Literature Review

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 11

Abstract The purpose of this study was to ascertain the perceptions of postsecondary faculty members related to students with disabili- ties. A questionnaire, entitled “The Survey of Faculty Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities,” was used to collect data from a sample of 106 fac- ulty members at a public four- year, state-supported institution in the southeast. No statistically sig- nificant differences in perceptions existed based on gender, age, years of teaching, and contact with students with disabilities. Statis- tically significant differences in perceptions were found for aca- demic rank and academic unit. Such research is useful to help develop and implement policies for serving students and to iden- tify areas in which training pro- grams may enhance faculty knowledge and sensitivity toward students with disabilities.

Introduction Colleges and universities na- tionwide are experiencing a continuous growth in the en- rollment of students with dis- abilities, especially students with learning disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The proportion of first-time, full- time freshmen with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary edu- cational institutions increased from 2.6% in 1978 to 9.2% in 1994 (Henderson, 1995). The implementation of the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act (1990) mandates that all institutions of higher education provide full accommodation services to stu- dents with disabilities, regard- less of whether or not the pro- gram received federal funding. This means that colleges should acknowledge the needs of stu- dents with disabilities that pro- vide valid documentation and should provide reasonable aca- demic and classroom accommo- dations to them upon request (Miller & Miller, 2002). Colleges should provide full access not only to all physical areas of the campus but also to all academ- ic programs and student activi- ties as well. Under the previous guidelines of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL # 93-112), only those programs receiving federal funding were affected. Rights advocates from the disabled community, cou- pled with federal legislation af- fecting postsecondary institu- tions, have acted as the impe- tus for programming for stu- dents with disabilities on col- lege campuses (McCarthy & Campbell, 1993).

Most faculty members have little knowledge of the charac- teristics and needs of students with disabilities, especially in

the area of learning disabilities (Dodd, Hermanson, Nelson, & Fichten, 1990). In addition, many instructors lack the knowledge and skills necessary to incorporate and use instruc- tional technology to ensure equal access to electronic ma- terials for students with dis- abilities (Fichten, Asuncion, B a r i l e , G é n é r e u x , F o s s e y , Judd, Robillard, DeSimone, & Wells, 2002).

Fichten, Goodrick, Tagalakis, Amsel, and Libman (1990) found: “Some professors were enthusiastic and optimistic when they first found out that they would be teaching a stu- dent with a disability. Most, however, were somewhat dis- mayed; they worried about how to talk to the student, wondered if they would be able to teach the student ef- fectively, and were concerned about the impact of the stu- dent with a disability on the rest of the class. Many were also concerned about the ex- tra time and work involved” (p. 120).

Students with disabilities face many of the same chal- lenges as other students as they pursue their college studies (Burgstahler, 1992). Some stu- dents with disabilities are con- cerned about the lack of aware- ness of their unique require- ments by the faculty. Faculty of- ten lack adequate knowledge of the nature and needs of stu- dents with learning disabilities and the support services avail- able to these students (Nelson, Dodd, & Smith, 1990). However, students with disabilities often hesitate to request accommoda- tions. Amsel and Fichten (1990) found that students with dis-

Postsecondary Students with Disabilities and Perceptions of Faculty Members By Marie Kraska, Ph. D., Auburn University

12 Volume 25, Number 2, Winter, 2003/Volume 25, Number 3, Spring 2003 abilities perceived it less ac- ceptable to request special con- sideration while professors per- ceived it more appropriate to give special consideration to students with disabilities with or without their request. Stu- dents with disabilities reported support services and accommo- dations such as peer support groups, tutors, mentors, under- standing their disability, the learning disabilities staff, and attitudes of faculty members contributed greatly to their aca- demic success (Finn, 1998; G r e e n b a u m , G r a h a m , & Scales, 1995).

Faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities and willingness to provide accom- modations appear to be related to four main categories: (1) pre- vious contact with individuals with disabilities, (2) gender, (3) discipline, and (4) level of infor- mation. Higher scores on atti- tude scales tend to be exhibited by faculty members who have had some previous contact with persons with disabilities (Satcher, 1992). Female profes- sors in general and the faculty in the fields of education tend to have higher positive atti- tudes toward students with dis- abilities than faculty in busi- ness and the social sciences (Baggett, 1994). Faculty mem- bers with more information about disabilities have more positive attitudes than those with less information (Askamit, Morris, & Luenberger, 1987). In addition, descriptions of indi- viduals with disabilities sug- gests many attitudinal barriers can be traced to the use of nega- tive terminology such as learn- ing disabled (Minner & Prater, 1984). McGee (1989) suggested a student with a disability may be unable to attain a quality edu- cation despite being well pre- pared to perform academically and to cope with college life.

