Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityVolume 17, Number 2Spring 2004From the Editors........................................................................................................................................ 79 - 80Trying to Do the Right Thing: Faculty Attitudes Toward Accommodating Students with Learning Disabilities*................................................................................................................................ 81 - 90Jane McEldowney JensenNancye McCrary Kristina KrampeJustin Cooper

College Students with Learning Disabilities Speak Out:What It Takes to Be Successful in Postsecondary Education*...........................................................91 - 104Michael E. Skinner

Structural Validity of the WAIS-III Among Postsecondary Students.................................................105 - 113Marley W. WatkinsJames M. KuterbachRebecca J. MorganJulie L. FitzGeraldRachel M. NeuhardApril G. ArthurLeah B. Bucknavage

Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education I: Disability Service Providers’ Perspective* ....................................................................114 - 133Catherine S. FichtenJennison V. AsuncionMaria BarileMyrtis E. FosseyChantal RobillardDarlene JuddJoan WolforthJoanne SenécalChristian GénéreuxJean-Pierre GuimontDaniel LambJean-Charles Juhel

Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education II: Practical Recommendations for Disability Service Providers* ........................................................134 - 137Catherine S. FichtenMaria BarileMyrtis E. FosseyChantal Robillard

Book Review Column: Faculty Disability Services Handbook.........................................................138 – 140Elaine ManglitzDonna McCarty

*Indicates article accepted for publication by previous editor.

Editors

Nicole S. Ofiesh, The University of Arizona and James K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State

University

Associate EditorsManju Banerjee, Acton, MassachusettsElizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityElaine Manglitz, Clayton College & State University

Editorial AssistantsAnne Dudley, University of ArizonaDevender Banda, The Pennsylvania State University

Editorial Review Board

Ron Blosser, Green River Community CollegeLoring Brinckerhoff, Educational Testing ServiceLyman Dukes III, University of South FloridaCatherine Fichten, Dawson CollegeElizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth UniversitySam Goodin, University of MichiganK. Noel Gregg, University of GeorgiaRichard Harris, Ball State UniversityCheri Hoy, University of GeorgiaCharles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State UniversityKristina Krampe, University of KentuckyScott Lissner, The Ohio State UniversityJoseph Madaus, University of ConnecticutLes McAllan, University of ArizonaJoan M. McGuire, University of ConnecticutDavid McNaughton, The Pennsylvania State UniversityDaryl Mellard, University of KansasWard NewmeyerDavid Parker, University of ConnecticutBetty Preus, College of St. ScholasticaLinda Price, Temple UniversityFrank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCharles Salzberg, Utah State UniversityStuart Segal, University of MichiganJudy Smithson, Illinois State University, EmeritusSharon K. Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School DistrictDaniel Ryan, University of BuffaloMary Catherine Scheeler, The Pennsylvania State University, Great ValleySally S. Scott, University of ConnecticutStan Shaw, University of ConnecticutMarc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Grady Landrum, President Wichita State UniversityRandy Borst, Immediate Past President and Acting Secretary University at Buffalo, SUNYJim Kessler, President-Elect University of North Carolina - Chapel HillCarol Funckes, Treasurer University of ArizonaStephan Smith, Executive Director AHEADJoanie Friend, Director of Communication Metropolitan Community CollegesMike Shuttic, Director of Membership Oklahoma State UniversityVirginia Grubaugh, Director of Professional Development University of MichiganLinda Walter, Director of Marketing Seton Hall UniversityRuth Warick, Director of Constituent Relations – International University of British ColumbiaJean Ashmore, Director of Constituent Relations – US Rice University

Journal of Postsecondary Education and DisabilityAuthor Guidelines

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability welcomes manuscript submissions that are of an innovative nature and relevant to the theory and practice of providing postsecondary support services to students with disabilities. Guidelines for authors are as follows:ContentManuscripts should demonstrate scholarly excellence in at least one of the following categories:• Research: Reports original quantitative or qualitative research; • Integration: Integrates research of others in a meaningful way; compares or contrasts

theories; critiques results; and/or provides context for future exploration. • Innovation: Proposes innovation of theory, approach, or process of service delivery based on

reviews of the literature and research.• Policy Analysis: Provides analysis, critique and implications of public policy, statutes,

regulation, and litigation.

FormatAll manuscripts must be prepared according to APA format as described in The Publication

Manual (5th ed.), American Psychological Association, 2001. *• Manuscripts should not exceed 20-25 typewritten pages. • Authors should use terminology that emphasizes the individual first and the disability second

(see pages 63-65 of APA Manual). Authors should also avoid the use of sexist language and the generic masculine pronoun.

• Manuscripts should have a title page that provides the names and affiliations of all authors and the address of the principal author. (Authors should refrain from entering their names on pages of the manuscript.)

• An abstract of 100-150 words should accompany all manuscripts. Abstracts must be typed and double-spaced on a separate sheet of paper.

• An original and four (4) hard copies of the manuscript should be furnished. • An electronic copy of the manuscript should be provided on disk with platform and software

clearly labeled. (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) • Authors should request upon submission of manuscript if editorial communication will be

needed in accessible format (e.g. electronic copy).• A cover letter should indicate whether or not the manuscript has been published or submitted

elsewhere for consideration of publication.*For information on changes in the fifth edition, see www.apastyle.org/fifthchanges.html. For responses to frequently asked questions about APA style , consult the APA web site at www.apastyle.org/faqs.html.

Special Issue GuidelinesGuidelines for authors who want to propose special issues can be found on the AHEAD website

at www.ahead.org

Please note:• Do not send original artwork during the manuscript review process; it will be requested upon

article acceptance. • Authors will be notified by mail upon receipt of their manuscript.

Mailing addressManuscripts should be submitted directly to the editors at either of the following addresses:Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.D.University of ArizonaCollege of EducationDepartment of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School PsychologyRoom 435bTucson, AZ 85721

James K. McAfee, Ph.D.The Pennsylvania State UniversityCollege of EducationEducational Psychology, School Psychology, and Special Education227 CEDARUniversity Park, PA 16802Upon acceptance for publicationFor manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the following items must be provided to the

editor:• An electronic copy of the final manuscript on a 3.5" disk (PC, Microsoft Word preferred) with

word processing software and level of computer system clearly defined. • A hard copy of the final manuscript. • A signed and completed Copyright Transfer form. • A 40-50 word bibliographic description for each author.Manuscript submissions by AHEAD members are especially welcome. The Journal reserves the right to edit all material for space and style. Authors will be notified of changes.

Welcome to the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Nicole Ofiesh & James McAfee

With this, the spring 2004 issue, we mark our first production as the new editors of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED). We are pleased and excited to engage in this endeavor and would like to share with you our backgrounds, ideas for the JPED, and our commitment to the Journal’s authors and readers.

Who We Are

Nicole Ofiesh is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona with expertise in secondary and postsecondary students with learning disabilities. She earned her Ph.D. from Penn State in 1997 with an emphasis on students with disabilities in higher education. Formerly, Nicole has worked as a special education teacher and as a learning disabilities specialist at both a four-year university and community college. She consults nationally on issues related to testing and persons with disabilities.

Jim McAfee is Associate Professor at Penn State. He earned his Ph.D. from Georgia State University in 1980. His major areas of interest are transition and disability law. Jim is an Appellate Officer for the due process system in Pennsylvania and is a former school principal, superintendent and dean of academic affairs.

We bring a range of editorial experiences to our roles and have served for several years as editorial board members for the JPED. Through our editorial experiences, we have come to the shared belief that the strength of a journal lies in the dialogue it evokes. We are pleased to be able to represent divergent viewpoints of a scholarly nature on issues related to postsecondary education and disability.

Piloting a Steady Course

We have met regularly since we accepted the reins of the Journal in September 2003 and have developed plans to continue the growth of the Journal initiated under our able predecessors, most recently, Dr. Sally Scott. We have opted to maintain the current editorial structure of the Journal, with three Associate Editors, who oversee book reviews, Dr. Elaine Manglitz; provide support for new authors, Ms. Manju Banerjee; and maintain outreach, Ms. Liz Getzel. We have added two editorial assistants, Ms. Anne Dudley and Mr. Devender Banda.

In this issue, you will find the names of several new members of the Editorial Board. We welcome these individuals and the expertise they bring to the field of postsecondary education and disability. We have made some changes to the author guidelines including the development of guidelines for authors who wish to propose special topical issues. If you visit the JPED website you will find a link to these guidelines as well as a link for new authors which provides additional information about the editorial process and writing according to APA guidelines.

Our Commitment

We promise to foster a professional relationship with the authors and readers of the JPED with respect to a timely turnaround for the processing of manuscripts, expedient processing of manuscripts in alternative formats, renewed dedication to expanding the readership of the JPED, ongoing support to new authors, and a venue that supports open dialogue with objectivity.

Our first Issue

The contents of this issue represent a range of topics from technology to assessment. In the first article Jensen, McCrary, Krampe, and Cooper provide an intensive view of faculty attitudes toward students with learning disabilities. Unlike the many survey studies conducted on this topic, Jensen, et al were able to delve more deeply into the motivations behind attitudes and provide us

with a more complete view of perceived faculty dilemmas and misunderstandings about a disability subject to many preconceived notions. Skinner then provides a complement to the Jensen article with the view from the students’ vantage point. Together, the first two articles provide some grist for a dialogue about what it means to provide an appropriate experience to students with learning disabilities on a college campus. In a unique study, Watkins, Kuterbach, Morgan, Fitzgerald, Neuhard, Arthur, and Bucknavage offer an empirical, specific and useful analysis of one of the most frequently used psychometric instruments- the WAIS-III. As disability service providers seek to buttress practice with empirical support, professional publications have an obligation to solicit and support investigations of practices that may be based more on tradition or theory than data. The Watkins, et al article furnishes a data-based foundation for the continued use of the instrument as a diagnostic and identification tool. Finally, this issue contains a pair of related articles about technology access on college campuses produced by multi-agency research teams in Canada. In the first article, the authors examined the state of access to technology in the Canadian postsecondary educational system. This investigation resulted in identification of a set of three major needs. The needs identified in the first article are translated by a second team into a set of practical recommendations for disability service providers.

We are excited by the content of our first issue and we are already well on our way to creating our second and third issues fueled by a substantial increase in high quality submissions and a call for focused topical issues. Please feel free to contact either of us to provide feedback and suggestions.

Trying to Do the Right Thing: Faculty Attitudes Toward Accommodating Students with Learning Disabilities

Jane McEldowney JensenNancye McCrary Kristina KrampeUniversity of Kentucky

Justin CooperEastern Kentucky University

Abstract

The following study explores faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities at a large research university. In the first phase of a three-year demonstration project, 14 instructional staff, including teaching assistants, faculty, and faculty serving as administrators, were interviewed to determine their informational needs and attitudes toward students with disabilities. Analysis of these narrative interviews reveals that the participants viewed learning disabilities differently from other disabilities and had questions regarding providing classroom accommodations for students with learning disabilities. This uncertainty stems from preexisting attitudes toward students in general, principles of academic freedom, and questions of the legitimacy of learning disability diagnosis. Recommendations for open discussion of faculty and student responsibilities toward teaching and learning on campus are discussed.

This article explores the relationships between instructional staff and students with learning disabilities and highlights the power of preexisting attitudes to color perceptions of present events (Polkinghorne, 1988). Previous survey research of faculty attitudes toward accommodations for college students with disabilities has demonstrated that, despite limited experience with individuals with disabilities and limited knowledge of disability legislation, most faculty express a willingness to make classroom accommodations and consider teaching adaptations (Leyser,

Vogel, & Wyland, 1998). Our research further explores faculty attitudes through narrative interviews.

Background of the Study

This research was part of the development phase of a three-year demonstration project addressing the post-secondary institutional environment for students with disabilities (Krampe & Berdine, in press). A central goal of this phase of the project was to clarify campus policies and procedures regarding students with disabilities and to determine points of conflict and informational needs relative to students with disabilities that might be addressed in a web-based resource that was the end product of the demonstration.1 Focused interviews were conducted to examine the attitudes and informational needs of university administration, instructional staff, and support personnel. In this article, we focus on the interviews conducted with instructional staff and their perceptions of students with learning disabilities.

The instructional staff who participated in the interview study are not necessarily representative of the faculty as a whole. Because participants were recruited for their knowledge of the campus, its policies, and its students, they represent those instructors most likely to be aware of the legal requirements of reasonable accommodation and most likely to have positive attitudes toward improvements in undergraduate education. It is all the more interesting, therefore, that our interview data revealed that these instructors viewed learning disabilities differently from other disabilities and had questions regarding providing classroom accommodations for students with learning disabilities.

Related Literature

According to Tinto (1993), an integral part of student persistence is the ability of the student to develop meaningful relationships in the college community. One important aspect of the relationship that must be cultivated is the student-faculty relationship (Astin, 1993). However, for various reasons, including the lack of communication described below, students in general often fail to develop these integral relationships with faculty members (Graff, 1999). Students with learning disabilities are even less likely than their nondisabled peers to develop meaningful relationships with faculty members (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000; Fichten & Goodrick, 1990).

Although research has shown that most faculty members are willing to provide accommodations for students with learning disabilities (Leyser et al., 1998; Scott, 1994), it has also been demonstrated that faculty members struggle with ethical concerns regarding the effects of those accommodations on the academic integrity of individual courses, overall programs, and the institution as a whole (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000). Our research confirms Bourke and Strehorn’s explanation that numerous factors such as faculty belief in the efficacy of accommodations, ease of implementation, and type of accommodation affect the way faculty members feel about providing accommodations. Research by Fichten and Goodrick (1990) indicates that professors prefer students who approach them and initiate dialogue; however, Norton (1997) found that students were not comfortable approaching faculty members to request accommodations. Furthermore, research has shown that students with disabilities are less likely than their peers without disabilities to seek out help from professors or other sources when special considerations may be needed (Fichten & Goodrick, 1990). In their study, Fichten and Goodrick found that students frequently would only approach professors for assistance as a last resort.

Students with learning disabilities benefit from interaction with faculty members (Fichten & Goodrick, 1990). This benefit is not restricted to students with learning disabilities, however, as previous studies have confirmed that students in general who interact with and work closely with faculty experience positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1993). What is significant is the way in which the special needs of students with disabilities—accommodations such as extended test times and substitutions for particular coursework—challenge previously held beliefs of faculty and instructional staff regarding the academic integrity of their work. That challenge arises in ways that cannot be captured in abstract discussions of teaching and learning.

The challenges of serving college students with disabilities are likely to increase in the future. Specifically, students with learning disabilities are already a rapidly growing population on the college campus. In 1999, the National Center for Educational Statistics released a comprehensive report profiling students with disabilities in postsecondary educational settings (Horn & Berktold, 1999). At that time, approximately 6% of the undergraduate college student population were estimated to have a disability. Roughly 29% of students with disabilities were diagnosed as having learning disabilities. The population of students with learning disabilities is increasing on college campuses due to increased societal influences on postsecondary education. First, federal legislation, such as ADA and the reauthorization of IDEA, places a greater emphasis on the possibility that students with disabilities can attend and succeed in college. Second, the number of students with mild disabilities (e.g., LD, ADHD) has grown in the K-12 setting, which translates to larger numbers enrolling in postsecondary schools. Finally, advances in medicine mean that we have more individuals with disabilities at all age levels.

Although the numbers of students with learning disabilities enrolling nationally in postsecondary settings are encouraging, the rates of persistence are not. Overall persistence rates (i.e., still in college or graduated after five years) for students with learning disabilities were 52% compared to 64% for nondisabled students. Further, only 36% of students with learning disabilities received a degree within five years in contrast to 50% of nondisabled students (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). These rates of persistence indicated that students with learning disabilities are not experiencing the same rates of academic success as their nondisabled peers. This discrepancy was the impetus for the federal funding of demonstration projects to improve the quality of postsecondary education for students with disabilities—funding that supported this project.

Method

The goal of our interview study was to identify points of conflict on campus and to delineate areas of information needed to improve the quality of education for students with disabilities at a comprehensive research university. The results of this inquiry were used in the knowledge base development phase of the project (Krampe & Berdine, in press). This phase included quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection consisting of a university-wide survey distributed on-line and focused interviews with administrators, instructional staff, and students. Fifty-two individuals participated in individual interviews. The participants included academic administrators, auxiliary service administrators, instructors, and students with disabilities. An advisory committee made up of administrators and students with disabilities was consulted at each stage of the project.

This article focuses on the interviews conducted with instructional staff including faculty, administrators who currently teach undergraduates and a group interview with three teaching assistants.2

Selection of ParticipantsUsing purposive sampling, interview participants were recruited for their experience

teaching on the campus under study and their expressed interest in undergraduate education.3 The research team attempted to achieve representation from across the core curriculum of undergraduate education, including four of the six undergraduate colleges. Members of the project advisory committee were asked to recommend instructors with experience teaching undergraduate core courses (courses that most first- and second-year students would be likely to take to meet baccalaureate requirements) and who had an interest in serving students. It was understood that these criteria would naturally result in participants who were more aware of campus policies and issues of undergraduate education than the average faculty member. These instructors were then contacted with a request to participate. If they were not able to participate, we asked for further referrals and those individuals were contacted.

The resulting group of participants included at least one representative from the faculty of the colleges of education, engineering, and communication and at least one member of the faculty from the departments of psychology, political science, and history in the college of arts and

sciences. In addition, the group included three teaching assistants from the department of English with at least two years of undergraduate teaching experience. Of the participating faculty, four were serving as academic administrators at the time of the interview. Once interview participants had been selected, the advisory committee was again consulted to ensure their satisfaction that the pool of participants was broad enough to offer rich responses relative to perceptions of students with disabilities.

Data CollectionThe interviews were loosely structured around a set of grand tour questions. Spradley (1979)

defines grand tour questions as those intended to focus participants on a particular topic without restricting their interpretation of that topic or its scope. Our interview questions included the following:1. What memorable experiences have you had with students with disabilities?2. What is your understanding of the term disability?3. What information would be helpful to you in accommodating students with disabilities in your

job?4. What types of questions related to educating students with disabilities have you been asked

by others?As participants responded to these questions, they were questioned further and asked to

elaborate on their comments. Thus, each interview unfolded as a narrative derived from the participant’s personal experiences and perspective. The interviews were audio taped and transcribed.

AnalysisThe interview transcripts were analyzed through a process of open and focused coding from

multiple independent readings of the transcripts by four members of the research team (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Each transcript was read independently and coded openly, creating a rudimentary scheme of codes. The team then met and constructed a focused scheme that included all the insights of the first reading. Each transcript was reread at least once using the focused codes to identify rich case examples for reporting (Glesne, 1999). The process of multiple readings with multiple readers increases the credibility of our analysis by allowing for triangulation of our analytic readings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results: “Doing the Right Thing”

Several strong themes emerged from the analysis. Overall, comments by the instructors centered on their desire to do the right thing, meaning that they were willing to make classroom accommodations and felt a duty to do so. Participants were generally aware of campus procedures regarding certification of disability by the disability resource office and of their legal obligations to provide reasonable accommodation. At the same time, there was distinct overriding concern to protect academic integrity. Particularly when discussing learning disabilities, participants’ comments reflected a deep mistrust of how learning disabilities are assessed and how far faculty and instructional staff should be expected to go to accommodate students with learning disabilities. This grudging acceptance of students with learning disabilities was further complicated by comments indicating a general distrust of all student motives, making it unclear at times whether respondents were describing students with disabilities or students in general. There seemed to be an attitude that students habitually try to cheat the system and get through college without really doing what is expected.

Faculty in the study regularly distinguished their comments about the logistics of accommodating students with physical or sensory disabilities from their uncertainty about providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Despite official letters of accommodation from the Disability Resource Center on campus, disabilities that are not visible, such as learning disabilities, were difficult for the faculty in our study to recognize and their comments reflected that ambiguity. One administrator complained that it was difficult to engage teaching assistants in a dialogue about working with students with disabilities because, “They don’t think they’re going to have them in their classes; they never noticed students with

disabilities when they were in college and can’t imagine working with them now.” Furthermore, learning disabilities often incorporate subtle markers such as language or social behaviors that can be misread as having other causes, including a lack of academic preparation or lack of organizational skills. For this reason, the faculty often could not distinguish between students with learning disabilities and unprepared students.

