Literature Review

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4), 309 – 329 309

A Campus Survey of Faculty and Student Perceptions of Persons with Disabilities

Kerrie Q. Baker Kathleen Boland

Christine M. Nowik Cedar Crest College

Abstract A positive classroom climate is essential to the success of students with disabilities in higher education. In a study of 268 students and 76 faculty members at a small liberal arts women’s college in eastern Pennsylvania, participants responded to statements about students with disabilities. Findings indicate that faculty and students perceive the classroom climate differently, with faculty members describing the campus as more welcoming, inclusive, and supportive than students. Faculty and students agree that students with disabilities are capable of achieving success in the classroom and that faculty members are willing to provide classroom accommodations. Students indicate discomfort with sharing their disabilities with faculty members, however, indicating a need for increased and ongoing faculty development in best practices for creating a supportive classroom climate for students with disabilities.

Keywords: Disabilities, classroom climate, higher education, perceptions

Students with disabilities are increasing in numbers in higher education. The implementation of federal legislation and factors such as a demand for a better educated workforce and improved overall conditions to accommodate students are attributed as factors in these growing numbers (Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Kiuhara & Huefner, 2008). Subsequently, faculty and students are challenged to provide an atmosphere that is supportive and encourages academic success. However, there is still some concern that faculty may hold preconceived stereotypes that can be a barrier to a student’s success. The label of disability may influ- ence faculty members’ expectations of students and there may be a general lack of sensitivity to the needs of students identified as having a disability (Houck, Asseline, Troutmer & Arrington, 1992). Although the research has suggested that faculty members are supporters of students with disabilities, there is much to understand in terms of the overall climate at the college level. The prevailing characteristics of the environment (climate), particularly in the classroom, affect students’ success, especially for students with

disabilities (Hall & Sandler, 1999). The area of sensi- tive and supportive environments needs to be further explored as the academic progress of students with disabilities is significantly affected by the attitudes of faculty and their willingness to provide accommoda- tions, both of which contribute to classroom climate (Wolman, Suarez McCrink, Figueroa Rodriquez, & Harris-Looby, 2004).

College and university settings are the primary ways for students to gain access to knowledge and faculty are directly responsible for understanding this student population. Students may question the need to disclose their disability in order to receive accommodations if the classroom climate is not viewed as a favorable one (Kiu- hara & Huefner, 2008). Academic success for students with disabilities is therefore significantly affected by the attitudes of faculty and their willingness to provide ac- commodations (Wolman et al., 2004). Further, students’ perceptions of their fellow classmates and subsequent acceptance and support of those who are different from themselves are important to their satisfaction with and success in the college environment.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4)310

Review of the Literature The classroom climate and student success are

strongly influenced by faculty members’ willingness to provide accommodations for students with dis- abilities (Baggett, 1994; Fonosche & Schwab, 1981). Consistently, research demonstrates that faculty mem- bers are willing to provide teaching accommodations such as permission to record lectures, extended time for projects and assignments, and extended test time (Houck et al., 1992; Mathews, Anderson, & Skolnick, 1987; Vogel et al., 1999). However, faculty members are less willing to provide classroom accommodations such as copies of lecture notes, alternative assignments, and extra credit, and are unwilling to make exceptions for poor spelling and grammar on exams or provide an alternate form of an exam (Houck et al., 1992; Mathews et al., 1987; Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999). Students have reported that faculty members are often unreceptive to requests for accommodations and lack information about the impact of disabilities in the classroom, both of which influence the overall climate for students with disabilities (Farone, Hall, & Costello, 1998; Houck et al., 1992).

The classroom climate is further compromised for students with disabilities when the obstacles they face in the accommodations process is the result of a lack of faculty knowledge regarding disability law. Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, and Acosta (2005) found that students experience difficulty in securing basic accommodations such as room changes for students who use wheelchairs and appropriate text formats for students with low vision as a correlate to low faculty knowledge about legal re- quirements for disability accommodations. Importantly, student perceptions of faculty knowledge of disabilities and receptiveness to disability accommodations are significant factors in influencing students to seek the additional disability support that could improve their achievement and degree completion. In fact, negative interactions with faculty resulted in students’ unwilling- ness to pursue support in a study by Harman-Hall and Hagga (2002), while positive reactions from faculty inspired students to seek out resources. In the same study, peer reactions/interactions were found to have no effect on student decision-making related to accessing additional disability support. This finding indicated that the nature of student/faculty interaction is a significant factor in students’ decisions to secure additional support for a disability as well as an important factor in class- room climate for students with disabilities.

The tenor of the interaction between students and faculty can be affected by the nature of students’ dis- abilities, as faculty reported more negative attitudes toward accommodating students with psychiatric and attention disorders than toward students with obvious physical or learning disabilities (Hindes & Mather, 2007). In the same study, faculty members report that providing accommodations for students adds an extra layer of responsibility to their heavy loads and potentially compromises the quality of the learning environment. Faculty members’ willingness to provide accommodations to all students with documented dis- abilities contributes to a positive classroom climate, as does student perception of such willingness.

Classroom climate is affected by faculty expecta- tions as well. Houck et al. (1992) reported on faculty members’ belief that a learning disability can limit a student’s pursuit of certain majors and probability of degree completion. In nursing, faculty members express low expectations that students with learning disabilities will become successful nurses, often citing patient safety as a concern despite the lack of evidence that patient safety has ever been jeopardized by a nurse with a disability (Sowers & Smith, 2004). Low expec- tations often result in low student performance and are a barrier to success (Dorwick et al., 2005). Expecting high achievement and quality work from all students are ways to improve the classroom climate for students with disabilities.

