Literature Review

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rejs20

European Journal of Special Needs Education

ISSN: 0885-6257 (Print) 1469-591X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

College students with disabilities in teacher education: faculty attitudes and practices

Yona Leyser & Lori Greenberger

To cite this article: Yona Leyser & Lori Greenberger (2008) College students with disabilities in teacher education: faculty attitudes and practices, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23:3, 237-251, DOI: 10.1080/08856250802130442

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250802130442

Published online: 22 Jul 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 486

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

European Journal of Special Needs Education Vol. 23, No. 3, August 2008, 237–251

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/08856250802130442 http://www.informaworld.com

College students with disabilities in teacher education: faculty attitudes and practices

Yona Leysera and Lori Greenbergerb*

aNorthern Illinois University, USA; bBeit Berl College, Israel Taylor and FrancisREJS_A_313210.sgm10.1080/08856250802130442European Journal of Special Needs Education0885-6257 (print)/1469-591X (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis233000000June 2008Dr [email protected]

Increasing numbers of students with disabilities are enrolled in post-secondary institutions. This study examined faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with disabilities in teacher education. Participants were 188 faculty in seven colleges, in Israel, who responded to a survey instrument about attitudes and practices. Faculty reported personal contact and extensive teaching experience with students with all types of disabilities – mainly those with learning disabilities, yet many had no training in the area of disabilities. A large majority reported both willingness and actual provision of classroom accommodations. More technological than instructional and testing accommodations were noted. Supportive attitudes were found towards students with disabilities in higher education and in the teaching profession. Several background variables such as contact, training, academic discipline and rank were associated with attitudes and practices. Implications for practice and cross-cultural studies are discussed.

Keywords: inclusion; attitudes; disabilities; higher education; faculty; instruction

In the past two decades, legislation, regulations and policies in many countries around the globe as well as the Salamanca declaration (UNESCO 1994) and United Nation initiatives, have resulted in the inclusion or mainstreaming of a growing number of students with special educational needs (SEN) in general or ordinary elementary and secondary schools, and a simultaneous drop in the numbers of these students in specialised settings (Booth and Ainscow 1998; Farrell 2001; Hegarty 1998; Mittler 2002).

As more students with disabilities (many of whom are students with learning disabilities) are enrolled in college preparatory high school programmes, aspire to enrol in post-secondary institutions. It is estimated that between 6% to 9% of college students have disabilities (Burgstahler and Doe 2006). Of this group, the fastest growing subgroup are students who report learning disabilities (Henderson 2001; Horn and Berktold 1999; Vogel et al. 2006). However, as Show and Scott (2003) observed, students with ADHD and psychiatric disor- ders are reported to be increasing even at a faster rate than students with learning disabilities. The increasing number of students with disabilities in post-secondary institutions has also been attributed to additional factors such as civil rights legislation which established the right of students with disabilities to participate in colleges (i.e., in the USA, the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990); technological innovations and increased accessibility of college campuses and the development of support services on campuses (Burgsthaler and Doe 2006). Another factor has been the resurgence of open enrolment admissions policies at many universities and colleges in response to the shrinking pool of eligible students. This has led

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

238 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

to active recruitment efforts, including those of students with disabilities as a source of reve- nue (Sweener et al. 2002).

The documented increase in the number of students with learning disabilities and ADHD in public schools and institutions of higher education is generating a heated debate among professionals. Critics argue that there are major problems inherent in the definition (i.e., presumed neurological deficiencies, exclusionary factors) the identification (the apti- tude–achievement discrepancy), assessment (types of measures) and instructional practices (Siegel 1999). Some are calling for an alternative perspective contending that learning disabilities are created within the context of social interactions and activities performed in schools and by the broader social, political, economic and cultural structures (Coles 1989; Dudley-Marling 2004; Stanovich 1999). In a publicised court case (Guckenberger v. Boston University), which generated some of these debates, the court ruled on most issues – i.e., eligibility criteria, evaluations and accommodations, in favour of students with learning disabilities and ADHD (Wolinsky and Whelan 1999).

The success of all students with disabilities in post-secondary education depends not only on their own efforts and the physical accessibility and availability of services on campus, but in particular on faculty knowledge and attitudes towards students with disabil- ities and on their willingness to provide reasonable academic modifications and accommo- dations (Baggett 1994; Burgstahler 2005; Dona and Edmister 2001; Leyser et al. 1998; Scott and Gregg 2000; Vogel and Adelman 1992, 2000).

The literature reports a number of studies on faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities. A few found that faculty had negative attitudes (i.e., Houck et al. 1992; Minner and Prater 1984) or a mix of positive and negative attitudes (Scott and Gregg 2000). For the most part, however, faculty have been found to hold positive attitudes (Aksamit, Morris and Leuenberger 1987; Leyser 1989; Leyser et al. 1998; Norton 1997; Satcher 1992; Thompson, Bethea and Turner 1997). Similarly, positive attitudes have also been reported for instruc- tors in a teacher training college in Israel (Leyser et al. 2003) and a small college in the UK (Shimman 1996).

