22... · Web viewMs. Vincent was the mother of two sons with Asperger’s. Her older son was...

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityVolume 22, Issue 2

Executive EditorJames Martin, University of OklahomaManaging EditorRichard Allegra, AHEADEditorial AssociateJohn W. Graham, University of Oklahoma

Editorial Review BoardManju Banerjee; University of ConnecticutJoan Bisagno; Stanford UniversityRon Blosser; Green River Community CollegeLoring Brinckerhoff; Educational Testing ServiceConnie Chiba; University of California, BerkeleyJustin Cooper; Eastern Kentucky University Lyman Dukes III; University of South Florida at St. PetersburgStephanie Gaddy, Lincoln College Elizabeth Evans Getzel; Virginia Commonwealth UniversityChristie L. Gilson; University of IllinoisSam Goodin; University of MichiganWendy S. Harbour; Harvard UniversityCheri Hoy; University of GeorgiaCharles A. Hughes; The Pennsylvania State UniversityMichael John Humphrey; Boise State UniversityKristina Krampe; Eastern Kentucky UniversityTracy Knight Lackey; Jackson State UniversityRuth C. Loew; Educational Testing ServicePamela Luft; Kent StateJoseph W. Madaus; University of ConnecticutElaine Manglitz; Calyton College & State UniversityJoan McGuire; University of ConnecticutJanet Medina; McDaniel CollegeDeborah Merchant; Keene State University Ward Newmeyer; Dartmouth CollegeChristine O’Dell; University of California, DavisNicole Ofiesh; Notre Dame de Namur UniversityDavid Parker; Washington University in St. LouisBetty Preus; College of St. ScholasticaKelly Drew Roberts; University of Hawaii at ManoaFrank R. Rusch; The Pennsylvania State UniversityDaniel Ryan; SUNY at Buffalo

Charles Salzberg; Utah State UniversityMary Catherine Scheeler; Pennsylvania State Univ. Green ValleySally Scott; Longwood UniversityStuart S. Segal; University of MichiganStan Shaw; University of ConnecticutSharon K. Suritsky; Upper St. Clair School DistrictColleen A. Thoma; Virginia Commonwealth UniversitySusan A. Vogel; Northern Illinois UniversityRuth Warick; University of British ColumbiaKristine Webb; University of North FloridaMarc Wilchesky; York UniversityLee Woods; Boise State University

Practice Brief Review BoardDoris A. Bitler; George Mason UniversityMelinda S. Burchard; James Madison UniversityTrey J. Duffy; Cal Poly San Luis ObispoAlberto Guzman; University of Illinois, ChicagoAndrea Henry; Massasoit Community CollegeAndrew Jason Kaiser; St. Ambrose UniversityAngela S. Mooneyham; University of Alabama, BirminghamLori R. Muskat; Georgia School of Professional Psychology, Argosy - AtlantaJack Trammell; Randolph-Macon CollegeMary Lee Vance; University of Wisconsin, SuperiorMargaret P.Weiss; Virginia Tech

AHEAD Board of DirectorsMichael Shuttic, President; Oklahoma State UniversityJim Marks, President-Elect; University of MontanaKathleen McGillivray, Secretary; Bethel UniversityMichael Johnson, Treasurer; Monroe Community College - Damon City CampusJean Ashmore, Director; Rice University Bea Awoniyi, Director; Florida State UniversityKaren Saracusa, Director; Mount Union CollegeEmily Singer, Director; Catholic University of AmericaJose Soto, Director; Southeast Community CollegeMary Lee Vance, Director; University of Wisconsin - Superior

Stephan J. Hamlin-Smith, (ex-officio); AHEAD

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is available in accessible formats. Please contact AHEAD to discuss accessibility requests. All members of the Association on Higher Education And Disability receive the Journal.

© 2009, The Association on Higher Education And Disability, 107 Commerce Centre Drive #204, Huntersville, NC 28078 USA

Table of ContentsJournal of Postsecondary Education and Disability:

Volume 22, Number 2, 2009

From the Editor 77James Martin

Parent Perceptions of the Anticipated Needs and Expectationsfor Support for Their College-Bound Students withAsperger’s Syndrome 78 - 87Julie Q. MorrisonFrank J. SansostiWanda M. Hadley

Relentless Optimism: Inclusive Postsecondary Opportunitiesfor Students with Significant Disabilities 88 - 105Julie Causton-TheoharisChristine AshbyNicole DeClouette

Postsecondary Students and Disability Stigma: Development of the Postsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS) 106 - 116Jack Trammell

Promoting University Faculty and Staff Awareness of Studentswith Learning Disabilities: An Overview of the ProductiveLearning u Strategies (PLuS) Project 117 - 129Christopher MurrayCarol WrenEdward B. StevensChristopher Keys

Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS):A Multidimensional Service Delivery Model for College Studentswith Learning Disabilities and ADHD 130 - 136David R. ParkerCheri White

Laura CollinsManju BanerjeeJoan M. McGuire

Book Review 137 - 138Rebecca Daly Cofer

Author Guidelines Inside Back Cover

FROM THE EDITORJAMES MARTIN

Welcome to the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED), Volume 22, Issue 2. This issue brings you four timely and unique research studies, one practice brief about an emerging new practice, and a book review about a topic of interest to many JPED readers.

Because increasing numbers of students with Asperger’s Syndrome are attending postsecondary educational programs, a paper on this topic begins the issue. Morrison, Sansosti, and Hadley explore parental perceptions of the support needs of college-bound students with Asperger’s Syndrome, and the type of self-advocacy skills needed to increase students’ success. Read this paper to learn some useful information.

In the second study, Causton-Theoharis, Ashby, and DeClouette present the results of a qualitative investigation into two programs that support students labeled with significant disabilities (i.e., cognitive disabilities, intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injury, and autism) to attend college classes in inclusive settings. Read this paper to learn the benefits of this type of program and the obstacles it faces.

The third study in this issue examines the degree of stigmatization experienced by college and University students with disabilities. Jack Trammell’s unique research suggests that disability stigma does indeed seem to impact students with disabilities. This paper raises more questions than it answers, but this is what research is supposed to do. Read this paper to look at some very unique findings.

Murray, Wren, Stevens, and Keys, in the fourth study of this issue, describe a five-year model demonstration project that increased disability awareness, understanding, and responsive action by faculty and staff at a large private University. Their experience may be useful to other colleges.

The expanded practice brief by Parker, White, Collins, and Banerjee describe the Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS), which they piloted for two years. The authors use examples to demonstrate how to use the five components of this system.

Rebecca Daly Cofer from Texas Tech University provides a review of Paul Wehman, Marcia Datlow Smith, and Carol Schall’s new book, Autism and the Transition to Adulthood: Success Beyond the Classroom. Cofer said, “I especially appreciated the introductory chapter about the characteristics of autism and how they affect the individual.” The sections devoted to students with autism in higher education helped Cofer better understand what to do to provide access and support for these students. This book may assist you too.

Enjoy this issue.

Parent Perceptions of the Anticipated Needs and Expectations for Support for Their College-Bound Students with Asperger’s

Syndrome

Julie Q. MorrisonUniversity of Cincinnati

Frank J. SansostiKent State University

Wanda M. HadleyCentral State University

AbstractMany students with Asperger’s Syndrome have the cognitive ability and specific interests to be successful academically at the college level. However, these students often have difficulties navigating social systems, and higher education presents great challenges. The purpose of this study was to explore parent perceptions regarding the: (a) supports or accommodations college-bound students with Asperger’s Syndrome need at the postsecondary level to successfully adjust to the academic and psycho-social expectations of the college experience, and (b) self-advocacy skills or strategies needed to increase the likelihood that students with Asperger’s Syndrome be successful in college. Parents reported a variety of strategies that colleges can use to support students with Asperger’s Syndrome within postsecondary settings and provided insights into their expectations for college-level supports. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) is a lifelong disability that is characterized by impairments in social interactions and restricted, repetitive, or stereotyped patterns of behaviors, interests, and activities (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). In addition to formal diagnostic characteristics, many individuals with AS demonstrate a host of challenges that make everyday functioning difficult. For example, individuals with AS often demonstrate limitations with functional communication, or the use of language for communicative purposes (Landa, 2000; Sansosti & Powell-Smith, 2006). Moreover, individuals with AS often have difficulty recognizing and expressing emotions (Frith, 2003); responding to distracting sensory stimuli within the environment (Kern et al., 2006); and engaging in a host of executive function tasks such as setting goals; initiating a plan; and monitoring performance (Killiany, Moore, Rehbein, & Moss, 2005). As a result of such impairments, individuals with AS often do not interact with peers comfortably, possess poor appreciation of social cues, make socially and emotionally inappropriate responses (e.g., laughing loudly when another student gets hurt), and are at-risk for depression and other affective disorders. It is not surprising then, that only 12% of individuals with AS are employed full-time (Barnard, Harvey, Prior, & Potter, 2001).

Despite a myriad of impairments and a poor longitudinal outcome, individuals with AS often display average to above-average cognitive abilities and structural language strengths (Klin, Volkmar, & Sparrow, 2000). The presence of elevated cognitive abilities combined with the propensity of individuals with AS to have areas of special interest (e.g., computer science, geology, horticulture) may lead an individual with AS to demonstrate exceptional abilities and/or great expertise in a particular area. Because of these strengths, individuals with AS have incredible potential to be successful, productive members of society. Yet, realizing their full potential is hampered by challenges in meeting the more basic academic and social demands of college. Although great advances have forwarded our understanding of the transition and adjustment of

first-year college students with specific learning disabilities (Hadley, Twale, & Evans, 2003; Thomas, 2000), there has been only minimal discussion regarding the unique needs of college-bound students with AS (Dillon, 2007).

Successful Transition to CollegeOne of the greatest challenges for students with AS and their families is transitioning from the familiar model of special

education services at the high school level to a very different system of services at the college level (Madaus, 2005). Not only does the scope of services change, but also the means by which these services are provided. For example, student support in college is no longer guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) but rather by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A primary focus of ADA is to provide accessibility and promote anti-discrimination (Rothstein, 2003), not offer an array of academic supports. Although many colleges and universities have begun providing more supports for students with academic learning difficulties (e.g., study skills, writing workshops), services that address the unique difficulties that confront students with AS transitioning to college are virtually non-existent.

Furthermore, college-bound individuals with AS are required to be more independent and responsible for self-advocacy. Specifically, students with AS are expected to deal with increased levels of personal freedom (Brinckerhoff, 1996); the unique challenges of their disability (Conyers, Schaefer Enright, & Strauser, 1998); the performance of acceptable social skills (Mellard & Hazel, 1992); and other variables such as organizational skills, time management, budgeting, and transportation. Students with AS in college settings also are responsible for securing services (i.e., augmentative equipment) on their own volition. Although these challenges present opportunities to practice and master independent living skills and self-advocacy, many individuals with AS are no longer entitled to resources and accommodations with the college setting that promote or enhance the development of such skills (e.g., teaching of functional living skills or social skills). Students with AS may need to seek additional support outside of the postsecondary setting, such as local rehabilitation agencies. Such agencies often have expertise for working with individuals with AS, yet their services tend to focus on vocational challenges and not college transition (Dillon, 2007). From this perspective, individuals with AS may be less successful in their college endeavors because they may not receive the specific services they need. Without considerable supports and accommodations to assist these students with their diverse talents, interests, and perspectives, their successful integration into the college environment may be in jeopardy.

Previous research has highlighted several strategies that are critical for college-bound students with disabilities that may translate into successful approaches for individuals with AS. For postsecondary students with disability-related needs for accommodations, effective disclosure of their disability and self-advocacy strategies are viewed as valuable contributions to success (Lynch & Gussel, 1992). For example, stating one’s disability and identifying instructional accommodations with instructors are two strategies related to successful transition (Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994). To assist with this, Carroll and Johnson Brown (1996) proposed training in self-advocacy skills to enable students with disabilities to become more autonomous adults and avert social isolation. Regardless of the strategies that are employed, students with disabilities, and individuals with AS in particular, will need to develop a skill set that emphasizes not only self-advocacy, but also self-control and functional communication in a clear and concise manner in order to navigate successfully the transition to college.

A Model for College Student DevelopmentWorking knowledge of how students develop during their college years is important for understanding the skills needed

for success in higher education. Chickering (1969) and Chickering and Reisser (1993) provided the major theoretical framework for understanding student development as it relates to successful development of skills and provides a framework for how supports should be aligned for college-bound individuals with AS. Specifically, Chickering’s first three vectors of college student development describe the movement of the entering undergraduate toward greater competence, self-advocacy, and autonomy. The first vector, Achieving Competence, relates to the student’s ability to develop intellectual competence and acquire new information and to expand interpersonal competence and work cooperatively with others. Development of skills in the first vector allows the student to manage a variety of social situations from talking in class to managing group activities. Managing Emotions, the second vector, involves focusing on the development of self-control and expression of oneself appropriately to a variety of circumstances (Reisser, 1995). It is within this stage that a student

develops skills to recognize his or her own feelings and how to handle emotional circumstances (e.g., roommate conflict, excessive academic anxiety). The third vector, Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence, entails the student’s developing freedom from the need for constant reassurance and approval from parents, peers, and others. That is, a student learns to trust his or her own abilities and feelings as valid sources of information.

Within the first three vectors is the foundation for successful transition. A student cannot simply progress through these vectors. Rather, the student requires stimulation through challenge and positive support. In order to provide challenges and support, Chickering and Reisser (1993) suggest that colleges and universities encourage student development by: (a) clarifying institutional objectives and ensuring consistency of policies and practices, (b) disallowing institutional size to restrict opportunities for student participation, (c) providing frequent student-faculty relationships, and (d) providing varied instructional styles that encourage active student engagement. It is within these suggestions that the foundation for college success for individuals with AS is forged. However, it remains unclear as to whether these suggestions align with perceptions of how to best support and accommodate students with AS on the college campus.

Understanding Parent ExpectationsThe role of parents in advocating for their college-bound student with AS is notably absent in the literature regarding the

need to support students with disabilities at the college level. Parents frequently serve as powerful advocates for their students with AS at the elementary and secondary school levels. Yet, like the parents of non-disabled college students, the active, overt role of parents in their students’ education is diminished severely at each level as the expectations for student autonomy increases. Parent expectations are highly influential and an understanding of these expectations is particularly important when fostering support for college students with AS.

Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to explore parent perceptions regarding the: (a) supports or accommodations college-

bound students with AS need at the postsecondary level to successfully adjust to the academic and psycho-social expectations of the college experience, and (b) self-advocacy skills or strategies needed to increase the likelihood that students with AS obtain the supports and accommodations they need to be successful in college. To this end, parents from a local chapter of the Autism Society of American (ASA) provided their perceptions of the supports and strategies needed for college-bound students to increase competence, manage emotions, and develop autonomy. As awareness of the number of students living with the AS diagnosis increases, so does the need to provide meaningful supports to ensure they have every opportunity to realize their potential in the college setting. The findings from this study are intended to inform and guide professionals in the fields of special education, college student development, school psychology, and school counseling who advocate for full participation of students with AS in higher education.

Method

Focus group (qualitative) methodology was used to investigate parent perceptions of the supports and accommodations that college-bound students with AS need at the postsecondary level to be successful. Focus groups are defined by the use of participants who have a specific experience with or opinion about the topic under investigation, the use of an explicit interview guide, and the exploration of subjective experiences of participants in relation to predetermined research questions (Gibbs, 2007). A focus group approach was selected because of the exploratory nature of the study coupled with the desire to uncover common themes and opinions (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996).

Participants and SettingPotential participants for this study were recruited through a network of professionals associated with a local chapter of

the ASA. A total of four parents of sons with AS expressed interest in this preliminary study and agreed to participate in a focus group. The participants included: (1) Ms. Peters, (2) Ms. Harrison, (3) Ms. Clark, and (4) Ms. Vincent. Ms. Peters’ son was 16-years-old and in the tenth grade at a college-preparatory, public high school. Ms. Harrison’s son was 15-years-old

and in the tenth grade at the same college-preparatory, public high school. Despite their children attending the same school, Ms. Peters and Ms. Harrison had not met before their participation in the focus group. Ms. Clark’s son was 14-years-old and in the eighth grade at a Montessori, public middle/high school. Ms. Vincent was the mother of two sons with Asperger’s. Her older son was 12-years-old and in sixth grade at a Catholic elementary school. Ms. Vincent’s younger son was 8-years-old and in the second grade in a special program for students with Asperger’s located in an urban, public elementary school. All of the parents participated equally and without reservation, expressing interest and empathy through their spoken words. In addition to the parent participants, one professional from the Student Services Program of a local, private, four-year liberal arts University hosting the focus group was a participant and one faculty member from the Department of Counselor Education of another local, private, four-year liberal arts University served as the facilitator of the focus group.

The focus group was conducted in a meeting room of the student union on the campus of a private, Catholic University located in a city in the Midwest. All of the participants were residents of the city and its surrounding suburbs. The focus group lasted approximately one and a half hours and beverages and snacks were provided.

Data Collection and ProceduresA questioning route (see Appendix) was developed by the authors to examine information related to two specific

research questions:

What supports or accommodations do college-bound students with AS need at the postsecondary level to successfully adjust to the academic and psycho-social expectations of the college experience, and

What self-advocacy skills or strategies will increase the likelihood that students with AS obtain the supports and accommodations they need to be successful in college?

Specific prompts for the focus group were based on Chickering’s (1969) and Chickering and Reisser’s (1995) initial three vectors of college student development: (a) Achieving Competence, (b) Managing Emotions, and (c) Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence.

Each focus group session was recorded using a digital audio recorder. Following each focus group, the audio file on the recorder was downloaded onto a computer as a .wav file. In an effort to keep files small, each .wav file was converted to .mp3 format. In all cases, the audio recording from the recorder was used for transcription. The transcription involved creating a written record of all words spoken throughout the session.

Data Analysis The method used to identify themes was adapted from Jehn and Doucet (1996). Two reviewers independently reviewed

the transcript from the focus group and identified segments from the focus group that pertained to each of Chickering’s three vectors (Achieving Competence, Managing Emotions, and Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence). Segments were coded as either an area of need or potential support. Statements representing similar themes were grouped and counted to show the concept’s weight relative to other less common themes evident in the transcripts. After independently analyzing the data from the transcripts, the two reviewers compared their findings. Themes agreed by both reviewers to be general themes were reported in the final analysis. Two primary themes were defined as (a) supports and accommodations, and (b) self-advocacy needs and supports. Supports and accommodations included services that could be provided by an external agent (i.e., a college’s Student Services Program, a high school’s guidance department) to assist a family seeking a smooth transition to college. Self-advocacy needs and supports involved a description of skills a student with AS would need to demonstrate in college and included services that would increase the probability of the student performing these skills. Representative quotes from various categories were selected and presented to exemplify the descriptive summary of the qualitative data.

Results

Matching Students with Accommodating Professors. The parents of students with AS participating in the focus group identified a need for careful consideration when scheduling college courses. Ms. Harrison described a role for a professional in a college’s Student Services Program in which that person could:

…look at the schedule and they can say, well we know that this particular Latin teacher is not going to tolerate a kid that, you know, doesn’t look at him, doesn’t make eye contact, won’t take notes. You know, that won’t work for the teacher. But this teacher is very concrete, has handouts, he can follow along with the handouts, that kind of thing. The parents identified professors that permit alternatives to group work, are open to independent study arrangements, and

provide accommodations for note-taking to be better able to meet their students’ needs. Parents also discussed a need for professors who have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of students with AS. The mode of instruction preferred by the students with AS varied, according to their mothers, with some of the students preferring independent, hands-on activities and others preferring instructor-led lectures.

Advocacy. Related to support for scheduling courses, the parents of students with AS identified a need for a professional in a college’s Student Services Program who would serve as an advocate for their college-age child. This professional would gather information from other students with disabilities regarding the professors’ willingness to provide accommodations and tolerance for individual differences in learning and communicating. In recommending this course of action, these parents drew on experiences attaining positive outcomes when working one-on-one with individual instructors to meet the needs of their student, rather than trying to affect change through broader-reaching efforts, such as staff development. Information such as this could be compiled to assist all students with disabilities, not just the students with AS. As articulated by Ms. Clark, this professional would serve as “a resource person … the interpreter for the student. You know, and can also be the advisor and go-between and so when that student is starting to struggle, is having trouble working things out with the professor …” this college-based advocate could provide support. A college-based advocate might also assist students with AS identify intramural clubs and activities that are well suited to their interests (e.g., band, chess club, video gaming).

