for postsecondary services (Hatzes, Reiff, & Bramel, 2002). Additionally,
Section 504 and the ADA require students to provide postsecondary institutions with
documentation to support their requests for access to special accommodations (Hatzes et al.,
2002).
Recognizing the inchoate state of postsecondary disability assessments, the Association on
Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published guidelines for the documentation of a
learning disability in adolescents and adults in 1997. Although specifically related to identification
of learning disabilities, the AHEAD guidelines established a precedent for evaluating eligibility for
students with other disabilities (Sitlington, 2003). Subsequently, many postsecondary institutions
adopted local guidelines for documentation of learning disabilities (LD), attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychiatric conditions (McGuire, 1998).
Most of these postsecondary disability guidelines recommended inclusion of a measure of
cognitive ability, either to identify ability-achievement discrepancies or to rule out alternate or
comorbid diagnoses (Gordon & Murphy, 1998). For example, the AHEAD (1997) guidelines
specified that a “complete intellectual assessment” be conducted and, in an appendix, nominated
several individual IQ tests for use with postsecondary students. These “approved” instruments
included the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Woodcock-Johnson scales. Other guidelines
identified “preferred” tests. For example, the University of Connecticut guidelines stated that the
“Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale” was the preferred cognitive ability instrument (McGuire,
1998).
Consonant with the cognitive test preferences found in disability guidelines, a survey of
postsecondary disability service providers found that the Wechsler adult scale was the most
frequently used ability test with postsecondary students (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000). In fact, the
Wechsler scales are generally popular among psychologists. For example, surveys of test usage
have found them to be the most widely used with adolescents, among clinical psychologists, and
among neuropsychologists (Archer & Newsom, 2000; Belter & Piotrowski, 2001; Lees-Haley,
Smith, Williams, & Dunn, 1996). Thus, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAISIII; Wechsler, 1997) is currently the most popular test of cognitive ability for adolescents and
adults.
Given the wide spread use of the WAIS-III in postsecondary disability evaluations,
professional standards mandate evidence regarding that test’s psychometric fitness for those
purposes (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999). Of the many forms of psychometric evidence, probably
the most critical is construct validity (Messick, 2000). Although many forms of evidence relate to
construct validity (i.e., test content, external relationships, etc.), test structure evidence is
especially important. That is, does empirical analysis of a test’s components support the structure
proposed by the test’s developer across a variety of test takers? If a test’s structure varies across
groups of examinees, it may be measuring different constructs for each group and its scores
cannot, therefore, be used interchangeably across groups. In the case of the WAIS-III, evidence
of structural validity would assure users that it is measuring cognitive abilities with fidelity across a
variety of examinees and, consequently, that its scores can be interpreted similarly across
groups.
Typically, test structure is evaluated using factor analysis (Benson, 1998), a family of
multivariate statistical methods that analyzes the patterns of correlations among a test’s subtests.
By mathematically combining the subtests that correlate highly with each other into a single
construct called a factor, factor analysis simplifies and clarifies the structure of the test. That is, a
given test is reduced from numerous intercorrelated subtests to a smaller number of independent
factors that reflect the latent constructs theoretically responsible for causing the covariation
among the subtests. The resultant factor structure is the most parsimonious explanation for the
observed relationships among subtests. Consequently, the stability of factor structures across
groups of examinees provides evidence regarding the structural validity of the test.
For the WAIS-III, the application of factor analysis began with its normative sample
(Wechsler, 1997). Four factors were found to best describe the intercorrelations among 13 WAISIII subtests: (a) Verbal Comprehension was made up of Vocabulary, Similarities, Information, and
Comprehension subtests; (b) Perceptual Organization was formed by the Picture Completion,
Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Arrangement subtests; (c) Working Memory was
composed of Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing subtests; and Processing
Speed was loaded by the Digit Symbol-Coding and Symbol Search subtests. These results were
subsequently replicated in the Canadian normative sample (Saklofske, Hildebrand, & Gorsuch,
2000) and also in an independent analysis of the U.S. normative sample (Taub, 2001). The factor
intercorrelations ranged from .57 to .80 in the U.S. normative sample, suggesting that a higherorder factor might explain their covariation. This higher-order general ability factor (i.e., general
intelligence or g) was confirmed in another reanalysis of the WAIS-III normative sample (Arnau &
Thompson, 2000).
Conflicting results were reported from two other reanalyses of the WAIS-III normative sample
(Kaufman, Lichtenberger, & McLean, 2001; Ward, Ryan, & Axelrod, 2000). These researchers
suggested that two or three factors might more parsimoniously explain the covariation of WAIS-III
subtests. A factor analysis of WAIS-III scores of 152 Veteran’s Administration medical center
patients also revealed some difficulties with the four-factor model (Ryan & Paolo, 2001).
Specifically, the Working Memory factor was not congruent with normative results because it did
not contain the Arithmetic subtest. Among a sample of 120 adults with schizophrenia, however, it
was the Picture Arrangement subtest that did not load on the Perceptual Organization factor
(Dickinson, Iannone, & Gold, 2002) while the three other factors were congruent with the
normative sample. In contrast to these minor variations in factor structure, six factors were
identified in a factor analysis of the WAIS-III scores of 328 medical patients tested for a
neuropathological condition (Burton, Ryan, Axelrod, & Schellenberger, 2002).
Although a majority of factor analyses of the WAIS-III have favored a four-factor solution,
alternative solutions have ranged from two to six factors. Relatively consistent results were
obtained from analyses of the WAIS-III normative sample, but more variable solutions were
obtained from clinical samples. As noted by Tulsky and Price (2003), “because these tests are
often used with clinical populations, it is important to ascertain whether the factor structure … will
be supported in various clinical populations” (p. 161).
No study has analyzed the structure of the WAIS-III among postsecondary students with
suspected disabilities. Consequently, the present study applied factor-analytic methods to the
WAIS-III scores of postsecondary students referred for psychoeducational evaluation.
Method
Participants
One hundred and eighty-three students (103 male and 80 female) served as participants. The
ethnic background of 36% of the participants was not reported, but those who were identified
were primarily of White ethnic origin (88%). The participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 46 years,
with a mean of 21.1 years and standard deviation of 4.6 years. Participants were primarily
enrolled in undergraduate courses (70%), but 4% were graduate students and 26% were
evaluated during their final year of high school. A diagnosis was not reported for 26% of the
sample; those students either did not meet the criteria or the diagnostic information was not
included in the file. The remainder of the sample were identified by at least one psychiatric
diagnosis: 51% with a learning disorder, 20% with ADHD, and 3% with affective disorders.
Instrument
The WAIS-III is an individually administered measure of intellectual functioning designed
to assess adolescents and adults from ages 16 to 89. Its standardization sample included 2,450
individuals stratified on age, sex, education level, and geographic region according to 1995
census data. The WAIS-III contains a total of 14 subtests, but only 13 (Vocabulary, Information,
Similarities, Comprehension, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Completion, Picture
Arrangement, Symbol Search, Coding, Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing)
are necessary to compute the four factor-based index scores (i.e., Verbal Comprehension,
Perceptual Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed). Letter-Number Sequencing
and Symbol Search are not required to compute Verbal (VIQ), Performance (PIQ), and Full Scale
(FSIQ) scores.
Subtest scores are standardized to a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. IQ and factor
indexes have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Extensive reliability and validity data
are provided by Wechsler (1997). In general, the instrument demonstrated high reliability
coefficients for IQ and factor index scores and strong relationships with other measures of ability
and achievement. Additional, independent evidence of reliability and validity has also been
reported (Blake & Impara, 2001; Groth-Marnat, 2003).
Procedure
The records of the Office of Disability Services and the school psychology clinic at a large
Mid-Atlantic university were reviewed. The Office of Disability Services accepts evidence from
many sources for determining eligibility, including high schools, clinics, and private evaluators.
Such evaluations must be performed by an appropriately credentialed professional. The Office of
Disability Services itself does not provide evaluative services. In contrast, the independent school
psychology clinic provides assessments by doctoral-level school psychology students, supervised
by doctoral-level certified school psychologists who may also be licensed psychologists. All 276
students with a referral for determination of postsecondary disability eligibility who received a
WAIS-III as part of their psychoeducational evaluation were initially included in the sample.
However, 93 students were missing at least one of the 13 WAIS-III subtests. Consequently, the
final sample consisted of the 183 participants with complete WAIS-III data.
Statistical Analyses
Analyses were guided by the best practice suggestions of Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum,
and Strahan (1999), Preacher and MacCallum (2003), and Russell (2002), among others. Given
the uncertainty surrounding the structure of the WAIS-III, exploratory rather than confirmatory
factor analysis was chosen (Browne, 2001). Common factor analysis was selected over principalcomponents analysis because the goal of the study was to identify the latent structure of the
WAIS-III (Wegener & Fabrigar, 2000). Additionally, common factor analysis may produce more
accurate estimates of population parameters than principal-components analysis (Widaman,
1993). Given its relative tolerance of multivariate non-normality and its superior recovery of weak
factors, principal axis extraction was used (Briggs & MacCallum, 2003). Communalities were
initially estimated by squared multiple correlations and were iterated twice to produce final
communality estimates (Gorsuch, 2003). Following the advice of Velicer, Eaton, and Fava (2000),
minimum average partials (MAP; Velicer, 1976) and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), supplemented
by a visual scree test (Cattell, 1966), were used to determine the number of factors to retain for
rotation. For both theoretical and empirical reasons, it was assumed that factors would be
moderately correlated (Wechsler, 1997). Thus, a Promax rotation with a k value of 4 was selected
(Tataryn, Wood, & Gorsuch, 1999). Loadings > .38 were predetermined to be salient so as to
retain only those that were both statistically (p < .01) and practically significant (Stevens, 2002).
Results
As reported in Table 1, participants’ mean WAIS-III IQ and index scores were slightly higher
and somewhat less variable than those of the normative sample. Score distributions appeared to
be relatively normal, with .51 the largest skew and .89 the largest kurtosis. Multiple t-tests were
conducted to determine if IQ and index scores systematically differed for male and female
students. A Bonferroni correction was applied in order to maintain an overall alpha level of .05.
Male participants scored significantly higher than females on the VIQ, Verbal Comprehension,
Working Memory, and FSIQ composite scores, but age was not significantly related to WAIS-III
composite scores (r = -.06 to +.05).
Table 1
Means (Standard Deviations) on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Third Edition) IQ and
Factor Index Scores of 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a Disability
IQ/Index
Males (n = 103) Females (n = 80)
Total
VIQ*
110.0 (12.2)
103.2 (12.4)
107.0 (12.7)
PIQ 107.6 (13.6)
103.7 (13.5)
105.9 (13.7)
FSIQ*
109.7 (12.6)
103.7 (12.5)
107.1 (12.9)
VC* 111.3 (13.1)
105.5 (11.4)
108.8 (12.7)
PO 110.7 (14.6)
105.8 (14.1)
108.6 (14.5)
WM*
102.4 (13.3)
96.6 (12.9)
99.9 (13.4)
PS 97.6 (14.3)
98.2 (13.1)
97.8 (13.7)
Note. VIQ = Verbal IQ, PIQ = Performance IQ, FSIQ = Full Scale IQ, VC = Verbal
Comprehension Index, PO = Perceptual Organization Index, WM = Working Memory Index, and
PS = Perceptual Speed Index.
 p < .05 experimentwise (.007 for each comparison).