Investigations of faculty familiarity with legislation, knowledge and experience with students with disabilities indicate that they report limited familiarity with disability laws, limited knowledge of campus support services and limited experience in teaching students with disabilities (Baggett 1994; Leyser et al. 1998, 2003, Wilson, Getzel and Brown 2000; Vogel et al. 2006). Thompson, Bethea and Turner (1997) reported that while faculty had limited knowledge of legislative mandates, they had some experience in teaching students with disabilities, mostly with students with mobility impairments, followed by experience in teaching students with learning disabilities. Many investiga- tions reported, however, that faculty are willing to provide various teaching and examina- tion accommodations in their classrooms (Baggett 1994; Houck et al. 1992; Leyser et al. 2003; Satcher 1992; Thompson, Behtea and Turner 1997; Vogel et al. 1999, 2006). Findings from several of these investigations also showed that faculty were generally less willing to make some accommodations, such as to allow exclusive extra credit, overlook spelling, incorrect punctuation and poor grammar, permit substitutions for required courses, provide copies of lecture notes and give extra credit assignments (Leyser et al. 1998; Matthews, Anderson and Skolnick 1987; Nelson, Dodd and Smith 1990; Sweener et al. 2002). These studies suggest that faculty are less comfortable in providing accom- modations they perceive will lower course standards or give unfair advantage to some students, yet are willing to implement accommodations that are easy to provide and which require little extra time and facilitate the integration of students into the planned course activities (Burgsthaler 2005).

European Journal of Special Needs Education 239

Faculty attitudes and willingness to make accommodations have been found to be related to several factors. For example, to faculty knowledge regarding types of accommo- dations needed by students with different types of disabilities (Bigaj, Shaw and McGuire 1999; Thompson, Bethea and Turner 1997). Another factor that influenced faculty willing- ness was the number of students requesting accommodations – i.e., as the numbers increased they perceived their resources to be less sufficient and reported greater difficulty in providing alternative types of exams (Bourke, Strehorn and Silver 2000).

The literature reports several demographic variables that impact faculty attitudes and willingness to make accommodations. Although results are sometimes inconsistent, data seems to suggest the impact of the following variables:

(a) Female faculty – expresses more positive attitudes towards individuals with disabil- ities (Baggett 1994; Sharoni and Vogel 1998) and are more willing to provide accommodations (Bigaj, Shaw and McGuire 1999; Leyser et al. 2003) than male faculty.

(b) Teaching experience – faculty with more experience teaching students with disabil- ities have more positive attitudes and are more comfortable allowing accommoda- tions than are those with less experience (Fichten et al. 1988; Leyser et al. 2003; Satcher 1992).

(c) Training and staff development – faculty with more training and information about disabilities hold more positive views, and are more willing to make accommodations than those with less training (Aksamit, Morris and Leuenberger 1987; Bigaj, Shaw and McGuire 1999; Leyser 1989).

(d) Academic rank – there is some evidence that instructors who do not have a doctorate are more willing to provide a number of teaching accommodations than their colleagues with a doctorate (Leyser et al. 2003; Vogel et al. 1999).

(e) Academic discipline – some researchers reported that faculty in the College of Education were more willing to provide accommodations than faculty in other colleges (Fonosch and Schwab 1981; Nelson, Dodd and Smith 1990; Vogel et al. 1999).

The question whether students with disabilities and, in particular, students with learning disabilities be encouraged to enter programmes leading to teacher certification, and later be successful as teachers, has been discussed in several publications (Brulle et al. 1998; McGee and Kauffman 1989; Wertheim, Vogel and Brulle 1998; Williams 1998; Yanok 1987). Such a discussion is timely especially now with the growing pressure to better ensure teacher quality. Many countries and professional organisations developed more rigorous standards for the preparation of teachers, in regard to knowledge (i.e., subject- matter content), instructional skills and strategies, as well as dispositions toward all students. Recently, Vogel et al. (2007) reported that educators with learning disabilities felt that their disability was an asset in their profession. They noted that their disability impacted positively their understanding of students with disabilities, their compassion toward students and parents and the strategies they used in their classrooms. Leyser et al. (2003) reported that, faculty in a major state university in the USA and in a teacher training college in Israel, expressed a positive disposition towards students with learning disabilities in pre-service teacher education and supported the idea that reasonable accommodations could be made in the assessment of their basic skills needed for entry into the programme, as well as in courses and field experiences. However, faculty particularly at the university, were opposed to modifying the required grade point average (GPA) for entry into the programme.

240 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

More studies on faculty disposition towards students with disabilities in higher educa- tion including in teacher education programmes are needed. Furthermore, although studies on faculty perceptions and practices regarding students with disabilities are reported in the literature further research is needed in universities and colleges in other nations, because most studies were conducted in the USA. In addition, with the increase in the number of students with disabilities entering post-secondary institutions and the increase in the world- wide commitment to educate students with SEN in inclusive environment, it is important to initiate research in this area.