Purpose Attitudinal barriers should not be ignored when striving to pro- vide equal access for students with disabilities in higher edu- cation. The attitudes of faculty members may be a significant determinant in the successful completion of educational expe- riences for students, with or without disabilities. The lack of information related to postsec- ondary faculty who serve students with special needs provided the focal point for this research.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of faculty members at a small regional university in the South toward serving students with disabilities. Attitudes were ex- amined in relation to selected demographic variables of fac- ulty members.

Research Question The following research question served to guide the study and the hypotheses to be tested:

To what extent is there a dif- ference in perceptions of postsecondary faculty mem- bers toward serving students with disabilities as measured by the Survey of Faculty Atti- tudes Relative to Serving Stu- dents with Disabilities ques- tionnaire when faculty are grouped by (a) gender; (b) age; (c) academic rank; (d) aca- demic unit; (e) years of teach- ing experience; and (f) extent of contact with students with disabilities?

Sources of Data and Collection Procedures Data were drawn from faculty at a public four-year state-sup- ported institution of higher edu- cation located in south Ala- bama, with schools/colleges of Education, Business, and Arts and Sciences. The service area for the institution is southeast Alabama, southwest Georgia,

and northwest Florida. The in- stitution is a commuter univer- sity of predominantly nontradi- tional, adult students with ap- proximately 95 percent of its student body residing within a 50-mile radius of the campus. The academic programs are de- signed for undergraduate and graduate students at the master’s and sixth-year levels. The primary emphasis at the undergraduate level is on upper division programs with a lim- ited lower division serving the needs of transfer students. The institution offers undergraduate programs in education, arts and sciences, and business, and graduate programs in educa- tion, counseling and psychology, arts and sciences, and business.

There were 207 faculty members employed at this uni- versity during the 2000-2001 academic year, 54 were full- time and 153 adjuncts. Not all adjuncts were employed each term during the 2000–2001 academic year. During the fall quarter of the 2000–2001 aca- demic year, 2,215 students w e r e e n r o l l e d . T h e r e w e r e 1,656 undergraduate students and 559 graduate students. The mean student age was 25 years. During the same quar- ter, there were 29 self-identi- fied students with disabilities, representing less than 1% of the total student population.

The sample for this study included 51 of the full-time fac- ulty members and 55 adjunct faculty members. Sixty-two per- cent of the faculty were male, 38% were female. Thirty-nine of the 54 full-time faculty mem- bers received their terminal de- grees outside the state of Ala- bama. However, the majority had terminal degrees from in- stitutions in the southern United States to include Florida (N=11), Mississippi (N=8), and Georgia (N=4). Participants rep- resented three broad academic

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 13 areas: School of Education (N=23), School of Business (N=21), and the College of Arts and Sciences (N=27).

The survey instrument was administered at the university in 2001, during the winter quar- ter faculty convocation. Each faculty member received a cover letter, a demographic data form, and a survey instrument. Faculty members were asked to complete the demographic form and the research instrument during the convocation.

Instrumentation Participants responded to a 30 item questionnaire using a Likert-type scale ranging from 5 for, “Strongly agree,” to 1 for, “Strongly disagree.” Some items are written with positive conno- tations and some with negative connotations. Sample items in- cluded statements such as “In- clusion of students with dis- abilities will require significant changes in classroom proce- dures,” and “Inclusion of stu- dents with disabilities will ne- cessitate extensive re-training of faculty.” A total score could range from 30 to 150, with a higher score indicating a more favorable perception of students with disabilities.

Larrivee and Cook (1979) developed the original attitude scale used in this study. The split-half reliability coefficient for the original instrument was r =.92. The author was granted permission to revise and update the research items to reflect current verbiage and appropri- ate language for adults.

The author met with a panel of five university faculty and staff members who were in- structed to review and suggest revisions for the original survey instrument. Faculty members included one professor in the Department of English and two faculty members in the Depart- ment of Special Education. Staff

representation included the Co- ordinator of Services for Stu- dents with Disabilities and the Coordinator of Career Services. Each panel member read and suggested revisions of state- ments on the research instru- ment to reflect accuracy in cur- rent usage of the language as well as consistency of thought relative to a university setting.