Results from Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) indicated that the correlation matrix
was not random (x2 = 1079.3; df = 78; p < .001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO; Kaiser, 1974)
statistic was .83, well above the minimum standard suggested by Kline (1994). Measures of
sampling adequacy for each variable were also within reasonable limits. Thus, the correlation
matrix was appropriate for factor analysis.
The scree and MAP criteria suggested that four factors be retained, but parallel analysis
recommended only three factors. Given that it is better to over-factor than under-factor (Wood,
Tataryn, & Gorsuch, 1996), four factors were extracted. The resulting solution was examined for
both substantive and statistical suitability. Fit appeared to be excellent, accounting for 61% of the
total variance and leaving only 11% of the residual matrix >|.05|. As reflected in Table 2, pattern
coefficients clearly identified the four factors suggested by Wechsler (1997) with the exception of
the Arithmetic subtest, which loaded on the Verbal Comprehension rather than the Working
Memory factor. Factor intercorrelations ranged from .38 between Verbal Comprehension and
Processing Speed to .67 between Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Organization,
suggesting a general, second-order factor. All subtests demonstrated moderate to substantial
loadings on the first unrotated principal factor (see Table 2), another reflection of the influence of
an overarching generalability factor (Arnau & Thompson, 2000; Carroll, 2003). Additionally, the
four-factor solution was robust across extraction (Principal Components, Maximum Likelihood)
and rotation (Varimax, Oblimin) methods.
Table 2
Structure of the WAIS-III for Principal-Axis Extraction and Promax Rotation of Four Factors
Among 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a Disability
Pattern Coefficients
Subtest
Unrotated first factor
I
II
II
IV
Communality
VO .76
.86
-.14
.12
.03
.70
SM .70
.69
.20
-.11
-.02
.60
IN .70
.75
.00
.09
-.07
.59
CM .69
.91
-.03
-.16
-.03
.69
PC .55
.22
.40
-.14
.18
.36
BD .63
.11
.42
.08
.21
.44
MR .66
-.05
.79
.08
-.02
.63
PA .52
-.02
.77
-.03
-.15
.49
AR .70
.38
.11
.34
.05
.51
DS .51
-.07
.08
.78
.00
.62
LN .47
.00
-.07
.83
-.03
.63
CD .40
-.04
-.02
-.05
.83
.63
SS .48
-.02
-.06
.04
.87
.73
Note. VO = Vocabulary, SM = Similarities, IN = Information, CM = Comprehension, PC =
Picture Completion, BD = Block Design, MR = Matrix Reasoning, PA = Picture Arrangement, AR
= Arithmetic, DS = Digit Span, LN = Letter-Number Sequencing, CD = Digit Symbol-Coding, and
SS = Symbol Search. Salient coefficients (e•.38) are indicated in bold.
Three factors were also extracted and rotated for a statistical and substantive comparison to
the four-factor solution. This three-factor solution accounted for 53% of the total variance, but left
33% of the residual matrix > |.05|. As reported in Table 3, the Verbal Comprehension and
Perceptual Organization factors collapsed into a combined factor with the Arithmetic subtest still
loading on the Verbal Comprehension factor. Factor intercorrelations ranged from .39 for factors I
and III to .48 for factors I and II. Although parsimonious, this solution was marked by two major
flaws: (a) the large number of sizeable residuals suggested that additional factors should be
extracted (Gorsuch, 2003), and (b) it was not congruent with the bulk of published WAIS-III factor
analyses.
Given these statistical and substantive considerations, the four-factor solution was accepted
as the most adequate for this sample of postsecondary students. To test that conclusion against
the WAIS-III normative sample, the congruence coefficient (rc), an index of factorial similarity,
was calculated for each factor. Jensen (1998) reported than an rc > +.90 indicates “a high
degree of factor similarity; a value greater than +.95 is generally interpreted as practical identity of
the factors” (p. 99). Based upon these guidelines, the Perceptual Organization factor from this
sample of postsecondary students was found to display a high degree of factor similarity with the
WAIS-III normative sample (rc = .90) and the Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, and
Processing Speed factors were practically identical (rc = .97, .95, and .95, respectively) to the
WAIS-III normative sample.
Table 3
Structure of the WAIS-III for Principal-Axis Extraction and Promax Rotation of Three Factors
Among 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a Disability
Pattern Coefficients
Subtest
Unrotated first factor
I
II
III
Communality
VO .75
.75
.06
-.01
.60
SM .71
.84
-.12
-.03
.61
IN .70
.75
.05
-.09
.56
CM .68
.89
-.20
-.06
.63
PC .54
.52
-.09
.19
.33
BD .63
.43
.14
.22
.40
MR .65
.52
.19
.04
.42
PA .50
.51
.08
-.08
.28
AR .70
.47
.33
.04
.51
DS .51
-.03
.80
.00
.62
LN .47
-.06
.82
-.04
.61
CD .41
-.03
-.06
.82
.63
SS .48
-.03
.03
.85
.72
Note. VO = Vocabulary, SM = Similarities, IN = Information, CM = Comprehension, PC =
Picture Completion, BD = Block Design, MR = Matrix Reasoning, PA = Picture Arrangement, AR
= Arithmetic, DS = Digit Span, LN = Letter-Number Sequencing, CD = Digit Symbol-Coding, and
SS = Symbol Search. Salient coefficients (e•.38) are indicated in bold.
Discussion
Factor analyses of the WAIS-III scores of postsecondary students evaluated for
determination of eligibility for disability services indicated that the four-factor model proposed by
Wechsler (1997) for the general population was also appropriate for these students. Specifically,
the WAIS-III was best summarized by four factors: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual
Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. This supports the conclusions from
previous factor analyses of the U.S. and Canadian WAIS-III normative samples (Saklofske et al.,
2000; Taub, 2001) and suggests that the structure of the WAIS-III is similar across disparate
populations (Ryan & Paolo, 2001). More specifically, these results support the use of the WAIS-III
with postsecondary students with suspected disabilities.
However, these results must be considered within the context of this study’s limitations.
Specifically, the sample of postsecondary students involved in this study was from a single
university and was relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and age. Results may not extend
to diverse students from other postsecondary institutions. Consequently, this study should be
replicated using different samples of students to ensure that the results are generalizable.
Additionally, research is needed to establish concurrent and predictive validity of the WAIS-III
among postsecondary students. Other forms of construct validity, such as convergent and
divergent validity, should also be examined.
This study of the structural validity of the WAIS-III found support for the same four-factor
model in postsecondary students that has been proposed for the general population, supporting
the use of this instrument for disability evaluations at the postsecondary level. However, as noted
by Benson (1998), “one study does not validate or fail to validate the scores from a test.
Numerous studies may be required, utilizing different approaches, different samples, and different
populations to build a body of evidence that supports, or fails to support, the validity of the scores
derived from a test” (p. 10). Nevertheless, the current results constitute preliminary evidence
regarding the structural validity of the WAIS-III among postsecondary students referred for an
evaluation.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological
testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: Survey
update. Assessment, 7, 227-235.
Arnau, R. C., & Thompson, B. (2000). Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III.
Assessment, 7, 237-246.
Association on Higher Education and Disability. (1997, July). Guidelines for documentation of a
learning disability in adolescents and adults. Columbus, OH: Author.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A further note on the multiplying factors for various x2 approximations in
factor analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296-298.
Belter, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological
testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 717-726.
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10-22.
Blake, B., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook.
Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute.
Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum
likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 25-56.
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150.
Burton, D. B., Ryan, J. J., Axelrod, B. N., & Schellenberger, T. (2002). A confirmatory factor
analysis of the WAIS-III in a clinical sample with crossvalidation in the standardization
sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 371-387.
Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports
g and about ten broad factors. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence:
Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5-21). New York: Pergamon.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1, 245-276.
Dickinson, D., Iannone, V. N., & Gold, J. M. (2002). Factor structure of the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale-III in schizophrenia. Assessment, 9, 171-180.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
Gordon, M., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In M. Gordon & S.
Keiser (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) (pp. 98-129). New York: Guilford.
Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). Factor analysis. In J. A. Schinka & F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Volume 2, research methods in psychology (pp. 143-164). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hatzes, N. M., Reiff, H. B., & Bramel, M. H. (2002). The documentation dilemma: Access and
accommodations for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 27, 37-52.
Henderson, C. (1992). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. Washington, DC:
HEALTH Resource Center, American Council on Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 354 792).
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika,
30, 179-185.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., & McLean, J. E. (2001). Two- and three-factor solutions of
the WAIS-III. Assessment, 8, 267-280.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn, J. T. (1996). Forensic
neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
11, 45-51.
McGuire, J. (1998). Educational accommodations: A university administrator’s view. In M. Gordon
& S. Keiser (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) (pp. 20-45). New York: Guilford.
Messick, S. (2000). Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and
values in psychological assessment. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and
solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 3-20). Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities:
Enrollment, services, and persistence (NCES 2000-092). Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003060). Washington, DC: Author.
Ofiesh, N. S., & McAfee, J. K. (2000). Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14-25.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis
machine. Understanding Statistics, 2, 13-43.
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis
in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
1629-1646.
Ryan, J. J., & Paolo, A. M. (2001). Exploratory factor analysis of the WAIS-III in a mixed patient
sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 151-156.
Saklofske, D. H., Hildebrand, D. K., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2000). Replication of the factor structure of
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third edition with a Canadian sample. Psychological
Assessment, 12, 436-439.
Sitlington, P. L. (2003). Postsecondary education: The other transition. Exceptionality, 11, 103113.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Tataryn, D. J., Wood, J. M., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1999). Setting the value of k in promax: A Monte
Carlo study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 384-391.
Taub, G. E. (2001). A confirmatory analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third
Edition: Is the verbal/performance discrepancy justified? Practical Assessment, Research
and Evaluation, 7(22), 1-9.
Tulsky, D. S., & Price, L. R. (2003). The joint WAIS-III and WMS-III factor structure: Development
and cross-validation of a six-factor model of cognitive functioning. Psychological Assessment,
15, 149-162.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial
correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or
component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the
number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions
in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Ward, L. C., Ryan, J. J., & Axelrod, B. N. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS-III
standardization data. Psychological Assessment, 12, 341-345.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data. In H. T.
Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality
psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential
bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects of under- and overextraction on
principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods, 1, 354-365.
Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education I:
Disability Service Providers’ Perspective
NOTE: Tables for this article are attached as separate Excel Spreadsheet Files.
Catherine S. Fichten
Jennison V. Asuncion
Maria Barile
Myrtis E. Fossey
Chantal Robillard
Darlene Judd
Joan Wolforth
Joanne Senécal
Christian Généreux
Jean-Pierre Guimont
Daniel Lamb
Jean-Charles Juhel
Dawson College, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, McGill University
Abstract
Views and concerns of the professionals who deliver disability-related services at Canadian
postsecondary education institutions about access to information and instructional technologies
are presented. Findings are based on structured interviews with 156 individuals who represent
80% of the population of Canadian campus-based disability service providers. This makes the
sample truly representative of the geographic, linguistic and institutional characteristics of the
Canadian postsecondary educational system. Key findings in the following areas are highlighted:
characteristics of participating professionals; their wish lists; current state of campus information
and instructional technologies for students with disabilities at junior/community colleges and
universities; important factors in meeting the computer-related needs of students; and the
presence and technology needs of postsecondary faculty and staff with disabilities. The results
point to (a) the need for better integration of adaptive computer technologies with general-use
computer labs on campus; (b) improved learning opportunities for everyone involved, including
disability service providers, students, and faculty; and (c) the need to ensure adequate technical
support for adaptive computer technologies on campus.