Sources of conflict for the participants in our study with regard to interpreting reasonable accommodation for students with learning disabilities were preexisting attitudes toward students in general, principles of academic freedom in the classroom, and questions about the legitimacy of diagnosing learning disabilities. The following sections highlight the key questions held by the instructional staff: How do I do the right thing? How do I know “hidden” disabilities are legitimate? And, How do I know they’re not just trying to “beat the system”?

How Do I Do the Right Thing?When defining the term “disability,” most of the respondents referred to the need for

accommodation. Most of the faculty and instructors in the study indicated that they wanted to meet their responsibilities as teachers, but were unclear as to what “reasonable accommodation” means in the college classroom. “Issues of reasonable accommodation hit some faculty as just a broadside whack,” one senior faculty member explained. The issue of accommodation for students with learning disabilities included more than providing an equal opportunity to students with special needs; for many faculty members, it became an issue of fairness for all. Not only do accommodations take time on the part of the instructor, but there was also a sense of injustice. “… It’s unfair to give accommodations to some and not others,” one instructor explained.

Implied in the attitude of “doing the right thing” is the student’s responsibility for his or her learning, including knowing how to ask for help. For example, one instructor commented on the need to encourage students to identify themselves:

Perhaps we haven’t been as effective in making students feel comfortable identifying the fact that they have a disability. I know there are students who have disabilities who would qualify for some accommodation to be made, but they are reluctant to identify. And maybe there is a place where the university needs to work more in terms of its atmosphere or its making students feel like it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for them to bring this information forward.Certainly, students should feel comfortable asking for accommodations and talking to their

instructors about their needs; however, research on student populations has shown that students in general are often reluctant to talk to instructional staff, and students with disabilities are even less likely to initiate a dialogue with faculty (Bourke & Strehorn, 2000; Fichten & Goodrick, 1990). Thus, the difficulty in communication may run in both directions. Neither faculty nor students are likely to easily begin a dialogue and both expect the other to initiate the conversation.

Responsibility for learning also raises the issue of effective pedagogy. Assuming that a student has taken the responsibility to coordinate the support he or she needs, accommodation further implies that the current methods of instruction are appropriate for all students. The two issues were often intertwined in our interviews; as one social science professor told us:

I want to do this. I want to help. You know … I’ve got 300 people. How do I determine if this person has a disability that I truly should drop everything and accommodate, or whatever?This instructor saw helping as changing the way he would normally teach a very large class in

order to accommodate one student. This required more time on the part of the instructor, time that may be deducted from the attention paid to hundreds of other students. When the rights of a student with disabilities are framed in this reasoning of “fairness,” it becomes easier to see the ambiguity for faculty surrounding accommodation and “doing the right thing”.

How Do I Know “Invisible” Disabilities Are Legitimate?The following comment from one of the administrators echoed the sentiments implied or

stated in many of our interviews:Some of the problems are the diagnostic instruments and the people that are using them and controlling them are not as refined as we need them to be. So there are people who are using learning disabilities as a way of getting their children into better schools

because they have longer time to take exams and make a better score. … So there is a basic distrust that I think … there is a distrust of the secondary school’s data and now there’s a distrust of the data coming in about special needs…The implication that a diagnosis of a learning disability may be false or that students, or their

parents, may be using questionable diagnoses to improve their chances to succeed academically only adds to the ambiguity surrounding the responsibility of the instructor to accommodate students with learning disabilities.

Furthermore, all learning disabilities were not viewed equally. One faculty member explained,The very good examples are a student that is doing extremely well in everything except one area. Let’s say math. He’s got a (3.3) average and he’s taken the math course twice and failed. To me, there’s something wrong. This is a motivated student. And the test scores come back and in this particular case … there’s a legitimate science behind that. We talked about the foreign language learning disability. I think the science behind that becomes much weaker. There is no test that I know of that you can give and know, to validly measure the inability to learn a foreign language.Public awareness of learning disabilities in math and reading made such claims easier to

accept; but, when such diagnoses translate into a difficulty in a subject area like foreign languages or science, our participants suspected the validity of the diagnosis. Participants in the study gave other examples, including cases of students who were able to pass introductory courses but not the subsequent upper-level courses. These examples not only raised questions of the diagnostic process, they also highlighted how attitudes regarding why individuals seek out a diagnosis and under what conditions they ask for accommodation influenced how faculty members view their responsibilities toward helping students.

Another point raised regarding substitutions and accommodations had to do with whether or not students with learning disabilities are able to keep up, despite receiving accommodations. One instructor explained,

I’m letting them have another place to take the exam and a longer period, but still what they are producing, for the most part, is less organized than the students I’ve been giving A’s on or sometimes even B’s on. And I’m finding that some students want to use that learning disability that, “have a right to the B because of my problem.” And yet I say, “Well, we’re giving the longer period of time to take the exam, but I have to grade your exam in relationship to the other students.” Some instructors questioned whether providing accommodations for students with learning

disabilities may, in some ways, mean providing remediation as well. And again, the issue of fairness to all students was a constant concern.

How Do I Know They’re Not Just Trying to “Beat the System”?The instructional staff in our study held deep-seated attitudes about students that not only

influenced the structure of their classes, but also how they perceived and work with students. Our study indicated that faculty concerns regarding students were not limited to students requiring accommodation. When trying to explain their unease with providing alternatives for students with learning disabilities, interview participants shared attitudes they held toward students in general. Conflicts between faculty expectations for students and the reality of student performance became apparent.

Making reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities was complicated by instructors’ beliefs regarding the academic motivation of students in general. Thus, their comments tended to focus on the “fairness” of providing one student with a service or opportunity, but not another. Underlying these comments lay an assumption that students are, on the whole, looking for the easy way out of intellectual work. If this is true, then “fairness” refers to a system to control for cheating or academic “slacking.” In this framework, students with disabilities may be seen as providing excuses rather than evidence and, if all students are seen as generally devious, then all excuses are suspect.

When referring to student behaviors, two opposing stances prevailed in the interview responses: (a) students in general will try to get by with as little effort as possible, and (b) faculty feel burdened by requests for extra work or alterations in their instructional practices. These two

views, while representing conflicts in how instructors and students view the roles of each other, also derived from quite similar attitudes about power relations in postsecondary education.

Although we asked about instructional accommodations, our interview participants responded by verbalizing attitudes about power and responsibility. For instance, the attitude of instructors as “gatekeepers” was often constructed as a responsibility to protect academic integrity. Given all the possible constructions of teaching and learning, we found little deviation in faculty attitudes toward their responsibilities to convey information, measure the extent to which information is remembered, and prevent students from an innate tendency to get by with the least amount of effort.

Discussion: Examining Attitudes

Although instructors at a research university have other responsibilities, most of the participants in our study described themselves as teachers. The role of “teacher,” however, includes a wide range of expectations regarding the responsibility of the instructor in student learning. This responsibility is often narrowly defined as a responsibility to evaluate, often causing tensions when evaluation practices such as testing are altered by accommodation. We do not wish to paint these instructors as “bad” teachers. Rather, our research indicates that faculty attitudes—accurate or not—influence their interactions with students. Making meaning of rapidly changing conditions, in this case increasing numbers of students with disabilities in postsecondary education, is often anchored in preexisting beliefs and attitudes (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996).

Questions of pedagogy are rarely raised in university settings outside of isolated workshops and orientation sessions; most university instructors teach as they were taught and consider these techniques appropriate for “college-level work.” However, since instructors in higher education typically were above-average students in college, the learning strategies and resources they use and have used in the past are probably different from those of their current students (McGrath & Spear, 1991). As a result, expectations faculty members hold for themselves as teachers are likely to fall short of the instructional support that most students need in order to be successful. As one administrator explained:

In some ways it’s [providing accommodations] easy. The technology is out there. The methods of accommodation are fairly straightforward. … So I think that’s one thing that people need to know how. And I think it implies more than just a technical knowledge. They may not know how to communicate with students maybe on a more intimate level. … When you have a student with a disability, I think that sort of forces the issue of learning how to communicate with that person. That’s something that a lot of instructors are not good at.A lack of academic support in the classroom becomes magnified when a student has a

disability that makes traditional or typical classroom practices less effective for successful learning and requires communication between instructor and student to work out better strategies.

For example, instructors’ mental constructions of “typical” college students may exclude the possibility of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with learning difficulties. In such cases, preexisting understandings about who “belongs” in college serve as perceptual screens that can prevent creative approaches to requests for academic accommodations. Even though instructional personnel know that the question of whether to admit a student has already been determined and, in any case, does not fall within their responsibilities, doubt about a student’s suitability to the institution or the course arises all too often when they are faced with students’ requests for accommodations. Thus, beliefs serve as perceptual screens that inhibit ability to imagine new and different possibilities (Wertsch, 1998).

Attitudes have been defined as “predispositions to respond” that “provide direction for subsequent actions” (Simonson & Maushak, 1996, p. 984). Such predisposed responses to requests for instructional accommodations may in fact be a foundation for polarity between students and faculty. For example, if a faculty member views herself as a gatekeeper, upholding academic standards of postsecondary education and preventing unprepared students from

“getting by,” her approach may convey a struggle for power with students rather than an effort to negotiate a reasonable accommodation with those who have legitimate claims.

Attitudes and beliefs as “habits of mind” make it difficult to solve problems in new ways. Thus, as students and faculty make meaning of accommodations in the classroom by associating those events with existing understandings, they build schemas that become dominant mechanisms for restructuring memory and organizing behavior. As a result, recall is often distorted to fit existing schema (Anderson et al., 1996). Providing information through campus orientations or faculty workshops without addressing a priori attitudes about faculty expectations of students in general, and attitudes toward learning disabilities specifically, may not effectively change the dominant mechanisms individuals use for sense making in practice and, therefore, not change the adversarial relationship in the classroom.

Academic Freedom and Learning DisabilitiesThe tension between providing reasonable accommodation and the ambiguities regarding the

responsibilities of teaching and learning are not new. Guckenberger v. Boston University directly addressed the tensions involved in providing accommodations to students with disabilities on two fronts involving academic freedom: (a) the rights of the institution to decide how to recognize a learning disability and (b) the rights of the institution to decide what is a reasonable accommodation (Bors, 1999). In that case, the president of the university publicly aired his skepticism of the diagnosis of learning disabilities, refused to recognize some students as having a disability, and refused to provide the letters of accommodation to others. The court’s decision resulted in perceived victory for both sides. University policy to refuse to offer course substitutions that would alter program requirements for a liberal arts degree was upheld and the plaintiff’s claim that the university did not use appropriate procedures for assessing requests for accommodations was also upheld in the court’s judgment (Bors, 1999).

However, Guckenberger did not delve into epistemological questions regarding the manner in which courses are taught or the pedagogical responsibilities of instructors and students discussed in this article. The principle of academic freedom that protects postsecondary institutions’ rights to control their academic standards was upheld but not complete freedom to refuse students’ requests for accommodation. However, the implication of Guckenberger for faculty-student relationships is important to our thesis. Faculty members have autonomy in the classroom to decide their own standards, and students have the right to demand reasonable accommodation. If communication between the two parties is not well established, it is likely that an adversarial, or at least unproductive, relationship will ensue.

Requests for accommodations such as extra time for testing, taking tests in an environment free from extraneous sound or movement, or extended time to complete assignments raise fundamental epistemological issues for instructional staff. For instance, when a student with a documented disability requests extended time to complete an assignment, the request brings into focus a range of perspectives on how we know and evaluate what is known or understood and who is responsible or accountable for students knowing. While such questions are fundamental in the field of K-12 education, they are rarely raised in most courses of study in the postsecondary arena.

Learning differences in a postsecondary environment, especially in a research university, are overshadowed not only by standardized levels of achievement, but also by standard expectations of “academic” behavior. In this educational environment, crucial epistemological and pedagogical questions are often rhetorical. Such questions rarely lead to further inquiry, instructional adaptations, or changes in the ways information is delivered or learning is evaluated. However, when differences exist and accommodations are mandated, questions regarding how learning occurs and how the acquisition of knowledge is demonstrated or evaluated become active inquiries that have the potential to lead beyond rhetoric. As one participant in our study from the college of engineering explained:

It’s these sorts of problems that challenge us to think out of the box, which is what the field of engineering is all about. The term engineering comes from ingenuity and students with [learning] disabilities challenge us to be more resourceful and creative in how we teach and how we measure academic achievement.

Recommendations

Changing faculty attitudes toward students with learning disabilities should start with open discussion of the responsibilities involved in teaching and learning on the part of both faculty and students. The didactic information that is provided in most faculty orientation sessions regarding legal requirements and processes of accommodation is not enough. Based on our study, it may be beneficial for disability service practitioners to address preconceived notions regarding the different kinds of disabilities faculty may encounter in their classrooms and recognize how those preconceptions are shaped by instructors’ attitudes toward students in general. Although they want to be good teachers, faculty may have doubts about the process of diagnosis and documentation or of their own abilities to meet students’ needs. Recognizing these doubts may be an effective way to engage instructional staff in dialogue.

Instructors need information regarding the process of diagnosis, guidelines for working with students with disabilities, and resources for providing accommodations. However, an open and honest discussion of reasonable expectations for student work in general, relative to instructional staff’s understandings of their role as teachers, is also necessary to clarify what it means to make reasonable accommodations. The principle of universal design may be a useful approach to this discussion. Most people recognize the democratic fairness of universal design in architecture—that widening a doorway, for example, makes it easier for all users to enter and exit. Likewise, universal design in the classroom—clarifying curricular expectations for all students—may improve communication between instructors and their students. Content enhancement routines, for example, such as those developed by the Center for Research on Learning at Kansas University are beneficial for all students, and helpful to students with learning disabilities (for a full list of publications on content enhancement, go to http://www.ku-crl.org/htmlfiles/articles/article-1.html). These kinds of teaching strategies focus on the content to be learned rather competitive measures of achievement, alleviating the tension reasonable accommodations may cause to an instructor’s sense of fairness and academic freedom.

Pedagogical discussions of content enhancement and clear course expectations require collaboration across campus and would require administrative support. Centers for teaching and learning, for example, may be appropriate partners for disability services—a relationship that is often underdeveloped. For example, the formative assessment process required by our project resulted in increased dialogue across campus about serving students with disabilities. Just by setting up the interviews, we were able to raise epistemological and pedagogical questions that stimulated active or goal-oriented discourse across the institution. Going further, as part of the demonstration project, we captured the most salient parts of the interview conversations, which emphasized points of conflict between students with learning disabilities and instructional staff, and presented them as learning activities, embedded with questions and responses, in an on-line learning environment. This learning environment is now being used to a limited degree in instructional orientation sessions and in departmental conversations, but further institutional commitment is necessary to continue use and promote further conversations on campus.

A similar process of examining processes and policies on campus is recommended. This might include meeting with administrators, lead instructors of core classes, and disability support service practitioners to clarify current practices and policies. We were told that often individuals who support students with disabilities and their counterparts in academic affairs rarely meet unless there is a problem to be resolved; therefore, a proactive session to define what is reasonable and what is ideal for students with disabilities can be very beneficial. We also found it beneficial to bring an outside voice to this process as we did with a project manager who was not under the supervision of any of the participating units.

Finally, our inquiry revealed the need for further research into faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities. These attitudes are not formed in isolation; therefore, it is strongly recommended that future inquiry examine instructors’ perspectives on student learning behaviors in general so that the provision of reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities may be understood in that context. A deeper understanding of how instructional staff understand and interpret their responsibility for student learning will inform the ways in which the legal requirements for accommodating students with disabilities may be presented by disability service providers and campus administrators.

ReferencesAstin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational

Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.Bourke, A.B., & Strehorn, K.C. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of instructional

accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 26-32.

Bors, P.L. (1999). Academic freedom faces learning disabilities: Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of College and University Law, 25(3), 581-612.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fichten, C.S., & Goodrick, G. (1990). Getting along in college: Recommendations for college students with disabilities and their professors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34(2), 103-125.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An Introduction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Graff, G. (1999). The academic language gap. Clearing House, 72(3), 140-142.Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in post-secondary education: A profile of

preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Krampe, K. & Berdine, W. (in press). University of Kentucky Engaging Differences Project: Providing information about accommodation online and just in time. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., & Wyland, S. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3).

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications.McGrath, D., & Spear, M.B. (1991). The Academic crisis of the community college. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Murray, C., Goldstein, D. E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school

attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 119-127.

Norton, S.M. (1997). Examination accommodations for community college students with learning disabilities: How are they viewed by faculty and students? Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 21, 51-69.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Scott, S.S. (1994). Determining reasonable academic adjustments for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(7), 403-412.

Simonson, M. and Maushak, N. (1996). (in Jonassen, D.). Instructional technology and attutude change. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Scholastic Press.

Spradley, J.P. (1979). The Ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Notes

1 Procedures for providing reasonable accommodation to students with disabilities on this campus are administered by a Disability Resource Center (DRC). Individuals employed by the university are introduced to policies and legal requirements regarding accommodation during staff orientations. This is true for instructional staff as well; however, students are

ultimately responsible for notifying their instructors of their need for accommodation by providing documentation in the form of a letter from the DRC outlining the type of accommodation they require.

2 Three teaching assistants were interviewed as a group due to scheduling difficulties. The interviewer followed the same protocol as in individual interviews.

3 Purposeful or theoretical sampling refers to a process whereby the researcher determines a sampling criteria based on theory or relevant existing research and then recruits individuals who meet those criteria (Glesne, 1999).

About the Authors

Jane McEldowney Jensen is Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Kentucky. She received her Ph.D. in cultural anthropology and higher education from Indiana University. Her research focuses on educational aspirations and college student success.

Nancye McCrary is Assistant Research Professor and Program Evaluator for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning. Her research interests involve the use of qualitative inquiry, electronic user tracking records, and survey methods to examine the efficacy of aesthetic mediation in instruction.

Justin T. Cooper is Assistant Professor of Learning and Behavioral Disorders in the Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University. His research interests include metacognitive strategy instruction, the academic and social-behavioral success of college students with disabilities, and effective systems of support for persons with disabilities in post-secondary settings.

Kristina M. Krampe is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky. She was the co-principal investigator and project director for the Engaging Differences Project. Currently, she is the co-principal investigator for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning.

College Students with Learning Disabilities Speak Out:What It Takes to Be Successful in Postsecondary Education

Michael E. Skinner, Ph.D.College of Charleston

Abstract

Erin sat in her graduation regalia waiting patiently for her name to be called to receive her long-awaited college diploma. In many ways, the thoughts going through her mind were identical to those of her classmates: excitement, relief, pride, and an eager anticipation of the future. However, Erin was also experiencing many emotions that only her fellow students with learning disabilities could understand. She vividly recalled the frustration she had felt when making the transition from a high school system where all of her educational programming was prescribed by law and structured for her by teachers and parents, to the college setting where SHE was responsible for advocating for herself. She recalled the anger she had felt toward a high school experience that failed to prepare her for the strange new world college presented for a student with a learning disability. No teacher, counselor, or psychologist had ever discussed her specific weaknesses with her. Nor had school personnel described the laws that apply to students with

disabilities after they leave the structured confines of public education. Furthermore, Erin hadn’t had a clue as to the academic accommodations available to her. She remembered hearing about the section of Spanish modified for students with learning disabilities only AFTER she had failed the course in her first semester as a freshman. She also remembered how her trip to Disability Services changed her life. Gradually, with the assistance of DS, Erin learned the art of self-determination. Armed with proper documentation and support from DS personnel, Erin gradually gained the confidence she needed to discuss her learning needs with professors and request legitimate accommodations. Erin also remembered the unwavering support from her family and her friends in the LD support group. But, most of all, Erin realized that her success was due to her perseverance, reflected in her willingness to spend large amounts of time studying, often while other students were socializing.

Suddenly, Erin heard her name called. Her thoughts immediately reverted back to the commencement ceremony. She proudly accepted her diploma, waved to her family in the audience, and walked off of the stage, confident in the belief that the skills, knowledge, and self-determination she had acquired in college would serve her well in the future.

Erin’s story is a common one. College-bound students with learning disabilities (LD) are frequently unprepared for the challenges presented by higher education. Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, and Edgar (2000), for example, found that 80% of students with LD enrolled in postsecondary education had not graduated five years after completing high school. This compared to a nongraduation rate for students without LD of only 56%.

Despite the problems students with LD are likely to encounter in postsecondary programs, the number of students with learning disabilities enrolled in postsecondary institutions has increased dramatically over the past 25 years. From 1976 to 1990 the number of freshmen with documented learning disabilities entering postsecondary programs increased tenfold (Norlander, Shaw, & McGuire, 1990). Of the 9% of undergraduate postsecondary students reporting disabilities in 1996, students with learning disabilities accounted for approximately 35% - by far the most populous disability category (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996). As of the 1997-1998 academic year, an estimated 428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled in colleges in this country, almost half of them diagnosed as LD (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).