Alternative Routes. Parents of students with AS discussed the possibility that alternative routes to a four-year college education may be the best avenue for their college-bound child. A student with AS may pursue a successful transition to college at a two-year college or community college setting prior to attending a four-year college. For some students with AS, a technical institute might provide the best match. The parents’ voiced considerable consensus regarding the need for their sons to live at home and commute to college or possibly live in a dormitory room designed for a sole occupant.

Self-Advocacy Needs and Supports: Disclosure All of the parents agreed that their sons would be most successful in college in an environment where they feel

understood and supported by professors and peers. Developing this level of understanding will require students with AS to disclose their need for supports and accommodations and to advocate for themselves. The parents participating in the focus group expressed considerable concern that their sons did not have the self-advocacy skills needed to obtain supports in the college setting. In the words of Ms. Harrison:

“I know he knows that he perceives the world in a different way. And I’ve tried pretty hard not to put a value judgment on it – it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. But um, I don’t know. I think at least he’s more open to talking about it occasionally. But he’s not somebody who wants to really disclose it.”

In response to the need for strengthening their sons’ self-advocacy skills, the parents identified supports a college’s Student Services Program could provide to help develop these self-advocacy skills. Specifically, the parents identified the need for: (a) prompts for their sons to seek support from a professional in the college’s Student Services Program, (b)

regularly scheduled meetings with a professional in the Student Services Program, and (c) a channel of communication from professors to a professional in the Student Services Program for instances when the student with AS starts struggling. All of the parents agreed that their sons would not likely struggle with the course content, but they would need accommodations and support with organizational skills (i.e., note taking, breaking down tasks to meet deadlines) and interpersonal skills (i.e., interactions with professors and peers).

Parent Involvement. All of the parents agreed that their sons would continue to require higher levels of parental involvement and support in college than do their neuro-typical peers, particularly with daily living skills (e.g., laundry, money management, scheduling doctors appointments). The parents expressed an on-going need to maximize their sons’ capacity to live independently, while maintaining a watchful eye for potential struggles. According to Ms. Harrison, “the biggest thing I’ve seen is just as he gets more independent, there’s still like big gaps. All of a sudden, oh yeah, I guess we really didn’t go over that exactly, what you should do in that situation.” The parents identified a possible role for themselves in helping their sons when trouble arose in the dormitory or another social context. Given that students with AS do not typically recognize the intentions of others, the parents expressed concern that their sons would be taken advantage of by ill-intentioned peers. “They’re just the perfect victim,” said Ms. Clark, “And they are going to be the ones that are going to be left holding the bag, because they are a little slower on figuring out, oh, we better be careful not to get caught.”

The parents also saw a role for themselves in helping their sons manage the daily living demands outside of the college classroom (e.g., paying bills, doing laundry). In addition to parent involvement, one parent suggested that her son could be well served by a job coach/life coach to assist with the daily living demands of on- or off-campus living.

Discussion

The present investigation provides a preliminary examination of parents’ perceptions regarding the anticipated supports and accommodations needed for their college-bound child with AS to adjust successfully to the expectations of the college experience. This study is viewed as a first step toward understanding parents’ perceptions of needs and expectations for support for their child at the college level.

The first major theme that emerged from this investigation was the need for reasonable and appropriate supports and accommodations. Supports and accommodations included collaboration with the college’s Student Services Program/Disabilities Office (SSP/DO) for scheduling considerations and advocacy. Participants expressed a desire for SSP/DO to carefully match students with instructors who understand the characteristics of AS and who naturally employ best-practice teaching strategies within their courses (i.e., using handouts, guided notes, prompts). In addition, participants expressed the need for increased advocacy for students to assist through difficult moments and provide networks for social support. Information about alternative routes (e.g., two-year college, technical institute) was also expressed and is critically important for college-bound students with AS and their parents to consider. Pursuit of this information should be a focus of educators and guidance counselors at the high school level.

The second major theme generated by the focus group was the need and challenge of self-advocacy among college-bound students with AS. This need for effective self-advocacy skills represented an on-going challenge for the parents who recognized that their sons could not maximize their chances for success at the college level without advocating for themselves. Specifically, parents expressed concern with separation versus supervision. Recognizing that their sphere of influence will change when their child leaves the familiar K-12 school environment, parents of students with AS will need to collaborate with the college’s Student Support Services, while experiencing a diminished role as advocate for their adult child.

Implications for PracticeThe results of this study underscore the need for parents, high school guidance counselors, other student support

personnel, and professionals serving in Student Services Programs in colleges and universities across the country to anticipate and plan accordingly to address the challenges of students with AS at the college level. Although the findings of this study must be considered preliminary and tentative, several recommendations seem warranted. First, it seems likely that

professional development will need to occur for both high school staff and postsecondary faculty. The content of professional development will vary with the role expectations for each level. However, there is certain content that personnel at all levels should receive. Content should focus on awareness of: (a) the unique characteristics of individuals with AS (e.g., weak central coherence, executive dysfunction, poor social cognition), (b) the specific social, behavioral, and academic needs of individuals with AS, and (c) the approaches for remediating difficulties within each of these domains. Regardless of the approaches employed for providing such professional development, the end result should be a strengthened support staff. Second, it may be helpful for middle and high schools to develop programs for successful transitions for college-bound students with AS. These programs may want to emphasize the teaching of skills related to complex social interactions, self-advocacy, and organization. In an effort to provide optimal skill building, such programs may want to partner with Student Services Programs at colleges and begin a comprehensive transition plan to occur the semester prior to the student’s enrollment. These collaborations would allow for the student to not only visit a campus and ease lingering anxieties, but also identify a person who would be available to coach him or her through difficult moments. Finally, counselors within high schools and postsecondary campuses will need to consider carefully how to advise individual students with AS. From a high school counselor perspective, careful advisement should occur regarding a student’s options for postsecondary education (e.g., small college or large University, technical school). It is important for advisement at this level to be realistic in order to ensure the greatest probability of success for the student. For advisement officers/counselors within colleges and universities, considerations for advising should focus on areas related to academics (i.e., careful matching with supportive faculty members) and social networks (i.e., clubs that align with specific interests of the student). In addition, it would be important for advisors to provide the student with resources on campus and within the local area for support.

LimitationsThe results of the current analysis examining the supports and accommodations that college-bound students with AS

need at the postsecondary level are limited by several factors. First, parents who participated in the focus groups were those willing to attend a scheduled meeting and discuss their experiences with, or perceptions of, the supports needed for individuals with AS who are college-bound. The extent to which the participants’ reports are representative of all parents or individuals with AS in this region and other locales is not known. Second, the number of participants was relatively small and may have reflected only those who were actively participating in transition planning or possessed a higher level of insight regarding their child’s experiences with AS. Attempts to conduct studies with larger samples of parents and/or with individuals with AS regarding their expectations of college may identify broader perspectives and allow for a direct comparison of those process variables that are facilitative or inhibitory within successful or unsuccessful schools respectively. Alternately, a case study methodology could have been employed to explore the unique experiences of each family, however, the opportunity for the parents to interact with one another in the context of a focus group yielded valuable information that would be lost using a case study approach. Third, the use of a qualitative analysis only measures perceptions of participants and does not allow for more direct measures of the actual presence or absence of factors within school environments that are supportive of a positive transition to college.

Recommendations for Future ResearchAdditional research approaches are required to provide a more detailed picture of the specific supports and strategies that

will promote success for individuals with AS seeking a degree in higher education. Although focus group methodology is useful for conducting exploratory studies such as the one reported in this article, this approach tends to be expensive (i.e., providing incentives for participants), time consuming (i.e., sorting and analyzing data is often complicated and protracted), and of limited experimental control. Future research endeavors may wish to employ methods that provide more detail regarding specific factors that contribute to the success or failure. Specifically, it may be useful to explore the perceptions of college-bound students with AS regarding the supports and accommodations they find to be most useful. Such research could employ self-report measures or surveys. In addition, longitudinal analysis of the college experience should be employed. That is, future research should identify the variables within a variety of colleges and universities that have contributed to successful experiences and identify development for individuals with AS. Identification of such variables may

assist in the growth of effective professional development components and models for faculty and staff at higher education institutions, as well as generate specific programs or strategies that could be implemented as part of a preparatory program for individuals with AS who are interested in attending college.

References

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Barnard, J., Harvey, J., Prior, A., & Potter, D. (2001). Ignored or ineligible? The reality for adults with autism spectrum disorders. London: National Autistic Society.

Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1996). Making the transition to higher education: Opportunities for student empowerment. J(2), 118-136.

Carroll, A., & Johnson Brown, C. (1996). Disability support services in higher education: An extension of the rehabilitation process. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27, 54-59.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Conyers, L. M., Schaefer Enright, M., & Strauser, D. R. (1998). Applying self efficacy theory to

counseling college students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 29, 25-30.Dillon, M. R. (2007). Creating supports for college students with asperger syndrome through collaboration. College Student

Journal, 41, 499-504.Durlak, C., Rose, E., & Bursuck, W. (1994). Preparing high school students with learning disabilities for the transition to

postsecondary education: Teaching skills of self-determination. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(1), 51-59. Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Gibbs, A. (2007, Winter). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from

http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.htmlHadley, W. M., Twale, D. J., & Evans, J. (2003). First-year students with specific learning disabilities: Transition and

adjustment to academic expectations. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 11(1), 35-46.Jehn, K. A., & Doucet, L. (1996). Developing categories from interview data: Text analysis and multidimensional scaling,

part 1. Anthropology Methods Journal, 8(2), 15-16.Kern, J. K., Trivedi, M. H., Garver, C. R., Grannemann, B. D., Andrews, A. A., Savla, J. S., et al. (2006). The pattern of

sensory processing abnormalities in autism. Autism, 10, 480-494.Killiany, R. J., Moore, T. L., Rehbein, L., & Moss, M. B. (2005). Memory and executive functions in autism. In M.

Bauman & T. L. Kemper (Eds.), The neurobiology of autism (pp. 59-64). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Klin, A., F.R. Volkmar, F. R., & Sparrow, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). Asperger syndrome (pp. 125-155). New York: Guilford

Press.Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.Landa, R. (2000). Social language use in asperger syndrome. In A. Klin, F. R. Volkmar, & S. S. Sparrow (Eds.), Asperger

syndrome (pp. 125-155). New York: Guilford Press.Lynch, R., & Gussel, L. (1992). Disclosure and self-advocacy regarding disability-related needs:

Strategies to maximize integration in postsecondary education. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 352-357.Madaus, J. W. (2005). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for students with learning disabilities. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 37(3), 32-37.Mellard, D., & Hazel, J. (1992). Social competencies as a pathway to successful life transitions. Learning Disabilities

Quarterly, 15, 251-271. Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 505-511.

Rothstein, L. (2003). Disabilities and higher education: A crystal ball? Change, 35, 39-40.Sansosti, F. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2006). High functioning autism/asperger’s syndrome. In G. G. Bear & K. M.

Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Thomas, S. (2000). College students and disability law. Journal of Special Education, 33, 248-257.Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

About the Authors

Julie Q. Morrison, Ph.D. received her B.S. degree in Psychology from St. Louis University, her M.A. in Experimental/General Psychology from Xavier University (Cincinnati, OH), and her Ph.D. in School Psychology from the University of Cincinnati. Her experiences include working as a school psychologist for Cincinnati Public Schools District and serving on the multidisciplinary Autism Spectrum Support Team for the district. Dr. Morrison is currently an assistant professor of school psychology at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include evaluating the effectiveness of universal supports and targeted interventions to address academic and behavioral needs of school-age children and youth. She can be reached by email at: [email protected].

Frank J. Sansosti, Ph.D., NCSP received his B.S. degree in Psychology from the University of Pittsburgh and Ph.D. from the University of South Florida. His experience includes working as a school psychologist and district autism consultant for the District School Board of Pasco County in west central Florida, providing coaching and technical assistance for intervention and best practice approaches for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in inclusive settings. He is currently an assistant professor of school psychology in the Educational Foundations and Special Services department at Kent State University. His research and professional interests focus on the development and implementation of behavioral and social skills interventions for individuals with ASD, as well as best practice approaches for the inclusion and transition of individuals with low-incidence disabilities. He can be reached by email at: [email protected].

Wanda M. Hadley received her B.S. and M.A. degrees in Education from Ohio State University and her Ph.D. from the University of Dayton. Her experience includes working as an administrator for the University of Dayton and Central State University. She is currently an administrator and adjunct professor in the College of Education at Central State University. Her research interests include the academic adjustment issues first-year college students with learning disabilities experience in their transition to college. She can be reached by email at: [email protected].

AppendixPrompts for the Focus Group Discussion

Developing Competence

1.1 Describe some of the challenges your son/daughter (or student you work with) will likely

encounter expanding interpersonal competence in the college setting.


encounter working cooperatively with others in the college setting.

Managing Emotions


encounter managing his/her behaviors in the college setting.


encounter expressing him/herself appropriately to circumstances among peers, faculty,

and staff.

Developing Autonomy


encounter in reducing his or her reliance on parents, peers, and others to meet needs

and accomplish personal objectives.


encounter in reducing his or her reliance on parents, peers, and others for approval and

reassurance.

A prompt to discuss the supports or accommodations needed to address these challenges was provided for each of

these six initial prompts.

Relentless Optimism: Inclusive Postsecondary Opportunities for

Students with Significant Disabilities

Julie Causton-TheoharisChristine Ashby

Nicole DeClouetteSyracuse University

AbstractSome universities and colleges across the country are creating opportunities for young adults with significant disabilities to meaningfully participate in postsecondary education. Students with significant disabilities are now attending college classes with peers without disabilities either during or after high school. In this qualitative study we investigate two programs housed in Central New York that support students labeled with significant disabilities (i.e., cognitive disabilities, intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injury, and autism) so they can attend college classes in inclusive settings. For this study we interviewed major stakeholders in these programs and asked research questions focused on the benefits and obstacles to implementation. Our findings suggest that these programs benefit students with disabilities, college classmates, and professors. The obstacles to these programs were institutional, logistical, and attitudinal in nature. We conclude by presenting the implications of these findings and raise questions for future research.

Michael was institutionalized his whole life and when the local institution closed that’s when he came out. I can’t even imagine what it would be like for him because he was not seen to have any communication. He was seen to have behavioral problems. He was not seen in a positive way. And then when he got out of the institution he actually figured out what kind of communication device would work for him. He researched it; he got Medicaid to buy it. This is not an unintelligent man. He never had any education; he had nothing there. He came to me saying that college for him would be a dream come true. He got into the college and he surprised everyone. No one ever thought he was intelligent before this time. He did a presentation to his religion class at the University at the end of the semester. It was amazing. He had gained such a deep understanding of the content! So when you give somebody the opportunity to do something, I mean so many people thought he couldn’t communicate and now he’s reading, he’s writing, he’s presenting, he’s doing all these things. I would like the people from the institution to see him today (Theresa, Program Coordinator) Traditionally, young adults who have been labeled as having significant disabilities such as autism, cognitive

impairments, intellectual disabilities, and traumatic brain injury have not been given the option of participating in and benefiting from a postsecondary education. In the above anecdote Michael, who has a significant disability, has been given that opportunity. The term significant disability can be defined as:

An individual who requires extensive ongoing support in more than one major life activity to participate in integrated community settings and to enjoy a quality of life that is available to citizens with fewer or no disability. Support may be required for life activities such as mobility, communication, self-care, and learning as necessary for independent living, employment, and self-sufficiency (TASH, 2000).

The State of Postsecondary Education for Students with Significant Disabilities

Most students with significant disabilities remain in high school until age 21, while most of their peers without disabilities move on to college. This is common practice across the nation. Over the past decade, some universities and colleges across the country have developed opportunities for these individuals to meaningfully participate in postsecondary education.

As more students with significant disabilities are graduating high school, college is being considered an option. Postsecondary education has become an increasingly important prerequisite to independent adult living (Zafft, Hart & Zimbrich, 2004). Intellectual stimulation, emotional growth, academic gains, an expanded social network, increased self-confidence, and independence are just some of the aspects that many college students enjoy. Completion of nearly any type of postsecondary education significantly improves an individual’s chances of securing meaningful employment after college.

The recent interest in postsecondary education, specifically for this population, is largely due to the practice of inclusion of students with disabilities at the elementary and secondary levels over the last two decades (Hart, Grigal, Sax, Martinez, & Will, 2006). Fueled by students who have goals to attend college, there is an increased expectation on the part of families (Hart, et al., 2006) to help these young adults continue to develop skills in inclusive postsecondary settings with same-age peers. In other words, as students with significant disabilities are included in K-12 education in increasing numbers, the natural extension is to plan for inclusion in postsecondary settings. Each year, an estimated 2,000-3,000 students with significant disabilities who are eligible for postsecondary schooling transition from high school (Hart, et al, 2006). As increasing numbers of students with significant disabilities continue to be included in K-12 education, it is likely the number of programs or support services will continue to grow. These programs are becoming increasingly prevalent nationally. There are over 100 programs currently in existence that support the participation of students with disabilities in higher education (http://thinkcollege.net/programs/index.php, 2009). However, few of these programs focus on the education of students with more significant disabilities. Schmidt (2005) estimates that there are at least 50 identified college programs that support students with significant disabilities.

Several research studies exist describing these programs and the experiences, challenges, and benefits of higher education programs through the lens of the student and major stakeholders (Casale-Giannola & Wilson Kamens, 2006; Hamill, 2003; Mosoff, Greenholts, Hurtado & Jo, 2007; Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2004; Schmidt, 2005; Weir, 2004). Of the programs that have been described in the literature, Hart, et al. (2006) has defined three models: mixed/hybrid model, substantially separate model, and inclusive or individual support model. See Table 1 for a description of each.

Table 1

Program Types and Descriptions

Program Type Program Description

Substantially

separate program

Life skills or transition programs in community based settings

No sustained interaction with general student body

No option to take standard college courses with peers

Mixed program Transition programs housed on college campuses

Some interaction with nondisabled students (cafeteria, sporting events)

Option of taking college classes, but most curriculum is focused on life-skills

Inclusive,

individual

support model

Students provided with individualized services & supports

Take college classes based on student choices and preferences

Inclusive Higher Education Support Models

This study seeks to examine the inclusive/individual support model programs at a mid-sized private University in the North East because these kinds of services allow for the most autonomy on the part of the student and maximize opportunities for typical interaction with college peers. The primary distinction between these services and the other program models lies in the “individual nature of the supports.” We consider these models “inclusive” by following the guidelines outlined in Hart et al. (2006). Hart et al. suggest that in “inclusive programs” students with significant disabilities select and enroll in college classes alongside peers without disabilities. The supports start with the needs or the desires of the student, as opposed to programs that are designed for the needs of a group (Neubert & Moon, 2006). Each of the students attending college with support discuss their personal goals for attending college, and then explore the course catalogue to determine which courses suit their interests and goals. After they register, they are supported individually within the self-selected class so that appropriate accommodations and modifications are made in order for each student to access the content and instruction. Hart et al. (2006) suggest “programmatic support models” in which groups of students with disabilities take classes that are deemed to be suitable for students with disabilities. Inclusive programs tend to be relatively new and to serve fewer individuals than other service models (Hart, Mele-McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2004). These types of inclusive services tend to be more in line with best practices in K-12 settings with the goal being participation in regular classes and in typical activities with flexible supports, and are, therefore, at the center of this research.

While we have characterized these programs as mainly falling under the inclusive model, we do recognize elements of the mixed or hybrid models are present in that there is a program director specifically serving the needs of these students. Additionally there are times during the day when these students with disabilities meet together.

In keeping with other forms of critical qualitative research, this study is grounded on the assumption that all students, regardless of perceived abilities or disabilities, should be entitled to higher education with peers without disabilities. We did not set out to determine the feasibility of inclusive higher education or to evaluate the success or failure of particular programs. Rather, starting from the position that access to inclusive higher education is both entirely possible and the right of all, this study seeks to study two existing programs - through the perspectives of key stakeholders - that target this underserved and often marginalized population.

In this study we investigate two existing postsecondary programs at the same University in Central New York that offer services for students with significant disabilities. We seek to gain multiple perspectives from a variety of stakeholders in these programs: founders, directors, teachers, professors, and parents to get multiple perspectives on these services. The specific research questions are:

What are the benefits and major accomplishments of these programs? What obstacles exist to implementing these programs?

