|
Article Excerpt
Abstract. This investigation examined faculty attitudes, beliefs, and practices with regard to students with learning disabilities (LD). An instrument was designed to measure attitudes and administered to all faculty in a large urban, private university. Responses from 192 faculty members were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis; results indicated that the instrument contained 12 reliable factors. Further, correlational analyses provided preliminary support for the instrument's construct validity by showing that major constructs were associated with each other in expected directions. Descriptive analyses indicated that faculty generally had positive perceptions about students with LD and were willing to spend time supporting students with LD. Consistent with prior research, faculty expressed greater willingness to provide minor, rather than major, accommodations. Group comparisons by faculty gender, academic unit, and rank are reported. The implications of these findings for future research and training efforts are discussed.
**********
Adult students with learning disabilities (LD) represent one of the fastest growing populations of students attending colleges and universities (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). Although it is difficult to accurately determine the number of students with LD in postsecondary institutions because these students must self-disclose, recent estimates from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 suggest that approximately 10% of youth with LD have enrolled in four-year college or university at some point during the first two years after leaving high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Nevertheless, students with LD continue to be severely underrepresented in four-year colleges and universities. Although approximately 6-8% of school-age children and youth in public school settings are receiving services for a learning disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2003), recent data suggest that less than one percent (.07) of students within four-year colleges and universities report having a learning disability (Horn & Nevill, 2006). In contrast, approximately two to three times as many students report having orthopedic impairments (2.3%), mental illness/ depression (2.5%), attention deficit disorder (1.4%), or health impairments (1.6%), even though these disabilities occur less frequently among children and youth in public elementary and secondary schools. Furthermore, estimates of four-year college attendance rates among the general population far outpace attendance rates among students with LD, ranging from between 40 to 60% (Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 (1); U.S. Department of Labor, 2007).
A number of factors contribute to attendance rates and the success or failure of students with LD in four-year colleges and universities (Gregg, 2007; Litner, Mann-Feder, & Guerard, 2005). These factors may include individual cognitive and academic skills (Harztzell & Compton, 1984; Murray & Wren, 2003), study habits and motivation (Murray & Wren, 2003), prior educational experiences (Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, & Benz, 1995; Wagner, Newman, & Cameto, 2004), family support and expectations (Wagner et al., 2005), financial resources (Wagner et al., 2005), and university supports and accommodations (Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Finn, 1998; Trammell, 2003). In the current investigation we focus on gaining further understanding about one of these factors--university contexts. We were particularly interested in examining university faculty members' attitudes and perceptions of students with LD within a large private university.
In many ways, college and university faculty are the primary conduits through which students gain access to knowledge in university environments, and faculty are directly responsible for determining how competent students are in their acquisition of that knowledge (Harrison, 2003; Scott & Gregg, 2000). A statement made by M. Walker over 25 years ago remains timely: "Support services can make it possible for the handicapped student to enter the postsecondary setting physically but only faculty can provide access to knowledge and ways of knowing" (1980, p. 54). Thus, university faculty create the context for the delivery of instruction, they develop systems that support knowledge acquisition, and they develop systems that assess student understanding of that knowledge.
As an increasing number of students with LD enter colleges and universities, faculty will face greater demands to increase their understanding of LD, evaluate their attitudes towards students with LD, and develop strategies to work with students with LD in ways that are effective. Developing further understanding about the attitudes and perceptions of faculty is important because this information may be used to develop ecologically oriented, targeted interventions that are designed to build natural supports for students with LD within university contexts.
Research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s was instrumental in bringing attention to the issue of faculty attitudes and perceptions. Findings from those investigations suggested that faculty may have lower academic expectations for students with LD than for students without disabilities (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; Matthews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; Minner & Prater, 1984), and although college and university faculty are generally willing to provide students with minor accommodations (e.g., tape-recorded lectures or additional time during exams), they are less willing to allow major accommodations such as reductions or alterations of major course assignments (Matthews et al., 1987; Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990; Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999).
Similar findings have been reported by researchers who have studied the perspectives of college and university students with disabilities (Farone, Hall, & Costello, 1998). For example, Farone et al. (1998) interviewed 32 students with disabilities at one university. Responses revealed that students perceived that faculty, staff, and administrators lacked information regarding disability issues, had "poor" attitudes towards students with disabilities, and were not receptive to accommodation requests.
Also interested in student perceptions, Hartman-Hall and Haaga (2002) studied student reactions to hypothetical scenarios in which faculty reacted positively or negatively to a request for an accommodation. The researchers found that negative reactions from faculty negatively affected students' decisions to seek further assistance, whereas positive reactions from faculty led to greater willingness to seek future assistance. Similar comparisons for hypothetical reactions from peers were not significantly associated with students' willingness to seek additional support, suggesting that faculty play a particularly crucial role in influencing students' decision to seek additional support for their learning disability (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002).
