Aksamit, D.,
Morris, M. & Leuenberger,
J. (1987). Preparation of student services professionals and faculty for
serving learning-disabled college students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 28(1), 53-59.
There is an increasing number of high school
and nontraditional students with disabilities desiring a postsecondary
education. These changes affect how teachers and other professionals interact
with the learning disabled. The authors in this article discuss these
issues along with other topics that address how faculty and student service
professionals need to confront the necessity to offer quality service to
learning disabled students. The author suggests that in order to understand
the issues that LD students face and to improve the services provided to
these students that one must assess attitudes of personnel in pre-admissions,
student services staff, and teaching faculty. A study was conducted by
the authors to investigate student service personnel and teaching faculty
member by analyzing their attitudes and knowledge about students with disabilities. They
mailed out 1,426 surveys that met certain criteria asking various questions
about LD students. The results of the survey revealed that most instructors
interacted with LD students and had already attained information about
this segment of the student body. Women had better attitudes then men
in the issues that affect LD students. Additionally when presented
with information about learning disabilities, people had greater knowledge
and
more positive attitudes. This demonstrates that if information about
learning disabilities is given to student services personnel and faculty
members
that their knowledge and attitudes can be changed in a positive way.
Asselin, S.B. (1993). Enhancing faculty
awareness and knowledge of students with disabilities. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 17(3), 283-289.
Students with disabilities are entering
colleges and universities at increasing rates. However, faculty are unprepared
to meet the needs of these students. Research indicates that faculty are
less familiar with learning disabilities and may be hesitant to provide
accommodations for these students. Matthews1 Anderson and
Skolnick (1987) and Nelson (1990) found that "faculty were less willing to
allow extra credit assignments, grammar, spelling or punctuation errors
or substitutions for required courses" (p.284).
In order to improve
the knowledge of community college faculty in meeting the needs of students
with disabilities, an
in-service training was developed in which 120 community college faculty
and administrators participated. The five hour sessions covered the following
three topics: (a) disability awareness and sensitivity training; (b) legal
rights and responsibilities and (c) developing a team approach to disability
accommodation implementation.
Participants completed an evaluation immediately
after the in-service. The results indicated a high degree of satisfaction
for the program (summed mean response of 4.75 on a 5 point scale). A telephone
survey completed 10 months after the in-service indicated that each participating
college had established an advisory council to ensure that students with
disabilities received services according to legislative mandates.
Bigaj, S.J. (1995). Accommodation strategies
for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A survey of faculty
attitudes and use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
The author conducted a study to examine
the relationship between faculty attitudes towards providing certain accommodations
and their actual accommodation behaviors. 471 faculty from 2-year institutions
were surveyed. Four areas of accommodation strategies were considered:
instructional, examination, assignment, and collaborative. Overall, there
was a moderate correlation between attitude toward the accommodation and
actual behavior. But, no measures were taken to control for the number
of learning disabled students that faculty had encountered in their classes.
Presumably, if faculty have known of few learning disabled students in
their classes, their attitudes might be less related to actual practice
since, confronted by fewer learning disabled students, they would have
had less need to actually provide some of the accommodations. Differences
in attitudes and accommodation practices existed between departments: The
common finding that faculty from technical disciplines have more negative
attitudes about and are less willing to provide accommodations was supported
by this study. Some gender differences were also evident: Women had more
positive attitudes and were more likely to make accommodations, except
for examination accommodations. However, no efforts were taken to control
for faculty discipline. It is conceivable that this gender difference is
merely reflective of the higher proportion of men in the technical disciplines.
Overall, faculty felt least positive about examination-related accommodations,
and tended to implement such accommodations less often than other types
of accommodations.
The literature review in this dissertation
covers the following areas: legal foundations for equal access in higher
education; characteristics of 2-year institutions; accommodation strategies
for learning disabled students related to course instruction, assignments
and examinations; and instructor attitudes and behaviors (in both K-12
and higher education settings) regarding accommodation practices.
