Content uploaded by Frances K. Stage
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frances K. Stage on Aug 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ohio State University Press
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Higher
Education.
http://www.jstor.org
Invisible Scholars: Students with Learning Disabilities
Author(s): Frances K. Stage and Nancy V. Milne
Source:
The Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 67, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1996), pp. 426-445
Published by: Ohio State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2943806
Accessed: 05-08-2015 15:36 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Frances K. Stage
Nancy V. Milne
Invisible
Scholars
Students
with
Learning
Disabilities
Increasing
numbers
of students with
learning
disabilities
enroll in
college (Hartman
& Krulwich, 1984; Milne,
1989;
Satcher, 1992;
Shea, 1994;
Wilczenski & Gillespie-Silver, 1992).
Stu-
dents with
learning
disabilities have been
found
to have
essentially
the
same
motives for
obtaining
a
college degree
as
their
nondisabled peers:
to obtain
further
education
or
training,
to learn a
particular skill,
to
go
to
college
because
everybody
else
goes,
to
go
because
a
family
member
wants them to go,
to earn a degree,
or
to fulfill
a desire
for
future
meaningful
employment (Faland & Haulbich,
1981; Harrison,
1982;
Milne, 1989).
The term
"learning disabled"
describes
a heterogeneous group
of in-
dividuals who
are
unable
to
learn
specific
academic skills
often
despite
having normal or above normal
intelligence. Section
504
of the Reha-
bilitation
Act
of
1973
defined
learning
disabilities to be a
handicapping
condition that
must
be
accommodated
by
federally
funded institutions
of
higher education
(Vogel,
1982). Additionally,
colleges
that
recruit
and
admit
students, including
students with
learning disabilities,
have a
moral
obligation
to
provide academic
support resources
necessary
for
those
students to
succeed
(Mangrum & Strichart,
1984; Satcher,
1992;
Stage
& Manning, 1992). Some guidance exists
for
college
officials
who
seek to inform
themselves
of
the
needs
of
students
with
learning
disabilities
(Aune
& Johnson,
1992; Brinckerhoff,
Shaw,
& McGuire,
1992; Mellard
& Hazel, 1992;
Satcher, 1992;
Scott, 1994).
However,
more
information
is
needed.
Frances K. Stage
is
associate
professor
of
education at
Indiana University,
Bloom-
ington,
and
Nancy
V.
Milne
resides in
Williston,
Vermont.
Journal
of
Higher
Education,
Vol.
67,
No.
4
(July/August
1996)
Copyright
1996
by
the
Ohio State
University
Press
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with
Learning
Disabilities 427
In
the
academic arena,
adults with
learning disabilities
reported hav-
ing significant
problems with
reading, spelling,
arithmetic,
written composi-
tion, and
handwriting
(Hoffman, Sheldon,
Minskoff,
Sautter, Steidle,
Baker, Bailey
& Echols,
1987; Milne,
1989). Research on
college stu-
dents with
learning
disabilities is
limited. Some case
studies
focus
on
the
idiosyncratic
experiences
and needs
of
one
individual
(Ganschow,
1984; Meyers,
1985; Rawson,
1982).
Nevertheless,
a growing literature
suggests
that these
students
share some
common
traits
(Hughes
& Su-
ritsky, 1994;
Shafrir & Siegel, 1994; Zawaiza & Gerber,
1993). For ex-
ample, negative attitudes
and perceptions
are apparent
in college
students with
learning
disabilities as well
as their
faculty
and fellow
students
(Houck, Asselin,
Troutman,
& Arrington, 1992;
Milne, 1989;
Silverman
& Zigmond, 1983).
Such
negative
attitudes and
perceptions
could possibly
interfere with
the
college
experience
of
these
students.
The
purpose
of
this study was to
explore
the
experiences of
college stu-
dents with
learning
disabilities. The results
of this
investigation
add
to
the
slowly
accumulating
literature
regarding
the
affective and behav-
ioral characteristics
of
adults
with
learning
disabilities.
Learning
Disability
The
definition
of
learning disabilities has been
discussed
extensively
in
the
literature
(see Kavale, Forness & Lorsbach, 1991;
or
Swanson,
1991
for
overviews).
In
general,
these
discussions
seek
operational
defi-
nitions that
might
be used
for
diagnosis.
However,
for
general
informa-
tional
discussion, many authors
(Hammill,
1986; 1990;
Milne, 1989;
Silver, 1988;
Swanson,
1991)
continue
to employ
the
definition first
adopted by
the National
Joint
Committee
for
Learning
Disabilities
in
1981:
Learning disabilities is
a generic
term that
refers
to a heterogeneous
group of
disorders
manifested by significant
difficulties in the
acquisition
and use
of
listening, speaking,
reading,
writing, reasoning,
or
mathematical
abilities. These disorders
are
intrinsic
to
the
individual and
presumed
to
be
due to central
nervous
system
disfunction. Even
though
a
learning disability
may
occur
concomitantly
with other
handicapping
conditions
(e.g., sensory
impairment,
mental
retardation,
social
and
emotional
disturbances)
or en-
vironmental
influences
(e.g.,
cultural
differences,
insufficient/
inappropriate
instruction,
psychogenic
factors),
it
is
not
the
direct
result
of
those
condi-
tions
or
influences
(National
Joint Committee
on
Learning
Disabilities,
1987, p. 107).
A learning
disability
is often
hidden.
The
casual
observer
may
not
realize
that
difficulty
in
processing
information can
cause
a person
to
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
428 Journal of
Higher Education
cope differently from
others
in
learning and
living situations. An
indi-
vidual who thinks
logically and clearly
may be physically unable
to
write
a simple paragraph.
In
fact,
one of the characteristics of individu-
als with learning disabilities
is inconsistency
of
performance.
The na-
ture
of
the disability
is such that
it
is likely
to become apparent
in
academic settings.
The
impact
increases as more
demands
are
placed
on
these skills. Yet,
because many adults
with
learning disabilities
have
normal
or
above
normal intelligence, many
of them
devise
extraordi-
nary coping mechanisms
to hide or overcome
the disability (Hartman
& Krulwich, 1984).
The regulations clarifying
Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act
of
1973 were issued
in 1977. Section 504 prohibits
recipients
of
federal
funds
from
discriminating
because
of
disabilities.
The 19
January
1981
regulations to implement
the
Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended,
included
within
the
definition
those
individuals
with
learning
disabili-
ties. Individualized
programs
to
improve
the
ability
of a student with
a
learning disability
to learn have been available
in
elementary and
sec-
ondary
schools
for
two decades.
