RESEARCH BRIEFS EDITOR'S COMMENT: The staff of the Journal of Learning manuscripts. Consequently, we ask some authors to provide us with Disabilities receives a number of research reports that we and the a brief discussion of their study and findings to publish as a Research consulting editors believe would be of interest to some of our readers.Brief. Readers who wish a copy of the entire report should write Because of space constraints it is not possible to publish all of these directly to the author(s).-JLW
Students with Learning Disabilities in the University Environment: A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions Cherry K. Houck, Susan B. Asselin, Gretchen C Troutman, and Jane M. Arlington
This study examines faculty and student perceptions regarding university students with learninglearning disabilities (Minner & Prater, disabilities, sensitivity to such students' special needs, accommodations, and the perceived impact 1984), knowledge of and attitudes toof a learning disability. Results reveal a general sensitivity to the special needs of students with ward such students (Aksamit, Morris, learning disabilities; however, group differences suggest several areas warranting further & Leuenberger, 1987), and faculty attention. attitudes toward accommodations for
T
oday, colleges and universities are experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of students with learning disabilities being admitted. Although incidence figures vary, the U.S. Department of Education (1989) estimates that approximately 3% of the college and university students in this country have learning disabilities. This figure may be as high as 11% in 4-year nonsectarian colleges (Cohen, 1984) and as much as 5% in professional schools (Park, Antonoff, & Drake, 1986). Whatever the actual level of enrollment may be, it is clear that many colleges and universities feel unprepared for what Vogel (1982) characterized as the first generation of students with identified learning disabilities.
Apart from a few published reports of program requirements and guidelines (e.g., Barbaro, 1982; Mangrum & Strichart, 1984; Vogel, 1982; Vogel & Sattler, 1981), individual college or university efforts (e.g., Bireley, Landers, Vernooy, & Schlaerth, 1986; Cordoni, 1979; Gajar, Murphy, & Hunt, 1982), and student characteristics and needs (e.g., Cohen, 1988; Gajar, 1989; Houck, Engelhard, & Geller, 1989; Saracoglu, Minden, & Wilchesky, 1989; Vogel, 1986), there is limited empirical research to guide the development and provision of support programs for these students in higher education settings. Four studies most closely related to the present research are the investigations of college faculty expectations for students with JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992 PAGES 678-684
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
college students with learning disabilities (Matthews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990). Minner and Prater (1984) asked faculty to respond to a questionnaire focusing on their academic expectations for each student vignette and their perceived ability to work with the student. Faculty responded more negatively to the vignette depicting a student with favorable academic and social attributes but who was identified as having a learning disability as compared to nonlabeled students with "mediocre grades and social characteristics" (p. 228). Minner and Prater concluded that university faculty may be susceptible to frequently held stereotypes, which may, in turn, be a barrier for students' success. These findings are in contrast to the predominantly positive attitudes expressed
679
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992
by student service professionals and faculty in a mail survey conducted by Aksamit et al. (1987). Respondents, however, reported limited knowledge of the nature and needs of students with learning disabilities or of services available. Comparing groups, student service professionals expressed a more positive attitude than did faculty. Significant mean score differences were also found for gender, previous contact, and job experience. Evidence of faculty's generally positive view regarding accommodations that may be needed by students with learning disabilities within the university environment also may be found in the report by Matthews et al. (1987). Faculty indicated a willingness to make most of the 23 accommodations included on a survey, such as extending deadlines for class projects, allowing students to respond orally to essay questions, allowing extra time on tests, and so forth. Respondents reported more reluctance to permit certain other accommodations, such as extra-credit assignments; allowing misspellings, grammar, and punctuation errors to go unpenalized; or permitting students to make a substitution for a required course. Similar results were obtained by Nelson et al. (1990) using an adaptation of the survey employed by Matthews et al. Although the authors reported a general willingness to allow such accommodations as taperecorded lectures and extra time on tests, faculty were less willing to allow alternate assignments that were unavailable to other students, misspellings, incorrect grammar and punctuation, submission of tape-recorded assignments, access to lecture notes, or alternate tests. Faculty in the College of Education indicated more willingness to make accommodations than did their colleagues in the Colleges of Business or Arts and Sciences. The attitudes of college students with disabilities toward their university and its services were investigated by Patterson, Sedlacek, and Scales (1986). Although the methodology these re-
