|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 FACULTY PROVISIONS OF ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DI SABILITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY IN THE TRADITIONAL, HYBRID, AND ONLINE MATHEMA TICS COURSE TEACHING ENVIRONMEN TS By KELLY ANNE MONGIOVI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Kelly Anne Mongiovi
3 To my mother, Susan Anne Staley Bergonzoni, whose courage in the face of a myriad of adversities and her unwavering love, faith, and support have inspired me every single day to strive for excellence. Thank you seems so insufficient for the woman who taught me that no matter the set of life's circumstances one is dealt, the possibilities are have fueled m y journey toward attaining this doctoral degree. Never losing sight of the objective and a singular purpose, I will make a difference in the lives of others, just as she has made a difference in mine.
4 A CKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I express my sinc erest appreciation to my beloved family members and cherished friends who believed in my abilities and talents and who relentlessly encouraged me to lend my voice to the world, especially when I had doubts that I could balance it all and live up to my "Won der Woman" expectations and childhood superhero. I am thankful for all of the love, faith, and support given in years past and present and for the motivation to achieve the dreams that still await me. My achievements would not have been attainable withou t their unwavering belief in my abilities and their reinforcement of my mantra nothing is impossible if I dare to dream. I am keenly aware of and will always be eternally grateful for the sacrifices these loved ones made for me so that I could achieve thi s doctorate degree. I love each and every one of them from the bottom of my heart, forever and always. I am profoundly grateful for Susan Haskell, Thorsten Kaye, Gina Witt, Kathy Brand, and Christy Smith for the years of friendship, both in and behind the scenes. Their uniquely gifted guidance and support has literately changed the trajectory of my life T here are not enough words to express my appreciation for the gifts they have given me. They have taught me by example to always "keep the faith" and t o always strive to "make a difference at the end of the day and leave fragments of my work that are hard to get rid of." Their collective acts of kindness have paved the way for me to realize that sometimes dreams do indeed come true. I carry with me eve ry single day the lessons they have taught me. For this and so much more, I express my love and gratitude. I am forever in their debt. I also wish to thank my many colleagues at Santa Fe College for offering encouragement and learned wisdom. Without the ir support, I would not have completed
5 this program. A significant note of appreciation is necessary for Santa Fe College President Dr. Jackson Sasser and Dr. Portia Taylor for their continued support and encouragement given to me "behind the scenes" as I pursued my doctorate degree. They never failed to inquire about my progress when our paths crossed at various Santa Fe College functions. Equally important to note is their belief in and recognition of the importance of professional development and an i beyond the professional, departmental, and division assign ments and responsibilities. Without the financial and emotional support provided for Santa Fe College employees seeking additional degrees and knowledge I can say, with out question, that my dream of this doctorate degree would have never become a reality. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my former colleagues and friends at the University of Florida. My beloved mentor and friend Wayne Griffin was one of the fir st individuals to say to me aloud, "I see a PhD in your future." He and his wife, Nancy, always maintained an unwavering faith in my abilities to make a difference through the work that I do. I love them dearly for everything they taught me and for never failing to show me the true definition of unconditional love. I owe a huge debt o f gratitude t hat I can never repay to Rob and mentor. I will miss him greatly every single da y. H e will always hold a special place in my heart that is reserved only for him. I thank Norb Dunkel, Diane Porter Roberts, Sandy Becker, Bebe Padgett, Kathy Bush Hobgood, Lisa Diekow, Cyrus Williams III, Brian Ray, Joe Rojo, Jill Lingard, Jaime Mariango Lit tle, Jim Faubel, Susan Swiderski, Tracy Jones Ballas, Mike Rollo, Mary Kay Schneider Carodine, Gene Zdziarski, Colette
6 Taylor, and the many others who guided me along my journey from the beginning of this pursuit and beyond. Extra special thanks is require d for Ken Osfield, John Denny, Barbara Keener, Dan Rodkin, Wes Wilson, Chuck Clemons, and Angela Long from the very beginning, they recognized and acknowledged my talents long before I was willing to give myself any credit. The aforementioned people provi ded me with a path and a foundation in the field of higher education administration. They consistently encouraged me to explore my expertise, contribute to the field of student affairs, and continue a career in higher education administration. I am extre mely grateful for their support throughout this journey. A most heartfelt note of gratitude is vital for Cynthia Garvan and David Miller at the mentorship. Without them, I wou ld not have these degree qualifications to call my own. They helped me find direction for my study, taught me the statistical analyses and breakdown required to execute my study and supported me as I marched forward through the program. Their support ul timately resulted in the end product of this dissertation. I am so grateful for Cyndi and her brilliant teaching talents, which were evident upon our interactions long before I entered the program. I am thankful for Dr. Tyree and Dr. Sandeen, who taught m e what it means to raise the bar for who "a student is," for pushing me to be better than my best, and most important, for showing me what a courageous leader can achieve. Every day, I use the lessons they taught me in my interactions with both students a nd colleagues alike.
7 I am eternally grateful for Jacki Nicol Donaldson Although our collaborations began at the end of this process I suspect it is only the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Thank you for truly stepping in the role of guardian angel at a time when I needed it most. Finally, I wish to express my sincerest thanks and gratitude to Dr. Dale Campbell, Dr. David Honeyman, Dr. Catherine Emihovich, Dr. Jeanne Repetto, and Dr. Bernard Oliver for believing in me, allowing me the freedom to tru st my innate talents, (some of which I had to be reminded ), and helping me navigate my long awaited journey along toward the completion of this dissertation. They each played an integral role in shaping my focus and ma king possible the seemingly "impossible." Their collective efforts do not go unnoticed.
8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Faculty Provisions of Accommodations and Students with Disabilities ................... 14 Background Information of the Study ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 24 A Landscape of Mathematics Ed ucation: an Aerial View ................................ ........ 27 Instructional Delivery Methods in Mathematics Education: Traditional, Online, & Hybrid Courses ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 31 Barriers of Instruction, Services, & Resources to Students ................................ ..... 31 Attitudinal Barriers in Instructional Delivery ................................ ............................. 33 Concept ................................ ........ 39 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................ ....................... 41 Instrument Development ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 Endorsement of the Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 Research Population ................................ ................................ ............................... 44 Florida Community College: The Survey Setting Landscape ........................... 45 Mathematics Faculty ................................ ................................ ........................ 46 Students with Disabilities ................................ ................................ .................. 46 Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47 Administration of Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 52 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52
9 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 Survey Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 54 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 55 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 57 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................ 61 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 5 5 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 71 Discussion of Conclusions ................................ ................................ ...................... 72 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 72 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 73 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................ 73 Strategies & Intervention in the Instructional Delivery Environments ...................... 74 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 75 Care ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 75 Connect ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 76 Climate ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77 Control ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 78 Curriculum ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 79 Implications of Study ................................ ................................ ............................... 80 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ 83 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 APPENDIX A MATHEMATICS TEACHING ENVIRONMENTS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES SURVEY ................................ ................................ ......................... 88 B ENDORSEMENT OF STUDY LETTER ................................ ................................ .. 91 C DEVELOPMENTAL MATHEMATICS SURVEY INVITATION ................................ 95 D COLLEGE LEVEL MATHEMATICS SURVEY INVITATION ................................ ... 96 E DEVELOPME NTAL MATHEMATICS FOLLOW UP PAPER SURVEY REMINDER ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 97 F DEVELOPMENTAL MATHEMATICS FOLLOW UP PAPER SURVEY REMINDER ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 99 G KEY DEFINITIONS ................................ ................................ ............................... 101 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 110
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Survey results ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67 4 2 Differences in accommodations by years of experience, online experience, and number of students with disabilities ................................ ............................. 69 4 3 Differences in accommodations by type of instruction ................................ ........ 69 4 4 Provisions of accommodations by years of experience, online experience, and number of students with disabilities ................................ ............................. 69 4 5 Provide accommodations by type of instruction ................................ .................. 70
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5 1 Disabilities Resource Center (DRC) student population snapshot ...................... 87
12 A bstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FACULTY PROVISION S OF ACCOMMO DATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILIT I ES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF COMM UNITY COLLEGE FACULTY IN THE TRADITIONAL, HYBRID, AND ONLINE MATHEMATICS COURSE TEACHING ENVIRONMENTS By Kelly Anne Mongiovi August 2012 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to examine the mathematics faculty provis ion s of accommodations for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunity C ollege Both developmental and college level mathematics courses were included in this study. This study examined courses taught in the traditional, hybrid, and online deli veries of instruction. Also the type of instruction taught by the mathematics faculty was examined. Finally, the mitigating factors for providing reasonable accommodations to this particular student population were identified, and a possible intervention model for consideration is offered. The sample population for this study consisted of mathematics faculty members within a Florida C ommunity C ollege as listed in the Crystal Reporting database as having taught developmental and/or college leve l mathematics in the 2009 2010 academic year ( summer, fall, spring). As a result, 79 faculty respon ses were collected. In total, 34 participants completed the Mathematics Teaching Environments and Students with Disabilities S urvey.