In the
early eighties
an estimated
720,000 college students
were
learning
disabled (Cohen, 1984).
Increases
in
services provided
by public
schools meant
expanding
numbers
of
students
with
learning
disabilities who entered
college (Astin,
Green,
Korn, Schalit,
& Berg, 1988; Shea, 1994;
Wilczenski & Gillespie-Silver,
1992).
Greater awareness and
more
sophisticated
diagnostic techniques
mean
that
these numbers
continue to
grow
rapidly.
Limited
research is
available
to
guide
college
officials and
those
specializing
in the area of
learning disabilities.
Most
college
courses
rely heavily
on
verbal
skills, (i.e.,
understanding
lectures, reading
textbooks
and related
literature, writing papers, par-
ticipating
in
discussions,
and
making
oral
presentations).
Unfortunately,
professors
are often unable and sometimes
unwilling
to
recognize
stu-
dents with
learning
problems (Stage
& Manning, 1992).
Some
faculty
do
not
consider
it their
responsibility
to
modify
curriculum and educa-
tional
methods
to accommodate students with
learning
disabilities.
Others
are not
sure
how
to
alter course materials and
assignments
and
still maintain consistent standards
of
evaluation
(Indiana
University
Office
of
Affirmative
Action, 1995).
Unsurprisingly,
measures
of
academic
performance
for
students
with
learning disabilities
who are
admitted
to
college tend to be low. Addi-
tionally,
students
with
learning
disabilities
perform
less well
in
college
than
might
be
predicted
by
their
high-school
performance (Wilczenski
& Gillespie-Silver,
1992). McGuire, Hall,
and
Litt
(1991)
and
Brinck-
erhoff, Shaw,
and
McGuire
(1992)
described
the
specific support
ser-
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with
Learning Disabilities 429
vice needs
of
college students
with learning
disabilities.
In addition to
such
information, assessment
devices that
provide reliable
and valid in-
formation
about the college
student with
a learning disability
in rela-
tion to their
various environments
are needed.
Providing
effective programs
for students
who have learning
disabili-
ties
requires
cooperative endeavors
among students, peers,
tutors, and
faculty. Such
efforts demand
mutual understanding
and
supporting at-
titudes (Aune & Johnson,
1992). Additionally,
extraordinary
means
might
be necessary
to
overcome
negative
attitudes and
perceptions
on
the
part
of peers and faculty
as well as students
with learning
disabili-
ties (Morris,
Leuenberger
& Aksamit, 1987).
Although
much research
evidence is based on studies
of younger,
precollege
students, many
authors have
pointed out that
attitudinal
barriers and organizational
structures
within
universities
may impede
the
attainment
of
handicapped students'
educational goals
(Brincker-
hoff, Shaw,
& Mcguire,
1992; Hawthorne,
1977; Walker,
1980). Such
restrictions
possibly flourish
because educators
have
limited opportuni-
ties
to
learn
about
the
educational implications
of
specific
learning dis-
abilities.
"Widespread
faculty and administrative
support
cannot
be
expected
to
develop
in an environment of
misconceptions
and
negative
attitudes about
learning disabilities"
(Vogel,
1982, p.
519).
This study
explored
experiences of college
students
with learning
disabilities
as well as the
ways
in
which
they adjusted
to
college.
The
literature suggested
that
the
degree
of
match,
or
fit, between
student
and institution led to increased student
satisfaction
and academic
achievement (Williams,
1987). Exploring
how students with
learning
disabilities
perceived
the
university
and their
relationship
to it
has
potential
for
contributing
to the
understanding
of
satisfaction
and ad-
justment
to
college. Many
studies have found
that
individual
character-
istics, such
as family background,
relate
to
college
success, persistence,
and
departure
rates
(Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991).
Administrators
and
faculty
might
find
it
useful
to understand
the factors
that
influence
success and satisfaction
of
college
for
students
with
learning
disabilities
in
order to
enhance
their
learning experiences
on
campus.
Research
Methods
In
order
to describe
students'
attitudes,
perceptions,
and
experiences,
naturalistic
inquiry
methods
were selected.
These
methods allow the
researcher
to
engage
in
such
description
(Stage, 1992)
and
provide
in-
sider
perspectives
within
the
context of their natural
setting (Whitt,
1991).
The
ethnographic
interview,
in
particular,
allows the researcher
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
430 Journal of Higher
Education
"to discover the meaning that people
construct from involvement
in a
community" (Manning, 1992,
p. 91). Wolcott
(1988)
describes
ethno-
graphy as "literally,
a picture
of
the
'way
of
life'
of
some
identifiable
group
of
people" (p. 188).
Ethnographic techniques
allowed us
to learn
from individual students'
interpretations
of their educational
experi-
ences and therefore were chosen
for this study. Semistructured
inter-
views were used
to collect descriptive data regarding
the
experiences
of
college students with
learning disabilities. Sources
of
data
for
this study
included respondents
as well as documents
and
records.
The
research was
conducted at a large state-supported
research uni-
versity in the Midwest. Eight
undergraduate students
with
learning dis-
abilities were selected by
the director of Disabled
Student
Services
and
Veteran Affairs. Criteria used
by
the
director in consultation with
the
researchers included choosing
students
with a
range
of learning disabili-
ties who were at various points
in their academic career
and
used
the
services provided by
the
disabled student services
office.
The
sample
in-
cluded not only students with
positive
views
about
their
learning dis-
abilities and
the
support
services
in the school
but
also students
who
felt
negative about
their
experiences.
To supplement the information
provided by
the
students,
three other
informants were
included
in
the study.
The
director of
Disabled
Stu-
dents Services
and
Veteran
Affairs provided
a
historical
perspective
on
the
services and specific
information regarding
the
interviewees.
In ad-
dition, a tutor recommended
as exemplary by
the
director
as
well as by
one of the
students
was interviewed.
Finally,
a professor
named
by
the
director
was
included because of his
positive
attitude
and interaction
with
the
office over time. Institutional
documents
including
each stu-
dent's
class schedule,
course grades,
and
psychoeducational
assessments
were
examined.
The psychologist
responsible
for
the
testing
and as-
sessment of students
thought
to
have a
learning disability
at the univer-
sity interpreted
assessment
records
for this
study.
Data Collection
and Analysis
Data collection and data
analysis
occurred
simultaneously.
In
other
words, existing
data informed collection
and interpretation
of addi-
tional data. Interviews began
at
the
start
of the
academic
year.
Topics
and
questions
were
developed
to
guide
the direction
of the
initial
inter-
view.