searchers employed is of interest, the small number of respondents having a learning disability (4% of the 101 students), along with the authors' view that attitudes of individuals with various disabilities cannot be generalized across disabilities, makes the study less applicable to this investigation. Collectively, these limited and somewhat disparate empirical findings point to a need for additional research that may contribute to our understanding of the university environment as experienced by students with learning disabilities. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the perceptions of faculty as well as of students with and without learning disabilities regarding the sensitivity of the university environment toward students with learning disabilities. The study builds on the previous research and is unique in that the perceptions of three relevant groups were examined concurrently via a telephone survey. The three major questions of the study were as follows: 1. What are faculty and student perceptions concerning university admission of individuals with learning disabilities, sensitivity to the special needs of students with learning disabilities, the impact of these disabilities on academic/career choices, and personal support for needed accommodations? 2. To what extent do faculty and student perceptions coincide regarding university admission of individuals with learning disabilities, sensitivity to the special needs of students with learning disabilities, the impact of these disabilities on academic and career expectations, and personal support for needed accommodations? 3. What concerns and suggestions do faculty and students express regarding students with learning disabilities within the university environment?
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
Method Subjects and Procedure The study was conducted at a comprehensive land-grant university with an enrollment of approximately 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Participants included a random sample of instructional faculty assigned to academic colleges obtained from the university's Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis. The faculty represented all eight colleges within the university, 60 departments, and all ranks. Of the 117 faculty actually called, 109 (93%) participated in the interview. Forty-seven faculty (43%) reported that they had had a student with a learning disability in their classes. Subjects also included a random sample of nondisabled students generated from the university's student directory. Of the 206 nondisabled students contacted, 194 (94%) agreed to be interviewed. All students who were identified as having a learning disability by the university's Office of Disabled Student Services (n=63) were selected to participate in the telephone interviews. To receive services through this office, students are required to present written documentation of their learning disability or, if not previously diagnosed, to undergo an evaluation conducted by the university's Psychological Services Center or, if preferred, by a nonuniversity diagnostic center, to establish the presence of a specific learning disability. In compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, students must initiate the request for services to accommodate their specific disability. During the 3-week interview period, 46 (98%) of the 47 students who could be reached agreed to participate. Of these, 43 (94%) were pursuing full-time study. All 46 students provided information regarding the nature of their disability, with 10 students indicating more than one disability. Dyslexia or reading was the most frequently cited disability (n=20), followed by difficulty with language, poor comprehension, or dysnomia
680
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
(n=8); poor auditory discrimination used with each subject group. Items (n = 7); difficulty with written work or were developed based on a review spelling (n=7)', difficulty with memory of related literature (e.g., Cohen, or visual-spatial difficulties (n = 7); 1988; Matthews et al., 1987; Vogel, attention defidt-hyperactivity disorder 1982) and in concert with specific data (n=6); and dyscalculia or poor math needs related to a project sponsored by skills (n=4). One student had suffered the university's Equal Opportunity/ a stroke. Table 1 provides a summary Affirmative Action Incentives Grant of subject characteristics. Program. Each instrument included an introductory statement indicating the nature of the study, how the interInterview Instrument viewee was selected, the anticipated Three scripted telephone interview duration of the interview (3 to 5 instruments were developed to be minutes), and a query to determine if
