|
FACULTY
ATTITUDES AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A LITERATURE
REVIEW
Attitudes toward
disabilities as a topic is widely researched when it comes to published
studies concerned with disability issues. 'Attitudinal barriers' is recognized
widely as an impediment to success of persons with disabilities. However,
this also happens to be the least researched variable in studies done with
faculty and students with disabilities in higher education. This article
presents review of literature on faculty attitudes towards persons with
disabilities in four different parts: attitudes as a construct, views on
attitudes towards disabilities, measurement of attitude towards
disabilities, and studies done at colleges and universities with faculty. The
fourth section discusses various variables that influence attitudes of
faculty towards disabilities. Implications for future studies are
discussed.
INTRODUCTION
According to the U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
(1999), the passage of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and other laws such as the Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act
in 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, which ensure
equal access to education for individuals with disabilities, has catalyzed
an increase in postsecondary enrollment among students with disabilities
over the past two decades (p. 1). NCES (1999) and Thomas (2000) reported an
increase from 29 percent in 1986, to 45 percent in 1994, of persons 16 or
older with a reported disability that had either attended some college or
had completed a bachelor's degree or higher. In 1996, roughly 6 percent of
all undergraduates reported having a disability (NCES, 1999, p. 7).
Over the last few
decades Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and ADA of
1990 have evolved and ensured that people with disabilities who
traditionally had limited access to means to making choices for themselves,
are now able to speak for themselves, or have advocates for support.
Different sections of Section 504 delineate some specific responsibilities
of institutions in providing an equal educational opportunity for students
with disabilities. Additionally, the ADA prohibited discrimination against
people with disabilities in the areas of employment, activities of state
and local governments, transportations, and telecommunications (ADA, 42
U.S.C. 12101).
Chubon (1992) reported
that in terms of the sheer numbers of published disability related research
studies, few topics appear to have captured the attention that attitudes
toward persons with disabilities has. The authors cited reference to
'attitudinal barriers' as a common occurrence among those concerned with
disability issues and attitudes have been implicated as the cause of a
broad spectrum of problems that has beset persons with disabilities. The
least researched variable, however, in terms of its impact on faculty
willingness to provide accommodations to students with disabilities in
higher education is faculty attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
Fonosch and Schwab (1981) contended that there was minimal research in the
area of faculty attitudes toward disabilities in higher education. Few
other studies undertaken since 1981 that studied this factor in relation to
success of students with disabilities in higher education (Badgett, 1993;
Benham, 1995; Lewis, 1998; McCarthy & Campbell, 1993; McGee, 1989; Rao,
2002; Schoen, Uysal, & McDonald, 1987; Williamson, 2000) also expressed
the contention.
This article presents
review of related literature in four parts. The first part describes
attitudes as a construct, the second part presents views on attitudes
towards disabilities, the third part focuses on measurement of faculty
attitude towards disabilities, and the fourth part describes the variables
that influenced faculty attitudes towards disabilities.
ATTITUDES
In Germany in the 1950s,
an investigation of people's responses to certain classes of stimuli
initiated the scientific study of attitudes. Then in the United States in
1920s, Thurstone led to the measurement of attitudes with his pioneering
article "Attitudes can be measured." Literature defined attitude
in multiple ways. Antonak (1988,p.109) defined attitude as 'an idea charged
with emotion which predisposes a class of actions in particular class of
social situations.' The class of situations is referent and that may be an
object, a person, an event or a construct.
There is a diversity of
views with regard to the basic definition of attitude with more than 30
reported definitions. Although attitude theorists may posit definitions
that deviate considerably, applied research most frequently is focused on
behavioral aspects. The majority of attitude researchers are concerned with
understanding social behaviors, viewing attitudes as emotion-laden mindsets
that serve as a more or less hidden motivator for behavior. According to
Cook (1992), attitudes comprise three elements: cognition- the individual's
perception and conceptualization of the attitude subject; affect- the
emotional underpinning of these beliefs and the amount of positive or
negative feeling that an individual has toward the attitude object;
behavior-responses, observable behavior, or the individual's intention to
behave in particular ways toward the attitude object. Lefrancois (1994)
described attitude as a prevailing and consistent tendency to react in
certain way. Wilzinki (1991) held a view that attitude is typically denoting
a psychological state that predisposes a person to action. He believed that
attitudes are important motivational forces and underlie beliefs that are
evaluative responses to these attitudes.