A pilot study using the re- vised instrument was con- ducted in November 2000. Twenty-eight faculty members, who had not served on the origi- nal panel completed the revised survey instrument and noted any discrepancies on an accom- panying sheet of paper. The fac- ulty participating in the pilot study represented the College of Business (N=12 members), Col- lege of Arts and Sciences (N=7 members), College of Education (N=5 members), College of Nurs- ing (N=1 member), the College of Criminal Justice and Social Science (N=1 member), and the College of Communication and Fine Arts (N=2 members).

Fifteen faculty members re- turned usable survey forms, for a response rate of 54%. The Cronbach alpha reliability coef- ficient for the revised instru- ment was ± = .89.

Discrepancies noted during the pilot study were recorded and changes were incorporated into the final revision of the re- search instrument. Sugges- tions for revisions and changes included use of bold and larger font on the survey instrument, additional spacing between questions, and a request for the demographic data sheet and cover letter not to be stapled to the research instrument. Some faculty members commented that they did not like the re- quirement to answer based on any disability because their an- swers might have been altered if they were answering based on a specific type of disability.

Procedures for Data Analysis The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), release 9.0, was used to analyze the data. The research question was: To what extent is there a difference in perceptions of fac- ulty toward serving students with disabilities as measured by the Survey of Faculty Atti- tudes Relative to Serving Stu- dents with Disabilities ques- tionnaire when faculty are grouped by (a) gender, (b) age of faculty member, (c) academic rank, (d) academic unit, (e) years of teaching experience, and (f) extent of contact with stu- dents with disabilities. A one- way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure to test for differences in mean scores be- tween groups was conducted for faculty perceptions by (a) gen- der, (b) age of faculty member, (c) academic rank, (d) academic unit, (e) number of years teach- ing experience, and (f) extent of contact with students with dis- abilities. Minimum and maxi- mum scores, mean scores, and standard deviations were com- puted for demographic data.

One hundred and six survey packets were distributed to fac- ulty members, and seventy-one of the 106 faculty members com- pleted and returned usable sur- vey packets for an overall re- sponse rate of 67%. The num- ber of males and females were almost evenly divided, with 36 females and 35 males.

Thirty-two of the 71 faculty members who participated had professorial rank. Thirty-one (43%) with professorial rank were female and 40 (57%) were male. Thirty-nine adjunct fac- ulty members also participated. Fifty-six percent of these par- ticipants were female and 44% were males. Thirty-one (44%) of the participating faculty mem- bers were age 28 – 44 years. Forty (56%) of the participating faculty members were 45 – 64

14 Volume 25, Number 2, Winter, 2003/Volume 25, Number 3, Spring 2003 years of age. Twenty-seven (38%) of the participants were faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences. Twenty- three (32%) of the faculty mem- bers were in the School of Edu- cation. Twenty-one (30%) of the participating faculty members were in the School of Business.

A majority of the respon- dents indicated having previous contact with students with dis- abilities. Of the 71 respondents, 40 (56%) indicated previous in- structional contact with three or more students with disabilities in the last three years. Thirty- one (44%) indicated 0 – 2 in- structional contacts with stu- dents with disabilities.

The majority of the respon- dents indicated having less than ten years of teaching ex- perience. Of the 71 respon- dents, 35 (49%) indicated they had 1 – 9 years of teaching ex- perience, 21 (29%) indicated they had 10 – 20 years of teach- ing experience, and 15 (21%) in- dicated they had 21 or more years of teaching experience.

Mean scores and standard deviations were computed for all groups combined and for each academic comparison group. The minimum score possible on the questionnaire was 30 and the highest possible score was 150. The Likert-type scale for the instrument ranged from 5 for “strongly agree,” to 1 f o r “ s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e . ” A higher score indicates a more favorable perception of stu- dents with disabilities.

The mean score on the re- search instrument for males was 85.11 with a standard de- viation of 6.74. Scores for males ranged from 71 to 104. The mean score for females was 85.50 with a standard deviation of 6.57. Female scores ranged from 73 to 105. For male and fe- male combined, the mean score was 85.30 with a standard de- viation of 6.61. Total scores

ranged from 71 to 105. The mean score for faculty

members age 28 – 44 years was 85.06 with a standard deviation of 6.35. Scores for this age group ranged from 71 to 104. The mean score for faculty members age 45 – 64 years was 85.51 with a standard deviation of 6.90. Scores ranged from 73 to 105. For combined age groups the mean score was 85.30 with a standard deviation of 6.61 and a score range of 71 to 105.