Perhaps the greatest impetus for the increased focus on adults with LD and subsequent increases in college enrollments came in the form of the 1988 definition of LD proposed and adopted by the National Joint Committee for Learning Disabilities (NJCLD, 1999). Among other changes to the accepted definition of LD, the NJCLD definition focused on learning disabilities as a lifespan issue. This increased focus on late adolescents and adults with LD was also evident in dramatic increase in the number of articles appearing in the professional literature dealing with issues relevant to this population (Patton & Polloway, 1996).

In addition to the acknowledgment by professionals that learning disabilities typically presented life-long obstacles, other factors contributing to the rise in the number of students with LD enrolling in postsecondary education include (a) adherence to the legal mandates of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which require “reasonable accommodations” for students with disabilities; (b) a dramatic increase in compensatory technologies such as powerful word processing programs; and (c) transitions plans written into Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in high school as a required by reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Characteristics of Older Adolescent and Adult Learners with LD Our knowledge of the characteristics of older adolescents and adults with LD indicates that

they are more likely than their nondisabled peers to experience problems successfully navigating higher education. We know, for example, that, similar to children with LD, adolescents and adults with LD are more likely than their non disabled peers to demonstrate (a) problems with study skills such as test-taking and preparation, note-taking, and listening comprehension; (b) difficulty organizing themselves for learning and life tasks; (c) social skill deficits; (d) academic deficits in reading, written expression, and mathematics; (e) low self-esteem; and (f) higher school dropout rates (deBettencourt, Zigmond, & Thornton, 1989; Deshler & Lenz, 1989; Kish, 1991; Mercer,

1997; Omizo & Omizo, 1988; White, 1992). Increased demands placed on older adolescents and adults, such as employment and postsecondary education, typically make learning disabilities more complex to diagnose and treat (Mercer, 1997; Skinner, 1998; Polloway, Smith, & Patton, 1984).

Characteristics of “Successful” People with LDGeneral adjustment. Although much of the existing professional literature describes the

weaknesses of students with disabilities, several investigators have focused on describing factors associated with the life, vocational, and academic adjustment of this population. Minskoff (1994), for example, identified several factors that are predictive of successful adjustment for people with LD. These included (a) severity of the LD; (b) degree of support from family; (c) socioeconomic status (SES); (d) completion of high school; (e) quality of education at elementary and secondary levels; and (f) quality of vocational and postsecondary experiences.

Working with “highly successful” people with LD (based on income, job classification, educational level, prominence in one’s field, and job satisfaction), Ginsberg, Gerber, and Reiff (1994) found that, compared to the “moderately” successful group, “highly successful” people with LD demonstrated an ability to take control of their lives. They noted, for example, that highly successful people with LD expressed a strong desire to excel, were goal oriented, and were able to reconceptualize their learning problems into something positive and functional. External manifestations of these internal decisions included (a) persistence; (b) the ability to choose occupations in which they could capitalize on their strengths and minimize their learning problems; (c) “learned creativity” — or, the ability to devise novel means to an end; and (d) the ability and willingness to seek out and use supportive people.

Adjustment to postsecondary settings. Several studies have systematically investigated those characteristics of students with LD that are predictive of success specifically in postsecondary settings. Hartzell and Compton (1984), for example, conducted a follow-up study of 114 students with LD ages 15 to 27 years. People in their sample who graduated from college reported strong family support, the availability of individualized tutoring, and above-average verbal IQ. Graduates in this study also showed signs of “mild” to “moderate” learning disabilities, as opposed to “severe” learning problems.

Analyzing data from 107 students with LD who entered college between 1980 and 1988, Vogel, Hruby, and Adelman (1993) compared the characteristics of students who successfully completed their undergraduate degrees with students who had been dismissed or who had dropped out due to academic failure. Results indicated that, compared to nongraduates, graduates (a) were less likely to be placed in a self-contained classroom during elementary, middle, and high school; (b) had completed almost twice as many English courses; and (c) were more likely to have received private tutoring that lasted for an extended time period.

Greenbaum, Graham, and Scales (1995) investigated the status of 49 students with LD who attended the University of Maryland between 1980 and 1992. Results indicated several factors that the authors felt were essential to the success of these students, including (a) mild to moderate (versus severe) learning problems; (b) above-average IQ; (c) higher-than-average socioeconomic status (SES); (d) awareness of the nature of their disabilities; (e) motivation and perseverance; and (e) support and guidance from “significant others,” including teachers, family, friends, and college faculty.

Analyzing the quantitative data from a 20-year longitudinal study of individuals with LD, Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, and Herman (1999) identified six personal attitudes and behaviors that were good predictors of success. These include self-awareness, perseverance, proactivity, emotional stability, goal setting, and the use of support systems. Factors with considerably less predictive power included IQ, academic achievement, life stressors, age, gender, SES, and ethnicity.

Based on anecdotal reports and personal life stories, Smith, Dowdy, Polloway, and Blalock (1997) identified nine “strategies” frequently used by adults with LD to increase the probability of successful outcomes. These included:1. proactiveness or taking control of one’s life;2. distribution of challenges over time (time management);3. acceptance of one’s learning disability and developing an under-

standing of both strengths and weaknesses;4. development of a positive outlook on life;5. realistic goal setting and goal-directedness;6. positive stress reduction strategies;7. overall perseverance;8. ability to recruit, accept, use, and acknowledge support from others; and9. ability to apply these attributes at the right time, in the right circumstances. (p. 263)

Although determined through varying research methodologies, the literature summarized above noted similarities in variables that appear to be predictive of successful adjustment to life, and, more specifically, college for students with LD. Briefly, successful students were likely to be self-directed and goal-oriented, aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses, willing to persevere under adverse conditions, and posses a strong system of family and/or professional support. The purpose of the present study was to add to this literature by further identifying variables that facilitate the academic success of college students with LD.

Method

ParticipantsPurposive sampling was used to select participants for this study. Purposive sampling, also

referred to as “judgment sampling,” requires the researcher to select a small sample of participants for in-depth study based on experience and knowledge of the group to be sampled (Gary & Airasian, 2003). The qualitative nature of this research (i.e., the use of extensive interviews and subsequent transcriptions) precluded the use of random sampling and the resulting large number of participants. In consultation with the director of Disability Services at the participating institution, 30 students who graduated between 1996 and 2001, were formally identified as LD, and had received assistance through Disability Services were identified. The goal was to obtain interviews from 20 participants, but 30 were identified to allow for lack of availability. As anticipated, availability issues precluded some graduates from participating, resulting in the desired sample size of 20. While random sampling was not used, an attempt was made during the selection process to choose a diverse group of participants in terms of gender, ethnicity, and academic achievement (i.e., GPA).

All 20 participants had graduated from the same mid-sized liberal arts college located in the southeastern United States. Most participants (i.e., 13) had completed their degrees during the 2000 or 2001 academic years. The other six participants had graduated between 1996 and 1999. Interviews were conducted during the 2001-2002 academic year. Ten males and 10 females participated in the study. The median age for participants was 26.2, with a range from 22 to 54. Ethnically, the group consisted of 14 Caucasians, 4 African Americans, 1 Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 non-resident alien. Their mean GPA was 2.57. Participants graduated in a variety of disciplines, with business being the most popular and communications coming in a close second.

Twelve of the participants were identified as having LD during their college experience, although they all reported struggling throughout their elementary and postsecondary school years. Three students were identified in high school, two in middle school, and three were officially diagnosed as LD during their elementary years. Fifteen of the 20 participants received course alternatives during their college experiences. Specifically, 13 received alternatives to the language requirement and 5 qualified for and completed alternative math courses. Finally, all 20 students indicated that they were deemed eligible for and had participated in various accommodations. Accommodations received by participants included:1. extended time for testing - 17 students2. separate testing facility - 12 students3. alternate testing format (e.g., oral versus written) - 3 students4. books on tape - 3 students5. notetaker - 2 students6. reader - 1 student7. “other” - 3 studentsInstrumentation

Two instruments were used. First, a structured, written, pre-interview questionnaire was developed to collect preliminary information on each participant prior to the extended verbal interview. Information gathered with this instrument included gender, ethnicity, graduation information, time of LD diagnosis, course alternatives, and academic accommodations. The primary data collection tool for the study was an extensive, semi-structured interview, consisting of 12 questions asked of all students interviewed (see Table 1).

Table 1

Questions Included on Semi-Structured Interview Instrument

1. Describe your specific learning disability.

2. When was your learning disability formally identified? Describe this process.

3. What laws are you familiar with that apply to people with learning disabilities in college? To your knowledge, have you made use of any of these laws in high school or college?

4. Who was most instrumental in your decision to attend college? What did they do which influenced your decision?

5. Describe your search for a college and the your experiences during the admissions process.

6. Describe how and why you became involved with the learning disabilities program at this college.

7. What was your major area of study? Describe your the decision making process you went through to choose that major.

8. Describe the major factors (e.g., people, organizations, programs, etc.) that facilitated or were detrimental to your success in college.

9. Describe the academic accommodations and course alternatives for which you qualified. Which of these were most helpful and and why?

10. Describe your experiences with faculty.

11. Describe your current professional and personal situation.

12. Is there any other information that you would like to share concerning your experiences as an adult college student with a learning disability?

Before data collection, pilot versions of both instruments were developed. Questions on the written pre-interview questionnaire were designed to elicit basic background information from each participant. The pilot version of the questionnaire was revised based on feedback from the director of Disability Services, two graduate students, and input from the Institutional Review Board.

The semi-structured interview instrument, the main tool for data collection used during the interviews, was developed using similar steps. Based on knowledge of the field, the existing literature, and discussions with personnel who work with college students with LD, the investigator developed an initial set of questions. This instrument was then administered to the graduate students who provided feedback on the pre-interview questionnaire. Changes were made in the instrument (e.g., wording, order of questions, length of questions, etc.) based on their feedback. Additional revisions were based on feedback from the director of Disability Services and the Institutional Review Board.

Design and ProceduresAfter obtaining informed consent from participants, a written pre-interview questionnaire and

an informed consent form were mailed to them. When participants returned the questionnaire and informed consent form, the investigator contacted them to arrange a time and date for the interview. Most interviews took place within one week after receipt of the pre-interview questionnaires. Five interviews were conducted face-to-face. Due to the relocation of many of the participants, 15 interviews were completed by telephone. The investigator conducted all interviews. All interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. All participants were asked the questions delineated previously. In addition, the researcher frequently asked follow-up questions and requested elaboration on specific statements. The average interview lasted 34.5 minutes, with a range from 23.6 to 45.8 minutes.

After the initial analysis completed by the investigator, 5 of the 20 transcripts were randomly selected and evaluated by a graduate student familiar with the project to provide an estimate of interrater reliability. The second reader was provided with the major themes and associated definitions initially identified by the investigator (see Table 2). She was asked to read the five transcripts and to identify themes from the table.

Coefficients of reliability ranged from a low of .82 to a high of 1.00. The mean coefficient across all five reliability checks was .91

Table 2

Common Themes* Identified in the Transcripts of the 20 Students Interviewed

Code Theme Operational Definition

KN Knowledge of disability Statements that describe the nature of a disabilityand Concomitant and/or provide insight into strategies that serve toAccommodations overcome learning differences.

EPE Explanation of Psycho- Statements that describe attempts by educationalEducation Evaluation or psychological professionals to explain or inter-

pret results of psychoeducational evaluations.

KDL Knowledge of Disabil- Statements in which the student makes referenceity Law to, implicitly or explicitly, public law that affects

students in postsecondary settings.

SA Self-Advocacy Statements that document student experiences communicating their rights or needs to

people in positions of authority or making decisions and/or acting independently.

ACA Accommodations and Statements that describe student experiencesCourse Alternatives with or opinions about accommodations

or course alternatives.

SS Support System(s) Statements describing student experiences withor opinions about people or agencies who have

provided educational or other kinds of support.

PER Perseverance Statements that describe the amount of time or effort exerted by students to complete educational or life tasks.

GS Goal Setting Statements that describe students’ future educational, vocational or personal plans.______________________________________________________________________

* Identified by 10 or more students.

Results and Discussion

The 20 transcripts were analyzed based on procedures developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990) for evaluating qualitative data. Specifically, the constant-comparison method was used. First, potential common themes were identified and refined during multiple readings of the transcripts by the investigator. These themes were labeled and operationally defined. For example, “knowledge of disability and concomitant accommodations” was a theme initially identified based on the first reading of the transcripts. This was defined as: “Statements that describe the nature of a disability and/or provide insight into strategies that serve to overcome learning differences.” During future readings, statements that fit this definition were coded as “KN” on the transcripts. The same procedure was followed for other potential “themes” identified during the initial reading. If a minimum of 10 students provided statements consistent with a specific definition and code, it was considered a “common theme” for data analysis purposes. Several questions, although resulting in interesting information, did not produce “common themes” as sought in the present study. For example, Question 1 (see Table 1) produced a wide range of responses concerning specific disabilities. However, participants’ responses to this question were typically very short and diverse, providing information that was not common across multiple participants. Participants responded to Questions 5, 6, and 7 in a similarly brief and diverse manner.

ThemesAs stated previously, analysis of the transcripts revealed eight common themes. These

themes and their relationship to previous research are described in the remainder of this article.Theme #1: Knowledge of disability and concomitant accommodations. Seventeen of the 20

students interviewed discussed the disability-related knowledge they had gained over their academic careers and strategies they had adopted to circumvent these problems. For example, a student dually diagnosed with a learning disability and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) commented:

I’ve always had tremendous problems remembering information — from notes and textbooks. I had to come up with my own study scheme in which I used various colors - highlighted colors - to outline things. I mean, my notebooks were very outlined and detailed. The only way that I could remember is to associate it with a color. For example, if I took a test, I would remember that green was a major topic and blue was a subtopic and if it was an important issue within that subtopic it would be orange. (Interview #17)

Comments from other students consistently indicated that, although they might not be able to put an official label on their limitations (e.g., short-term memory deficit), they were well aware of them and had developed compensatory strategies. Samples of these comments include:

I retyped the italics in my book or boldface items and the concepts that went with them. I’m a slow typer so it really banged it in. Typing out things from the books or my notes allowed me to make my own study guide which really worked for me. I mean, studying for tests has always been difficult for me. But, I’ve learn little tricks that allow me to do better. (Interview #4) Concentration — in class and when I’m studying — is a big problem for me. It always has been. In class, I sat right in front. I took my time, trying not to feel rushed and using a

calculator whenever I needed it for math. I also used a dictionary or computer when I needed it. I try to do everything that is available. At home when I studied I never had other noise. I took a lot of notes on my reading and I rewrote them several times. It was a lot of repetition. But, rewriting my notes seemed to really help me remember. (Interview #9)

I was an obsessive-compulsive studier. I had to learn to manage my time. I would make little like schedules for myself — breaking it down to: “Ok, you get five minutes to eat between 5:10 and 5:15.” I developed very good organizational skills growing up and I was able to use that in college with my study techniques. I’d highlight the chapters of the book and then go through and take notes on that. I was very into notetaking. I used notecards, too. They were great tools for organizing my studying. I put as much information down on a notecard as I could. That was very helpful. (Interview #2).

It was clear from the comments from the sample of 20 students with LD who had successfully graduated from college that they were aware of their learning weaknesses and had developed strategies for minimizing them. These results are corroborated by findings of previous studies that emphasized the importance of student self-awareness of the nature of their disability as a precondition for academic success (Greenbaum et al.,1995; Raskind et al., 1999). Unfortunately, many high school graduates with LD enter postsecondary institutions with very little knowledge of their disability and its potential effects on their learning (Aune, 1991; Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993; Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Skinner, 1998). Students who lack an awareness of their specific strengths and weaknesses and matching compensatory strategies are more likely to experience academic failure.

Theme #2: Explanation of psychoeducational evaluation. In order for students with LD to develop an awareness of their disability, as described above, results of psychoeducational evaluations should be clearly explained to them, along with implications for potential compensatory strategies. Twelve of the 20 students in the study commented on the follow-up to the psychoeducational evaluation they experienced. Representative samples of comments include:

Oh, yes, I have the report. It is a huge long, long, long report — like 10 pages. But, I don’t remember ever getting an explanation of the results from the psychologist. He did recommend that I go see a doctor to get medication. (Interview #4)

He did talk with me briefly, but I can’t remember what all he told me. It was all kind of like a blur. My mom was there, too. I do have a copy of the report. But, I have not really talked about it with anyone or understand it. (Interview #12)

She sent the information to my family. But, I don’t recall if we actually went into her office again and she talked to us about the results. I don’t think she did that. She did send a copy of the report to my parents. (Interview #16)

Yes, she did. She had a conference with just me and with my parents. She explained the testing — what she found out — so it made my problems make sense to me. It answered some questions. Like: “Oh… that’s why I have difficulty with math and remembering numbers — I can’t remember a sequence of numbers. They all get jumbled.” (Interview #8)

Of the 12 participants who made substantive comments about this topic, nine responses were similar to the first three cited above. That is, they remembered the experiences but had very little recollection of a detailed explanation of the results by the examining psychologist. Three of the students reported positive experiences with the debriefing by the psychologist, as illustrated by the statement from Interview #8. Although memory may have played a role in how much information participants were able to recall, it is important to note that many of these participants were initially identified as LD in high school or college.

As emphasized previously, it is common for students with LD to enter the ranks of college students with very little knowledge of their learning problems (Aune, 1991; Brinckerhoff et al., 1993; Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Skinner, 1998). Based on data from the present study, one likely reason for this dearth of information may well be the lack of time and effort devoted to explaining the results of psychoeducational evaluations. Students who lack this information may be more likely to experience failure. Also, they may be less likely to develop the ability to advocate for themselves; a skill essential to success in higher education.

Theme #3: Knowledge of disability law. All participants were asked the question: What federal laws are you familiar with that apply to people with learning disabilities? All 20 participants responded to this query. Typical responses included:

I have no idea. (Interview #15)

There was a law passed in the 1990s, I think. That law stated that we had to have some accommodations. (Interview #5)

The only law I know of is the Disability Act of 1976. I’m not sure what it says. But, I think that it applies to college — and high school, too. (Interview #2)

None of the participants were aware of their specific rights or responsibilities under Section 504 or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Considered in the context of students leaving a relatively controlled public school system, where student rights and educational programming are systematically taken care of by educators and parents, and entering a setting in which students must self-initiate the accommodation process, this almost total lack of knowledge of the legal underpinnings of disability services in higher education is alarming. The issue of self-advocacy becomes relevant here. That is, students are severely limited in their ability to advocate for themselves if they are not aware of their legal rights and, more important, responsibilities.

Theme #4: Importance of self-advocacy . Skinner (1998) describes students as self-advocates when they (a) understand their disability, (b) are aware of their legal rights, and (c) can competently and tactfully communicate their rights and needs to those in positions of authority. Similarly, Ginsberg et al. (1994) defined self-advocacy as the ability to find and make appropriate use of supportive people. Self-determination is a broader and more contemporary term that includes self-advocacy. Schloss, Alper, and Jayne (1993) defined self-determination as “the ability of a person to consider options and make appropriate choices ....” (p. 215). Whatever term or definition is used, we know that the ability to be proactive by taking control over one’s life and learning is essential to the success of people with learning disabilities (Raskind et al., 1999; Smith et al., 1997).

Eleven of the 20 students interviewed made comments that were relevant to their experiences with self-advocacy. All of these were related to approaching instructors for assistance, as exemplified below.

At first, I was petrified of the thought of asking a professor for accommodations — even if I had my letter from (Disability Services). I know that they thought I was just lazy. I got a little better at this as a junior and senior. Most professors were very helpful. (Interview #3)

I worked at becoming comfortable asking professors for help. There were some that said “no” — but, most were very helpful. I have a diplomatic type of personality. I don’t know if this is from my learning disability or what. I was comfortable asking professors for, like, untimed tests. Some of my friends in the program were afraid to approach professors. It did not bother me. (Interview #9)

My professors helped me a lot. I would go to them a lot. I would bug them constantly whenever I had a question or wanted to look over a paper or something like that. I guess that was another thing that I figured out that I needed to do — going to my professors and using them as much as possible. (Interview #14)

Reading these comments in light of Skinner’s (1998) definition of self-advocacy (i.e., knowledge of disability, awareness of legal rights, and the ability to competently and tactfully communicate rights and needs to those in positions of authority), students interviewed for this study reported adeptness at the third aspect of self-advocacy. That is, they expressed confidence in approaching instructors to request appropriate accommodations related to their specific learning disability. In turn, most students indicated that professors, with a few exceptions, were receptive to their requests. Related to “knowledge of disability,” as mentioned previously, participants indicated a good awareness of strengths and limitations related to their LD. However, as suggested by the responses summarized in Theme #3, participants expressed virtually no knowledge of their legal rights and responsibilities. Thus, the successful students with LD in this study appeared to demonstrate competency in two aspects of Skinner’s definition of self-advocacy (i.e., knowledge of disability and communication of rights and needs to authority figures). However, they lacked the third component — an awareness of their legal rights.