Research Methods

Data SourcesIn order to explore the research questions stated above, we developed a qualitative study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;

Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) employing in-depth interviewing of the major stakeholders. Using purposeful sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003), we selected interviewees who represented the different groups involved (parents of program participants, program staff, program developers, and University faculty). In the tradition of purposeful sampling, we did not select the participants in a random manner. Rather, we selected those that we deemed most able to speak to the complexities of each of the programs. We initially asked potential participants over e-mail if they were willing to be involved in this study, and secured those interested by setting-up interviews at which point the participants signed an agreement consistent with IRB protocol. When looking at the pool of potential participants we gave preference to those who are currently involved with the two inclusive programs as well as any individuals who were part of the initial program design. In that way, we hoped to reflect the development of the programs as well as the current situation. These eight participants are listed in the Table 2. Each participant was interviewed at least once. Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to two hours. All names have been replaced by pseudonyms for confidentiality. In keeping with the nature of qualitative research, the interviews were in-depth and open-ended. While we developed a list of general interview questions (see Table 3), each interview varied in response to the direction of the person being interviewed (Fontana & Frey, 2000). All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed later.

One group of potential participants that was not included in this initial study was students with significant disabilities. We wanted this initial study to focus on the full exploration of the context of these programs and the programmatic development. We recognize the absence of student voice and in the continuation of this research we are focusing solely on the perspectives of the students enrolled in these programs.

Table 2

Participants

Table 3

Sample

Interview

Questions

Sample Interview Questions

1. Describe your involvement with the program.

2. How long have you been involved with this program?

3. What are the strengths of the program?

4. What barriers to implementation currently exist here? What areas of need have emerged?

5. Describe any key interactions with university staff and professors.

6. How have you worked through difficulties?

7. How have these programs grown and changed over the years?

8. How long has the program been in existence?

Participants Role Background of the Participant Program Currently

affiliated

Danielle Program

Coordinator

Certified special education teacher hired

by city school district to support

students on the campus

Program 1 Yes

Kate Parent & Co-

founder

Parent of a child in program 1 and

Program 2. Board member of Program 1

and 2

Program 1

Program 2

No

Yes

Colleen University

Program

Coordinator

Certified special education teacher.

Doctoral candidate at University when

affiliated

Program 1 No

Thomas University

Program

Coordinator

Certified special education teacher.

Doctoral candidate at University when

affiliated

Program 1 No

Sarah Program Teacher Certified special education teacher.

Doctoral candidate at University

Program 2 Yes

Theresa Program

Coordinator

Director of adult services agency Program 2 Yes

Meg University Faculty

Member

Certified science educator and college

professor

Program 2 Yes

Sunny University Faculty

Member

Certified special education Teacher and

college professor

Program 1 Yes

9. Why did this program begin?

10. Tell us a story that encapsulates why this program is important.

11. What questions about K-12 education emerge as a result of these programs?

12. How have your ideas about inclusive higher education changed as a result of your involvement

with this program?

13. Tell us about the student’s participation in your class.

Data AnalysisData analysis began by deductively coding the interviews according to the stated research questions. Then, proceeding

inductively we sought connections between categories and subcategories to further refine our analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Each researcher independently coded two interviews to determine a tentative list of codes. These codes were then shared with all researchers, collapsed, and refined to arrive at the final list of codes each researcher applied to the remaining interview transcripts. Then we reviewed all coded data to determine commonly recurring codes and overarching themes, presented as findings below. After data was collected and themes were established, we conducted member checks by sharing an initial draft of the paper to all participants. We received written clarification and feedback and incorporated it into the final manuscript. We begin, however, by providing a brief overview of the two inclusive higher education programs to put the findings in context.

Description of the Programs

Program One Frustrated with limited postsecondary options, two parents organized and sought support to “dream of something

different” for their child as she prepared to graduate high school. The “dream” transpired into Program One in 1999, a collaboration between a four-year, private University and an urban city school district. Program One supports six students who are generally not considered traditional college students. They are students with significant intellectual disabilities, most of whom received their secondary educations in self-contained or community-based settings prior to college. A number of the students do not use verbal speech, but instead type to communicate.

All students with significant disabilities are eligible to receive special educational services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) until age 21. For most students, this means they remain in high school until age 21 or they attend segregated day programs exclusively for young adults with disabilities. Program One students, however, work on academic goals from their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) within the context of academic courses taught on the University campus. Students choose from academic courses across University disciplines, departments, and schools. Program One students also spend several hours per week doing recreational activities with matriculated University students from the School of Education.

The local school district provides a certified special education teacher who coordinates the program while providing curricular modifications for students and supporting a staff of six paraprofessionals. The paraprofessionals often accompany students to class for note-taking and communication support. The school district provides transportation to and from campus and it purchases books for students. The University provides a graduate assistant from the School of Education to coordinate recreational partnerships with undergraduate education students, office space, and the use of campus facilities. University professors and graduate teaching assistants across disciplines and departments serve integral roles as members of the

instructional team. Students take courses in typical college classes along with the general college population. Students’ participation in Program One ends when they walk the graduation stage with their peers from the University.

Program TwoThere are even fewer programs that support adult learners (older than 21 years) with significant disabilities in college

settings (Hart et al. 2006), yet for many students the desire to keep learning does not end when they “age-out” of the public school supported Program One, or any other program that supports students until age 21. Program Two was created in 2006 when former Program One students realized that their educational opportunities at the University were about to end. In this case, the adult learners themselves provided the push to get this program started by requesting a continued opportunity to attend college, and the director of the adult service agency responded by writing a five-year renewable contract to get funding for these services. Program Two, thus, is a collaboration between the same private University as Program One and an adult service agency, and it provides educational support to students after they reach age 21.The adult service agency provides a certified special education teacher who coordinates the support of six adult learners in auditing college courses across disciplines. Additionally, six campus mentors are provided who serve as paraprofessionals providing support both in classes and navigating the campus.

The creation of Program Two was possible, in many ways, because Program One paved the way. Many of the lessons learned from facing the obstacles presented to Program One were shared with Program Two developers in the initial planning and implementation stages. Although they both serve students with significant intellectual disabilities, the ages of the students and the funding streams to support these programs differ. While it is possible for a student who has participated in Program One to later be enrolled in Program Two, these programs are not consecutive—meaning it is not a given that after completing one program the student moves into the second. In the history of these two programs, one student has participated in both programs.

Findings

In response to the research questions, several themes emerged that merit further exploration. These themes are organized around the research questions. They are: (a) benefits of these services, and (b) obstacles to implementation. Each is discussed below.

Benefits of These Programs

Our research suggests that major stakeholders perceive these programs as making a difference in the lives of the students as they are allowed access to higher education. These programs center on creating opportunities for students who have traditionally been rejected from University education and on breaking down stereotypes and assumptions about people who are labeled as having significant disabilities. When answering the first research question (regarding the benefits of these inclusive postsecondary programs) three types of perceived benefits emerged: (a) benefits to students with disabilities, (b) benefits to college classmates, and (c) benefits to college faculty. Each of these themes is listed below with illustrations from the data. Additionally, these themes are listed in Table 4.

Table 4

Key Findings

Benefits of Programs

Theme Sub Theme

Benefits to Students with

Disabilities

Student growth

New dreams and possibilities

Ordinary moments: Opportunities for friendship

Benefits to College Classmates Learning to include

Natural interaction

Benefits to College Faculty Planning for instruction

Walking the talk

Obstacles to Implementation

Theme Sub Theme

Institutional and Logistical

Obstacles

Pretend services: Course selection and auditing

Scheduling

Paraprofessionals

Other logistical obstacles

Access to parking, library, typical student services

Attitudinal Obstacles Faculty resistance

The problem with special

Arranged marriages: Regulating friendships

Benefits to Students with DisabilitiesStudent growth. According to the stakeholders in this study, individual student growth was one of the biggest perceived

benefits of attending college classes. Danielle, one of the program coordinators shared a story of Dan, a student who is just beginning these services and his reaction to being in college after years of “being in hell:”

He began in January. He is now in his second semester and he’s still saying to me things like, “I just can’t believe what good care you take of me. I just can’t believe how focused you are of my needs. I can’t believe I’m sitting in a college class.” So he’s numb at the difference between the life styles he has led in his academic years.Many of the stakeholders spoke of a shift that took place as the students begin to identify themselves as learners, some

for the first time. For most of the students served, their K-12 experience was marked by segregation and limited access to general education classrooms. Simply being part of a college classroom was a striking juxtaposition to prior experiences. The next two quotes illustrate these findings. According to Danielle:

I’m really happy about seeing students with disabilities taking themselves seriously as learners. I’m seeing them face that horrible identity that they had been given as not worthy of instruction and not able to learn, and take some academic risks. One of the students just showed me her first paper for the semester and I think she saw the benefits of sustaining attention to an academic task that is hard…I see students really being much more proud, much more full. So giving themselves another chance of a new definition and building on strengths rather than identifying by what they can’t do. That is the real power here.The certified special education teacher from Program Two, Sarah, speaks of the “work it takes” as students redefine

themselves as individuals who can learn, complete assignments, and can do well in college. Sarah sees the experience of applying oneself to a difficult task and completing it successfully as the pathway to growth in these students, and in most students:

They stare down their anxieties and their self-doubt. They’ve worked hard here. It’s nothing special about taking a class per se or memorizing all those discreet elements of history. It’s the effort you put into it, the way you applied yourself, the growth that came out of putting yourself through something. None of us remember the discreet elements of World War II, but did we become different people for having moved through our undergraduate years? And that’s definitely what I’ve seen happen for our students too.Program Two coordinator, Theresa, works with the families, and she spoke about the shift she has seen in the

perspectives of family members: I’ve had families say, “My God I knew it was in her. We never saw it so clearly.” So it’s incredible when you can really put someone in a place with an expectation and they can do it. It’s like you have to change what you do and think about all people with disabilities. Now we have to presume competence. It is just criminal if we don’t. What I learned is that learning happens when you just look to the mind inside and just kind of ignore the outward appearances of the disability.Not only do students see themselves differently after exposure to college classes, but their families see the changes too.

These two programs have allowed students with disabilities to redefine themselves as learners and others to see them as competent, contributing members of the University community. These shifts in perception echo the findings of Mosoff et al. (2007), who identifies “confidence” as one of the major components of inclusive postsecondary education.

New dreams and possibilities. Thomas, a former University Program One coordinator spoke of the lack of hope that many students with disabilities have after high school due to lack of opportunity. He shared that the existence of these services lends itself to a new possibility and hope for many of these students:

The biggest strength of the program is that it happened at all. It’s here, so there’s the possibility. There’s no possibility of friendship, of meaningful participation, of inclusion in a community if the people aren’t even there. That’s its biggest strength, that it creates the possibility. And now we have a vision of what this could mean for both populations of students who we keep apart so often in our society. This hope of possibility was echoed by a parent, Kate, who has a student in the program. She has presented at a

conference for people who have the same disability as her daughter, and she spoke of being struck by the parental response as she shared her daughter’s inclusive college experience:

When we were asked to talk at the Rett syndrome conference and we went there and people were like, “What’s out there for adult services? What do you do when this little yellow school bus doesn’t come?” And what we were shown was a day treatment program where they go every day and it seems nice, and it is nice… Then you show the video that the [University] students made of [my daughter] having a beer at one of the bars here with her classmates and they just burst out crying. They went, “Oh my God, she looks so normal drinking that beer.” And just…it just gets people to just dream that this is possible. Choices are here.The very existence of these programs is a big shift for students and their families. Many parents and individuals with

disabilities could not imagine dreams of college until they learned of these programs. Once the doors to the University opened to them, many of the stakeholders spoke about friendship as the next big dream that students had as they came to college. This dream was realized in many situations.

Ordinary moments: Opportunities for friendship. The opportunity for social interaction with peers is a benefit that is consistent in the literature on inclusive higher education programs. Several researchers (Casale-Giannola & Wilson Kamens,

2006; Hamill 2003) have found that friendships have formed from inclusive college experiences. Danielle, Program One coordinator spoke of an experience that came out of an ordinary moment of humanity that turned into a true friendship. She spoke about Sam, a very intelligent student with autism with challenging behavior who uses Facilitated Communication.

He took an anthropology class during his first year here and it was his first big lecture, he could not stay in the big lecture hall he was making noises and looked anxious. I left so we didn’t embarrass him. While we were out [in the hallway], the teaching assistant invited us in to her small group. We got to the small group and we went around the room and Sam typed the following on his communication device [by means of an introduction to the rest of the class], “MY NAME MEANS THE KING OF KINGS AND I’M TRYING TO LIVE UP TO THAT REPUTATION” And I [Danielle] said, “Oh, by the way, Sam has autism and so sometimes he needs to leave the room and move a little bit and hope it doesn’t bother you. But if anybody wants to ask questions after class that would be cool.” This guy stayed after class and sat down with Sam and said, “I’m Joshua.” He saw the person. He became the first friend that Sam ever had and they have had that friendship for a year and a half... His personhood became illuminated. His full personhood which sort of rearranged autism as certainly a challenge but it wasn’t all of who he was. So the friendship came out of just ordinary moments.When Danielle spoke about Sam’s experience she added that that first interaction extended to going out to lunch, doing

things together on the weekend, and celebrating together at college graduation. She felt that this friendship was real and genuine and would not have occurred if Sam were not in this college classroom. She felt that it was as beneficial to Sam as it was to Joshua.

Benefits to College Classmates Learning to include. According to the stakeholders interviewed, these educational experiences clearly benefit the

students (with disabilities) who enroll in the college classes, but these opportunities also benefit their University classmates. The students in the classrooms are now sitting beside people who traditionally have not been part of the academic community. They are learning alongside peers that they may have not had access to during their earlier schooling experience and many of the stakeholders report that this experience has an effect. Danielle spoke of the reaction other college students had to the presence of a student with a disability:

I asked the other students, “You may know that a [program one] student was in your class, how did this affect your learning?” In most cases the students will say, “I’m loving it. Now I see diversity. Now I really understand more about people with disabilities and it’s not that they can’t learn it’s just that they learn differently and at a different pace.” I have seen enough of those results to feel like we’re making an impact. Another perspective came from a professor in the school of education. Meg teaches future science teachers. She spoke of

the impact having a student from one of the programs in her class had on the other students:It’s also good for the other students in the class. Now even before they are entering the other classes that talk about difference, differentiation, and inclusive practice, they have to see how I am including [this student]. They have to participate in including her, and I think that is good for them.Natural interaction. Another professor, Sunny, shared the opportunities for natural peer interaction that occurred during

her introduction to special education course. Dianna, a student in Program One, came to Sunny and suggested that her teaching assistant not sit near her during class, because she felt it got in the way of spending time directly with peers during cooperative group activities.

I told Dianna that I was OK with the teaching assistant moving away from her. Because I knew that Dianna was right. It was going to make the interactions more natural. What I noticed, was that she was not only recognizing the importance of peer interactions, but it was the first time I saw her advocating for herself.Colleen, a former Program One coordinator reflected on an experience she designed that would allow students from the

University to spend time with a student from the program doing recreational activities or just “hanging out together.” These students were asked to reflect on their experiences each week.

What the University gained from having these students was “typical” students would have the opportunity to spend time with a peer who has a disability and they could learn just by being with that person. So by having the opportunity to

interact with them over time through a focused experience and that’s what I like about service learning is that when it is truly done correctly and when you are really doing reflective practice, students can learn much more than they would learn if they were reading about people with disabilities.

Benefits to College Faculty When Meg, a University faculty member who supports a student with disabilities in her science classroom, was asked

about the positives of these experiences her response follows: There are lots and lots of positives. So many that I can’t even…if you were to ask me the reverse questions what would the negatives be I wouldn’t have an answer for you. Part of the reason I think it is positive for her [the student] is it’s pretty clear she hasn’t had a lot of science experiences ever. And so her just being able to have a chance to think and get engaged about these topics she smiles pretty much throughout the whole time she is in my class. She participates verbally in my class. She asks questions and she tries to engage with other students. Those are all terrific things.Planning for instruction. Interestingly, Meg spoke at length about how having a student with a significant disability in

her classroom made her a more effective instructor. She spoke of being forced to think ahead about what she expects socially in the classroom and articulating that to everyone. She stated that now she has to be clear with, “What my expectations are for bringing notes to class and bringing materials to class.” This new transparency is not just helpful for the student that she supports in class, but for all of the college students:

For me she helps me think about what kind of things she is going to need to be successful and… oh yeah those are things all my students need to be successful. So me being sure that I have been clear about class agendas, me being sure that I am clear about what my expectations are for class behavior, for how we interact with each other, for learning outcomes being explicit about all of those things. They don’t just help her, they help everybody.Walking the talk. This professor also spoke of finally feeling like she is “walking the talk.” This University is steeped in

the philosophy of inclusion. Inclusion is a central component to all of the education courses offered in the school of education. She explained that she was finally practicing what she preached. Meg described the effect of these experiences on the doctoral students who help her teach the course:

These issues of inclusion they have taken courses about aren’t esoteric any more, now they are real and we can’t pretend that we just espouse inclusive practice; we can’t talk about inclusive practice as if it is something people should do. We have to do it. We have to walk the talk and that’s a really powerful thing… If I had a chance to give a message to higher ed folk about this program I guess my bottom line would be it’s a win-win. Nobody loses here. I can no longer imagine working in a place where this wouldn’t be possible.Similarly, Sunny described her excitement about modeling for future inclusive educators the types of instruction that she

expects her students to integrate into their own teaching. When Dianna came into this classroom, I knew I had the opportunity to provide to my students a living example of inclusive education in action… I knew I shouldn’t screw this one up [laughing]. I had to think deeply about how to create meaningful access to the course content for all students (including Dianna) and make visible my pedagogical decision making. This was all done without isolating or singling out Dianna in any way… not an easy task.When Kate, the parent and co-founder of Program One, was asked about the reaction of University professors to having

students with significant disabilities attending their classes, she reported she was surprised at how open most people were:I thought many, many of the University professors and instructors that we worked with were pretty open minded and allowed this to happen… There have been some professors who have been so natural, so welcoming, so appropriate in their behavior, expecting that she will make an assessment of them in their teaching techniques. “How can I do this better?” Looking at her, saying, “Oh my God, I should get a textbook that has bigger print.” So we’ve had unbelievable experiences with teachers. One teacher at an exit interview said to [my daughter], “Did you enjoy the course?” Well, I think she said “no,” which prefaced the next question, “Why?” and my daughter said, “It was too easy.” I know that professor kind of walked out of the lunchroom, shaking her head going, “Oh my God. I just got told by a …she didn’t like my course. It was too easy.”

The above quote illustrates not only the openness of some University professors, but also hints at the learning that took place for some of these faculty members. Interactions with these students changed the way that these faculty members thought about their teaching and instruction.

The previous section described many of the positive changes these programs have brought to this University. The stakeholders interviewed felt that these programs added value to the University. Next we will focus on the obstacles these stakeholders encountered in the implementation of these programs.

Obstacles to ImplementationIn response to the second major research question, it is clear that many obstacles continue to exist in this work:

institutional/logistical obstacles and attitudinal obstacles. Institutional/logistical obstacles include course selection and auditing courses instead of taking courses for credit, parking, transportation, and scheduling difficulties. Attitudinal obstacles include factors such as fear and faculty resistance (Table 4). It is important to note that none of the stakeholders interviewed or the authors of this article contend that these obstacles are reasons not to engage in inclusive higher education. Rather, they are obstacles that need to be addressed to further enrich and strengthen the experience of higher education for students with disabilities.

Institutional and Logistical ObstaclesPretend services: Course selection and auditing. Engagement in academic coursework with typical peers, across

disciplines, departments, and schools is a key component of both programs. Therefore selection and registration in courses is pivotal. Both programs operate from a perspective of student-centered, individualized instruction, and course selection is driven by students’ interest. However, institutional and logistical obstacles complicate course selection. Colleen describes one way that course selection was hindered due to the difficulties presented with having leveled courses:

A lot of courses we were having to target were the 100 and 200 level courses. Because we couldn’t get them [the students] into the upper level courses, a lot of those had prerequisites and required pretty specialized knowledge. This then limited the students to lower division courses, those frequently taken by freshmen and sophomore

undergraduates. While that may not seem problematic, those introductory courses are often quite large, making individualized supports within a supportive classroom community less probable.