13 The survey results sug gest that (a) the lack of item response from the mathematics faculty regarding the survey responses received are a limitation to the study, (b) the faculty attitudes and perceptions surveyed may impact how faculty teach students with disabilities, (c) both faculty populations display a barrier (i.e. disconnect) regarding the number of students who are self identified as having disabilities and those numbers actually reported, and (d) the faculty responses received suggest training is a crucial component mi ssing in addressing accommodations needs of students. Finally, the M odel of dropping out (Rep etto, Cavanaugh, Wayer, & Liu, 2010) is presented as a potential intervention model for students with disabilities in higher education. This study illuminates an intervention model that should be considered. A ddition ally the study provisions of accommodations for students is necessary, regardless of the type of delivery of instruction ut ilized. With effective training, those working in administration, student affairs and academic affairs can continue to "close of the loop" for students with disabilities and at risk students can be identified.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Faculty Provisions of Accommodations and Students with Disabilities The purpose of this study was to examine the mathematics faculty provision s of accommodations for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunity C ollege in higher education. A number of s tudents with disabilities are self identifying with the Disabilities Resource Center (DRC) as having learning disability diagnos e s which impact the subject area of math ematics T his potentially affects academic performance and in turn, the retention rates of students successfully completing their math course sequen ce s can be jeopardized. Therefore, it is crucial for all levels of mathematics faculty and their students to benefit from a broader base of knowledge related to this population ; h ow ever, the online type of instruction offered may require a certain level of skill and training in order to effectively deliver reasonable accommodations and support to the students who may receive them. Last, this study examines what mitigating factors mathematics faculty may have that could inform how they provide the reasonable accommodations required in order to provide the necessary access ( as determined by law ) and to effectively serve this popula tion of students Also presented are r ecommendation s and interventions for fostering a more collaborative partnership between academic and student affairs in order to effectively serve this population of students Implications for future research are also discussed. Chapter 1 explains the purpose and sign ificance of the study, introduces the research questions and methodology, and defines key terms.
15 Background Information of the Study The problem addressed within this study is the faculty provision s of accommodations for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunity C ollege in higher education. A literature review examining attitudinal barriers and perceptions revealed the following : D efinition of a disability by law (Bento, 1996 ; Colbridge, 2000 ) D efi nition of the term "reasonable accommodation" (Colbridge, 2000). D efin ition of disabilities (Bento, 1996) Discuss ion of the attitudes and perception s of students with disabilit ies and faculty (Soder, 1994 ; Bento, 1996) D iscuss ion of the attitudes and perception s of students with disabilit ies and peers (Bento, 1996) Significance of the Study A faculty of the various types of instruction al deliver ies and examin ation of the provisions of accommodations provided are essential for students with disabilities. However, a review of the literature revealed that minimal research addresses the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of faculty this often present s as a barrier ( i.e. disconnect ) for student s with disabilities and the impact may impede the student in teaching environment s Statement of the Problem The problem addressed within this exploratory study led to the exami nation of the mathematics faculty provision s of accommodations for students with disabilities with in a Florida C ommunity C ollege in higher education. Students with disabilities, as identified by the DRC comprise the largest growing student minority within the United States
16 (Paul, 2000). In addition a greater number of students with disabilities are pursuing a variety of pos tsecondary education programs. Thus, between the years of 1998 and 2000, students with disabilities attending four year universities and college s averaged 6 % to 8 % of the student population (Henderson, 2001 as cited in Stodden, 2006 ). Despite this positive indicator of improving access to students with disabilities within the higher education environment students face several transition related issues as they plan and prepare and subsequently enroll in colleg e Not only must students be academically prepared for higher education, students with disabilities carry additional responsibilities and accountabilities with respect to presenting documentation of a disability in order to be eligible for accommodations and services assessment information, programming, advocacy, decision making, and transition once they enter college (Brin c kerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002 as cited in Stodden, 2006 ). Once in college, students with disabilities must for the first time request from faculty the necessary accommodations, services and support for each class in which they are enrolled ; work with individual faculty to implement the reasonable accommodations as assigned ; m anag e their academic studies ; and communicat e to a var iety of constituen ts about the necessary accommodations, services and s upport they may be eligible to receive. What is all too often the case, however, is that students are rendering them u nable to maintain their academi c studies and resulting in limited numbers of students completing their programs ( Stodden 2006 ). Several mitigating factors can contribute to low retention and completion rates. In many instances, students with disabilities are hindered or overwhelmed as a result of varied or limited support services or advocates, as well as a large student instructor
17 ratio for which they may not be accustomed due to the low classroom ratios they may have been afforded in their high school experience s All of these contributory factors may lead to such resulting in limited direct student instructor conta ct (Brinkerhoff, 1994; Stodden, 2001 as cited in Stodden, 2006 ). limited and often varying amounts of services and supports available on campus. Disabilities Resource Ce nter providers across the nation are often fac ed with providing specialized services to meet increas ed demand for these services. In addition, t he range of services and supports offered by postsecondary education institutions is still relatively new and not well known by university faculty, staff, and administrators (Getzel, Stodden, & Briel, 2001 as cited in Stodden, 2006) As a result, faculty and other stakeholders may find it difficult and challenging to accommodate students simply resources and services that are provided, much less how to execute them ( Stodden, 2006 ). Furtherm ore, the heavy workload and demand of many d isability s ervice p roviders (DSP s ) present significant barriers to students seeking and securing services (McGuire S cott & S haw 200 3 as cited in Stodden 2006 ). As a result of the multitude of factors mentioned above the need for academic accommodations service academic adjustments resources, and services are being assigned to a wide array of student s with disabilities in higher education While there are many reasons that could be responsible for t his increase in student services with respect to this study, this shift is due to two primary reasons:
18 1. Students a re indeed a ware and thus, are more knowledgeable of the self identifying process necessary to become eligible to receive academic accommodatio ns and services offered at th e postsecondary level 2. S tudents are finding themselves with repeated attempts and difficult ies relate d to the subject area of math ematics present in both the developmental and college level mathematics courses. Purpose of Study The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine a Florida C ommunity C ollege faculty provision s of accommodations for students with disabilities enrolled in developmental and college level mathematics courses This required a n examination of t he mathematics faculty in the traditional, hybrid, and online mathematics courses taught within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. T he types of instruction, the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities, and the mitigating factors that may exist were examined. The mitigating factors included faculty experience, online years of teaching, number of students with disabilities, types of instruction related to providing for students with disa bilities, and access to reasonable accommodations for students in the teaching environment s within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. Research Questions T hree research questions were examined in this study. They are as follows : 1. What are the types of instruction delivered by mathematics faculty within a F lorida C ommunity C ollege? 2. What are the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a Florida Community C ollege ? 3. What are the potential mitigating factors, such as faculty experience, online years of teaching, number of students with disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be related to providing student s with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time and additional classroom accommodations) in either teaching environment?