Faculty disposition toward students with disabili- ties is another important factor in the overall classroom climate, and according to several studies, most fac- ulty members demonstrate a positive attitude toward students with disabilities (Fonosch & Schwab, 1981; Hengst, 2003; Kelly, 1984). It should be noted that one study by Minner and Prater (1984) reported that faculty viewed students with disabilities unfavorably when compared with students without disabilities. In some studies, faculty exhibited behaviors that can com- promise the classroom climate for students with dis- abilities, such as directing negative statements toward students about their disabilities and accommodations or questioning the legitimacy of the student’s request for accommodations (Beilke, 1999; Jensen, McCrary, Krampe, & Cooper, 2004; Kurth & Mellard, 2006).

It can be surmised that faculty members’ views of students are influenced by their knowledge of disability issues and familiarity with people with disabilities. Faculty report a desire for more information on the im-

Baker, Boland, & Nowik; Perceptions of Persons with Disabilities 311

pact of disabilities in the classroom (Houck et al., 1992). Many faculty report limited training in and exposure to issues related to disabilities in higher education (Leyser et al., 2000). Backels and Wheeler (2001) report that faculty members are unsure of their options related to extending flexibility and making referrals for students with mental health issues. Sowers and Smith (2004) also indicate that faculty members likely find working with students’ hidden disabilities such as mental health, learning, and attention disabilities more challenging than working with more apparent physical disabilities. Additionally, when faculty members feel supported by their departments in their teaching of students with dis- abilities, they report feeling that accommodations are typically easy to implement, thus improving overall classroom climate (Bourke, Strehorn, & Silver, 2000).

Institutional support for faculty members teaching students with disabilities is imperative in improving the classroom climate for students with disabilities, and ongoing training is a significant piece of that support. In fact, research demonstrates that educating faculty members on disability issues increases their knowledge of disability law, awareness of the impact of disabilities, and willingness to provide accommodations (Bigaj, Shaw, & McGuire, 1999; Murray, Lombardi, Wren, & Keys, 2009; Sowers & Smith, 2004). Increasing faculty education and awareness clearly leads to an improved classroom climate for students with disabilities.

Adding to the existing body of research on class- room climate for students with disabilities, the present study was conducted to examine attitudes and percep- tions of persons with disabilities on a college campus. It was expected that faculty and students would differ in their perceptions of persons with disabilities, wherein faculty would be accepting and accommodating while other students would not be as accepting of others un- like themselves. Further, responses from students with disabilities were expected to provide insight into their life on a college campus. Specifically, the three major hypotheses of the study were as follows:

1. There is no difference in faculty and student perceptions of persons with disabilities.

2. There is no difference in faculty and student perceptions of students with disabilities in the collegiate classroom.

3. Students with disabilities do not perceive dif- ferent treatment by faculty and other students in the collegiate classroom.

Method

Participants In Fall 2009, a convenience sample of approxi-

mately 400 faculty and college students from a small liberal arts women’s college in eastern Pennsylvania participated in this study. All college faculty and stu- dents received an email that introduced and explained the purpose of the study. To participate, everyone was invited to complete an online survey. They were told their participation was voluntary, their responses were confidential and anonymous, and that the survey was approved by the College’s Institutional Review Board. Two follow-up reminder emails were sent to the cam- pus community.

There was a 75% response rate for faculty and a 22% response rate for students. Of the 76 faculty who responded to the demographic questions on the survey, 70% were females, 60% taught at the college for six or more years, 69% taught full-time, and 26% had tenured status. Approximately 31% of the faculty taught in the natural sciences, 26% taught in profes- sional certification programs (i.e., Nursing, Social Work, Nutrition, Education), 17% taught in the social sciences, and approximately 26% taught in either the arts and performing arts area or humanities area. Not all of the student respondents answered the demographic questions on the survey. Of the 268 students who did respond to the demographic questions, 62% were traditional students (ages 18-22 years) and 38% were lifelong learning students (ages 23 and above years). Approximately 96% of the student respondents were females, and 83% were Caucasians. The breakdown by class was 15% freshmen, 15% sophomore, 31% junior, 34% senior, and 5% graduate. These students majored in a variety of programs, 54% lived off cam- pus, and 62% took over 13 credits that semester. Of 232 students who responded to the disability question, 53 (22.8%) reported having some sort of disability which is representative of the 55 registered students with disabilities at the college. However, no attempt was made to identify the students with disabilities prior to the administration of the survey.

Materials There were two different versions of an online

survey; one for faculty and one for students. In both versions, many of the same questions were asked of both populations so that direct comparisons could be

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4)312

made. The first question for both populations asked their opinion on the overall climate at the college for students with disabilities. The second section for both populations contained 10 items on their beliefs about students with disabilities that were rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 equaled “strongly disagree” and 5 equaled “strongly agree” and identical versions of the questions were used in almost all sections described in this paragraph. Examples of items in this section included, “I think that all students with disabilities have learning problems” and “All students with disabilities receive accommodations to meet their needs in the classroom.” The third section focused on inclusion in the classroom and contained seven items. An example item from this section is, “Teachers focus more on students with disabilities than the rest of the class.” The fourth section, containing two items, focused on capabilities. An item such as, “How capable are students with disabilities of meeting the demands of your academic major?” was found in this section. The fifth section, that was common to both populations, contained seven items focusing on student reactions to those with disabilities. Respondents used the same 5-point Likert scale to respond to items such as, “Other students think that students with disabilities receive more than their fair share of college provided services.” The last section asked about respondents’ familiarity with people with disabilities.

In the faculty survey, there was also a separate section designed to gather beliefs about students with disabilities, willingness to make accommodations, and related issues. All of these items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 equaled “strongly disagree” and 5 equaled “strongly agree.” It should be noted that the survey was not designed to assess faculty members with disabilities, due to the low number of available individuals on campus who would fit that category.