Theme #5: Importance of accommodations and course alternatives. With proper documentation, students with disabilities at the college from which the participants in this study had graduated were permitted to request accommodations (e.g., extra time on examinations, note-takers, etc.) and course alternatives to the mathematics and foreign language requirements. As indicated earlier, most of the participants had at least one course alternative and all had received accommodations. Without exception, comments from participants indicated the critical importance of these academic adjustments to their success in college. Examples of comments include:

I’ve had huge problems with learning a foreign language ever since high school. The only way I even got credit for my high school Spanish classes was through a lot of hard work, tutors, and teachers who were very generous with my grades. There is no way I could have completed the language requirement. And, I had pretty good grades in my other classes. The only course I ever failed (in college) was my first semester of Spanish. (Interview #10)

I actually thought that the logic course I took in place of one of my math courses was harder than math. But, looking back now, it probably allowed me to graduate. I failed two math courses before I finally applied for (disability services). The psychologist said that I had a disability in math. In a way, I was glad to hear her say that. It made me realize that I was not stupid in math ... that I had a real problem. (Interview #11)

I was permitted to take extra time on tests — twice the time other students had. I also took tests in (the disability services office). It was sometimes a hassle to schedule and I know some of my professors did not like it. But, it was the only way I could really put down what I knew on a test. It made a big difference in my grades in many classes. I took tests in the classroom with regular time limits in some classes. I tried to do that as much as I could. (Interview #16)

My handwriting is terrible. I’ve always had a really hard time taking notes in class. I just couldn’t keep up with the professor. I tried using a laptop. But, I had more problems with this. I mean, problems keeping up. I ended up getting a notetaker. She gave me a copy of her notes. I used her notes to fill in the gaps in mine. It allowed me to take more complete notes. It also helped my grade in several classes. (Interview #20)

These responses were typical of participants in this study. All were very positive about their experiences with course alternatives and accommodations, and many felt that they meant the difference between success and failure in their postsecondary experiences. Research evidence corroborates the participants’ perceptions. For example, in his descriptive study of over 700 successful (i.e., graduates) and unsuccessful (i.e., nongraduates) college students with LD, Skinner (1999) found that students who qualified for and took advantage of course alternatives to

math and/or foreign language were significantly more likely to graduate compared to students who did not participate in alternative courses.

Theme #6: Importance of support systems. All 20 participants emphasized the importance of support from family, friends, instructors, and/or academic support personnel (e.g., Disability Services, College Skills Lab, etc.) to their success in college. Examples of typical comments included:

My family was my main source of encouragement. Everyone in my family has a degree in something. It was just expected. My parents provided tutoring throughout my school years. They made it clear that they expected me to graduate, but, not in a pressure sort of way. They were always there to help — very supportive. (Interview #19)

For me, it was definitely my professors ... and (Disability Services). But, for me, for my kind of disability, it was nice to go and talk to the professors one-on-one and have them explain it to me. At times it was frustrating, of course — trying to get to see them. But, most were there a lot ... when you needed them. I lucked out. I had amazing professors my four years of college. They were friendly and very willing to be there for me. (Interview #6)

The College Skills Lab was also very important to me. The Writing Lab especially got me through some very difficult assignments. They were also very friendly. It was also nice to know that students getting help there were not just LD like me. ALL students came here for help. That was kind of comforting feeling for me — very different from getting special permission to take extra time on tests. (Interview #2)

I made friends with a few students in the same situation as I am — having a learning disability. It was great for support — and my grades! We organized “study parties” on the weekends. We were able to have some fun while working at the same time. (Interview #10)

The positive effects of strong systems of support for students with LD are well documented in the literature. The longitudinal study conducted by Raskind et al. (1999), for example, documented the use of support systems as one of the salient characteristics of successful adults with LD. Similarly, in their study of “highly successful” people with LD, Ginsberg et al. (1984) emphasized the ability and willingness to seek out and use supportive people, and Greenbaum, et al. (1995) focused on the importance of support and guidance from “significant others,” including teachers, family, and instructors. Finally, Hartzell and Compton (1994) also emphasized the positive relationship between family support and success for people with LD.

Theme #7: Importance of perseverance. Seventeen of the 20 participants interviewed emphasized the hard work involved in their success in academia. Many also noted that the long hours they put in studying were often at the expense of social experiences and relationships. Sample statements relating to perseverance include:

I wish that I could talk to the new students in the program and let them know that they will have to work a lot harder than their classmates if they are going to make it. They really need to know this if they are going to be successful. For every one hour my friends worked, I worked at least two or three hours. I guess I just came to accept that. But, it was hard. (Interview #11)

If I were talking to students in high school with LD thinking about going to college, I’d tell them to get used to working harder than many of their friends. Just accept it and don’t let it bother you — if that’s possible. It starts in high school and continues on into college. It bothered me a lot at first — they would be partying on a Thursday night and I was working. But, I’ve seen the good consequences and it doesn’t bother me as much anymore. (Interview #5)

As was true for the effects of support systems, the existing literature corroborates the importance of perseverance to the probability of success for student with LD (e.g., Ginsberg et al., 1994; Greenbaum et al., 1995; Raskind et al., 1999). It is important for students with LD in postsecondary programs to acknowledge that, despite accommodations and course alternatives, they will ultimately have to spend more time for the same academic outcome as compared to their peers without LD.

Theme #8: Goal setting. Sixteen of the 20 study participants indicated that they set goals for themselves and consciously planned their lives to accomplish these challenges. For many in the sample, the major objective of concern was completing a college education. Typical comments that reflected goal setting included:

My parents helped me to make decisions about things that I wanted to do in life. We had a lot of talks about this. In fact, when I was in high school, they had me list the five major things I wanted to accomplish by the time I was 25. That was hard. But, it seemed to help me get focused. One of the items on the list was to graduate from college. Well, I didn’t do it at 22 like I predicted, but I got it done ... I think I still have that list somewhere. (Interview #13)

I just always knew that I was going to college and was going to graduate. I really never even thought of not doing it. Even with my problems with reading and writing, I think I’ve done a good job in school — all the way through. Part of my success in school, I think, is that I’ve always had a plan. I’m sure that some of this comes from my family. My brothers have both done really well in college. But, a lot of it is just me. I am determined. That really helps. (Interview #20)

In a broader sense, the students’ goal orientation might best be interpreted in the context of proactivity. Ginsberg et al. (1994) and Smith et al. (1997) identified proactivity as a common feature among successful adults with LD. That is, successful people with LD appear to take “control” of their lives. They act in purposeful ways that increase the probability that they will be successful. Setting goals is one manifestation of this control. Summary and Conclusion

The semi-structured interviews conducted in the present study indicated eight commonalities among the responses of participating college graduates with LD. Specifically, many participants indicated a sound knowledge of their specific disability(ies) and had learned to request or create learning accommodations and adaptations they needed to be successful. However, responses also suggested that the disability-specific knowledge they had gained was not due to a thorough explanation and interpretation of assessment results. To the contrary, most participants indicated that very little was done by examining psychologists to translate the results of often times expensive and time-consuming evaluations into information usable for educational programming. For students who received them, academic accommodations and course alternatives were perceived as extremely important contributors to their success. Most of the 20 participants emphasized the importance of self-advocacy and described how they had grown in this domain. However, virtually no respondent revealed a working knowledge of legislation related to disability programming in higher education — a likely prerequisite for successful self-advocacy in higher education settings (e.g., Skinner, 1998). Finally, strong support systems, perseverance, and the ability to set goals, all of which are supported by previous research, were commonly described as playing major roles in participants’ ability to successfully navigate higher education settings.

Results of this study, combined with previous research, clearly delineate factors that are predictive of success in postsecondary education for students with specific learning disabilities. Nevertheless, facilitation of these abilities and characteristics is often not a high priority for high schools preparing college-bound students with LD or for colleges working with freshmen who have identified themselves as having LD. College and high school preparatory curricula for students with LD transitioning into postsecondary settings should facilitate self-advocacy, impart knowledge concerning the legal aspects of disability, provide competence in the use of learning strategies, teach social skills for working with peers and professors, and provide students with the

knowledge necessary to interpret and use assessment results. Although few in number, materials and programs do exist that are designed to facilitate this transition. In their book Postsecondary Education and Transition for Students with Learning Disabilities, for example, Brinckerhoff, McGuire, and Shaw (2002) provide students, teachers, and parents with a detailed description of the knowledge and competencies needed by students with LD if they are to be successful in postsecondary environments. The book provides an extremely useful document titled: “A Timetable for Transition Planning for Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD” — an extensive and detailed task analysis of what learners with LD must do, starting in Grade 8 and proceeding through Grade 12, to prepare themselves for postsecondary success.

Some high schools have created programs designed to prepare students with LD for postsecondary educational pursuits. For example, Spartanburg (South Carolina) County School District No. 7, as a part of the School/Community Integration and Transition Grant funded by the South Carolina Developmental Disabilities Council, created I Can Do This! An Instructional Unit in Self-Advocacy for Students with Disabilities (Bresette, Green, Moore, Palmer, Prysock, Walker, & Whitaker, 1994). The comprehensive I Can Do This materials prepare students for success in postsecondary settings. Specifically, the program provides detailed lesson plans that include objectives, materials, procedures, and evaluation strategies. The program also includes a comprehensive packet for students titled: Handbook for Transition into Postsecondary Schools (Whitaker, 1994). Although growing in number, more of these preparatory programs are needed on the high school and early college levels.

At the inception of this article you were introduced to Erin, a student with a learning disability reflecting on her college experiences as she was about to graduate. Erin’s story represents a composite of the stories of many students with LD who are attempting to successfully find their way through higher education while dealing with the challenges presented by learning differently from many of their peers. High school and college preparation programs, grounded firmly on research that documents the correlates of success in higher education for students with LD, can be the catalyst to increasing the number of students with LD who graduate from college. Limitations and Need for Additional Research

As is true with all research, the present study has limitations. First, data were collected from a sample of students attending a medium-size liberal arts institution where the student-professor ratio is fairly small and the faculty are informed of their responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504. As such, results should be generalized with caution to students in other settings. Second, 12 of the 20 students involved in the study were not identified as LD until early in their postsecondary careers. Future studies should focus on students identified at earlier ages and involve a variety of postsecondary environments. Third, studies should be conducted that are more quantitative in nature and use randomized procedures for sample section. The nonrandom, purposive sampling technique used in the present study, although appropriate for this primarily qualitative investigation in which in-depth information from a select group of participants was the goal, is limited in its ability to generalize to larger populations. Fourth, only “successful” students were interviewed. Additional information can be gained in future studies if “unsuccessful” students are included in the sample. Students who have not experienced successful outcomes in postsecondary settings are in a better position to tell us what doesn’t work. Fifth, the data analysis could have been improved with the addition of at least one more reader during the examination of the transcripts for common themes. Although the high reliability figures provided confidence in the consistency of the analysis in relation to the themes identified by the investigator, another reader would likely have identified additional relevant information. Finally, several interview questions were unsuccessful in eliciting relevant information from participants. Validation procedures did not highlight the limitations of these questions. Additional information may have been elicited from participants had all questions prompted comprehensive responses.

A Final Word

Although increasing in quality and quantity, the body of literature relating to adult learners with LD remains limited. We are just now uncovering correlates of success in postsecondary

settings for students with LD. Additional studies, both quantitative and qualitative, are required to more fully understand the characteristics of this unique group of learners and to delineate procedures likely to facilitate their positive academic outcomes. ReferencesAune, E. (1991). A transition model for postsecondary bound students with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 177-187.Brinckerhoff, L.C., McGuire, J.M., & Shaw, S.F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition

for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Brinckerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for

students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.deBettencourt, L.U., Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1989). Follow-up of postsecondary-age rural

learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56, 40-49.Dalke, C.L., & Schmitt, S. (1987). Meeting the transition needs of college-bound students with

learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 176-180.Deshler, D.D., & Lenz, B.K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal

of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 203-224.Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Education research: Competencies for analysis and

application. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Ginsberg, R., Gerber, P., & Reiff, H. (1994). Employment success for adults with learning

disabilities. In P.J. Gerber & H.B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 111-120). Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61, 460-472.

Hartzell, H.E., & Compton, C. (1984). Learning disability: A ten-year following. Pediatrics, 74, 1058-1064.

Kish, M. (1991). Counseling adolescents with LD. Intervention in School in Clinic, 27(1), 20-24.Mercer, C.D. (1997). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.). Columbus, OH:

Merrill/Prentice Hall.Minskoff, E.H. (1994). Post-secondary education and vocational training: Keys to success for

adults with learning disabilities. In P.J. Gerber & H.B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 111-120). Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Murray, C., Goldstein, D.E., Nourse, S., & Edgar, E. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 15, 119-127.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). 1995-1996 national postsecondary student aid study: Undergraduate data analysis system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1999). Learning disabilities: Issues in higher education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 263-266.

Norlander, K.S., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1990). Competencies of postsecondary educational personnel serving students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 426-431.

Omizo, M.M., & Omizo, S.A. (1988). Group counseling’s effects on self-concept and social behavior among children with learning disabilities. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 26, 109-117.

Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., & Patton, J.R. (1984). Learning disabilities: An adult development perspective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 179-186.

Patton, J.R., & Polloway, E.A. (1996). Adults with learning disabilities: An emerging area of professional interest and public attention. In J.R. Patton & E.A. Polloway (Eds.), Learning disabilities: The challenges of adulthood. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Raskind, M.H., Goldberg, R.J., Higgins, E.L., & Herman, K.L. (1999). Patterns of change and predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: Results from a twenty-year longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 35-49.

Schloss, P.J., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1993). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 6(3), 215-225.

Skinner, M.E. (1998). Promoting self-advocacy among college students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(5), 278-283.

Skinner, M.E. (1999). Characteristics of “successful” and “unsuccessful” college students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Charlotte, NC.

Smith, T.E.C., Dowdy, C.A., Polloway, E.A., & Blalock, G.E. (1997). Children and adults with learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

Vogel, S.A., Hruby, P.J., & Adelman, P.B. (1993). Educational and psychological factors in successful and unsuccessful college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(1), 35-43.

White, W.J. (1992). The postschool adjustment of persons with learning disabilities: Current status and future projections. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 448-456.

Structural Validity of the WAIS-III Among Postsecondary Students

Marley W. WatkinsJames M. KuterbachRebecca J. MorganJulie L. FitzGeraldRachel M. NeuhardApril G. ArthurLeah B. BucknavageThe Pennsylvania State University

AbstractThe recent influx of students with disabilities into postsecondary education has generated a concomitant increase in the demand for psychoeducational assessments that include a measure of cognitive ability, either to identify ability-achievement discrepancies or to rule out alternate or comorbid diagnoses. The most commonly recommended cognitive ability measure for adults is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III). However, evidence regarding the psychometric fitness of the WAIS-III for postsecondary assessments is needed. Of particular interest is its structural validity among these students. This study applied exploratory factor analysis to the WAIS-III scores of 183 students at a large Mid-Atlantic university who were referred for determination of postsecondary disability eligibility. The same four-factor model proposed by Wechsler (1997) for the general population was also appropriate for these students. Thus, these results support the use of the WAIS-III with postsecondary students with suspected disabilities.

Although students with disabilities attain postsecondary education at rates lower than their peers without disabilities, they are increasingly entering colleges and universities. For example, around 3% of college students reported disabilities in 1978 (Henderson, 1992), but this rate had risen to 6% in 1996 and 9% in 2002 (NCES, 2000, 2003). Based on the latest compilation of self-

reports, there are currently more than 1.5 million postsecondary students with disabilities (NCES, 2003).

This influx of students with disabilities into postsecondary education has generated a concomitant increase in the demand for psychoeducational assessments to substantiate the presence of disabilities. While eligibility for special educational services in secondary schools is governed by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), postsecondary eligibility is guided by Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Students eligible for special education services under IDEA will not necessarily be eligible for postsecondary services (Hatzes, Reiff, & Bramel, 2002). Additionally, Section 504 and the ADA require students to provide postsecondary institutions with documentation to support their requests for access to special accommodations (Hatzes et al., 2002).

Recognizing the inchoate state of postsecondary disability assessments, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published guidelines for the documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults in 1997. Although specifically related to identification of learning disabilities, the AHEAD guidelines established a precedent for evaluating eligibility for students with other disabilities (Sitlington, 2003). Subsequently, many postsecondary institutions adopted local guidelines for documentation of learning disabilities (LD), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychiatric conditions (McGuire, 1998).

Most of these postsecondary disability guidelines recommended inclusion of a measure of cognitive ability, either to identify ability-achievement discrepancies or to rule out alternate or comorbid diagnoses (Gordon & Murphy, 1998). For example, the AHEAD (1997) guidelines specified that a “complete intellectual assessment” be conducted and, in an appendix, nominated several individual IQ tests for use with postsecondary students. These “approved” instruments included the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, and Woodcock-Johnson scales. Other guidelines identified “preferred” tests. For example, the University of Connecticut guidelines stated that the “Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale” was the preferred cognitive ability instrument (McGuire, 1998).

Consonant with the cognitive test preferences found in disability guidelines, a survey of postsecondary disability service providers found that the Wechsler adult scale was the most frequently used ability test with postsecondary students (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000). In fact, the Wechsler scales are generally popular among psychologists. For example, surveys of test usage have found them to be the most widely used with adolescents, among clinical psychologists, and among neuropsychologists (Archer & Newsom, 2000; Belter & Piotrowski, 2001; Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, & Dunn, 1996). Thus, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997) is currently the most popular test of cognitive ability for adolescents and adults.

Given the wide spread use of the WAIS-III in postsecondary disability evaluations, professional standards mandate evidence regarding that test’s psychometric fitness for those purposes (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999). Of the many forms of psychometric evidence, probably the most critical is construct validity (Messick, 2000). Although many forms of evidence relate to construct validity (i.e., test content, external relationships, etc.), test structure evidence is especially important. That is, does empirical analysis of a test’s components support the structure proposed by the test’s developer across a variety of test takers? If a test’s structure varies across groups of examinees, it may be measuring different constructs for each group and its scores cannot, therefore, be used interchangeably across groups. In the case of the WAIS-III, evidence of structural validity would assure users that it is measuring cognitive abilities with fidelity across a variety of examinees and, consequently, that its scores can be interpreted similarly across groups.

Typically, test structure is evaluated using factor analysis (Benson, 1998), a family of multivariate statistical methods that analyzes the patterns of correlations among a test’s subtests. By mathematically combining the subtests that correlate highly with each other into a single construct called a factor, factor analysis simplifies and clarifies the structure of the test. That is, a given test is reduced from numerous intercorrelated subtests to a smaller number of independent factors that reflect the latent constructs theoretically responsible for causing the covariation among the subtests. The resultant factor structure is the most parsimonious explanation for the

observed relationships among subtests. Consequently, the stability of factor structures across groups of examinees provides evidence regarding the structural validity of the test.

For the WAIS-III, the application of factor analysis began with its normative sample (Wechsler, 1997). Four factors were found to best describe the intercorrelations among 13 WAIS-III subtests: (a) Verbal Comprehension was made up of Vocabulary, Similarities, Information, and Comprehension subtests; (b) Perceptual Organization was formed by the Picture Completion, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Arrangement subtests; (c) Working Memory was composed of Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing subtests; and Processing Speed was loaded by the Digit Symbol-Coding and Symbol Search subtests. These results were subsequently replicated in the Canadian normative sample (Saklofske, Hildebrand, & Gorsuch, 2000) and also in an independent analysis of the U.S. normative sample (Taub, 2001). The factor intercorrelations ranged from .57 to .80 in the U.S. normative sample, suggesting that a higher-order factor might explain their covariation. This higher-order general ability factor (i.e., general intelligence or g) was confirmed in another reanalysis of the WAIS-III normative sample (Arnau & Thompson, 2000).