the respondent was willing to participate at the time of the call or, if not, a preferred time for a return call. Those who declined were asked to share their reason(s) for nonparticipation. To clarify the subject of the investigation, interviewees were told that "students with learning disabilities have average or above-average intelligence but exhibit significant information-processing and learning inefficiencies. This definition does not include students whose primary learning problem may be explained by
TABLE 1
Demographic Information of Respondents Faculty i(n=109)
Students with LD (#i=46)
Non-LD students (n== 194)
n
%
n
%
n
%
98 11
89.9 10.1
30 16
65.0 35.0
113 81
58.2 41.8
24 7 39 5 11 19 3 1
22.0 6.4 35.8 4.6 10.1 17.4 2.8 0.9
6 1 16 6 3 6 6 0 2
13.0 2.2 34.8 13.0 6.5 13.0 13.0 0.0 4.3
12 5 51 30 12 55 19 5 5
6.2 2.6 26.3 15.5 6.2 28.4 9.8 2.6 2.6
Academic level Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate
9 9 16 11 1
19.6 19.6 34.8 23.9 2.2
44 36 39 42 33
22.7 18.6 20.1 21.6 17.0
Status Full-time student Part-time student
43 3
93.5 6.5
187 7
96.4 3.6
Subject characteristics Gender Male Female College/Major Agriculture Architecture Arts and Sciences Business Education Engineering Human Resources Veterinary Undecided
Rank Instructor Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor
1 25 44 39
0.9 22.9 40.4 35.8
Have taught students with LD Yes No
47 62
43.1 56.9
Level of students taught Undergraduate Graduate Both
20 10 79
18.3 9.2 72.5
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
681
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992
visual, hearing, or other health impair- for nondisabled students (see Table 2). ments." Open-ended items also were included Each instrument contained struc- to elicit respondents' greatest concerns tured Likert-type items (where 5 = and suggestions. agree, 4 = tend to agree, 3 = uncertain, Prior to their use, the survey instru2 = tend to disagree, and 1 = disagree). ments were reviewed by a small group Seven items were common across the of individuals to determine item clarithree target groups and five additional ty, suggestions for making the items items were common to faculty and more straightforward, impressions restudents with learning disabilities. garding the tone of each query, and Altogether, there were 15 structured any other recommendations for imresponse items for faculty, 12 for stu- provement. Subsequently, pilot calls dents with learning disabilities, and 8 were made to six individuals who were
not members of the samples in order to determine ease of the interview and recording procedure and the approximate time needed to complete each interview.
Selection and Training of Interviewers Undergraduate students who were enrolled in an introductory course on exceptional learners were invited to serve as interviewers for the nondis-
TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values from One-Way ANOVAs Across Groups
Faculty (/i=109)
Students with LD ("=46)
Non-LD students (n=194)
Survey items
M
SD
M
SD
Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as note takers and taped lectures. 2. Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as oral or untimed tests. 3. Special course-related accommodations provided to students with learning disabilities are fair to other class members. 4. b Professors would like additional information on: a. University referral procedures for students with learning disabilities b. University support services for students with learning disabilities c. Nature and needs of college students with learning disabilities 5. Students with learning disabilities are able to complete a degree program at the university. 6. Students with learning disabilities are reluctant to disclose their learning problems. 7. Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as alternate or extra-credit assignments. 8. Professors are sensitive to students with learning problems who need special help. 9. Having a learning disability limits the selection of an academic major. 10. Students with learning disabilities are able to compete academically at the university. 11. The university's admission requirements are modified for prospective students with learning disabilities. 12. Professors are familiar with referral procedures for students with learning problems who need special help. 13. The presence of learning disabilities limits students' involvement in the nonacademic aspects of campus life. 14.c Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities such as note takers, alternate assignments, and untimed tests.
4.80a
.64
3.97
.99
37.83*
4.31
1.14
4.39
.88
0.18
4.17
1.13
4.47
.72
4.12
1.54
—
—
4.09
1.57
—
—
4.08 4.01
1.51 1.20
— 4.65
3.96
1.06
3.85
1.