19 Methodology A quantitative survey was designed to address the research qu estions. The survey instrume nt initially developed as an original online survey was created and disseminated to the mathematics faculty The survey was monitored, and the method of face validity w as incorporated throughout the research process. Associ ate Professor Education, served as the overseeing s upervisor for the Institutional Review Board ( IRB ) approval Through the process of multiple discussions via telephon e, email s and face validity, the integrity of this study remained intact. The survey instrument, named the Mathematics Teaching Environments and Students with Disabilities S urvey was created and distributed to the mathematics faculty sample population a s determined by the Crystal Reporting database (Appendix A). During the f all 2011 semester, the survey instrument (Appendices C and D ) was emailed to the identified mathematics faculty which included the developmental (MAT 0002, MAT 0020, and MAT 0024) and colle ge level mathematics (MAT 1033, MAC 1105 a nd Non Algebra courses ) faculty listed in the Crystal Reporting database or in the C ommunity C ollege D irectory The survey instrument was first made available through Survey Monkey, a Web based application R espondents entered all responses electronically. The types of inventories utilized to measure the items on the survey instrument were categorical responses (for demographic data), dichotomous responses (i.e., yes and no ), and open ended free response questions. Limitations The study was limited to individual faculty members identified as teaching during the 2009 2010 academic year. The participants were pulled from the Crystal Reporting
20 database In addition, only a select group of mathematics faculty mem bers were included Furthermore the participants were contacted only if they had been identified as having taught the following developmental and college level mathematics courses: MAT 000 2, MAT 0020, MAT 0024, MAT 1033, MAC 1105 and Non Algebra courses The participants were also limited to those who had a valid email address listed in the Crystal Reporting database and the D irectory Not every faculty member could be contacted successfully. Th is is due to varied reasons such as high employee turnover and undeliverable email addresses and some faculty had retired from the institution at the time the data was requested The results of this study, therefore, are only a snapshot of the mathemati cs faculty serving in that capacity during the s ummer 2009 and s pring 2010 semesters. This population has since change d over time, with the addition of more sections of online and hybrid courses Because of these fact ors the responses collected may no t generalize ove r time. Information from this exploratory descriptive study was drawn from the collective mathematics individual faculty responses. T he study was designed to be completed electronically and multiple attempts were made to secure a maximum number of responses for the purpose s of data collection, but it was evident quite quickly that a limited scope of control was possible with respect to the response rate received. In addition, the request of the Crystal Reporting database results was direc tly depen dent upon the following factors: A s upervi sory request for the data results was required T he C ommunity C ollege's Internet Technology Services ( ITS) staff responsible for processing the specified data and criteria requested an effort to protect the internal validity of the study
21 As a result of the factors presented above the timing of the study itself given the internal organization processes may be a contributory factor and therefore, is presented as a limitation to this study (Appendix B) Another important limitation is the institution itself and its academic cale ndar as well as the faculty members outside obligations. The initial mathematics faculty survey notifications were sent electronically and were administered toward the end of t he Fall 2011 term upon receipt of the Crystal Reporting database results. This may have resulted at a time when the mathematics faculty were either preparing for personal leave or were only hold ing adjunct positions at the C ommunity C ollege. T he scope of responsibilities would have been expected to decrease when follow up emails were sent to the respective identified faculty population to complete the survey in the beginn ing of the s pring 2012 term (Appendices C and D ). Due to the individual faculty mem bers scheduling commitments this may have prohibited some of them from successfully completing the survey. Another contributing limitation may be the faculty years of service to the college. Some senior faculty members may not have completed the electronic survey simply due to comfort level they may have been less proficient with technology than their newer faculty counterparts, who we re perhaps more accustome d to using electronic formats of communication. Finally, it is important to recognize that although some of the survey results did not appear to be statistically significant this may be a limitation of the sample size collected. It is probable that with a larger sample size the p value would be smaller. An assumption has been made that the mathematics faculty who participated in the
22 study responded honestly and fairly due to the efforts taken to protect the anonymity and the delivery methods of those re sponses collected. The open ended responses to questions regarding disability, self identification, attitudes, barriers to instruction and difference in accommodation provide d relative to teaching platforms were subject to individual bias attitudes, and self perception. Organization of the Study A review of the literature was conducted regarding the history of students with disabilities in highe r education, attitudinal barriers, beliefs and perceptions of faculty. In addition, the unique tenets of traditional, hybrid, and online teaching environments for C ommun ity C ollege mathematics faculty and the provisions of accommodations provided were closely examined and considered at the time this study was conducted. A glossary of ter ms was also carefully constructed (Appendix G). Finally shifts in teaching expectations were taken into account for the hybrid courses of both the developmental and college level mathematics. Therefore, a discussion of the landscape of mathematics educa tion ; instructional delivery methods ; barriers identified for the types of instruction utilized ; and the attitudinal barriers, p erceptions and beliefs that may exist in the i nstructional delivery was essential to this research. Finally, the conceptual fr amework that can be applied toward this study is introduced toward the end of C hapter 2 A chapter summary is also included at the end of each chapter. Chapter 3 contains an explanation of the research design and methodology (i.e., the data collection and data analysis procedures used in this study). Chapter 4 contains the findings from the data analysis. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of conclusions, an in dept h summary of the research questions discussion of the conclusions, implications of the findings, limitations of the study, and a more detailed discussion of
23 recommendations with possible strategies and interventions Finally, recommendations for future research are discussed as a result of this study.