Conflicting results were reported from two other reanalyses of the WAIS-III normative sample (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, & McLean, 2001; Ward, Ryan, & Axelrod, 2000). These researchers suggested that two or three factors might more parsimoniously explain the covariation of WAIS-III subtests. A factor analysis of WAIS-III scores of 152 Veteran’s Administration medical center patients also revealed some difficulties with the four-factor model (Ryan & Paolo, 2001). Specifically, the Working Memory factor was not congruent with normative results because it did not contain the Arithmetic subtest. Among a sample of 120 adults with schizophrenia, however, it was the Picture Arrangement subtest that did not load on the Perceptual Organization factor (Dickinson, Iannone, & Gold, 2002) while the three other factors were congruent with the normative sample. In contrast to these minor variations in factor structure, six factors were identified in a factor analysis of the WAIS-III scores of 328 medical patients tested for a neuropathological condition (Burton, Ryan, Axelrod, & Schellenberger, 2002).

Although a majority of factor analyses of the WAIS-III have favored a four-factor solution, alternative solutions have ranged from two to six factors. Relatively consistent results were obtained from analyses of the WAIS-III normative sample, but more variable solutions were obtained from clinical samples. As noted by Tulsky and Price (2003), “because these tests are often used with clinical populations, it is important to ascertain whether the factor structure … will be supported in various clinical populations” (p. 161).

No study has analyzed the structure of the WAIS-III among postsecondary students with suspected disabilities. Consequently, the present study applied factor-analytic methods to the WAIS-III scores of postsecondary students referred for psychoeducational evaluation.

Method

ParticipantsOne hundred and eighty-three students (103 male and 80 female) served as participants. The

ethnic background of 36% of the participants was not reported, but those who were identified were primarily of White ethnic origin (88%). The participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 46 years, with a mean of 21.1 years and standard deviation of 4.6 years. Participants were primarily enrolled in undergraduate courses (70%), but 4% were graduate students and 26% were evaluated during their final year of high school. A diagnosis was not reported for 26% of the sample; those students either did not meet the criteria or the diagnostic information was not included in the file. The remainder of the sample were identified by at least one psychiatric diagnosis: 51% with a learning disorder, 20% with ADHD, and 3% with affective disorders.

InstrumentThe WAIS-III is an individually administered measure of intellectual functioning designed

to assess adolescents and adults from ages 16 to 89. Its standardization sample included 2,450 individuals stratified on age, sex, education level, and geographic region according to 1995 census data. The WAIS-III contains a total of 14 subtests, but only 13 (Vocabulary, Information, Similarities, Comprehension, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Completion, Picture

Arrangement, Symbol Search, Coding, Arithmetic, Digit Span, and Letter-Number Sequencing) are necessary to compute the four factor-based index scores (i.e., Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed). Letter-Number Sequencing and Symbol Search are not required to compute Verbal (VIQ), Performance (PIQ), and Full Scale (FSIQ) scores.

Subtest scores are standardized to a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. IQ and factor indexes have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Extensive reliability and validity data are provided by Wechsler (1997). In general, the instrument demonstrated high reliability coefficients for IQ and factor index scores and strong relationships with other measures of ability and achievement. Additional, independent evidence of reliability and validity has also been reported (Blake & Impara, 2001; Groth-Marnat, 2003).

ProcedureThe records of the Office of Disability Services and the school psychology clinic at a large

Mid-Atlantic university were reviewed. The Office of Disability Services accepts evidence from many sources for determining eligibility, including high schools, clinics, and private evaluators. Such evaluations must be performed by an appropriately credentialed professional. The Office of Disability Services itself does not provide evaluative services. In contrast, the independent school psychology clinic provides assessments by doctoral-level school psychology students, supervised by doctoral-level certified school psychologists who may also be licensed psychologists. All 276 students with a referral for determination of postsecondary disability eligibility who received a WAIS-III as part of their psychoeducational evaluation were initially included in the sample. However, 93 students were missing at least one of the 13 WAIS-III subtests. Consequently, the final sample consisted of the 183 participants with complete WAIS-III data.

Statistical AnalysesAnalyses were guided by the best practice suggestions of Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum,

and Strahan (1999), Preacher and MacCallum (2003), and Russell (2002), among others. Given the uncertainty surrounding the structure of the WAIS-III, exploratory rather than confirmatory factor analysis was chosen (Browne, 2001). Common factor analysis was selected over principal-components analysis because the goal of the study was to identify the latent structure of the WAIS-III (Wegener & Fabrigar, 2000). Additionally, common factor analysis may produce more accurate estimates of population parameters than principal-components analysis (Widaman, 1993). Given its relative tolerance of multivariate non-normality and its superior recovery of weak factors, principal axis extraction was used (Briggs & MacCallum, 2003). Communalities were initially estimated by squared multiple correlations and were iterated twice to produce final communality estimates (Gorsuch, 2003). Following the advice of Velicer, Eaton, and Fava (2000), minimum average partials (MAP; Velicer, 1976) and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), supplemented by a visual scree test (Cattell, 1966), were used to determine the number of factors to retain for rotation. For both theoretical and empirical reasons, it was assumed that factors would be moderately correlated (Wechsler, 1997). Thus, a Promax rotation with a k value of 4 was selected (Tataryn, Wood, & Gorsuch, 1999). Loadings > .38 were predetermined to be salient so as to retain only those that were both statistically (p < .01) and practically significant (Stevens, 2002).

Results

As reported in Table 1, participants’ mean WAIS-III IQ and index scores were slightly higher and somewhat less variable than those of the normative sample. Score distributions appeared to be relatively normal, with .51 the largest skew and .89 the largest kurtosis. Multiple t-tests were conducted to determine if IQ and index scores systematically differed for male and female students. A Bonferroni correction was applied in order to maintain an overall alpha level of .05. Male participants scored significantly higher than females on the VIQ, Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, and FSIQ composite scores, but age was not significantly related to WAIS-III composite scores (r = -.06 to +.05).

Table 1

Means (Standard Deviations) on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Third Edition) IQ and Factor Index Scores of 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a Disability

IQ/Index Males (n = 103) Females (n = 80) TotalVIQ* 110.0 (12.2) 103.2 (12.4) 107.0 (12.7)PIQ107.6 (13.6) 103.7 (13.5) 105.9 (13.7)FSIQ* 109.7 (12.6) 103.7 (12.5) 107.1 (12.9)VC*111.3 (13.1) 105.5 (11.4) 108.8 (12.7)PO 110.7 (14.6) 105.8 (14.1) 108.6 (14.5)WM* 102.4 (13.3) 96.6 (12.9) 99.9 (13.4)PS 97.6 (14.3) 98.2 (13.1) 97.8 (13.7)

Note. VIQ = Verbal IQ, PIQ = Performance IQ, FSIQ = Full Scale IQ, VC = Verbal Comprehension Index, PO = Perceptual Organization Index, WM = Working Memory Index, and PS = Perceptual Speed Index.

p < .05 experimentwise (.007 for each comparison).

Results from Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) indicated that the correlation matrix was not random (x2 = 1079.3; df = 78; p < .001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO; Kaiser, 1974) statistic was .83, well above the minimum standard suggested by Kline (1994). Measures of sampling adequacy for each variable were also within reasonable limits. Thus, the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis.

The scree and MAP criteria suggested that four factors be retained, but parallel analysis recommended only three factors. Given that it is better to over-factor than under-factor (Wood, Tataryn, & Gorsuch, 1996), four factors were extracted. The resulting solution was examined for both substantive and statistical suitability. Fit appeared to be excellent, accounting for 61% of the total variance and leaving only 11% of the residual matrix >|.05|. As reflected in Table 2, pattern coefficients clearly identified the four factors suggested by Wechsler (1997) with the exception of the Arithmetic subtest, which loaded on the Verbal Comprehension rather than the Working Memory factor. Factor intercorrelations ranged from .38 between Verbal Comprehension and Processing Speed to .67 between Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Organization, suggesting a general, second-order factor. All subtests demonstrated moderate to substantial loadings on the first unrotated principal factor (see Table 2), another reflection of the influence of an overarching generalability factor (Arnau & Thompson, 2000; Carroll, 2003). Additionally, the four-factor solution was robust across extraction (Principal Components, Maximum Likelihood) and rotation (Varimax, Oblimin) methods.

Table 2Structure of the WAIS-III for Principal-Axis Extraction and Promax Rotation of Four Factors

Among 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a DisabilityPattern Coefficients

Subtest Unrotated first factor I II II IV CommunalityVO .76 .86 -.14 .12 .03 .70SM .70 .69 .20 -.11 -.02 .60IN .70 .75 .00 .09 -.07 .59CM .69 .91 -.03 -.16 -.03 .69PC .55 .22 .40 -.14 .18 .36BD .63 .11 .42 .08 .21 .44MR .66 -.05 .79 .08 -.02 .63PA .52 -.02 .77 -.03 -.15 .49AR .70 .38 .11 .34 .05 .51DS .51 -.07 .08 .78 .00 .62LN .47 .00 -.07 .83 -.03 .63CD .40 -.04 -.02 -.05 .83 .63

SS .48 -.02 -.06 .04 .87 .73Note. VO = Vocabulary, SM = Similarities, IN = Information, CM = Comprehension, PC =

Picture Completion, BD = Block Design, MR = Matrix Reasoning, PA = Picture Arrangement, AR = Arithmetic, DS = Digit Span, LN = Letter-Number Sequencing, CD = Digit Symbol-Coding, and SS = Symbol Search. Salient coefficients (e•.38) are indicated in bold.

Three factors were also extracted and rotated for a statistical and substantive comparison to the four-factor solution. This three-factor solution accounted for 53% of the total variance, but left 33% of the residual matrix > |.05|. As reported in Table 3, the Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Organization factors collapsed into a combined factor with the Arithmetic subtest still loading on the Verbal Comprehension factor. Factor intercorrelations ranged from .39 for factors I and III to .48 for factors I and II. Although parsimonious, this solution was marked by two major flaws: (a) the large number of sizeable residuals suggested that additional factors should be extracted (Gorsuch, 2003), and (b) it was not congruent with the bulk of published WAIS-III factor analyses.

Given these statistical and substantive considerations, the four-factor solution was accepted as the most adequate for this sample of postsecondary students. To test that conclusion against the WAIS-III normative sample, the congruence coefficient (rc), an index of factorial similarity, was calculated for each factor. Jensen (1998) reported than an rc > +.90 indicates “a high degree of factor similarity; a value greater than +.95 is generally interpreted as practical identity of the factors” (p. 99). Based upon these guidelines, the Perceptual Organization factor from this sample of postsecondary students was found to display a high degree of factor similarity with the WAIS-III normative sample (rc = .90) and the Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, and Processing Speed factors were practically identical (rc = .97, .95, and .95, respectively) to the WAIS-III normative sample.

Table 3Structure of the WAIS-III for Principal-Axis Extraction and Promax Rotation of Three Factors

Among 183 Postsecondary Students Tested for a DisabilityPattern Coefficients

Subtest Unrotated first factor I II III CommunalityVO .75 .75 .06 -.01 .60SM .71 .84 -.12 -.03 .61IN .70 .75 .05 -.09 .56CM .68 .89 -.20 -.06 .63PC .54 .52 -.09 .19 .33BD .63 .43 .14 .22 .40MR .65 .52 .19 .04 .42PA .50 .51 .08 -.08 .28AR .70 .47 .33 .04 .51DS .51 -.03 .80 .00 .62LN .47 -.06 .82 -.04 .61CD .41 -.03 -.06 .82 .63SS .48 -.03 .03 .85 .72Note. VO = Vocabulary, SM = Similarities, IN = Information, CM = Comprehension, PC =

Picture Completion, BD = Block Design, MR = Matrix Reasoning, PA = Picture Arrangement, AR = Arithmetic, DS = Digit Span, LN = Letter-Number Sequencing, CD = Digit Symbol-Coding, and SS = Symbol Search. Salient coefficients (e•.38) are indicated in bold.

Discussion

Factor analyses of the WAIS-III scores of postsecondary students evaluated for determination of eligibility for disability services indicated that the four-factor model proposed by Wechsler (1997) for the general population was also appropriate for these students. Specifically, the WAIS-

III was best summarized by four factors: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. This supports the conclusions from previous factor analyses of the U.S. and Canadian WAIS-III normative samples (Saklofske et al., 2000; Taub, 2001) and suggests that the structure of the WAIS-III is similar across disparate populations (Ryan & Paolo, 2001). More specifically, these results support the use of the WAIS-III with postsecondary students with suspected disabilities.

However, these results must be considered within the context of this study’s limitations. Specifically, the sample of postsecondary students involved in this study was from a single university and was relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and age. Results may not extend to diverse students from other postsecondary institutions. Consequently, this study should be replicated using different samples of students to ensure that the results are generalizable. Additionally, research is needed to establish concurrent and predictive validity of the WAIS-III among postsecondary students. Other forms of construct validity, such as convergent and divergent validity, should also be examined.

This study of the structural validity of the WAIS-III found support for the same four-factor model in postsecondary students that has been proposed for the general population, supporting the use of this instrument for disability evaluations at the postsecondary level. However, as noted by Benson (1998), “one study does not validate or fail to validate the scores from a test. Numerous studies may be required, utilizing different approaches, different samples, and different populations to build a body of evidence that supports, or fails to support, the validity of the scores derived from a test” (p. 10). Nevertheless, the current results constitute preliminary evidence regarding the structural validity of the WAIS-III among postsecondary students referred for an evaluation.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7, 227-235.

Arnau, R. C., & Thompson, B. (2000). Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III. Assessment, 7, 237-246.

Association on Higher Education and Disability. (1997, July). Guidelines for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults. Columbus, OH: Author.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A further note on the multiplying factors for various x2 approximations in factor analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296-298.

Belter, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 717-726.

Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10-22.

Blake, B., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute.

Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 25-56.

Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150.

Burton, D. B., Ryan, J. J., Axelrod, B. N., & Schellenberger, T. (2002). A confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III in a clinical sample with crossvalidation in the standardization sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 371-387.

Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5-21). New York: Pergamon.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.

Dickinson, D., Iannone, V. N., & Gold, J. M. (2002). Factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III in schizophrenia. Assessment, 9, 171-180.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.

Gordon, M., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In M. Gordon & S. Keiser (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (pp. 98-129). New York: Guilford.

Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). Factor analysis. In J. A. Schinka & F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 2, research methods in psychology (pp. 143-164). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Hatzes, N. M., Reiff, H. B., & Bramel, M. H. (2002). The documentation dilemma: Access and

accommodations for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27, 37-52.

Henderson, C. (1992). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. Washington, DC: HEALTH Resource Center, American Council on Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 792).

Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., & McLean, J. E. (2001). Two- and three-factor solutions of

the WAIS-III. Assessment, 8, 267-280.Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn, J. T. (1996). Forensic

neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 45-51.

McGuire, J. (1998). Educational accommodations: A university administrator’s view. In M. Gordon & S. Keiser (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (pp. 20-45). New York: Guilford.

Messick, S. (2000). Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and values in psychological assessment. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 3-20). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence (NCES 2000-092). Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: Author.

Ofiesh, N. S., & McAfee, J. K. (2000). Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14-25.

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2, 13-43.

Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629-1646.

Ryan, J. J., & Paolo, A. M. (2001). Exploratory factor analysis of the WAIS-III in a mixed patient sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 151-156.

Saklofske, D. H., Hildebrand, D. K., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2000). Replication of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third edition with a Canadian sample. Psychological Assessment, 12, 436-439.

Sitlington, P. L. (2003). Postsecondary education: The other transition. Exceptionality, 11, 103-113.

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tataryn, D. J., Wood, J. M., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1999). Setting the value of k in promax: A Monte Carlo study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 384-391.

Taub, G. E. (2001). A confirmatory analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition: Is the verbal/performance discrepancy justified? Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(22), 1-9.

Tulsky, D. S., & Price, L. R. (2003). The joint WAIS-III and WMS-III factor structure: Development and cross-validation of a six-factor model of cognitive functioning. Psychological Assessment, 15, 149-162.

Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.

Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ward, L. C., Ryan, J. J., & Axelrod, B. N. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS-III standardization data. Psychological Assessment, 12, 341-345.

Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.

Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects of under- and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods, 1, 354-365.

Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education I: Disability Service Providers’ Perspective

NOTE: Tables for this article are attached as separate Excel Spreadsheet Files.

Catherine S. FichtenJennison V. AsuncionMaria BarileMyrtis E. FosseyChantal RobillardDarlene JuddJoan WolforthJoanne SenécalChristian GénéreuxJean-Pierre GuimontDaniel LambJean-Charles Juhel

Dawson College, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, McGill University

Abstract

Views and concerns of the professionals who deliver disability-related services at Canadian postsecondary education institutions about access to information and instructional technologies are presented. Findings are based on structured interviews with 156 individuals who represent 80% of the population of Canadian campus-based disability service providers. This makes the sample truly representative of the geographic, linguistic and institutional characteristics of the Canadian postsecondary educational system. Key findings in the following areas are highlighted:

characteristics of participating professionals; their wish lists; current state of campus information and instructional technologies for students with disabilities at junior/community colleges and universities; important factors in meeting the computer-related needs of students; and the presence and technology needs of postsecondary faculty and staff with disabilities. The results point to (a) the need for better integration of adaptive computer technologies with general-use computer labs on campus; (b) improved learning opportunities for everyone involved, including disability service providers, students, and faculty; and (c) the need to ensure adequate technical support for adaptive computer technologies on campus.

Participation in the knowledge-based economy of today means that people must be comfortable using the new information and communication technologies. Postsecondary education addresses this need, in part, by providing opportunities to learn and use these technologies. Examples include online and “hybrid” courses, Web-based registration, and the ubiquity of computer labs on campus. The challenge is to ensure that these technologies are both physically and technologically accessible to all students, including those with various impairments. Unless this requirement is met, graduates with disabilities face the danger of being unable to compete fairly with their nondisabled peers in a labor market that demands technology literacy.

Currently, the two groups closest to the issue of accessibility of on-campus computing and instructional technologies are the students themselves and the professionals who provide disability-related services to the postsecondary community. Previously, we examined the student perspective (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2001a; Fichten et al., 2001b). In the present study the focus shifts to the on-campus disability service providers’ technology-related needs and concerns. The goal was to understand these, highlight areas on concern, and propose possible solutions to existing and emerging problems. Information and Communication Technologies in Postsecondary Education

The increasing use of multimedia, Web-based and other technologies has resulted in rapid changes in both theory and practice in postsecondary education (cf. Bernstein, Caplan, & Glover, 2001; Campus Backbone Connectivity, 1999; EDUCAUSE Guide to Evaluating Information Technology on Campus, 2002; Kiernan, 2002). The ability to quickly learn and use such technologies is a sought-after skill in the new North American labor market. In parallel with this trend is evolution in the accessibility and affordability of both general-use and adaptive computer technologies (cf. Adobe, 2003; Apple, 2003; Freedom Scientific, 2003; IBM, 2003; Microsoft Corporation, 2003). The challenge then becomes ensuring that adaptive technologies are compatible with those appearing in education. If this occurs, it will contribute to providing access for many students with disabilities and permitting them to acquire the same skill sets and opportunities as their nondisabled peers. Such an outcome is, of course, contingent on gaining seamless and timely access to needed technologies and adaptations.

There is a concern that today’s emerging technology-driven curricula may pose barriers to many students with disabilities. What happens, then, to the student who is blind or Deaf and studying in a faculty that decides to deliver the majority of its courses using Web sites and authoring tools that do not adopt accessible and inclusive design standards (cf. Scott, Loewen, Funckes, & Kroeger, 2003)? The easy solution is to replace a technology-rich learning experience with one that fails to use computer technologies. This, of course, defeats part of the purpose of the intended learning goal (i.e., acquisition of technology literacy).

Campus-Based Professionals Who Provide Services to Students with DisabilitiesAt most North American postsecondary institutions, there is at least one designated

professional who is responsible for providing disability-related services and accommodations to students as well as to liaise and advocate with the campus community (AHEAD, 2002a, 2002b). In Canada, addressing the computer technology needs of students with disabilities has become part of their job description (Fichten, et al., 2001a). However, the background of many of these professionals has not prepared them for this rapidly evolving “high-tech” component of their job. The trend to incorporate technology as part of classroom teaching and learning will necessitate their increasing involvement and expertise.