Participation in the knowledge-based economy of today means that people must be
comfortable using the new information and communication technologies. Postsecondary
education addresses this need, in part, by providing opportunities to learn and use these
technologies. Examples include online and “hybrid” courses, Web-based registration, and the
ubiquity of computer labs on campus. The challenge is to ensure that these technologies are both
physically and technologically accessible to all students, including those with various
impairments. Unless this requirement is met, graduates with disabilities face the danger of being
unable to compete fairly with their nondisabled peers in a labor market that demands technology
literacy.
Currently, the two groups closest to the issue of accessibility of on-campus computing and
instructional technologies are the students themselves and the professionals who provide
disability-related services to the postsecondary community. Previously, we examined the student
perspective (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2001a; Fichten et al., 2001b). In the
present study the focus shifts to the on-campus disability service providers’ technology-related
needs and concerns. The goal was to understand these, highlight areas on concern, and propose
possible solutions to existing and emerging problems.
Information and Communication Technologies in Postsecondary Education
The increasing use of multimedia, Web-based and other technologies has resulted in rapid
changes in both theory and practice in postsecondary education (cf. Bernstein, Caplan, & Glover,
2001; Campus Backbone Connectivity, 1999; EDUCAUSE Guide to Evaluating Information
Technology on Campus, 2002; Kiernan, 2002). The ability to quickly learn and use such
technologies is a sought-after skill in the new North American labor market. In parallel with this
trend is evolution in the accessibility and affordability of both general-use and adaptive computer
technologies (cf. Adobe, 2003; Apple, 2003; Freedom Scientific, 2003; IBM, 2003; Microsoft
Corporation, 2003). The challenge then becomes ensuring that adaptive technologies are
compatible with those appearing in education. If this occurs, it will contribute to providing access
for many students with disabilities and permitting them to acquire the same skill sets and
opportunities as their nondisabled peers. Such an outcome is, of course, contingent on gaining
seamless and timely access to needed technologies and adaptations.
There is a concern that today’s emerging technology-driven curricula may pose barriers to
many students with disabilities. What happens, then, to the student who is blind or Deaf and
studying in a faculty that decides to deliver the majority of its courses using Web sites and
authoring tools that do not adopt accessible and inclusive design standards (cf. Scott, Loewen,
Funckes, & Kroeger, 2003)? The easy solution is to replace a technology-rich learning experience
with one that fails to use computer technologies. This, of course, defeats part of the purpose of
the intended learning goal (i.e., acquisition of technology literacy).
Campus-Based Professionals Who Provide Services to Students with Disabilities
At most North American postsecondary institutions, there is at least one designated
professional who is responsible for providing disability-related services and accommodations to
students as well as to liaise and advocate with the campus community (AHEAD, 2002a, 2002b).
In Canada, addressing the computer technology needs of students with disabilities has become
part of their job description (Fichten, et al., 2001a). However, the background of many of these
professionals has not prepared them for this rapidly evolving “high-tech” component of their job.
The trend to incorporate technology as part of classroom teaching and learning will necessitate
their increasing involvement and expertise.
Several American (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Burris, 1998; Coomber, 1996; Horn & Shell,
1990; Jackson, Morabito, Prezant, & Michaels, 2001; Lance, 1996; Michaels, Prezant, Morabito,
& Jackson, 2001) as well as Canadian studies (Epp, 1996; Killean & Hubka, 1999) deal, at least
in part, with views of postsecondary disability service providers on computer and adaptive
technologies. Several of these have relatively large samples (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Horn &
Shell, 1990; Jackson et al., 2001; Killean & Hubka, 1999; Lance, 1996; Michaels et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, none provides a comprehensive picture of the realities found in Canadian colleges
and universities.
Faculty and Staff with Disabilities on Campus
Although we are aware of a handful of postsecondary educational institutions in Canada that
provide computer supports to faculty and staff with disabilities (e.g., University of Alberta: cf.
Vosahlo, Hyndman, Sears, & Sheridan, 2001), to the best of our knowledge there are no
empirical data on demographic factors, the computer and learning technology needs of
postsecondary employees with disabilities, or on who is providing disability-related services to
them. Similarly, a number of American postsecondary institutions have policies governing
technology accommodations to employees (e.g., Vickery & McLure, 1998). However, we are not
aware of any systematic evaluation of this issue. What makes the situation of these employees
different from those in other industries is that most colleges and universities have a commitment
and a support structure to provide services to students with disabilities. Whether this extends to
faculty and staff with disabilities requires further study.
The Present Investigation
The goal of this companion study to our previous work on technology access for
postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b) was to provide the other
side — the perspective of the on-campus professionals who deliver disability-related services.
Issues covered include views about actual and desired situations when it comes to access to
technology on campus; perceptions about students’ circumstances; and information on
campuswide issues, including computer-related services for staff and faculty with disabilities.
Method
Participants
Participants were 156 on-campus professionals responsible for providing disability-related
services to students with disabilities (110 females and 46 males). Ninety-six worked at
junior/community colleges, 58 at universities, and 2 at postsecondary distance education
institutions (1 junior/community college, 1 university).
Participants represent 91 of the 115 community/junior colleges and 55 of the 68 universities
that were listed on the Web pages of the ACCC (Association of Canadian Community Colleges,
2003) or the AUCC (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2003) on April 22, 2000.
Interviewees met the following criteria: (a) their institution enrolled students, (b) they indicated
that they had students with disabilities currently enrolled, and (c) they did not indicate that another
postsecondary institution was responsible for services for students with disabilities. Several
institutions had two or more campuses that were not individual members of AUCC or ACCC but
that had different individuals delivering services to students with disabilities (e.g., some provinces
have a regional college system with campuses in several cities). At several institutions, different
individuals/units were accountable for specific impairments (e.g., learning disability versus
physical disabilities). In these cases we attempted to interview all pertinent individuals. This
resulted in more than one individual being interviewed at 10 postsecondary institutions. Thus, the
156 participants represent 146 independent institutional members of the ACCC or the AUCC. The
overall participation rate was 80%.
Procedure
To recruit participants we telephoned the 247 institutional members of the AUCC and the
ACCC that were listed on their Web sites on April 22, 2000. If an institution was a member of
both, it was counted as a junior/community college because most of these institutions did not
have charters to grant their own degrees.
We asked to speak to the person who had responsibilities for providing services to students
with disabilities. Of the 247 institutions/campuses listed, 46 were ineligible because their services
for students with disabilities were delivered by another campus or institution (e.g., affiliate
colleges). Three member institutions were administrative or research units with no students.
Fifteen had students, but declared that they were unaware of any students with disabilities
currently enrolled. This left 183 eligible institutions.
Potential participants at the 183 eligible institutions were asked to volunteer. Despite
repeated attempts, we were unable to reach potential participants at 11 institutions. Twenty-six
individuals either refused to participate or had scheduling challenges. The remaining 156 were
faxed or e-mailed the questions and an informed consent form before the scheduled interview. To
encourage candid responses, participants were assured that information they provided would
never be linked either to themselves or to their institution.
Interviews were conducted by telephone during the spring of 2000. Questions were loosely
based on findings from our previous studies on students and smaller samples of campus-based
disability service providers (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b). The interview protocol was subjected to
multiple drafts. The procedure was pretested on a small sample of junior/community college and
university professionals.
Structured Interview Questions
Interview questions consisted of 60 items, including demographic questions (all questions are
available in Fichten et al., 2001c). Most took two forms: “actual situation,” which asked about the
current situation at the respondents’ campus or sector, and “desired situation,” which asked about
what would make things better. For the most part, “actual situation” items were positively worded,
described a set of conditions at the institution (e.g., computer equipment is up-to-date), and
stated that the characteristic met the needs of students with disabilities (e.g., “At my institution,
computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up-to-date to meet the needs of
students with disabilities”). “Desired situation” items focused on conditions that would make
interviewees’ jobs easier to perform (e.g., “It would make my job easier if students with disabilities
were knowledgeable users of computer and/or adaptive computer technologies”). For 12 topics
the two types of items, “actual “ and “desired” situation, were paired (e.g., “The availability of
adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres for students with disabilities at my
institution meets their needs” and “It would make my job easier if there were more adaptive
computer technologies available in specialized labs/centres at my institution”). This allowed for
comparisons between actual and desired situations.
A key criterion item inquired about how well, overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer
technology needs of students with disabilities were met at the respondent’s institution. Additional
items included asking for the numbers of students with and without disabilities on the
respondent’s campus and questions about technology-related support for faculty and staff with
disabilities.
Results
Data Analysis
Institutional status (junior/community college vs. university) was treated as an independent
variable in most analyses. (a) We examined characteristics of postsecondary disability service
providers using descriptive statistics, chi square and a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
comparison (2 Sex x 2 Institution, Junior/Community College, University). (b) When comparing
institutions with and without specialized computer equipment for students with disabilities, we
again used descriptive statistics and chi square. Here we also performed a discriminant analysis
and t-tests. (c) When evaluating the nature of institutional and computer and adaptive computer
technologies, we examined aspects of the 23 “actual situation” variables using descriptive
statistics, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), correlations, regression, and t-tests. (d)
Comparison of “actual” and “desired” situations was carried out using descriptive statistics, ttests, and MANOVA and (e) The wish lists of disability service providers and issues related to
faculty and staff with disabilities were examined using descriptive statistics and chi square.
Characteristics of Postsecondary Disability Service Providers
The sex distribution for individuals responsible for providing services to students with
disabilities indicates that women outnumbered men by a ratio of 2:1 (i.e., 110 women and 46 men
= 71% women). A nonsignificant chi square test showed that this was true of both
junior/community colleges and universities.
Participants had an average of 9.25 years of experience working with students with
disabilities (median = 9.50, mode = 10 years, range 1 to 26 years). A 2-way analysis of variance
comparison (ANOVA: 2 Sex x 2 Institution (Junior/Community College, University)) showed that
males (M = 10.73) had significantly more experience than females (M = 8.60), F(1,150)=3.92,
p<.05. Neither the main effect for institution nor the interaction was significant.
Overall, participants indicated that they were not especially knowledgeable about adaptive
computer technologies. The mean score was 3.70 (SD = 1.52) on a 6-point scale, with higher
scores indicating being more knowledgeable. Indeed, the scores of 12% of participants
suggested that they were not at all knowledgeable, while only 9% of scores suggested that the
respondent was an expert. A 2-way ANOVA (2 Sex x 2 Institution) showed no significant
differences between males and females or between individuals from community/junior colleges
and universities.
Institutions With and Without Dedicated Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies on
Campus
Of the 154 non-distance education respondents, 132 (86%) indicated that they had
equipment for students with disabilities on campus; 22 (14%) did not. Community/junior colleges
(81%) were significantly less likely than universities (93%) to have specialized computers for their
students with disabilities, X2(1)=4.00, p<.05.