Bourke, A.B., Strehorn, K.C., & Silver,
P. (2000). Faculty members' provision of instructional accommodations
to students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 26-32.
The purpose of this research study was to examine the behaviors
of faculty members and the levels of institutional support. Also examined was
whether institutional factors facilitated or hindered the instructional
accommodation process. The authors examined 170 surveys from faculty
members that focused on some basic questions that centered around implementation,
attitude, resources, and understanding of accommodations. The results
varied depending on the provision of the accommodations. Support
from the university also influenced providing accommodations with ease
or difficulty. This research can be noteworthy for those who
may be interested in examining faculty attitude and instructional support.
Bourke, A., Strehorn, K.C., & Silver,
P. (1997). Tracing the links in the chain of accommodation: A study of
university of Massachusetts' faculty members' provision of accommodations
to students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual conference
of the American Educational research Association (Chicago, IL). [Eric Reproduction
Service No. ED 408 764]
The authors begin by discussing past research
on the disability accommodation process for students with learning disabilities.
Past research has assessed faculty attitude toward accommodation practices
and their awareness of legal issues related to accommodation. The focus
has predominantly been on attitudes and theory rather than actual practice.
The authors note that according to social psychology theory, past research
has only addressed half of the issue, since attitudes do not directly predict
behaviors. They talk about how research needs to examine intervening constructs
in the relationship between attitude and behavior. The study discussed
in this article attempts to define some of the intermediary factors which
explain faculty behaviors in accommodating students with learning disabilities.
485
faculty members were asked questions regarding whether or not they have
provided certain accommodations for
learning disabled students and what factors were involved in their
decision to provide the accommodation. Results indicated positive accommodating
behaviors overall, but variability in behavior for providing different
types of accommodations: The more "labor intensive" accommodations,
were less likely to be granted. In general, beliefs regarding the necessity/utility
of an accommodation were shown to influence behavior. Support to faculty
from Disability Services, as well as from faculty members' own department,
had a positive impact on beliefs, thus increasing the likelihood that
faculty would provide accommodations for learning disabled students.
The authors
indicate that a strong and supportive relationship between faculty, Disability
Services offices, and faculty's
department provides the most fertile ground for promoting accommodating
behaviors among instructors.
Dodd, J.M. (1990)
Tribal college faculty willingness to provide accommodations to students
with learning disabilities. Journal of American Indian Education, October,
pp. 8-16.
The authors study
various aspects of students with disabilities in tribal colleges. These
aspects include (a) instructional accommodations that tribal instructors
were willing to provide, (b) assessment of whether faculty thought accommodations
would sacrifice academic standards, (c) whether students asked for accommodations,
and (d) whether faculty members provided accommodations in the past. The
procedure for collecting information was to send questionnaires to various
faculty members at a particular reservation school. The authors conclude
by stating that accommodations were provided, educational opportunities
for faculty members about providing accommodations were available, and
faculty members at this particular college were supportive of administrative
provisions for tutors and counselors. Finally the authors state that
other studies need to be conducted focusing on different tribal colleges. This
article is unique because it gives a different perspective of higher
education and disabilities from a Native American point of view.
Hart, R.D. & Williams, D.E. (1995). Able-Bodied
instructors and students with physical disabilities: A relationship handicapped
by communication. Communication Education, 44, 140-154.
This study focuses on faculty attitudes towards physically
disabled students. The authors used field notes gathered from observing
the interactions between instructors and students with disabilities in the
classroom setting in an attempt to explain how instructors communicate with
these students. From those notes the authors describe roles assumed
by instructors who teach students with disabilities: the avoider, the guardian,
the rejecter, and the nurturer. The authors close by calling for further
information and training to help instructors understand what to expect and
how to manage and accept differences between those with disabilities and
the non-disabled. Research such as this can help instructors understand
their attitudes more and reassess their interactions with disabled students
with disabilities.
Kalivoda, K.S., & Higbee, J.L. (1999).