The purposes of this study were: (1) to examine faculty knowledge, attitudes practices and training needs regarding students with disabilities in teacher education colleges in Israel, where only a few such studies have been reported in the past, and (2) to continue to examine the impact of selected background variables on attitudes and practices. A related goal was to serve as an impetus for further cross-cultural studies in universities and colleges around the world.

Methodology

Participants

Participants were 188 faculty members from seven teachers training colleges in Israel. Four prepare teachers for the public Jewish schools (one in the area of physical education). One for the religious Jewish schools, and two (one college and one institute) prepare teachers for the Arab sector.

Demographic characteristics of faculty are presented in Table 1. As can be seen a major- ity, i.e. more than 70% were older (46 years of age and above). Most (about 60%) at the rank of lecturer, while about 55% held an academic degree of MA or a doctorate. Most (65%) had 11 and more years of teaching experience. Out of this group 45% had 16+ years of experience. The majority were females and most held a full-time position. Faculty repre- sented a variety of disciplines. About 40% were in the position of supervising teachers.

Instrument

A survey instrument, titled Faculty attitudes in colleges toward students with learning disabilities and physical and sensory disabilities, was used. The scale was an extended and modified format from several English versions (Leyser 1989; Leyser et al. 1998; Vogel et al. 1999, 2006) and a Hebrew version (Sharoni and Vogel 1998; Leyser et al. 2003). The instrument consisted of five parts.

Part I includes nine items, and elicits information about the demographic characteris- tics of responders (i.e., gender, academic degree, status, discipline). Part II is composed of 12 items, including multiple-choice questions, and five- point Likert-type rating scales. It asks respondents about their experience with individuals with disabilities in their personal life, and in teaching, and their knowledge and training in the area of disabilities. Part III is composed of 22 items and addresses the willingness and actual provision of various teach- ing, examination as technological accommodations and perceived fairness of these accom- modations. Examples of accommodations were: provide student with a copy of lecture outline, or of the overhead presentation, allow student additional time to complete exams and allow students to use a word processor or an electronic spell checker. Participants were asked to respond twice to these items. The first indicated willingness to provide a specific accommodation, whereas the second response indicated the actual provision of the

European Journal of Special Needs Education 241

accommodation. Part IV is composed of five items, asking responders about their beliefs regarding admission regulations for entry into teacher education for students with disabili- ties, accommodations during field experiences and about their success in a teaching career. Part V is composed of one multiple-choice item, asking faculty about their interest in acquiring more information on seven topics. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of faculty (N = 188).

Category N %

Age group 25–35 14 7.6 36–45 36 19.5 46–55 70 37.8 56+ 63 34.1

Rank Teacher 51 28.0 Lecture 104 57.1 Senior lecturer 23 12.6 Professor 4 2.2

Degree Bachelor’s 4 2.2 Master’s 78 42.6 Doctorate 100 54.6

Years teaching 1–5 18 9.8 6–10 47 25.5 11–15 37 20.1 16+ 82 44.6

Gender Male 55 30.1 Female 128 69.9

Teaching load Full-time 99 53.5 Part-time 86 46.5

Discipline Special education 33 18.4 Natural sciences 31 17.3 Social sciences 56 31.3 Education/psychology 39 21.8 Physical education/dance 20 11.2

Supervising teacher Yes 68 38.9 No 107 61.1

*Figures do not add up to 188 because of missing data.

242 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

consistency reliability for the questionnaire was 0.919, indicating a high degree of internal consistency reliability for the scale.

Procedure

Following a written permission to conduct the study by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, deans and or directors of support services in seven colleges were contacted. With their permission and support, 500 questionnaires were distributed to faculty in their mail- boxes. Included was a brief statement of the purpose, and importance of the study. Completed forms were returned to one mailbox and later collected by the researchers. A total of 188 forms (37.6%) were returned.

Results

Contact with individuals with disabilities

As can be seen in Table 2, about 60% of faculty reported having much or very much contact with individuals with learning disabilities and physical and sensory disabilities. Still a large percentage (about 40%) reported having very limited contact. Contacts were reported with an immediate family member (27.1%), other family members (12.8%), a co-worker (14.4%), a friend (24.5%) and other 22.3%. A large majority (87.3%) reported that they had taught students with disabilities in their classes. Of these, the most reported group were students with learning disabilities (78.2%), followed by students with ADD (42.6%), physical disabilities (33%), hearing impairments (35.1%), visual impairments (16%) and students with health impairments (13.8%). Some reported that they taught students with mental disorders (9%).

Table 2 reveals that while about 50% of faculty reported that they were contacted to a large, or a very large, extent by students with disabilities, who asked for accommodations, about one third reported that they were not contacted or only rarely. A large majority (87.1%) indicated that they were willing to respond to these requests, and 76.4% reported that they spent much extra time assisting these students. Although many (58%) felt that they had much or extensive knowledge and skills in making accommodations, more then

Table 2. Faculty contact, knowledge and training regarding students with disabilities: percentages.