ATTITUDES
TOWARD PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In a study done in 1998,
Livneh described six perspectives to examine sources of negative attitudes
toward persons with disabling conditions and correspondingly six systems to
categorize these attitudes when they exist. All these systems seek to
elucidate possible origins, determinants, roots, or sources of these
negative attitudes. The six systems are: ( 1) Sociocultural-psychological; the origins
of negative attitudes associated with social and cultural values triggered
by unique psychodynamic and developmental experiences. ( 2) Affective-cognitive; roots of negative
attitudes vary from those occupied by emotional reactions, such as anxiety
and guilt, to those characterized by intellectual determinants, such as
poor self-insight, ambiguity intolerance, and cognitive dissonance. ( 3) Conscious-unconscious; causes range from
those of which the observer is considered to be fully aware to those of
which he or she is assumed to be totally unaware. ( 4) Past experience-present situation; the
sources vary from those presumably stemming from early childhood
experiences such as childrearing practices and parental influences, to
those associated with current situational and interactional experience. ( 5) Internally originated-externally
originated; the determinants range from those related to the non-disabled
individual observer, such as his or her demographic or personality
correlates, to those related to characteristics associated with the
disabled individual or the disability. ( 6) Theoretical-empirical; the origins vary,
from those based on purely theoretical or speculative formulations to those
derived from empirical research findings. The categories used to classify
the sources of negative attitudes include psychodynamic sources,
sociocultural sources, historical or childhood-originated sources,
disability-related factors, and observer (non-disabled) demographic and
personality factors. McCarthy and Campbell (1993) stated that attitudes
toward people with disabilities are related to the amount of direct contact
individuals have had with disabled people. According to Yuker (1988),
attitudinal consequences of contact with persons with disabilities are
mediated by the characteristics of the person, the non-disabled person, and
the interaction between the two. Yuker further reported that attitudes of
others toward the people who have disabilities are complex and
multifaceted. These characteristics are recognized as major influences on
the behavior towards persons with disabilities.
Faculty attitudes
towards students with disabilities in the postsecondary institutions/higher
education/advanced institutions of learning are one of the important
contributors to the success of students enrolled in these institutions,
colleges, and universities. Fichten (1988) concluded that attitudes of
faculty and administrators could be a vital ingredient in the success or
failure of students with a disability and in the overall success of the
mainstreaming effort in postsecondary education. Ibrahim and Herr's (1982)
study concluded that as the amount of information about persons with
disabilities increases, negative stereotyping is reduced and a more
favorable attitude is expressed. Katz, Haz, and Bailey (1988) supported
this finding. Their study concluded that attention to the conflicting
nature of the majority's feelings and beliefs about persons who have
disabilities, points up the potential that exists for either support or
opposition by public with respect to government policies for insuring
equality of opportunity for disabled people in employment, education, and
housing. Junco (2002) stated that negative attitudes of instructors, may
prevent students with disabilities from using self-advocacy skills. Beilke
and Yssel (1998) studied an exemplary relationship between faculty and
students with disabilities. The findings revealed the importance of the
faculty-student relationship as a means of establishing one's identity
within the classroom and university. The relationship was instrumental to
establishment of caring, mentoring relationships within the context of the
classroom.
MEASUREMENT
OF FACLTY ATTITUDES
Antonak (1988) viewed
the purpose of attitude measurement as to convert observation of a
respondent's behavior into an index that represents the attitude presumed
to underlie the behavior. However, some studies (Chubon, 1992; Livneh,
1982) reported various problems with measurement of disability-related
attitudes though attitude toward persons is one of the most widely
researched issues in rehabilitation counseling. Chubon (1992) cited one
problem in studies submitted for publication dealing with attitude toward
disability as absence of reporting of validity and reliability. The major
instrument, the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale by Yuker,
Block, & Campbell (1960) has been submitted to factor analytic studies,
which indicated that attitudes toward the disabled populations are
multidimensional, attitudes are instrument specific rather than
domain-related, and also population-specific.