To determine how institutions with and without computer equipment for students with
disabilities differed, we conducted a discriminant analysis. Predictor variables were three
institutional enrollment characteristics (number of students with disabilities, total student
enrollment, proportion of students with disabilities). Because virtually all universities had
equipment for students with disabilities, we did this only for colleges. Test results showed that
none of the predictor variables was able to discriminate those colleges that did have equipment
from those that did not. We also carried out a series of three t-tests to compare enrollment scores
on campuses with and without equipment for their students. Although the means showed that
institutions that had equipment had more students with disabilities (M=234.17, SD=299.42) than
those which did not (M=107.06, SD=197.41), the t-test only approached significance, t(93)=1.67,
p<.10. Neither the t-test on total institutional enrollment nor that on the percentage of students
with disabilities was significant.
Advisory/steering committee. Only 23% of respondents indicated that their institution/campus
had a multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of computer
technologies for students with disabilities. Significantly more universities (35%) than
community/junior colleges (17%) had such a committee, X 2 (1)=5.14, p<.05. All committees had
representation from the office for students with disabilities. Most (88%) had an administrator, a
student with a disability (81%), and faculty (78%). Few had nondisabled students (31%). It is
especially noteworthy that only one fourth (25%) of the committees included staff from computer
services.
Priority of computer-related services. The priority placed upon computer-related services was
average when weighted against other disability-related support services, with a mean of 2.25 (SD
=.87) where 1 indicates very high priority and 4 indicates very low priority. The difference
between universities (72% rated computer related services as high or very high priority) and
colleges (61%) was not significant.
Regional computer technology loan programs to institutions. Of the 132 institutions that
indicated that they had computer technologies on campus for their students, 35 (27%) noted that
a provincial (Canadian equivalent of a state) or regional loan program supplied some of the
computer and/or adaptive computer technologies. Mean response to the question inquiring about
perceptions about the adequacy of resources provided by the loan program in meeting the needs
of students with disabilities was 4.72 (SD = 1.43) on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating
greater satisfaction. This reflects considerable satisfaction. Indeed, only 16% of respondents
indicated that the equipment provided failed to meet students’ needs. There was no significant
difference between community/junior colleges and universities.
Good Institutional Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies
Twenty-three variables evaluated the adequacy of the institution’s program in meeting
students’ computer related needs. These are detailed in Table 1. A key criterion was a 6-point
Likert scale rating on the following item, “Overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer
technology needs of students with disabilities at my institution are adequately met.” As can be
seen in Table 1, the computer-related needs of students were moderately well met at
respondents’ institutions (mean = 4.20 on a 6-point scale, SD = 1.40, range 1-6, median = 5).
Funding for the institution’s computer technologies. Scores in Table 1 indicate a mean of 3.50
on a 6-point scale on a question about the adequacy of funding for the institution’s computer
technologies, with higher scores indicating more favorable responses. In fact, 19% of
respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that the level of funding at their institution for
specialized computer technologies was adequate in meeting students’ needs, with an additional
20% disagreeing moderately. Six percent disagreed slightly. Only a little more than half of the
respondents indicated that funding was adequate.
Access to adaptive computer technologies. Table 1 also shows that of the factors related to
access, the hours of access to computers and the extent to which they were up-to-date were
reasonably good (scores greater than 4 on a 6-point scale). However, the availability of adaptive
computer technologies in general-use computer laboratories was seen as less than adequate
(score =< 3). Only 77 institutions indicated that they had an off-campus computer technology loan
program for students.
Internet/library and adaptive computer technologies. When it came to Internet and library
access, the means in Table 1 indicate that Internet-based distance education was seen as
inadequate in meeting the needs of students with disabilities (score =< 3). It should be noted,
however, that many participants reported that they were unaware of Internet-based distance
education courses at their institution.
Support for adaptive computer technologies. Table 1 also shows that the only favorable
aspect of support for adaptive computer technologies was the administration’s positive response
(score greater than 4 on a 6-point scale). Other aspects of support were seen as somewhat or
very problematic. For example, available technical support, the presence of an adaptive computer
technologist on campus, and the ability of computer support staff to service adapted computer
technologies received ratings between 3 and 3.49, as did opportunities for employees to learn
about computer and adaptive technologies. The degree to which individuals who provide services
to students with disabilities are consulted when computer infrastructure decisions are made and
the existence of an advisory/steering committee that deals with computer accessibility were seen
as inadequate in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. As noted earlier, only 23% of
institutions had an advisory/steering committee that deals with computer accessibility.
Faculty and computer accessibility. Table 1 also reveals that, according to the participants,
computer-based teaching materials used by professors were not very accessible (mean was 3.14
on a 6-point scale). In addition, when faculty are trained to use computer technologies in their
courses, information about making their courses accessible to students with disabilities was rarely
part of the curriculum (score less than 2).
Outside the institution factors. As can be seen in Table 1, disability service providers
generally felt that outside agencies provide students with appropriate equipment, although they
were less positive about the training provided to students by these agencies.
Similarities and differences between community/junior colleges and universities. To find out
whether college- and university-based disability service providers differed on the 23 variables, a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) comparison was carried out. Because it is necessary
for all subjects to complete all dependent measures, the MANOVA was carried out only on 21
variables (because relatively few institutions had an equipment loan program or Internet based
courses, the two items that dealt with these issues were left out of the MANOVA). The MANOVA
was not significant, F(21,132)=1.46, p>.05.
Institutional enrollment. To explore whether institutional enrollment factors are important in
adequately meeting the computer-related needs of students, we conducted a stepwise regression
analysis to predict scores on the criterion item (i.e., the overall rating about how well students’
computer-related needs were met). The three institutional predictor variables were number of
students with disabilities, total student enrollment, and percentage of students with disabilities.
None of the variables entered the regression equation significantly. This is hardly surprising given
the magnitude of the correlation between the criterion item and the three institutional variables
(Pearson r(138) =.135, p>.05, r(139) =.149, p>.05, r(138) =.114, p>.05, respectively).
Institutions with and without specialized computer equipment for students with disabilities. A
comparison was carried out of non-distance education institutions with (N = 132) and without
computers (N=22) on campus specifically for students with disabilities on overall adequacy in
meeting students’ computer and adaptive computer technology needs. Surprisingly, there was no
significant difference between institutions that did (M=4.26, SD=1.36) and those that did not
(M=3.55, SD=1.81) have specific/dedicated equipment on campus for their students, t(136)=1.63,
p>.05.
Importance of actual situation variables. The importance of the 23 variables listed in Table 1
in meeting students’ computer-related needs was examined in a series of correlations between
scores on the 23 actual situation variables and score on the overall criterion rating. Coefficients
are presented in rank order of importance in Table 2. These show that funding for the institutions’
adaptive computer technologies, good access to adaptive computer technologies, accessibility of
Internet and library computers, and aspects of technical support for adaptive computer
technologies were all important. This is also true of the accessibility of computer-based teaching
materials used by professors. Although the services provided by external community agencies
were not seen as important, the extent to which the campus-based disability service provider was
knowledgeable about computer technologies was seen as a moderately important factor. These
results were used to develop the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students with Disabilities
Scale (ACCSDS), a 19-item self-administered tool that evaluates institutional computing
accessibility for students with disabilities (Fossey et al., 2003).
Actual” Vs. “Desired” Situation
To help compare “actual” and “desired” situations in terms of the adequacy of meeting the
computer- related needs of students with disabilities, Table 3 provides “actual situation” means as
well as uncorrected means for the pairs of “desired situation” items (“It would be helpful if …”). It
should be noted however, that “desired situation” scores need to be interpreted in the context of
the “actual situation” in each institution. This is evident from the Pearson correlation coefficients in
Table 3, which showed that scores on 11 of the 12 “paired” items (i.e., paired “actual situation”
and “desired situation” items) were significantly negatively correlated with each other (e.g., the
less likely it is that computer support personnel can service adaptive computer technologies, the
more highly desired it is for them to be able to do so). Table 3 also shows that all 12 paired t-tests
comparing “actual” and “desired” situation means were significant. Thus, “desired” scores were
significantly greater than “actual” ones (e.g., the mean “actual situation” score for the item that
deals with the presence of a specialist in adaptive computer technologies on campus is 3.06
while the mean for the “desired situation” score is 5.28). The most pronounced differences were
on items related to support for adaptive computer technologies.
What do individuals responsible for providing services to students with disabilities who have
poor “actual situations” feel would be most helpful for them? To answer this question we divided
the sample, based on their responses to the “actual” item, into those whose “actual situation” did
or did not meet the needs of students with disabilities (i.e., score between 4 and 6 vs. score
between 1 and 3). After a significant MANOVA we compared the scores of the two groups using
paired t-tests.
Means and test results presented in Table 4 showed differences that were significant or
approached significance on 10 of the 12 pairs of variables examined. These indicate that service
providers whose existing conditions failed to meet the needs of students with disabilities wished
to have the situation rectified. The variables that did not differ significantly were both affected by
ceiling effects (i.e., scores in both groups over 5 on a 6-point scale).
In addition to comparing the means, it is also interesting to examine the proportion of
individuals who felt that their “actual situation” on specific variables did or did not meet students’
needs. In this regard it is noteworthy that, as illustrated in Table 4, similar numbers of
respondents indicated that their situation met the computer-related needs of their students on 5 of
the 12 items. Substantially more respondents indicated that the needs of students were met when
it came to two variables. On the remaining five items, substantially more respondents indicated
that their situations did not meet the needs of their students. In particular, 109 participants
indicted that neither the availability of a multidisciplinary advisory committee nor the extent to
which they were consulted about campuswide technology infrastructure decisions met the needs
of students with disabilities.
Adequate in meeting the needs of students. Substantially more respondents indicated that
the computer- related needs of students were met on the following two items:
· Availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres
· Administration reacts positively concerning accessibility of computers
Mediocre. Approximately one half of the respondents indicated that their situation met the
computer-related needs of their students on the following five items:
· Funding for institution’s adaptive computer technologies
· Physical space available for computer technologies
· Training for students on adaptive computer technologies
· Opportunities for employees to learn about adaptive technologies
· Computer support personnel can service adaptive technologies
Inadequate in meeting the needs of students. Substantially more respondents indicated that
the computer related needs of students were not met on the following five items:
· Availability of adaptive computer technologies in general-use computer labs
· Specialist in adaptive computer technologies on campus
· Consulted when computer infrastructure decisions are made
· Advisory/steering committee dealing with computer accessibility
· Computer based teaching materials used by professors are accessible
Wish List of Personnel Who Provide Services to Students with Disabilities
As shown in Table 5, overall, disability service providers wished that students were better
equipped and prepared for the postsecondary experience. For example, three of the four highestranked items expressed the wish for students to be more knowledgeable computer users, for
students to be able to get subsidized computer technologies for home use more easily, and for
students to have better access to computers off campus. The next group of highly ranked items
relate to the need for accessibility of computer-based teaching materials used by professors and
for support services.