Not at all

Very large extent

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contact with individuals with disabilities 12.4 15.6 15.1 16.7 12.9 27.4 Students discussed and requested accommodations 12.0 10.9 13.1 13.7 30.3 20.0 I am willing to respond to requests regarding

accommodations 1.1 2.2 3.4 6.1 27.9 59.2

I have the knowledge and skills for making accommodations

11.6 16.0 14.4 21.0 15.5 21.5

I spend extra time assisting students with disabilities 4.7 11.8 7.1 15.9 27.6 32.9 I am knowledgeable regarding the office of support

services for students with disabilities 13.3 12.8 5.0 12.8 16.1 40.0

This year I had contact with the office of support service

52.2 11.0 8.1 9.8 5.8 13.3

Training in the area of disabilities 45.3 7.3 5.6 9.5 11.2 21.2

European Journal of Special Needs Education 243

one-half reported that they had no, or very limited, training in the area of disabilities. As can be seen, close to 70% reported much familiarity with the office of support services (OSS) on campus. Yet, less than 20% had much contact with OSS.

Accommodations – willingness and actual practice

Faculty responded twice to items regarding a variety of instructional (INS), technological (TEC) and testing (TES) accommodations. The first for willingness, and the second for actual provision, if they had students with disabilities in their classes. Table 3 depicts the means and SDs for these data, which are also presented in Figure 1. As can be seen, faculty mean score for willingness to provide instructional accommodations (INS) was M = 5.38, SD = 0.78 on a six-point Likert-type scale. For example, willingness to provide one-to-one assistance by clarifying or reviewing lecture assignments, or providing comments on drafts of papers, and using an attached microphone to accommodate students with hearing impair- ments. The mean score for willingness to provide technological accommodations (TEC), was M = 5.74, SD = 0.78, for example, allowing student to use assistive technology such as a word processor and calculator, or use of a laptop computer. The mean score for testing adaptations (TES) was M = 5.36, SD = 0.83, for example, allowing student to be proctored in a supervised location other then the classroom, providing alternative format of an exam (multiple-choice questions instead of essay) and allowing students extra time to complete exams. Scores for actual provision of accommodations were M = 4.63, SD = 1.29 for INS, M = 5.04, SD = 1.36 for TEC and M = 4.61, SD = 1.46 for TES. Figure 1. Willingness versus actual provision of accommodations.

Table 3. Means and SD for willingness and actual provisions of instructional (INS), technological (TEC) and testing (TES) accommodations.

Instructional accommodations

Technological accommodations

Testing accommodations

Variables N M SD M SD M SD

Willingness 182 5.38 0.78 5.74 0.57 5.36 0.83 Actual provisions 118 4.63 1.29 5.04 1.36 4.61 1.46

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ins. tech. test.

will.

prov.

Figure 1. Willingness versus actual provision of accommodations.

244 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

A MANOVA with repeated measures was employed to test for difference between faculty willingness to make INS, TEC and TES accommodations. Results indicated a signif- icant group difference F(2,180) = 38.18, p = 0.001. Post-hoc pair-wise comparison using the Bonferroni method revealed, that the mean score for willingness to provide TEC accom- modations was significantly higher (p = 0.001) than the mean scores for INS and TES. No statistically significant differences were found between willingness to make INS and TES accommodations.

The MANOVA test for differences on the reported actual provision of accommodations also revealed a significant difference between groups, F(2,116) = 11.14, p = 0.001. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for actual provisions of TEC accommodations was significantly higher (p = 0.001) than the scores for actual provision of INS and TES accommodations. No significant differences were found between reported actual provisions of INS and TES.

t-tests were carried out to examine differences between mean scores for willingness and actual provision of accommodations for INS, TEC and TES. Significant differences were found for INS, t(143) = 7.75, p = 0.001, for TEC, t(133) = 6.09, p = 0.001 and for TES, t(123) = 6.16, p = 0.001. For all three, the mean score for willingness was significantly higher then for actual provision.

Regarding the question of fairness, a large majority of faculty members (91%) felt that providing instructional accommodations was fair to peers without disabilities, and 88.4% felt that providing testing accommodations was fair. Most faculty (89%) felt that providing accommodations for students with disabilities was useful in facilitating their academic success.

Attitudes

Several questions addressed faculty disposition regarding the admission of students with disabilities, the need for accommodations during field experiences and their success in the teaching profession. Faculty agreed that accommodations could be made in the assessment of basic skills by allowing additional documentations (M = 5.17, SD = 1.22), on a six-point Likert-type scale, that students may be provided with assignment early during field experi- ences to allow extra time to complete (M = 4.83, SD = 1.32) and be allowed to use assistive technology (M = 5.32, SD = 1.18). Faculty also felt that students with disabilities can be as effective in the teaching profession as their fellow students without disabilities (M = 4.96, SD = 1.34). Still faculty expressed opposition to modifying the required grade point average (GPA) for entry into the teacher training programme (M = 2.96, SD = 1.96).

