Document View

The field of learning disabilities has evolved over the past four decades. Although much research has been conducted with children with learning disabilities, it is only rather recently that researchers have placed their attention on the unique challenges faced by adults with learning disabilities (Patton & Polloway, 1992). The number of college programs for students with learning disabilities has increased since the 1970s. It has been well documented that increasing numbers of students with learning disabilities are graduating from high school and pursuing postsecondary education (e.g., Adelman & Taylor, 1986; Decker, Polloway, & Decker, 1985; Hartman & Krulwich, 1984). Although there are many estimates of the numbers of college students with learning disabilities (Astin, Green, Korn, & Schalit, 1985; Bogart, Eidelman, & Kujawa, 1988; U.S. Department of Education, 1989), more recent estimates clarify how dramatic this increase has been.

In 1987, 7% of all incoming freshmen were identified as having some type of a disability; by 1991, this percentage had increased to 9%, and it remained stable at this level through 1998. Within this larger group of college students with disabilities, the percentage of first-semester college students with learning disabilities increased from 25% in 1991 to 41% in 1998 (Henderson, 1999). It is likely that the number of college students with learning disabilities will continue to grow; in fact, students classified as learning disabled represent one of the fastest growing segments of the general population of college students with disabilities (Henderson, 1999; Shaw & Norlander, 1986).

Multiple factors have contributed to the college attendance of individuals with learning disabilities. Since the passage of federal legislation (i.e., Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975) that guaranteed an appropriate education for students with disabilities, primary and secondary schools have offered educational programs that meet their students' special needs (Hardman, Drew, Eagan, & Wolf, 1993). As a result, more students with learning disabilities are experiencing success in high school and are, consequently, in a position to consider continuing their education. Second, other legislation, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, has established the rights of students with learning disabilities to participate in college.

The increase in the number of students with learning disabilities pursuing postsecondary education has been influenced by other factors as well. For instance, the resurgance of open enrollment admissions policies at colleges and universities in response to the shrinking pool of eligible students has led to greater accessibility to higher education for students with learning disabilities, particularly at the community or junior college level (Mangrum & Strichart, 1988). These authors identified the desire of the students to attend college, as well as pressure from advocates for colleges and universities to serve such students, as contributing to the presence of students with learning disabilities on college campuses. In addition, many colleges and universities are actively recruiting students with learning disabilities as a source of revenue, since most colleges are under pressure to maintain or increase enrollments (Mangrum & Strichart).

The current challenge faced by postsecondary institutions is how to best serve students with disabilities so that they may be successful in their pursuit of a college education. Unfortunately, some colleges and universities have been slow to respond to this challenge. Even within the postsecondary institutions that have taken positive measures, the type and degree of support programs provided vary considerably (Matthews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; May, Kundert, Greco, Lorang, Akpan, Kelly, Linder, & Dozier, 1994).

Once a student with a learning disability has been admitted and has been determined to be eligible for services, that student has a legal right to receive academic modifications from the institution. These modifications may include allowing more time for the completion of degree requirements, substituting or waiving specific course requirements, modifying course instruction, using auxiliary equipment, and allowing alternative testing procedures. Such modifications do not necessarily guarantee success for students with learning disabilities but rather are intended to provide an equal opportunity to achieve success. Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) mandate the postsecondary institution to provide the requested academic modifications except when such requests are considered unreasonable, unduly burdensome, or damaging to the integrity of a given degree program (Gordon & Keiser, 1998). However, as Brinckerhoff, Shaw, and McGuire (1992) have noted, in some instances the student and the institution may not be in agreement as to what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, and there is often a lack of guidance for postsecondary institutions in implementing modified programs.

There is also evidence that some faculty may hold negative attitudes toward providing modifications. For instance, Putnam (1984) has suggested that many faculty may be unwilling to acknowledge students' learning difficulties and may believe that students with learning disabilities should not be allowed to attend college.