Questions
were
open-ended
and helped
determine areas
to
be
dis-
cussed
in the
second
interview,
but
students tended to dominate
the
conversation
with their
concerns
and
issues
and
required
little
prompt-
ing
from the
interviewer.
Not all
respondents
were asked all
questions
on
the
interview
guide,
and other
questions
not
included
on
the
guide
were
raised as
the
conversation
indicated.
I
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students with
Learning
Disabilities 431
Topics explored with the students included: (a) a general description
of
the
students' college experiences; (b) students' experiences
with fac-
ulty, peers, and tutors; (c) student's comparison of himself
or herself
to
others; and (d) strategies the student employed in his or her
studies.
Probing was used to solicit greater depths
of
information.
Each of the
eight key respondents (the college students
with learning
disabilities)
was interviewed
twice, totaling
two
to two and one half
hours. The first interview occurred in the fall semester; the second in-
terview took place at the start of the spring term. Interviews
were con-
ducted in a private
location
and tape-recorded. Respondents
signed a
consent form granting the researcher permission to use direct
quota-
tions and giving the respondents an opportunity to review the
findings
before the
final conclusions were drafted. Notes
were
reviewed and
ex-
panded upon immediately
after the interview
and tapes
were
transcribed.
Key informants (the director of Disabled Student Services
and
Vet-
eran Affairs, a tutor, and a faculty member) were interviewed
one time.
Additionally, information was sought regarding the institutional
context
in which these students with learning disabilities were required
to
per-
form.
These interviews served
to
provide comparisons
of
and
insights
into information provided by key respondents.
Analysis of transcribed data included
the initial
process
of
unitizing
phrases, sentences, or paragraphs that contained a complete
thought.
Units
were
then
sorted
into
general categories according
to themes
iden-
tified from the basic units. Sorting occurred on an ongoing basis
begin-
ning
with
the
unitization
of the
first
transcript. Eventually
data
were
grouped
into
primarily descriptive categories.
Some units
of
data
were
placed
in
more than
one
category. Developing
and
refining
categories
continued until units
of
data
were
incorporated under
a topic.
Finally,
each of
these categories was grouped under
a general
theme
that
was
used
to
report
the
data
(Bogdan
& Taylor, 1975;
Guba
& Lincoln, 1981).
Trustworthiness
Several
techniques
were
employed
to ensure
trustworthiness (Lin-
coln
& Guba, 1985; Whitt, 1991).
A peer debriefer read notes
and dis-
cussed classifications. Member checking2 was employed
to validate
data, analytical categories, interpretations,
and conclusions
(Miles
&
Huberman, 1984).
Detailed
description
was provided
to enable
the
reader
to
determine how much of the results were relevant
to their
own
campus situation. Additionally,
the
researchers provided as much
back-
ground
context
as possible
to
facilitate
the
reader's understanding,
yet
maintain
confidentiality. Finally,
an
audit
trail
was maintained
through-
out the
course
of the
study
as a method
of
establishing dependability
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
432 Journal of Higher Education
and confirmability.
The
audit trail consisted of the raw data, products
of
data analysis, data reconstruction, and a journal.
The Respondents
The eight students who responded to this study represented a variety
of
learning disabilities, majors, and institutional ages within a research
university.
Half
the
students were
male
and half female. They ranged
in
age
from 19 to
30, all but
one
student were full-time students, the part-
time
student was
an
undecided major. The sample consisted of two so-
cial
work majors,
a psychology major, a math major, a music major, a
merchandise management major,
and an
advertising marketing major.
Grade point averages (GPAs) ranged from 2.26 up to 3.64. Three of the
students
had only
one
diagnosed disability, one with reading and two
with
dyslexia.
Two students
had
both
language and
math
disabilities,
two
students had
both
dyslexia and
math
disabilities,
and
one
student
had both reading and math disabilities.
Results
Themes resulting
from the
study
were
divided
into three
major
fo-
cuses:
(1) dispositional
factors
affecting
their
college experiences, (2)
institutional
factors
affecting
their
college experiences,
and
(3) coping
strategies
for
study
at the
university.
Dispositional
Factors
Dispositional
factors included attitudinal
or behavioral characteris-
tics of the
students
that
affected
their
experiences
in
college.
The
most
important attitudinal factor was
the
individual student's self-perception.
Each of
the
students
in
this
study reported negative feelings
of
self-
consciousness.
As a result
they
were reluctant to let
others know
of
their
disabilities.
At the weekly chapter meeting
I have to explain that the reason
I have to
leave
early
is because
I have to
go
meet
my
tutor because
I have a
learning
disability.
It
is kind
of
embarrassing,
but it is not that
big
of
a deal
(Pat).3
I still walk under a dark cloud.
I still am
a little touchy on the subject of
being learning
disabled.
And
you
know when
you
have to
deal
with
any
of
your peers
that
you
are
not
as good as they are, you're
a little hesitant
(Blake).
Some
students attributed this self-consciousness
to
years
of
believing
that
they
were
not
trying hard enough. They
had been
told
that
they
were
using
their
disability
as
an excuse and had
received
negative
reac-
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with Learning Disabilities 433
tions from others.
Those reactions sometimes
caused them
to wonder
whether their disability
was 'real.'
I think sometimes
I let my learning disability control too much. I don't
un-
derstand something,
so
I
blame it
on
my learning disability. . . . I've leaned
on my learning
disability so much as
a youth that it is a crutch
and when I
get stuck I blame
it on the learning disability.
I'll get tense, I'll
start thinking
about the learning
disability and the
problems and how everything
is just
not working out
(Blake).
They'd tell me
I could be excused from
courses that were going
to be too
hard;
that
didn't
make me feel real
great (Kyle).
As a result of
these attitudes or dispositions,
students
modified their
behaviors
in
academic
settings
in
ways
that
might have
thwarted
their
academic
progress.
Often they did
not
participate fully
in classroom
activities.
It will be a cool
day
in
hell when
I
raise
my hand, because that's
just a fear
of
mine, of being
wrong (Terry).
I don't open my
mouth too much
in class cause there is a chance
of
getting
embarrassed. I did that one time,
I got
confused,
I said the wrong
thing and
I was misinterpreted.
I knew what
I wanted to say, but I said it
wrong
(Chris).
This group project
I
was
a
part of, was
not a great experience.
We
each
had
to
write out things
on the
board and
I refused
to do that.
I normally
don't
do
that,
but
I
just
could
not
risk
misspelling
in front of the
class
(Kelly).
Some
students,
however, were
able to use
participation
in
class to
their
advantage;
they
had modified
their
behavior
in
some
classes to
compensate
for
their disabilities.