Demographic variables, accommodations and attitudes

t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were computed to examine the impact of selected faculty background variables on their willingness and actual provision of accommodations, and on their attitudes.

Gender

Significant differences were found between female and male faculty on their willingness to make INS accommodations, t(179) = −2.07, p = 0.039 and TES accommodations,

t(176) = −3.70, p = 0.000. Females had significantly higher mean scores.

European Journal of Special Needs Education 245

Rank

Comparison between three ranks: teachers, lectures and senior lectures/professors, revealed significant rank differences for willingness to make INS accommodations, F(2,177) = 3.26, p = 0.041. Post-hoc Scheffé tests revealed a significant difference between teachers and senior lectures/professors (p = 0.05). Scores for teachers were significantly higher. The three groups were also significantly different on their reported training on disabilities,

F(2,171) = 3.82, p = 0.024. Scheffé tests revealed that teachers and lectures reported significantly more training than senior lectures/professors.

Contact with individuals with disabilities

Two groups of faculty were compared: a group with no or only limited personal contact, and a group with a large or very large extent of contact. Findings revealed that the group with much contact reported significantly more willingness to make INS accommodations, t(182) = −4.24, p = 0.001, TEC accommodations, t(181) = −2.79, p = 0.006 and TES accommoda- tions, t(179) = −3.55, p = 0.001, compared to the group with no/limited contact. They also reported actually providing significantly more INS accommodations, t(141) = −3.50, p = 0.001, TEC accommodations, t(131) = −1.97, p = 0.050 and TES accommodations, t(121) = −2.20, p = 0.030. Faculty with much/very much contact also reported more positive atti- tudes, t(171) = −3.32, p = 0.001, more knowledge about making accommodations, t(179) = −6.32, p = 0.001 and more training in the area of disabilities, t(176) = −7.46, p = 0.001.

Training in the area of disabilities

Three groups were compared: Group A with no/little training, Group B with some training and Group C with much/very much training. Significant group differences were found for willingness to make INS accommodations, F(2,175) = 8.75, p = 0.001, TEC accommoda- tions, F(2,174) = 4.94, p = 0.008 and TES accommodations, F(2,172) = 5.95, p = 0.003. Post-test revealed that faculty with much/very much training reported significantly more (p = 0.05) willingness to make INS, TEC and TES accommodations than the group with no/ little training. Significant group differences were also found for the reported actual provi- sion of INS accommodations, F(2,139) = 9.04, p = 0.001. The group with much/very much training reported providing significantly more INS accommodations then did group A.

Discipline/primary teaching responsibility

Comparison between faculty in three disciplines: Group 1, special education (including therapists), Group 2, humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and Group 3, education (including physical education, early childhood, psychology, educational research), revealed significant group differences for willingness to make INS accommodations, F(2,176) = 3.27, p = 0.040 and TEC accommodations, F(2,175) = 3.23, p = 0.042. Post-hoc tests revealed that Group 1 (special education faculty) had significantly higher scores on INS accommodations than Group 2 (sciences) and on TEC accommodations higher scores than Group 3 (education).

Significant group differences were also found for reported knowledge and skills for making accommodations, F(2,172) = 23.77, p = 0.001 and for training in the area of disabilities, F(2,170 ) = 52.88, p = 0.001. Post-hoc tests revealed that for knowledge and for training Group 1 (special education) had significantly higher score than Groups 2 and 3

246 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

(p = 0.001). For training, Group 3 (education) had significantly higher scores than Group 2 (sciences).

Academic degree

Comparisons between two groups: faculty with Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, compared to faculty with a doctorate, revealed that faculty without a doctorate had a significantly higher score on attitudes, t(168) = 2.08, p = 0.039. Faculty without a doctorate also reported significantly more that they had the knowledge and skills for making accommodations, t(176) = 2.37, p = 0.018 and that they had significant more training in the area of disabilities, t(173) = 3.03, p = 0.003. No significant differences were found for the variables of age, years of teaching experiences and full- versus part-time faculty.

Topics of interest

Faculty were asked to indicate their interest in acquiring additional information in several disability related topics. Findings indicated that they expressed the highest level of inter- ested in the topics of alternative evaluation methods (47.3%), instructional accommoda- tions (46.8%) and knowledge about the activities of the office of support services (42.0%). They were less interested in topics as diagnostic evaluations (36.2%) legal mandates (29.3%) and disabilities (29.3%). The least interest was in the area of examina- tion adaptations (23.9%).

Discussion

This study was undertaken to examine faculty perspectives and practices about college students with disabilities enrolled in teacher education. Responses by a very large major- ity of faculty (most had at least 10 years of experience in higher education) indicated that they had students with disabilities in their classes. Teaching experience was mainly reported with students with learning disabilities (LD), and students with ADD, which is often co-occurring with LD. Others were students with physical, sensory and health disabilities. These figures support data reported in the literature about the growing numbers of students with disabilities (mainly with LD) enrolled in post-secondary institu- tions (Henderson 2001; Vogel et al. 2006).