Askamit, Morris, and
Luenberger (1987) used an attitude scale that had a reported Cronbach's
alpha of .82 for the attitude subscale. The 11 items that loaded on the
Attitude subscale measured the level of comfort respondents had with
working with students with learning disability (LD), reaction to
modifications in curriculum and graduation requirements at the college
level, and their perception of potential of success of LD students, and
financing of LD programs. The other 11 Knowledge items assessed familiarity
with legislation, characteristics of students with LD, support services
available at the university, and ability to respond to needs of LD
students. The questionnaire used a 6-point Likert-type scale.
The Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) was constructed in the late 1950s in an
attempt to provide an objective, reliable, and valid measure of attitudes
toward physical disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986). The ATDP scale is a
research instrument developed as part of a larger research program at Human
Resources Foundation. The test provided an estimate of self-acceptance when
administered to disabled persons, and a measure of prejudice toward the
disabled when administered to physically normal people' (Yuker, Block,
& Campbell, 1960, p. 13). The original scale, Form 'O' had 20 items and
is preferred due to fewer items and quicker scoring. In the early 1960s two
alternate forms were described. The other two forms, 'A' and 'B' contain 30
items each. The three forms are equivalent and can be used interchangeably.
Many studies that used the scale tested the four different types of
reliability (test-retest, split-half, equivalence, and alpha) indicate the
overall median for the scale as .80. The data thus indicated that ATDP
scale is a reliable measure. The scale has been used for 25 years, and
though a better measure is overdue, many current studies that use the
instrument provide evidence of its continued adequacy and utility. Lewis
(1998) used the scale and reported a reliability coefficient of .86 for
form B. In a recent study, Rao (2002) used ATDP form A and reported a
reliability coefficient of .84.
VARIABLES
THAT INFLUENCED FACULTY ATTITUDES
Chubon (1992) posited
that the ultimate objective in gaining an understanding of attitudes is to
enable the development of means by which to change those determined to be
negative, thereby alleviating the basis of deleterious behaviors. Many
studies (Askamit et al., 1987; Baggett, 1993; Benham, 1995; Kleinsasser,
1999; McGee, 1989; Rao, 2002; Schoen, Uysal, & McDonald, 1986;
Williamson, 2000) assessed faculty attitudes toward people with
disabilities and effect of different variables on the attitudes. The
variables included gender, age, previous experience teaching students with
disabilities, previous contact with people with disabilities, academic rank
of the faculty, academic discipline where faculty worked, knowledge of
legislation, and type of disability that the students had. The studies
generally reported a positive attitude as measured by the instrument used.
A brief review of the studies categorized by the variables follows.
Gender
From studies that
assessed effect of gender on attitudes, some studies (Askamit et al., 1987;
Baggett, 1993; Benham, 1995; Kleinsasser, 1999; Rao, 2002) found that
gender had a statistically significant effect on faculty attitudes toward
persons with disabilities. Female faculty had a more positive attitude than
the male faculty. Yet other studies (Lewis, 1998; McGee, 1989; Schoen et
al., 1987; Williamson, 2000) reported that gender did not have any effect
on faculty attitude.
Age
Some (Baggett, 1993;
Benham, 1995; McGee, 1989; Schoen et al., 1987; Williamson; 2000) studied
the effect of age of faculty on their attitude towards persons with
disabilities. However, these studies did not find any significant effect of
age on faculty attitudes.
Experience
Ten studies reviewed
(Askamit et al., 1987; Baggett, 1993; Benham, 1995; Fonosch & Schwab,
1981; Kleinsasser, 1999; Lewis, 1998; McGee, 1989; Rao, 2002; Schoen,
Uysal, & McDonald, 1986; Williamson, 2000) included experience as a
variable in their study. This category, 'experience' studied by different studies
included; previous or current experience teaching students with
disabilities, and/or previous contact with people with disabilities in
terms of having a relative, close friend, and/or colleagues with
disabilities. Six studies (Askamit et al., 1987; Baggett, 1993; Benham,
1995; Fonosch & Schwab, 1981; Kleinsasser, 1999; Rao, 2002) reported a
significantly more positive attitude of the 'experienced' faculty. The
others failed to find a significant effect of experience on faculty
attitude.