M
SD
3.86
1.14
7.11*
— .76
—
—
14.16*
3.47
1.48
3.78
1.14
2.80
1.47
2.86
1.29
—
—
15.40*
3.74
1.26
4.04
.98
3.54
1.26
3.37
3.73
1.22
2.45
1.55
2.87
1.48
18.17*
3.19
1.26
3.71
1.37
3.50
1.22
3.48
2.84
.93
2.82
1.08
3.11
1.03
3.0
2.80
1.82
2.84
1.21
—
—
0.02
2.51
1.38
2.00
1.44
2.23
1.39
—
—
—
—
3.42
1.14
2.55
a Scale: 5 - agree, 4 = tend to agree, 3 = uncertain, 2 = tend to disagree, 1 = disagree. bltem 4 was posed to a single respondent group; therefore, no ANOVA was conducted. cltem 14, combining accommodations, was posed as a single item for the nondisabled students; therefore, no ANOVA was conducted. *p
Students with Learning Disabilities in the University Environment: A Study of Faculty and Student Perceptions Cherry K. Houck, Susan B. Asselin, Gretchen C Troutman, and Jane M. Arlington
This study examines faculty and student perceptions regarding university students with learninglearning disabilities (Minner & Prater, disabilities, sensitivity to such students' special needs, accommodations, and the perceived impact 1984), knowledge of and attitudes toof a learning disability. Results reveal a general sensitivity to the special needs of students with ward such students (Aksamit, Morris, learning disabilities; however, group differences suggest several areas warranting further & Leuenberger, 1987), and faculty attention. attitudes toward accommodations for
T
oday, colleges and universities are experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of students with learning disabilities being admitted. Although incidence figures vary, the U.S. Department of Education (1989) estimates that approximately 3% of the college and university students in this country have learning disabilities. This figure may be as high as 11% in 4-year nonsectarian colleges (Cohen, 1984) and as much as 5% in professional schools (Park, Antonoff, & Drake, 1986). Whatever the actual level of enrollment may be, it is clear that many colleges and universities feel unprepared for what Vogel (1982) characterized as the first generation of students with identified learning disabilities.
Apart from a few published reports of program requirements and guidelines (e.g., Barbaro, 1982; Mangrum & Strichart, 1984; Vogel, 1982; Vogel & Sattler, 1981), individual college or university efforts (e.g., Bireley, Landers, Vernooy, & Schlaerth, 1986; Cordoni, 1979; Gajar, Murphy, & Hunt, 1982), and student characteristics and needs (e.g., Cohen, 1988; Gajar, 1989; Houck, Engelhard, & Geller, 1989; Saracoglu, Minden, & Wilchesky, 1989; Vogel, 1986), there is limited empirical research to guide the development and provision of support programs for these students in higher education settings. Four studies most closely related to the present research are the investigations of college faculty expectations for students with JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992 PAGES 678-684
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
college students with learning disabilities (Matthews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990). Minner and Prater (1984) asked faculty to respond to a questionnaire focusing on their academic expectations for each student vignette and their perceived ability to work with the student. Faculty responded more negatively to the vignette depicting a student with favorable academic and social attributes but who was identified as having a learning disability as compared to nonlabeled students with "mediocre grades and social characteristics" (p. 228). Minner and Prater concluded that university faculty may be susceptible to frequently held stereotypes, which may, in turn, be a barrier for students' success. These findings are in contrast to the predominantly positive attitudes expressed
679
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992
by student service professionals and faculty in a mail survey conducted by Aksamit et al. (1987). Respondents, however, reported limited knowledge of the nature and needs of students with learning disabilities or of services available. Comparing groups, student service professionals expressed a more positive attitude than did faculty. Significant mean score differences were also found for gender, previous contact, and job experience. Evidence of faculty's generally positive view regarding accommodations that may be needed by students with learning disabilities within the university environment also may be found in the report by Matthews et al. (1987). Faculty indicated a willingness to make most of the 23 accommodations included on a survey, such as extending deadlines for class projects, allowing students to respond orally to essay questions, allowing extra time on tests, and so forth. Respondents reported more reluctance to permit certain other accommodations, such as extra-credit assignments; allowing misspellings, grammar, and punctuation errors to go unpenalized; or permitting students to make a substitution for a required course. Similar results were obtained by Nelson et al. (1990) using an adaptation of the survey employed by Matthews et al. Although the authors reported a general willingness to allow such accommodations as taperecorded lectures and extra time on tests, faculty were less willing to allow alternate assignments that were unavailable to other students, misspellings, incorrect grammar and punctuation, submission of tape-recorded assignments, access to lecture notes, or alternate tests. Faculty in the College of Education indicated more willingness to make accommodations than did their colleagues in the Colleges of Business or Arts and Sciences. The attitudes of college students with disabilities toward their university and its services were investigated by Patterson, Sedlacek, and Scales (1986). Although the methodology these re-
searchers employed is of interest, the small number of respondents having a learning disability (4% of the 101 students), along with the authors' view that attitudes of individuals with various disabilities cannot be generalized across disabilities, makes the study less applicable to this investigation. Collectively, these limited and somewhat disparate empirical findings point to a need for additional research that may contribute to our understanding of the university environment as experienced by students with learning disabilities. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the perceptions of faculty as well as of students with and without learning disabilities regarding the sensitivity of the university environment toward students with learning disabilities. The study builds on the previous research and is unique in that the perceptions of three relevant groups were examined concurrently via a telephone survey. The three major questions of the study were as follows: 1. What are faculty and student perceptions concerning university admission of individuals with learning disabilities, sensitivity to the special needs of students with learning disabilities, the impact of these disabilities on academic/career choices, and personal support for needed accommodations? 2. To what extent do faculty and student perceptions coincide regarding university admission of individuals with learning disabilities, sensitivity to the special needs of students with learning disabilities, the impact of these disabilities on academic and career expectations, and personal support for needed accommodations? 3. What concerns and suggestions do faculty and students express regarding students with learning disabilities within the university environment?