The mean score for faculty members with professorial rank was 83.50 with a standard deviation of 6.80. Scores ranged from 71 to 98. The mean score for faculty members with nonprofessorial rank was 86.69 with a standard deviation of 6.19. Scores ranged from 77 to 105. The mean score for profes- sorial and nonprofessorial rank combined was 85.30 with a stan- dard deviation of 6.61. Total scores for academic rank ranged from 71 to 105.

The mean score for faculty in the School of Education was 82.96 and a standard deviation of 5.17. Scores ranged from 73 to 96. The mean score for the faculty of the School of Business was 84.48 and a standard devia- tion of 5.11. Scores ranged from 71 to 90. The mean score for the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences was 88.16 with a stan- dard deviation of 7.94. Scores ranged from 75 to 105. The overall mean score on the re- search instrument was 85.30 with a standard deviation of 6.61. Scores for all academic units ranged from 71 to 105.

The mean score for faculty members with 1 – 9 years of teaching experience was 84.49 with a standard deviation of 6.65. Scores ranged from 71 to 105. The mean score for faculty members with 10 – 20 years of teaching experience was 87.85 with a standard deviation of 6.56. Scores ranged from 75 to

104. The mean score for faculty members with 21 or more years of teaching experience was 83.71 with a standard deviation of 5.97. Scores ranged from 73 to 92. The combined mean score for all faculty members based on years of teaching ex- perience was 85.30 with a stan- dard deviation of 6.61. Scores ranged from 71 to 105.

The mean score for faculty members who had 0 – 2 contacts with students with disabilities was 85.63 with a standard de- viation of 6.32. Scores ranged from 75 to 104. The mean score for faculty members who had 3 or more contacts with students with disabilities was 85.03 with a standard deviation of 6.92. Scores ranged from 71 to 105. The mean score for total con- tacts combined was 85.30 with a standard deviation of 6.61. Combined scores ranged from 71 to 105.

Research Question The following research question guided the study and the hy- potheses to be tested:

To what extent is there a dif- ference in perceptions of stu- dents with disabilities as measured by the Survey of Faculty Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Dis- abilities survey instrument when faculty are grouped by (a) gender, (b) age, (c) aca- demic rank, (d) academic unit, (e) years of teaching ex- perience, and (f) extent of con- tact with students with dis- abilities?

The null hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of signifi- cance. The first hypothesis was formulated to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences in mean scores of faculty based on the indepen- dent variable of gender.

Ho1: There is no statistically significant difference in percep-

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 15 tions among faculty members toward serving students with disabilities based on gender of faculty member.

The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for gender was F (1,67) = .058, p = .811. This value was not significant at the .05 level. This means that the probability of differ- ences in perceptions between males and females could occur by chance approximately 82 times in 100.

The second null hypothesis was formulated to ascertain whether or not there were sig- nificant differences in mean scores of faculty based on the independent variable of age of faculty member (28 – 44 years and 45 – 64 years).

Ho2: There is no statistically significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members toward serving students with disabilities based on age of fac- ulty member (28 – 44 years and 45 – 64 years).

The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for age of faculty member was F (1,67) = .079, p = .780. This value was not significant at the .05 level. This means that the probabil- ity of observing differences be- tween the age groups of faculty m e m b e r s c o u l d o c c u r b y chance approximately 78 times out of 100.

The third hypothesis was formulated to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences in mean scores of faculty based on academic rank.

Ho3: There is no statistically significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members toward serving students with disabilities based on academic rank – professorial (professor, associate professor, assistant professor) and nonprofessorial (instructor, adjunct).

The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for aca- demic rank was F (1,67) = 4.138,

p = .046. This value was signifi- cant at the .05 level. Item analysis of the research instru- ment indicated the mean score on question 8 (Faculty possess a great deal of expertise neces- sary to work with students with disabilities) was 2.16 with a stan- dard deviation of .73 for professo- rial rank. Item analysis indicated that the mean score on question 8 was 2.75 with a standard de- viation of .93 for nonprofessorial faculty members. The remaining questions on the research in- strument showed no significant differences in mean scores.