In
other
classes
that's how
I learn best. If
I have
a
question
I raise my
hand.
That's my personality
a lot,
too
(Jessie).
I'm
a verbal person.
You want
them to know
you,
and
you
want
them to
know that
you're
a good
student,
so
you
almost
overcompensate
(Kelly).
Motivation
played
a key
role
in
the
lives
of all the
interviewees.
An
internal
impetus
to
succeed
at
college
work was
a prime
factor
in
their
university experience.
Unanimously
they
took
responsibility
for their
college
status
and
attributed
their drive and
ambition
to a number
of
factors.
Last semester
I was
at the
library
every day
because
I was sick
of
getting
bad
grades,
sick
of the teachers
not
understanding.
I
got
a 3.0 GPA. ' know
I can
do it (Terry).
My
most
satisfying,
I
think,
was
probably
pulling
almost
an "A"
out
of
that
138 class, cause
that
showed
me
I knew
I could
do it
(Chris).
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
434 Journal
of Higher
Education
A satisfying experience
for me has been basically making
it. . . . I've done
it by myself (Terry).
The students seemed
uniquely able to recognize
their own
accomplish-
ments,
no matter
how
small, and
to
reward
themselves
by cherishing
such achievements. Undoubtedly,
this was an
important
factor in main-
taining
their
high
levels
of motivation.
Institutional
Factors
Institutional factors
included aspects of
the
university that helped
or
hindered students' progress
toward
their
goals. Students
mentioned
fac-
ulty, tutors, and peers
as important
elements
in their
college experiences.
Interactions with faculty
seemed to cover
the
broadest
range
for the
students
interviewed.
For
some
students,
an
experience
with a faculty
member was among
the
most
positive
of their
university experiences;
for
others
it
was
among
the most
negative.
Fortunately,
each
student
was
able
to
recount
positive
instances
of
helpfulness,
concern,
and
ac-
commodation for
their
learning disabilities.
Usually,
with
my professors
the
response
is "really,
I would
have
never
guessed?" and
then
they
have me
talk
about
learning
disabilities
(Jessie).
Last
year
I had a class
with 350 plus students.
. . . Well I had to con-
stantly keep up
with
him. . . That
was
a nice
bonus,
to
be able
to com-
municate with
the
professor
and
have him know who
you
are.
Now
I see
him
all over
campus
and
he
talks to me.
With most
professors,
it's been
that
way (Blake).
However,
not all
faculty
were
sensitive
to the
needs
of
students
with
learning disabilities. Some
faculty and associate instructors
were unwill-
ing
to allow
extra time for
examinations and papers,
even
when
the
student had
requested
such
arrangements
at
the
beginning
of
the
se-
mester.
I told
the
professor
that I was dyslexic and she said,
"Well, we
can't
really
do
anything
about
that.
You're
going
to
have
to take the test
just
like
every-
body
else."
I explained
that
I was
asking
for
more time
and she
said, "Well,
I don't know
if we can give you more time" (Chris).
I
thought I'd do
it
orally
on
a tape recorder and hand
him the tape recorder
as my paper. Well,
he
said,
"It better not be more than
four
minutes
long.
Papers are supposed
to be
three to four pages." Okay,
so honestly, it was
like
61/2
minutes
and
he
took
points
off for that
(Terry).
Each of the
students
had met cooperation
and understanding by
some of their
faculty
members.
The
advantage
of a one-to-one interac-
tion
between student
and
faculty
member was an important factor
in
a
student's success for that
class.
Obviously,
the
university's large
class
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students with
Learning
Disabilities 435
sizes often
interfered
with those
relationships. Sometimes
tutors
were
able to fill an
important personal role in students' academic lives.
I had this tutor
who was
a
grad student and she knew what
I was capable of
and when I was
being lazy she would be like, "come on, just go home, I
don't
really want
to work with you, you
are
just being lazy. . . ." She was
strict,
like
when
I had
a paper due tomorrow,
she
would say "why did you
procrastinate so
long?" That's what I need
(Terry).
Most often
however, tutors were mentioned in a negative light. The
university merely provided
the
students with
lists
of
students'
names
who were
willing
to tutor. These
prospective tutors
were
academically
talented students
who
wished
to earn
money
and
who often
had no
knowledge of
teaching techniques nor of learning disabilities. Addi-
tionally, they
were
provided
no
special training
or
guidance by
the uni-
versity
or
Disabled Student Services.
They just give you a list and say, "Here, you pick them out yourself." It's
hard to find out who I'm
going
to
need. They
have no
screening program
for
anybody. . . . I have
been
to the Education
building, picking up
tu-
tors' names
off
the bulletin board and
it's just people
who
are looking
for
an
extra penny
(Terry).
I really
like
to stick
to
what
I say
I'm
going
to
do. . . . So when
tutors
don't come
through
and I'm depending
on them,
that's
a real
problem
(Alex).
In
addition to problems
with
tutors,
most
students reported having dif-
ficulty paying
for the
tutoring.
The Disabled Student
Services office
paid $4.50 per
hour,
but some tutors
charged up
to
$10 per
hour.
The
respondents paid the
difference out
of their own
pockets, and that
sometimes
created
financial
hardships.
Students'
relationships
with
peers
vis-'a-vis
their
learning
disabilities
covered
a
wide
range.
Behaviors
varied
on the
part
of the
students with
disabilities
as well
as
on the
part
of their
peers.
Some students were
very
open
about their
disabilities and had
a
wide range
of
friends,
others as-
sociated
primarily
with other
students
with
disabilities.
At
least half
the
students
were reluctant
to
share
information
with
others.
My girlfriend
doesn't
know
(Blake).
It
never comes
up
(Alex).
I don't
do the
whole
disability
scenario because
it
is
just
an
excuse to me
and I don't use it
as an excuse
(Terry).
Unfortunately,
when
the information
was shared,
some reactions
on
the
parts
of
peers
were
not
positive
and
ranged
from
skepticism
to
out-
right negative
reactions.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
436 Journal of Higher
Education
I'll
tell
them, "I swear to
God, you guys,
I'm
totally
dyslexic,
I'm
totally
learning disabled." And they're
like,
"shut
up, you
are not, what do you
mean?" (Blake).
I'm still feeling out when I should share my
disability because now my
roommates
seem to think that
they
have
to
explain
everything
to me
(Alex).
One student
was
unable to
convince
a fellow student with
a learning
disability
that she
had
the same
problem.
So this
guy is like, "Oh, you
would never understand
my learning disabil-
ity."
And I'm like, "Yeah I would,
I am too." And
he's like, "You are not,
shut
up, you
are
not." . . . To this
day
he
doesn't
believe
me
(Terry).