Only three studies were found that investigated faculty attitudes toward accommodations for college students with learning disabilities (Matthews et al., 1987; Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990; Satcher, 1992). The results from these three studies suggested that faculty reported general comfort providing most types of accommodations. However, only one of these studies was conducted at a community college (Satcher, 1992). Qualitative data from this study further revealed that faculty were concerned that large teaching loads and time constraints limited their ability to provide academic accommodations effectively. They expressed reservations about their ability to maintain the academic integrity of the classroom should accommodations be provided.

Although findings from the three cited studies indicated that faculty were generally willing to provide most types of accommodations for students with learning disabilities, Houck, Asselin, Troutman, and Arrington (1992) noted that faculty and student perceptions did not coincide with respect to faculty willingness to provide accommodations. Specifically, "faculty perceive themselves as more willing to make needed accommodations than students who have sought such accommodations perceive them as being" (Houck et al., p. 683). This was the only study located that examined both student and faculty perceptions, although it only focused on general perceptions and did not examine comfort with specific accommodations.

Based on the increasing number of students with learning disabilities enrolling in colleges and universities, the limited number of investigations examining related issues, as well as the inconsistent perceptions identified in the Houck et al. (1992) study, more research seemed to be warranted. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to explore, for the first time, community college faculty comfort with providing accommodations to students with learning disabilities as well as student comfort with requesting accommodations from faculty. In addition, this descriptive study examined whether there was a relationship between the group status of the respondents (faculty vs. student) and their comfort providing/requesting accommodations.

Method

Subjects

Faculty participants. All the instructional faculty, 255 full-time and 247 part-time (N= 502), at a 2-year, public, open-admissions community college were included in this study. Of the 502 faculty surveyed, 45%, or 225, responded. One faculty questionnaire was unuseable and some faculty did not complete all questionnaire items, making the number of respondents vary from 224 to 212 depending on the specific survey items.

The faculty sample consisted of an almost even number of men (112) and women (113) and a great majority (97.7%, n = 222) of these subjects reported their race as Caucasian. Most (74%) of the respondents had Master's degrees, 11% had doctorates, and 12% had Bachelor's degrees; approximately 3% of the respondents had other degrees. In addition, 53% of the respondents were full-time faculty and 37% of subjects were adjunct faculty; another 10% reported other for their faculty rank/position. Finally, 51% of these subjects taught within the Liberal Arts and Sciences Division, 18% within Health Sciences, 17% within Business and Public Administration, 12% within Engineering and Industrial Technologies, and less than 2% were from other divisions.

The mean number of years teaching experience was 15.7 (SD = 9.9, N= 223), as compared to a mean of 9.8 (SD = 8.6, N = 225) years in their current position. Additionally, 89.3% (N= 224) of the subjects reported that they had had previous interactions with individuals known to have a learning disability. Of those subjects reporting such previous interaction, 94 (47.5%) indicated the interaction was professional in nature, 11 (5.6%) reported personal interactions, and 93 (46.9%) reported both professional and personal interactions with individuals with learning disabilities.

Student participants. The student cohort for this study consisted of freshmen at a 2year community college who had been diagnosed (by physician or psychologist) as having a learning disability prior to college entrance and who had voluntarily disclosed this information upon application for admission. Such students were automatically referred to the college LD specialist. The study did not include students with a suspected learning disability who lacked formal diagnosis, nor did it include students with a diagnosed learning disability who elected to withhold such information during the admission process. A total of 31 students consented to participate in this study and completed usable questionnaires, although the number of respondents varied on individual survey items. There were 18 male (58%) and 13 female (42%) students. Due to the small sample size and issues concerning confidentiality, there was limited demographic information gathered, and some students elected not to answer questions that they thought would compromise their confidentiality. As a result, not all demographic information was complete.

Demographic information gathered from the students indicated that, of the 31 subjects, 21 (68%) had no previous college experience. Students enrolled as full-time numbered 25 (81%), although 14 students (45%) also planned to work during the school year. Nine students (29%) reported participation in athletic teams.