Course selection is tenuous for other reasons as well. For Program Two, the students register through a department within the larger University that supports part-time and non-traditional learners. This unit has erected a registration barrier that impede student access. Sarah, a program teacher, describes her frustration with this registration policy:

They have put a hold on our registration. By the time these six students come to register for a class they are being told that they have to have clearance for registration by going to see the professor. They have to go get audit permission from a professor first. This requirement of faculty permission was a thorn in the side of all participants interviewed and demonstrates the

institutional obstacles to inclusive higher education. Kate, whose daughter has been enrolled in both programs, states:We have to ask a professor if it’s okay if we’re in the class? That ain’t happening for my kid. It’s clearly on the books. We aren’t going to ask. We won’t do it. No other student does that. We’re not doing it.Her frustration with this logistical barrier is clearly evident. It seems that she objected to having to ask permission for

each class because student without disabilities are not required to do the same.An additional challenge inherent in the implementation of both programs is that students are not allowed to enroll in

courses for credit. Instead, they audit courses with the permission of the instructor. Similar to the findings of Hamill (2003), despite the fact that they attend the classes, complete the assignments, and take the exams, these students do not earn official credit for their work. Sarah explains:

The audit thing is very confusing because our students attempt to do all the assignments and they do all the exams, and they do all the papers. I swear they’re the hardest working folks in the room. So the audit is a barrier - it sets the public up for certain assumptions that they’re not going to do the work.

Program coordinators and parents hope for a day when students will have the opportunity to earn credit for their efforts. In the words of Theresa, Program Two coordinator, “it’s somewhat of a pretend service because people aren’t taking classes for credit, they are not working on degree programs. …It’s unfortunate that people are putting in so much work but not getting full credit or benefit for that.”

Scheduling. In this section, we explore other programmatic constraints that emerge both out of University policies of rules, but also from the structure of the programs themselves. Earlier we discussed the obstacles inherent in course selection and registration for students in both programs. There is a related logistical barrier for students in Program One that further complicates this process. As this program reflects collaboration between the University and the local city school district, the students are transported to the University in accordance with the public school schedule. Coordinator, Colleen, explains:

It was difficult getting in classes and organizing the schedules because one of the constraints is that we have to work on the city school’s timeframe. So when you have got the students there at 7 in the morning, and I’m sorry but there’s not a whole lot of undergraduate students that are wandering around the union. It’s just not like what happens when you’re a first year or sophomore student. They were going home about the time that things were really happening on campus.Program One students arrive at campus first thing in the morning and are bussed home by early afternoon, just when

campus is coming alive. This poses a challenge both to the selection of courses and to the development of social opportunities on campus. The students in Program One miss many of the opportunities for nonacademic interaction with the students on campus. While the program has both academic and social development functions, if students are not physically on campus during the times when typical University students are gathering, opportunities are lost.

Paraprofessionals. A second logistical and structural barrier also relates to the opportunities for social growth. This is the utilization of paraprofessionals to support the students while on campus. Although Danielle, Program One coordinator and teacher, shared that intensive paraprofessional support was a positive aspect of this program, other stakeholders did not see this type and intensity of support as positive, but saw it instead as a barrier. Thomas, a former Program One University coordinator argues:

The other barrier that was structured into the program, from my point of view, was the heavy reliance on paraprofessionals. There were paraprofessionals at the time working on the staff that were really enjoying the freedom of the campus in a way that wasn’t necessarily getting their jobs done. You know, they would be using the computer labs for personal purposes and stuff like that instead of supporting students. Also the fact that we felt like a student would need a person kind of attached to them all the time. There was this concern about safety. This is a big space where they could go all sorts of places. It felt like the student could never be on his or her own. No one ever felt that that was safe. It created this atmosphere, to me, that really separated the students even more, and it was done with the best of intentions, but you had this kind of world in which this student always had a ‘zoo keeper’ along with them. The negative impact of paraprofessional support on the social interaction of peers with disabilities in K-12 education has

been well documented (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli & MacFarland, 1997; Malmgren & Causton-Theoharis, 2006). Our findings suggest those concerns are not confined to the school-age arena and emerge in higher education as well. Students in both programs receive support from paraprofessionals, referred to as “teaching assistants” in Program One and “campus mentors” in Program Two. While the name differs, the function is essentially the same - to support the students’ access to the academic curriculum and to implement any necessary adaptations and accommodations. In some cases, those supporting adults are also called on to provide communication support. For the teaching assistants in Program One, many of them came to this program from positions in the K-12 public schools, where the expectations and responsibilities were vastly different. That role shift was not always easy. According to Colleen:

When you have been in a world that tells you that your job is to control and contain and supervise and all of a sudden you’re asked to support that’s a very different role. That was a difficult shift for people. And also having the whole wide campus with no four walls to contain you I think that was difficult for them as well. So what very quickly happened is it turned into a program with everybody sitting in the Union together at the same time eating their lunches…I mean we were back to that segregated table in the cafeteria you know.

Her frustration at the drift toward the familiar, the segregated, and the institutional, is evident. Colleen argues that in response to a new environment and new freedoms, many paraprofessionals demonstrated similar institutional approaches to the education of students with disabilities that had marked so many of these student’s K-12 histories.

The stakeholders saw the gathering of two or more students with disabilities in the same place in very disparate ways. Danielle, Program One coordinator saw value in having students with disabilities congregate together at key times for affiliation, socialization and sharing their experiences. Conversely, the teacher and coordinator of Program Two both believe that students with disabilities should not be together to avoid the stigma of the collective. Because of this belief and as a way to avoid the practices of disability specific congregation, the coordinator of Program Two wrote into the funding request that campus mentors would not be paid if students with disabilities were congregating together.

Other logistical obstacles. In addition to classroom support and modifications, other institutional hoops got in the way of student access to the campus community. For example, it is difficult for students to obtain identification cards, which allow them sufficient access to check books from the library. Parking is also problematic, especially for students in Program Two, who do not arrive on city school buses. Science education professor, Meg, describes:

This student, she’s got to walk like 15 minutes to get to my class because of things like parking won’t let her come close. Why? Why can’t the University permit her and her paraprofessional to have access to that parking lot for two hours twice a week? Why is that an issue that she and her paraprofessional have to work out? Those kinds of things are barriers for my student. Obtaining library cards and finding parking are details that all undergraduates must address, but for these students many

logistical obstacles have already been overcome. For example, students in Program One walk in graduation with their peers, something that was denied to earlier program participants. For these students, who challenge the traditional ways of being a college student, every detail is a new obstacle to consider. But Meg describes a hopeful vision:

I think if these kinds of programs take hold and become more widely known, I would like to think that the structural kinds of barriers will begin to be taken care of and better in more systematic ways so that more folks feel comfortable in thinking about including these folks in their courses. Meg identifies the importance of time and increased prevalence of programs such as those described in this study to shift

the conversation around access to higher education and to eradicate some of the structural and institutional obstacles that still exist. However, she also highlights the importance of faculty comfort as it relates to thoughtful inclusion, concepts that are more attitudinal than structural. This leads us to the last set of obstacles to implementation.

Attitudinal ObstaclesStructural and organizational obstacles have had a significant impact on the development and functioning of these two

programs. Perhaps, however, the biggest barrier to implementation of inclusive higher education reform is attitude. Similar to other studies (Hart, et al., 2004), the participants in this study identified attitudinal issues as primary obstacles.

Faculty resistance. Some of the attitudinal obstacles surfaced when students from these programs attempted to enroll in courses. It was in those moments that faculty insecurities and resistance to students with disabilities came to the forefront. Colleen describes the process of seeking permission to enroll students from Program One into University courses:

Some were surprised, many said I don’t think we’ll have enough room in the class, and it was really hard to push it. We tried to make it as easy as possible, saying “You’re not responsible for their [adaptations].” Okay, I realize now this is a real contradiction because we wanted them to have an academic experience but we also made it clear to these instructors that you won’t have any direct responsibility for adapting the curriculum and grading their work or assessing them in any way because that was the big fear. A lot of folks felt like they weren’t qualified to do that nor did they have time.Some faculty resistance was expressed in terms of logistical constraints - not enough space, not enough time. Others

gave no reasons for their refusal, but simply denied the request for permission. The program coordinators obviously anticipated some faculty resistance to the request for entrance and attempted to curtail that resistance by telling faculty members that they did not have to assume responsibility for the students’ progress or accommodations. The study participants expressed discomfort at the negotiation and compromise required, but they also wanted these programs to move forward and students to get access to academic experiences, even if they, as the coordinators and teachers, did the lions’

share of the work. These teacher deals (Biklen, 1992) are reminiscent of early efforts in K-12 inclusion, where special education teachers bartered with general education teachers for the right of students with disabilities to attend general education classes, as long as those special educators took care of the modifications and individualized supports.

The problem with special. Another barrier is the widely-held perception that it takes specialized skills and training to be able to interact with and teach students with significant disabilities. Sarah, the teacher for Program Two explains:

This place seems to think you need special knowledge to interact with these folks. That’s what I hate about special ed. I almost want to do away with the designation of special ed. …that probably speaks to why having a special program, having to have special knowledge interferes with people’s ability to just include people as learners who want to learn. Many participants spoke of the danger inherent in the concept “special.” This concept is similar to Mosoff et al.’s (2007)

theme of authenticity, which she identifies as a key component of inclusive education. Many, in our study, expressed a desire to be seen as less “special” and more “typical.” As Sarah attests, having a special program makes many people think they need special training and if they do not have that specialized expertise, they are not equipped to teach. Sadly, students with disabilities miss out on the opportunity to receive instruction from knowledgeable faculty, who simply do not feel “special” enough. Professor Meg describes how this worry over specialized information created unnecessary anxiety.

I think some of the initial barriers I was worried about were of my own creation. The student that is in my class currently is diagnosed with cerebral palsy and I thought I don’t know anything about cerebral palsy, how am I going to support her? And what I’m realizing is she is in my classes. That all those perceived barriers in terms of being ignorant about cerebral palsy those were all mine. Those didn’t have anything to do with the student or the system. Those were excuses if you will that I had made as to why I couldn’t possibly support this student. The more I work with her the more I realized, oh I do have the skills to be able to support her because I am already doing this for this kind of student. In the past I’ve had kids that had visual impairments and I made these accommodations. No big deal. I just do them again. Meg aptly articulates what happens when those perceived fears and insecurities intersect with the experience of actually

supporting a student with a disability. Once she got to know this student she realized that she does possess the necessary skills. It was fear, not lack of specialized knowledge, that was the true barrier.

Arranged marriages: Regulating friendships. The last attitudinal barrier relates to social interaction and friendship development. From the outset, both programs espoused academic and social gains as potential benefits. The developers, therefore, created a peer mentor facet into the structure of the programs. The students with disabilities are matched up with typical college students and encouraged to engage in recreational and social activities. Obviously, the hope is that these peer mentoring relationships will develop into something more reciprocal and less programmed. While that has happened in some cases, in many, the relationship ends once the required time has been spent. Thomas describes this phenomenon:

I mean it’s not that there wasn’t caring, but it was not on an equal footing in any sense in terms of human relationship. Either, ‘I’m doing this as a favor for you,’ or ‘I’m doing this because I have to for a class,’ or ‘I’m doing this cause I’m interested in you,’ but they weren’t really ready to let them into their lives as people who would remain important to them. Now, there were a couple of exceptions to that, but that was the pattern. It’s more like an arranged marriage. The creation of opportunities for nonacademic peer interaction is vital to the goals of both programs. However, this peer

mentoring structure can be seen as a barrier to the development of full inclusion in the social life of the campus if these “arranged friendships” are the only source of peer interaction. They often preclude the development of “real” friendship.

Despite these structural and attitudinal obstacles, the advocates and participants in these programs spoke with hope about the possibilities for continued progress toward a more inclusive higher education community. In the final section of the paper, we consider how this new vision and the success of students in these inclusive higher education programs raises questions about both K-12 education and higher education for students with significant disabilities.

Implications

As the push for inclusive opportunities at the postsecondary level continues to gain momentum and more students with significant disabilities are seeking enrollment in higher education, colleges and universities must keep pace with this growing trend. These two programs are representative of much that is happening around the country. These two programs have not

been presented as ideal or perfect examples of inclusive education at the college level. However, they bring to light key issues in the field of inclusive higher education and highlight the challenges still to be overcome. Perhaps more importantly, they demonstrate the potential of inclusive higher education for individuals too often denied access to the experience of college. As our findings suggest, these programs offer many benefits to the individuals with disabilities, their college classmates, and the professors who are teaching the courses. Based on these findings and our own experiences, we believe that inclusive college programs should not only continue, but should be developed on all college and University campuses to expand the options for students with significant disabilities post high school.

As colleges and universities develop these programs, we see direct implications for future programs and those already in place. In learning about the obstacles and barriers, effort must go into elimination or mitigation of these issues. Universities must consider effective ways to allow for student choice in course selection and to give appropriate credit for classroom participation. Secondly, universities must lift logistical obstacles to allow for access to appropriate scheduling experiences, in-class support, parking, library, and other campus services. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the attitudes of University faculty and staff need to change to allow students’ access to class content in ways that are inclusive and thoughtful of natural peer connections.

This study raises many questions. The most pervasive of these relate to K-12 education. All of the stakeholders posed different versions of the question, “If we can demonstrate students’ success here in an inclusive setting, why are these students receiving a segregated K-12 education? This puts a lot of pressure on educators during those younger years to step up to the plate.” A University program coordinator, Colleen, shared her concerns with segregated K-12 experiences.

These students have an uphill climb because they are excluded from the very thing that they need to succeed. So early on we need to think about that and stop excluding kids from the mainstream of the curriculum …We are deciding early on that they will not be college material, when these are our opinions. We need to help parents learn to see their children as competent learners and that they have a basic civil right to a decent education. Beyond, K-12, this study also has implications for higher education. As more of these programs come into existence,

some of the concepts at the foundation of higher education will be called into question. First, the presence of these students forces higher educational institutions to wrestle with notions of meritocracy and gate keeping. In other words, who is allowed into this University and who is denied access completely? What role does admission serve? Second, the presence of these non-traditional students will call into question traditional forms of instruction. Alternative teaching methods and lessons built on multiple intelligences and universal design will be necessary to address the increasing diversity present in inclusive higher education. Third, the role the University plays with outside agencies or school districts will need to be considered. Will Universities continue to host these community agencies, or will Universities own the efforts themselves and support the students as complete members? Finally, will the Universities create or eliminate obstacles for these students?

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the interesting results from this study, it has limitations, and future research can expand on this investigation in several ways. First, as previously noted, we interviewed eight participants in two programs housed at one University, which limits generalizability. Therefore, examining programs at other Universities and soliciting more participants could allow for a more expansive analysis and comprehensive understanding of inclusive postsecondary education. Second, student voices are absent from this study. In an effort to garner information about the programs themselves and the development of inclusive higher education opportunities we focused initially on the program staff, University faculty, and parents, who were all part of the conceptualization of the programs. Focusing on the unfiltered voices of the students who participate in these programs would yield very important findings. We have already begun collecting interview data from student participants for a second study. Thirdly, we realize that this study has examined benefits to the students with disabilities without getting information from the students themselves. However, the stakeholders were able to report on the positive changes they saw in students through their participation in these programs. Further investigation would strengthen these claims.

Other possible avenues for future research would be to examine the following questions that were raised by this study. How can we get around the obstacles to inclusive higher education? How can more students with significant disabilities get access to the opportunities afforded the students in these programs? How can universities manage services like these more effectively? How can these programs become less “special?”

In the words of Program Two coordinator, Theresa, “We’re just trying to do normal, ordinary, nothing special. If we can do normal and ordinary and nothing special than I think we’ve succeeded.” Danielle, Program One coordinator, speaks of the continued challenge of answering the questions raised by this study, “I know it takes a long time and you have to be patient and as [Burton] Blatt would say relentlessly optimistic.” As with any major reform effort, change often happens slower than those fighting for that change would like, but with continued effort and “relentless optimism” a new vision of higher education is emerging where all, even those who have been traditionally excluded from halls of academia, have a right to belong, succeed, and learn.

ReferencesBiklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods, (4th Ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Casale-Giannola, D. & Wilson Kamens, M. (2006). Inclusion at a University: Experiences of a young woman with Down

syndrome. Mental Retardation, 44(5): 344-352. Causton-Theoharis, J. & Malmgren, K. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via

paraprofessional training. Teaching Exceptional Children, 71, 2005.Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Giangreco, M., Edleman, S., Luiselli, T., MacFarland, S. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant

proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 7-18.Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp.645-672). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Hamill, L.B. (2003). Going to college: The experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 41(5),

340-353. Hart, D. Grigal, M. Sax, C. Martinez, D. Will, M. (2006). Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual

disabilities. Research to Practice, 45, 1-4.Hart, D., Mele-McCarthy, J., Pasternack, R.H., Zimbrich, K. & Parker, D.R. (2004). Community college: A pathway to

success for youth with learning, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities in secondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 54-66.

Malmgren, K. & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of paraprofessional proximity and other pedagogical decisions on the interactions of a student with behavioral disorders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(4), 301-312.

Mosoff, J.M. Greenholts, J., Hurtado, T., & Jo, J (2007). Models of inclusive postsecondary education for young adults with developmental disabilities (1st year of 3 year research project), Vancouver, DC.

Neubert, D. A., & Moon, M.S. (2006). Community assessment. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Special Education. Retrieved 3/18/08.

Neubert, D.A., Moon, M.S., Grigal, M. (2004). Activities of students with significant disabilities receiving services in postsecondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 16-25.

Schmidt, P. (2005). From special education to higher education: Students with mental retardation are knocking on college doors, and colleges are responding. Chronicle of Higher Education, A36.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) (2000, May). Retrieved NEED DATE from: http://tash.org/ resolutions/res02advocate

Weir, C. (2004). Person-centered and collaborative supports for college success. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 67-73.

Zafft, C., Hart, D., & Zimbrich, K. (2004). College career connection: A study of youth with intellectual disabilities and the impact of postsecondary education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 45-53.

About the AuthorsJulie Causton-Theoharis, received her Ph.D. in Special Education from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Inclusive Education in the Department of Teaching and Leadership. Her research focuses on best practices in inclusive education (K-16), inclusive school reform, differentiation, collaboration, paraprofessionals and working with students who have autism or challenging behavior. She can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Christine Ashby received her Ph.D. in Special Education from Syracuse University. Previously an inclusive elementary special education teacher, she is currently an Assistant Professor of Inclusive Education in the Teaching and Leadership Department of the School of Education at Syracuse University. Christy’s research and teaching focuses on inclusive education broadly, with specific emphasis on students with labels of autism and other developmental disabilities. Her work also includes differentiated instruction, collaborative teaching and inclusive school reform. She can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Nicole M. DeClouette received her BA degree in Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley and is currently working on her Ph.D. in Special Education at Syracuse University. Nicole previously taught at the Jowonio School, one of the first inclusive preschools in the United States. Her research interests include inclusive whole-school reform, postsecondary education for students with significant disabilties, and international education for students with disabilities. Nicole can be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Postsecondary Students and Disability Stigma:Development of the Postsecondary Student Survey of

Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS)

Jack TrammellRandolph-Macon College

AbstractFew instruments or studies have been designed to measure the degree of stigmatization experienced by college and University students with disabilities. Yet, many researchers acknowledge through qualitative studies and other forms of experiential data that postsecondary students with disabilities do in fact encounter significant stigma effects. This study focused on the development, testing, and preparation for wider use of a Likert-type survey to measure self-reported degrees of stigmatization in college students with self-disclosed disabilities. The development of the Postsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS) is part of a growing post-ADA effort to reduce stigma and make postsecondary education more accessible for students with disabilities.

Few issues in higher education have been more challenging and groundbreaking than the increasing application to and attendance of college by students with physical and psychological disabilities. Students with disabilities are attending two year and four year postsecondary institutions in record numbers. On the positive side, this is part of a larger trend in higher education that is moving in the direction of true universal access (Rose, Harbour, Johnson, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006). However, as students with disabilities break through initial access barriers, they often discover that a complex layer of social barriers still remain beneath the surface, potentially interfering with their success. In simpler terms, it’s not enough to simply get students with disabilities to college; it is tantamount to address the problems they face once they are actually there (Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Trammell, 2005; Venezia, 2003).

Arguably, the most significant barrier to ongoing success and access for college students with disabilities remains a latent disability stigma. Stigma, for the purposes of this study, is defined as the social, academic, and psychological consequences of disclosing a disability, in this case formally to the disability support office. Students who self-disclose in order to receive accommodations for their disability place themselves at greater risk on a number of levels, possibly being subjected to: negative stereotypes associated with disability, inaccurate assessments of their ability to complete college level work, inappropriate judgments by peers, lack of accommodations outside of the classroom, or even increased likelihood of self-doubt and academic anxiety. Unfortunately, from a research standpoint the qualification and quantification of such stigma effects is notably difficult (Davis, 2006; Hartmann, 2003; Trammell, 2006; Wahl & NetLibrary Inc., 1999).