Terry's
experience was
poignant in that it seemed
appropriate and per-
haps
particularly useful that
two friends with
learning disabilities might
share
resources, work
together,
or simply commiserate.
The young
man
however, seemed only able
to interpret his
friend's disclosure
as an
attempt to
patronize.
In
contrast, however, many
reactions were
positive and
ranged
from
supportive
curiosity
or
reassurance
and
understanding
comments.
There's a[nother] guy
in
the
house who has
a learning disability
and he's
just
no
big
deal
(Pat).
Wow,
I didn't know
that you
were
dyslexic;
wow that's
pretty
neat
(Chris).
Interestingly enough, peers tended
to
assume that
a
student's
long
hours
spent
in
the
library
indicated
a high
level of
intelligence.
Some
of
the
students
permitted
their
friends to continue with that
impression.
Coping Strategies
The
students described
skill
areas
and specific
subjects
where their
disabilities
impacted
their
academic
performance.
Learning
disabilities
had a negative influence on
reading, writing, organization
of
thoughts,
and
processing
information.
Mathematics, foreign
language,
and
polit-
ical science courses were
repeatedly
mentioned as
particularly problem-
atic for the
students
interviewed.
All
the
students
had
developed management
techniques
of
various
kinds to
compensate
for their
disabilities.
These
behaviors often
com-
bined
coping strategies.
Tactics described
ranged
from various exer-
cises
to relieve stress to
various
types
of
study
schemes
to methods
for
handling
their
own feelings
of
inadequacy.
Time
was
frequently
men-
tioned as an
enemy
of the
students who
quickly
learned
that
they
did
not
have
time
to
apply every
study strategy
to
every
class.
So you
just
have
to
figure
out how to use
your
time
because
if
you
do all
the
stuff
to
try
to
compensate,
it is too
much.
You
don't have
time
for that and
you get
frustrated
(Kyle).
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with
Learning
Disabilities 437
The most
common
strategy
mentioned was
putting in greater
amounts
of
time
than their
peers on their
coursework.
When I see friends do
better than
me without
putting in much
time study-
ing,
I
just want to
shoot them! I really grew to
resent my
roommate who
was
carrying 17
credits and pulling
As and Bs and still had time
to play
(Kelly).
I work
at least two
more hours per
class, if not
more,
depending on how
much
reading
I have to do
(Chris).
It
seemed that over the
course of
their
academic careers
students had
attempted
a wide range
of
strategies
for
learning class material.
More
than
other students
perhaps, they
had learned
how they
learned best.
For
some,
possibly
that
meant never
reading
the text
and
concentrating
on
lectures. For others
that meant
never going
to class and
reading ev-
ery
book on the
subject.
Still
others effectively
combined
the
two ap-
proaches.
I can't
read textbooks
very well. It
frustrates me.
It takes up too
much of
my
time
and
then
I end
up realizing
that
half of
what
the
professor
wants
isn't in the
book
anyway (Kyle).
If it's a professor that
wants book
stuff,
then
I don't
usually go
to
class
and
concentrate instead
on
reading
the
book.
There
was
one
class
I
took,
where
I went
to class
5
times and
I got an
A-. I
just read
the
book and 3
others
that were
like
it,
and
got
somebody's
notes
(Blake).
In
general,
the
students with
learning disabilities
followed
study ap-
proaches
that would
be useful to anyone
in
college. Such strategies
seemed
to
be more
central
to their
work habits than
to
those of the
average
college
student.
Strategies
included
underlining
what
the
pro-
fessor
emphasized
so that
it
could
be
highlighted
in
review;
constantly
reviewing
material;
making
a daily
routine of
classes,
studying,
tutor-
ing, and
free time
that
worked
well; blocking
out
time
for
certain as-
signments; spending
time
at
the
library
in
a "study"
atmosphere;
and
setting goals such
as short-term
daily
checklists as well as long-term
career
oriented
goals.
Some students relied
on
a tutor,
while others
re-
lied
on
a friend
or
family
member for
help
with
particular
subjects.
I really
rely
on
my
memory
and a lot of times
I think
I am
cheating. Maybe
I don't
really
know this
information.
Maybe
I'm
just
memorizing
it
(Kelly).
I'm doing everything,
setting
time
aside, getting
up in the
morning
and
studying.
But
I
just
can't
quite
handle
the
subject
matter
by
myself,
I have
to
depend
on
someone
else,
like
a tutor
(Alex).
I basically
block out time
on
my
calendar
saying
"paper"
and that's when
I
work on
it,
so
I am
not
doing
it at
the
last minute
(Pat).
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
438 Journal of Higher
Education
If someone else is reading aloud and I am following along,
I get that really
good.
That's the
ideal situation,
hearing
it
and
being
able to see it at
the
same
time.
I see
it,
hear
it,
read
it.
Three
ways
rather
than
one,
more
rein-
forcement
(Chris).
A strategy commonly suggested
for students with
learning
disabili-
ties
is
to make a tape-recording
of the lecture
for
later
review
and
note
taking. However, as described by students
in
this
study,
the
approach
was not
without its drawbacks.
This semester
I started taping one of
my classes,
so
we'll
see how that works
out. You really do take
in
what the professor
is
saying
if
you
aren't
preoccu-
pied with taking notes. . . . I'll
set
up
a time before each
class, maybe
a
day
in
advance
to
just
listen to one
and
a half
hours of
tape.
It
is
time con-
suming and
I don't have
a lot
of
time this
semester,
but that
is
what
I have
to do
(Blake).
Once students had identified their best
learning methods,
shortcuts
that worked could be implemented. In a positive sense,
that meant stu-
dents
with
learning disabilities
knew what
they
had
to
do
in order
to
get
good grades.
The
downside was that
they
often
had
to forsake other
learning opportunities -such as
giving up going to the lecture
in
order
to
have
more time
to read -to allow enough
time to
devote
to their
best
strategies.
Discussion
This research described
the
experiences
of a small
sample
of
under-
graduate students at a large research
university and holds limited gen-
eralizability.
The
major purpose of the
study was to create awareness of
the
experiences
of
a particular segment
of the
college student popula-
tion.
It
is likely that
some
students with
learning disabilities
have
expe-
riences unlike those described here.
For
example, students
in
this study
were
highly motivated and
had a degree
of
success
at the
college
level.
Students
with
learning
disabilities who had
already dropped
out of
col-
lege were not included
in
this study.
Nevertheless, the results of this
study provided
an
opportunity
to
make
observations and recommenda-
tions that
may shed
some
light
on
the
problems
faced
by college stu-
dents
with
learning
disabilities.