The fourth hypothesis was formulated to test if there were significant differences in mean scores of faculty based on the independent variable of aca- demic unit (College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education, and School of Business).

Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members to- ward serving students with dis- abilities based on academic unit.

The ANOVA F value for aca- demic unit was F (2,68) = 4.337, p = .017. This value was signifi- cant at the .05 level. Item analysis of the research instru- ment indicated that the mean item score for faculty members in the College of Arts and Sci- ences was 2.78 with a standard deviation of 1.25 for question 2 (The needs of students with dis- abilities can be best served through special, separate pro- grams). The faculty members in the School of Education had a mean item score of 2.09 with a standard deviation of .67 for question 2. The School of Busi- ness had a mean item score of 1.86 with a standard deviation of .65. The remaining questions on the survey instrument did not indicate any significant dif- ferences in mean scores.

The fifth hypothesis was f o r m u l a t e d t o a s c e r t a i n whether or not there were sig-

nificant differences in mean scores of faculty based on years of teaching experience.

Ho5: There is no statistically significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members toward serving students with disabilities based on number of years teaching (1 – 9, 10 – 20, and 21 – more).

The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for years of teaching experience was F (2,68) = 2.235, p = .115. This value was not significant at the .05 level. This means that the probability of observing differ- ences in perceptions based on years of teaching experience could occur by chance approxi- mately 12 times out of 100.

The sixth hypothesis was formulated to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences in mean scores of faculty based on extent of fac- ulty contact with students with disabilities (0 – 2 students with disabilities in the last 3 years; 3 or more students with disabili- ties in the last 3 years).

Ho6: There is no statistically significant difference in percep- tions among faculty members toward serving students with disabilities based on extent of faculty contact with students with disabilities (0 – 2 students with disabilities in the last 3 years; 3 or more students with disabilities in the last 3 years).

The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for extent of faculty contact with students with disabilities was F (1,67) = .139, p = .711. This value was not significant at the .05 level. This means that the probabil- ity of observing differences in perceptions based on extent of faculty contact with students with disabilities could occur by chance approximately 71 times out of 100.

The findings of this study indicated that faculty members at the university from which

16 Volume 25, Number 2, Winter, 2003/Volume 25, Number 3, Spring 2003 data were collected held gener- ally positive attitudes toward serving students with disabili- ties. However, findings also in- dicated that academic rank and academic unit were significant variables related to faculty atti- tudes of students with disabili- ties. Faculty holding professorial (professor, associate professor, assistant professor) rank had a lower mean score (83.50) com- pared to nonprofessorial (in- structor, adjunct) faculty who had a mean score of 86.69. When academic unit was iden- tified, mean scores for the fac- ulty in the College of Arts and Sciences was 88.16, the School of Education mean score was 82.96, and the School of Busi- ness had a mean score of 84.48.

The overall mean score (85.30) for this study using the Survey of Faculty Attitudes To- ward Serving Students with Disabilities research instru- ment was lower than the over- all mean score (91.57) reported by Larrivee and Cook (1979) in their summary of normative data information from the Sur- vey of Teacher’s Opinions Rela- tive to Mainstreaming Special- Needs Children instrument.

Six null hypotheses were for- mulated for this study. No sta- tistical significance was found for null hypotheses Ho1 address- ing gender of faculty members, Ho2 age of faculty members, Ho5 years of teaching experience, and Ho6 extent of contact with students with disabilities. Con- sequently, the researcher failed to reject the null hypotheses addressing these variables.

Null hypotheses Ho3 for aca- demic rank and Ho4 for aca- demic unit were rejected. The F values for the one-way analy- sis of variance statistical proce- dure indicated that academic rank was significant (p = .046). Consequently, the null hypoth- esis for academic rank was re- jected. Faculty with professorial

rank had a mean score of 83.50 and those with nonprofessorial rank had a mean score of 86.69. Item analysis of the re- search instrument indicated that the item mean score on question 8 (Faculty possess a great deal of expertise neces- sary to work with students with disabilities) was 2.16 with a standard deviation of .73 for faculty members with profes- sorial rank. Item analysis in- dicated an item mean score of 2.75 with a standard deviation of .93 for faculty members with nonprofessorial rank.