Most faculty also reported that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to make accommodations for students with disabilities, and a very large majority indicated willing- ness to provide requested accommodations by students. Many responded that they spent extra time providing assistance to them. In addition, most were knowledgeable about the office of support services (OSS) for students with disabilities on campus. Findings, however, revealed that almost 60% of faculty did not have any training, or very limited training, in the area of disabilities, while a substantial group (about 40%) felt that they did not have the necessary knowledge and skills to make accommodations. A majority had no contact with OSS on campus. Similar findings about faculty have been reported in others studies (i.e., Baggett 1994; Leyser et al. 1998; Vogel et al. 1999).

Most faculty indicated that students with disabilities approached them to discuss their need for adaptations. Still about one-third noted that they were not contacted, suggesting that some students with disabilities may be reluctant to contact their instructors, possibly because they are not convinced about whether faculty hold supportive attitudes, are knowledgeable

European Journal of Special Needs Education 247

and willing to provide accommodations, or that they will respect their privacy (see Burgstahler 2005).

Strong evidence from this study has shown that faculty are very willing and are actually providing a variety of instructional, technological and testing accommodations for students with disabilities (see also Baggett 1994; Houck et al. 1992; Leyser et al. 2003; Thompson, Bethea and Turner 1997; Vogel et al. 2006). Scores for willingness were all about 5.0 on a six-point scale and for actual provision about 4.5. Statistical tests showed that faculty were more willing and also have provided significantly more TEC accommodations as compared to INS and TES accommodations. Technological accommodations are easier to provide and require little extra time, than INS and TES accommodations. Furthermore technologies such as an electronic spell checker, a word processor and a tape recorder are widely accepted and available. Although faculty expressed much willingness to use a variety of accommoda- tions, there were several which received a lower ranking. For example, provide a lecture outline, provide one-to-one assistance in preparing for exams, provide an alternative type of exam (see also Leyser et al. 1998; Matthews, Anderson and Skolnick 1997; Satcher 1992; Sweener et al. 2002). Finding also revealed that scores for willingness to provide all three types of accommodations INS, TEC and TES were significantly higher than the actual provision of these accommodations. Similar findings have also been found by other researchers (i.e., Vogel et al. 2006).

Similar to reports in many previous studies (Leyser, 1989; Leyser et al. 1998, 2003; Norton, 1997) faculty expressed positive attitudes towards students with disabilities in programmes leading to teacher certification. They were supportive of accommodations in the assessment of competencies needed for entry into the programme and during field experiences. Furthermore, a very large majority felt that teachers with disabilities may be as effective on the job as teachers without disabilities. However, they were opposed to modifying the grade point average (GPA) required for entry into teacher education, proba- bly because it might compromise the quality of the programme (see also Leyser et al. 2003). This is an issue, which calls for ongoing discussions among education faculty and administrators. The question is how to fulfil the professional responsibility to ensure that the training programmes graduate qualified teachers and provide adjustments and accom- modations in admissions, courses and in field experiences to ensure equal educational access for students with disabilities (Brulle 1996; Scott and Gregg 2000; Show and Scott 2003; Yanok 1987). Regarding the requirements/standards during internships and field experiences, Williams (1998) reiterated that students must be able to fulfil all duties, responsibilities and teaching functions with reasonable accommodations, as expected by their school districts.

Finding from this study have shown that several factors have a significant impact on faculty practices and attitudes. The strongest impact on both, the willingness to provide accommodations and the actual provision, as well as on attitudes, was the intensity of personal contact with individuals with disabilities such as with a family member, a friend or a co-worker. Faculty with extensive first-hand experience expressed willingness and implemented significantly more INS, TEC and TES accommodations and expressed signif- icantly more positive attitudes than faculty who reported no experience, or very limited experience, with individuals with disabilities. They also reported more knowledge and train- ing. The extent to which a faculty member had training in the area of disabilities (i.e., partic- ipated in courses or in a workshop) also impacted willingness to provide all types of accommodations and to actually provide teaching accommodations. Similar findings have also been reported by other investigators (Aksamit, Morris and Leuenberger 1987; Bigaj, Shaw and McGuire 1999; Leyser 1989).

248 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

The findings revealed that faculty rank and academic degree were related to willingness to make some accommodations, to training and knowledge and to attitudes – i.e., faculty at a lower rank and without a doctorate were more willing to make some accommodations and reported more training or more knowledge and had positive attitudes. These findings may be explained by the fact that faculty with fewer years of teaching experience at the college had probably more recent exposure to information about disabilities and about inclusion in schools and to students with disabilities while serving as teachers in public schools. Faculty in special education, as can be expected, reported more knowledge and skills in making accommodations and more training in the area of disabilities than faculty in the Humanities, the Sciences and in Education. They also expressed more willingness to provide INS and TEC accommodations.