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
Method Subjects and Procedure The study was conducted at a comprehensive land-grant university with an enrollment of approximately 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Participants included a random sample of instructional faculty assigned to academic colleges obtained from the university's Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis. The faculty represented all eight colleges within the university, 60 departments, and all ranks. Of the 117 faculty actually called, 109 (93%) participated in the interview. Forty-seven faculty (43%) reported that they had had a student with a learning disability in their classes. Subjects also included a random sample of nondisabled students generated from the university's student directory. Of the 206 nondisabled students contacted, 194 (94%) agreed to be interviewed. All students who were identified as having a learning disability by the university's Office of Disabled Student Services (n=63) were selected to participate in the telephone interviews. To receive services through this office, students are required to present written documentation of their learning disability or, if not previously diagnosed, to undergo an evaluation conducted by the university's Psychological Services Center or, if preferred, by a nonuniversity diagnostic center, to establish the presence of a specific learning disability. In compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, students must initiate the request for services to accommodate their specific disability. During the 3-week interview period, 46 (98%) of the 47 students who could be reached agreed to participate. Of these, 43 (94%) were pursuing full-time study. All 46 students provided information regarding the nature of their disability, with 10 students indicating more than one disability. Dyslexia or reading was the most frequently cited disability (n=20), followed by difficulty with language, poor comprehension, or dysnomia
680
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
(n=8); poor auditory discrimination used with each subject group. Items (n = 7); difficulty with written work or were developed based on a review spelling (n=7)', difficulty with memory of related literature (e.g., Cohen, or visual-spatial difficulties (n = 7); 1988; Matthews et al., 1987; Vogel, attention defidt-hyperactivity disorder 1982) and in concert with specific data (n=6); and dyscalculia or poor math needs related to a project sponsored by skills (n=4). One student had suffered the university's Equal Opportunity/ a stroke. Table 1 provides a summary Affirmative Action Incentives Grant of subject characteristics. Program. Each instrument included an introductory statement indicating the nature of the study, how the interInterview Instrument viewee was selected, the anticipated Three scripted telephone interview duration of the interview (3 to 5 instruments were developed to be minutes), and a query to determine if
the respondent was willing to participate at the time of the call or, if not, a preferred time for a return call. Those who declined were asked to share their reason(s) for nonparticipation. To clarify the subject of the investigation, interviewees were told that "students with learning disabilities have average or above-average intelligence but exhibit significant information-processing and learning inefficiencies. This definition does not include students whose primary learning problem may be explained by
TABLE 1
Demographic Information of Respondents Faculty i(n=109)
Students with LD (#i=46)
Non-LD students (n== 194)
n
%
n
%
n
%
98 11
89.9 10.1
30 16
65.0 35.0
113 81
58.2 41.8
24 7 39 5 11 19 3 1
22.0 6.4 35.8 4.6 10.1 17.4 2.8 0.9
6 1 16 6 3 6 6 0 2
13.0 2.2 34.8 13.0 6.5 13.0 13.0 0.0 4.3
12 5 51 30 12 55 19 5 5
6.2 2.6 26.3 15.5 6.2 28.4 9.8 2.6 2.6
Academic level Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate
9 9 16 11 1
19.6 19.6 34.8 23.9 2.2
44 36 39 42 33
22.7 18.6 20.1 21.6 17.0
Status Full-time student Part-time student
43 3
93.5 6.5
187 7
96.4 3.6
Subject characteristics Gender Male Female College/Major Agriculture Architecture Arts and Sciences Business Education Engineering Human Resources Veterinary Undecided