The F value indicated that academic unit was significant among faculty perceptions of serving students with disabili- ties. Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences had an over- all mean score of 88.16, faculty in the School of Education had an overall mean score of 82.96, and the faculty in the School of Business had an overall mean score of 84.48, with a between groups p = .017. The Dunnett T3 post hoc test indicated that the difference was between the Col- lege of Arts and Sciences and the School of Business, p = .029. Item analysis indicated this was triggered by question #2 (The needs of students with disabili- ties can be best served through special, separate programs). The College of Arts and Sciences had an item mean score of 2.78 with a standard deviation of 1.25. The School of Education had an item mean score of 2.09 with a standard deviation of .67. The School of Business had an item mean score of 1.86 with a standard deviation of .65. Con- sequently, the null hypothesis for academic unit was rejected.

The generally positive atti- tudes of faculty toward students with disabilities are typical of faculty attitudes reported in similar studies at other higher education institutions (Nelson et al., 1990; Satcher, 1992).

Other studies also reported that faculty members are willing to make accommodations such as extended time on projects and tests for students with disabili- ties (Houck, Asselin, Troutmann, & Arrington, 1992; Baggett, 1994). Faculty members who used more than the lecture method had higher attitude scores than those who used only the lecture method. Faculty members gen- erally held positive attitudes to- ward students with disabilities in relation to classroom man- agement issues and compliance with Section 504 of the Voca- tional Rehabilitation Act (Schoen, Uysal, & McDonald,1987).

Conclusions It may be concluded that there were differences in perceptions among faculty members toward serving students with disabili- ties. Faculty rank (professorial or nonprofessorial) and aca- demic unit (School of Education, School of Business, or College of Arts and Sciences) were sta- tistically significant variables in assessing differences in per- ceptions among faculty mem- bers toward serving students with disabilities. Specifically, the professorial rank had lower mean scores (83.50) than nonprofessorial rank. The fac- ulty of the School of Education had a lower mean score than the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Business. Unlike previous re- search by Fonosch and Schwab (1981) and Schoen, Uysal, & McDonald (1987) comparing fac- ulty attitudes across academic areas, findings in the current study suggest that faculty mem- bers in the School of Education are among those holding the least positive perceptions of stu- dents with disabilities. Perhaps this was caused by numerous administration and curricular changes in the School of Edu- cation that could have resulted

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 17 in a great deal of professional stress in recent years. In other words, the School of Education faculty members’ responses may have been reflective of the turmoil in their workplace.

Historically, faculty mem- bers in the College of Arts and Science and the School of Busi- ness have demonstrated a more open attitude toward change than those in the College of Edu- cation at this institution. The faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences reflect a research- based academic environment. They seek out and embrace new ideas and philosophies. The fac- ulty in the School of Business typically embraces change be- cause it reflects opportunities for growth and development in the marketplace. Faculty in the School of Education often see change as a loss of identity that must be re-established through difficult tasks that require enor- mous amounts of energy.

Findings may be more rep- resentative of differences in the type of instruction between aca- demic majors than a willing- ness or unwillingness to accom- modate students with disabili- ties. The School of Education curriculum no longer relies on the lecture format. Faculty members within the School of Education incorporate visual and tactile demonstrations, along with lectures, into a vari- ety of modalities for classroom use and in practicum and in- ternship settings. There may be doubt in the minds of the School of Education faculty that stu- dents with disabilities can mas- ter the new concepts and utilize the changing technology ad- equately. Faculty members in the School of Education are also keenly aware of the deficits in technology in many local school settings. Additional training in the use of technology takes time and money. Although most school systems are working to-

ward a goal of technology for the 21st century, funds are not al- ways readily available. Faculty in the School of Business en- gages in day-to-day contact with large and small businesses that typically utilize the newest technology. Businesses must have current equipment in or- der to remain competitive in the marketplace. Faculty members in the College of Arts and Sci- ences generally have access to adequate technological re- sources provided through fed- eral and state grants and part- nerships with both state and lo- cal agencies.

Faculty members with aca- demic rank, compared to faculty without academic rank, may have answered more frankly due to the fact that they typically are tenured. Those without such security may feel some- what compelled to answer in more politically correct terms.