Serving college students with disabilities: Application of the theory of
planned behavior. Academic Exchange, Summer, 6-16.
The authors present a theoretical framework
for better explaining faculty behaviors in accommodating disabled students.
They note that an instructor's general attitude toward people with
disabilities does not directly determine whether or he/she will
provide appropriate
accommodations. The authors discuss compliance behavior in terms of
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). TPB posits three constructs
which are
determinants of accommodating behavior; 1). Attitudes Toward the Behavior,
which are value judgments regarding the usefulness of an accommodation:
A person's attitude and knowledge regarding disabled persons may impact
these value judgments; 2). Subjective Norm, which is the person's
perception of the institutional/social support for providing
an accommodation; and
3). Perceived Behavioral Control, which is the degree to which faculty
perceive barriers in their ability to provide an accommodation.
The authors
provide concrete examples of how the TPB constructs may impact faculty actions
in providing accommodations
as well as an example of how the theory can be used to facilitate equal
access for students with disabilities.
Kalivoda, K.S. & Higbee, J.L. (1998).
Influencing faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with disabilities:
A theoretical approach. TLAR, 3(2), 12-25.
This article concerns faculty attitudes
about providing academic accommodations to students with disabilities.
The authors examine behavioral, normative, and control beliefs that
underlie the theory of planned behavior. The study looked at
a target population
of students with acquired brain injury (ABI) and asked faculty respondents
to state their beliefs about providing alternative test formats for
a student with ABI. The study found that the most frequently
mentioned advantage
of providing alternate test formats was that it would allow ABI students
to demonstrate their knowledge. The most frequently cited disadvantages
were "fairness issues" and the perceived extra workload for faculty
to prepare and grade the alternate test. The authors argue that understanding
the theory of planned behavior could help explain how services are provided
and help identify and eliminate potential obstacles in the provision of
services. They contend that institutions must value the behavior of faculty
who successfully accommodate their students with disabilities, and that
one way to achieve this goal would be to name a "disability services
liaison" in each department and to reward the faculty member who
performs this function.
Lewis, M.L. (1998). Faculty attitudes towards
persons with disabilities and faculty willingness to accommodate students
with learning disabilities in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
The author conducted a study examining the
relationship between faculty attitudes towards disabled persons and faculty
willingness to provide special accommodations for learning disabled students.
Data were gathered from 689 faculty. Results indicated that faculty in
technical disciplines (engineering/computer science) had less positive
attitudes and were less willing to make some of the accommodations (like
alternative testing). However, overall there was no correlation between
faculty attitudes and willingness to provide accommodations. This relationship
(or rather, lack of relationship) has been noted by other researchers who
have posited more complex models to explain instructors' accommodation-providing
behaviors.
The literature review in this dissertation
presents a discussion of social (rather than legal) definitions of disability,
as well as how and why negative attitudes toward disabled persons have
evolved. The discussion highlights both the behavioral/attitudinal propensities
of the non-disabled person and the visible characteristics of the disabled
person which contribute toward attitude development. Results of past research
on faculty attitudes towards disabled persons in general, and those with
learning disabilities in particular, are also presented.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., & Brulle,
A. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities:
Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 13(3), 5-19.
With the implementation of Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, came an increase of students with disabilities
entering higher education. The largest increase was reported for students
with learning disabilities who increased from 15.3% in 1988 to 32.20% in
1994.
Researchers have found that when surveyed,
faculty generally have positive attitudes about students with disabilities.
Several variables have been found to influence these positive attitudes.
For example, female faculty expressed more positive attitudes than male
faculty; faculty with more information about disability issues held more
positive views of students with disabilities; faculty in education held
more positive views than faculty in business or social sciences.
The authors
conducted a study of 420 faculty (400/o response rate) in a large mid-western
university to assess faculty
attitudes toward students with disabilities and disability-related
issues. Results indicated that the majority of respondents had limited
experience
teaching students with disabilities. A large number of respondents
also indicated they had limited knowledge regarding disability legislation
and
little contact with campus disability service providers. Almost half
reported they did not have the skills to make requested accommodations.