Rank
Various studies (Baggett,
1993; Benham, 1995; Fonosch & Schwab, 1981; Rao, 2002; Williamson,
2000) studied the effect of faculty academic rank that included professors,
associate professors, assistant professors, instructors and adjuncts. The
surveyed faculty did not include teaching assistants. Only Fonosch and
Schwab (1981) found that professors and instructors scored lower (more
negative attitudes) than associate and assistant professors. Rank as a
variable did not have a significant effect on the attitudes of the faculty
in other studies.
Departmental Affiliation
Departmental affiliation
or the academic unit that the faculty worked or was attached to had a
significant effect on attitudes (Lewis, 1998; McGee, 1989; Rao, 2002;
Schoen et al., 1986; Williamson, 2000). However, the other two studies
(Baggett, 1993; Benham, 1995) reported no significant effect of this
variable. McGee's study found that administrators had a more positive
attitude than the faculty, and within the faculty, faculty from Soft
Sciences tended to be more positive than faculty from Hard Sciences. Lewis
(1998), Rao (2002), Schoen et al. (1986), and Williamson (2000) also
reported that faculty from Education department (from soft/applied
sciences) had a more positive attitude than faculty from hard sciences
(both pure and applied) that included chemistry, mathematics, physics, and
other engineering disciplines.
Knowledge of Disability
Laws
Though the legislative
mandates are the principal cause of surge in number of students with
disabilities enrolled in universities and community colleges only two
studies (Benham, 1995; McGee, 1989; Rao, 2002) actually included this
variable in their study. McGee and Rao reported a significant effect on the
faculty attitude. Faculty who reported a better knowledge of the
legislation had a more positive attitude. Benham's study failed to find a
statistically significant effect.
Disability Type
The population of
students with different disabilities included those with learning
disabilities, paralysis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, skin disorder,
amputation, psychiatric disabilities, visual impairments, and hearing
impairments. This variable had a significant effect on attitudes in two
studies (Baggett, 1994; McGee, 1989). Faculty considered moderate hearing and
vision impairments least debilitating; quadriplegia and schizophrenia as
the most debilitating. However, Lewis's (1998) study did not find any
significant effect of this variable.
Lewis (1988) and Rao
(2002) assessed the relationship between faculty willingness to provide
accommodations and their attitudes toward persons with disabilities, but
found no statistically significant relationship between the two.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
Section 504 of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act literally opened the doors of higher
education to students with disabilities. Some responses to the needs of
students with disabilities, then, is clearly required of institutions of
higher learning, and as a result, programs to meet the needs of students
with disabilities are rapidly developing (Scott, 1991). Scott contended
that within this variety, however, a common strand is the importance of
faculty in facilitating the assimilation of students with disabilities.
Fichten (1988) concluded that attitudes of faculty and administrators could
be a vital ingredient in the success or failure of students with a
disability and in the overall success of the mainstreaming effort in
postsecondary education. From the studies reviewed only Lewis (1988) and
Rao (2002) assessed relationship between attitudes and willingness to
provide accommodations.
Faculty at institutions
of higher education need to be better informed about disabilities and
students with disabilities to improve their attitudes. Qualitative methods
can be used to 'explore' substantive areas about which little is known or
about which not much is known, to gain novel understandings. A qualitative
study may be undertaken to find out the feelings/ perceptions of the
faculty regarding teaching students with disabilities that may involve
making accommodations and investigate what information and support services
faculty require to provide accommodations. Possible impact of faculty
attitudes on faculty willingness to provide accommodations and students'
success needs to be explored. Findings and action taken may lead to
satisfying and successful experiences for both, faculty and students.
References
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (1990).
Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations,
28 C.F.R. Parts 36-38 (1990).
Antonak, R. F. (1988). Methods to measure
attitudes toward people who are disabled. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.) Attitudes
toward persons with disabilities (109-126). New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Askamit, D., Morris, M., & Leunberger, J.