24 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE The American s w ith Disabilities Act (ADA 1990 ) and the ADA Amendments Act ( AADA, 2008) expanded th e vision of more accessible education for diverse students to include a variety of categorical disabilities (Appendix G) Students with disabilities are a unique minority population of students who may require faculty and administration to examine and be sensitive to their additional needs, to m aintain a work ing knowledge of the mechanisms of s upport available, and to understand the critical issues that may impact the structure of the teaching and learning environment. In fact, students with disabilities are now the largest unrepresented populat ion in the United States (Paul, 2000). As such, it is imperative to create collegiate environments that are accessible for this population. According to Paul (2000): Time and circumstances have proven strong modifiers of higher educational organizations, which now have become more focused on extended educational opportunities and career development issues. This expanded vision also has brought an increasingly diverse student body, more extensive curricula, and a greater range of education related activi ties and services (p. 200). Of equal importance are those h igher education institutions, specifically c ommunity c olleges, that have seen dramatic increase s in the number of students enrolling in developmental education courses, most prevalently in developm ental mathematics courses (Knapp, 2005; National Center for Education Statistics, 1991; Parsad & Lewis, 2003) Developmental courses are defined as non college credit prep aratory courses for students who fall short of the standard entry requirements for college credit courses. Developmental mathematics courses are precursory courses for the general education mathematics courses (i.e. Intermediate Algebra and College Algebra), requiring some students to take one to three courses, or to make several
25 attempts at the same course, before they are ready to move into the college level courses required for their intended course of study. Unf ortunately, research indicates that the passing rates for students enrolled in developmental mathematics courses have decreased nationally (Bailey, Jeong & Cho, 2009; Gerlaugh, Thompson, Boylan, & Davis, 2007). With decreasing budgets and increased accou ntability measures, institutions have begun to review the effectiveness of their developmental education programs by examining the passing rates of students within the spectrum of heir educational goals. Some researchers (Bellanca, 1998; Smittle, 2003; Wolford, 1996) have maintained t hat in order to successfully increase student success in and incorporate teaching strategies to demonstrat e for student s how best to study. T his increases the likeli hood of student success in developmental mathematics (Bellanca, 1998; Smittle, 2003; Wolford, 1996) Other research has documented the importance of outside the classroom services such as tutoring and advising for students in developmental education programs (Gerlaugh et al. 2007). Students with disabilities are no exception to this recommended practice ; c onsequently, such students have additional needs and issues that arise in the educational environment. Postsecondary institutions have a responsibility to provide appropriate and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities as defined by the A DA (1990) and the AADA (2008) (Appendix G) once student s self identif y at their respective universities or collegiate settings as having disabilit ies The challenge for these institutions lies with in technology advancement and the varied methods of servic e delivery provided. This in
26 turn, can potentially impact how accommodations and services are effectively communicated and offered to students with disabilities. Thus, this exploratory descriptive study examines the mitigating factors that can contribute to the success or failure of students with disabilities as they are taught a mathematics sequence of courses in the pursuit of their academic goals and degree attainment. This includes, but is not limited to, developmental and college level math ematics c ourses taught in the traditional hybrid, and online environments. The curriculum can be executed i n a variety of methods including the hybrid and totally online curriculum instruction This study defines traditional and online environments in the same context as the United States Department of Education ( ED 2010 ) report on online learning. The report to tirely over the p. 30). For the purposes of this study, the online environment will be divided into two categories: totally online with no face to face components and onlin e learning where components are combined with face to face learning often referred to a s hybrid or blended courses. In summary, this exploratory descriptive study critically examine d the issues concerning students with disabilities The issues included the scope of instructional environments (i.e. delivery in traditional, online, and hybri d or blended courses ); barriers to the accommodations services and resources that may be offered to students ; the role that advocacy plays for students and their faculty members ; and the scope of responsibilities and measures of accountability required b y both faculty and students.
27 A Landscape of Mathematics Education: a n Aerial View An alarming and increasing trend in higher education is the growing percentage of students needing developmental courses in English, mathematics, and reading. To illustrate this point, Bailey et al. (2009) found that more than half of community college students enroll in at least one developmental education course during their tenure in college. Typically students are referred to and placed in developmental education course s through assessment and advising procedures. Once student s are notified of their need to take developmental coursework, they have the option of taking courses in a variety of formats traditional, online and hybrid or blended. Historically, developmental education arose out of demand for a more skillful workforce by the business community. The document A Nation at Risk ( National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) indicated a demonstrated need for a more rigorous cours ework beyond high school education to increase the number of students attending college. In the early 1980s, a little more than 10 % of students in high school took college preparatory curriculum I n the 1990s almost 30 % of high school students t ook co llege preparatory curriculum (Boylan, 1999). The numbers continually increased with a little more than 50 % taking college preparatory curriculum 30 years after A Nation at Risk was published However, changes in high school curriculum and instruction ha ve resulted over the last two decades in an increased need for developmental courses at community colleges and universities. Furthermore, advances in technology and changes in the skill sets needed in business and industry have created an increased demand for college level coursewo rk Demographically speaking, students enrolled in developmental courses are a diverse population. Both traditional and non traditional students can be seen in
28 developmental courses. Traditional students are defined as student s ages 18 to 25 entering college after graduating from high school. Non traditional students are typically students who are returning from the workforce to acquire additional skills, or students who have dropped out of college and decide d to return to finish their degree. The typical age range of non traditional students is anyone older than 25 (Boylan, Bonham, & White, 1999; Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, & Jenkins, 2007). One category of students sometimes found more often in developmental c ourses are students with learning disabilities (Boylan, Bonham et al., 1999). Limited research has documented the performance of students with learning disabilities in developmental education courses and more specifically in developmental mathematics cour ses. However, before dwelling on the performance of students with disabilities in these courses, it is important to understand what the environment of developmental education looks like for all students. An important distinction in developmental educatio n is that the courses are typically housed under the department of mathematics or centralized under the organizational structure of developmental education programs and student support servi ces. For instance, Gerlaugh et al. (2007) survey ed 116 community colleges and found that only 44 % had centralized programs an increase of 4% from data reported 10 years earlier (p. 2). In add ition to centralized programs, Bailey et al. (2009) provide distinct differences between course and sequence. The authors defin e and ends with completion of the highest developmental course the course that in
29 Mo re specifically, students enrolled in developmental education courses at the community college were found to have barriers to successful completion of both courses and sequence of courses Some of these contributing factors include a lower completion rate of courses, greater student withdrawal rates, higher level s of test anxiety, and more external locus of control than that of college ready student peers (Bettinger & Long 2004; Attewell 2006; Bahr 20 10 ; & Wong, 2009). These correlating factors are critical to consider because c ourse completion and the sequence of completion are directly connected to persistence and graduation rates and are subsequently tied to accountability standards for community colleges. As a result, developmental mathematics h as become a primary area of focus for community colleges due to level s of dropout and withdrawal rates that are gr e ater tha n other developmental subject areas. This is also evidenced by research conducted by authors Burley, Butner, & Cejda, (2001) reveali ng that 85 % of first time college freshmen were remediated in mathematics. Of even greater concern is the number of students repeating developmental mathematics courses. Bailey et al. (2009) followed students from the Achieving the Dream community college initiative designed to improve outcomes for community college students by collecting longitudinal data on first time credential seeking students in specified cohorts. The results indicated that 33 % of students referred to math remediation compl eted their sequence of developmental education (Bailey et al. 2009, p. 256). Twenty nine percent of students referred to math exited their sequences after failing or withdrawing from one of their courses, while only 11 % failed a course, but did n ot finish the sequence (Bailey et al. 2009, p. 256). Additionally, some students
30 opt ed out or avoid ed taking developmental courses even when they we re referred by an advisor or placed through assessment. Bailey et al. (2009) found that more students do not complete their sequence s because they do not enroll in the first or a sequence course resulting in the failing of a class. They also found that 55 % of those who complete the developmental sequence s also complete their gatekeeper courses. Gatekeeper courses are defined as the first courses students take after remediation to satisfy program requirements (Bailey et al. 2009, p. 256). F ailure rates, withdrawal rates, and non completers of courses and sequences all contribute to the complex structures within developmental education programs. Further c omplicating matters is the fact that in order to successfully at tain accountability standards, community c olleges must find more creative ways to help de velopmental mathematics student s to be successful academically. Rep etto (2010) 5 C s (2004, 2010) Five Factors Model may provide a vehicle of support in an effort to accomplish this task For a student to fulfill any academic educational goal, the student must pass the developmental mathematics sequence as well as the required college level mathematics course or courses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for students to struggle in the of area mathematics for any number of re asons including age, gender, grade point average (GPA), academic commitment, institutional experience, student academic integration, placement grades, and student performance (Umoh, Eddy, & Spaulding, 1994). However, a critical element not examined in Umo impact or influence the success rates of students enrolled in developmental mathematics courses. Another study by Waycaster (2001) focused on method of