Although
respondents indicated that they had limited disability knowledge, they
expressed positive attitudes toward students with disabilities and
stated an "overall willingness to make needed instructional accommodations
in their courses" (p.12).
McAlexander, P.J. (1997) Learning Disabilities
and Faculty Skepticism. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13,
(pages unknown).
The author argues that faculty tend to look
toward environmental factors, such as cultural differences, rather
than neurological ones, to explain students' poor academic performance.
She
notes that some faculty skepticism about learning disabilities arises
from what faculty perceive to be the "mysterious process" of
diagnosis. Faculty also may be confused about the nature of learning
disability because
learning disabled students may have widely varying characteristics.
Some are concerned that providing accommodations will over-burden
them. Faculty
also are concerned about standards and fairness to other students,
and some believe poor performance may be due to students' behavior,
and not
necessarily their disability. (McAlexander argues the two may be connected).
Finally, the author notes a lack of communication between DS providers
and faculty members, which too often creates an adversarial, rather
than a cooperative, relationship.
McAlexander argues that as research on the
brain advances, so will our understanding of the underlying causes of learning
disabilities, which, in turn, will lessen faculty skepticism. The article
does a good job of outlining the reasons for faculty skepticism but offers
little concrete evidence to support the author's assertion that better
times are ahead.
Morris, M., Leugenberger, J., & Aksamit,
D. (1987). Faculty inservice training: impact on the postsecondary climate
for learning disabled students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 5(2), (pages unknown).
The authors of this study contend that faculty
have received little guidance in how to use support services offered
to them and their students with disabilities. Their study looks
at how faculty
in-service training affects faculty attitudes towards and knowledge
about students with learning disabilities. Faculty participants
in the control
group received an initial mailing describing available support services
for students with learning disabilities, and then had two or more personal
contacts with learning-disability professionals during a two semester
period. These in-service sessions consisted of small group presentations,
which
were more general in nature, and telephone consultations and print
materials, which usually were in response to specific questions
from faculty about
individual students. The study shows a "significant relationship" between
faculty attitudes/knowledge about students with learning disabilities,
and their participation in the in-service activities. The authors emphasize
that "multiple in-service contacts over time" are needed
to significantly change faculty attitudes and increase knowledge about
their students with
disabilities.
Norton, S. (1997). Examination accommodations
for community college students with learning disabilities: How are they
viewed by faculty and students? Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 21, 57-69.
Past research on attitudes toward LD students
and providing accommodations they require is briefly discussed. Research
indicates that some instructors may be resistant to providing examination
accommodations out of concern that by doing so would lower course standards
or be unfair to non-disabled students. There is also evidence that
some instructors may hold lower expectations for LD students, probably
because
they are not well educated regarding LD issues: As a disability, 'learning
disability' is quite different than other disabilities since, as a
hidden disability, it is more subject to misconception and stereotyping,
and since
there are many types of learning disabilities, each requiring its own
set of accommodations.
The authors describe their own research
on faculty attitudes towards providing accommodations to learning disabled
students. Faculty at a Californian community college were surveyed (N=46)
regarding their attitudes on examination accommodations for LD students,
perceptions of LD students' attitudes to these accommodations, and adequacy
with which LD students describe their needs and disability to the instructor. LD
students were surveyed (N=64) to gather information on accommodations
used and their perception of professor's attitudes.
Results indicated a positive
attitude among instructors for providing examination accommodations. Instructors may
not have been satisfied with the LD students' explanation of their disability,
but this did not affect their willingness to provide accommodations. These
attitudes did differ between disciplines, with English, math, and social
sciences faculty being more accepting. Some less accepted examination
accommodations overall included clarifying exam questions and allowing
the student to use a calculator or spell-check program.