Interviews
conducted
with
eight
students with
learning disabilities
resulted
in
dispositional
as well
as institutional factors that affected
their
experiences.
All students had
developed
a set
or sets of
coping
strategies
that
helped
them
contend
with various
types
of academic
sit-
uations. Often
those
strategies
were not
unlike
approaches
that
might
be
used
by any good
student
intent on
learning
material for
a course.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with Learning
Disabilities 439
Many of the
experiences
the
students
described
had to
do with
their
views of
themselves
intellectually
and
academically.
Similar
to other
lit-
erature
on students
with
learning
disabilities,
many
of those
perceptions
were negative,
possibly
based on years
of uneven
classroom
success
(Miller,
McKinley,
& Ryan, 1979).
Additionally,
students
often encoun-
tered
experiences
that
reinforced
those
negative
self perceptions.
Those
negative
opinions
in turn,
colored
students'
academic
behaviors.
The
students
were
often reluctant
to
participate
in classroom
expe-
riences
that
might demonstrate
their disability
in
front
of an audience.
Students had refused
to answer
questions,
to read,
to write
on the
board,
or
to
participate
in
some
kinds
of group
learning
activities.
In
instances
where
students
had
not informed
the
instructor
of their
dis-
ability, it is possible
that their
grades
had suffered.
Additionally,
be-
cause
of the fear
of participation,
many
of the
students
were unable
to
avail
themselves of the
full
range
of
classroom
learning
opportunities,
such
as rendering
an
opinion,
leading
a class exercise,
or
taking
notes
and
reporting
to class
from
a group discussion.
A common trait of
these
students
seemed
to be a high
level
of moti-
vation
coupled
with
a realistic view
of their
own possibilities.
Some
of
them
had
learned
to take
special
pride
in
small accomplishments
such
as a high grade
on a particular
assignment
even
if they
did
not earn a
high
grade for
the entire
course.
Another
aspect
of students' disposition,
frequent
expressions
of
anger,
resulted
from
students'
interactions with
faculty
and peers.
A primary
source
of irritation
was
due
to misperceptions
about
them and
their
disability.
Because
their
disabilities
were
invisible,
faculty
often were
skeptical
and
resistant
to students'
requests
for
special
accommoda-
tions.
More
than
once, students
expressed
the
frustration
that if
they
were
in
a wheelchair
or
presented
other
visible
disabilities,
teachers
would
accommodate
their
needs
more
readily.
In
justice
to the
college
professors
in
question,
it
is unlikely
that
many
of
them
had
training
or
extensive experience
working
with college students
with
learning
dis-
abilities.
Determining
how much latitude
to give
students
in assign-
ments probably
falls
beyond
the
scope
of
their comfortable experience.
An
option
that
seemed
fair
for a
college
student with
a
learning
disabil-
ity
might
seem unfair
in
relation
to
other
students
in
the class.
At
the
institution
in
question,
such negotiations
were
left between
instructor
and student
with little
guidance.
Broad variations
on
strengths
and
weaknesses
among
students
natu-
rally
resulted
in a great
variety
of
coping
strategies.
Some relied
on
verbal
strengths
to impress
a professor
before
turning
in
written
as-
signments.
Others
concentrated
all effort
on
perfecting
written
assign-
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440 Journal
of
Higher
Education
ments
and
were reluctant
or had little
time
for personal
contact
with
professors.
Additionally,
professors'
singular
teaching
styles,
variations
in
subject
matter,
differing
class levels,
and
nature
of class
assignments
combined to
make
unique
demands
on the students.
Idiosyncratic
de-
mands of individual
classes
required
modifications
of individual
stu-
dent
behavior.
Strategies
for
learning
were
necessarily
adjusted
from
class to class to ensure
success.
Recommendations.
Clearly,
more information
is
needed
on
college
students
with learn-
ing
disabilities.
We
have
no answers
to simple questions
such as,
"what
proportion
of students
on
a given
campus
have learning
disabilities?"
Additionally,
other,
more
complicated
questions
require
answers.
What
criteria are used to
assess
learning
disabilities?
How much
and
what
kinds of educational
options
for students
with disabilities
are
fair
to
all
students in a class? How
might
colleges
and universities
fairly provide
equitable
educational
opportunities
to
students with
learning disabili-
ties
whom they
have knowingly
recruited?
Clearly,
uniform
and
widely
publicized
means within
and
across universities
for
identifying
students
with
disabilities
are
needed.
These
and
other
questions
provide
an
open
agenda
for
further
research.
A
tendency might
be
for
programs
for students with
learning
disabil-
ities to
focus
attention
and
efforts
on students themselves
(McGuire,
Hall, & Litt,
1991;
Meyers,
1985).
From
students'
narratives
in
the
present
study,
it appears
that
efforts
could
be
focused
on
others as well.
These students
find
themselves
functioning
in
an environment
that af-
fects them emotionally
as well
as academically.
Students
described
negative
reactions
from
faculty
and peers.
Such responses
are
most
likely
the result
of lack of experience
rather than maliciousness.
How-
ever,
the
net result
for
a student
who
has self-esteem
problems
to start
with
could be devastating.
Some of the obstacles
that
students
encountered
centered
around
their
relationships
with
faculty
who seemed
reluctant or uncertain
about
providing
variation
in tasks demanded
of
their
students.
Recent litera-
ture has described the
need
for variation
of
presentation
of materials
in
and
outside
the classroom
as well as variations
in
the
ways
in
which
students are allowed
to
express
their accumulated
knowledge.
Sources
describe
such
variations
as advantageous
to
students
of
varying
learn-
ing
styles (Kolb,
1985;
Russell
& Rothschadl,
1991),
women
(Clinchy,
1989; Harding,
1992),
ethnic
minorities
(Anderson,
1988;
Stage
& Man-
ning,
1992),
and students
at
varying
levels
of
cognitive
development
(Knefelkamp,
1974).
Clearly,
variation and flexibility
in
ways
of
pre-
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students with Learning
Disabilities 441
senting
information
(e.g.,
videotapes,
role play,
debates)
and expressive
style
(e.g., essays,
group
projects,
oral
tests)
in academic learning
would
serve
a broad
population,
not just students
with
learning
disabilities.
The university
in this
study
provided
a letter
certifying
that
a student
had
been diagnosed
with a learning
disability
and offered
to
provide
a
testing
situation
for
students
who
required more
time.
A faculty
devel-
opment
or other
university
service
office
could
provide
information
to
faculty
- educating
them on
what a
learning
disability
is,
how it is dif-
ferentiated
from
intelligence,
and supplying
examples
of the sorts
of
unevenness
of performance
presented
by students
with
learning
disabil-
ities.