Coupled with the research challenges of studying perceived stigma is the difficulty of semantics. The labels used to define learning or learning-related disabilities—dyslexia, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), bi-polar disorder—are modern inventions (though the disorders have been present for centuries) that result in inherently unstable identities (Davis, 2002). Young individuals with dyslexia, for example, have barely had to time to understand what dyslexia is, let alone what it means in a larger sense to be an individual with dyslexia. Few college disability support personnel would suggest that students with disabilities presently come to college equipped with a sophisticated disability identity, or have developed proficient adult skills in managing that identity (Perry & Franklin, 2006; Peters, 2006; Weyandt & DuPaul, 2006).

In the current postsecondary environment, more students with disabilities are attending college even as outdated and persistent barriers relating to disability stigma remain in place (Eudaly, 2002; Trammell, 2002a). The degree to which college students experience disability stigma firsthand has not been examined with the rigor that the demographic shifts might suggest would be helpful. Adequate attention has not been paid to disability (particularly in 18 to 22 year olds) as a stigmatizing identity in the postsecondary environment, especially in comparison to gender, race, and cultural studies. Disability in the postsecondary environment has essentially been neglected (Davis, 2002). This is in contrast to the P-12 research conducted over the last 30 years or more in the public schools relating to disability, which has resulted in a highly evolved etiology of special education and normalization (Bakker & Bosman, 2003; S. Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; Wong & Donahue, 2002).

College students are rightly expected to be more independent and adept at self-monitoring than younger students. Assuming that they are equipped to handle complex social exchanges involving disability is at best erroneous and at worst discriminatory. Dating back to sociologist Erving Goffman’s research on stigma in the 1960s, there is now a growing trail of evidence that suggests that disability becomes more difficult, rather than less difficult, to process as adults. Children at least have the small advantage of naivety; adults, on the other hand, generally have a better grasp of the group norms and rules, and are therefore more sensitive to their violation. College students, as adults, are quite vulnerable to real and/or perceived stigmatization when those violations occur (Canu & Carlson, 2004; Crocker & Quinn, 2000; Goffman, 1963; Levin & Laar, 2006; Olney, Brockelman, Kennedy, & Newsome, 2004; Price, Gerber, Mulligan, & Williams, 2005).

The degree of stigmatization, and the aspects of the college experience it most likely impacts, is suggested but far from quantified by past research. There is evidence, for example, that college students with disabilities may be hesitant to disclose to the college or University that they have a disability, in part because of the anticipated negative consequences of that action; that college students with disabilities may worry that accommodations will give them an unfair advantage, or that it will appear to others that they are not competitive; and on the positive side, studies suggest that students with disabilities have a genuine motivation to become more independent as learners after high school, and see the college transition experience as an opportunity to create a new, more autonomous, student identity (Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Olney & Brockelman, 2005; Price et al., 2005; Trammell, 2000, 2003b; Trammell & Hathaway, 2007).

These anxieties can be compounded by a lingering notion that students with disabilities are not retained and do not graduate at the same rates as their peers without disabilities, in spite of the fact that some studies suggest otherwise (Belch, 2004; Getzel, 2008; Gilbert, 1996; Sydow & Sandel, 1996; Vincent, 1983; Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall, 2009). Lack of disability accommodation is not tracked with the same rigor and consistency as more traditional variables for retention, such as socio-economic status, or established measures of student engagement. Few instruments exist to measure quality of college experience as it relates to disability. This is compounded by research deficits in the areas of postsecondary disability stigma, postsecondary disability and academic achievement, and community attitudes about disabilities at colleges and universities (Belch, 2004; Getzel, 2008; Reaser, Prevatt, Petschre, & Proctor, 2007; Seven Parent Populations, 2006; Trammell, 2003b; Wessel et al., 2009).

Taking into account all of these trends and situations, a timely argument can be made that the research community needs better ways to quantify postsecondary disability stigma. To put the matter in Foucauldian terms, power relationships between subjects and oppressors cannot be exposed until there is an open acknowledgement or recognition that oppression is actually occurring. The Postsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (PSSDS) was born of the quest to carefully measure and expose disability stigma that postsecondary students experience (Campbell, 2005; Gregory & Satterfield, 2002; Tremain, 2005).

Method

To measure a potentially nebulous social phenomenon such as disability stigma that is based in large part on the perceptions of various individuals, survey methodology offers attractive strengths and benefits (Deming, 2006; Dillman, 2000; Fowler, 2002). Most importantly, it gives the researcher an opportunity to focus on specific aspects of the disability experience that are most relevant or that emerge as impactful. Postsecondary student stigma is most readily measured in the

areas traditionally associated with college success: academic achievement, social growth, and the development of a positive and independent adult identity (Skinner, 2004).

The PSSDS began qualitatively with exploratory student interviews and preliminary literature searches. Interviews with central Virginia college students who self-disclosed to disability support offices confirmed that many students with disabilities transitioned to college with anxiety about the negative stigma effects that could often be traced to earlier school episodes (Trammell, 2002b). Such episodes were typically related to the dangers of being labeled, being singled out, or being treated unfairly (Trammell, 2002b; Venezia, 2003; Zuker, 1997).

In the P-12 literature, studies across various age groups consistently indicated that disability stigma affected students with disabilities. In the early grades, for example, students began to treat classmates with labels differently (Bakker & Bosman, 2003). By high school, the social consequences of integration were still profound (Betancourt-Smith, 1994). An evolving outline of a larger problem began to emerge, a problem that would not theoretically disappear in college, only to reappear again in the work place or home later in adult life (Olney et al., 2004).

The literature, taken together, suggested an underlying factor impacting academic achievement (Trammell, 2006). Many studies for various types of disabilities mention an impact on grades. A recent study for ADHD confirmed a negative grade effect in a sample of college students (Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007). Studies have indicated that accommodations don’t always result in higher grades for students with learning and learning-related disabilities (Trammell, 2003a, 2003b). Studies have also reported results suggesting that attitudes and other non-academic variables such as disability stigmatization were closely related to levels of academic success (Duranczyk, Goff, & Optiz, 2006). In summary, students with disabilities generally struggle more academically than their peers without disabilities.

A final complication resulted from the fact that many studies (including this one) relied on data generated from students who self-disclosed, and since many students with disabilities chose never to disclose, measurement error was inevitable and presented problems for generalization (Price et al., 2005). In other words, there was a high likelihood that the population of students who chose not to disclose was significantly different in some attitudes or habits from those who did disclose. Nonetheless, the evidence already cited also suggested that academic achievement and disability label and stigmatization were likely to correlate to a measurable extent even within the limitations of sampling students who disclose. In this study, as well as in many other sociological or psychological studies, being labeled was treated as synonymous with having the disability for purposes of analysis (Frank, 2004; Warshaw, 2006).

After organizing, coding, and analyzing the preliminary interviews and assimilating the stigma literature, a series of scaled questions was generated. The scale was modeled on Likert-type scales developed in the 1960s and 1970s mainly designed to measure race-related stigmatization during the Civil Rights Movement and several modern measures relating to HIV stigma, since no appropriate disability scale was available, (Berger, Ferrans, & Lashley, 2001; Utsey & Ponterotto, 1996). Referring back to the research methodology on race-related stigma, and employing current survey research methods, the collection of potential items was consolidated into approximately two dozen questions, each of which related to at least one of the major threads connected to learning-related disability stigma and college success, identified as: degree of academic success, quality of peer relationships, measurable sense of self and identity, and global awareness and/or concern about accommodations and disability-related issues (See Appendix).

Prior to formal administration, the survey was pilot tested with volunteer students with self-disclosed disabilities at various central Virginia postsecondary institutions. The results of the small pilot led to several questions being re-worded and other small editorial changes that made the questionnaire more accessible and understandable. The pilot results encouraged further development and use of the instrument which led to the formal study (Trammell, 2006).

Participants The subjects in the formal study were college and University students with self-disclosed disabilities at three central Virginia

postsecondary institutions: a major research University; an urban community college; and a small, private liberal arts college. The populations all had slight female majorities, were fairly evenly divided by year in school, and were pooled from the universe of up to several hundred students in any given semester utilizing the disability support services (DSS) offices. Various types of physical and

psychological disabilities were represented, with the majority at each school being comprised of classic learning disabilities (dyslexia, etc.) and psychological disabilities (ADD/ADHD, etc.).

The intent was to capture as many students at each school as possible in a given semester, netting a sample of at least one hundred or more students overall. This would allow for adequate confirmatory factorial analysis, and also provide comparative demographic data between schools to increase generalizability (A. Field, 2005; Hughes, 2005).

All subjects participated voluntarily, with each student utilizing DSS services during the semester being offered an opportunity to complete the survey. Less than a dozen students declined to participate at each school when offered a chance to participate. Students were offered a pen or a pencil with an academic web site on it as a small incentive. Most students indicated a high degree of willingness to cooperate, especially since the directions explained that the ultimate use of the survey data would be to reduce campus disability stigma.

Results

One-hundred and twenty-one students completed the instrument, with roughly equivalent groups at each school (See Table 1). A one-way analysis of variance found no significant differences between the combined students in major demographic factors including gender (f = .018, p > .05).

Factor analysis (maximum likelihood) was calculated on variables thought to comprise specific areas or types of stigma that had been identified in previous research (the four areas already mentioned). An earlier exploratory factor analysis of the limited pilot data suggested seven variables present in the survey, four of which appeared to be very solid constructs. After final data collection, confirmatory factor analysis solidified the status of four important factors (See Table 2).

Using the estimated weights from the confirmatory factor analysis, the four variables established were matched with degree of perceived academic success (AS), quality of peer relationships (PR), measurable sense of self and identity (SS), and global awareness and/or concern about accommodations and disability-related issues (GA). These areas were developed in conjunction with a comprehensive literature review (Berube, 2005; Trammell, 2006).

The mean scores (See Table 3) provide some evidence that the students in the target sample were most stigmatized by worry about their standing with peers. They revealed themselves as least concerned or aware of global issues relating to disability and stigma in the larger cultural picture. The total scores indicated a diverse collection of stigma experiences, suggesting that the instrument allows for adequate sensitivity to differing experiences.

The overall Cronbach Alpha for the scale was .803, which by most research standards constitutes an acceptable degree of reliability (Field, 2005). In addition, an average deviation of 1.44 per item suggested that students did find appropriate sensitivity in the scale, since the range of possible responses was restricted to values of 0 through 4.

Table 1

PSSDS Demographic Statistics (N = 121)

School Subjects ( n ) Male/Female Visible/Invisible

Large Urban University 36 38.9/61.1% 8.3/91.7%

Suburban Community College 46 45.7/54.3% N/A*

Small Private College 39 43.6/56.4% N/A*

TOTAL N = 121 43.0/57.0% N/A*

__________________________________________________________________________

*Data not reported to protect confidentiality

Table 2

PSSDS Aggregate Factor Analysis (N = 121) using Maximum Likelihood Extraction and Direct Oblimin Rotation, with

Seven Factors.a

Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q17 [.968]

Q12 .740 .364

Q16 .690 .368 .318 -.323

Q8 .563 .321

Q2 .915 .346

Q7 .654 .319 .379

Q21 .419 .317

Q18 .759

Q13 .586

Q11 .310 .557 .444

Q20 .575

Q15 .557 .353

Q14 .452 .431 .507

Q9 [-.603]

Q6 .500 .418 -.545

Q22

Q4 .354 .801

Q5 .366 .692

Q10 .363 .634

Q19 .453 .496

Q3 .364 .317 .493

Q1 .409

Q24 [.634]

Q23 [.610]

aItems in the pilot subscales appear in bold. Items that fell out of their original pilot subscale are bracketed.

Table 3

PSSDS Mean Scores by Factor (N = 121)

Area Mean Score Sum Range

Academic Success (AS) 1.623 0 - 15

Peer Relationships (PR) 1.873 0 - 13

Sense of Self and Identity (SS) 1.495 0 - 14

Global Awareness (GA) 1.282 0 - 26

TOTAL STIGMA SCORE 39.338 10 - 65

________________________________________________________________________

Discussion

Including the pilot administrations, the PSSDS resulted in over 200 students from a variety of institutions completing and sometimes critiquing the instrument. The result was palpable evidence that disability stigma does impact students within the sample populations. Considering the institutional diversity and sample size of the formal study, there is credible evidence for expanding on this work and solidifying a construct that can better identity, explain, and help dismantle disability stigma at the postsecondary level.

The scores for each item on the scale were added, with some items reverse coded when necessary, so that a total range of scores between 0 and 96 was possible. Higher scores indicated that the respondent perceived greater disability stigmatization. Individual scores for the four sub scales were similarly added which cumulatively matched the total score for each subject.

Reliability of scores was increased through the mixed methods process of interviews, pilot administration and ongoing revisions of the instrument, and persistent attention to the literature on survey design (Lepkowski, Couper, Mathiowetz, Tourangeau, & Raghunathan, 2006; Litwin, 2003; Vogt, 2007). The questions, especially in the early phases of development, were challenged repeatedly for meaning and clarity.

Validity of scores was determined both by additional statistical analyses and traditional survey methods. In addition to reliability coefficients, the deviations provided evidence of validity for the purpose of establishing sufficient variability. A survey such as the PSSDS should be sensitive enough to capture real differences in respondents, but unified enough to identify patterns and latent variables. The social validity was largely established through the interaction with subjects in the interview and pilot phases.

The survey was designed from the outset to develop factors already present in the research, and in the anecdotal experiences of disability services coordinators. The object was to confirm those factors, and also to suggest simply that stigma is significant to the degree that colleges and universities, and specifically the DSS offices, should be targeting resources and programming specifically to reduce disability-related stigma. Accommodations will likely be more effective in a climate where disability is less stigmatized.

The use of the PSSDS has continued since the initial development of the survey, and is currently being used in conjunction with the Freshman Mental Health Project (FMHP) at a small private liberal arts college. There are plans to use it at other universities, possibly making the instrument available online through an organization such as the Association for Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), so that DSS offices might make wider use of such an instrument.

On one level, the PSSDS only demonstrates what many disability activists and scholars might have already taken for granted. College and University students with self-disclosed disabilities do experience measurable degrees of disability stigma. However, in a day and age where resources are tied to accountability, and accountability to evidence, there is an extreme paucity of instruments like the PSSDS that specifically target students with disabilities, and other marginalized populations. The PSSDS may suggest the enormity of what remains to be done.

An evolution in the study of disability stigma might allow further questions to be asked, such as: What is the relationship between stigma effects and age? How can disability climate on campus be quantified and measured? How do different types of disabilities create different types of stigmas? How closely related to race and gender stigma is disability stigma (and are they additive)?

The hope and intention of research like the PSSDS is that others will follow and confirm, elaborate, and always advocate. Survey instruments also have the happy benefit of providing concrete evidence of effects that have perhaps always been suspected, but not so easily proven. With more proof in hand, there will be firmer grounds for securing resources and addressing needs of postsecondary students with disabilities that are not currently being met.

References

Bakker, J. T. A., & Bosman, A. M. T. (2003). Self-Image and peer acceptance of Dutch students in regular and special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(1), 5-14.

Belch, H. A. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 3-22.

Berger, B. E., Ferrans, C. E., & Lashley, F. R. (2001). Measuring stigma in people with HIV: Assessment of the HIV Stigma Scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 24, 518-529.

Berube, M. (2005). College makeover: Disability studies. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.slate.com/id/2130329/

Betancourt-Smith, M. (1994). High school teachers and mainstreaming: Implications for training. Education, 114(3), 447-451.

Campbell, F. K. (2005). Legislating disability: Negative ontologies and the government of legal identities. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 108-130). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Canu, W. H., & Carlson, C. L. (2004). ADHD and social adaptation: From childhood to adult. ADHD Report, 12(2), 1-6.Crocker, J., & Quinn, D. M. (2000). Social stigma and the self: Meanings, situations, and self-esteem. In T. F. Heatherton

(Ed.), The social psychology of stigma. New York: The Guilford Press.Davis, L. J. (2002). Bending over backwards: Disability, dismodernism & other difficult positions. New York: New York

University Press.Davis, L. J. (2006). The disability studies reader (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge.Deming, W. E. (2006). On errors in surveys (an excerpt). The American Statistician, 60(1), 34-38.Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Duranczyk, I. M., Goff, E., & Optiz, D. L. (2006). Students’ experiences in learning centers: Socioeconomic factors, grades, and perceptions of the math center. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(2), 39-49.

Eudaly, J. (2002). A rising tide: Students with psychiatric disabilities seek services in record numbers. GW HEATH Resource Center, 1-3.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: The key to success in postsecondary education for

students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 339-349.Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Frank, J. J. (2004). The avoidance of help-seeking: A study of the experiences of persons with severe visual impairment with

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation request process for print access. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 64(12-A).

Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 49-65.

Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus. Exceptionality, 16(4), 207-219.

Gilbert, W. S. (1996, April 20-23). Bridging the gap between high school and college: A successful program that promotes academic success for Hopi and Navajo students. Paper presented at the Retention in Education for Today’s American Indian Nations, Tucson, AZ.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Gregory, R. S., & Satterfield, T. A. (2002). Beyond perception: The experience of risk and stigma in community contexts.

Risk Analysis, 22(2), 347-358.Hartmann, T. (2003). The Edison gene: ADHD and the gift of the hunter child. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.Hughes, S. (2005). The statistics of disability. AMSTAT, 2-3.Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondary education for students with

learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 462-468, 479.Lepkowski, J. M., Couper, M. P., Mathiowetz, N., Tourangeau, R., & Raghunathan, T. (2006). Survey methodology research

for improved health statistics. Institute for Social Research, 533-538.Levin, S., & Laar, C. V. (Eds.). (2006). Stigma and group inequality: Social psychology perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Litwin, M. S. (2003). How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics (2nd Ed. Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.Olney, M. F., & Brockelman, K. F. (2005). The impact of visibility of disability and gender on the self-concept of University

students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 80-91.Olney, M. F., Brockelman, K. F., Kennedy, J., & Newsome, M. A. (2004). Do you have a disability? A population-based test

of acceptance, denial, and adjustment among adults with disabilities in the U.S. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(1), 4-10.

Perry, S. N., & Franklin, K. K. (2006). I’m not the gingerbread man: Exploring the experiences of college students diagnosed with ADHD. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), 94-109.

Peters, C. B. (2006). Teaching first year college students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Price, L. A., Gerber, P. J., Mulligan, R., & Williams, P. (2005). To be or not to be learning disabled: A preliminary report on

self-disclosure and adults with learning disabilities. Thalamus(Spring), 18-29.Reaser, A., Prevatt, F., Petschre, Y., & Proctor, B. (2007). The learning and study strategies of college students with ADHD.

Pscyhology in the Schools, 44, 627-638.

Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnson, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal Design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135-151.

Skinner, M. E. (2004). College students with learning disabilities speak out: What it takes to be successful in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 91-104.

Seven parent populations your institution may be alienating. (2006). Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 20(12), 3-6.

Sydow, D. L., & Sandel, R. H. (1996). Making Student Retention an Institutional Priority.Trammell, J. (2000). Your Child Has a Learning Disability: How should you feel, and What should you do? The Toy

Box(Winter).Trammell, J. (2002a). Perceptions of college students with disabilities: A qualitative study.Unpublished manuscript, Randolph-

Macon College, Ashland, VA.Trammell, J. (2002b). Unpublished transcripts of interviews with students with self-disclosed disabilities. Ashland, VA:

Randolph-Macon College.Trammell, J. (2003a, July 15). Disability in higher education: The impact of ADA accommodations on end of term grades

for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Conference, London, England.Trammell, J. (2003b). The impact of academic accommodations on final grades in a postsecondary setting. Journal of

College Reading and Learning, 34(1), 76-90.Trammell, J. (2005, February 23). Transitioning students with disabilities to college. Paper presented at the St. Joseph’s Villa

School, Richmond, VA.Trammell, J. (2006). Development of the Postsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma (SSDRS). Richmond,

VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.Trammell, J., & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 20(1), 5-15.Tremain, S. (Ed.). (2005). Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Utsey, S. O., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996). Development and validation of the Index of Race-Related Stress (IRRS). Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 490-501.Venezia, A. (2003). Connecting the Systems: What Can Postsecondary Education Do To Work with K-12 To Help Students

Better Prepare for College? Peer Review, 5(2), 27-30.Vincent, V. C. (1983). Impact of a College Learning Assistance Center on the Achievement and Retention of Disadvantaged

Students. Texas.Vogt, W. P. (2007). Surveys and sampling. In Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston: Pearson.Wahl, O. F., & NetLibrary Inc. (1999). Telling is risky business mental health consumers confront stigma. New Brunswick,

N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Warshaw, M. (2006, January/February). The good and bad side of labels. 2E Newsletter, 14-15.Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: Facilitating

student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 21(3), 116-125.Weyandt, L. L., & DuPaul, G. (2006). ADHD in college students. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10(1), 9-19.Wong, B. Y. L., & Donahue, M. (Eds.). (2002). The social dimensions of learning disabilities: Essays in honor of Tanis

Bryan. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Zuker, R. F. (1997). Stress Points in the College Transition: What To Expect/How To Help Students Cope. College Board

Review(182), 14-21.