Students with disabilities tend to be transfer students from junior or community col- leges. As such, they are re- quired to enroll in the majority of classes taught by faculty members that hold academic rank. Faculty members who do not hold academic rank tend to teach more general studies courses; thus, they may have less contact with students with disabilities than faculty with academic rank. Adjunct facul- ties do not serve on university committees, develop curricu- lum, or serve as department chairs. Nonprofessorial faculty are generally retirees or have full-time employment else- where in the community. They may not feel the same commit- ment to academic standards, as do full-time faculty members.

Statistically significant may not be meaningful in terms of practical applications. Faculty members were not presented specific information on the ex- istence of specific disability cat-

egories in the current study. Faculty members were asked to answer the questions on the re- search instrument without bias toward any category of disabil- ity. It is likely that faculty mem- bers made individual decisions regarding various accommoda- tion items based on what they deemed as fair for students, with or without disabilities. Overall, the results of this study indi- cated that most faculty mem- bers at the study institution had generally positive attitudes to- ward students with disabilities.

Recommendations The research for this study fo- cused on the differences in per- ceptions of faculty members to- ward serving students with dis- abilities on the independent variables of (a) gender of faculty member; (b) age of faculty mem- ber (28 – 44 years and 45 – 64 years); (c) academic rank of fac- ulty member – professorial (pro- fessor, associate professor, as- sistant professor) and nonpro- fessorial (instructor, adjunct); (d) academic unit – College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education, School of Business; (e) years of teaching experi- ence(1 – 9, 10 – 20, 21 – more); and (f) extent of contact with stu- dents with disabilities (0 – 2 stu- dents in the last three years; 3 or more students with disabili- ties in the last three years). Further research could be ex- panded to include additional in- dependent variables such as subjects taught by faculty mem- bers and ethnicity of faculty members. Comparing the per- ceptions of faculty in the vari- ous departments, e.g., percep- tions of faculty in the Depart- ment of History and those of fac- ulty in the Department of Com- puter Science, could reveal a closer examination of differ- ences in perceptions.

Many students transfer from one campus location to an-

18 Volume 25, Number 2, Winter, 2003/Volume 25, Number 3, Spring 2003 other. Research could include all of the sites for a specific in- stitution. A larger pool of data may give a more comprehensive picture regarding faculty per- ceptions within a comprehen- sive system. Limitations of the present study included faculty members at only one institu- tion of higher education. Cau- tion should be taken so that these results are not general- ized beyond institutions with similar characteristics as the institution in this study.

Faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities are critical in determining whether these students benefit from the overall educational experience (Fichten et al., 1990; Fonosch & Schwab, 1981; Nathanson, 1982). Miller and Miller (2002) reinforce the importance of positive teacher perceptions to- ward students with disabilities in the following statement:

Instructors who convey a positive attitude to students, parents, administrators, and other teachers and who remain flexible and sensitive to the spe- cial needs of students with dis- abilities have a greater chance of being successful. Instructors who are able to adapt instruc- tion for students with a wide range of disabilities can create a positive learning environ- ment and manage a successful inclusive classroom. (41-42)

Quality training programs could serve to improve faculty perceptions of students with dis- abilities. Training programs in- crease faculty knowledge re- lated to various disabilities and the various provisions available to accommodate students. Such training should also incorporate the use of assistive technology. Continued research regarding faculty perceptions of serving students with disabilities will be helpful in assessing the train- ing needs of faculty members and other professional staff to

comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Sec- tion 504 of the Vocational Re- habilitation Act.

References Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.

Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. (1990). Interaction between disabled and nondisabled college students and their professors: A compari- son. Journal of Postsecondary Edu- cation and Disability, 8, 125-140.

Askamit, D., Morris M., & Luenberger, J. (1987). Prepara- tion of student services profes- sionals and faculty for serving learning-disabled students. Journal of College Student Person- nel, 28, 53-59.

Baggett, D. (1994). A study of fac- ulty awareness of students with disabilities. (ERIC Document Re- production Service No. ED 369208)

Burgstahler, S. (1992). Computing services for disabled students in institutions of higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 102.

Dodd, J., Hermanson, M., Nelson, J., & Fichten, J. (1990). Tribal college faculty willingness to provide accommodations to stu- dents with learning disabilities. Journal of American Indian Educa- tion, 30 (1), 8-16.

Fichten, C., Asuncion, J., Barile, M., Généreux, C., Fossey, M., Judd, D., Robillard, C., DeSimone, C., & Wells, D. Re- trieved April, 2003 from adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/ pubs/olt01/references.htm

Fichten, C., Goodrick, G., Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R., & Libman, E. (1990). Getting along in college: Recommendations for college students with disabili- ties and their professors. Reha- bilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34 (2), 103-125.