In terms of reported previous services received, 15 students (48%) had received resource room services in high school, 10 students (32%) did not receive resource support, and 6 students (19%) did not answer this question. Nineteen students (61%) reported receiving extended time on tests, although other accommodations were also reported (e.g., note taker: 1 student, reader for tests: 9 students, tutor: 4 students, alternate test formats: 3 students, and use of tapes: 3 students).

With respect to the time of initial diagnosis, 68% (n =13) of the 19 students who responded to this question had been first diagnosed as having a learning disability when they were in elementary school. The next largest percentage of students (15.7%, n = 3) was initially diagnosed in middle school. Only a small number of students (n =2, 10.53%) had not been diagnosed until adulthood.

Information obtained from 27 students revealed that most (67%, n =18 ) had been diagnosed by a certified school psychologist, as compared to 26% (n = 7) whose diagnoses were made by a licensed psychologist. The remaining 7% (n =2) had been diagnosed by an education specialist.

With respect to the qualitative description of the learning disability, of the 29 students providing this information, most of them (69%, n = 20) had been identified as learning disabled in more than one academic area (reading and writing), whereas only 9 students (31%) had been identified as having a learning disability specific to one area. Furthermore, 21 of the 22 students responding (95%) reported that the nature of their learning disability had been explained to them.

Final grades for the responding students were obtained for both fall and spring semesters. The mean student grade point average for the fall semester was 2.22 (range 4.0 - .9), and for the spring semester was 2.03 (range 3.58 - 0). Although the average grade was in the low C range, there was wide variation in the grades earned by the students, reflecting the heterogeneous nature of these students.

Instrumentation

Accommodation Survey. The Accommodation Survey used for this study was designed in two forms to ascertain (a) faculty willingness to make accommodations and (b) student willingness to request accommodations. These surveys consisted of 23 items that were adapted from surveys used in prior research (Matthews et al., 1987; Satcher, 1992). Twenty of the items were replicated from a survey instrument used by Satcher (1992); they can be categorized into descriptions of three different types of accommodations concerning instruction, assignments, and examinations. The remaining three items were derived from a survey by Matthews et al. (1987) and were included because they represented a fourth category of accommodations (policy/procedural) not addressed in the Satcher survey. Although the two instruments were similar in content, the format used by Satcher was selected for this study for two reasons. First, it offered a more descriptive response format, asking respondents to record their level of comfort associated with each item, according to a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 ("Very uncomfortable" to "Very Comfortable"). Second, it had been evaluated for both reliability and validity, whereas the instrument used by Matthews et al. had not been evaluated for such psychometric properties. Satcher reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .82, and face and content validity were established by having the instrument reviewed by professionals who provided support services for students with learning disabilities.

Although there were two forms of this Accommodation Survey, the same response format was used for both forms. However, the item stems were reworded to make them relevant for either the faculty or student respondents. The underlined portion of the following examples indicate how these stems varied: "Circle the response that best reflects how comfortable you would feel making the accommodation for a student with an identified learning disability who...asked to tape record your lecture" (faculty format) or "Choose the response which best reflects how comfortable you would feel in asking a professor...if you could tape record his or her lectures" (student format).

Demographic Survey. To gain relevant demographic and descriptive data from the respondents, demographic information was collected on another form. For the faculty subjects, nine variables were included: (a) gender, (b) race, (c) highest degree received, (d) number of years teaching experience, (e) number of years in current position, (f) part-time or full-time status, (g) faculty rank, (h) academic division, and (i) previous interaction with persons known to have a learning disability.

Demographic information collected from the students included: (a) data about previous educational experience and services, (b) enrollment status (part-time or full-time), (c) planned employment during college, and (d) athletic team participation. Due to confidentiality issues, limited data could be gathered from the students.

Procedure

Two different procedures were used to collect the data for this study. For the faculty members, the survey was distributed by mail. Each faculty member was sent a copy of the survey, with an explanatory cover letter, during the beginning of the spring semester. In addition to assuring confidentiality, the cover letter explained the rationale of the study and provided information to make the study relevant to the respondent. Although the letter indicated that participation was strictly voluntary, the importance of each individual's responses was emphasized by explaining that results would be used for some future service (e.g., consultation or training).