About the AuthorJack Trammell received his B.A. in political science at Grove City College, a special education certification from the University of Virginia, and his M.Ed. and Ph.D. in education from Virginia Commonwealth University. His experience includes working as a public school teacher in history and special education and working as a freelance writer. He is

currently assistant professor of sociology and Director of Disability Support Services at Randolph-Macon College. He can be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

AppendixPostsecondary Student Survey of Disability-Related Stigma

Dear Student: Thank you for volunteering to fill out the following survey. When circling your responses, keep in mind your opinions and feelings as a student with a disability. On this survey, disability refers to disabilities of all types, visible or invisible. Please circle the appropriate response to the right of each statement and respond to every statement. Do not write your name anywhere; your choice to participate is voluntary, and your responses will ALWAYS remain anonymous. The scale runs from never to all the time. Keep the pencil!

1. I think about my disability never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

2. Students with disabilities don’t receive as many opportunities never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

as those without disabilities

3. Teachers view me as having a shortcoming never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

4. My friends think I'm different because of my disability never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

5. People with disabilities are treated differently never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

6. I think of myself as smart never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

7. Students with disabilities are discriminated against never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

8. Teachers view me positively never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

9. I get along well with others never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

10. Society stereotypes people with disabilities never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

11. I feel frustrated about school never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

12. Students with disabilities are successful never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

13. I do poorly on tests in part due to my disability never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

14. Other students are understanding about disabilities never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

Please turn over and continue on the other side…

15. I get support from other

students with disabilities never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

16. I feel good about myself never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

17. Students with disabilities are successful in the workplace never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

18. My grades are lower than expected never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

19. My disability causes strains to relationships never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

20. I support other students with disabilities never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

21. I feel that I am treated fairly on campus never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

22. Students with disabilities need more support services and accommodations never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

23. I ask for accommodations never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

24. I talk to others about my disability never occasionally regularly frequently all the time

25. Gender Male Female

26. Age 20 or under Over 20

27. Disability Invisible Visible_____________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey! Please return in the postpaid envelope provided, or leave with the survey administrator.

Promoting University Faculty and Staff Awareness of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Overview of the Productive

Learning u Strategies (PLuS) Project

Christopher MurrayUniversity of Oregon

Carol T. WrenEdward B. StevensChristopher KeysDePaul University

AbstractThis article presents a model demonstration project that was designed to promote disability awareness, understanding, and responsiveness among University faculty and staff at a large private University. One of the unique features of the Productive Learning u Strategies (PLuS) project is that the effort targeted all faculty and staff through a cascade training model approach. This approach was designed to leverage project resources in ways that allowed the project to reach a broader number of individuals. The effort was supported by a web site, bi-monthly print materials, and informational videos that were developed by the project and widely distributed. This article provides an overview of the model, a description of the specific model features, and an overview of findings from several investigations that were conducted during the course of project implementation.

The importance of postsecondary school in an increasingly knowledge-based economy is indisputable and finding ways to support access to higher education among students with disabilities is of growing national concern. Recent estimates from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 suggest that approximately 10% of youth with learning disabilities (LD) have enrolled in a four-year colleges or universities at some point during the first two years after leaving high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005) and these students represent one of the fastest growing populations of students on college campuses (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). As students with LD gain access to postsecondary settings, it will be important for colleges and universities to find innovative ways of supporting these youth, many of whom may come to college campuses without the requisite skills to successfully negotiate these systems (Gregg, 2007; Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). Unlike K-12 public schools, colleges and universities are not required to develop individualized educational plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities, and students must self-disclose within these environments to receive any services at all. As Madaus and Shaw (2004) note “Section 504 and the ADA…..are not prescriptive special education laws, like IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], and result in varying services across institutions of higher education” (p. 85).

Despite differences in mandated services and supports for youth in public K-12 schools and universities, there are a growing number of promising strategies that may help to make postsecondary settings more supportive of students with LD

(Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Cook et al., 2006; Debrand & Salzberg, 2004; Rohland et al., 2003; Shaw & Scott, 2003; Sowers & Smith, 2004). These efforts are guided in part by prior research on University faculty attitudes which indicates that although faculty are generally willing to provide students with minor accommodations (e.g., recorded lectures or additional time during exams), they sometimes have lower academic expectations for students with LD than for students without disabilities (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992). Furthermore, findings from studies of University students’ perceptions indicate that students with disabilities often perceive that faculty, staff, and administrators lack information regarding disability issues, have “poor” attitudes towards students with disabilities, and are not receptive to accommodation requests (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Farone, Hall, & Costello, 1998).

In an effort to address the need for faculty development pertaining to students with disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) initiated a grant program in 1999 that provides funding to colleges and universities to promote disability awareness. To date, 71 of these Demonstration Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Education for Students with Disabilities have been awarded. In reviewing the abstracts for the 71 funded projects between 1999 and 2005, it is clear that vast majority of the proposals were designed as faculty development initiatives (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). However, despite the relatively large number of projects funded, very few published descriptions of these projects exist in the professional literature. For example, we conducted an ERIC search using the name of the Project Director(s) of these 71 projects as the search term (i.e., author) and we reviewed the table of contents of all issues of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability and the Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education to search for descriptions of OPE funded projects. This search yielded only four published descriptions of projects implemented through this funding (Cook et al., 2006; Krampe & Berdine, 2003; Rohland et al., 2003; Sowers & Smith, 2004).

Cook et al. (2006) implemented a project that provided University faculty with training through three interrelated training components. The first component was a Classroom Accommodation Network comprised of a web site, a telephone hotline, and in-person support. This component provided participants with an ongoing resource for having questions answered and learning more about strategies and supports. The second component provided direct training to approximately 20 faculty members per year through a five-day summer institute. The summer institute was designed to increase faculty awareness of specific disabilities, University-based support services, as well as specific strategies for supporting students with disabilities in University contexts. The third training component was a partnership program that paired each of the summer institute training participants with a student with a disability within the institution. These partnerships were arranged prior to participation in the summer institute in an effort to provide faculty with a context for developing further understanding about the specific needs of students with disabilities in University settings. Workshop evaluations and qualitative interviews with faculty suggested that this project had positive effects on faculty members’ self-perceived ability to interact effectively with students with disabilities and with other professionals regarding the needs of students with disabilities.

In a second example, Sowers and Smith (2004) trained nursing faculty using a brief two-hour training curriculum that contained four main components designed to (a) enhance the perceptions of faculty regarding the capabilities of nursing students with disabilities, (b) provide strategies for accommodating students with disabilities during instruction and supervision, (c) provide information pertaining to laws (Section 504 & ADA), and (d) provide faculty with information regarding the costs associated with providing accommodations. In an evaluation of changes in nursing faculty perceptions prior to and following training, these researchers found that the training led to improvements in faculty members’ perceptions of the capabilities of students with disabilities, and decreases in perceived concerns about having students with disabilities in nursing programs.

In addition to training programs directed towards changing specific faculty attitudes and practices, a growing body of research suggests that organizational characteristics may have a significant impact on the performance of students with LD (Boxall, Carson, & Docherty, 2004; Roer-Strier, 2002; Rohland et al., 2003). According to this perspective, efforts to promote positive experiences among students should be broadly focused and designed to change overall climates of institutions. In our search for published OPE funded projects we found two efforts that were designed to address broader institutional change (Krampe & Berdine, 2003; Rohland et al., 2003). For example, Rohland et al. (2003) implemented a project called Changing the Culture (CTC) that included 103 faculty from 45 departments at 7 different colleges and

universities in Rhode Island. Faculty were recruited to participate in a four-day training that was designed to promote disability awareness, an understanding of legal issues, and an understanding of supports for students with hearing, vision, learning, attention, and emotional disabilities. The training participants also discussed and developed strategies for serving as “disability mentors” in their home academic units. Thus, the goal of this project was to develop institutional resources and supports by training individuals who would then serve as mentors for other faculty. Findings from an analysis of trainee perceptions prior to and following the CTC training activities indicated that trainees had greater confidence in meeting training objectives, and were satisfied with the training materials at the end of the training sessions. However, follow-up data regarding the level of trainee implementation of training goals during the year following training was not provided.

Due to advocacy, an increased understanding of the needs of students with LD in postsecondary settings, the legal requirements of the ADA and Section 504, and federal funding initiatives such as the model demonstration projects funded through OPE, faculty development programs such as the projects described above are becoming increasingly common (Madaus & Shaw, 2006). Published descriptions of these projects are less common although information regarding the specific features of such efforts is potentially a rich resource for those interested in initiating disability-focused training in postsecondary settings. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to add to the literature on disability-focused professional development initiatives by providing an overview of an organizational change model that was implemented at DePaul University. This OPE funded project was a broad-based training effort that included a cascade training model, the provision of web-based resources, and the wide distribution of print and video materials.

Project PLuS Model and Methods

From the outset of this project, we adopted the view that it was important for us to leverage our project resources in ways that allowed us to promote organizational change across the entire University. Therefore, we targeted both University faculty and University staff as participants in this initiative. Although prior projects of this nature consistently target faculty, we know of no projects that have designed and implemented training that is tailored specifically for University staff. This is unfortunate because many University staff work in positions that require them to interact with students with disabilities on a regular basis and they contribute to the overall climate and cultures of postsecondary settings in important ways.

To facilitate culture change within the parameters of our budget, we adopted an empowerment model for the diffusion of awareness among faculty and staff throughout the University. We chose to implement a train-the-trainer model that was designed to cascade broad organizational support of students with LD downward through the University. According to our approach, faculty and staff from throughout the University would be selected to participate in training and these individuals would then become trainers who would implement training with other members of their respective departments and units. Therefore, this effort was not designed to train individuals to provide direct service to students with LD, but instead was designed to encourage training participants to propagate awareness and create changes to University processes that would improve the overall setting for students with LD. Similar training models have been successfully utilized in a wide variety of domains and organizational settings (Bax, 2002; Hayes, 2000; Jacobs, 2002).

Context and ParticipantsProject PLuS was implemented at DePaul University, a large, urban private University in the Midwestern United States.

According to U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of America’s Best Colleges, during the past 10 years the University has consistently been ranked as a Tier 3 institution among national universities and it is considered “more selective” on selectivity ratings. The University’s stated mission is focused on teaching and service with a commitment to connections with the community. At the time of this study, over 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students attended the University with approximately 15,000 undergraduates and over 8,000 graduate students. Of that population, approximately 250 students (1%) were receiving disability support services for learning disabilities. This percentage of students with LD is consistent with the number of students receiving services for LD in colleges and universities nationally (Horn & Nevill, 2006).

Because we were interested in impacting the overall culture of the University, we selected faculty from every department to participate as trainers and we also selected staff members from units that we believed would have regular interaction with students with disabilities (e.g., library, student services, financial aid, etc.). Training participants were recruited by sending letters describing the summer training opportunity to department heads (faculty) and unit heads (staff). In these recruitment letters we described the project, the training dates, and offered a training stipend ($1,000) to interested participants. Department and unit administrators then sent recruitment letters (via e-mail) to faculty and staff within their units and participants were selected using two criteria. First, we screened participants to ensure that different departments and units were represented in the training. Second, faculty and staff were admitted on a first-come-first- serve basis. During Year 1 of the project, 26 faculty and 24 staff trainers participated and during Year 2 an additional 26 faculty and 24 staff members participated. Thus, over the course of the project, a total of 98 full-time faculty and staff participated in the summer training program. Faculty from all 9 major colleges and schools participated and staff members from over 45 different units participated. These individuals then served as project trainers who provided training to other faculty and staff within their respective departments and units throughout the University.

The Cascade Training Model In Figure 1, we provide the logic model for our cascade training empowerment model (Zimmerman, 2000). According to

the model, our participants would participate in training where they would develop awareness, knowledge, skills, and motivation pertaining to University students with disabilities. Our sessions were also designed to promote the belief among the participants that they had opportunities to engage in organizational change activities. These activities then led to goal setting. The process of setting explicit training goals provided a framework for personal action. In addition, goal attainment was a critical indicator of impact and likely organizational change. Goal attainment as a mechanism for motivating action and providing a measurable indicator of achievement has been utilized in previous research (Balcazar, Keys, Lardon, Jones, & Davis, 2005: Hurn, Kneebone, & Cropley, 2006). As interactions grew in number, it was expected that the number of potential “help” points for students with learning disabilities on campus would also grow and each participant’s experiences were expected to stimulate awareness and goal-directed action on the part of others (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zimmerman, 2000).

Figure 1: Faculty and Staff Empowerment Sequence

Training Components

Participants attended a week-long summer institute that was designed to provide them with the awareness, skills, tools, and motivation to educate other members of the University community. The summer institute included a five-day summer workshop for faculty, and a separate four-day summer training institute for staff. The overall curriculum for both trainings was based on available models in the professional literature (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Cook et al., 2006; Debrand & Salzberg, 2004; Kurth & Mellard, 2006; Sowers & Smith, 2004) and on our collective understanding of the needs at this particular institution. In Table 1 we provide a broad overview of the training activities.

Table 1

Overview of Summer Institute Training Sessions

Day Faculty Staff

Day 1 Characteristics of LD

Definition Prevalence Learning Characteristics Social, Emotional, Psychological Simulations

Characteristics of LD

Definition Prevalence Learning Characteristics Social, Emotional, Psychological Simulations

Day 2 History, Laws, Accommodations

Post-School Outcomes Federal Legislation Defining Accommodations Universal Design Instructional Strategies

History, Laws, Accommodations

Post-School Outcomes Federal Legislation Defining Accommodations Universal Design University Support Services

Day 3 Practice

Planning for Instruction Designing Syllabi Delivering Instruction Evaluating Instruction & Assessment University Support Service

Presentations

University Advocacy/Training Others

Overview of Survey Results Overview of Website, Training

Materials on BlackBoard, Project Videos

Plan Trainings in Groups

Day 4 University Advocacy & Training Others

Overview of Survey Results Overview of Website, Training

Materials on BlackBoard, Project Videos

Plan Trainings in Groups

Strategies for Institutionalizing

Developing Individual Training Goals Student Presentation Workshop Evaluations

Day 5 Strategies for Institutionalizing

Developing Individual Training Goals Student Presentation Workshop Evaluations

Day 1 activities focused on the definition, prevalence, and characteristics of students with LD. The activities in this session provided faculty and staff with a basic understanding of LD and other disabilities along with an awareness of the integration between academic, social, emotional, and psychological impact of LD. During this session, we reinforced information through simulations that were designed to promote sensitivity by providing participants with “glimpses” into the psychological experience of learning problems (e.g., we read participants a passage that was difficult to comprehend without audio support, we had participants take an exam on tax codes to illustrate the experience of having difficulty comprehending written language, etc).

Day 2 topics focused on history, laws, and accommodations. We began this session with an overview of findings regarding the post-school outcomes of students with LD with a particular emphasis on postsecondary attendance and graduation rates. During this session, we also invited a faculty member from the law school who specialized in disability law to present on federal legislation, case law, and the implications of this legislation and case law to universities. The afternoon of day 2 was devoted to developing faculty staff awareness and understanding of accommodations, universal design, and other instructional strategies such as multi-sensory instruction and peer tutoring.

Day 3 of the faculty training was devoted to teaching practices. For this session we asked all faculty participants to bring a copy of a syllabus from one of their courses. Then, using knowledge acquired through the day 1 and 2 activities, faculty worked in pairs to plan for instruction by critically evaluating their own syllabi. Following this activity, faculty then worked in small groups to discuss their current teaching practices and developed new strategies for delivering instruction based on the knowledge they had acquired in prior sessions. During day 3 we also provided faculty with an overview of various assessment options including rubrics, curriculum-based assessment, and exam accommodations. Using this information, faculty reflected upon their own assessment practices and discussed ways in which they could improve evaluation of instruction in their own courses. During the afternoon of day 3, the Director of the Disability Support Services Program at the University presented information regarding services and supports provided through the University’s Disability Services Office.

Day 3 activities for staff mirrored the day 4 activities for faculty. These activities were designed to begin to build motivation among participants for training other members of the University community. To facilitate this, the project staff provided participants with an overview of our yearly survey results. This survey was administered to faculty, staff, and administrators in the University and provided an overview of University-wide attitudes and perceptions regarding students with LD. Following an overview of the survey results, we provided faculty and staff with an overview of training materials that were available to them. The training materials used by the project personnel during our training process included handouts, simulations, the PowerPoint presentations, the instructional materials developed by participants throughout the training, and a training video developed by the project were linked to each faculty and staff member’s personal Blackboard site so that they would have access to a wealth of training materials. During day 4, we showed these materials to our faculty and staff trainers and we then asked them to work in small groups to develop three different types of trainings that they could use in their respective departments and units (i.e., a 15 minute presentation, a 30 minute presentation, and a 60 minute presentation). These materials were also added to Blackboard sites.

The final day of training for faculty (day 5) and staff (day 4) consisted of developing individual plans of action for what, when, and how they would initiate training with other members of their respective units and departments. In Table 2 we provide a sample of an actual goal sheet developed by one of our staff trainers to illustrate this process. As shown in column 1 of the goal sheet, four types of goals were developed: (a) goals related to personal development, (b) goals pertaining to providing professional development in their respective departments/units (unit interpersonal), (c) goals pertaining to departmental or unit materials (unit materials), and (d) goals related to broader culture change.

Personal goals were characterized by learning or personal effort beyond the DePaul community--Learning what other Diversity Officers at other schools are doing (s2); Read at least one piece of literature on LD (f16). The second category, unit-interpersonal goals, were defined as presentations, meetings, trainings, and teaching individuals within the participant’s organizational home unit in the University (i.e., academic department, staff office)—Present to faculty meeting—increasing awareness of students with LD (f10); Educate our staff on University resources of LD students (s5).

Category three, material goals, included revisions to syllabi, handbooks, web sites for use in the home unit—Develop one-page resource sheet for SNL advising and front desk staff (s3); incorporate new insights in syllabi (f1). The fourth category, culture, focused on making DePaul as a University a more supportive environment for learning. Culture goals addressed LD issues beyond the home unit in the larger University context. Assist in making text-to-speech software available on DePaul computers for all students (f19); Advocate for University-wide academic support center for all students with learning problems or learning skills deficits due to economic/environmental lack of opportunity (s16).

In addition to developing overall goals, we also asked faculty and staff to list the specific steps or processes involved in implementing their stated goal(s) along with a target date for goal completion. These strategies were listed directly below each goal. After faculty and staff completed the process of developing goals, two University students with LD were invited to speak to the participants about their experiences as students with disabilities at DePaul. The student presenters provided a brief overview of their backgrounds and they discussed both positive and negative aspects of their experiences at the University. This final activity was designed to solidify our faculty and staff trainers’ commitment to carrying out their goals.

Table 2

Sample Goals Sheet for Staff Member M.A. (s1)

GOALS TARGET

DATE

ATTAINMENT IMPACT

Personal Development Goals

Increase knowledge relative to

universal design in housing

environment

Search articles on UD in housing

Review articles on UD in housing

AY 07-08

Done

Partially - Read D.0’s article

Complete

Who?

Self and 16 staff 5,000 students applying

for housingHow?

Greater self-awareness, materials for applicants, better yield

Unit Group/Interpersonal Goals

Increase knowledge and

awareness of needs of students

with LD and ADHD in student

housing

Plan training specific to UD for department staff in housing

Inform staff about PLuS program

Review how LD/ADHD might present issues for our department

Disseminate resource list for staff

Fall 07

In progress

Done!

Who?

17 staff 5,000 students and 2,500

parents 20 student workers

How?

Greater awareness and sensitivity

Unit Material Goals

Review housing marketing Fall 07 Who?

materials and website so that they

are more user friendly for guests

with LD/ADHD

Incorporate statement of service in our resident handbook

Find ways to add more visual info to website homepage

Establish ways to provide ongoing review

On-going. Complete.

Complete. Verbiage regarding a statement of

service has been identified and will be added to the handbook upon its annual review in June/July.