31 instruction, which wa s defined a s either a lecture where students received instruction and work ed on exercises or individualized, in which students were tasked to complete computer aided instruction ( CAI). CAI has evolved into a plethora of instructional delivery formats, calling for a need to explore the various models of instructional delivery. Of particular concern is the examination of students with disabilities enrolled in developmental mathematics courses due to the fact this population tend s to struggle to an even greater degree and require s a higher level of instructional support. Instructional Delivery Methods in Mathematics Education: Traditional, Online, & Hybrid Courses Before one can truly conceptually understand the academic impact of an online teaching environment f or stud ents with disabilities, it is of critical importance to understand the unique distinctions and definitions of what constitutes traditional, online and hybrid course environment s This includes the composition of the courses and how they are similar and d ifferent in instruction and delivery. As previously stated, traditional and online environments are defined in the same context as the ED (2010) report on to while onlin or entirely over the ( p. 30). For students with disabilities in developmental mathematics courses, several barriers must be taken into account. Further, these barriers may become more complex in nature depen ding learning style, a nd Barriers of Instruction, Services & Resources to Students The development of this analysis began with a very spec ific interest to be addressed to examine the faculty provisions of accommodations provided for
32 students with disabilities. In doing so, the type s of instruction delivered by mathematics faculty within a Florida C ommunity C ollege were examined This examination is critical in order to provide effective types of instruction P articularly teaching the subject area of mathematics is never an easy task for faculty. However, w ith respect to the population of students with disabilities, the landscape becomes far more complex. For the purposes of the analysis, it is clear from the research that it is important to clarify existing issues which need to be a ddressed. Most notably : How is the te ? What population s are affected ? What types of barriers exist for students with disabilities? Furthermore, for students who have been identified as having learning disabilit ies related to the area of mathematics or having math ematics difficulty, there is a greater risk of failure in the successful complet ion of the ir mathematics sequence s W hile much focus and attention has been paid t o this area with respect to mathematics learning disabilities in the K 12 environment, it is important to note th at less research has been applied to students who have been identified as having mathematics related learning disabilities in the higher educat ion environment O ften not until students have already had multiple attempts of failure is the issue addressed. According to the ADA, (Appendix G) mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activit ies of such the categories of physical, learning, a nd psychological disabilities. Physical and attitudinal barriers are, by far, the most predominantly discussed top ics throughout the research. For example, students with physical disabilit ies have
33 mobility challenges and, as a result existing environment when in a traditional setting (Paul, 2000). In contrast, attitu dinal barriers are far more prevalent across all three methods of delivery and are often not considered when taking into account the population of students with disabilities in higher alent attitudes (Bento, 1996 p 201 ). These barriers will discuss in greater detail below. Attitudinal Barriers in Instructional Delivery An important factor taken into consideration acknowledge s th at varying disabilities resul t in different needs, reactions, and concerns. This is important when studying barriers and how faculty members when taking into account the various instructional delivery methods, can improve upon them. What exactly is cons Before one can recognize the attitudinal barriers that exist for students with characterized by more than 30 operational definitions. Researchers have been concerned with understanding how social behaviors and attitudes serve as motivators for behaviors (Rao, 2004). More ng inconsistent tendency to 227). Attitudinal barriers for example, needs regarding academic accommodations. In a study conduc ted by Soder (1990), the author examined attitudes often deemed to be negative and prejudiced, toward people with disabilities and concluded that an ambivalence was found. Furthermore, the research indicated that reactions toward
34 pe ople with disabilities are seen as a result of conflicting values. As a result, faculty assumptions of attitudes as being prejudiced are questioned. Attitudinal barriers can be divided into two groups: interna l ( coming from within the i ndividual ) and external ( originating from the opinions of influential figures in individual lives ) ers pective may be challenged. con fronted with individuals with disabilities in a future setting. individual attitude toward students wi th disabilities, whether positive or negative, could be a potential barrier ; t herefore, the challenge from a research p er spective is t o identify why such attitudes exist within each delivery method and what populations might be more affected than others, particularly those distinctions that make up traditional versus online instructional delivery. In doing so, one can examine how such m ethods of instruction can impact the attitudes of faculty interactions with students when determining what is deemed as a reasonable and appropriate accommodation for each instructional delivery model. For instance, Bento (1996) further explored such attit udinal barriers and presented findings in the traditional environment, which assessed the attitudes of non disabled other institutions. Bento (1996) describes in detai l three major types of barriers: 1. I nformational barriers which are described as barriers that limit understanding of the nature of the various types of disabilities and their implications as well as limited knowl edge of applicable legislation 2. E thical barriers which are described as having a relationship of procedural versus substantive justices and competing toward the disabled student and toward the cl assroom as a whole.
35 3. A ttitudinal barriers which are described as the effects of ambivalent attitude s on faculty behaviors towar d students with disabilities. With regard to the informational barriers that exist, Bento (1996) discovered that there are problems that need to be addressed for both the faculty member and the student requiring accommodations. For example, it was revealed that disabled students are typically the main source of all information a faculty member receives in reference to in turn, raises issues related to the disab ility for the faculty member s uch as feeling embarrassed ; doubting whether an invisible disability such as a learning disability was actually ; accommodation had not been request Bento, 1996, p. 201). Through intense faculty interviewing, it was discovered that faculty members typically responded that they knew too little about living with a disability and that they had feelings of ambivalence about acquiring the necessary information to educate themselves. Additionally, taking the initiative to research information regarding a particular disability seemed to be a luxury their already crowd ed schedules could not afford. Bento (1996) also discovered that this incongruence of information and lack of knowledge presented problems for the students. Students expressed feelings of dissatisfaction that faculty felt the student must provide a crash course on the disabilit ies that required them to seek academic accommodations. The author found that t his was emotionally difficult for the students to handle, and it made the stude nts feel as if they were being perceived as a disability, rather than as a person. Students often took offense at some faculty members thinly disguised suspicions about taking
36 advantage of the disability. As a result of these perceptions, students were left feeling humiliated when treated as if they were asking the faculty member for their requested accommodations as opposed t o being viewed as being given special treatment (Bento, 1996). With regard to the ethical barriers that exist, Bento (1996) discovered that faculty often failed to communicate to the disabled students their reasons for hesitation in granting the accommodat ions requested by the students. Additionally, when the faculty did present reasons for hesitation, they did so in such a manner that was perceived by the students as being insensitive or unfair. This resulted in each party perceiving the other a s unreaso nable and inflexible. Such ethical dilemmas can be further classified into two groups, according to Bento (1996). They are described as proced ural versus substantive justice as well as fiduciary responsibility to the students verses the common good of th e class. evaluating each student, in accurate and effecti ( p. 201). s (1996) study also revealed : F aculty members felt torn between two concepts of justice. Would it be fair to the disabled student to submit him or her to the same rules of the other students, if the application of those rules had a differential effect on that student? Would it be fair, however, to the rest of the class if the disabled student received differential tre atment (p. 201)? procedural justice considerations should prevail and that requested accommodations The substantive justice considerations should take precedence, and that the
37 e accommodation entitled to receiving the best possible service from the instructor. But it also generated costs for the other students, which jeopardized the instruct requested accommodation implied a change of the instructional methods, processes, or materials that could have an adverse impact for the rest of th e cl 202). With regard to the attitudinal barriers that exist, Bento (1996) discovered that an important issue was found in creating barriers to understanding between faculty and disabled students. Faculty members were typically characterized by having deep people with physical or mental disabilities, who alternatively receive help or special 202). In several cases, these feelings were compounded by a phenomenon called reactance grieved the perceived loss of their academic freedom, curtailed by the legal 202). While it is clear that these b arriers exist in the educational environment, it is also important to note that for student affairs professional s the opposite can also be true. Often times it is believed that implementing the attitudinal changes may, in fact, have a positive influence on the informational and ethical issues as well. In other wor ds, if faculty members were to become more positive, this is likely to increase the faculty level of information about the disability involved, thus allowing a more effective level of interact ion with the disabled students.