Several American (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Burris, 1998; Coomber, 1996; Horn & Shell, 1990; Jackson, Morabito, Prezant, & Michaels, 2001; Lance, 1996; Michaels, Prezant, Morabito, & Jackson, 2001) as well as Canadian studies (Epp, 1996; Killean & Hubka, 1999) deal, at least in part, with views of postsecondary disability service providers on computer and adaptive technologies. Several of these have relatively large samples (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Horn & Shell, 1990; Jackson et al., 2001; Killean & Hubka, 1999; Lance, 1996; Michaels et al., 2001). Nevertheless, none provides a comprehensive picture of the realities found in Canadian colleges and universities.

Faculty and Staff with Disabilities on CampusAlthough we are aware of a handful of postsecondary educational institutions in Canada that

provide computer supports to faculty and staff with disabilities (e.g., University of Alberta: cf. Vosahlo, Hyndman, Sears, & Sheridan, 2001), to the best of our knowledge there are no empirical data on demographic factors, the computer and learning technology needs of postsecondary employees with disabilities, or on who is providing disability-related services to them. Similarly, a number of American postsecondary institutions have policies governing technology accommodations to employees (e.g., Vickery & McLure, 1998). However, we are not aware of any systematic evaluation of this issue. What makes the situation of these employees different from those in other industries is that most colleges and universities have a commitment and a support structure to provide services to students with disabilities. Whether this extends to faculty and staff with disabilities requires further study.

The Present InvestigationThe goal of this companion study to our previous work on technology access for

postsecondary students with disabilities (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b) was to provide the other side — the perspective of the on-campus professionals who deliver disability-related services. Issues covered include views about actual and desired situations when it comes to access to technology on campus; perceptions about students’ circumstances; and information on campuswide issues, including computer-related services for staff and faculty with disabilities.

MethodParticipants

Participants were 156 on-campus professionals responsible for providing disability-related services to students with disabilities (110 females and 46 males). Ninety-six worked at junior/community colleges, 58 at universities, and 2 at postsecondary distance education institutions (1 junior/community college, 1 university).

Participants represent 91 of the 115 community/junior colleges and 55 of the 68 universities that were listed on the Web pages of the ACCC (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, 2003) or the AUCC (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2003) on April 22, 2000. Interviewees met the following criteria: (a) their institution enrolled students, (b) they indicated that they had students with disabilities currently enrolled, and (c) they did not indicate that another postsecondary institution was responsible for services for students with disabilities. Several institutions had two or more campuses that were not individual members of AUCC or ACCC but that had different individuals delivering services to students with disabilities (e.g., some provinces have a regional college system with campuses in several cities). At several institutions, different individuals/units were accountable for specific impairments (e.g., learning disability versus physical disabilities). In these cases we attempted to interview all pertinent individuals. This resulted in more than one individual being interviewed at 10 postsecondary institutions. Thus, the 156 participants represent 146 independent institutional members of the ACCC or the AUCC. The overall participation rate was 80%.

ProcedureTo recruit participants we telephoned the 247 institutional members of the AUCC and the

ACCC that were listed on their Web sites on April 22, 2000. If an institution was a member of both, it was counted as a junior/community college because most of these institutions did not have charters to grant their own degrees.

We asked to speak to the person who had responsibilities for providing services to students with disabilities. Of the 247 institutions/campuses listed, 46 were ineligible because their services for students with disabilities were delivered by another campus or institution (e.g., affiliate colleges). Three member institutions were administrative or research units with no students. Fifteen had students, but declared that they were unaware of any students with disabilities currently enrolled. This left 183 eligible institutions.

Potential participants at the 183 eligible institutions were asked to volunteer. Despite repeated attempts, we were unable to reach potential participants at 11 institutions. Twenty-six individuals either refused to participate or had scheduling challenges. The remaining 156 were faxed or e-mailed the questions and an informed consent form before the scheduled interview. To encourage candid responses, participants were assured that information they provided would never be linked either to themselves or to their institution.

Interviews were conducted by telephone during the spring of 2000. Questions were loosely based on findings from our previous studies on students and smaller samples of campus-based disability service providers (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b). The interview protocol was subjected to multiple drafts. The procedure was pretested on a small sample of junior/community college and university professionals.

Structured Interview Questions Interview questions consisted of 60 items, including demographic questions (all questions are

available in Fichten et al., 2001c). Most took two forms: “actual situation,” which asked about the current situation at the respondents’ campus or sector, and “desired situation,” which asked about what would make things better. For the most part, “actual situation” items were positively worded, described a set of conditions at the institution (e.g., computer equipment is up-to-date), and stated that the characteristic met the needs of students with disabilities (e.g., “At my institution, computer and/or adaptive computer technologies are sufficiently up-to-date to meet the needs of students with disabilities”). “Desired situation” items focused on conditions that would make interviewees’ jobs easier to perform (e.g., “It would make my job easier if students with disabilities were knowledgeable users of computer and/or adaptive computer technologies”). For 12 topics the two types of items, “actual “ and “desired” situation, were paired (e.g., “The availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres for students with disabilities at my institution meets their needs” and “It would make my job easier if there were more adaptive computer technologies available in specialized labs/centres at my institution”). This allowed for comparisons between actual and desired situations.

A key criterion item inquired about how well, overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities were met at the respondent’s institution. Additional items included asking for the numbers of students with and without disabilities on the respondent’s campus and questions about technology-related support for faculty and staff with disabilities. Results

Data AnalysisInstitutional status (junior/community college vs. university) was treated as an independent

variable in most analyses. (a) We examined characteristics of postsecondary disability service providers using descriptive statistics, chi square and a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison (2 Sex x 2 Institution, Junior/Community College, University). (b) When comparing institutions with and without specialized computer equipment for students with disabilities, we again used descriptive statistics and chi square. Here we also performed a discriminant analysis and t-tests. (c) When evaluating the nature of institutional and computer and adaptive computer technologies, we examined aspects of the 23 “actual situation” variables using descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), correlations, regression, and t-tests. (d) Comparison of “actual” and “desired” situations was carried out using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and MANOVA and (e) The wish lists of disability service providers and issues related to faculty and staff with disabilities were examined using descriptive statistics and chi square.

Characteristics of Postsecondary Disability Service Providers

The sex distribution for individuals responsible for providing services to students with disabilities indicates that women outnumbered men by a ratio of 2:1 (i.e., 110 women and 46 men = 71% women). A nonsignificant chi square test showed that this was true of both junior/community colleges and universities.

Participants had an average of 9.25 years of experience working with students with disabilities (median = 9.50, mode = 10 years, range 1 to 26 years). A 2-way analysis of variance comparison (ANOVA: 2 Sex x 2 Institution (Junior/Community College, University)) showed that males (M = 10.73) had significantly more experience than females (M = 8.60), F(1,150)=3.92, p<.05. Neither the main effect for institution nor the interaction was significant.

Overall, participants indicated that they were not especially knowledgeable about adaptive computer technologies. The mean score was 3.70 (SD = 1.52) on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating being more knowledgeable. Indeed, the scores of 12% of participants suggested that they were not at all knowledgeable, while only 9% of scores suggested that the respondent was an expert. A 2-way ANOVA (2 Sex x 2 Institution) showed no significant differences between males and females or between individuals from community/junior colleges and universities.

Institutions With and Without Dedicated Computer and Adaptive Computer Technologies on Campus

Of the 154 non-distance education respondents, 132 (86%) indicated that they had equipment for students with disabilities on campus; 22 (14%) did not. Community/junior colleges (81%) were significantly less likely than universities (93%) to have specialized computers for their students with disabilities, X2(1)=4.00, p<.05.

To determine how institutions with and without computer equipment for students with disabilities differed, we conducted a discriminant analysis. Predictor variables were three institutional enrollment characteristics (number of students with disabilities, total student enrollment, proportion of students with disabilities). Because virtually all universities had equipment for students with disabilities, we did this only for colleges. Test results showed that none of the predictor variables was able to discriminate those colleges that did have equipment from those that did not. We also carried out a series of three t-tests to compare enrollment scores on campuses with and without equipment for their students. Although the means showed that institutions that had equipment had more students with disabilities (M=234.17, SD=299.42) than those which did not (M=107.06, SD=197.41), the t-test only approached significance, t(93)=1.67, p<.10. Neither the t-test on total institutional enrollment nor that on the percentage of students with disabilities was significant.

Advisory/steering committee. Only 23% of respondents indicated that their institution/campus had a multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of computer technologies for students with disabilities. Significantly more universities (35%) than community/junior colleges (17%) had such a committee, X2 (1)=5.14, p<.05. All committees had representation from the office for students with disabilities. Most (88%) had an administrator, a student with a disability (81%), and faculty (78%). Few had nondisabled students (31%). It is especially noteworthy that only one fourth (25%) of the committees included staff from computer services.

Priority of computer-related services. The priority placed upon computer-related services was average when weighted against other disability-related support services, with a mean of 2.25 (SD =.87) where 1 indicates very high priority and 4 indicates very low priority. The difference between universities (72% rated computer related services as high or very high priority) and colleges (61%) was not significant.

Regional computer technology loan programs to institutions. Of the 132 institutions that indicated that they had computer technologies on campus for their students, 35 (27%) noted that a provincial (Canadian equivalent of a state) or regional loan program supplied some of the computer and/or adaptive computer technologies. Mean response to the question inquiring about perceptions about the adequacy of resources provided by the loan program in meeting the needs of students with disabilities was 4.72 (SD = 1.43) on a 6-point scale, with higher scores indicating

greater satisfaction. This reflects considerable satisfaction. Indeed, only 16% of respondents indicated that the equipment provided failed to meet students’ needs. There was no significant difference between community/junior colleges and universities.

Good Institutional Computer and Adaptive Computer TechnologiesTwenty-three variables evaluated the adequacy of the institution’s program in meeting

students’ computer related needs. These are detailed in Table 1. A key criterion was a 6-point Likert scale rating on the following item, “Overall, the computer and/or adaptive computer technology needs of students with disabilities at my institution are adequately met.” As can be seen in Table 1, the computer-related needs of students were moderately well met at respondents’ institutions (mean = 4.20 on a 6-point scale, SD = 1.40, range 1-6, median = 5).

Funding for the institution’s computer technologies. Scores in Table 1 indicate a mean of 3.50 on a 6-point scale on a question about the adequacy of funding for the institution’s computer technologies, with higher scores indicating more favorable responses. In fact, 19% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that the level of funding at their institution for specialized computer technologies was adequate in meeting students’ needs, with an additional 20% disagreeing moderately. Six percent disagreed slightly. Only a little more than half of the respondents indicated that funding was adequate.

Access to adaptive computer technologies. Table 1 also shows that of the factors related to access, the hours of access to computers and the extent to which they were up-to-date were reasonably good (scores greater than 4 on a 6-point scale). However, the availability of adaptive computer technologies in general-use computer laboratories was seen as less than adequate (score =< 3). Only 77 institutions indicated that they had an off-campus computer technology loan program for students.

Internet/library and adaptive computer technologies. When it came to Internet and library access, the means in Table 1 indicate that Internet-based distance education was seen as inadequate in meeting the needs of students with disabilities (score =< 3). It should be noted, however, that many participants reported that they were unaware of Internet-based distance education courses at their institution.

Support for adaptive computer technologies. Table 1 also shows that the only favorable aspect of support for adaptive computer technologies was the administration’s positive response (score greater than 4 on a 6-point scale). Other aspects of support were seen as somewhat or very problematic. For example, available technical support, the presence of an adaptive computer technologist on campus, and the ability of computer support staff to service adapted computer technologies received ratings between 3 and 3.49, as did opportunities for employees to learn about computer and adaptive technologies. The degree to which individuals who provide services to students with disabilities are consulted when computer infrastructure decisions are made and the existence of an advisory/steering committee that deals with computer accessibility were seen as inadequate in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. As noted earlier, only 23% of institutions had an advisory/steering committee that deals with computer accessibility.

Faculty and computer accessibility. Table 1 also reveals that, according to the participants, computer-based teaching materials used by professors were not very accessible (mean was 3.14 on a 6-point scale). In addition, when faculty are trained to use computer technologies in their courses, information about making their courses accessible to students with disabilities was rarely part of the curriculum (score less than 2).

Outside the institution factors. As can be seen in Table 1, disability service providers generally felt that outside agencies provide students with appropriate equipment, although they were less positive about the training provided to students by these agencies.

Similarities and differences between community/junior colleges and universities. To find out whether college- and university-based disability service providers differed on the 23 variables, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) comparison was carried out. Because it is necessary for all subjects to complete all dependent measures, the MANOVA was carried out only on 21 variables (because relatively few institutions had an equipment loan program or Internet based

courses, the two items that dealt with these issues were left out of the MANOVA). The MANOVA was not significant, F(21,132)=1.46, p>.05.

Institutional enrollment. To explore whether institutional enrollment factors are important in adequately meeting the computer-related needs of students, we conducted a stepwise regression analysis to predict scores on the criterion item (i.e., the overall rating about how well students’ computer-related needs were met). The three institutional predictor variables were number of students with disabilities, total student enrollment, and percentage of students with disabilities. None of the variables entered the regression equation significantly. This is hardly surprising given the magnitude of the correlation between the criterion item and the three institutional variables (Pearson r(138) =.135, p>.05, r(139) =.149, p>.05, r(138) =.114, p>.05, respectively).

Institutions with and without specialized computer equipment for students with disabilities. A comparison was carried out of non-distance education institutions with (N = 132) and without computers (N=22) on campus specifically for students with disabilities on overall adequacy in meeting students’ computer and adaptive computer technology needs. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between institutions that did (M=4.26, SD=1.36) and those that did not (M=3.55, SD=1.81) have specific/dedicated equipment on campus for their students, t(136)=1.63, p>.05.

Importance of actual situation variables. The importance of the 23 variables listed in Table 1 in meeting students’ computer-related needs was examined in a series of correlations between scores on the 23 actual situation variables and score on the overall criterion rating. Coefficients are presented in rank order of importance in Table 2. These show that funding for the institutions’ adaptive computer technologies, good access to adaptive computer technologies, accessibility of Internet and library computers, and aspects of technical support for adaptive computer technologies were all important. This is also true of the accessibility of computer-based teaching materials used by professors. Although the services provided by external community agencies were not seen as important, the extent to which the campus-based disability service provider was knowledgeable about computer technologies was seen as a moderately important factor. These results were used to develop the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students with Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS), a 19-item self-administered tool that evaluates institutional computing accessibility for students with disabilities (Fossey et al., 2003). Actual” Vs. “Desired” Situation

To help compare “actual” and “desired” situations in terms of the adequacy of meeting the computer- related needs of students with disabilities, Table 3 provides “actual situation” means as well as uncorrected means for the pairs of “desired situation” items (“It would be helpful if …”). It should be noted however, that “desired situation” scores need to be interpreted in the context of the “actual situation” in each institution. This is evident from the Pearson correlation coefficients in Table 3, which showed that scores on 11 of the 12 “paired” items (i.e., paired “actual situation” and “desired situation” items) were significantly negatively correlated with each other (e.g., the less likely it is that computer support personnel can service adaptive computer technologies, the more highly desired it is for them to be able to do so). Table 3 also shows that all 12 paired t-tests comparing “actual” and “desired” situation means were significant. Thus, “desired” scores were significantly greater than “actual” ones (e.g., the mean “actual situation” score for the item that deals with the presence of a specialist in adaptive computer technologies on campus is 3.06 while the mean for the “desired situation” score is 5.28). The most pronounced differences were on items related to support for adaptive computer technologies.

What do individuals responsible for providing services to students with disabilities who have poor “actual situations” feel would be most helpful for them? To answer this question we divided the sample, based on their responses to the “actual” item, into those whose “actual situation” did or did not meet the needs of students with disabilities (i.e., score between 4 and 6 vs. score between 1 and 3). After a significant MANOVA we compared the scores of the two groups using paired t-tests.

Means and test results presented in Table 4 showed differences that were significant or approached significance on 10 of the 12 pairs of variables examined. These indicate that service providers whose existing conditions failed to meet the needs of students with disabilities wished to have the situation rectified. The variables that did not differ significantly were both affected by ceiling effects (i.e., scores in both groups over 5 on a 6-point scale).

In addition to comparing the means, it is also interesting to examine the proportion of individuals who felt that their “actual situation” on specific variables did or did not meet students’ needs. In this regard it is noteworthy that, as illustrated in Table 4, similar numbers of respondents indicated that their situation met the computer-related needs of their students on 5 of the 12 items. Substantially more respondents indicated that the needs of students were met when it came to two variables. On the remaining five items, substantially more respondents indicated that their situations did not meet the needs of their students. In particular, 109 participants indicted that neither the availability of a multidisciplinary advisory committee nor the extent to which they were consulted about campuswide technology infrastructure decisions met the needs of students with disabilities.

Adequate in meeting the needs of students. Substantially more respondents indicated that the computer- related needs of students were met on the following two items:· Availability of adaptive computer technologies in specialized labs/centres· Administration reacts positively concerning accessibility of computers

Mediocre. Approximately one half of the respondents indicated that their situation met the computer-related needs of their students on the following five items:· Funding for institution’s adaptive computer technologies· Physical space available for computer technologies· Training for students on adaptive computer technologies· Opportunities for employees to learn about adaptive technologies· Computer support personnel can service adaptive technologies

Inadequate in meeting the needs of students. Substantially more respondents indicated that the computer related needs of students were not met on the following five items:· Availability of adaptive computer technologies in general-use computer labs· Specialist in adaptive computer technologies on campus· Consulted when computer infrastructure decisions are made· Advisory/steering committee dealing with computer accessibility· Computer based teaching materials used by professors are accessible

Wish List of Personnel Who Provide Services to Students with DisabilitiesAs shown in Table 5, overall, disability service providers wished that students were better

equipped and prepared for the postsecondary experience. For example, three of the four highest-ranked items expressed the wish for students to be more knowledgeable computer users, for students to be able to get subsidized computer technologies for home use more easily, and for students to have better access to computers off campus. The next group of highly ranked items relate to the need for accessibility of computer-based teaching materials used by professors and for support services.

When only the responses of participants who felt that their current situation did not meet the needs of students with disabilities were considered, the top-ranked item was the need for more favorable response from the administration. The need for accessible materials from professors, for a person to train students, for more space for the equipment, for more professional development time and more funding topped the list. Additional details may be found in Table 5.

Faculty and Staff with Disabilities To study the presence of faculty and staff with disabilities at Canadian community/junior

colleges and universities, participants’ responses to the following question were evaluated, “To the best of your knowledge, how many employees with disabilities, including yourself if applicable, are there at your institution?” Because institutions varied tremendously in size, we also examined the ratio of number of employees with disabilities to the total student enrollment.

Only 106 disability service providers felt able to answer the question about the number of individuals with disabilities employed on campus. Their responses indicated that there was an average of 13 employees with disabilities per institution (SD = 28, range = 0 to 200, median = 3, mode = 0). Comparable proportion data (i.e., number of employees with disabilities per 1,000 students) were as follows. The range of scores is 0/1000 to 20/1000, with a mean of 2/1000, a median of 1/1000 and a mode of 0/1000 employees with disabilities.

Who should provide computer-related services/accommodations to faculty and staff with disabilities? Only 112 participants were able to answer this question. Of these, 23% indicated that they or their office would provide this service. Seventy-seven percent indicated that this was not the case. The chi square test indicated no significant difference between junior/community colleges and universities, X2=.362, p>.05.

So who, if not the Office for Students with Disabilities, is expected to provide compute- related services to employees with disabilities? Eighty-six respondents provided 100 answers. Detailed in Table 6, these indicated that the most frequent response (cited by 37 participants) was “Human Resources.” This was followed by the employee’s department or the employee himself or herself. Eight disability service providers did not know. Other responses noted by several participants included computer services, the institution’s administration, an employment equity/human rights committee, rehabilitation services external to the institution, and occupational health and safety.

Discussion

Limitations of the ResearchWe were fortunate to obtain the participation of 156 individuals who provide disability-related

services to students. They represent 80% of the population of campus-based disability service providers. Thus, our sample is truly representative of the geographic, linguistic, and institutional characteristics of the Canadian postsecondary educational system. Nevertheless, certain limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings.

First, the majority of participants admitted to having limited knowledge of adaptive and computer-based learning technologies. Therefore, we cannot be sure about how they interpreted certain concepts (e.g., computer-based teaching materials). A related problem involves interpretation of the term “accessibility” (e.g., available vs. usable by students with different impairments). When asked, we clarified what we meant. Also, some participants consulted their institution’s adaptive technology expert. Most did not. This, too, could have influenced the findings.