Some
of the
students'
negative
experiences
occurred
with
reactions
to them by insensitive
peers.
Perhaps
it is unfortunate
that during
the
1970s
and 80s
students
with
a wide range
of
disabilities
and behavioral
problems
were
labeled as students
with learning
disabilities.
As a
result
the term 'learning
disability'
is likely
to hold
negative
connotations
for
other students.
Some
of the disbelief
that
peers
expressed
might
have to
do with
a
limited
view
that
encompassed
persons
with
extreme
learning
disabilities
rather than
those students commonly
studying
on
today's
college campus.
Clearly,
a
program
of
education
for all
college
students
would be helpful.
The
university
could easily
influence
these
students'
experiences
with
tutors.
Lists
of tutors
could,
at
the
very
least, be
annotated
to
include
information
about
length of
experience
working
with
college
students
with
learning
disabilities.
A notebook
or
card
file
of students'
evalua-
tions of tutors
might
be useful.
Finally,
a workshop
organized
by
the
director
of Disabled Student
Services
along
with
special
education
fac-
ulty
or
academic
learning
support personnel
could
be used
to
provide
"certification"
for tutors.
Those familiar
with
large
college
campuses
would
not
be
surprised
to hear
them
described
as cold
and isolating.
Compounded
with
that,
students
in this study had
an invisible disability
and were
separated
by
lack
of
knowledge
from
peers
who
shared
their
disabilities
and
expe-
riences.
It is
reasonable to expect
that
their institution
might
find
ways
to
provide
a network
of mutual
support
for these
students.
Administra-
tors
could facilitate
voluntary
activities
at little
cost.
Options
range
from
mentoring
of new students
by
more experienced
ones, to
facilitat-
ing
the
development
of a support/
awareness group,
to
creating
a space
or
lounge
for students
to
gather.
Merely providing
lists
of
tutors
and
minimum wage
reimbursement
for that
expenditure
strikes
one as
min-
imal in
the face
of the
tuition
and
activity
fees
paid by
these students.
A
support
group
would
allow students
to
share
information
regarding
fac-
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
442 Journal
of Higher Education
ulty who might be
willing
to work with them
and
their
disabilities. Ad-
ditionally,
it
would
provide
a venue for a clearinghouse
on campus
tutors
and
other
services
that
could
possibly
be
useful
to these
students.
These students
described
a wide
array
of
approaches to
study
and
learning. Many
programs offer
students laundry
lists of possible
strate-
gies, and
in
the words of
Terry,
"There
just
aren't that
many
hours
in
the
day" to
employ
all
of
them.
Help given to students
might
include
not
only a list of
strategies, but also
help
in
sorting out those
strategies
that might be
useful
for
an
individual student in
a particular type
of
class responding to
certain types of
learning tasks.
Finally, given the
range
described by students
in
their manner of
dealing with
faculty, clearly they
could
use guidance
in
communication
with
faculty.
Perhaps
students
could
present
their
instructors with
a list
of their
strengths
as well as their
weaknesses at the
beginning
of the
semester.
From
that list a student
might develop
a discussion of possi-
ble
performance
alternatives together
with the
instructor rather than
asking
for a specific
variance from a classroom
activity.
This
coopera-
tive
approach
might elicit a less
defensive response
from some
faculty.
In a positive
sense,
the
students with
learning
disabilities seemed to
have a
greater
academic
self-awareness
than
most
of their peers. Those
students who were
interviewed
in
this study knew
exactly
what
their
strengths and
weaknesses were and
were able to capitalize on the former
or
compensate for the
latter as the
situation
demanded. Many
of their
undergraduate peers who
do not
have learning disabilities
might
take a
more
"hit-or-miss"
approach
to
study.
These
successful
students with
learning
disabilities had a plan; they figured
out what
it
was they
needed to do - and they did it.
Clearly, room exists
within academe
for this
almost heroic
resourcefulness
and determination combined
with
intelligence.
Additionally, these
learning disabled
students serve
as ex-
amples
for
countless other
college
students.
Notes
'The
interview
guide and
profiles of
the
students may
be
obtained from
the
authors.
2Member
checking
involves
sending
a
summary of
the
interview or the actual
results
to
respondents
for
validation (see
Lincoln
& Guba,
1986
and
Miles
& Huberman,
1984).
In
this case, a draft of
the
results was
provided
to the
respondents for their
approval.
3Pseudonyms were
used in
this
article.
References
Anderson, J.
(1988).
Cognitive
styles
and
multicultural
populations. Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
39(1), 2-9.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students with
Learning Disabilities 443
Astin, A., Green,
K., Korn, W., Schalit, M., & Berg,
E. (1988).
The
American
Fresh-
man: National
Norms for 1988. Los Angeles:
University of California.
Aune, E. P., & Johnson, J. M. (1992). Transition takes
teamwork:
A collaborative
model for
college-bound students with LD. Intervention
in
School and Clinic,
27(4),
222-227.
Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., & McGuire, J.
M. (1992) Promoting access, accomo-
dations, and
independence
for
college students with
learning disabilities. Journal
of
Learning
Disabilities, 25(7), 417-429.
Clinchy, B. (1989). The development of
thoughtfulness
in
college women.
American
Behavioral
Scientist, 32(6), 647-657.
Cohen, J. (1984). The
learning disabled university
student: Signs and initial
screening.
National
Association of Student Personnel
Administrators Journal, 21(3),
22-31.
Faland, M. B., & Haulbich, P. A. (1981).
Vocational and social adjustment of
learning
disabled
young adults:
A
follow-up study.
Learning
Disabilities
Quarterly,
4 122-130.
Ganshow, L. (1984). Analysis
of
written language
of a
language learning disabled
(dys-
lexic) college
student and instructional
implications. Annals of Dyslexia, 34,
271-284.
Hammill, D. D. (1986). Assessing the Abilities
and Instructional Needs
of
Students.
Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Hammill, D. D., Leigh,
J.
E., McNutt, G. & Larsen, S. C. (1981). A new definition of
learning
disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 4, 336-342.
Harrison,
L. (1982, July-August). Minority
learning
disabled students and the
post-
secondary dilemma. Association for
Children
with
Learning Disabilities
Newsbrief,
pp. 9-11.
Harding, S.
(1992). After
the
neutrality ideal:
Science, politics, and 'Strong
Objectivity'.
Social Research, 59(2),
567-587.
Hartman,
R. C.,
& Krulwich,
M.