Finally, female faculty as compared to male faculty were more willing to provide INS and TES accommodations. More willingness to provide accommodations by females has also been reported by other investigators (Bigaj, Shaw and McGuire 1999; Leyser et al. 2003). Several other demographic variables, such as years of teaching experience, age and full- or part-time teaching, were not found to be related to accommodations or attitudes (see also Sweener et al. 2002).

Less than half of faculty expressed interest in receiving training and information in areas, such as alternative evaluation, instructional accommodations and about the OSS on campus. A much lower interest was expressed in other topics such as legal mandates and disabilities. These levels of interest were somewhat lower than reported by other investiga- tors (i.e., Vogel et al. 2006). It probably reflected the feeling expressed by about 60% of faculty in this study that they had the necessary skills and knowledge about making accom- modations, and the fact that 40% (many of whom were faculty in special education) reported much training in the area of disabilities.

This study has implications for practice and future research. Although faculty expressed low interest in receiving additional information about disabilities, findings have also indicated that many did not have training on disabilities. Training, however, was one of the variables, with strong impact on classroom practices and attitudes. In planning faculty development activities, it should be reiterated, that they have a very busy schedule: teach- ing, conducting research, writing, advising and serving on committees. Training should be tailored as much as possible to their needs and preferences (Burgsthler 2005). Several strat- egies for delivering training activities are available. Scott and Gregg (2000) suggested three approaches: (a) large group in-service as a tool for general awareness, (b) small group work- shops allowing more in-depth information on the topic and (c) individual follow-up to assist faculty to respond to individual students. Other delivery methods include training videos, online courses, summer institutes and short-distance learning courses. Information can also be disseminated through printed documents, such as brochures and newsletters, over the Internet. Two Internet-based examples are the Faculty Room website hosted by Do-It, at the University of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/doit/faculty) and Enhancing Success campus resources (http://www.niu.edu/success) at Northern Illinois University (see Burgstahler 2005; Vogel et al. 2006).

Recommendation for training content may include topics such as: instructional accom- modations for learners with a wide range of disabilities, evaluation methods, accessible technology, institutional policies, resources and services, legal issues, universal design prin- ciples and educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Faculty could be motivated to participate by using both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. For example, rewarding faculty for innovative teaching procedures and activities, conducting research and writing in the area of disabilities, providing funds for participating in off-campus workshops and

European Journal of Special Needs Education 249

conferences and involving faculty in tasks that fulfil a need for achievement and responsi- bility – i.e., participate in decision-making and problem-solving on campus (Scott and Gregg 2000).

A limitation of this study, as in many other similar investigations, is that the reported findings were mainly based on self-report questionnaires by faculty. Researchers may wish to validate these data by gathering information from other sources, such as examin- ing the perceptions of students with disabilities regarding faculty practices and attitudes, by interviewing faculty, and examining syllabuses and class materials Additional studies are recommended in other institutions of higher education, especially in different coun- tries. Data gathered from cross-cultural studies are likely to generate an exchange of beneficial information on policies, services, faculty attitudes and teaching practices regarding students with disabilities. Finally, researchers are encouraged to continue to follow developments and resolutions of central issues in the field of learning disabilities, such as, the recent implementation of the Responsiveness-to-Intervention (RTI) assess- ment model.

Acknowledgement The study was funded by MOFFET, Ministry of Education in Jerusalem, Israel. The authors would like to thank MOFFET for their support and the Research and Evaluation Centre at Beit Berl College for their assistance in the statistical analysis.

References Aksamit, D., M. Morris, and J. Leuenberger. 1987. Preparation of student services professionals and

faculty for serving learning-disabled college students. Journal of College Students Personnel 28: 53–9.

Baggett, D. 1994. A study of faculty awareness of student with disabilities. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 369208.

Bigaj, S.J., S. Shaw, and J. McGuire. 1999. Community technical college faculty willingness use and self-report use of accommodation strategies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education 21: 3–14.

Booth, T., and M. Ainscow, eds. 1998. From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London and New York: Routledge.

Bourke, A.B., K.C. Strehorn, and P. Silver. 2000. Faculty members’ provision of instructional accommodations to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33: 26–32.

Brulle, A.R. 1996. Students with learning disabilities and teacher preparation. Critical Issues in Teacher Education 6: 13–20.

Brulle, A.R., Y. Leyser, S.A. Vogel, and S. Wyland. 1998. Competencies and accommodations: Faculty attitudes toward students with learning disabilities in teacher preparation. Critical Issues in Teacher Education 7: 24–32.

Burgstahler, S. 2005. Accommodating students with disabilities: Professional development needs of faculty. To Improve the Academy 21: 179–95.

Burgstahler, S., and T. Doe. 2006. Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 18: 135–46.

Coles, G.S. 1989. Excerpts from the learning mystique: A critical look at “learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22: 267–73, 277.

Dona, J., and J.H. Edmister. 2001. An examination of community college faculty members’ knowl- edge of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 at the 15 community colleges in Mississippi. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 14: 91–103.

Dudley-Marling, C. 2004. The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 482–9.

