No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
University faculty members were surveyed regarding which academic strategies they used to accommodate students living with psychiatric disabilities and the effectiveness of these strategies. Differences were found between Engineering and faculty in fields other than science, technology, engineering, and math (non-STEM) with regard to the academic strategies they use to accommodate students living with psychiatric disabilities; five of the strategies were used more frequently by Engineering faculty than non-STEM faculty and four of the strategies were used more frequently by non-STEM faculty. One strategy, providing extra time on an exam, was rated as significantly more effective by Engineering faculty than non-STEM faculty. Barriers to higher education for individuals living with psychiatric disabilities have been examined and identified. Such barriers include symptoms of mental illness (e.g. depression, anxiety, poor concentration), side effects of medications (e.g. fatigue, dry mouth requiring the student to bring liquids to class), and perceptions of faculty and peers (e.g. the disability is not visible so it does not exist, people who have mental illnesses are dangerous and should not be on college campuses) (Collins & Mowbray, 2005; Megivern, Pelerito, & Mowbray, 2003; Rickerson, Sourma, & Burgstahler, 2004; Sharpe, Bruinininks, Blacklock, Benson, & Johnson, 2004; Weiner & Weiner, 1996). Many of these barriers are ameliorated with effective support strategies and/or accommodations. The reasonableness and effectiveness of an accommodation in the workplace depends on many factors; the reasonableness and effectiveness of academic strategies and accommodations logically depend on many factors as well. As we seek to identify strategies and accommodations that are effective for postsecondary students living with psychiatric disabilities, it is important to explore differences in the effectiveness of an accommodation between different academic settings or disciplines. Bourke, Strehorn and Silver (2000) surveyed faculty at one university regarding the provision of instructional accommodations to students with learning disabilities. An important finding of this study was that faculty beliefs in the importance of and efficacy of accommodations were positively related to provision of accommodations to students. Perceiving that university disability services were providing a lot of support to students with disabilities was positively related to belief in the importance and efficacy of accommodations. Additionally, faculty who perceived their own departments as supporting them with resources were more likely to provide accommodations to students with learning disabilities. One key difference between departments was that non-STEM faculty reported that is was easier to provide an alternate form of an exam than STEM faculty. Vasek (2005) surveyed faculty at a 4-year college to assess their willingness to provide accommodations to students with all types of disabilities, including mobility, sensory, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities. Vasek (2005) reported one significant difference between disciplines; Education faculty and Natural Sciences faculty were the most willing to accommodate students and Business faculty were least willing. The author reported that a large percentage of the participants were highly unwilling to allow certain accommodations, especially extended time on exams. Szymanski, Hewitt, Watson, and Swett (1999) conducted a similar study in the late 1990s. These researchers found that 16% of faculty in any field never dealt with strategies for students with disabilities. Faculty reported that they wanted to accommodate Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1) 44 students but relied on the disability services office to tell them what to do, especially with regard to students with hidden disabilities. Becker, Martin, Wajeeh, Ward, and Shern (2002) indicated that faculty commonly used accommodations including extending deadlines and giving extra time on exams. Vasek (2005) reported similarly that the accommodations faculty provided most often for students with any disability were: (a) allowing extended time on exams, (b) making general exam accommodations, and (c) allowing extra time to complete assignments. Becker et al. (2002) reported that the younger a faculty member was, the more likely he or she was to consult the counseling center about a student. Faculty who consulted the counseling center were more likely to refer their students for services. Discomfort and fear of working with students who have mental illnesses were associated with making fewer accommodations and referrals. Greater confidence in one’s ability to help students was associated with use of more accommodations and referrals. Scales measuring faculty perceptions of their ability to help, and fear of students with mental illnesses were inversely related. Additionally, faculty in health sciences made fewer accommodations and referrals than faculty in other disciplines. GlenMaye and Bolin (2007) surveyed social work baccalaureate program directors in one state regarding accommodation of students with psychiatric disabilities in their programs. The authors found a positive correlation between the number of accommodations used by faculty and their ratings of the effectiveness of the accommodations. There was a positive correlation between effectiveness ratings and perceptions of the employability of students living with a psychiatric disability in the field of social work. Feeling knowledgeable about psychiatric disability was also positively correlated with the faculty effectiveness ratings of accommodations. The most frequently used accommodations were in exam taking, adjustments to the length of time in which one is required to complete the program, and adjustment in course assignments. Perceptions of one’s resources and support as a professor to work with students with psychiatric disabilities is one factor that consistently appears in the literature on accommodations and academic strategies for working with college students with disabilities. Experiences of faculty regarding the effectiveness of specific strategies and accommodations can provide valuable information as we seek to determine the efficacy of these strategies in different circumstances. If provision of accommodations by faculty is associated to faculty beliefs in the importance of and efficacy of accommodations, then research is needed in order to establish an empirical basis for such beliefs. Purpose Accommodations are individualized and need to be appropriate to the situation. Different types of assignments and assessments are required of students in different types of courses. A foreign language course is likely to include oral examinations or presentations as an important component of the assessment of students’ mastery of the language. A copy of a peer’s class notes may be more useful than a recording of the lecture when the math professor writes many examples on the board in class. In a drawing course, more time to complete an assignment may be helpful while a copy of a peer’s notes from class are not necessary. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of faculty members regarding the effectiveness of specific accommodations. The perspectives of STEM and non-STEM faculty were compared with the assumption that the ways in which students’ knowledge is assessed differs between STEM and non-STEM fields. The research questions addressed in this paper were: What strategies have faculty employed to supa. port students with psychiatric disabilities, and how effective were those strategies? Do STEM faculty use different strategies than b. faculty in non-STEM fields? Do STEM and non-STEM faculty rate the efc. fectiveness of strategies differently?
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.