Revisions made to the Housing Services website 8/07.

Additional photos, layouts and floor plans for the buildings have been added.

A process for ongoing review has been created.

Students, families, guardians

How?

Awareness 18,000 copies of

materials

Culture Change Goals

Review checklist of UD as it relates

to our central office space

Copy checklist to all staff Determine appropriate

desk and furniture layout Provide computer access

for students to use while in office

AY 07-08? Reviewed and adjusted 8/07

Complete.

Who?

17 housing staff, 20 facilities staff, 10,000 visitors

Supplemental Training Materials: Web site, Print, and Video MaterialsTo supplement and enrich our cascade training model we also utilized a small amount of project funds to enhance the

University’s PLuS web site by adding a new section to the site that contained information and resources for faculty and staff (http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/plus/faculty_staff.html). Included in this section of the web site is information and strategies regarding making referrals, progress reports for students, sample syllabi statements, and resources pertaining to LD, law, accommodations, student stories, links, and video links. These materials were shown to the faculty and staff trainers and they were encouraged to direct other faculty and staff to this site.

A second way we enriched the project materials was through the development of print and video materials. We developed a bi-monthly newsletter (i.e., PLuS Perspectives) that contained topical information about students with LD, strategies for supporting students with LD, and information and resources available to support postsecondary students. Hard copies of these print materials were distributed to all full-time faculty in the University and to staff within our target units. These newsletters are available at: http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/plus/faculty_staff_perspectives.html.

A final way we provided support to our cascade training effort was through the development and distribution of two 20 minute informational videos—one for faculty and one for staff. These videos were designed for use by our faculty and staff trainers but were also distributed to all full-time faculty within the University. The videos were developed by the project and include information about the characteristics of students with LD, information pertaining to referral procedures and University services, as well as information about the use of teaching and exam accommodations. These videos are available for viewing at http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/plus/resources_media.html.

Project PLuS Findings

During the process of implementing this project we have conducted several investigations including an initial survey of faculty and staff attitudes (Murray, Flannery, Wren, 2008; Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008), an analysis of our trainers’

implementation of training goals, and analyses of the effects of training on University faculty and staff attitudes and perceptions (Murray, Lombardi, Wren, & Keys, in press-a; Murray, Lombardi, & Wren, in press-b).

Faculty and Staff SurveysDuring the first phase of the project, we were interested in developing an understanding about faculty and staff

members’ current attitudes and perceptions about students with LD at the University. Therefore, prior to implementing any of the project activities we developed and administered one survey to all full-time faculty and another survey to over 300 University staff members. These surveys are publicly available (Murray et al., 2008a, 2008b) and were designed to measure faculty and staff perceptions regarding their knowledge of LD, fairness and sensitivity, willingness to use accommodations, performance expectations, and the need for additional training prior to project implementation.

The results of these surveys were published in two separate articles, one pertaining to faculty attitudes and perceptions (Murray et al., 2008a) and one pertaining to staff attitudes (Murray et al., 2008b). In both cases, the results of our analyses indicated that faculty and staff at this particular institution generally had positive perceptions about students with LD including their ability to succeed in a University context, their own self-perceived sensitivity towards students with LD, their willingness to personally invest in supporting students with LD, and their willingness to make various teaching and exam accommodations. However, we also found that both faculty and staff expressed a need for additional training regarding the needs of students with LD and strategies for supporting students with LD in the University context. Together, these findings suggested that although faculty and staff were willing to provide supports, they often perceived themselves to be lacking adequate knowledge and skills to implement such supports.

Implementation of Training GoalsAfter administering and analyzing our initial survey, the next phase of the project included the training of our faculty and

staff trainers through the summer institutes. The primary goal of these workshops was to provide faculty and staff trainers with an awareness of the needs of students with LD but also to provide them with information, materials, and the motivation to train other members of their respective departments and units. To facilitate this process, faculty and staff spent approximately one full day developing specific training goals, training strategies, and forecasting potential problems associated with their training efforts (see Table 2). Following the development of these goals and objectives, we met with the faculty and staff trainers during the fall, winter, and spring quarters of the following year to monitor goal implementation and goal attainment. In cases where our trainers were unable to attend one of these meetings, we conducted follow-up interviews by phone and/or e-mail to receive an update regarding goal implementation from each trainer individually. In columns 3 and 4 of Table 2 we provide an example of this process under “Attainment” and “Impact.” Under the Attainment column, each participant’s goals were evaluated quarterly to determine whether the trainer had implemented the specific activities. On the original goal sheets, updates in these columns during the fall quarter were color coded in blue ink, updates during the winter were coded in green ink, and updates during the spring quarter were coded in red ink. Using this process, we were able to evaluate ongoing implementation and attainment of each participant’s goals. Although not discussed in the current article, the final column of each goal setting sheet contained an estimate of impact. Data gathered in this section provided an estimate of who was impacted by the implementation of each training goal.

In Table 3 we provide an overview of the number and proportion of goals set and the number and proportion of goals attained by our faculty and staff trainers in Years 1 and 2. Overall, 39 of the 50 (78%) Year 1, and 38 of the 48 (79%) Year 2 training participants provided follow-up data regarding goal implementation throughout the entire year following training. It is important to note that it is likely that the non-responders (i.e., approximately 22% of participants) did not implement their training goals.

As shown in Table 3, goals were analyzed according to goal type and included personal, unit-interpersonal, unit-material, and culture goals. As indicated in the table, approximately 52% of the Year 1 goals were unit interpersonal goals. The second most frequent type of goal was unit material (31%). Fewer goals among the Year 1 participants were personal (10%) or cultural (7%). Among the Year 2 participants, the most frequent goal type was unit material (35%) followed by unit interpersonal (33%), personal (19%) and cultural (13%).

The proportion listed under the “Attained” columns provides an overview of the proportion of goals reportedly achieved by goal type. Among the Year 1 participants, unit interpersonal goals were attained with the highest frequency (78% attained), followed by personal (65% attained), unit material (62% attained), and culture (50% attained). Among the Year 2 participants, personal goals were attained with the highest frequency (73% attained), followed by unit material (58% attained), unit interpersonal (57% attained), and culture (41% attained). Overall, the 77 faculty and staff participants for whom we had complete data across the year directly following training created a total of 478 goals and reported accomplishing approximately 302 (63%) of those goals.

Table 3

Number and Proportion of Goals Developed and Goals Achieved Among Active Participants

Table 3


Table 3


Year 1 Year 2 Total

Set Attained Set Attained Set Attained

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Personal 20 (9.7) 13 (65.0) 51 (18.8) 37 (72.5) 71 (14.8) 50 (70.4)

Unit Interpersonal 108 (52.2) 84 (77.7) 90 (33.2) 51 (56.6) 198(41.4) 135 (68.1)

Unit Material 65 (31.4) 40 (61.5) 96 (35.4) 56 (58.3) 161 (33.6) 96 (59.6)

Culture 14 (6.8) 7 (50.0) 34 (12.5) 14 (41.1) 48 (10.0) 21 (43.7)

Totals 207 (100) 144 (69.5) 271 (100) 158 (58.3) 478 (100) 302 (63.1)

Note. Percentages under the “set” columns represent the proportion of goal type created. Proportion under “attained” column represents the proportion of each type of goal achieved. Year 1 data based on 39 of 50 full-year participants, and Year 2 based on 38 of 48 full-year participants.

Training Effects During the final year of the project, we again conducted surveys of faculty and staff throughout the University. The Year

3 surveys were identical to the surveys that were administered in Year 1 with the exception of several new items that were designed to assess prior training. The reason we incorporated new items related to training was that we were interested in evaluating the effects of prior training on faculty and staff attitudes. Specifically, we asked whether respondents had participated in training, the type of training received, the amount of time spent engaged in training, and the amount of time elapsed since the training experience. Two separate investigations were conducted using these data to examine predictors of faculty (Murray et al., in press-a) and staff (Murray et al., in press-b) attitudes and perceptions.

Several important findings emerged from these analyses. First, among faculty and staff, participation in any form of disability-focused training was predictive of more positive attitudes and perceptions, knowledge regarding strategies for providing teaching and exam accommodations, general knowledge about disability law, and personal actions such as inviting disclosure. Second, the type of prior training received was predictive of attitudes and perceptions such that faculty and staff who had previously attended workshops or courses had the most positive perceptions, followed by faculty and staff who had attended “other forms of training” (e.g., read books or articles). Again, those who had attended no training had the least positive views.

A third important finding to emerge from these analyses was that there were several other important predictors of attitudes, perceptions, and actions. For example, in both cases (faculty and staff), results of multiple regression analyses indicated that participation in multiple forms of training was predictive of more positive attitudes as well as greater knowledge about University students with LD. Further, we found that the “time spent engaged in training” was also an important predictor of attitudes and perceptions such that faculty and staff who had spent a greater amount of time in training had the most positive attitudes and perceptions regarding University students with LD.

Discussion of Project PLuS

This article provides an overview of an OPE funded project that was implemented at DePaul University. The project was designed to enhance the overall culture of the University through an innovative approach that was established as a broad-based organizational-change model with multiple initiatives to support a mission to create a better environment for students with LD. During the process of implementing this project, we conducted several investigations of faculty and staff attitudes and perceptions, research on the implementation of training activities, and research on training effects.

Consistent with prior research conducted on University faculty attitudes and perceptions (c.f., Bourke, Strehorn & Silver, 2000; Reed, Lund-Lucas, & O’Rourke, 2003) the results of our initial surveys of faculty and staff perceptions indicated that although the faculty and staff respondents at this University had positive perceptions of students with LD, they also expressed a need for additional training regarding disability law, the rights of students with disabilities in University settings, and strategies for supporting students with LD in University contexts. Similar findings have been reported in studies of faculty in public four-year research universities and by faculty in community college settings. One of the unique features of the current project is that we also studied University staff perceptions. Although the staff members who responded to our survey also had positive views about University students with LD, they too indicated a need for additional information and training. These findings are promising because they suggest that not only do faculty and staff recognize the importance of learning about students with disabilities but they also express an interest in learning more about these students and strategies to support them in postsecondary settings.

In an effort to provide such training, we leveraged our project resources in ways that maximized the potential impact of our project. Efforts to promote understanding, knowledge, and skills among a select group of faculty may promote positive experiences for students with disabilities who are fortunate enough to interact with the recipients of such training but finding ways to promote organizational change has the potential to improve the experiences of all students with disabilities throughout an entire institution (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2003; Rohland et al., 2003). Our approach relied on the provision of training to a subset of faculty and staff, a cascade training model, a system of goal setting, and goal monitoring to evaluate implementation. The vast majority of initial training goals developed by our participants were designed to provide direct training to others (unit interpersonal) or were designed to adapt or create unit materials that supported students with disabilities (unit material). Following faculty and staff for a full year following initial training indicated that the vast majority of faculty and staff trainers did indeed implement these training activities with other faculty and staff in their respective departments and units. These findings are important because they suggest that a cascade training approach may be one effective strategy for promoting disability awareness in a postsecondary setting.

Based on our experiences implementing this process, we believe that several factors contributed to the success of the cascade training approach. First, our training was designed to build awareness, sensitivity, and skills among our faculty and staff trainers. Providing trainers with an awareness and understanding of students with LD is important because this knowledge leads to greater commitment to enhancing supports for these students. Thus, we believe that it is essential to provide faculty and staff trainers with a solid foundation of basic facts partly because such information in necessary for beginning to address these issues in a meaningful way, but also because such information can lead to a greater level of commitment to improving the lives and outcomes of students with disabilities.

A second important component of the cascade training model process was the provision of training materials. In an effort to support the implementation of training goals, we provided our trainers with a wide range of training materials including access to a Blackboard site that contained all of the training materials used by the project staff as well as all of the materials

developed during the summer institutes, an overview of a web-based resource, electronic access to print materials, and the training videos. In addition, each participant was also provided with a project manual that contained hard copies of all training materials. We believe that providing trainers with a wide selection of easily accessible training materials was important because (a) it provided them with an opportunity to choose materials that they believed will be most effective for their target audience, and (b) it facilitated the ease of use of these materials. Therefore, we recommend that future projects of this nature find ways of providing a wide array of training materials that are accessible and easy to use.

A third important aspect of this process was that we spent a considerable amount of time working with our faculty and staff trainers developing specific goals, specific training objectives, and actual training activities. Although we spent approximately one full day engaged in such activities, we believe that this level of specificity is critical because it provides a clear framework for action. A second benefit of having clearly specified goals is that such goals can be monitored by project staff to evaluate the extent to which training activities are being implemented.

During the final year of the project, we evaluated the extent to which disability-focused training impacted the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of University faculty and staff by including items regarding prior training on our survey of faculty and staff perceptions. The findings from these analyses are promising and suggest that disability-focused training is indeed predictive of University faculty and staff attitudes. Of particular importance was our finding that certain types of training were more strongly associated with positive views. For example, our findings provide strong support for the importance of experiences such as training workshops whereas experiences such as reading books or articles were less positive in terms of their impact on attitudes. Furthermore, experiencing a greater number of training activities, and spending a greater amount of time engaged in training was predictive of positive perceptions (Murray et al., in press-a, in press-b). These findings are instructive because they suggest that faculty development efforts should attempt to provide in-depth experiences but should also provide multiple opportunities to develop knowledge and skills. Strategies such as the one outlined here that incorporate opportunities to develop such skills through direct training experiences, web site materials, print materials, and video materials are potentially valuable in this regard.

ConclusionsA growing number of innovative approaches for promoting access to higher education among students with disabilities

are being implemented in colleges and universities. Such efforts should begin with ensuring that colleges and universities are accessible and supportive learning environments. University faculty and staff are the primary conduits through which such accessibility and support will be realized and providing these individuals with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to create such environments is critically important. Future efforts that build upon and expand efforts such as the one described here will help to ensure that faculty and staff within postsecondary environments are prepared to meet this challenge.Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized course-specific strategy instruction for college students

with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 103-118.

Balcazar, F.B., Keys, C.B., Lardon, C., Jones, C., and Davis, M. (2005). Strengths and challenges of intervention research in vocational rehabilitation: An illustration of agency-University collaboration, Journal of Rehabilitation, 71, 40-48

Bax, S. (2002). The social and cultural dimensions of trainer training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28, 166-178.Bourke, A. B., Strehorn, K. C., & Silver, P. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of instructional accommodations to students

with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 26-32.Boxall, K., Carson, I., and Docherty, D. (2004). Room at the academy? People with learning difficulties and higher education.

Disability & Society, 19, 99-112Burgstahler, S. & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional

development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 135-147.Cook, B. G., Rumrill, P. D., Camarata, J., Mitchell, P. R., Newman, S., Sebaly, K. P., Steuernagel, G. A., Cook, L., &

Hennessey, M. L. (2006). The impact of a professional development institute on faculty members’ interactions with college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14, 67-76.

Debrand, C. C., & Salzberg, C. L. (2004). A validated curriculum to provide training to faculty regarding students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18 (1), 49-62.

Dowrick, P.W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilition, 22, 41-47.

Farone, M. C., Hall, E. W., & Costello, J. J. (1998). Postsecondary disability issues: An inclusive identification strategy. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 35-45.

Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 219-228.

Hayes, D. (2000). Cascade training and teachers’ professional judgment. ELT Journal, 54, 135-45. Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003-2004; With a

special analysis of community college students (NCES2006-184). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the University environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 678-684.

Hurn, J., Kneebone, I. and Ropley, M. (2006). Goal setting as an outcome measure: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20, 756-772

Jacobs, R. L. (2002). Institutionalizing organizational change through cascade training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 177-182.

Krampe, K. M., & Berdine, W. H. (2003). University of Kentucky engaging differences project: Providing information about accommodations on line and just in time. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 21-32.

Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), 71-84.

Madus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Section 504: Differences in the regulations for secondary and postsecondary education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 81-87.

Madaus, J.W., & Shaw, S. (2006). The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 273-281.

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 10-20.

Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 97-118.

Murray, C., Flannery, B., Wren, C. (2008b). University staff members’ attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities and disability support services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21, 73-90.

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.

Murray, C. Lombardi, A., & Wren, C. T. (in press-b). The effects of disability-focused training on the attitudes and perceptions of University staff. Remedial and Special Education.

Murray, C. Lombardi, A., Wren, C. T., & Keys, C. (in press-a). Associations between prior disability focused training and disability-related attitudes and perceptions among University faculty, Learning Disability Quarterly.

Murray, C. Wren, C. T., & Keys, C. (2008a). University faculty attitudes regarding students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 95-113.

Reed, M.J., Lund-Lucas, E., & O’Rourke, K. (2003). Standards of practice in postsecondary special needs programming: Student and administrator opinion. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 2, 27-56.

Roer-Strier, D. (2002). University students with learning disabilities advocating for change. Disability and Rehabilitation: An International Multidisciplinary Journal, 24, 914-924

Rohland, P., Erickson, B., Mathews, D., Roush, S. E., Quinlan, K., & Smith, A. D. (2003). Changing the culture (CTC): A collaborative training model to create systematic change. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17, 49-58.

Shaw, S. F., & Scott, S. S. (2003). New directions in faculty development. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17, 3-9.

Sowers, J. & Smith, M. R. (2004). Evaluation of the effects of an inservice training program on nursing faculty members’ perceptions, knowledge, and concerns about students with disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education, 43, 248-252.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681.

U.S. Department of Education (2008). Demonstration projects to ensure students with disabilities receive a quality higher education. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/disabilities/awards.html.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., and Levine, P. (2005). After High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Rappaport J., & Seidman E., (Eds.), Handbook of community Psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Kluwer Acade.

About the AuthorsChristopher Murray, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of special education at the University of Oregon. His research interests include developing further understanding about how individual, social and ecological factors influence the long-term outcomes of individuals with disabilities.

Carol T. Wren is an Associate Professor of language, literacy, and specialized instruction at DePaul University. Her current interests include learning disabilities in college students and adults, particularly issues of mental health.

Edward Stevens, is a doctoral student in Psychology at DePaul University.

Christopher Keys, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology at DePaul University. His research interests include the positive psychology of disability, the empowerment of people with disabilities and their families, and cross cultural attitudes toward people with disabilities.

Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS): A Multidimensional Service Delivery Model for College Students

with Learning Disabilities and ADHD

David R. ParkerWashington University in St. Louis

Cheri E. WhiteLinfield College

Laura CollinsBrock University

Manju BanerjeeJoan M. McGuire

University of Connecticut

AbstractToday’s college students are expected to utilize a variety of learning technologies to succeed in higher education. Students with learning disabilities (LD) and/or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) can encounter barriers to equal access and effective learning in this new digital environment, including the development of proficiency with technology tools and self-regulation of attention while processing online information. Recognizing these trends, a research University team developed and piloted the Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS). Service providers can implement the Principles of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)© when providing academic supports with LiTMS. This new model is presented and illustrated with a hypothetical but increasingly common vignette. A concluding discussion articulates ways in which LiTMS can be used with all students in a variety of campus offices and can serve as the focus of future research.

The intent of this article is to describe a service delivery model based on the Principles of Universal Design for Instruction© (Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2001) that disability and academic support professionals can use to help students with learning disabilities (LD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) develop strategic proficiency with a range of learning technologies. The Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS) model (see Figure 1) was piloted by the authors during a two-year period in a University office with a model program for serving undergraduates with LD and ADHD (Brinckerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). Program staff and Learning Specialists, (i.e., graduate assistants who provide individualized services focusing on learning and compensatory strategies), participated in a dynamic process of conceptualizing, piloting, and refining the model. Each component is described using examples from a vignette involving “Susan.” Implications including guidelines for applying the LiTMS model in campus offices that serve all college students and areas for future research are addressed.

Figure 1. Learning Technologies Management System (LiTMS) Model

Rationale for Developing the Model

Learning TechnologiesLearning technologies, defined as “any application of technology, particularly computer and information technology,

which contributes to the learning process” (Finnis, 2004), are dramatically altering college instruction (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). According to the U.S. Department of Labor:

Most college and University faculty extensively use computer technology, including the Internet; e-mail; CD-ROMs; and programs, such as statistical packages. They may use computers in the classroom as teaching aids and may post course content, class notes, class schedules, and other information on the Internet (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm). While effective learning is not guaranteed by the use of technologies, learning can be hindered by the inappropriate

application of these pedagogical tools by faculty and/or students (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

A Need to Close the GapPreparedness for college studies now requires proficiency in the use of learning technologies. Yet, given the gaps in skill

levels of high school students with disabilities reported in literature, it is predictable that some students will enter postsecondary education with limited knowledge and fluency in the use of these technologies and will seek assistance to develop these skills (Marino, Marino, & Shaw, 2006). The National Council on Disability (2000) reported that “the rapid acquisition of educational technology has not sufficiently addressed the needs of students with disabilities. Access for students with disabilities is just beginning to be identified as an important factor when purchasing educational technology” (p. 25).