38 In a nother study conducted by Lehmann, Davies, & Laurin (2000), a different p er and ideas of students with various disabilities ring impairment, deafness, low vision, blindness, learning disabilities, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, paraplegia, and quadriple 2000, p. 60 ) The students were asked to offer their perspectives and feelings on barr iers to t heir success and academic needs. lleges, four barriers emerged: 1. The lack of understanding and acceptance for students with dis abilities 2. T he lack of adequate services to assist in i ssues of an academic nature 3. T he lack of financial resourc es and how to acquire them 4. T he lack of self advocacy and training needed to al., 2000, p. 61). When addressing the issue of the lack of understanding and acceptance for stud that [ teaching students with disabilities through their lack of understanding. It makes me think sometime s, so who has the real problem? ann et al., 2000, p. 61). Finally, students discussed the need for environmental support on campus and in the community so that they could more easily manage access to dependable transportation, b uildings, restrooms, and adaptive computer technology on their campuses and at their banks ( p p 61 62). environment, little has been explored on this topic. D isability se rvice providers do,
39 however maintain that a new trend of attitudinal barriers exist for students with disabilities for those in the online environment. Most notably, this can be seen when a faculty member questions the rationale behind the need for exten ded time on an exam that is delivered in the online environment, often demanding that a student who has been self identified as having a disability must have their online exam proctored as opposed to their non disabled peers (Huber, 1997). Overall, these f indings clearly note that it is necessary to gather further research in the area of online formats in developmental mathematics instruction. Until such time, it is imperative for faculty to be cognizant of the strategies and interventions required in the instructional delivery models. Conceptual Model : The Five C s Model of Dropping Out The Five C s Model of dropping out (Repetto et al. 2010) was also examined as a framework for the following components : Care Connect Climate Control and Curriculum This conceptual mode l and its focus on students with disabilities in secondary educational environments served as the foundation for the research study and each of these components were present for this study. More abo ut this conceptual model will be discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter Su mmary Faculty provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities become a complex and multifaceted landscape within the area of the higher education mathematics teaching and learni ng environment s They can become more inexplicitly difficult to both define and address with respect to both student and faculty understanding of needs when taking into consideration the nature of the various
40 teaching platforms being implemented within su ch environment s For example, this dynamic must be exa mined through the lenses of both the type of teaching platform being taught (traditional, hybrid, and online) and the s for such provisions of accommodat ions which are required by law. To provide a context for further exploring these concepts, this chapter reviewed the following foundations and areas for consideration : the landscape that exists with respect to th e developmental and college mathematics education ; the various types of instructional delivery methods that have evolved in the higher education environment ; barriers that have been shown to exist to those types of instruction ; the role of accommodations, services, and resources available to students with disabilities most typically offered by a DRC ; and the various faculty attitudinal barriers F inally the conceptual framework and components of the Model of dropping out ( Repetto et al. 2010) are present ed within this exploratory descriptive study Chapter 3 will outline the procedures used in this exploratory descriptive study and the methods used for analyzing the data collected.
41 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of C hapter 3 is to outline the procedures used in this study and the methods used for analyzing the data collected. The statement of purpose is restated, as are the specific research questions developed for this particular study. In addition, this chapter includes i nformation related to the research population, instrument development, validity and reliability, endorsement of the study, administration of the instruction, and data a nalysis The chapter concludes with a chapter s ummary. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to examine faculty provision s of accommodatio ns for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunity C ollege in higher education This required a n ex amination of the mathematics faculty in the tra ditional, hybrid, and online m athematics courses taught with in a Florida C ommunity C ollege In light of the increasing number of students self identifying with the DRC as having learning disabilit ies and this self identification affecting the area of math ematics and/or jeopardizing academic performance and successful math ematics sequence course completion it is crucial that all levels of math ematics faculty benefit from a broader knowledge base related to th e population of students with disabilities As a n unintended consequence, this pattern suggests that the retention of students is also at risk. Therefore, it is pivotal that mathematics faculty understand and possess the skillset to differentiate between the traditional versus the online platform of i nstruction; in particular, they must grasp how the online delivery of instruction may require a certain level of skill and training in order to effectively provide the reasonable accommodations and support to the students who may receive them. Last, this study
42 examines which factors influence faculty members providing the reasonable accommodations that may be required. Most notably, faculty attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding disability may exist As a result, this study was initiated, research methods were created, and the three research questions were developed for consideration. They are as follows : 1. What are the types of instruction delivered by mathematics faculty within a F lorida C ommunity C ollege? 2. What are the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a F lorida C ommunity C ollege? 3. What are the potential mitigating factors, such as faculty experience, online years of teaching, number of students wit h disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time and addit ional classroom accommodations) in either teaching environment? I nstrument Development A quantitative survey research design was used to address the exploratory research questions presented for the purposes of this study. Best described by McMillan and S chumacher (2006) q uantitative survey research design allows researchers to collect data from a sample at one point in time via a questionnaire" (as cited by Rodkin, 2011, p. 67). An electronic, Web based questionnaire was developed via Survey Monkey as the survey instrument for the sample population of mathematics faculty identified in the 2009 20 10 academic year. research has reflected, instrument development and use of Web based surveys have been shown to be effecti ve for both the researcher and the participants. In turn, this allows for an increased response rate to be obtained (Rodkin, 2011)
43 As stated previously, the survey instrument was initially developed during a study in which an original Web based survey wa s created and the method of face validity was incorporated throughout the process. During the course of the survey development, the survey was subjected to rigorous tests for reliability and validity and underwent both internal and external review by the leading researchers i n student and academic affairs. In addition, The Office of Educational Research, loca ted within the College of Education at the University of Florida, also provided guidance and support in modification and refinement of the online survey instrument during the initial ph ases of the survey development. Supplementary support was also provided from the Office of Institutional Research and Planning at the Community C ollege Finally, the survey and its data collection by way of the Crys tal Reporting database received endorsement by th e researcher's supervisor ( the C ommunity C ollege's a ssociate v ice p resident of a cademic a ffair s) and the University of Florida's IRB It is important to note the support of University of Florida Associate P rofessor of Special Education Dr. Jeanne Repetto, who served as t he overseeing s upervisor for the IRB approval The se combined efforts offered face validity and reliability and they ensured the integrity of the study remained intact. The survey instrument was initially developed and designed to be a n electronic, Web based survey. Before the sample population was notified by email about participating in the survey, the instrument was externally reviewed by leading researchers in the student affai rs field. It was also shared with the overseeing s upervisor and external committee member, Dr. Jeanne Repetto, prior to submi ssion for IRB review. In addition, the University of Florida IRB granted approval for this research.