Faculty respondents were given 2 weeks to complete and return the questionnaire. A follow-up letter and another copy of the survey were sent to those faculty who did not respond to the first mailing. They were given another week to complete and return the survey. At the end of the study, group results of the survey were reported and made available to those faculty members who requested receipt of them.

The student responses to both the demographic items and the Accommodations Survey were collected during either individual or group sessions, regularly scheduled with the college LD specialist during the fall semester. Additional data were obtained from the available student records regarding the students' time of initial diagnosis, qualifications of the diagnostician, and area of learning disability (e.g., reading, writing, math). All of these data were provided to the researchers as archival data without any identifying information on the subjects.

Results

The Accommodations Survey was based on a Likert-type rating scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores reflecting greater comfort providing accommodations. Both faculty and student responses on the Accommodations Survey rating scale reported a neutral level of comfort providing or asking for accommodations for students with learning disabilities. That is, their mean scores fell midway between scores that reflect being either comfortable (5) or uncomfortable (1) providing or asking for accommodations. The mean faculty score was 3.46 (SD =.68, N= 222) and the mean student score was 3.3 (SD = .83, N= 31).

Although the intent of this study was to assess an overall level of comfort held by faculty with respect to providing a variety of accommodations, it was determined that a single mean score was limited in its representativeness of comfort levels. Therefore, additional analyses of the data-collapsing the data into three categories (comfortable, neutral, or uncomfortable)-were conducted to determine the level of comfort faculty and students reported on each item.

The results from these analyses are presented in Table 1. It can be seen that a greater percentage of faculty reported feeling comfortable providing the accommodations reflected in items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, whereas a greater percentage of faculty reported feeling uncomfortable with items 5, 9, 19, 21, and 22. Looking at responses from students with learning disabilities, it can be seen that a greater percentage of students felt comfortable requesting the accommodations stated in items 3, 16, 17, and 21, whereas a large number of students reported feeling uncomfortable requesting the accommodations noted in items 10, 15, 20, and 23. Tests for the significance between two proportions were conducted and 16 of 69 comparisons (23%) were significantly different at the p <.01 level.

In addition to these analyses, two different statistics were used to analyze the relationship between the faculty comfort providing accommodations and all but one of the faculty demographic variables the demographic variable of race was not included for further analysis, due to the low number of non-Caucasian subjects. Pearson Product Moment correlations were calculated between the faculty comfort providing accommodations and those demographic variables that consisted of integer data (i.e., number of years teaching experience and number of years in current position). For those demographic variables that consisted of categorical data, (i.e., gender, degree, employment status, rank, division, previous interaction), chi-squares were used to examine the relationship between these variables. The Pearson Product Moment correlations yielded no significant findings. In addition, no significant results were found in the chi-square analyses between the Accommodations Survey and demographic variables.

Results from the Accommodation Survey administered to both faculty and students have already been presented. However, an additional chi-square analysis was conducted on these data to determine if a relationship existed for group by comfort providing/requesting accommodations. The results from this analysis indicated that there was not a significant relationship between group status and accommodation comfort.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Discussion

Results from this study found that, overall, faculty reported a neutral level of comfort providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. These results contrast with the findings from other studies (Matthews et al., 1987; Nelson et al., 1990) that examined faculty willingness to provide, as opposed to comfort with providing, accommodations. That is, the previous studies found that a greater percentage of faculty stated that they were willing to provide most accommodations for students with learning disabilities than the percentage reporting comfort with providing accommodations in this study.

Faculty comfort providing accommodations was previously studied by Satcher (1992), and the present investigation utilized the same survey instrument plus three additional items. Although Satcher reported that the faculty in her study appeared to be "relatively comfortable" providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities, a review of the reported mean scores for each accommodation examined in the Satcher study revealed that most (13 out of 20) were also in the neutral range (3.0 - 3.9) on the Likert scale.