A recent survey of college students with LD and ADHD and students without disabilities found that both groups reported high threshold levels of comfort and fluency with learning technologies (Parker & Banerjee, 2007). However, notable differences in specific skills were found. Students with disabilities indicated a lower level of comfort with e-mail and multitasking on a computer (i.e., online literature searches including reading online) than did their peers without disabilities. A key focus of the LiTMS model emanated from the gap our students identified and their need to become more adept in technology skills relating to course demands.

LiTMS: A Service Delivery Model for Technology Mediated Instructional Support

This section provides details about the five components of the LiTMS model (see Figure 1). A vignette involving a hypothetical student, “Susan,” is used to illustrate each component. Consider the following scenario in which a freshman introduces herself to the disability service provider during the first week of classes.

Hi, I’m Susan. It’s nice to meet you. I know this is our first session but I have to tell you that I’m already overwhelmed by all my assigned readings this semester. My British Lit professor decided to replace her textbook with several articles. She said the readings and other resources are online, but it’s taking me forever to log onto the course web site! I’ve heard of text-to-speech software. Would that be faster for me to try now rather than having your office order CD’s or tapes of all those articles? Oh, and after we take care of my accommodations, can we work on some reading strategies for finding main ideas? I’m a visual learner and started working with concept maps over the summer. Is there a way I can turn those maps into study guides?

Component 1: Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)The boundary encompassing the LiTMS model is the conceptual framework of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)

(Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003) and its nine Principles© (Scott et al., 2001) adapted from the concept of universal design (UD) in the field of architecture. UD comprises proactive ways to incorporate accessibility features into spaces and product designs from inception to completion (Center for Universal Design, n.d.). UDI is a paradigm for proactively designing and using inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners including those with disabilities (Scott et al., 2003). To implement this paradigm, the Principles of UDI©, illustrated in a clockwise format in the boundary in Figure 1, delineate considerations that are important in creating accessible learning environments and inclusive elements of instruction.

The LiTMS model extends this approach to disability services where service providers offer instruction (e.g., learning strategies, rubrics for using assistive technology) or help students access information from textbooks, web sites, e-mail exchanges, class notes, and other sources. Just as the Principles provide college faculty with a decision-making framework to create accessible courses (see www.facultyware.uconn.edu), UDI is the backdrop and foundation of the LiTMS model for service providers who offer one-on-one, individualized academic assistance to students.

Component 2: Authentic Learning Need

As illustrated in Figure 1, the impetus for a student’s interaction with service providers is often a genuine need for learning assistance or accommodation. To begin the conversation and set a welcoming, non-judgmental tone (UDI Principle 9, Instructional Climate), the service provider might ask, “What authentic need does this student want help with that either involves technology or could be addressed by learning technologies?” Susan asked her service provider if concept maps could be turned into study guides, which becomes one of her authentic learning needs.

The disability service professional might consider Inspiration® software as a viable solution. Exploration of this software with Susan could address Principle 4 (Perceptible Information) if the concept maps would allow her to quickly see key points from her British Literature readings and how these ideas relate to one another. Responding to authentic needs provides a timely and relevant focus on technology without requiring busy students to find additional time for stand-alone training in the use of digital tools.

Component 3: PreferencesAs a student and the OSD service provider clarify authentic learning needs, other elements of the LiTMS model come

into play. Service providers should consider the student’s preferences, once again drawing upon the UDI principles. Susan described herself as a visual learner. While considering a process for helping Susan learn how to use mapping software, the service provider asked, “How would you like to remember the steps for using this software?” In doing so, the service provider extended the application of Principle 9 (Instructional Climate) and Principle 2 (Flexibility in Use) by presenting information according to Susan’s stated learning preference. Susan indicated that she would prefer to see a list of simple steps to prompt her recall while exploring the new technology. The service provider decided to write a brief version of each step on a whiteboard near the desk as they continued working together (UDI Principle 5: Tolerance for Error).

Component 4: Learning TechnologiesIn our setting, learning technologies, broadly categorized as “mainstream,” personal, and assistive (see Figure 1), are

present in many contexts. Increasingly, all students require proficiency with mainstream technologies, those used by the institution and faculty to deliver coursework and communicate with students, to succeed in today’s postsecondary environments. Examples of mainstream technologies include course management systems such as WebCT/Vista, Internet-based search engines, and presentation software such as PowerPoint® and Inspiration® (Allen & Seaman, 2005). Undergraduate students continue to outpace other demographic groups on campus in the use of personal technologies (“Freshmen arrive,” 2006) such as iPods®, smart phones, and personal digital assistants (PDA’s). These digital tools allow students to download professors’ podcasts, create weekly calendars in electronic formats, and schedule study group meetings via text messaging. Some college students with LD and ADHD also use assistive technology (AT) to access learning. AT has been defined as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (http://www.section508.gov/docs/AT1998.html, n.d.). Common examples of assistive technologies include audio books, screen readers (i.e., voice output systems that read back text displayed on the computer screen), and speech recognition systems (i.e., systems that allow the user to operate the computer by speaking to it) (Day & Edwards, 1996).

What learning technologies are required or available to meet a student’s authentic learning needs? Consideration of this question shifts the implementation of the LiTMS model from Component 3 (preferences) to Component 4 (learning technologies). The service provider introduces Inspiration® software at this stage to explore its potential for addressing some of Susan’s authentic learning needs. While demonstrating relevant features of the software, the service provider also asks Susan how she remembers new steps or procedures when working by herself. Susan quickly reaches into her backpack and retrieves a sleek red cell phone. Smiling, she confidently announces that she “never leaves home without it.” In consideration of Susan’s preferences and the various types of learning technologies that might address her authentic learning needs, the disability service provider demonstrates Principle 2 (Flexibility in use) in finalizing a plan for demonstrating new strategies. Susan’s cell phone will take on the function of a memory prompt, allowing Susan to tap into her preferences and building on Principle 4 (Perceptible Information).

Component 5: Individualized Strategies for Learning Technology ProficiencyWhen developing new academic strategies, students with LD and/or ADHD have demonstrated deficits in the ability to

self-regulate their attention to task (Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, 2003). Given the importance of self-regulation skills in digital learning environments, service providers can help students develop individualized procedural and metacognitive strategies for using technologies to address their authentic learning needs. Procedural strategies are adapted from the concept of “procedural scaffolding” (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999) and can be thought of as the steps one uses to complete a process or activity. The service provider proceeds to model and then have Susan practice steps for creating a map with Inspiration® software and inserting review questions into the map with the software’s “post-it” note feature. Once Susan demonstrates some proficiency with this new learning technology, the service provider might address UDI Principle 6 (Minimizing physical effort) by asking her, “Can your cell phone remind you later of the steps you follow to use Inspiration®?” To ensure equitable use and accessibility to this information (Principle 1), the service provider helps Susan record and save a brief version of the steps in her cell phone’s List file. They also send a copy of the list to Susan’s e-mail account so that she has access to another version of these self-guiding directions.

Metacognitive strategies can be thought of as the underlying process for planning and monitoring the effectiveness of one’s use of procedural and other cognitive strategies. Metacognitive strategies allow learners to identify what they want to know, reflect upon their learning style to choose effective approaches to new learning activities, monitor whether those approaches are working, and redirect their behavior when new learning approaches are needed (Hannafin et al., 1999). For a series of steps on how to provide instruction in learning strategies, see Beckman (2002). With direct instruction or modeling, students can adopt a problem-based approach to applying the new technology in a self-determined manner that addresses their authentic learning need (Knowles, 1990).

Discussion

Increasingly, college students like Susan are expected to be proficient in the use of “mainstream” technologies or already use personal technologies that hold the promise of helping them learn more efficiently. While they may be eligible for assistive technology such as audio books, students may be able to derive greater benefit from these access tools with the development of personalized procedural and metacognitive strategies. Many colleges and universities are now moving beyond the legal compliance model of disability access to a support model by offering strategy instruction to promote greater independence and learning self-efficacy (Harding, Blaine, Whelley, & Chang, n.d). The LiTMS model can be applied in the numerous OSD offices that currently offer these services or strategically plan to do so in the future. In this way, the model extends the literature on Universal Design by providing a piloted framework that disability service providers can use in their own work with students including examples of the nine Principles of Universal Design for Instruction©.

In addition to OSD settings, the LiTMS model can be adapted by a range of student services professionals. Writing Centers and Academic Skills Centers are two examples of offices that routinely provide individualized assistance to any student taking courses at that institution. Staff members are often trained in facilitation and instructional methods and help students enhance their writing or study skills while working on current course assignments. College technology labs and libraries also provide individualized assistance involving technologies such as Internet search engines, course web sites, and PowerPoint software to a wide variety of students who request assistance with research and presentations. Disability service providers can play an important new consulting role by helping campus colleagues learn about and adapt the LiTMS model, beginning with an understanding of the nine Principles of Universal Design for Instruction©. Such collaborations hold the promise of widening institutional access in and out of the classroom.

With consideration of the OSD program evaluation literature (Casey, 2006; Goodin, Parker, Shaw, & McGuire, 2004), the LiTMS model provides a new opportunity to extend the research base on efficacious support services. The model was developed and piloted at a single research intensive institution with a limited number of students. Replication is warranted, and empirical evidence of “best practices” relating to service delivery models such as LiTMS holds promise for

postsecondary personnel who increasingly are called upon to develop and evaluate universal approaches to accessible education that involve the use of learning technologies.

References

Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the University States, 2005. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degrees.pdf

Banerjee, M., & Parker, D.R. (2005). The Learning Strategies Management System (LiTMS) Model. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Beckman, P. (2002). Strategy instruction. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/de/99.pdf

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school committee on developments in the science of learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Casey, D. (2006, December). Don’t let fear of assessment stymie DS office improvements. Disability Compliance for Higher Education. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Universal design history. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udhistory.htm

Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, October, pp. 3-6.

Day, S.L., & Edwards, B.J. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 486-492.

Finnis, J. (2004). Myths and facts of learning technology. TechLEARNING. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22101447

Freshmen arrive bearing gadgets and great expectations. (2006, September 22). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A30.

Goodin, S.G., Parker, D.R., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J.M. (2004). Program evaluation of postsecondary student services: From theory to practice. Waltham, MA: Association on Higher Education and Disability.

Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. Reigluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (pp. 118-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Harding, T., Blaine, D.D., Whelley, T., & Chang, C. (n.d.). A comparison of the provision of educational supports to students with disabilities in AHEAD versus non-AHEAD affiliated institutions. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from University of Hawaii, National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports Center on Disability Studies web site: http://www.rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase2/pdf/021d(2)-H01.pdf

Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.Marino, M., Marino, E.C., & Shaw, S.F. (2006). Making informed assistive technology decisions for students with high

incidence disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(6), 18-25.National Council on Disability. (2000). Transition and postsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the

gap to postsecondary education and employment. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/transition_11-01-00.htm

Parker, D.R., & Banerjee, M. (2007). Leveling the digital playing field: Assessing the learning technology needs of college-bound students with LD and/or ADHD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 5-14.

Ruban, L.M., McCoach, D.B., McGuire, J.M., & Reis, S.M. (2003). The differential impact of academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among University students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 270-289.

Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M., & Foley, T.E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(1), 2003.

Scott, S.S, McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2008). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational outlook handbook, 2008-09 Edition. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm

About the Authors

David R. Parker received his B.S. in Special Education and an M.S. in Counseling from Indiana University and his Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. His experience includes LD strategy instruction, ADHD coaching, and program administration at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Connecticut and management of a National Science Foundation grant at Washington University in St. Louis. His research interests include executive function (ADD) coaching and self-determination, non-faculty applications of Universal Design for Instruction, and technology-infused strategy instruction. He can be reached at [email protected].

Cheri E. White received her B.A. in communication studies from Marylhurst University and her M.A. in special education from the University of Connecticut. Her experience includes working as a disability service coordinator and a learning specialist. Her research interests include technology, learning strategies and coaching. She is currently the Assistant Director of Learning Support Services at Linfield College. She can be reached at [email protected].

Joan M. McGuire received her B.A. degree in Humanistic Studies from St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN and Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut where she is Professor Emerita of Special Education and Associate Director of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability. She was the 2005 recipient of the AHEAD Communication Award, and the 2009 recipient of the Oliver P. Kolstoe Award from the Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Career Development and Transition. She has more than 80 published refereed journal articles and with her colleagues has generated more than $5 million in federal and state grants including $3 million for universally designed instructional strategies for college teaching. Her research interests include Universal Design for Instruction (UDI); postsecondary disability program development, administration, and evaluation; adults with learning disabilities; and independent program evaluation including impact analysis.

Laura Collins is a Learning Disability Specialist at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. She received her M.A. in Special Education at the University of Connecticut. Her experience includes working as a Disability Coordinator at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and York University in Toronto. Her areas of interest include teaching learning strategies to postsecondary students with learning disabilities and AD/HD. She can be reached at [email protected].

Manju Banerjee received her M.A. degree in special education from Pennsylvania State University and her Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. Her experiences include working as a vocational rehabilitation counselor, disability service provider, research and disability consultant, and a faculty member. She is currently Associate Director of the Center for Students with Disabilities and Associate Research Scholar for the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests include learning technology and universal design, transition to high school, disability documentation, and high-stakes testing. She can be reached at [email protected].

Book Review

Rebecca Daly CoferTexas Tech University

Academic Counselor - Student Disability Services

Paul Wehman, Marcia Datlow Smith, & Carol Schall. (2009). Autism & the Transition to Adulthood: Success Beyond the Classroom. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing, 285 pp., $34.95.

As Paul Wehman, Marcia Smith, and Carol Schall’s text argues, autism is a fairly new and very much undiscovered disability. The amount of research and materials devoted to this particular disability has increased in recent years, as the number of people diagnosed with this disability has also seemed to increase recently. The preface to this text states in its first sentence, “There has been an explosion of new information about autism in American society since the 1990s, perhaps… as the media begins to provide dramatically increased coverage on the issues and challenges” (P. xiii). Whether this is because of more media focus on autism or because of a real increase in the frequency of those with autism, the need for information is definitely real and true. Autism and the Transition to Adulthood, while it admits throughout its pages that the disease is still a mystery in many ways, attempts to educate the lay person on autism and how it affects all aspects of a student’s life, including postsecondary options for these individuals.

Wehman, Smith, and Schall’s book uses examples of three individuals with varying degrees of autism spectrum disorders to explain many aspects of the life of a student with autism. While they also provide basic and visual information, each piece of information is supported by a follow-up example from the lives of Jeff, Maria, and Craig, three young people with autism. Having been someone who struggles with the definition of autism and its effects on higher education, I especially appreciated the introductory chapter about the characteristics of autism and how they affect the individual. In addition, the editors, who write some of the chapters themselves, compiled sections devoted to autism in higher education, which proved incredibly helpful to me, a beginner in the field of autism and Disability Services as a whole.

In their chapter titled “Postsecondary Options for Students with Autism”, Lori Briel and Elizabeth Getzel take the reader through the process of choosing a school for the student with autism and how this will change from secondary education. They even discuss the changing role of the family, which shows that this book is not only useful for the Disability Services professional, but also for the family members of the student with autism. Much of this book, in general, focuses on allowing the individual with autism and the family members to become prepared about what to expect from various situations, like higher education. Even though I did see that the authors lean more towards the student attending a two-year college than a four-year college, I do understand the reasoning behind this and also found the information useful and new to me. Included in Briel and Getzel’s specific chapter is an example of an assessment form for services through one disability office in higher education. These authors want to make family members involved and prepared for the changes that may occur. Speaking about this preparation for change, the authors write, “It is important that students with autism and their families work together to better understand these differences and to begin shifting the responsibility of … the student’s education more to the student before entering college” (p. 203). The chapter goes so far as to provide a list of questions for both the student and the family to consider when discussing, for example, a foreign language requirement within a college. The strength in this book, and in this chapter as well, lies in its details about higher education and what to expect. The editors clearly believe, and rightly so, that one of the key elements to transitioning to higher education for the student with autism is the abundance of preparatory knowledge about the transition that will soon take place in the life of the student.

Although I did find particular chapters, like the one discussed above, very helpful and informative for the Disability Services professional, there also seems to be some repetition of information in this book and some very obvious general information. For instance, during an earlier chapter about integrated employment for the student with autism, the authors of the chapter comment that for a student with limited or no verbal skills, more support will need to be provided. Certain points

throughout the text, I found such obvious statements being reiterated over and over again. I do understand that much of the knowledge about autism is still speculative and maybe even undiscovered, but the repeated obvious information became a bit frustrating at times.

As stated before, chapters in the text cover employment options beyond college for the individual with autism. For employment to occur, many times a job coach is required. However, I was not sure how useful this information is, generally, for people with autism. Autism and the Transition to Adulthood may take a somewhat biased approach to helping the student with autism that has the financial means to hire such resources as a job or life coach. The reader may question if the tools that the text suggests are possible for all students with autism. After all, Targett and Wehman state about the level of support for these individuals in the work environment, “Most workers with autism will need some type of job coaching or assistance on the job, even if it is only on an occasional basis” (p. 183).

In the final paragraph of Autism and the Transition to Adulthood, the editors sum up the entire book in one sentence. Wehman, Smith, and Schall write, “In conclusion, the future is brighter than ever but the challenges are also greater than ever” (p. 252). In the same way, the benefits of this book are great in its basic knowledge of autism, but due to the age of this disorder, the questions about autism that this book presents are equally as large. Overall, I feel this book gives a good base knowledge, but it can be too basic at points. If nothing else, this text has provoked me to seek out even more books about autism so I can begin to answer the many questions I have. After the final paragraph, the book then goes on to provide its readers with a reference guide for resources across the country. Autism and the Transition to Adulthood has noble goals in its writing, but still leaves the reader with many questions and a very basic knowledge of autism.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityAuthor Guidelines

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes submissions of innovative and scholarly manuscripts relevant to the issues and practices of educating students with disabilities in postsecondary educational programs. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically via e-mail to [email protected]

Guidelines for authors:

ContentManuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:

• Research: Reports original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method 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.

FormatAll manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication Manual (6th ed.), American Psychological Association, 2010. For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style, consult the APA web site at http://www.apastyle.org/faqs.html

• Manuscript length typically ranges between 25 and 35 pages including figures, tables, and references. Exceptions may be made depending upon topic and content.

• Write sentences using active voice.• Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second (see pages 72-73 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. • Include an abstract that does not exceed 250 words. Abstracts must be double spaced on a separate page, or placed in an e-mail

request.• Provide a cover letter asking that the manuscript be reviewed for publication consideration and that it has not been published

or is being reviewed for publication elsewhere. Tables and figures must conform to APA standards, and must be in black and white only. All tables and figures should be vertical

and fit on the page, no landscape format.

Manuscripts must be submitted as e-mail attachments in either Microsoft Word or .RTF format to [email protected]

Upon acceptance for publicationFor manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the Executive Editor:

• An electronic copy of the final manuscript as an e-mail attachment.• A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author.• A signed and completed Copyright Transfer form.

Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The JPED reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of changes.

Practice Brief Manuscripts

JPED will devote a few pages of general issues to a Practice Brief Section to expand the pool of innovative ideas. Practice Briefs will consist of practical strategies and programs used to support postsecondary students with disabilities. The body of the Practice Brief papers will be four pages long (excluding title page, abstract, reference page, Tables, and Figures). The Practice Briefs will not replace the regular research-based JPED papers. They will provide an opportunity for Postsecondary Disability Service staff to share their best practices. To write a Practice Brief for publication consideration, use the following to develop the paper:

• Title page• Abstract (no more than 60 words)• Literature Review (no more than two paragraphs, cite references using APA 5th edition style)• Problem (one paragraph) • Students and Location Information• Strategy• Observed Outcomes• Implications• References• Tables and Figures (if needed)

If any questions, contact the JPED Editor James Martin at 405-325-8951 or e-mail to: [email protected]

Send your finished papers via e-mail to: [email protected] for publication consideration. Each Practice Brief will be sent to three postsecondary disability direct service staff for review.

22... · Web viewMs. Vincent was the mother of two sons with Asperger’s. Her older son was...

Documents

Transcript of 22... · Web viewMs. Vincent was the mother of two sons with Asperger’s. Her older son was...