44 Endorsement of the Study As stated by Berdie, Anderson, and Neibuhr (1986) t he endorsement of key individuals or organizations has a major effect on the attitude of people being asked to participate in the survey and is helpful in achieving a high response rate" (p. 9, as cited in Rodkin, 2011, p. 68). As stated previously, the survey was reviewed and received endorsement by th e researcher's supervisor ( the Community C ollege's a ssociate v ice p resident of a cademic a ffairs ) and the University of Florida's IRB. Initial email endorsements were received for this study and were provided by the researcher's immediate supervisor ( the a ssociate v ice p resident of a cademic a ffairs ) (Appendi x B ). Survey reminders were sent electronically to each mathematics department fa culty member to increase participation and response rate (Appendices C and D) Finally, to increase the response rate of the respondents, a letter and copy of the online survey (Appendices E and F) were created and sent to each of t he mathematics departme nt chair persons In addition, a face validity meeting was conducted with each of the C ommunity C chairpersons who were given a detailed explanation of the objective, importance of the study and reasons why faculty should be encouraged to participate Research Population The research population for this study included mathematics faculty who taught within a Florida C ommunity C ollege during the 2009 2010 academic year The sample population w as identified as having taught the following courses : MAT 0002 MAT 0020 MAT 0024 MAT 1033
45 MAC 1105 Non Algebra Mathematics C ourses Additionally, the mathematics faculty members were identified as having taught in the traditional and/or online courses with respect to the developmental and college level mathematics courses. In order to provide an adequate snapshot of the research population surveyed, it is important to have a strong body of knowledge about what t he stakeholders of this particular s tudy look like. They include: The C ommunity C ollege itself T he mathematics faculty T he students with disab ilities population as self identified by the Crystal Reporting database and the DRC Below is a more detailed d escription of each of these stakeholders, all of which make up the research population as demonstrated in this study. Florida Community College: The Survey Setting Landscape The particular Florida C ommunity C ollege surveyed within the s outhern part of the state can be described as having the following identifying characteristics: Situated in rural North Central Florida, just a few miles from the local u niversity Provides quality instruction and educational programs leading to associate of arts degrees (AA) in more than 50 majors Provides more than 80 associate of science degrees (AS) and associate of applied science degrees (AAS), as well as certificates of training 85 % of the student population lives in rural areas Serves this regio n of communities in the surrounding counties by offering courses at one main campus, five rural satellit e centers and an online campus The philosophy of the college has been and continues to be, one of student centeredness, with a focus on providing ser vices to the community Provides a distance learning option
46 Offers study abroad programs Offers evening and weekend study opportunit ies This has proven to serve as a solid option for those who work full time and en roll as nontraditional students As a typical two campus part time employment which allows students to cover some tuition expenses. Additionally, this C ommunity C ollege setting helps students evaluate their career options and find f ull time job opportunities upon graduation One of 19 chartered members of the League for Innovation, the Florida C ommunity C ollege had a f all 2008 enrollment of 16,846 credit students Of this enrollment, 5,393 ( 32 % ) consisted of minority students The C ommunity C causes: educational programs that are designed to meet the needs of students and community and a helpful learning environment that enables students to do their best (Long, 2010). Ma thematics Faculty The population for this study consisted of mathematics faculty members within a Fl orida C ommunity C ollege. The mathematics faculty members sampled w ere also listed in the Crystal Reporting database as having taught developmental and/or college level mathematics for the academic year of 2009 2010 ( s ummer, fall spring ). A total of 79 faculty members were surveyed. In the end 34 participants of the study completed the Mathematics Teaching Environmen ts a nd Students with Disabilities S urvey (Appendix A). Students with Disabilities The student population for this study consisted of Florida C ommunity C ollege students who were identified as having documented disabilit ies via the Crystal Reporting database. Additionally, the student population was listed in the Crystal Reporting database as having been self identified with the DRC It is also important to take into consideration that more than 700 students were listed as being self identified
47 wit h the DRC not only as having documented disabilit ies but as being eligible to receive academic accommod ations, services, and resources offered by the Florida C ommunity C ollege Such students are classified in one of the nine following disability categories: Autism Spectrum Disorder ( ASD ) Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ( ADHD ) Learning Disability ( LD ) Other Health Impaired (OHI) Physical Psychological Speech/Hearing Traumatic Brain Injury ( TBI ) Vision I n addition there were more than 600 classroom and testing accommodations available at the DRC at the Florida C ommunity C ollege. Some of t he most commonly assigned categories granted to students include d : Extended time for class assignments and exams Distraction reduced e nvironment Note taking service s Tape recording of lectures Use of adaptive technology Priority seating Priority registration Survey Instrument The survey instrument was first administered via Survey Monkey an electronic, Web based su rvey Final attempts to increase response rate and respondent participation were delivered in person to the respective mathematics chairpersons via paper method In addition, a face to face meeting took place in an effort to protect the validity of the s tudy and to stress the importance of participation in this study. The survey developed for the Florida C ommunity C ollege mathematics faculty was named
48 Mathematics Teaching Environments and Students with Disabilities S urvey (Appendix A) During the f all 2011 semester, the survey instrument was emailed to all developmental and college mathematics faculty members listed in the Crystal Reporting database and the Florida Community College's D irectory. As stated previously, t he instrument was first made available through Survey Monkey, a Web based survey Partic ipants were given instructions and all responses were entered electronically. Also paper copies of the same survey were distributed in person to the respecti ve mat hematics department chairpersons The types of inventories utilized to measure the items on the survey instrument were categor ical responses (for demographic data), dichotomous responses (i.e., yes and no ), and open ended free response questions (Appendi x A). Follow up email reminders were then sent to the respective mathematics chairpersons during the month of February during the s pring 2012 semester in an effort to solicit fac ulty participation after a low response rate was received via the Web based survey This method was employed with a single minded objective to increase response rate of the survey participation that was originally intended to occur for the mathematics faculty via Survey Monkey, the Web based survey Finally, paper surveys were delivered in person to each respective mathematics department chairperson du ring the s pring 2012 semester The pa p er surveys were accompa nied by a cover letter (Appendi ces E and F ) O n April 11 2012 each mathematics department chair person w as asked to have their faculty members complete and return the surveys to them by the firm deadline of April 20, 2012 (Appendi ces E and F) In addition,
49 telephone conferences and individual face to face meeting s were held with each departm ent chairperson Through this process the researcher strived to achieve multiple objectives. The objectives are as follows : To convey the importanc e and completion of the survey To discuss the purpose of the study To provide a detailed explanation of the participation and the value that may be contributed from both a department al and collegiate perspective Ultimately, the objective s of each of the meetings held with the mathematics department chairpersons addressed several topical areas m ost notably : The overall vision and purpose of study regarding t he type of mathematics instruction al delivery identified The faculty response rate received (or lack thereof) after the unsuccessful attempts which were conducted via the W eb based survey The faculty provisions of accommodations that may be identified as being provided for students with math related learning disabilities, Examination of t he mitigating factors includ ing years of experience, online experience, number of students with disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time and additional classroom accom modations) in either teaching environment. The survey instrument itself consisted of 12 questions They were divi ded into the following sections : Faculty demographic information such as years of teaching experiences, courses taught and years of online t eaching experience. The i nstructional practices provided to students by the mathematics faculty. The average number of students with disabilities per mathematics course section P ossible accommodations provided to students with disabilities
50 T he possible differences that may exist when providing academic accommodations o r modifying course curriculum i n the various formats and possible challenges in providing students with disabilities academic accommodations that may result within these three uniquely dist rict teaching platforms Administration of Survey Instrument Once the survey items were collected, the instrument was first programmed for online administrati on via a secure Web based survey on N ovember 11 2011 T he Web based survey instrument was also t ested prior to distribution to the two mathematics faculty populations were also stored in a secure, password protected online database which could only be accessed by the researcher and also di d not contain any identifiable fields, including an Internet Protocol (IP) address. In addition, e ach email distributed to the mathematics faculty contained complete and detailed instructions for accessing the online survey, including a hyperlink. A phon e number and return email address were also provided so that the participants of the sample could contact the researcher directly if they had any questions regarding the survey questions, the study itself, or access necessary for the survey instrument in o rder to effectively complete the survey readily and successfully (Rodkin, 2011) (Appendi ces C and D ) Despite the countermeasures taken and the concentrated efforts to secure eligible survey responses, attempts at the online administration of the surveys, telephone communications, and follow up email reminders distributed to th e mathematics department chairpersons the low response rates received from the sample population identified to the online administration of the survey still remained. Therefore, the decision was made to administer paper copies of the same surve y to the respective mathematics department chairpersons personally (Appendi ces E and F).
