Managing Editor Richard Allegra, ahead editorial Associate



Download 0.69 Mb.
Page5/9
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size0.69 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

References
Beilke, J. R. (1999). The chilly climate for students with disabilities in higher education. College Student Journal, 33(3), 364-371.

Bourke, A., Strehorn, K., & Silver, P. (2000). Faculty members’ provision of instructional accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 26-32.

Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal design of instruction. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved July 2, 2005, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html.

Burgstahler, S. (2002). Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, 21, 151-183.

Burgstahler, S. (2007). Building capacity for a welcoming and accessible postsecondary institution – Presentation and resource. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. http://www. Washington.edu/doit/Resources/postsec.html.

Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education, 18(2), 135-147.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Psychology Press.

Cowles, J. R., & Keim, M. C. (1995). The graduation rate, intellectual functioning level, and matriculation time of university students with learning disabilities. College Student Journal, 29, 145-149.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Debrand, C. C., & Salzberg, C. L. (2005). A validated curriculum to provide training to faculty regarding students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 49-62.

Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Dickinson, D. L., & Verbeck, R. (2002). Wage differential between college graduates with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(2), 175-184.

Dona, J., & Edmister, J. (2001). An examination of community college faculty members' knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at the fifteen community colleges in Mississippi. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(2), 91-103.

Foss, J. J. (2002). Attitudes and accommodation practices of university health professions faculty toward students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2002.

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. K. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women.

Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities: Statistical year 1998. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Hill, J. (1996). Speaking out: Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding adequacy of services and willingness of faculty to make accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 12(1), 22-43.

Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile on preparation, participation, and outcomes. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(3), 59-64.

Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions: Statistical analysis report 1999-2000 (NCES 2002-168). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Education Statistics.

Houck, C., Asselin, S., Troutman, G., & Arrington, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678-684.

Ibrahim, F. A., & Herr, E. L. (1982). Modification of attitudes toward disability: Differential effect of two educational modes. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 26(1), 29-36.

Jensen, J. M., McCrary, N., Krampe, K., & Cooper, J. (2004). Trying to do the right thing: Faculty attitude toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 81-90.

Junco, R., & Salter, D. W. (2004). Improving the campus climate for students with disabilities through the use of online training. NASP Journal, 41(2), 263-276.

Kruse, B. G., Elacqua, T. C., & Rapaport, R. J. (1998). Classroom accommodations for students with disabilities: A needs assessment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 296-298.

Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), 71-84.

Lehmann, J., Davies, T., & Laurin, K. (2000). Listening to student voices about post-secondary education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 60-65.

Leyser, Y. (1989). A survey of faculty attitudes and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 7(3 & 4), 97-108.

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Brulle, A., & Wyland, S. (1998). Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities: Two decades after implementation of Section 504. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(3), 5-19.

Leyser, Y., Vogel, S., Wyland, S., Brulle, A., Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2003). American and Israeli faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with learning disabilities: A cross-cultural study. In S. Vogel, G. Vogel, V. Sharoni, & O. Dahan, (Eds.), Learning disabilities in higher education and beyond: An international perspective (pp. 201-225). Baltimore: York Press.

McGee, K. A. (1989). Attitudes of the University of Virginia faculty and administration toward disabled college students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 10A.

McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2006). Universal design for instruction: Extending the universal design paradigm to college instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 124-134.

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 10-20.

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

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students with disabilities in post-secondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes (NCES 1999-187). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, J., Dodd, J., & Smith, D. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 185-189.

Norton, S. M. (1997). Examination accommodations for community college students with learning disabilities: How are they viewed by faculty and students? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21, 57-69.

Perry, S. N., & Franklin, K. K. (2006). I’m not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring experiences of college students diagnosed with ADHD. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), 94-109.

Project PACE. (2003 ). Make a difference: Tools for enabling faculty to teach students with disabilities. Little Rock: University of Arkansas.

Rao, M. S. (2002). Students with disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitude and willingness to provide accommodations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Rath, K. A., & Royer, J. M. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353-381.

Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445-462). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salzberg, C. (2003). Preparing higher education faculty for students with disabilities: It’s right; it’s smart; and it should be mandatory. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://asd.usu.edu/resources/files/preparing_faculty.pdf.

Salzberg, C., Peterson, L., Debrand, C., Blair, R., Carsey, A., & Johnson, A. (2002). Opinions of disability service directors on faculty training: The need, content, issues, formats, media, and activities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(2), 101-114.

Scott, S., & Gregg, N. (2000). Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing access for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 158-167.

Thompson, A. Bethea, L., & Turner, J. (1997). Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A survey. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(3), 166-180.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). National Center on Education Statistics. The condition of education 2000 (NCES 2000-602). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). National Center on Education Statistics. Digest of education statistics (NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: Author.

Vasek, D. (2005). Assessing the knowledge base of faculty at a private, four-year institution. College Student Journal, 39(2), 307-315.

Vogel, S., & Adelman, P. (2000). Adults with learning disabilities 8-15 years after college. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 165-182.

Vogel, S., Holt, J., Sligar, S., & Er, N. (2005). Final evaluation report of enhancing success for students with disabilities in higher education. Unpublished manuscript, De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Vogel, S., Leyser, Y., Burgstahler, S., Sligar, S., & Zecker, S. (2006). Faculty knowledge and practices regarding students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 109-123.

Vogel, S., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1999). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(3), 173-186.

Vogel, S., & Reder, S. (Eds.). (1998). Learning disabilities, literacy, and adult education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wertheim, C., Vogel, S. A., & Brulle, A. (1998). Students with learning disabilities in teacher education settings. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 293-309.

Wilson, K., Getzel, E., & Brown, T. (2000). Enhancing the post-secondary campus climate for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 14, 37-50.

West, W., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ispens, & Martin, E. (1993). Beyond Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional Children, 59, 456-467.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

About the Authors
Susan A. Vogel, Ph.D. is Distinguished Research Professor Emerita at Northern Illinois University. Her current research has focused on outcomes for college-able adults with learning disabilities across the lifespan and in addition, since the mid-1990’s, she has focused on factors contributing to campus climate for adults with disabilities in higher education and how to enhance the campus climate to enable students with disabilities to achieve greater academic success. She published five books, including most recently Learning Disabilities in Higher Education and Beyond: An International Perspective, and 75 articles, and presented at more than 100 international conferences. She served, or presently serves as journal editor, member of advisory and editorial boards, including the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, and consultant regarding accommodations on statewide, national, and international examinations. In recognition of the international impact of her research over the last 30 years, Dr. Vogel was elected President of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities. She now spearheads the service and research initiative offered by AHEAD called ACCESS, Assessment of Campus Climate to Enhance Student Success. She can be reached via email at: vogels@niu.edu.
Janet K. Holt, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Educational Research and Evaluation at Northern Illinois University where she teaches graduate courses in educational statistics. Her research areas include: methodological issues regarding growth modeling, multilevel modeling, and multivariate analyses and applications of these methods to studies of developmental change, language and literacy, intervention design, and math and science achievement in women and in underrepresented minorities. She has over 20 academic publications and 50 presentations in these areas. Janet is past president of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association and has been very involved in the Educational Statisticians and Multiple Linear Regression Special Interest Groups of the American Educational Research Association. She reviews for many journals and is currently on the editorial boards of the Educational Researcher and the Journal of Advanced Academics. She can be reached by email at: jholt@niu.edu.