Faculty did realize
that LD students may be reluctant to disclose their disability and
ask for accommodations, and
indeed students (although not the majority) indicated discomfort in
approaching instructors with accommodation requests. The authors conclude by noting
that this study indicated "a most positive acceptance of accommodations
for students with learning disabilities, as well as acceptance of the students
themselves. In fact, the professor's level of acceptance of students and
their requests was greater than the students' level of comfort in asking
for accommodations." (p. 67).
Since this study only involved a small
sample of faculty and students from one college, generalizability of
results is
tenuous. However, some findings have been corroborated elsewhere,
such as the greater acceptance of LD students (and disability in general)
at
2 year colleges and the greater resistance to accommodations provision
among the science disciplines.
The main conclusion applicable to service
providers (i.e. instructors, administrators, etc.) is that even if
faculty are accepting of learning disabled students, these students
may still be
hesitant to disclose due to disability shame or fears of negative reaction
from the instructor. Indeed, when students approach instructors and find
positive accepting reactions they may "relax and accept their need
for accommodations." (p. 66). So, by being flexible and accepting
instructors can provide some positive experiences for LD students which
could help them become more confident and accepting of their own disability
in the future.
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn,
K.C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach
for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31(2),
47-51.
This article presents an explanation of
how universal design principles, fairly common in physical object design,
can be generalized to curriculum design. Where universal design principles
in architectural design become a part of the floor plan, these principles
in curriculum design (universal instructional design) become "part
of the institution's instructional methodology".
The authors describe
how the universal instructional design approach can promote better learning
for all students. They then
proceed to discuss the results of focus groups conducted with higher education
faculty. These focus groups were designed to gather faculty impressions
of universal instructional design principles, their potential use, and
possible barriers to implementation and practice. Participants mentioned
specific strategies already used in many classrooms which seem to incorporate
universal design principles. In terms of barriers to implementing the principles,
faculty indicated constraints imposed by institutional tradition, time,
traditionalist faculty attitudes, lack of disability awareness, and lack
of training in pedagogical methods. Faculty made several suggestions for
how these barriers might be surmounted.
Thompson, A.R., Bethea, L., & Turner,
J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A
survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(3), 166-180.
The authors present results of a study which
surveyed over 400 faculty and administrators regarding their knowledge
of disability related legislation and prominent case law which have come
to define higher education equal access for disabled students. The survey
contained 25 statements regarding accommodation practices or legal tenets.
Respondents were asked to indicate the veracity of each statement in terms
of what the law mandates. Results indicated that faculty were moderately
aware of disability law and appropriate accommodation practice in higher
education. The majority (at least 50%) of respondents did answer 19 of
the items correctly, but for most items, at least 30% of respondents still
didn't know the correct answer. The majority of respondents had familiarity
with ADA, but only 28% and 18% had familiarity with IDEA and Section 504
respectively. Respondents were also asked to indicate their preferred vehicle
for receiving education in disability law: The majority preferred to receive
information via resource materials, and the smallest percentage (2%) indicated
a preference for workshops.
Based on the results, the authors stress
the need for faculty to receive more education regarding disability law
and accommodation provision The authors present a possible approach where,
in order to first pique interest, a similar survey would be sent to faculty,
followed by a newsletter discussing the answers and related issues.
Williams, W.M., & Ceci, S.J. (1999).
Accommodating Learning Disabilities Can Bestow Unfair Advantages. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, (August 6, 1999), B4-B5.
The authors, both professors at Cornell
University, argue, based largely on anecdotal evidence, that meeting
the needs of students with learning disabilities overburdens
faculty, gives "special
advantages" to students with learning disabilities and shortchanges
non-disabled students. They distinguish between students with what they
term "meaningful" disabilities and those with "relatively
minor" disabilities. They do argue convincingly for more support
for faculty who must make accommodations.
The article is a useful reminder
of the entrenched attitudes among some faculty about disability in general,
and
hidden disabilities, specifically.
|
Return
to: General College : U
of M Home