When only the responses of participants who felt that their current situation did not meet the
needs of students with disabilities were considered, the top-ranked item was the need for more
favorable response from the administration. The need for accessible materials from professors,
for a person to train students, for more space for the equipment, for more professional
development time and more funding topped the list. Additional details may be found in Table 5.
Faculty and Staff with Disabilities
To study the presence of faculty and staff with disabilities at Canadian community/junior
colleges and universities, participants’ responses to the following question were evaluated, “To
the best of your knowledge, how many employees with disabilities, including yourself if
applicable, are there at your institution?” Because institutions varied tremendously in size, we
also examined the ratio of number of employees with disabilities to the total student enrollment.
Only 106 disability service providers felt able to answer the question about the number of
individuals with disabilities employed on campus. Their responses indicated that there was an
average of 13 employees with disabilities per institution (SD = 28, range = 0 to 200, median = 3,
mode = 0). Comparable proportion data (i.e., number of employees with disabilities per 1,000
students) were as follows. The range of scores is 0/1000 to 20/1000, with a mean of 2/1000, a
median of 1/1000 and a mode of 0/1000 employees with disabilities.
Who should provide computer-related services/accommodations to faculty and staff with
disabilities? Only 112 participants were able to answer this question. Of these, 23% indicated that
they or their office would provide this service. Seventy-seven percent indicated that this was not
the case. The chi square test indicated no significant difference between junior/community
colleges and universities, X2=.362, p>.05.
So who, if not the Office for Students with Disabilities, is expected to provide computerelated services to employees with disabilities? Eighty-six respondents provided 100 answers.
Detailed in Table 6, these indicated that the most frequent response (cited by 37 participants)
was “Human Resources.” This was followed by the employee’s department or the employee
himself or herself. Eight disability service providers did not know. Other responses noted by
several participants included computer services, the institution’s administration, an employment
equity/human rights committee, rehabilitation services external to the institution, and occupational
health and safety.
Discussion
Limitations of the Research
We were fortunate to obtain the participation of 156 individuals who provide disability-related
services to students. They represent 80% of the population of campus-based disability service
providers. Thus, our sample is truly representative of the geographic, linguistic, and institutional
characteristics of the Canadian postsecondary educational system. Nevertheless, certain
limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings.
First, the majority of participants admitted to having limited knowledge of adaptive and
computer-based learning technologies. Therefore, we cannot be sure about how they interpreted
certain concepts (e.g., computer-based teaching materials). A related problem involves
interpretation of the term “accessibility” (e.g., available vs. usable by students with different
impairments). When asked, we clarified what we meant. Also, some participants consulted their
institution’s adaptive technology expert. Most did not. This, too, could have influenced the
findings.
A second concern relates to respondents’ difficulty in answering questions about the number
of students on campus. This applies both to the question about the number of students with
disabilities and the one about overall campus enrollment. This occurred because there are many
different categories of students: full-time, day, evening, continuing education, and so on. In
general, the number provided by respondents reflected the number of students registered to
receive disability-related services.
In spite of these limitations, available validity indices suggest that responses in our study
accurately reflect the situation of these professionals. Wherever comparisons were possible with
American or Canadian data from smaller samples, the results show remarkable consistencies.
This is true of the number and the proportion of students registered to receive disability related
services on campus and overall institutional enrollments (Fichten et al., 2003), as well as the
nature of issues and concerns raised by the participants. In spite of these favorable checks on
ecological validity, the limitations noted above must be taken into consideration.
Who Are They? Characteristics of Professionals Who Provide Services to Students with
Disabilities
Two thirds of our participants were women, a figure only slightly lower than the 80% reported
in a recent American study (Michaels et al., 2001). Although there was great variability,
participants had, on average, spent between 9 and 10 years working in this field. Males had more
experience than females. The experience of those working in colleges and universities did not
differ significantly. No significant differences were found between males and females or between
college- and university-based staff on knowledge about information and instructional
technologies. Generally, participants indicated that they were not very knowledgeable about
computer technologies for students with disabilities. In their recent American investigation,
Michaels et al. (2001) also found this to be the case. Surprisingly, this is very similar to data
collected by Lance (1996) almost a decade ago. What is different between her results and ours is
that participating professionals now recognize the need for training in this area.
Expertise in the use and deployment of computer and adaptive computer technologies for
students with disabilities is rapidly becoming a necessity in postsecondary education. This
suggests that money and time need to be invested in professional development opportunities.
Actual Situation of Specialized Computers on Canadian Campuses
Institutions with and without computer and adaptive computer technologies on campus for
students with disabilities. In previous research we showed that close to one half of postsecondary
students with disabilities need some type of adaptation to use a computer effectively (e.g.,
keyboard and input device modifications, screen magnification or voice output, dictation software)
(Fichten et al., 2001a). Given the large numbers of students needing adaptations, it was not
surprising to find that most institutions (86%) had some specialized computer equipment for them.
This is a marked improvement over American data from a decade ago, which showed that only
60% to 70% of institutions provided computer equipment for their students with disabilities
(Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Horn & Shell, 1990).
Our data show that virtually all universities had specific/dedicated equipment. Even though
the average number of students with disabilities enrolled in junior/community colleges and
universities is very similar (Fichten et al., 2003), colleges were significantly less likely to have
such equipment. The main difference between the 81% of community/junior colleges that had
some type of specialized computer or adaptive computer technologies and the 19% that did not
was the number of students with disabilities on campus.
Multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of computer
technologies for students with disabilities. It is important to note that less than one fourth of
institutions had a multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of
computer technologies for students with disabilities, a finding similar to American statistics (Lewis,
Farris, & Greene, 1999). Universities were somewhat more likely than community/junior colleges
to have such a structure. Thus, 34% of universities had them, while only 17% of community/junior
colleges did so. Neither distance education institution had one.
These committees generally included at least one representative from the office for students
with disabilities, the administration, students with disabilities, and the faculty. Only one fourth had
computer services staff representation. This is similar to American findings from the early 1990s
(Burgstahler, 1992, 1993), where only about one third of higher education institutions made
decisions after formal broad-based consultation. With the increased use of computer technologies
in the delivery of postsecondary education, this is an important area where broader consultation
will be needed. Specifically, in the future, it will become necessary to ensure that course and
department Web pages, materials in courses using authoring tools such as WebCT, off-the-shelf
software loaded onto networks, and so on, meet accessible and inclusive design guidelines (cf.
Do-It, undated; Scott et al., 2003) and are compatible with adaptive technologies.
If the use of technology in higher education continues to be an important priority on North
American campuses, these types of committees with the necessary mix of expertise are vital to
ensure that disability-related concerns can be addressed. This would also provide a more
prominent role for accessibility and would go a long way toward ensuring that all interested
parties are consulted when campuswide computer infrastructure decisions are made.
Priority placed upon computer-related services. In general, when asked to consider their full
range of disability-related services, respondents told us that computer-related services were
accorded a priority between high and low. American data indicate greater importance (Michaels
et al., 2001). Indeed, U.S. data show that adapted equipment ranks seventh among the most
prevalent disability services and accommodations in community colleges (cited in Most college
students with disabilities attend community colleges, undated). Universities accorded somewhat
higher priority to such services than colleges. In the future we expect this function will gain in
importance as all postsecondary institutions proceed along the road to greater integration of
computer technologies across curricula.
Regional computer technology loan programs to institutions. An important finding concerns
the strong satisfaction expressed by service providers with the equipment provided by centralized
regional loan banks for computer technologies. Thus 35% of institutions indicated that a
centralized loan program supplied some of the specialized computer and/or adaptive computer
technologies on campus. There was no significant difference on this variable between
community/junior colleges and universities. Indeed, only 16% of respondents who had access to
a loan bank indicated that the equipment provided failed to meet students’ needs.
Institutional Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies
Overall, respondents reported that the computer-related needs of students with disabilities
were moderately well met at their institutions. This was true for both community/junior colleges
and universities. Neither the size of the institution nor the number or proportion of students with
disabilities was related to overall adequacy in meeting students’ technology needs.
It was counterintuitive to find that availability of specialized equipment on campus was
unrelated to meeting students’ computer-related needs. Nevertheless, similar findings have been
reported by others (e.g., Lance, 1996). It should be noted that it was primarily the
community/junior colleges that had relatively low enrollments of students with disabilities that
were likely to have no dedicated equipment on campus. The lack of a link between availability of
specialized technologies and the institution’s ability to meet the computer-related needs of these
students may reflect three possibilities. First, students on campuses with no dedicated equipment
may not need any specialized computer technologies because using computers on campus is not
required by their programs. Second, it is feasible that many of them do not need specific
adaptations and are able to use the equipment available in the college’s general-use computer
labs. The third possibility is that they are able to cope by using their own equipment and/or
extensive human assistance on campus.
We do not have data bearing directly on this issue. The findings of our previous investigations
(Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b) do suggest, however, that it is a combination of all three
possibilities that best explain the findings. First, most students with disabilities are enrolled in
social sciences and creative arts programs, which, at this point, tend not to use computer
technologies in sophisticated ways. Second, data from our previous investigations indicate that
somewhat less than half of them need adaptations to use a computer effectively. Third, our
previous findings indicate that most students have computer equipment available to them off
campus. Finally, anecdotal information from our respondents (cf. Fichten et al., 2000) suggests
that in smaller colleges, service providers are able to make available human assistance to
students (e.g., have someone read material for students with print impairments, arrange for a
scribe or a note taker to assist students with writing).
Those who work at smaller community/junior colleges and on campuses that have little or no
dedicated computer equipment or support for their students with disabilities felt that the lack of
equipment has not posed significant problems. This is because enrollments are still low enough
so that human assistance is available in place of technological adaptations (Fichten et al., 2000,
2001a). Thus, service providers in smaller community/junior colleges may have been proceeding
with an individualized, case-by-case approach. In this regard, however, it should be noted that
Paul Grossman, in recapping a recent landmark decision by the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office for Civil Rights, pointed out that providing human assistance in lieu of making computer
adaptations available was not an appropriate accommodation (Hamilton, Grossman, Black, &
Tate, 2001). This is because such assistance does not afford students with disabilities the same
opportunities as those available to their nondisabled peers. For example, assistance is available
only when the human assistant is available, there is a loss of autonomy, and skills needed to
function in the academic environment are not learned. In the near future, all campuses must
make computer technologies available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The need
to ensure adequate access and usage of appropriate computer technologies is also underscored
by the findings of Rumrill, Koch, Murphy, and Jannarone (1999). Their in-depth interview study of
a small sample of recent graduates suggests the need for postsecondary institutions to play a
more active role in introducing students to computer and adaptive technologies if they wish to
facilitate transition from higher education to the workplace.
