Promoting University Faculty and Staff Awareness of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Overview of the Productive Learning u Strategies (PLuS) Project

This article presents a model demonstration project that was designed to promote disability awareness, understanding, and responsiveness among University faculty and staff at a large private University. One of the unique features of the Productive Learning u Strategies (PLuS) project is that the effort targeted all faculty and staff through a cascade training model approach. This approach was designed to leverage project resources in ways that allowed the project to reach a broader number of individuals. The effort was supported by a web site, bi-monthly print materials, and informational videos that were developed by the project and widely distributed. This article provides an overview of the model, a description of the specific model features, and an overview of findings from several investigations that were conducted during the course of project implementation. The importance of postsecondary school in an increasingly knowledge-based economy is indisputable and finding ways to support access to higher education among students with disabilities is of growing national concern. Recent estimates from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 suggest that approximately 10% of youth with learning disabilities (LD) have enrolled in a four-year colleges or universities at some point during the first two years after leaving high school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005) and these students represent one of the fastest growing populations of students on college campuses (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). As students with LD gain access to postsecondary settings, it will be important for colleges and universities to find innovative ways of supporting these youth, many of whom may come to college campuses without the requisite skills to successfully negotiate these systems (Gregg, 2007; Murray, Goldstein, Nourse, & Edgar, 2000). Unlike K-12 public schools, colleges and universities are not required to develop individualized educational plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities, and students must self-disclose within these environments to receive any services at all. As Madaus and Shaw (2004) note “Section 504 and the ADA.....are not prescriptive special education laws, like IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], and result in varying services across institutions of higher education” (p. 85). Despite differences in mandated services and supports for youth in public K-12 schools and universities, there are a growing number of promising strategies that may help to make postsecondary settings more supportive of students with LD (Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Cook et al., 2006; Debrand & Salzberg, 2004; Rohland et al., 2003; Shaw & Scott, 2003; Sowers & Smith, 2004). These efforts are guided in part by prior research on University faculty attitudes which indicates that although faculty are generally willing to provide students with minor accommodations (e.g., recorded lectures or additional time during exams), they sometimes have lower academic expectations for students with LD than for students without disabilities (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992). Furthermore, findings from studies of University students’ perceptions indicate that students with disabilities often perceive that faculty, staff, and administrators lack information regarding disability issues, have “poor” attitudes towards students with disabilities, and are not receptive to accommodation requests (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Farone, Hall, & Costello, 1998). In an effort to address the need for faculty development pertaining to students with disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) initiated a grant program in 1999 that provides funding to colleges and universities to promote disability awareness. To date, 71 of these Demonstration Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Education for Students with Disabilities have been awarded. In reviewing the abstracts for the 71 funded projects between 1999 and 2005, it is clear that vast majority of the proposals were designed as faculty development initiatives (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). However, despite the relatively large number of projects funded, very few published descriptions of these projects exist in the professional literature. For example, we conducted an ERIC search using the name of the Project Director(s) of these 71 projects as the search term (i.e., author) and we reviewed the table of contents of all issues of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability and the Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education to search for descriptions of OPE funded projects. This search yielded only four published descriptions of projects implemented through this funding (Cook et al., 2006; Krampe & Berdine, 2003; Rohland et al., 2003; Sowers & Smith, 2004). Cook et al. (2006) implemented a project that provided University faculty with training through three interrelated training components. The first component was a Classroom Accommodation Network comprised of a web site, a telephone hotline, and in-person support. This component provided participants with an ongoing resource for having questions answered and learning more about strategies and supports. The second component provided direct training to approximately 20 faculty members per year through a five-day summer institute. The summer institute was designed to increase faculty awareness of specific disabilities, University-based support services, as well as specific strategies for supporting students with disabilities in University contexts. The third training component was a partnership program that paired each of the summer institute training participants with a student with a disability within the institution. These partnerships were arranged prior to participation in the summer institute in an effort to provide faculty with a context for developing further understanding about the specific needs of students with disabilities in University settings. Workshop evaluations and qualitative interviews with faculty suggested that this project had positive effects on faculty members’ self-perceived ability to interact effectively with students with disabilities and with other professionals regarding the needs of students with disabilities. In a second example, Sowers and Smith (2004) trained nursing faculty using a brief two-hour training curriculum that contained four main components designed to (a) enhance the perceptions of faculty regarding the capabilities of nursing students with disabilities, (b) provide strategies for accommodating students with disabilities during instruction and supervision, (c) provide information pertaining to laws (Section 504 & ADA), and (d) provide faculty with information regarding the costs associated with providing accommodations. In an evaluation of changes in nursing faculty perceptions prior to and following training, these researchers found that the training led to improvements in faculty members’ perceptions of the capabilities of students with disabilities, and decreases in perceived concerns about having students with disabilities in nursing programs. In addition to training programs directed towards changing specific faculty attitudes and practices, a growing body of research suggests that organizational characteristics may have a significant impact on the performance of students with LD (Boxall, Carson, & Docherty, 2004; Roer-Strier, 2002; Rohland et al., 2003). According to this perspective, efforts to promote positive experiences among students should be broadly focused and designed to change overall climates of institutions. In our search for published OPE funded projects we found two