A second concern relates to respondents’ difficulty in answering questions about the number of students on campus. This applies both to the question about the number of students with disabilities and the one about overall campus enrollment. This occurred because there are many different categories of students: full-time, day, evening, continuing education, and so on. In general, the number provided by respondents reflected the number of students registered to receive disability-related services.

In spite of these limitations, available validity indices suggest that responses in our study accurately reflect the situation of these professionals. Wherever comparisons were possible with American or Canadian data from smaller samples, the results show remarkable consistencies. This is true of the number and the proportion of students registered to receive disability related services on campus and overall institutional enrollments (Fichten et al., 2003), as well as the nature of issues and concerns raised by the participants. In spite of these favorable checks on ecological validity, the limitations noted above must be taken into consideration.

Who Are They? Characteristics of Professionals Who Provide Services to Students with Disabilities

Two thirds of our participants were women, a figure only slightly lower than the 80% reported in a recent American study (Michaels et al., 2001). Although there was great variability, participants had, on average, spent between 9 and 10 years working in this field. Males had more experience than females. The experience of those working in colleges and universities did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between males and females or between college- and university-based staff on knowledge about information and instructional technologies. Generally, participants indicated that they were not very knowledgeable about computer technologies for students with disabilities. In their recent American investigation, Michaels et al. (2001) also found this to be the case. Surprisingly, this is very similar to data collected by Lance (1996) almost a decade ago. What is different between her results and ours is that participating professionals now recognize the need for training in this area.

Expertise in the use and deployment of computer and adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities is rapidly becoming a necessity in postsecondary education. This suggests that money and time need to be invested in professional development opportunities.

Actual Situation of Specialized Computers on Canadian CampusesInstitutions with and without computer and adaptive computer technologies on campus for

students with disabilities. In previous research we showed that close to one half of postsecondary students with disabilities need some type of adaptation to use a computer effectively (e.g., keyboard and input device modifications, screen magnification or voice output, dictation software) (Fichten et al., 2001a). Given the large numbers of students needing adaptations, it was not surprising to find that most institutions (86%) had some specialized computer equipment for them. This is a marked improvement over American data from a decade ago, which showed that only 60% to 70% of institutions provided computer equipment for their students with disabilities (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993; Horn & Shell, 1990).

Our data show that virtually all universities had specific/dedicated equipment. Even though the average number of students with disabilities enrolled in junior/community colleges and universities is very similar (Fichten et al., 2003), colleges were significantly less likely to have such equipment. The main difference between the 81% of community/junior colleges that had some type of specialized computer or adaptive computer technologies and the 19% that did not was the number of students with disabilities on campus.

Multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of computer technologies for students with disabilities. It is important to note that less than one fourth of institutions had a multidisciplinary advisory/steering committee that deals with the accessibility of computer technologies for students with disabilities, a finding similar to American statistics (Lewis, Farris, & Greene, 1999). Universities were somewhat more likely than community/junior colleges to have such a structure. Thus, 34% of universities had them, while only 17% of community/junior colleges did so. Neither distance education institution had one.

These committees generally included at least one representative from the office for students with disabilities, the administration, students with disabilities, and the faculty. Only one fourth had computer services staff representation. This is similar to American findings from the early 1990s (Burgstahler, 1992, 1993), where only about one third of higher education institutions made decisions after formal broad-based consultation. With the increased use of computer technologies in the delivery of postsecondary education, this is an important area where broader consultation will be needed. Specifically, in the future, it will become necessary to ensure that course and department Web pages, materials in courses using authoring tools such as WebCT, off-the-shelf software loaded onto networks, and so on, meet accessible and inclusive design guidelines (cf. Do-It, undated; Scott et al., 2003) and are compatible with adaptive technologies.

If the use of technology in higher education continues to be an important priority on North American campuses, these types of committees with the necessary mix of expertise are vital to ensure that disability-related concerns can be addressed. This would also provide a more prominent role for accessibility and would go a long way toward ensuring that all interested parties are consulted when campuswide computer infrastructure decisions are made.

Priority placed upon computer-related services. In general, when asked to consider their full range of disability-related services, respondents told us that computer-related services were accorded a priority between high and low. American data indicate greater importance (Michaels et al., 2001). Indeed, U.S. data show that adapted equipment ranks seventh among the most prevalent disability services and accommodations in community colleges (cited in Most college students with disabilities attend community colleges, undated). Universities accorded somewhat higher priority to such services than colleges. In the future we expect this function will gain in importance as all postsecondary institutions proceed along the road to greater integration of computer technologies across curricula.

Regional computer technology loan programs to institutions. An important finding concerns the strong satisfaction expressed by service providers with the equipment provided by centralized regional loan banks for computer technologies. Thus 35% of institutions indicated that a centralized loan program supplied some of the specialized computer and/or adaptive computer technologies on campus. There was no significant difference on this variable between

community/junior colleges and universities. Indeed, only 16% of respondents who had access to a loan bank indicated that the equipment provided failed to meet students’ needs.

Institutional Computer and Adaptive Computer TechnologiesOverall, respondents reported that the computer-related needs of students with disabilities

were moderately well met at their institutions. This was true for both community/junior colleges and universities. Neither the size of the institution nor the number or proportion of students with disabilities was related to overall adequacy in meeting students’ technology needs.

It was counterintuitive to find that availability of specialized equipment on campus was unrelated to meeting students’ computer-related needs. Nevertheless, similar findings have been reported by others (e.g., Lance, 1996). It should be noted that it was primarily the community/junior colleges that had relatively low enrollments of students with disabilities that were likely to have no dedicated equipment on campus. The lack of a link between availability of specialized technologies and the institution’s ability to meet the computer-related needs of these students may reflect three possibilities. First, students on campuses with no dedicated equipment may not need any specialized computer technologies because using computers on campus is not required by their programs. Second, it is feasible that many of them do not need specific adaptations and are able to use the equipment available in the college’s general-use computer labs. The third possibility is that they are able to cope by using their own equipment and/or extensive human assistance on campus.

We do not have data bearing directly on this issue. The findings of our previous investigations (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b) do suggest, however, that it is a combination of all three possibilities that best explain the findings. First, most students with disabilities are enrolled in social sciences and creative arts programs, which, at this point, tend not to use computer technologies in sophisticated ways. Second, data from our previous investigations indicate that somewhat less than half of them need adaptations to use a computer effectively. Third, our previous findings indicate that most students have computer equipment available to them off campus. Finally, anecdotal information from our respondents (cf. Fichten et al., 2000) suggests that in smaller colleges, service providers are able to make available human assistance to students (e.g., have someone read material for students with print impairments, arrange for a scribe or a note taker to assist students with writing).

Those who work at smaller community/junior colleges and on campuses that have little or no dedicated computer equipment or support for their students with disabilities felt that the lack of equipment has not posed significant problems. This is because enrollments are still low enough so that human assistance is available in place of technological adaptations (Fichten et al., 2000, 2001a). Thus, service providers in smaller community/junior colleges may have been proceeding with an individualized, case-by-case approach. In this regard, however, it should be noted that Paul Grossman, in recapping a recent landmark decision by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, pointed out that providing human assistance in lieu of making computer adaptations available was not an appropriate accommodation (Hamilton, Grossman, Black, & Tate, 2001). This is because such assistance does not afford students with disabilities the same opportunities as those available to their nondisabled peers. For example, assistance is available only when the human assistant is available, there is a loss of autonomy, and skills needed to function in the academic environment are not learned. In the near future, all campuses must make computer technologies available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The need to ensure adequate access and usage of appropriate computer technologies is also underscored by the findings of Rumrill, Koch, Murphy, and Jannarone (1999). Their in-depth interview study of a small sample of recent graduates suggests the need for postsecondary institutions to play a more active role in introducing students to computer and adaptive technologies if they wish to facilitate transition from higher education to the workplace.

Evaluation Criteria: Meeting the Computer-Related Needs of Students with DisabilitiesThe following factors were deemed important in ensuring that the institution is technologically

welcoming to its students with disabilities:· Sufficient funding for computer and adaptive computer technologies · Adequate training opportunities for students from agencies in the community

· Good access to adaptive computer technologies on campus· Computer and adaptive computer technologies that are up-to-date and available in both

general-use computer labs and specialized labs/centres· The existence of an off-campus computer technology loan program· Availability of training for students on adaptive computer technologies · Adequate physical space to house computer technologies · Extensive hours of access to computers, including adapted computer technologies· Availability of support for adaptive computer technologies on campus· Good technical support for adaptive computer technologies on campus· Opportunities for employees to learn about adaptive technologies· Favorable reactions from administration concerning the accessibility of computers · Expertise with adaptive computer technologies of disability service providers · Accessible computer based teaching materials used by professors· Availability of sufficient numbers of adapted computers with internet access· Library computers that are accessible to students with a variety of impairments· Internet-based distance education designed to be accessible to students with disabilities

Report Card: Adequacy of Computer and Instructional Technologies On Campus In general, the responses indicated that the overall computer-related needs of students with

disabilities on campus were reasonably well met. This is similar to ratings in others’ studies (e.g., Burris, 1998). There were relatively few differences between community/junior colleges and universities. However, where institutional differences did exist, ratings at universities were generally more favorable than those at colleges. There were areas of strength and weakness for both community/junior colleges and universities.

Areas of strength were: · Hours of access to computers and the extent to which they were up-to-date· Administrations generally respond favorably when it comes to issues related to the

accessibility of computers for students with disabilities· Community agencies provided students with appropriate equipment

Participants felt that college administrations were supportive of the computer-related concerns of students with disabilities. Yet, there was a suggestion that this support may not extend to good funding. A common comment was, “They are certainly supportive in words, but in terms of being proactive, and putting money where their mouths were, that is a totally different issue.” For example, the rating concerning the adequacy of the current state of funding received a score below 4 on a 6-point scale and additional funding for computer and adaptive computer technologies was a highly rated item on service providers’ wish lists.

Problem areas were: · Poor technical support for adapted computer technologies· Inadequate availability of adaptive computer technologies in general-use computer

laboratories and lack of physical space for adapted computers in specialized labs/centers· No off-campus computer technology loan program for students· Few opportunities for employees to learn about computer and adaptive technologies· Lack of consultation of disability service providers when campuswide computer infrastructure

decisions are made· Absence of multisectorial advisory/steering committees to deal with computer accessibility· Inaccessible Internet-based distance education courses· Computer-based teaching materials used by faculty are frequently inaccessible and faculty

are not informed about computer related needs of students with disabilities · Community agencies do not provide adequate training for students using adaptive

technologies

Overall, ratings related to support for computer and adaptive computer technologies for students with disabilities were generally poor as was the overall level of interdepartmental

collaboration. Also, many noted a lack of awareness by faculty regarding computer-related problems. For example, in training programs aimed at promoting the educational use of computer technologies by faculty, issues related to accessibility for students with disabilities were generally not discussed. An anecdotal example highlights this. One of us, while taking a seminar at a large metropolitan university on how to develop course-related Web pages, was told when asking about the accessibility of a course tool that, “Professor, don’t you know? Students who are blind cannot see the monitor. So they can’t use a computer.” Q.E.D.

Wish ListsExamination of respondents’ wish lists showed, not surprisingly, that desired items

followed low ratings concerning the institution’s actual situation. In particular, they indicated that their jobs would be easier to carry out if students were better equipped and prepared for the computer-related aspects of the college experience. For example, three of the four most highly ranked items expressed the wish for students to be able to get subsidized computer technologies for home use more easily, for them to have better access to computers off campus, and for students to be more knowledgeable computer users.

The next group of highly ranked items related to technical and financial support, including having the institution’s computer support people take more responsibility for adaptive computer equipment, an adaptive computer specialist, better funding for computer-related activities, and more space for equipment. Respondents also wanted to be consulted when campuswide IT infrastructure decisions are made and professional development time to learn about adaptive computer technologies.

Last but not least, respondents wished that technology-based teaching materials and techniques used by faculty were more accessible. Indeed, lack of faculty awareness about students’ computer and instructional technology needs is echoed by recent American findings (Michaels et al., 2001).

Faculty and Staff with Disabilities Presence on campus. Many respondents were unable to even estimate the number of

employees with disabilities at their institution. When responses were provided, the most common response was 0 employees with disabilities at the respondent’s institution. The median response was 3 individuals and the mean was 13. There were large discrepancies, with a range of 0 to 200. Community/junior colleges and universities did not differ significantly on either the number or the proportion of employees with disabilities.

Who should provide computer- related services/accommodations to faculty and staff with disabilities? Less than one fourth of respondents indicated that they or the Office for Students with Disabilities would do so. So if not them, then who? Here, there was considerable confusion. The most popular answer (37%) was Human Resources. This was followed by the employee’s department (13%). It was especially dismaying to find that the next most popular response was that the employee himself or herself was responsible (10%), or that the respondent simply did not have any ideas about who should provide computer-related services to these employees (8%). This is an issue that has to be addressed in the near future.

Future Research

Our findings highlight the need for further study in a variety of areas. These include: what are the best means of ensuring the availability of adaptations in general-use computer labs; what kinds of training opportunities about adaptive computer technologies are best suited for disability service providers and for faculty; how can the institutional IT staff best be motivated to take responsibility for adaptive computer technologies; what are different ways of ensuring that students have access to training and needed adapted equipment for home use; how many individuals with disabilities work in postsecondary education and who is responsible for providing services, including computer-based accommodations.

In ConclusionIt is important to ensure that postsecondary administrators, instructors, and other campus-

based technicians and professionals incorporate accessible and inclusive design principles when

planning and implementing learning and computer technologies. These must be accessible to the whole campus community. Professionals who provide disability-related accommodations and students with disabilities have to be at the table during such discussions. Otherwise, higher education institutions will contribute to widening the digital divide and to disenfranchising individuals with disabilities by denying them opportunities to learn and compete on an equal footing for employment in the new economy. Recommendations and practical suggestions about how to accomplish changes are provided in a companion article in this issue Adobe. (2003). Access.adobe.com Adobe Acrobat software and Adobe Portable Document

Format (PDF) files. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://access.adobe.com AHEAD. (2002a). AHEAD professional standards. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from

http://www.ahead.org/publications/standards.htmlAHEAD. (2002b). AHEAD program standards. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from

http://www.ahead.org/publications/programstandards.htmlApple. (2003). People with special needs. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from

http://www.apple.com/disability/ Association of Canadian Community Colleges, (ACCC). (2003). ACCC membership list.

Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://www.accc.ca/english/colleges/membership_list.cfmAssociation of Universities and Colleges of Canada, (AUCC). (2003). Canadian universities.

Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://www.aucc.ca/can_uni/our_universities/index_e.htmlAsuncion, J.V., Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (in press). Access to

information and instructional technologies in higher education II: Practical recommendations for disability service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Bernstein, R., Caplan, J., & Glover, E. (2001). America’s 100 Most Wired Colleges –2000. Yahoo! Internet Life. Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://www.zdnet.com/zdsubs/yahoo/content/100mostwired/index.html

Burgstahler, S. (1992). Computing services for physically disabled students in post-secondary institutions: Results of a survey in Washington state. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.

Burgstahler, S. (1993). Computing services for disabled students in institutions of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Human and Social Sciences, 54(1), 102-A.

Burris, G.L. (1998, January). Assistive technology support and strategies – A summary. Unpublished manuscript, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.

Campus Backbone Connectivity. (1999, April). Syllabus, p.10.Coomber, S. (1996). Inclusion: Strategies for accommodating students with disabilities who use

adaptive technology in the classroom. Vancouver, BC: Human Resources Development Canada, Disabled Persons Participation Program.

Do-It. (n.d.). Technology and universal design. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Resources/technology.html

EDUCAUSE guide to evaluating information technology on campus. (2002). Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.educause.edu/consumerguide/academic.asp#

Epp, M.A. (1996, Winter). A study of the use of Braille and electronic texts in B.C. community/junior colleges and institutes. Braille survey. Unpublished manuscript, Langara College, British Columbia.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2001a). Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities I: Comparison of student and service provider perspectives. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 28-58.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De Simone, C., & Wells, D. (2001b). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 185-221.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., & Lamb, D. (2003). Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they? In Press.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., & Barile, M., with the collaboration of Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., Judd, D., Guimont, J.P., Tam, R., & Lamb, D. and Partner Representatives: Généreux, C., Juhel, J.C., Senécal., J., & Wolforth, J. (2001c). Computer and information technologies:

Resources for the postsecondary education of students with disabilities. Final Report to the Office of Learning Technologies. Hull, Québec: Office of Learning Technologies. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 458 733 and EC 308 679). Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://omega.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/adaptech/pubs/olt01pdf.exe.

Fossey, M.E., Asuncion, J.V., Fichten, C.S., Robillard, C., Barile, M., Amsel, R., Prezant, F., & Morabito, S. (2003). Development and validation of the Accessibility of Campus Computing for Students with Disabilities Scale (ACCSDS). Submitted for publication.

Fichten, C.S., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M., Asuncion, J., Généreux, C., Judd, D., & Guimont, J.P. (2000). Access to college for all: ITAC Project - Computer and adaptive computer technologies in the cegeps for students with disabilities / L’accessibilité au cégep pour tous: Projet ITAC - informatique et technologies adaptées dans les cégeps pour les étudiants handicapés. Final report to PAREA (Programme d’aide à la recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage). Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation. Eric Document Reproduction Service (ED445457). Retrieved July, 11, 2003, from http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/itacexee.pdf

Freedom Scientific. (2003). Home page. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.freedomscientific.com/

Hamilton, S., Grossman, P., Black, R., & Tate, P. (2001, July.). We did it, so can you: California addresses their OCR identified deficiencies. Presentation at the Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability), Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Horn, C.A., & Shell, D.F. (1990). Availability of computer services in postsecondary institutions: Results of a survey of AHSSPPE members. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 8(1), 115-124.

IBM. Accessibility center guidelines. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www-3.ibm.com/able/guidelines.html

Jackson, K., Morabito, S.M., Prezant, F.P., & Michaels, C.A. (2001, July). The current status of technology on campus for students with disabilities: The DSS perspective. Presentation at the Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability) Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Kiernan, V. (2002). Technology will reshape research universities dramatically, science-academy report predicts. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 8, 2002. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110801t.htm

Killean, E., & Hubka, D. (1999, July). Working towards a coordinated national approach to services, accommodations and policies for post-secondary students with disabilities: Ensuring access to higher education and career training. Report to the National Educational Association of Disabled Students. Ottawa: NEADS, 426 Unicentre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6.

Lance, G. D. (1996). Computer access in higher education: A national survey of service providers for students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Development, 37(3), 279-288.

Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1999, August). An institutional perspective on students with disabilities in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics: Statistical Analysis Report. Retrieved July 11, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999046.pdf. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. NCES 1999-046.

Michaels, C., Prezant, F., Morabito, S., & Jackson, K. (2001). Assistive and instructional technology for college students with disabilities: A national snapshot of disabled student providers. Journal of Special Ed Technology, 17(1), 5-14.

Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft accessibility – Technology for everyone. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

Most college students with disabilities attend community colleges. (Undated). Retrieved July 11, 2003 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ERIC/edinfos/EDINFO3.HTML

Rumrill, Jr., J.D., Koch, L.C., Murphy, P.J., & Jannarone, A. (1999). Technology transfer concerns of college graduates with disabilities: Profiles in transition from higher education to competitive careers. Work, 13(1), 43-49.

Scott, S.S., Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S. (2003, Spring). Implementing universal design in higher education: Moving beyond the built environment. Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16(2), 78-89.

Vickery, L. J., & McClure, M.D. (1998). The 4 P’s of accessibility in post-secondary education: Philosophy, policy, procedures and programs. Proceedings of the CSUN Conference. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/conf/csun_98/csun98_099.htm

Vosahlo, M., Hyndman, M., Sears, P., & Sheridan, T. (2001). Expanding disability resource centers to include services to faculty and staff with disabilities. Presentation at the Annual AHEAD (Association on Higher Education And Disability) Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Access to Information and Instructional Technologies in Higher Education II: Practical Recommendations for Disability Service Providers

Jennison V. AsuncionCatherine S. FichtenMaria BarileMyrtis E. FosseyChantal Robillard

Dawson College, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, McGill University

AbstractThis is an applied companion to our empirical article elsewhere in this issue (Fichten et

al., in press) on technological needs and concerns of Canadian junior/community college- and university-based disability service providers. Here, we provide highlights of our findings as well as timely, practical recommendations to disability service providers about ensuring access to the growing array of information and instructional technologies on campus. The objective is to provide (a) an overview of the emerging landscape of information and instructional technologies appearing on campus, (b) campus-based disability service providers’ views about these and how these relate to adaptive technologies, and (c) suggestions about how to be proactive on campus so that information and instructional technologies are accessible to all students, particularly those with disabilities.