Rank Instructor Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor
1 25 44 39
0.9 22.9 40.4 35.8
Have taught students with LD Yes No
47 62
43.1 56.9
Level of students taught Undergraduate Graduate Both
20 10 79
18.3 9.2 72.5
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 21, 2015
681
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 10, DECEMBER 1992
visual, hearing, or other health impair- for nondisabled students (see Table 2). ments." Open-ended items also were included Each instrument contained struc- to elicit respondents' greatest concerns tured Likert-type items (where 5 = and suggestions. agree, 4 = tend to agree, 3 = uncertain, Prior to their use, the survey instru2 = tend to disagree, and 1 = disagree). ments were reviewed by a small group Seven items were common across the of individuals to determine item clarithree target groups and five additional ty, suggestions for making the items items were common to faculty and more straightforward, impressions restudents with learning disabilities. garding the tone of each query, and Altogether, there were 15 structured any other recommendations for imresponse items for faculty, 12 for stu- provement. Subsequently, pilot calls dents with learning disabilities, and 8 were made to six individuals who were
not members of the samples in order to determine ease of the interview and recording procedure and the approximate time needed to complete each interview.
Selection and Training of Interviewers Undergraduate students who were enrolled in an introductory course on exceptional learners were invited to serve as interviewers for the nondis-
TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values from One-Way ANOVAs Across Groups
Faculty (/i=109)
Students with LD ("=46)
Non-LD students (n=194)
Survey items
M
SD
M
SD
Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as note takers and taped lectures. 2. Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as oral or untimed tests. 3. Special course-related accommodations provided to students with learning disabilities are fair to other class members. 4. b Professors would like additional information on: a. University referral procedures for students with learning disabilities b. University support services for students with learning disabilities c. Nature and needs of college students with learning disabilities 5. Students with learning disabilities are able to complete a degree program at the university. 6. Students with learning disabilities are reluctant to disclose their learning problems. 7. Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities, such as alternate or extra-credit assignments. 8. Professors are sensitive to students with learning problems who need special help. 9. Having a learning disability limits the selection of an academic major. 10. Students with learning disabilities are able to compete academically at the university. 11. The university's admission requirements are modified for prospective students with learning disabilities. 12. Professors are familiar with referral procedures for students with learning problems who need special help. 13. The presence of learning disabilities limits students' involvement in the nonacademic aspects of campus life. 14.c Professors are willing to make course-related accommodations for learning disabilities such as note takers, alternate assignments, and untimed tests.
4.80a
.64
3.97
.99
37.83*
4.31
1.14
4.39
.88
0.18
4.17
1.13
4.47
.72
4.12
1.54
—
—
4.09
1.57
—
—
4.08 4.01
1.51 1.20
— 4.65
3.96
1.06
3.85
1.
M
SD
3.86
1.14
7.11*
— .76
—
—
14.16*
3.47
1.48
3.78
1.14
2.80
1.47
2.86
1.29
—
—
15.40*
3.74
1.26
4.04
.98
3.54
1.26
3.37
3.73
1.22
2.45
1.55
2.87
1.48
18.17*
3.19
1.26
3.71
1.37
3.50
1.22
3.48
2.84
.93
2.82
1.08
3.11
1.03
3.0
2.80
1.82
2.84
1.21
—
—
0.02
2.51
1.38
2.00
1.44
2.23
1.39
—
—
—
—
3.42
1.14
2.55
a Scale: 5 - agree, 4 = tend to agree, 3 = uncertain, 2 = tend to disagree, 1 = disagree. bltem 4 was posed to a single respondent group; therefore, no ANOVA was conducted. cltem 14, combining accommodations, was posed as a single item for the nondisabled students; therefore, no ANOVA was conducted. *p