efforts that were designed to address broader institutional change (Krampe & Berdine, 2003; Rohland et al., 2003). For example, Rohland et al. (2003) implemented a project called Changing the Culture (CTC) that included 103 faculty from 45 departments at 7 different colleges and universities in Rhode Island. Faculty were recruited to participate in a four-day training that was designed to promote disability awareness, an understanding of legal issues, and an understanding of supports for students with hearing, vision, learning, attention, and emotional disabilities. The training participants also discussed and developed strategies for serving as “disability mentors” in their home academic units. Thus, the goal of this project was to develop institutional resources and supports by training individuals who would then serve as mentors for other faculty. Findings from an analysis of trainee perceptions prior to and following the CTC training activities indicated that trainees had greater confidence in meeting training objectives, and were satisfied with the training materials at the end of the training sessions. However, follow-up data regarding the level of trainee implementation of training goals during the year following training was not provided. Due to advocacy, an increased understanding of the needs of students with LD in postsecondary settings, the legal requirements of the ADA and Section 504, and federal funding initiatives such as the model demonstration projects funded through OPE, faculty development programs such as the projects described above are becoming increasingly common (Madaus & Shaw, 2006). Published descriptions of these projects are less common although information regarding the specific features of such efforts is potentially a rich resource for those interested in initiating disability-focused training in postsecondary settings. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to add to the literature on disability-focused professional development initiatives by providing an overview of an organizational change model that was implemented at DePaul University. This OPE funded project was a broad-based training effort that included a cascade training model, the provision of web-based resources, and the wide distribution of print and video materials. Project PLuS Model and Methods From the outset of this project, we adopted the view that it was important for us to leverage our project resources in ways that allowed us to promote organizational change across the entire University. Therefore, we targeted both University faculty and University staff as participants in this initiative. Although prior projects of this nature consistently target faculty, we know of no projects that have designed and implemented training that is tailored specifically for University staff. This is unfortunate because many University staff work in positions that require them to interact with students with disabilities on a regular basis and they contribute to the overall climate and cultures of postsecondary settings in important ways. To facilitate culture change within the parameters of our budget, we adopted an empowerment model for the diffusion of awareness among faculty and staff throughout the University. We chose to implement a train-the-trainer model that was designed to cascade broad organizational support of students with LD downward through the University. According to our approach, faculty and staff from throughout the University would be selected to participate in training and these individuals would then become trainers who would implement training with other members of their respective departments and units. Therefore, this effort was not designed to train individuals to provide direct service to students with LD, but instead was designed to encourage training participants to propagate awareness and create changes to University processes that would improve the overall setting for students with LD. Similar training models have been successfully utilized in a wide variety of domains and organizational settings (Bax, 2002; Hayes, 2000; Jacobs, 2002). Context and Participants Project PLuS was implemented at DePaul University, a large, urban private University in the Midwestern United States. According to U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of America’s Best Colleges, during the past 10 years the University has consistently been ranked as a Tier 3 institution among national universities and it is considered “more selective” on selectivity ratings. The University’s stated mission is focused on teaching and service with a commitment to connections with the community. At the time of this study, over 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students attended the University with approximately 15,000 undergraduates and over 8,000 graduate students. Of that population, approximately 250 students (1%) were receiving disability support services for learning disabilities. This percentage of students with LD is consistent with the number of students receiving services for LD in colleges and universities nationally (Horn & Nevill, 2006). Because we were interested in impacting the overall culture of the University, we selected faculty from every department to participate as trainers and we also selected staff members from units that we believed would have regular interaction with students with disabilities (e.g., library, student services, financial aid, etc.). Training participants were recruited by sending letters describing the summer training opportunity to department heads (faculty) and unit heads (staff). In these recruitment letters we described the project, the training dates, and offered a training stipend ($1,000) to interested participants. Department and unit administrators then sent recruitment letters (via e-mail) to faculty and staff within their units and participants were selected using two criteria. First, we screened participants to ensure that different departments and units were represented in the training. Second, faculty and staff were admitted on a first-come-firstserve basis. During Year 1 of the project, 26 faculty and 24 staff trainers participated and during Year 2 an additional 26 faculty and 24 staff members participated. Thus, over the course of the project, a total of 98 full-time faculty and staff participated in the summer training program. Faculty from all 9 major colleges and schools participated and staff members from over 45 different units participated. These individuals then served as project trainers who provided training to other faculty and staff within their respective departments and units throughout the University. The Cascade Training Model In Figure 1, we provide the logic model for our cascade training empowerment model (Zimmerman, 2000). According to the model, our participants would participate in training where they would develop awareness, knowledge, skills, and motivation pertaining to University students with disabilities. Our sessions were also designed to promote the belief among the participants that they had opportunities to engage in organizational change activities. These activities then led to goal setting. The process of setting explicit training goals provided a framework for personal action. In addition, goal attainment was a critical indicator of impact and likely organizational change. Goal attainment as a mechanism for motivating action and providing a measurable indicator of achievement has been utilized in previous research (Balcazar, Keys, Lardon, Jones, & Davis, 2005: Hurn, Kneebone, & Cropley, 2006). As interactions grew in number, it was expected that the number of potential “help” points for students with learning disabilities on campus would also grow and each participant’s experiences were expected to stimulate awareness and goal-directed action on the part of others (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zimmerman, 2000). Figure 1: Faculty and Staff Empowerment Sequence