Evaluation Criteria: Meeting the Computer-Related Needs of Students with Disabilities
The following factors were deemed important in ensuring that the institution is technologically
welcoming to its students with disabilities:
· Sufficient funding for computer and adaptive computer technologies
· Adequate training opportunities for students from agencies in the community
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Good access to adaptive computer technologies on campus
Computer and adaptive computer technologies that are up-to-date and available in both
general-use computer labs and specialized labs/centres
The existence of an off-campus computer technology loan program
Availability of training for students on adaptive computer technologies
Adequate physical space to house computer technologies
Extensive hours of access to computers, including adapted computer technologies
Availability of support for adaptive computer technologies on campus
Good technical support for adaptive computer technologies on campus
Opportunities for employees to learn about adaptive technologies
Favorable reactions from administration concerning the accessibility of computers
Expertise with adaptive computer technologies of disability service providers
Accessible computer based teaching materials used by professors
Availability of sufficient numbers of adapted computers with internet access
Library computers that are accessible to students with a variety of impairments
Internet-based distance education designed to be accessible to students with disabilities
Report Card: Adequacy of Computer and Instructional Technologies On Campus
In general, the responses indicated that the overall computer-related needs of students with
disabilities on campus were reasonably well met. This is similar to ratings in others’ studies (e.g.,
Burris, 1998). There were relatively few differences between community/junior colleges and
universities. However, where institutional differences did exist, ratings at universities were
generally more favorable than those at colleges. There were areas of strength and weakness for
both community/junior colleges and universities.
Areas of strength were:
· Hours of access to computers and the extent to which they were up-to-date
· Administrations generally respond favorably when it comes to issues related to the
accessibility of computers for students with disabilities
· Community agencies provided students with appropriate equipment
Participants felt that college administrations were supportive of the computer-related
concerns of students with disabilities. Yet, there was a suggestion that this support may not
extend to good funding. A common comment was, “They are certainly supportive in words, but in
terms of being proactive, and putting money where their mouths were, that is a totally different
issue.” For example, the rating concerning the adequacy of the current state of funding received a
score below 4 on a 6-point scale and additional funding for computer and adaptive computer
technologies was a highly rated item on service providers’ wish lists.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Problem areas were:
Poor technical support for adapted computer technologies
Inadequate availability of adaptive computer technologies in general-use computer
laboratories and lack of physical space for adapted computers in specialized labs/centers
No off-campus computer technology loan program for students
Few opportunities for employees to learn about computer and adaptive technologies
Lack of consultation of disability service providers when campuswide computer infrastructure
decisions are made
Absence of multisectorial advisory/steering committees to deal with computer accessibility
Inaccessible Internet-based distance education courses
Computer-based teaching materials used by faculty are frequently inaccessible and faculty
are not informed about computer related needs of students with disabilities
Community agencies do not provide adequate training for students using adaptive
technologies
Overall, ratings related to support for computer and adaptive computer technologies for
students with disabilities were generally poor as was the overall level of interdepartmental
collaboration. Also, many noted a lack of awareness by faculty regarding computer-related
problems. For example, in training programs aimed at promoting the educational use of computer
technologies by faculty, issues related to accessibility for students with disabilities were generally
not discussed. An anecdotal example highlights this. One of us, while taking a seminar at a large
metropolitan university on how to develop course-related Web pages, was told when asking
about the accessibility of a course tool that, “Professor, don’t you know? Students who are blind
cannot see the monitor. So they can’t use a computer.” Q.E.D.
Wish Lists
Examination of respondents’ wish lists showed, not surprisingly, that desired items
followed low ratings concerning the institution’s actual situation. In particular, they indicated that
their jobs would be easier to carry out if students were better equipped and prepared for the
computer-related aspects of the college experience. For example, three of the four most highly
ranked items expressed the wish for students to be able to get subsidized computer technologies
for home use more easily, for them to have better access to computers off campus, and for
students to be more knowledgeable computer users.
The next group of highly ranked items related to technical and financial support, including
having the institution’s computer support people take more responsibility for adaptive computer
equipment, an adaptive computer specialist, better funding for computer-related activities, and
more space for equipment. Respondents also wanted to be consulted when campuswide IT
infrastructure decisions are made and professional development time to learn about adaptive
computer technologies.
Last but not least, respondents wished that technology-based teaching materials and
techniques used by faculty were more accessible. Indeed, lack of faculty awareness about
students’ computer and instructional technology needs is echoed by recent American findings
(Michaels et al., 2001).
Faculty and Staff with Disabilities
Presence on campus. Many respondents were unable to even estimate the number of
employees with disabilities at their institution. When responses were provided, the most common
response was 0 employees with disabilities at the respondent’s institution. The median response
was 3 individuals and the mean was 13. There were large discrepancies, with a range of 0 to 200.
Community/junior colleges and universities did not differ significantly on either the number or the
proportion of employees with disabilities.
Who should provide computer- related services/accommodations to faculty and staff with
disabilities? Less than one fourth of respondents indicated that they or the Office for Students
with Disabilities would do so. So if not them, then who? Here, there was considerable confusion.
The most popular answer (37%) was Human Resources. This was followed by the employee’s
department (13%). It was especially dismaying to find that the next most popular response was
that the employee himself or herself was responsible (10%), or that the respondent simply did not
have any ideas about who should provide computer-related services to these employees (8%).
This is an issue that has to be addressed in the near future.
Future Research
Our findings highlight the need for further study in a variety of areas. These include: what are
the best means of ensuring the availability of adaptations in general-use computer labs; what
kinds of training opportunities about adaptive computer technologies are best suited for disability
service providers and for faculty; how can the institutional IT staff best be motivated to take
responsibility for adaptive computer technologies; what are different ways of ensuring that
students have access to training and needed adapted equipment for home use; how many
individuals with disabilities work in postsecondary education and who is responsible for providing
services, including computer-based accommodations.
In Conclusion
It is important to ensure that postsecondary administrators, instructors, and other campusbased technicians and professionals incorporate accessible and inclusive design principles when
planning and implementing learning and computer technologies. These must be accessible to the
whole campus community. Professionals who provide disability-related accommodations and
students with disabilities have to be at the table during such discussions. Otherwise, higher
education institutions will contribute to widening the digital divide and to disenfranchising
individuals with disabilities by denying them opportunities to learn and compete on an equal
footing for employment in the new economy. Recommendations and practical suggestions about
how to accomplish changes are provided in a companion article in this issue
Adobe. (2003). Access.adobe.com Adobe Acrobat software and Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) files. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://access.adobe.com
AHEAD. (2002a). AHEAD professional standards. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.ahead.org/publications/standards.html
AHEAD. (2002b). AHEAD program standards. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.ahead.org/publications/programstandards.html
Apple. (2003). People with special needs. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.apple.com/disability/
Association of Canadian Community Colleges, (ACCC). (2003). ACCC membership list.
Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://www.accc.ca/english/colleges/membership_list.cfm
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, (AUCC). (2003). Canadian universities.
Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/index_e.html
Asuncion, J.V., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (in press). Access to
information and instructional technologies in higher education II: Practical recommendations
for disability service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Bernstein, R., Caplan, J., & Glover, E. (2001). America’s 100 Most Wired Colleges –2000. Yahoo!
Internet Life. Retrieved November 20, 2002, from
http://www.zdnet.com/zdsubs/yahoo/content/100mostwired/index.html
Burgstahler, S. (1992). Computing services for physically disabled students in post-secondary
institutions: Results of a survey in Washington state. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Washington.
Burgstahler, S. (1993). Computing services for disabled students in institutions of higher
education. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Human and Social Sciences, 54(1), 102A.
Burris, G.L. (1998, January). Assistive technology support and strategies – A summary.
Unpublished manuscript, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.
Campus Backbone Connectivity. (1999, April). Syllabus, p.10.
Coomber, S. (1996). Inclusion: Strategies for accommodating students with disabilities who use
adaptive technology in the classroom. Vancouver, BC: Human Resources Development
Canada, Disabled Persons Participation Program.
Do-It. (n.d.). Technology and universal design. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Resources/technology.html
EDUCAUSE guide to evaluating information technology on campus. (2002). Retrieved July 11,
2003, from http://www.educause.edu/consumerguide/academic.asp#
Epp, M.A. (1996, Winter). A study of the use of Braille and electronic texts in B.C.
community/junior colleges and institutes. Braille survey. Unpublished manuscript, Langara
College, British Columbia.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2001a). Computer
technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities I: Comparison of student and
service provider perspectives. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 2858.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De
Simone, C., & Wells, D. (2001b). Technology integration for students with disabilities:
Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7,
185-221.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., & Lamb, D. (2003).
Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they? In Press.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., & Barile, M., with the collaboration of Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E.,
Judd, D., Guimont, J.P., Tam, R., & Lamb, D. and Partner Representatives: Généreux, C.,
Juhel, J.C., Senécal., J., & Wolforth, J. (2001c). Computer and information technologies:
Resources for the postsecondary education of students with disabilities. Final Report to the
Office of Learning Technologies. Hull, Québec: Office of Learning Technologies. Resources
in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 458 733 and EC 308 679).
Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://omega.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/adaptech/pubs/olt01pdf.exe.
Fossey, M.E., Asuncion, J.V., Fichten, C.S., Robillard, C., Barile, M., Amsel, R., Prezant, F., &
Morabito, S. (2003). Development and validation of the Accessibility of Campus Computing
for Students with Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS). Submitted for publication.
Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C., Judd, D., &
Guimont, J.P. (2000). Access to college for all: ITAC Project - Computer and adaptive
computer technologies in the cegeps for students with disabilities / L’accessibilité au cégep
pour tous: Projet ITAC - informatique et technologies adaptées dans les cégeps pour les
étudiants handicapés. Final report to PAREA (Programme d’aide à la recherche sur
l’enseignement et l’apprentissage). Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation. Eric Document
Reproduction Service (ED445457). Retrieved July, 11, 2003, from
http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/itacexee.pdf
Freedom Scientific. (2003). Home page. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Hamilton, S., Grossman, P., Black, R., & Tate, P. (2001, July.). We did it, so can you: California
addresses their OCR identified deficiencies. Presentation at the Annual AHEAD (Association
on Higher Education And Disability), Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Horn, C.A., & Shell, D.F. (1990). Availability of computer services in postsecondary institutions:
Results of a survey of AHSSPPE members. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 8(1), 115-124.
IBM. Accessibility center guidelines. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www3.ibm.com/able/guidelines.html
Jackson, K., Morabito, S.M., Prezant, F.P., & Michaels, C.A. (2001, July). The current status of
technology on campus for students with disabilities: The DSS perspective. Presentation at
the Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability) Conference, Portland,
Oregon.
Kiernan, V. (2002). Technology will reshape research universities dramatically, science-academy
report predicts. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 8, 2002. Retrieved July 11, 2003,
from http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110801t.htm
Killean, E., & Hubka, D. (1999, July). Working towards a coordinated national approach to
services, accommodations and policies for post-secondary students with disabilities:
Ensuring access to higher education and career training. Report to the National Educational
Association of Disabled Students. Ottawa: NEADS, 426 Unicentre, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6.
Lance, G. D. (1996). Computer access in higher education: A national survey of service providers
for students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 37(3), 279-288.
Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1999, August). An institutional perspective on students with
disabilities in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics: Statistical
Analysis Report. Retrieved July 11, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999046.pdf. U.S.
Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. NCES 1999046.
Michaels, C., Prezant, F., Morabito, S., & Jackson, K. (2001). Assistive and instructional
technology for college students with disabilities: A national snapshot of disabled student
providers. Journal of Special Ed Technology, 17(1), 5-14.
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft accessibility – Technology for everyone. Retrieved July 11,
2003, from http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
Most college students with disabilities attend community colleges. (Undated). Retrieved July 11,
2003 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ERIC/edinfos/EDINFO3.HTML
Rumrill, Jr., J.D., Koch, L.C., Murphy, P.J., & Jannarone, A. (1999). Technology transfer concerns
of college graduates with disabilities: Profiles in transition from higher education to
competitive careers. Work, 13(1), 43-49.