The underlying premise of this article is that information and instructional technologies are part of the everyday lives of college and university students now, and for the foreseeable future. Whether it is registering via the Web for a semester’s worth of courses, taking a university degree fully on-line, conducting complex physics experiments using a computer-based simulation tool, or downloading assignments from a professor’s Web site, students are bombarded with multiple opportunities to use and to learn with technology (Birchall, 1999; Green, 2000, 2001; Landsberger, Krey, & Moorhead, 2001; Vachris, 1999). Some schools are experimenting with providing laptops to all of their students, creating a ubiquitous computing environment where all students are supposed to have access to electronic course material and digital resources anywhere on campus (Blurton, Chee, Long, Resmer, & Runde, 1999; McCoy, Heafner, Burdick, & Nagle, 2001). The greatest increase in the use of such technologies is by faculty who employ them to support their teaching (Green, 2001).

This development has a profound impact on students with disabilities, both positive and negative. We have documented the numerous positives in our previous research and publications (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Fossey, & Robillard, 2001a; Fichten et al., 2001b, 2001c, 2003).

However, a key concern remains that faculty, in the rush to integrate technology into their teaching, do not necessarily consider the access needs of students with various disabilities (e.g., Bissonnette & Schmid, 2003). Therefore, issues such as how students without the use of their hands can use a laptop that is not outfitted with adaptations, how a student who is blind will participate in an on-line activity involving sharing graphs and charts with fellow students on an electronic whiteboard, or how a student who is deaf will learn using an uncaptioned educational CD-ROM videoclip are most probably not at the front of the concerns of faculty and staff during selection and implementation of information and instructional technology.

Such issues would more than likely surface at the point at which a student with a disability registers for and/or shows up on the first day of the course. A natural reaction would most probably include a call to the disability service provider, shifting the accountability from the hands of faculty into those of the campus-based disability service provider. The question then becomes, “Are the professionals who work in campus disability services offices prepared to tackle accessibility-related issues resulting from the introduction of emerging information and instructional technologies?”

Highlights of Our Findings on Views and Concerns of Campus-Based Disability Service Providers Our previous work focused on the technology-related views and concerns of students with

disabilities (Fichten et al., 2001a, 2001b). To complete the picture, in the companion piece to this article our focus shifted to the needs and concerns of the professionals who oversee the delivery of disability-related services on Canadian junior/community college and university campuses (Fichten et al., in press). This structured telephone interview study involved 156 participants, representing 80% of Canada’s public postsecondary junior/community colleges and universities.

Questions solicited information about the actual and desired accessibility of computer technologies on campus, institutional and external factors that help or hinder access to these technologies, and the situation of faculty and staff with disabilities. Results of this study form the basis for the recommendations that follow. For more in-depth information about the study, see Fichten et al. (in press). Key findings are listed below.· Two thirds of professionals providing services to students with disabilities in Canadian higher

education institutions are female· Despite variability, on average, service providers had 9 – 10 years’ experience providing

disability-related services on campus· In general, subjects reported that they were not very knowledgeable when it comes to

computer technologies for students with disabilities· Virtually all universities had specific/dedicated computer equipment for students with

disabilities; however, junior/community colleges were less likely to have this· Only 34% of universities and 17% of junior/community colleges had multidisciplinary

advisory/steering committees dealing with the accessibility of computer technologies· The presence of adaptive technologies in general-use computer labs was seen as an urgent

priority· A strong need was expressed for better technical support for adaptive computer technologies

on campus· Opportunities for disability service providers to learn about adaptive computer technologies

were seen as inadequate· Computer-based teaching materials used by faculty were frequently seen as inaccessible· Faculty were seen as poorly informed about the computer-related needs of students with

disabilities · Accessibility of Internet-based distance education and Web-based “hybrid” courses was seen

as problematic in some institutions · There was massive confusion about who should provide computer-related access services to

faculty and staff with disabilities

Recommendations for Individuals Responsible for Providing Services to Students with DisabilitiesWhat follows are several practical suggestions that campus-based disability service providers

may find useful in terms of beginning to proactively address the types of accessibility-related issues that result from the increasing use of information and instructional technology. Informing

these suggestions are our research findings, formal and informal conversations with practitioners that occurred over the life of our study, and background gained from the literature.

Identify the institutionwide committees and the key players who are driving campuswide instructional and information technology-related decisions. Encourage regular conversations about accessibility by having it added as a standing item on meeting agendas. Additionally, work to have someone from your office (i.e., yourself and/or your adaptive technology specialist) invited to the committee meetings. Finding out, for example, whether accessibility is a criterion used when choosing eLearning vendors, or whether accessibility is addressed within campus IT plans are among the first areas to examine. This is one method of ensuring that accessibility becomes an ongoing concern and that you/your office have a voice in influencing policy and technology implementation decisions (e.g., purchasing software from vendors that are Section 508 compliant (see Department of Justice of the United States, undated). More important, this is an opportunity for you to learn about and prepare for upcoming information and instructional technology developments on campus. Your school’s chief information officer, VP of information technology, and/or the unit that provides faculty training and support in the use of technology in the classroom are good starting points for finding out what committees exist. This action also conveys a message that ensuring the accessibility of academic computing by all members of the college community is a shared responsibility that cannot be ignored or relegated solely to your office.

Help your institution’s faculty training and support unit that deals with the use of technology in the classroom understand that they play a critical role in promoting accessibility. Many faculty members have to acquire the basic skills needed to teach with technology (cf. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, 1999). In cases where institutions provide means through which faculty and staff receive training in how to use these technologies, it seems practical to use these forums to also address accessibility. Seek out those who provide this type of professional development on your campus and encourage them to integrate issues of accessibility by learners with disabilities in their workshops and teaching materials. For persons interested in a “readable” minimally technical presentation, the recent guidelines by the IMS Accessibility Working Group (2002) should be of interest. In addition, excellent user-friendly suggestions are made by Burgstahler (1998), Campbell and Waddell (1997), Do-It (undated), and the National Center for Accessible Media (2003).

Arrange to loan computer technologies to students. The institution may wish to develop a program to loan equipment to students. For example, students could benefit from being able to use laptops to work on assignments between classes, to take their own notes in class, give presentations, work in groups, or communicate with other students. Such technological solutions could also be cost-effective due to the decreasing price of laptop computers.

Make training a priority for both students and postsecondary personnel. Lack of knowledge about how to use specialized computer technologies on the part of both students and staff who oversee the technology is an important concern. If it is to be used effectively and in tandem with emerging information and instructional technology, systematic training must be seen as part of the overall investment in solving problems. Periodic inservice workshops, demonstrations by students or colleagues from neighboring universities and colleges, professionals, or representatives of adaptive technology organizations and companies should be explored. Some vendors of adaptive computer technologies may “loan” their products on consignment to community/junior colleges and universities for evaluation. Software products often have downloadable trial or demonstration versions. Some institutions have offered training programs to enable students with disabilities to use computers more effectively (e.g., High Tech Center Training Unit of the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 1999). Whether it is providing educational opportunities or allotting time to allow staff to learn on their own (e.g., on-line workshops provided by WebAim http://www.webaim.org and/or EASI http://www.rit.edu/~easi), learning about adaptive computer technologies must take place. Where adaptive technologies are placed at various locations and at different campuses, local staff (e.g., library staff, staff in computer labs) need to receive at least minimal training to enable them to assist students.

Conclusions

Three trends are evident in postsecondary institutions. First, community/junior colleges and universities are implementing information technology (e.g., portals, offering laptops to students). Second, they are adopting policies to ensure that their campuses are “wired.” Third, they are experimenting with and introducing new methods of teaching with technology (e.g., adding computer-based components to courses, using tools such as WebCT, offering entire degrees online.). Failing to proactively address the accessibility of the technologies has consequences that affect the ability of many students with disabilities to take full advantage and to participate in the same learning opportunities as their nondisabled peers. It also puts them on an unequal footing when they graduate into a labor market hungry for new hires who are comfortable using technology.

These issues must be planned for and dealt with from the beginning, and not on an “ad hoc” basis, when it may be too late to do something for the student. The key is to identify and partner with those on campus who champion adoption of new information and instructional technologies and with those who support their use, and to press the case that these technologies must be accessible to all students.

References

Birchall, D. (1999). Transforming the learning process by the use of information and communications technology. International Journal of Innovative Higher Education, 13, 16-21.

Bissonnette, L., & Schmid, R. (2003). Information and instructional technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities: Research and practice. Presentation at AMTEC (Association for Media and Technology in Education in Canada), May, Montréal. Abstracted in Conference Program, pp. 23-24. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://doe.concordia.ca:16080/amtec/program.pdf

Blurton, C., Chee, Y.S., Long, P.D., Resmer, M., & Runde, C. (1999). Assured access: Mobile computing initiatives on five university campuses. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 446731).

Burgstahler, S. (1998). Making web pages universally accessible. CMC Magazine. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/jan/burg.html

Campbell, L.M., & Waddell, C.D. (1997). Electronic curbcuts: How to build an accessible web site. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/ecc.htm

Department of Justice of the United States. (n.d.). Section 508 home page. Retrieved February 13, 2003, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/archive/oldinfo.html

Do-It. (n.d.). Technology and universal design. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Resources/technology.html

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., & Robillard, C. (2001a). Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities I: Comparison of student and service provider perspectives. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 28-58.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., & Wolforth, J. (2001b). Computer technologies for postsecondary students with disabilities II: Resources and recommendations for postsecondary service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 59-82.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., De Simone, C., & Wells, D. (2001c). Technology integration for students with disabilities: Empirically based recommendations for faculty. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 185-221.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Robillard, C., Fossey, M.E., & Lamb, D. (2003). Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they? In press.

Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J.V., Barile, M., Fossey, M.E., Robillard, C., Judd, D., Wolforth, J., Senécal, J., Généreux, C., Guimont, J.P., Lamb, D., & Juhel, J-C. (in press). Access to information and instructional technologies in higher education I: Disability service providers’ perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Flowers, C., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R.F. (2001). Content accessibility of community college web sites. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 25(7), 475-485.

Green, K.C. (2000). Campus computing, 2000: The 11th national survey of computing and information technology in American higher education. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 451744).

Green, K.C. (2001). Campus computing, 2001: The 12th national survey of computing and information technology in American higher education. Resources in Education and ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 459679).

High Tech Center Training Unit of the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (1999). High tech centers for students with disabilities in the California community colleges: A program outputs study. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/outputs.htm

IMS Accessibility Working Group. (2002). IMS guidelines for developing accessible learning applications. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accessiblevers/index.html

Landsberger, J., Krey, C.L., & Moorhead, A. (2001). Classrooms of the future. TechTrends, 45(5), 9-19.

National Center for Accessible Media. (2003). Making educational software and web sites accessible: Design guidelines including math and science solutions. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/

Roessler, R.T., & Kirk, H.M. (1998). Improving technology training services in postsecondary education: Perspectives of recent college graduates with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 48-59..

UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. (1999). An overview of the 1998-99 faculty norms. Retrieved August 30, 1999, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/Faculty_Overview.html

Vachris, M.A. (1999). Teaching principles of economics without “chalk and talk”: The experience of CNU online. Journal of Economic Education, 30(3), 292-307.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability

Book Review Column

After a one-issue hiatus, welcome back to the JPED book review column! This issue presents two reviews of the same book, Faculty Disability Services Handbook, written by Salome M. Heyward, JD. The intent behind the book reviews is to consider how the book will be viewed by two professionals in higher education, each operating within different parameters and with different responsibilities toward students with disabilities. One review is done by me, the other by Dr. Donna McCarty, a faculty member at my institution.

I remind you to check the AHEAD Web site for guidelines and procedures for the column so you too can participate. Also, note that my contact information has changed. I welcome your feedback on any of the book reviews published thus far. Enjoy!

Elaine Manglitz, Ph.D.Director, Disability ServicesClayton College & State Universityelainemanglitz@mail.clayton.edu

(770) 961-3757

Faculty Disability Services HandbookSalome M. Heyward, JD

Faculty Disability Services Handbook by Salome M. Heyward, JD, provides the reader with information and analyses of key issues in the field of disability services and disability discrimination law. The book is organized by major headings that include The Role of the Disability Services Staff, The Accommodation Process, Essential Academic Requirements, Frequently Asked Questions, and several sections addressing issues relevant to programs that incorporate clinical programs and internships into the educational environment. The author cites case law to explain the tenets discussed in the book and presents four cases each followed by a discussion about the issues involved in the cases. The book is written primarily to explain the accommodation process and some of the related issues relevant to faculty members in postsecondary education. In the introduction the author sets the tone for the book by stating, “the only way in which faculty members can achieve some measure of control over this situation is to understand the relative responsibilities of students and the institution with respect to the accommodation process.” The author reiterates the role that disability services professionals play in the process as well.

In discussing the role of the disability services staff, Heyward emphasizes the dual nature of their role – to ensure that institutions provide access to students with disabilities and to simultaneously protect the integrity of academic programs and services. She further outlines how disability service providers are to accomplish this balancing act, outlining very succinctly the parameters involved in the process. This explanation along with the subsequent paragraph that emphasizes the faculty member’s joint role in the process reinforces for faculty the importance of both roles in the accommodation process in a way that gives substance and importance to each area.

In the sections on the accommodation process and essential requirements, Heyward provides four cases to elicit issues applicable to these areas. The cases all involve students and faculty members, and the author’s discussion combines her analysis of the issues involved in the cases with citations of relevant case law. I found this an effective way to elucidate the issues, including documentation requirements, procedure for requesting accommodations, and qualified student status, among others. Case Four is especially complex, and the author does an excellent job walking the reader through the issues involved and the reasoning behind her discussion. I believe understanding all these cases would go a long way toward assuring faculty members and institutions of their rights to develop and adhere to legitimate academic standards, as well as their responsibilities to conduct an individualized and diligent assessment when considering possible student accommodations.

In a section of Frequently Asked Questions the author addresses issues relevant for faculty members and service providers, including choosing and providing accommodations and institutional and student rights and responsibilities. Some of these questions and the subsequent discussion touch on academic probation or suspension determinations, temporary disabilities, faculty refusal to provide accommodations, and access to admissions information, all of which are relevant to faculty members and administrators. The question-and-answer format provides an effective way to directly answer the questions, while still providing some of the ancillary legal information surrounding the issues.

In the last major section of the book, the author discusses some of the more complex issues related to institutional obligations and student responsibility with respect to clinical programs and internships. Specifically, she addresses the importance of technical standards, the obligation of institutions to monitor the treatment of students by third parties, and the obligation of students to be “otherwise qualified” in settings that encompass academic and professional requirements. I found this discussion to be informative, and it is one I will return to many times before talking with faculty members who work in these fields. Again, the author uses relevant case law and OCR (Office of Civil Rights) rulings to support the discussion. She offers brief guidelines on which the

development and application of technical standards should be based, recommendations for determining qualified status in the technical areas, and parameters for taking behavioral and health and safety standards into account.

I highly recommend this book to disability service providers and administrators, as well as to faculty members who work with students with disabilities in higher education. The author’s use of recent court cases and OCR rulings, as well as some key cases in the history of the field, to reiterate the points made in the discussion of key topics is very effective. However, there were quite a few typographical and grammatical errors that interfered with the flow of the text. There was also some repetition of the topics and court cases discussed; however, this repetition may be essential to provide sufficient familiarity on key issues of the accommodation process, the institution’s right to academic standards, and the qualified student with a disability’s right to meaningful access. As a service provider, I find it helpful to hear and see the same or similar issues discussed in several ways using different examples and contexts. The book ends rather abruptly; it would have helped to have a short summary parallel to the introduction offering parting comments or a summarization of key ideas. All in all, it was an informative book and a good resource about many of the questions that arise almost daily within the postsecondary environment in relation to students with disabilities.

Elaine Manglitz, Ph.D., Clayton College & State University, Morrow, GA

As a psychology professor with responsibilities for teaching and administration in an undergraduate program, I have long been interested in achieving a more complete understanding of the parameters for appropriate and effective provision of services to students with disabilities. I have seen faculty responses run the gamut from automatic “yeses” to any request from any student claiming a disability to virtually all requests being denied on the basis of academic integrity. Given the nature of my experiences in working with students with disabilities in my own classes and my responsibility to guide other faculty in their efforts, I welcomed the opportunity to read and review a handbook on the subject, and to provide an evaluation from a faculty perspective.

The Handbook opens with a succinct and clear introduction that I found particularly engaging as it provides an overview of the issues of concern to a faculty member. In order to effectively handle requests for accommodations from students with disabilities, faculty members must understand the accommodation process, including the relative responsibilities of students and the institution. Furthermore, faculty members must be aware of the crucial role played by disability services administrators in supporting and mediating this process. The need to move away from quick decision-making based on incomplete information and toward a reasoned, consistent approach is clear from the beginning of the book.

The author goes on to present a clear overview of the role of the disability services staff in assisting all parties to use a “deliberative process” to come to an appropriate resolution. The author accomplishes the goal of describing the role of the professional while clarifying the importance of input from academic experts. Following this clarification, the author goes on to elucidate the accommodation process using a very effective case-vignette approach. Through two cases followed by discussion/illumination, key issues are highlighted and examined. Along the way, clear, concisely stated “rules” appear in bold, and the cases and discussions serve to clarify and inform the reader’s understanding of the rules. Of particular interest to faculty is the discussion of the natural tension between making accommodations and academic integrity. This issue is presented in a balanced manner that will, I believe, be of value to faculty across all types of institutions. It is emphasized that faculty should look for ways to maintain academic integrity while finding approaches to accommodate students with legitimate needs. Faculty will also appreciate the use of court cases and other reference sources to document the assertions made throughout the discussion. This section closes with a cogent description of the meaning of the term “discrimination” and the criteria by which an institution’s decision to accommodate a student will be evaluated.

The next major section of the Handbook is devoted to developing an understanding of what is meant by the important phrase “essential academic requirements.” As before, two cases are employed along with additional discussion and rules to present the information. This section is of interest to faculty and program administrators in helping them gain an understanding of which program requirements would likely be considered “essential” for all students, regardless of disability, and which could be modified or waived in the interest of providing access. The need to find a balance between standards of preparation and access for students is elucidated in an effective and useful manner.

The Handbook moves into a helpful set of frequently asked questions and answers, and then shifts into a discussion of accommodation issues that occur in experiential learning components that take place outside of programs (e.g., clinicals and internships). Such programs create special opportunities as well as special challenges for providing appropriate accommodations. The author does a good job of presenting the responsibilities incumbent upon institutions and faculties to ensure that students with disabilities can participate if at all possible. Since more and more academic programs, including my own, are including such hands-on features, the issues associated with provision of access are important for faculty to consider. Topics in the closing pages include Technical Standards, Treatment of Students, and Otherwise Qualified. As a faculty member rather than a disability services professional, I found the organizational structure to break down a bit and the flow of ideas to become somewhat confusing at this point. Another example of the loss of coherence towards the end of the book is the treatment of the term “otherwise qualified.” This term had been used without sufficient explanation in an early section of the Handbook, and I noted that the unfamiliar reader must continue to infer the meaning from the text.

In addition to the organizational difficulties in the closing sections of the book, I also found that rather frequent grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures, and typos created a need to go back over sections to reestablish the logical flow of ideas. In a subsequent edition, I hope that more careful attention to writing and proofing will enhance the readability of this otherwise valuable resource. Finally, I found a need for a greater degree of closure. The ending was rather abrupt. A conclusion with a summary of the major points would have been helpful to reinforce the major themes of the document.

Overall, I found Heyward’s Faculty Disability Services Handbook to be a useful tool for the faculty member or academic administrator seeking to gain better understanding of how to provide appropriate academic accommodations to students with disabilities, ensure a fair environment for all, maintain academic integrity, and work effectively with the disability services professionals on campus. To this end, there is a great need for brief, clear discussions of the accommodation process and concomitant issues, especially for the faculty who are responsible for implementing academic programs for students. This Handbook is a welcome addition to the available resources in the disability services field.

Donna McCarty, Ph.D., Clayton College & State University, Morrow, GA