However, there appears to be limited interpretive value in mean scores for this particular variable, whether reported as a global index of comfort level (as was done in this study) or when used as reflecting the level of comfort in providing each accommodation (as in the Satcher study). Additional analyses of the data obtained from this investigation revealed that level of comfort varied across items. For instance, a higher percentage of faculty reported feeling comfortable with academic accommodations that essentially allowed students either extra time and space (items 3 and 6) or the use of some auxiliary aid (items 1, 2, and 4). However, many faculty reported feeling uncomfortable with certain procedural accommodations (items 5 and 9) and academic accommodations that tend to demand additional time and effort on the part of the instructor (items 19 and 21). Therefore, the initial impression that faculty possess a neutral level of comfort reflects an "averaging out" of high and low levels of comfort across items, rather than an overall neutrality with respect to accommodations in general.

This study was the first study that specifically examined the comfort of students with learning disabilities; as a result, no comparisons can be made between the student responses in this study and other studies. The additional analyses that were conducted in this study suggest that, like faculty, students' comfort levels vary depending on the particular accommodation being requested. For instance, many students reported feeling comfortable with certain academic accommodations that appear to be similar in that they place minimal demands on the part of the instructor (items 3, 16, and 17). Likewise, many students reported feeling uncomfortable with other types of academic accommodations that could be viewed as either more intrusive (item 10) or time intensive for the instructor (items 15 and 20).

Results from this study found no significant relationship between group status (faculty vs. students) and relative comfort providing/requesting accommodations. No previous studies have been conducted on how students' comfort levels compare to the level of comfort held by faculty in providing accommodations. However, the additional analyses of the data obtained from this study point to both similarities and differences between the two groups. In comparing the students' survey responses to the faculty's survey responses, it appears that both groups generally felt most comfortable with the accommodation of additional time for completing assignments (item 3). However, the two groups differed with respect to another accommodation, extra credit assignments (item 21). Although most students (61%) reported a high level of comfort requesting an extra credit assignment, many faculty (44%) reported feeling uncomfortable providing this accommodation.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to the present study which must be addressed. First, this study was conducted at a single community college and included a small number of students as subjects; the results from student responses should be interpreted with caution and replicated in future studies. Second, reliance on self-report measures for the assessment of comfort with accommodations is a primary limitation since neither the students nor the faculty were actually observed making or granting these accommodation requests.

There is also the potential for sampling bias. Given the voluntary nature of the study, the faculty members who responded to the survey may have had different comfort levels about accommodations than those faculty who chose not to respond. The student subjects included in this study were limited to those who self-identified as having a learning disability; students who disclose their learning disability and those who do not may have different levels of comfort with requesting accommodations. Therefore the generalizability of findings to all faculty members or all students with learning disabilities would not be valid.

Implications

Further Research

Given these limitations and the preliminary nature of research in this area, a number of follow-up studies could be conducted. The apparent variability in the level of comfort experienced by both faculty and students with respect to providing/requesting a range of accommodations points out a need for future research to explore these variations and also determine the level of agreement between faculty and students regarding the "reasonableness" of various accommodations. In addition, follow-up studies should be conducted employing large sample sizes, random sampling procedures, multiple colleges/varied institutional types, and measures other than self-report surveys.

Practice

The variability of comfort reported by both faculty and students with respect to providing/requesting accommodations could be useful in further educating both faculty and students in this area. More faculty reported feeling comfortable with academic accommodations that require little of their time, whereas many reported feeling uncomfortable with procedural or academic accommodations that demand more time. Support and education may be valuable to them in these areas. In addition, advisors may want to provide guidance to both faculty and students about what are acceptable accommodations.

Conclusion

Students with learning disabilities have a right to reasonable accommodations in their educational programs, and faculty are responsible for maintaining the academic integrity of their courses. If we continue to explore the perceptions of both groups-faculty and students-and offer each of them the necessary supports, both groups will be able to succeed in their educational mission.