T. (1984).
Learning
Disabled Adults in Postsecond-
ary
Education. U.S. Department
of
Education
(No.
300-80-0857), Washington,
D.C.:
Higher
Education and
the
Handicapped Resource
Center
(HEATH).
Hawthorne,
R. (1977).
Teacher
redesign. Unpublished
report.
Kent
State
University.
Hoffman, F. J.,
Sheldon, K. L., Minskoff, E. H., Sautter, S. W., Steidle, E.F., Baker,
D. P., Bailey,
M. B.,
& Echols, L. D. (1987).
Needs
of
learning disabled adults.
Journal
of
Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 43-52.
Houck,
C. K., Asselin,
S. B., Troutman,
G. C., & Arrington, J. M. (1992).
Students
with
learning
disabilities
in the
university
environment:
A study
of
faculty
and
stu-
dent
perceptions.
Journal
of Learning
Disabilities, 25(10),
678-684.
Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky,
S. K. (1994).
Note-taking
skills of
university students
with
and without
learning
disabilities. Journal
of
Learning Disabilities, 27(1),
20-24.
Indiana
University Office
of
Affirmative Action
(1995). Disabled Students
in Your
Classroom:
A Guide
for Faculty
and
Instructors.
Bloomington,
IN.
Kavale, K. A.,
Forness, S. R.,
& Lorsbach, T. C. (1991).
Definition for definitions of
learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly 14(4), 257-268.
Knefelkamp, L. (1974). Developmental
Instruction: Fostering
Intellectual
and Per-
sonal Growth
of
College
Students. Dissertation Abstracts International.
36,
1271A.
Kolb, D. (1985).
Learning Style Inventory:
Self-scoring Inventory and Interpretation
Booklet.
Boston,
MA: McBer.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444 Journal of Higher Education
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1986).
But
is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity
in
naturalistic evaluation. In D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic Evaluation (pp. 73-84).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mangrum, C. T., & Strichart, S. S. (Eds.) (1984). College
and
the Learning
Disabled
Student. Orlando, FL: Grune
& Stratton.
Manning, K. (1992).
The
Ethnographic
Interview.
In
F. Stage (Ed.),
Diverse Methods
for Research and Assessment of College Students. American College
Personnel
Association.
McGuire, J. M., Hall, D., & Litt,
A. V. (1991, March).
A field-based study
of the
di-
rect service needs of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of College
Student
Development, 32,
101-108.
Mellard, D. F., & Hazel, J.
S. (1992). Social competencies as a pathway to successful
life transitions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15,
251-271.
Meyers, M. J. (1985).
The LD college student:
a case
study.
Academic
Therapy, 20(3),
453-461.
Miller, C., McKinley, D., & Ryan, M. (1979). College students: Learning
disabilities
and
services. The
Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 58(3),
154- 158.
Milne,
N.
V. (1989).
The
experiences of college students
with
learning
disabilities. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN.
Morris, M., Leuenberger, J., & Aksamit,
D. (1987). Faculty
inservice
training: Impact
on the
postsecondary climate
for
learning disabled students.
Association on Handi-
capped Student Service Programs in Postsecondary
Education
Bulletin, 5(2),
58-66.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Learning disabilities: Issues
on
definition. A position paper. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 107-108.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and
Insights from Twenty
Years
of
Research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rawson, M. B. (1982). Louise Baker and Leonardo syndrome. Annals of Dyslexia, 32,
289-304.
Russell, R., & Rothschadl,
A. (1991). Learning styles:
Another view
of
the
college
classroom. Scole: A Journal
of
Recreation Education and
Leisure
Studies,
6.
Satcher,
J.
(1992). College students
with
learning disabilities: Meeting
the
challenge.
College and University, 67(2),
127-
132.
Scott,
S. S. (1994). Determining
reasonable academic
adjustments
for
college
students
with
learning
disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 27(7),
403-412.
Shafrir, U.,
& Siegel,
L. S. (1994).
Preference
for visual
scanning strategies
versus
pho-
nological rehearsal
in
university students
with
reading disabilities.
Journal
of
Learn-
ing Disabilities, 27(9), 583-588.
Shea,
C. (1994).
'Invisible' maladies:
Students
who
say they
have
learning
disabilities
encounter
skepticism.
Chronicle
of Higher Education,
7
September, A53, A55.
Silver,
L. (1988).
A review of
the
Federal Government's
Inter
Agency
Committee on
learning disabilities: Report
to the
U.S. Congress. Learning Disability Focus, 3,
73-81.
Silverman, R.,
& Zigmond,
N. (1983). Self-concept
in
learning
disabled adolescents.
Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 16, 478-482.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Students
with Learning
Disabilities 445
Stage, F. K. (1992).
The
case for flexibility in
research and
assessment of college
stu-
dents.
In
F. Stage
(Ed.), Diverse Methods
for Research and
Assessment of
College
Students.
American
College
Personnel
Association.
Stage, F. K., & Manning, K. (1992).
Enhancing the
Multicultural Campus
Environ-
ment: A Cultural
Brokering Approach.
New Directions for
Student Affairs,
Number
60. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, H. L. (1991).
Operational
definitions
and learning disabilities:
An
overview.
Learning Disability
Quarterly, 14(4),
242-254.
Vogel, S. A. (1982). On
developing college
LD programs. Journal
of Learning Disabili-
ties, 15(9), 518-528.
Walker, M. L. (1980).
The
role of
faculty
in
working with
handicapped students.
In
H. Z. Sprandel & M.
R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Serving Handicapped
Students. New
Direc-
tions. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Whitt, E. J. (1991,
September).
Artful
science:
A
primer
on
qualitative
research
meth-
ods. Journal of
College Student
Development, 32, 406-415.
Wilczenski, F. L., & Gillespie-Silver,
P. (1992, May).
Challenging
the
norm:
Academic
performance
of
university students with
learning
disabilities. Journal of College
Student
Development, 33,
197-202.
Williams,
T. E. (1987,
June).
Student-institution
fit:
An
ecological
perspective. Paper
presented at
Conferences
on
Enrollment
Management.
New
Orleans,
LA.
Wolcott,
H. F. (1988).
Ethnographic
research
in
education.
In R. M. Jaeger
(Ed.),
Complementary
Methods
for
Research in
Education.
Washington,
DC: American
Educational Research
Association.
Zawaiza,
T. R. W.,
& Gerber,
M. M. (1993).
Effects of
explicit
instruction
on
math
word-problem
solving by community
college
students with
learning
disabilities.
Learning Disability
Quarterly, 16,
64-79.
This content downloaded from 128.122.226.249 on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