Finn, L. L. (1998). Students’ per- ceptions of beneficial LD accom- modations and services at the postsecondary level. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Dis- ability, 13(1), 46-67.

Fonosch, G., & Schwab, L. (1981). Attitudes of selected university faculty members toward disabled students. Journal of College Stu- dent Personnel, 22, 229-235.

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: Educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61, 460-471.

Henderson, K. (1995). College freshmen with disabilities: A trien- nial statistical profile. Washing- ton, DC: American Council on Education and HEATH Resource Center.

Houck, C., Asselin, S., Troutman, G. & Arrington, J. (1992). Stu- dents with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student per- ceptions. Journal of Learning Dis- abilities, 25, 678-684.

Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher atti- tude. The Journal of Special Edu- cation, 13 (1), 315-324.

McCarthy, M., & Campbell, N. (1993). Serving disabled stu- dents: Faculty needs and atti- tudes. NASPA Journal, 30 (2), 120-125.

McGee, K. A. (1989). Attitudes of the University of Virginia faculty and administration toward dis- abled college students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Vir- ginia, 1989). Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 50, 10.

Miller, W. R., & Miller, M. F. (2002). Instructors and their jobs (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Ameri- can Technical Publishers.

Minner, S., & Prater, G. (1984). College teachers’ expectations of disabled students. Academic Therapy, 20 (2), 225-229.

Nathanson, R. B. (1982). Faculty attitudes and behaviors toward physically disabled students: An exploratory/descriptive study with proposals for faculty devel- opment programming. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia Univer-

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 19 sity, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 5.

Nelson, R. J., Dodd, J. M., & Smith, D. J. (1990). Faculty will- ingness to accommodate stu- dents with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Dis- abilities, 23(3), 185-189.

Satcher, J. (1992). Community col- lege faculty comfort with provid- ing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Col- lege Student Journal, 26, 518-524.

Schoen, E., Uysal, M., & McDonald, C. (1987). Attitudes of faculty members toward treat- ment of disabled students reex- amined. College Student Journal, 21, 190-193.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A pro- file of preparation, participation, and outcomes (NCES 1999). Washington, D. C.

Address correspondence about t h i s m a n u s c r i p t t o D r. M a r i e Kraska, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, 4036 Haley Center, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5221. Dr. Kraska can be reached by telephone at (334) 844- 3806 or by electronic mail at [email protected].

The Consortium on Chicago School Research has produced several new publications available for downloading at http://www.consortium-chicago.org

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future By Mark Smylie, Stacy Wenzel, Elaine Allensworth, Carol Fendt, Sara Hallman, Stuart Luppescu, and Jenny Nagaoka This paper describes the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and evaluates the success of this community-focused reform program. Drawing from student test scores, longitudinal surveys, and teacher and principal interview data, the Consortium team evaluated whether the Challenge cata- lyzed school improvement and student academic achievement, and investigated the myriad factors that contributed to these results.

External Support to Schools on Probation: Getting a Leg Up? By Kara Finnigan and Jennifer O’Day with the assistance of David Wakelyn This report illuminates a two-year analysis of the design of CPS’s accountability policy and its implementation in Chicago’s elementary schools. Findings center on the role of external partners and probation managers in their implementation of the policy, the constraints their influence posed, and numerous suggestions for policy changes to assist urban centers, such as Chicago, in these dedicated school reform efforts.

Chicago High School Redesign Initiative: A Snapshot of the First Year of Implementation By Susan E. Sporte, Macarena Correa, Joe Kahne, and John Q. Easton This publication examines the initiative to turn three large traditional high schools into five smaller schools as decribed by principals, teachers and students. This project introduces a policy change that will expand in the coming years in the Chicago Public Schools’ large-scale effort to improve essential supports to student achievement and school success.

Ending Social Promotion: Results from Summer Bridge By Melissa Roderick, Mimi Engel, Jenny Nagaoka with Brian A. Jacob, Sophie Degener, Alex Orfei, Susan Stone, and Jen Bacon This report describes and evaluates the Summer Bridge Program, a large summer intervention program for students with below-average test scores. It focuses on the short term and long tern effects of Summer Bridge and how staffing and curriculum choices shape the program.

News You Can Use John Gugerty, Column Editor