Steven R. Sligar, Ed.D. is an assistant professor and director of the graduate program in vocational evaluation in the Department of Rehabilitation Studies at East Carolina University. He received his Ed.D. from Northern Illinois University in Adult Education. His research interests include career assessment, issues of access, especially Web site and campus accessibility, and administration of programs for persons with disabilities. He conducted the qualitative analysis of the comments for this study and is involved with the new Assessment of Campus Climate to Enhance Student Success (ACCESS) project offered by AHEAD. He can be reached by email at: sligars@ecu.edu


Elizabeth Leake is a postsecondary education service professional with more than 15 years of experience in public relations and information technology administration. As an assistive technology advocate, she served as the chair of the Northern Illinois University Presidential Commission on Persons with Disabilities and was a founding member of the NIU-ACT (Assistive Computing Technologies) grassroots initiative. Leake developed the Assistive Technology Chamber (AT Chamber)—a technology environment designed to help postsecondary students with learning disabilities and/or ADHD access technology. An elected representative to shared governance for more than eight years. Leake never missed an opportunity to add disability awareness to any agenda. From 2002 to 2008 Leake served on the Illinois Board of Higher Education Web Accessibility Consortium where she was instrumental in establishing best practices for Illinois postsecondary schools. She can be reached via email at: e_leake@hotmail.com

Metacognitive and Affective Factors of College Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

Cathy W. Hall

East Carolina University
Raymond E. Webster

Greenville Psychological Resources


Abstract
Metacognitive and attitudinal factors in the academic performance of college students with and without disabilities were assessed and compared. GPA, metacognitive knowledge and practice, resiliency, self-efficacy, locus of control, and need for achievement were examined. Similarities as well as notable differences were found between the LD (N=27) and non-LD (N=28) groups in perceptions and approaches to academic tasks. The LD group indicated a higher level of initiative than the non-LD group, which may be one of the factors helping contribute to their achievement. While the resiliency factor of initiative was higher for the LD group, self-efficacy in regard to coursework was significantly lower than that of the non-LD group. Even though by measures of aptitude and GPA the students with LD were not significantly different from their peers without LD, many indicated self-doubt about not being able to perform as well in academic coursework as their non-LD cohorts.

The term learning disability (LD) encompasses a relatively broad group of learning difficulties, involving a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes presumed to be related to a central nervous system dysfunction. The disorder creates problems in speaking, listening, writing, reading, and/or mathematics, and manifests in a severe discrepancy between apparent potential for learning and level of achievement (Lerner, 2000). It is estimated that more than 5% of school-age children have a learning disability and that their disability accounts for roughly half of the total number of students identified by public schools as needing special education (Hallahan & Kaufman, 1997).

Students with learning disabilities frequently experience a multitude of difficulties throughout their academic careers. They often face limitations in strategic knowledge and self-monitoring that can lead to academic difficulties (Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bott, 2005; Lerner, 2000). In addition, they typically encounter problems in motivation, attributions, self-esteem, and affective responses that can further impair academic difficulties (Borkowski, Carr, Pellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Borkowski, Johnston, & Reid, 1987; Borkowski & Murthukrisha, 1992). Beyond academic challenges, students with LD may find themselves dealing with the shortcomings of the system, including access to services to postsecondary services, documentation requirements, and transition support from secondary to postsecondary (Gregg, 2007).

Borkowski and his colleagues (Borkowski et al., 1990; Day & Borkowski, 1987) proposed an integrated model of achievement that included executive functioning. Executive functioning focused on two distinct dimensions: metacognition and affective factors. In this model metacognition encompasses self-knowledge of learning strategies and the ability to use this knowledge in an efficient and effective manner. Ongoing self-regulation and monitoring of metacognitive strategies is necessary for this component to be effective. Closely aligned with the metacognitive is the affective component. Increased feelings of self-efficacy reinforce self-regulation and the use of cognitive strategies, which in turn strengthen self-esteem, motivation, and also lead to attributing success and failures to their own efforts. Through bi-directional relationship between metacognitive and affective factors strategic knowledge becomes related to self-efficacy (Borkowski, 1992; Borkowski et al., 1990).

Borkowski et al. (1990) proposed a causal, bi-directional link between these two factors. That is, when a student becomes more efficient in academic self-regulation, his or her self-efficacy begins to change as well. Self-efficacy in this context refers to the expectancy of how competently an individual will be able to perform a task (Bandura, 1997). If a student believes he/she will be able to perform academic tasks successfully, motivation increases. Increased motivation further strengthens the metacognition regulation and monitoring, which in turn leads to attributing successes to self-efforts and establishing a more internal locus of control with regard to academic successes.