250 Y. Leyser and L. Greenberger

Farrell, P. 2001. Special education in the last 20 years: Have things really got better? British Journal of Special Education 28: 3–9.

Fichten, C.S., R. Amsel, C.V. Bourdon, and L. Creti. 1988. Interaction between college students with a physical disability and their professors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 19: 13–20.

Fonosch, G.G., and L.O. Schwab. 1981. Attitudes of selected university faculty members toward disabled students. Journal of College Student Personnel 22: 229–35.

Hegarty, S. 1998. International perspectives on special education reform. European Journal of Special Needs Education 13: 112–15.

Henderson, C. 2001. College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. http:// www.heath.gwu.edu/PDFs/collegefreshmen.pdf (accessed 22 May 2002).

Horn, L., and J. Berktold. 1999. Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile on preparation, participation, and outcomes: National Center for Education Statistical, US Department of Education. Education Statistics Quarterly 1: 59–64.

Houck, C.K., S.B. Asselin, G.C. Troutman, and J.M. Arrington. 1992. Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 25: 678–84.

Leyser, Y. 1989. A survey of faculty attitudes and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 7: 97–108.

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

Leyser, Y., S. Vogel, S. Wyland, A. Brulle, V. Sharoni, and G. Vogel. 2003. American and Israeli faculty attitudes and practises regarding students with disabilities: A cross-cultural study. In Learning disabilities in higher education and beyond: International perspectives, ed. S.A. Vogel, G. Vogel, V. Sharoni and O. Dahan, 201–25. Baltimore MD: York Press.

Matthews, P.R., D.W. Anderson, and B.D. Skolnick. 1987. Faculty attitude toward accommodations for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus 3: 46–52.

McGee, K.A. and J.M. Kauffman. 1989. Education teachers with emotional disabilities: A balance of private and public interests. Teacher Education and Special Education 12: 110–16.

Minner, S., and G. Prater. 1984. College teachers’expectations of LD students. Academic Therapy 20: 225–9.

Mittler, P. 2002. Moving toward inclusion: The role of the United Nations [in Hebrew] Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation 17: 43–52.

Nelson, R.J., J.M. Dodd, and D.J. Smith, 1990. Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 23: 185–9.

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.

Satcher, J. 1992. Community college faculty comfort with providing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. College Students Journal 26: 518–24.

Scott, S.S., and N. Gregg. 2000. Meeting the evolving education needs of faculty in providing access for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33: 158–67.

Sharoni, V., and G. Vogel. 1998. Attitudes of college faculty toward students with disabilities in general and student with learning disabilities in particular [in Hebrew]. Dapim 27: 59–77.

Shimman, P. 1996. The impact of special needs students at a further education college: A report on a questionnaire survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education 14: 43–91.

Show, S.F., and S.S. Scott. 2003. New directions in faculty development. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 17: 3–9.

Siegel, L.S. 1999. Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 304–19.

Stanovich, K.E. 1999. The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 350–61.

Sweener, K., D. Kundert, D. May, and K. Quinn. 2002. Comfort with accommodations at the community college level. Journal of Developmental Education 25: 12–14, 16, 18, 42.

Thompson, A.P., L. Bethea, and J. Turner. 1997. Faculty knowledge of disability laws in higher education: A survey Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 40: 166–80.

European Journal of Special Needs Education 251

UNESCO. 1994. Salamanca Statement: The World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain. Paris: UNESCO.

US Congress. 1990. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990. Washington, DC: US Congress.

Vogel, S.A., and P.B. Adelman. 1992. The success of college students with learning disabilities: Factors related to educational attainment. Journal of Learning Disabilities 25: 430–41.

Vogel, S.A., and P.B. Adelman. 2000. Adults with learning disabilities 8–15 years after college. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 10: 165–82.

Vogel, S.A., Y. Leyser, S. Burgstahler, S.R. Sligar, and S.C. Zecker. 2006. Faculty knowledge and practices regarding students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 18: 109–23.

Vogel, S.A., Y. Leyser, S. Wyland, and A. Brulle. 1999. Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 14: 173–86.

Vogel, S.A., C. Murray, C. Wren, and P.B. Adelman. 2007. An exploratory analysis of employ- ment-related experiences of educators with learning disabilities. Educational Considerations 34: 15–20.

Wertheim, C., S.A. Vogel, and A. Brulle. 1998. Students with learning disabilities in teacher educa- tion programs. Annals of Dyslexia 49: 293–309.

Williams, S. 1998. Accommodating the disabilities of future teachers: Impact of Section 504 and the American with Disabilities Act and the legal responsibilities for teacher education programs and policy development. Paper presented at the AACTE 50th Annual Meeting, February 25–28, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

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

Wolinsky, S., and A. Whelan. 1999. Federal law and the accommodations of students with LD: The lawyer’s look at the BU decision. Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 286–91.

Yanok, J. 1987. Equal opportunity in teacher education programs for the learning disabled. Journal of Teacher Education 36: 48–52.