In interpreting these findings, several issues must be taken into account. First, it is important to consider the legal protections extended to students with disabilities in postsecondary settings and the potential impact of such legislation on faculty perceptions. According to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Subpart E:
A recipient [postsecondary institution] to which this subpart applies shall make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified handicapped applicant or student. Academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section. Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.
As stated in the Act, postsecondary institutions are required to adjust programs to ensure that they do not discriminate against students with disabilities, but they are not required to make adjustments that compromise the integrity of programs. Thus, insofar as faculty are familiar with Section 504, they may feel conflicting pressures to maintain the integrity of courses and programs while also providing for the unique learning needs of students with LD (Bigaj, Shaw, & McGuire, 1999; Scott & Gregg, 2000). As observed by Madaus and Shaw (2004), "Section 504 and the ADA ... are not prescriptive special education laws, like IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], and result in varying services across institutions of higher education" (p. 85).
A second important issue pertains to potential differences between faculty perceptions based on individual faculty characteristics. Several researchers have reported that even within the same institution, faculty can have very different perceptions regarding accommodations and modifications depending on department affiliation and faculty rank. For example, Nelson et al. (1990) found that faculty within Education were slightly more likely than faculty in Arts and Sciences but considerably more likely than faculty in Business to make instructional, assignment, and exam accommodations.
Vogel et al. (1999) examined differences in faculty perceptions by faculty gender and academic unit. Although these researchers found little evidence of differences in faculty perceptions according to gender, they did find that faculty within some academic units were more willing to provide certain teaching and exam accommodations than were faculty in other academic units. In contrast, Bourke, Strehorn, and Silver (2000) found little evidence of differences between faculty perceptions according to academic unit, but these researchers found that non-tenure-track faculty were more likely than tenure-track faculty to report a greater belief that accommodations helped students with disabilities and a greater understanding for the need for accommodations, and to report that they had sufficient resources to implement accommodations.
A third important issue relates to the availability, or the perceived availability, of contextual supports within university contexts. Bourke et al. (2000) found that faculty who reported receiving greater support from their departments scored higher on several items designed to assess ease of implementing accommodations (range r = .29 to .47). Consistent with this perspective, Bigaj and colleagues (1999) noted that prior in- or preservice training related to learning disabilities was a strong predictor of community college faculty members' willingness to provide, and reported use of, teaching and exam accommodations.
In summary, it is important to more fully understand faculty perceptions of students with LD in postsecondary settings. Prior findings suggest that university faculty are willing to provide accommodations to students with LD, but interpretation of legal requirements as well as specific factors such as academic unit, faculty rank, and perceived availability of resources can affect these perceptions. The current investigation was designed to add to this area of research by addressing several issues.
The primary purpose of the study was to add to the existing literature because the majority of prior studies on these topics were conducted over a decade ago. A second goal was to develop and field test a single, comprehensive instrument of faculty perceptions that contained multiple items relating to a variety of issues facing faculty in postsecondary settings. Prior investigations have focused mainly on provision of teaching and exam accommodations, and although these issues are important, other factors such as knowledge of disability law, knowledge of learning disabilities, and availability of resources also appear to be important for understanding faculty attitudes. A third goal was to examine differences in faculty perceptions by several demographic and contextual factors. Although research has been conducted on this topic, there remains a need to further explore how various individual and contextual factors might contribute to differences in faculty perceptions.
METHODS
The investigation was conducted in a large urban, private university in the midwestern United States. According to U.S. News and World Report's annual ranking of America's best colleges, during the past 10 years the participating university has consistently been ranked as a Tier 3 institution among national universities, and it is considered "more selective" on selectivity ratings. The university's stated mission is focused on teaching and service with a commitment to connections with the community.
At the time of this study, over 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students attended the university with approximately 15,000 undergraduates and over 8,000 graduate students. Of that population, approximately 250 students (less than 1%) were receiving disability support services for learning disabilities. This percentage of students with LD is consistent with the number of students receiving services for LD in colleges and universities nationally (Horn & Nevill, 2006).
Participants
The study focused on the attitudes and perceptions of all full-time faculty within the university. A total of 640 surveys were distributed to faculty, and 194 were returned. Although not ideal, our response rate of 30% is consistent with similar survey research conducted with university faculty (cf. Bourke et al., 2000). Two faculty did not respond to entire sections of the survey, and other respondents left items blank. Therefore, two surveys were eliminated. In addition, in some cases, our analyses contained different numbers of respondents due to missing data among the final 192 participants.
Approximately half of the respondents were female (48%) and half were male (52%). The majority of respondents (42%) were tenured, 26% more were tenure track, 23% were in full-time, one-year appointments, 6% were in full-time adjunct positions, and 3% were in long-term clinical positions. In terms of faculty rank, 31%...
|