Successes as well as failures in academic endeavors can be attributed to internal factors such as ability or effort, or to external factors such as of luck or help from others. A low perception of self-efficacy along with negative attributions frequently undermine academics (Butler, 1999; Butler, Elaschuk, & Poole, 2000). According to Palladino, Poli, Masi, and Marcheschi (2000), competence improves through effort, and when students begin to enjoy learning and realize their own role in their successes, they develop an internal locus of control. This leads to attribution of success and failure to effort and experiencing feelings of self-efficacy. Research suggests that students in LD often face problems with both of these areas (Covington, 1992; Lerner, 2000).

Students with LD have been found to report lower levels of self-esteem, experiencing less emotional support, and having greater academic and personal-emotional adjustment dysfunctions than their peers without LD (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993; Hill, 1996; Stolowitz, 1995). Feelings of social isolation and not fitting in with others may also present barriers (Hill, 1996; Reiff, Gerber, & Ginsberg, 1993, 1997). Limited protective factors that serve to aid in resiliency coupled with adverse experiences may serve to restrict and weaken academic performance for students with learning disabilities.

Due to the factors noted above, it is not surprising that have lower rates of postsecondary school attendance (Henderson, 2001; Madaus & Shaw, 2006; Wagner et al., 2005). Despite variations in the number of students with LD responded to pursue a postsecondary education, the overall consensus is that this group of college students is underrepresented. While there has been a slight increase in the number of students with LD who transition to community colleges since late 1980s to early 2000 (up from 20% to 23%), but the number of students with LD who go on to a four-year institution is around 11%. (Wagner et al., 2005) According to the National Longitudinal Transition Study – 2, 76.7% of high school students with LD expected to get some type of postsecondary education when surveyed, but only 19% were attending postsecondary school (Newman, 2005). Thus, although students with LD represent the largest group of college freshmen with documented disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005), they are faced with many challenges in pursuing postsecondary education (Gregg, 2007).

In a 10-year longitudinal study, Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, and Edgar (2000) found that students with LD were still less likely to attend any form of postsecondary school and were less likely to have graduated from postsecondary programs. Only 2.4% of individuals with LD had graduated from a four-year college compared to 45.5% of their high school peers without a disability.

Significant differences in metacognitive and affective factors have been reported during elementary and secondary schools between students with and without learning difficulties (Borkowski, et al., 1987; Palladino et al., 2000; Papetti et al., 1992). Palladino et al. (2000) found significant differences with metacognitive skills, internal attributions of effort related to personal success or failure, and self-reported depressive symptomatology, with the students with LD showing more difficulty in these areas than their counterparts without LD. As mentioned, the reciprocal influence between metacognitive and affective factors can undermine the ability to succeed academically. The question is how these metacognitive and affective factors affect students with LD who do pursue a higher education degree at a four-year college or university compare to their college counterparts who do not have a learning disability.

The differences between high school and college are many, and reflect major shifts from external to internal controls (e.g., independent living, class time, study time) and from more personalized attention to being one of many (e.g., class size 25-35 students to upward of 100 or more students in a class). In addition, there is a major shift from the public school maintaining the responsibility of finding and serving students with special needs to the college environment where the student takes on this responsibility (Wolanin & Steele, 2004).

College presents major adjustments to all students but especially to the student with a learning disability. As posited by Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003), students with LD at the postsecondary level need to become more self-determined in order for them to be academically successful. At the postsecondary level students take on the responsibility of developing and being aware of academic goals as well as the ability to use feedback to evaluate their performance relative to the academic goals they have adopted.

Given the smaller numbers of students with LD who pursue postsecondary education, the present study addressed the question: Are there differences in metacognitive and affective factors among college students with learning disabilities in comparison to their college peers without LD?

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page