(1987). Preparation of student services professionals and faculty for
serving learning-disabled college students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 28(3), 53-59
Baggett, D. W. (1993). Study of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst faculty's knowledge of disabilities, experience
with educating students with disabilities, and attitudes that faculty
possess towards students with disabilities. (Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 54,
06A.
Baggett, D. (1994, March). A study of faculty
awareness of students with disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the National Association for Developmental Education, Kansas
City, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 369208).
Beilke, J. R., & Yssel, N. (1998).
Personalizing disability. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4(2),
212-223.
Benham, N. E. (1995). Faculty attitudes and
knowledge regarding specific disabilities and The Americans with
Disabilities Act. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern
Mississippi, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 01A, (1995).
Chubon, R. A. (1992). Attitudes toward
disability: Addressing fundamentals of attitude theory and research in
rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 301-312.
Cook, D. (1992). Psychological impact of
disability. In R. M. Parker, & E. M. Szymanski, (Ed.), Rehabilitation
counseling basics and beyond (pp. 249-272), Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Fichten, C. S. (1988). Students with physical
disabilities in higher education: Attitudes and beliefs that affect
integration. In H. E. Yuker, (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with
disabilities (pp. 171-186). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Fonosch. G. G., & Schwab, L. O. (1981).
Attitudes of selected university faculty members toward disabled students,
Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 229-235.
Ibrahim, F. A., & Herr, E. L. (September,
1982). Modification of attitudes toward disability: Differential effect of
two education models. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29-36.
Junco, R. (2002). Assessing an online
training program's ability to change attitudes towards students with
disabilities. (Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,
2002). Available: http://www.iuhp.edu/ODSS/docs/thesis/thesis.pdf.
Katz, I., Hass, R. G., & Bailey, J.
(1988). Attitudinal ambivalence and behavior toward people with
disabilities. In H. E. Yuker, (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with
disabilities (47-57). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Kleinsasser, C. L. (1999). College faculty's
and staff's attitude and knowledge concerning learning disabilities:
Implications for staff development. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
South Dakota, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 07A, (1999).
Lewis, M. L. (1998). Faculty attitudes toward
persons with disabilities and faculty Attitudes toward to accommodate
students with learning disabilities in the classroom. (Doctoral
dissertation, Auburn University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59, 08-A, (1998).
Livneh, H. (1982). Factor analysis of the
Attitude Toward Disabled persons Scale-form A. Rehabilitation Psychology,
27(4), 235-24.
Livneh, H. (1998). A dimensional perspective
on the origin of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In H.
E. Yuker, (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (35-46). New
York: Springer Publishing Company.
McCarthy, M., & Campbell, N. J. (1993).
Serving disabled students: Faculty needs and attitudes. NAPSA Journal,
30(2), 120-125.
McGee, K. A. (1989). Attitudes of the
University of Virginia faculty and administration toward disabled college
students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1989).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 10A, (1989).
National Center for Education Statistics
(1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of
preparation, participation, and outcomes. NCES 1999-187, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Rao, M. S. (2002). Students with disabilities
in higher education: Faculty attitudes and willingness to provide
accommodations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville.
Schoen, E., Usyal, M., & McDonald, C. D.
(1986). Attitudes of faculty members toward treatment of disabled students
reexamined. College Student Journal, 21(2), 190-193.
Scott, S. S. (1991). The involvement of
special education faculty with college students with disabilities.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, (1991). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 12A, (1991).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. (1973).
Thomas, S.B. (2000). College students and
disability law. Journal of Special Education, 33, 248-257.
Williamson, P. T. (2000). Attitudes of the
Troy State University Dothan faculty toward students with disabilities
(Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 2000). WorldCat, OCLC: 44857670.
Wilzinki, F. (1991, April). Use of the
attitude toward mainstreaming scale with undergraduate students. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the New England Educational Research
Organization, Portsmouth, NH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
332992).
Yuker, H. E. (ed.). (1988). Attitudes toward
persons with disabilities. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986).
Research with Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) 1960-1985.
Hampstead, NY: Hofstra University Center for the Study of Attitudes Toward
Disabilities.
Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell,
W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons.
Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.
~~~~~~~~
By Shaila Rao, Western
Michigan University
|