Scott, S.S., Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S. (2003, Spring). Implementing universal
design in higher education: Moving beyond the built environment. Journal on Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 16(2), 78-89.
Vickery, L. J., & McClure, M.D. (1998). The 4 P’s of accessibility in post-secondary education:
Philosophy, policy, procedures and programs. Proceedings of the CSUN Conference.
Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/conf/csun_98/csun98_099.htm
Vosahlo, M., Hyndman, M., Sears, P., & Sheridan, T. (2001). Expanding disability resource
centers to include services to faculty and staff with disabilities. Presentation at the Annual
AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability) Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education II:
Practical Recommendations for Disability Service Providers
Jennison V. Asuncion
Catherine S. Fichten
Maria Barile
Myrtis E. Fossey
Chantal Robillard
Dawson College, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, McGill University
Abstract
This is an applied companion to our empirical article elsewhere in this issue (Fichten et
al., in press) on technological needs and concerns of Canadian junior/community college- and
university-based disability service providers. Here, we provide highlights of our findings as well as
timely, practical recommendations to disability service providers about ensuring access to the
growing array of information and instructional technologies on campus. The objective is to provide
(a) an overview of the emerging landscape of information and instructional technologies
appearing on campus, (b) campus-based disability service providers’ views about these and how
these relate to adaptive technologies, and (c) suggestions about how to be proactive on campus
so that information and instructional technologies are accessible to all students, particularly those
with disabilities.
The underlying premise of this article is that information and instructional technologies are
part of the everyday lives of college and university students now, and for the foreseeable future.
Whether it is registering via the Web for a semester’s worth of courses, taking a university degree
fully on-line, conducting complex physics experiments using a computer-based simulation tool, or
downloading assignments from a professor’s Web site, students are bombarded with multiple
opportunities to use and to learn with technology (Birchall, 1999; Green, 2000, 2001;
Landsberger, Krey, & Moorhead, 2001; Vachris, 1999). Some schools are experimenting with
providing laptops to all of their students, creating a ubiquitous computing environment where all
students are supposed to have access to electronic course material and digital resources
anywhere on campus (Blurton, Chee, Long, Resmer, & Runde, 1999; McCoy, Heafner, Burdick, &
Nagle, 2001). The greatest increase in the use of such technologies is by faculty who employ
them to support their teaching (Green, 2001).
This development has a profound impact on students with disabilities, both positive and
negative. We have documented the numerous positives in our previous research and publications
(Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2001a; Fichten et al., 2001b, 2001c, 2003).
However, a key concern remains that faculty, in the rush to integrate technology into their
teaching, do not necessarily consider the access needs of students with various disabilities (e.g.,
Bissonnette & Schmid, 2003). Therefore, issues such as how students without the use of their
hands can use a laptop that is not outfitted with adaptations, how a student who is blind will
participate in an on-line activity involving sharing graphs and charts with fellow students on an
electronic whiteboard, or how a student who is deaf will learn using an uncaptioned educational
CD-ROM videoclip are most probably not at the front of the concerns of faculty and staff during
selection and implementation of information and instructional technology.
Such issues would more than likely surface at the point at which a student with a disability
registers for and/or shows up on the first day of the course. A natural reaction would most
probably include a call to the disability service provider, shifting the accountability from the hands
of faculty into those of the campus-based disability service provider. The question then becomes,
“Are the professionals who work in campus disability services offices prepared to tackle
accessibility-related issues resulting from the introduction of emerging information and
instructional technologies?”
Highlights of Our Findings on Views and Concerns of Campus-Based Disability Service Providers
Our previous work focused on the technology-related views and concerns of students with
disabilities (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b). To complete the picture, in the companion piece to this
article our focus shifted to the needs and concerns of the professionals who oversee the delivery
of disability-related services on Canadian junior/community college and university campuses
(Fichten et al., in press). This structured telephone interview study involved 156 participants,
representing 80% of Canada’s public postsecondary junior/community colleges and universities.
Questions solicited information about the actual and desired accessibility of computer
technologies on campus, institutional and external factors that help or hinder access to these
technologies, and the situation of faculty and staff with disabilities. Results of this study form the
basis for the recommendations that follow. For more in-depth information about the study, see
Fichten et al. (in press). Key findings are listed below.
· Two thirds of professionals providing services to students with disabilities in Canadian higher
education institutions are female
· Despite variability, on average, service providers had 9 – 10 years’ experience providing
disability-related services on campus
· In general, subjects reported that they were not very knowledgeable when it comes to
computer technologies for students with disabilities
· Virtually all universities had specific/dedicated computer equipment for students with
disabilities; however, junior/community colleges were less likely to have this
· Only 34% of universities and 17% of junior/community colleges had multidisciplinary
advisory/steering committees dealing with the accessibility of computer technologies
· The presence of adaptive technologies in general-use computer labs was seen as an urgent
priority
· A strong need was expressed for better technical support for adaptive computer technologies
on campus
· Opportunities for disability service providers to learn about adaptive computer technologies
were seen as inadequate
· Computer-based teaching materials used by faculty were frequently seen as inaccessible
· Faculty were seen as poorly informed about the computer-related needs of students with
disabilities
· Accessibility of Internet-based distance education and Web-based “hybrid” courses was seen
as problematic in some institutions
· There was massive confusion about who should provide computer-related access services to
faculty and staff with disabilities
Recommendations for Individuals Responsible for Providing Services to Students with Disabilities
What follows are several practical suggestions that campus-based disability service providers
may find useful in terms of beginning to proactively address the types of accessibility-related
issues that result from the increasing use of information and instructional technology. Informing
these suggestions are our research findings, formal and informal conversations with practitioners
that occurred over the life of our study, and background gained from the literature.
Identify the institutionwide committees and the key players who are driving campuswide
instructional and information technology-related decisions. Encourage regular conversations
about accessibility by having it added as a standing item on meeting agendas. Additionally, work
to have someone from your office (i.e., yourself and/or your adaptive technology specialist)
invited to the committee meetings. Finding out, for example, whether accessibility is a criterion
used when choosing eLearning vendors, or whether accessibility is addressed within campus IT
plans are among the first areas to examine. This is one method of ensuring that accessibility
becomes an ongoing concern and that you/your office have a voice in influencing policy and
technology implementation decisions (e.g., purchasing software from vendors that are Section
508 compliant (see Department of Justice of the United States, undated). More important, this is
an opportunity for you to learn about and prepare for upcoming information and instructional
technology developments on campus. Your school’s chief information officer, VP of information
technology, and/or the unit that provides faculty training and support in the use of technology in
the classroom are good starting points for finding out what committees exist. This action also
conveys a message that ensuring the accessibility of academic computing by all members of the
college community is a shared responsibility that cannot be ignored or relegated solely to your
office.
Help your institution’s faculty training and support unit that deals with the use of technology in
the classroom understand that they play a critical role in promoting accessibility. Many faculty
members have to acquire the basic skills needed to teach with technology (cf. UCLA Graduate
School of Education & Information Studies, 1999). In cases where institutions provide means
through which faculty and staff receive training in how to use these technologies, it seems
practical to use these forums to also address accessibility. Seek out those who provide this type
of professional development on your campus and encourage them to integrate issues of
accessibility by learners with disabilities in their workshops and teaching materials. For persons
interested in a “readable” minimally technical presentation, the recent guidelines by the IMS
Accessibility Working Group (2002) should be of interest. In addition, excellent user-friendly
suggestions are made by Burgstahler (1998), Campbell and Waddell (1997), Do-It (undated), and
the National Center for Accessible Media (2003).
Arrange to loan computer technologies to students. The institution may wish to develop a
program to loan equipment to students. For example, students could benefit from being able to
use laptops to work on assignments between classes, to take their own notes in class, give
presentations, work in groups, or communicate with other students. Such technological solutions
could also be cost-effective due to the decreasing price of laptop computers.
Make training a priority for both students and postsecondary personnel. Lack of knowledge
about how to use specialized computer technologies on the part of both students and staff who
oversee the technology is an important concern. If it is to be used effectively and in tandem with
emerging information and instructional technology, systematic training must be seen as part of
the overall investment in solving problems. Periodic inservice workshops, demonstrations by
students or colleagues from neighboring universities and colleges, professionals, or
representatives of adaptive technology organizations and companies should be explored. Some
vendors of adaptive computer technologies may “loan” their products on consignment to
community/junior colleges and universities for evaluation. Software products often have
downloadable trial or demonstration versions. Some institutions have offered training programs to
enable students with disabilities to use computers more effectively (e.g., High Tech Center
Training Unit of the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 1999). Whether it is
providing educational opportunities or allotting time to allow staff to learn on their own (e.g., online workshops provided by WebAim http://www.webaim.org and/or EASI
http://www.rit.edu/~easi), learning about adaptive computer technologies must take place. Where
adaptive technologies are placed at various locations and at different campuses, local staff (e.g.,
library staff, staff in computer labs) need to receive at least minimal training to enable them to
assist students.
Conclusions
Three trends are evident in postsecondary institutions. First, community/junior colleges and
universities are implementing information technology (e.g., portals, offering laptops to students).
Second, they are adopting policies to ensure that their campuses are “wired.” Third, they are
experimenting with and introducing new methods of teaching with technology (e.g., adding
computer-based components to courses, using tools such as WebCT, offering entire degrees
online.). Failing to proactively address the accessibility of the technologies has consequences
that affect the ability of many students with disabilities to take full advantage and to participate in
the same learning opportunities as their nondisabled peers. It also puts them on an unequal
footing when they graduate into a labor market hungry for new hires who are comfortable using
technology.
These issues must be planned for and dealt with from the beginning, and not on an “ad hoc”
basis, when it may be too late to do something for the student. The key is to identify and partner
with those on campus who champion adoption of new information and instructional technologies
and with those who support their use, and to press the case that these technologies must be
accessible to all students.
References
Birchall, D. (1999). Transforming the learning process by the use of information and
communications technology. International Journal of Innovative Higher Education, 13, 16-21.
Bissonnette, L., & Schmid, R. (2003). Information and instructional technologies for
postsecondary students with disabilities: Research and practice. Presentation at AMTEC
(Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada), May, Montréal. Abstracted
in Conference Program, pp. 23-24. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://doe.concordia.ca:16080/amtec/program.pdf
Blurton, C., Chee, Y.S., Long, P.D., Resmer, M., & Runde, C. (1999). Assured access: Mobile
computing initiatives on five university campuses. Resources in Education and ERIC
Document Reproduction Service (ED 446731).
Burgstahler, S. (1998). Making web pages universally accessible. CMC Magazine. Retrieved July
11, 2003, from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/jan/burg.html
Campbell, L.M., & Waddell, C.D. (1997). Electronic curbcuts: How to build an accessible web site.
Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/ecc.htm
Department of Justice of the United States. (n.d.). Section 508 home page. Retrieved February
13, 2003, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/archive/oldinfo.html
Do-It. (n.d.). Technology and universal design. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Resources/technology.html
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2001a). Computer
technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities I: Comparison of student and
service provider perspectives. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 2858.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., & Wolforth, J. (2001b).
Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities II: Resources and
recommendations for postsecondary service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 15(1), 59-82.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De
Simone, C., & Wells, D. (2001c). Technology integration for students with disabilities:
Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7,
185-221.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., & Lamb, D. (2003).
Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they? In press.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., Judd, D., Wolforth, J.,
Senécal, J., Généreux, C., Guimont, J.P., Lamb, D., & Juhel, J-C. (in press). Access to
information and instructional technologies in higher education I: Disability service providers’
perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Flowers, C., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R.F. (2001). Content accessibility of community college web
sites. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 25(7), 475-485.
Green, K.C. (2000). Campus computing, 2000: The 11th national survey of computing and
information technology in American higher education. Resources in Education and ERIC
Document Reproduction Service (ED 451744).
Green, K.C. (2001). Campus computing, 2001: The 12th national survey of computing and
information technology in American higher education. Resources in Education and ERIC
Document Reproduction Service (ED 459679).
High Tech Center Training Unit of the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (1999).
High tech centers for students with disabilities in the California community colleges: A
program outputs study. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/outputs.htm
IMS Accessibility Working Group. (2002). IMS guidelines for developing accessible learning
applications. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accessiblevers/index.html
Landsberger, J., Krey, C.L., & Moorhead, A. (2001). Classrooms of the future. TechTrends, 45(5),
9-19.
National Center for Accessible Media. (2003). Making educational software and web sites
accessible: Design guidelines including math and science solutions. Retrieved July 11, 2003,
from http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/
Roessler, R.T., & Kirk, H.M. (1998). Improving technology training services in postsecondary
education: Perspectives of recent college graduates with disabilities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 48-59..
UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. (1999). An overview of the 1998-99
faculty norms. Retrieved August 30, 1999, from
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/Faculty_Overview.html
Vachris, M.A. (1999). Teaching principles of economics without “chalk and talk”: The experience
of CNU online. Journal of Economic Education, 30(3), 292-307.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Book Review Column
After a one-issue hiatus, welcome back to the JPED book review column! This issue presents two
reviews of the same book, Faculty Disability Services Handbook, written by Salome M. Heyward,
JD. The intent behind the book reviews is to consider how the book will be viewed by two
professionals in higher education, each operating within different parameters and with different
responsibilities toward students with disabilities. One review is done by me, the other by Dr.
Donna McCarty, a faculty member at my institution.
I remind you to check the AHEAD Web site for guidelines and procedures for the column so you
too can participate. Also, note that my contact information has changed. I welcome your feedback
on any of the book reviews published thus far. Enjoy!
Elaine Manglitz, Ph.D.
Director, Disability Services
Clayton College & State University
elainemanglitz@mail.clayton.edu
(770) 961-3757
Faculty Disability Services Handbook
Salome M. Heyward, JD
Faculty Disability Services Handbook by Salome M. Heyward, JD, provides the reader with
information and analyses of key issues in the field of disability services and disability
discrimination law. The book is organized by major headings that include The Role of the
Disability Services Staff, The Accommodation Process, Essential Academic Requirements,
Frequently Asked Questions, and several sections addressing issues relevant to programs that
incorporate clinical programs and internships into the educational environment. The author cites
case law to explain the tenets discussed in the book and presents four cases each followed by a
discussion about the issues involved in the cases. The book is written primarily to explain the
accommodation process and some of the related issues relevant to faculty members in
postsecondary education. In the introduction the author sets the tone for the book by stating, “the
only way in which faculty members can achieve some measure of control over this situation is to
understand the relative responsibilities of students and the institution with respect to the
accommodation process.” The author reiterates the role that disability services professionals play
in the process as well.
In discussing the role of the disability services staff, Heyward emphasizes the dual nature of
their role – to ensure that institutions provide access to students with disabilities and to
simultaneously protect the integrity of academic programs and services. She further outlines how
disability service providers are to accomplish this balancing act, outlining very succinctly the
parameters involved in the process. This explanation along with the subsequent paragraph that
emphasizes the faculty member’s joint role in the process reinforces for faculty the importance of
both roles in the accommodation process in a way that gives substance and importance to each
area.
In the sections on the accommodation process and essential requirements, Heyward
provides four cases to elicit issues applicable to these areas. The cases all involve students and
faculty members, and the author’s discussion combines her analysis of the issues involved in the
cases with citations of relevant case law. I found this an effective way to elucidate the issues,
including documentation requirements, procedure for requesting accommodations, and qualified
student status, among others. Case Four is especially complex, and the author does an excellent
job walking the reader through the issues involved and the reasoning behind her discussion. I
believe understanding all these cases would go a long way toward assuring faculty members and
institutions of their rights to develop and adhere to legitimate academic standards, as well as their
responsibilities to conduct an individualized and diligent assessment when considering possible
student accommodations.
In a section of Frequently Asked Questions the author addresses issues relevant for faculty
members and service providers, including choosing and providing accommodations and
institutional and student rights and responsibilities. Some of these questions and the subsequent
discussion touch on academic probation or suspension determinations, temporary disabilities,
faculty refusal to provide accommodations, and access to admissions information, all of which are
relevant to faculty members and administrators. The question-and-answer format provides an
effective way to directly answer the questions, while still providing some of the ancillary legal
information surrounding the issues.
In the last major section of the book, the author discusses some of the more complex issues
related to institutional obligations and student responsibility with respect to clinical programs and
internships. Specifically, she addresses the importance of technical standards, the obligation of
institutions to monitor the treatment of students by third parties, and the obligation of students to
be “otherwise qualified” in settings that encompass academic and professional requirements. I
found this discussion to be informative, and it is one I will return to many times before talking with
faculty members who work in these fields. Again, the author uses relevant case law and OCR
(Office of Civil Rights) rulings to support the discussion. She offers brief guidelines on which the
development and application of technical standards should be based, recommendations for
determining qualified status in the technical areas, and parameters for taking behavioral and
health and safety standards into account.
I highly recommend this book to disability service providers and administrators, as well as to
faculty members who work with students with disabilities in higher education. The author’s use of
recent court cases and OCR rulings, as well as some key cases in the history of the field, to
reiterate the points made in the discussion of key topics is very effective. However, there were
quite a few typographical and grammatical errors that interfered with the flow of the text. There
was also some repetition of the topics and court cases discussed; however, this repetition may be
essential to provide sufficient familiarity on key issues of the accommodation process, the
institution’s right to academic standards, and the qualified student with a disability’s right to
meaningful access. As a service provider, I find it helpful to hear and see the same or similar
issues discussed in several ways using different examples and contexts. The book ends rather
abruptly; it would have helped to have a short summary parallel to the introduction offering parting
comments or a summarization of key ideas. All in all, it was an informative book and a good
resource about many of the questions that arise almost daily within the postsecondary
environment in relation to students with disabilities.
Elaine Manglitz, Ph.D., Clayton College & State University, Morrow, GA
As a psychology professor with responsibilities for teaching and administration in an
undergraduate program, I have long been interested in achieving a more complete understanding
of the parameters for appropriate and effective provision of services to students with disabilities. I
have seen faculty responses run the gamut from automatic “yeses” to any request from any
student claiming a disability to virtually all requests being denied on the basis of academic
integrity. Given the nature of my experiences in working with students with disabilities in my own
classes and my responsibility to guide other faculty in their efforts, I welcomed the opportunity to
read and review a handbook on the subject, and to provide an evaluation from a faculty
perspective.
The Handbook opens with a succinct and clear introduction that I found particularly engaging
as it provides an overview of the issues of concern to a faculty member. In order to effectively
handle requests for accommodations from students with disabilities, faculty members must
understand the accommodation process, including the relative responsibilities of students and the
institution. Furthermore, faculty members must be aware of the crucial role played by disability
services administrators in supporting and mediating this process. The need to move away from
quick decision-making based on incomplete information and toward a reasoned, consistent
approach is clear from the beginning of the book.
The author goes on to present a clear overview of the role of the disability services staff in
assisting all parties to use a “deliberative process” to come to an appropriate resolution. The
author accomplishes the goal of describing the role of the professional while clarifying the
importance of input from academic experts. Following this clarification, the author goes on to
elucidate the accommodation process using a very effective case-vignette approach. Through
two cases followed by discussion/illumination, key issues are highlighted and examined. Along
the way, clear, concisely stated “rules” appear in bold, and the cases and discussions serve to
clarify and inform the reader’s understanding of the rules. Of particular interest to faculty is the
discussion of the natural tension between making accommodations and academic integrity. This
issue is presented in a balanced manner that will, I believe, be of value to faculty across all types
of institutions. It is emphasized that faculty should look for ways to maintain academic integrity
while finding approaches to accommodate students with legitimate needs. Faculty will also
appreciate the use of court cases and other reference sources to document the assertions made
throughout the discussion. This section closes with a cogent description of the meaning of the
term “discrimination” and the criteria by which an institution’s decision to accommodate a student
will be evaluated.
The next major section of the Handbook is devoted to developing an understanding of what is
meant by the important phrase “essential academic requirements.” As before, two cases are
employed along with additional discussion and rules to present the information. This section is of
interest to faculty and program administrators in helping them gain an understanding of which
program requirements would likely be considered “essential” for all students, regardless of
disability, and which could be modified or waived in the interest of providing access. The need to
find a balance between standards of preparation and access for students is elucidated in an
effective and useful manner.
The Handbook moves into a helpful set of frequently asked questions and answers, and then
shifts into a discussion of accommodation issues that occur in experiential learning components
that take place outside of programs (e.g., clinicals and internships). Such programs create
special opportunities as well as special challenges for providing appropriate accommodations.
The author does a good job of presenting the responsibilities incumbent upon institutions and
faculties to ensure that students with disabilities can participate if at all possible. Since more and
more academic programs, including my own, are including such hands-on features, the issues
associated with provision of access are important for faculty to consider. Topics in the closing
pages include Technical Standards, Treatment of Students, and Otherwise Qualified. As a faculty
member rather than a disability services professional, I found the organizational structure to break
down a bit and the flow of ideas to become somewhat confusing at this point. Another example
of the loss of coherence towards the end of the book is the treatment of the term “otherwise
qualified.” This term had been used without sufficient explanation in an early section of the
Handbook, and I noted that the unfamiliar reader must continue to infer the meaning from the
text.
In addition to the organizational difficulties in the closing sections of the book, I also found
that rather frequent grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures, and typos created a need
to go back over sections to reestablish the logical flow of ideas. In a subsequent edition, I hope
that more careful attention to writing and proofing will enhance the readability of this otherwise
valuable resource. Finally, I found a need for a greater degree of closure. The ending was rather
abrupt. A conclusion with a summary of the major points would have been helpful to reinforce the
major themes of the document.
Overall, I found Heyward’s Faculty Disability Services Handbook to be a useful tool for the
faculty member or academic administrator seeking to gain better understanding of how to provide
appropriate academic accommodations to students with disabilities, ensure a fair environment for
all, maintain academic integrity, and work effectively with the disability services professionals on
campus. To this end, there is a great need for brief, clear discussions of the accommodation
process and concomitant issues, especially for the faculty who are responsible for implementing
academic programs for students. This Handbook is a welcome addition to the available
resources in the disability services field.
Donna McCarty, Ph.D., Clayton College & State University, Morrow, GA