51 On Friday, April 11, 2012, a cover letter and paper copies of the Web based survey were delivered in per son to each respective mathematics department chair person and a face validity meeting was held wit h each (Appendices E and F). The time allotted to distribute and collect as high a response rate as possible and to give p articipants the opportunity to comp lete the survey spanned from November 11, 2011 to April 27, 2012. As a result, 34 responses were successfully collected. Data were entered manually into an organized spreadsheet and a coding manual was also developed. This manual identified categorical variable names and response codes for the survey responses collected Open ended text responses were recorded in to a separate spreadsheet. Data Analysis Procedures Data analyse s p rocedures u sing SA S ( version 9.3) and several statistical data analyses we re performed. A level of significance of .05 was used for all tests. These analyses included: Descriptive statistic al analysis which is primarily described as the practice of quantitatively describing the main features of the data collection. Descripti ve statistics aim to summarize a particular data set presented within the study. Kruskal Wallis test which is often used with one independent variable with two or more levels and an ordinal dependent variable. In other words, it is the nonparametric version of ANOVA. which is employed for small sample size s and for categorical data that result from classifying objects in two different ways. This test is also used to examine the significance of the association ( contingency) between the two kinds of classification. Wilcoxon Rank Sum test which is a nonparametric alternative to the two sample t test which is based solely on the order in which the observations from the two samples fall.
52 Results Of the 81 e mail addresses for the sample, three email addresses failed, either due to faculty turnover or faculty retirements This in turn, reduced the sample to 79. The final 79 respondents included an initial sample population of 32 respondents identified as having taught developmental mathematics courses; 47 respondents were identified as having taught college level mathematics courses. Based on the eligible sample of 34 surveys received, the final response rate co llected was 48.04 % (Table 4 1). Chapter Summary Chapter 3 provided an expl anation of the research design and methodology, data collection, and data analysis procedures used for the execution for this study. The sample population consisted of Florida C omm unity C ollege mathematics faculty identified as having taught developmental and /or college level mathematics courses for the 2009 2010 academic year. This demographic information was collected by use of the Crystal Reporting database Community College Directory a Web based survey, and finally, paper versions of the Web based survey that were hand delivered to the respective mathematics department chairpersons. Data were initially coll ected using Survey Monkey, a Web based survey As a result of the low response rate receive d on two separate occasions, follow up face to face validity meeting s were held and paper copies of the Web based survey were hand delivered to the respective mathematics chairpersons. The instructions were includ ed and chairpersons were asked to distribute surve ys to the mathematics faculty identified for the 2009 2010 academic year. The data were coded and entered into a database. Descriptive statistics were run in the for m of frequency distributions. To analyze the survey questions, f urther a nalyses such as the Kruskal
53 Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, were performed Chapter 4 presents the survey findings from the data analysis as a result of this research study. The result s as they relate to each of the research questions posed are also discussed. A summary of the chapter is also included. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study, discussion of the conclusions strategies, intervention models for consideration, and recommendations for future research.
54 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Survey Findings The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to examine the mathematics faculty provision s of accommodations within a Fl orida C ommunity C ollege for students with disabilities in higher education. This required a n examination o f a Florida C ommunity C ollege mathematics faculty in the traditional, hybrid, and online mathematics courses taught. This examination led to the i dentification of the types of instruction, the provisions of accommodations provided for students with disabilities, the mathematics faculty and mitigating factors, such as the faculty experience, years of online teaching, number of students with disabilities and types of instruction for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. In light of the increasing number of students self identifying with the DRC as having learning disabilit ies in a math ematics related area and this se lf identification affecting the area of mathematics and/or jeopardizing academic performance and success ful mathematics sequence course completion all levels of math ematics faculty and their students would benefit from a broader base of knowledge related to this population. Therefore, it is pivotal that mathematics faculty understand and possess the skillset to differentiate between the traditional versus the online or hybrid platform of instruction; in particular, they must grasp how the online delivery o f instruction may require a certain level of skill and training in order to effectively provide the reasonable accommodations and support to the students who may receive them Last, this study examines wh ich mitigating factors may be related to faculty me mbers providing the reasonable accommodations required. As a result, this study examined the following research questions for consideration:
55 1. What are the types of instr uction delivered by mathematics faculty within a F lorida C ommunity C ollege? 2. What are the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a F lorida Community College? 3. What are the potential mitigating factors, such as faculty experience, online years of teaching, number o f students with disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time and additional classroom accommodations) in either teaching environment? Research Question One Research question one explored the types of instruction delivered to students in higher education by mathematics faculty within a Flo rida C ommunity C ollege. In order to examine this research question effectively it was important to include details estimates, and a broad overview of the demographic information of the sample population surveyed. In doing so, the results indicated that the mathematics faculty at the C ommunity C ollege had a mean of 12.8 (9.3) with respect to t he years of experience teaching mathematics courses The courses identified as being taught included the following: Beginning Algebra Elementary Algebra Intermediate Al gebra College Algebra Non Algebra Mathematics C ourses The faculty surveyed also indicated that the years spent teaching in the online environment had a mean of 2.8 (9.3). In addition, the survey results reve a led all three types of mathematics delivery of instruction were offered to students They include d : 1. Traditional 2. Hybrid 3. O nline
56 Of those mathematics faculty surveyed, the characteristics illuminated the following findings: Of the 34 responses received, 3 % of the mathematics faculty taught via W eb only, 32 % of the faculty taught hybrid or blended courses, and 56 % of the faculty taught no on line classes. T he majority of this sample population of faculty taught a traditional mathematics course of instruction. A small percentage ( 6 % ) of this mathe matics faculty taught both W eb only and hybrid courses and only 9 % of the mathematics faculty surveyed taugh t all four types of instruction ( Table 4 1). Mathematics faculty members were also asked to identify the type s of instructional practices and support they provide to students when teaching in online environment s Of those mathematics faculty surveyed, the characteristics indicated the following findings : 15 % of the mathematics faculty provided online community s upport to students 26 % of the faculty provided an open discussion forum to students, 18 % of the faculty provided modules as an instructional support, 26 % of faculty provided homework only, and 6 % of the faculty provided other practices as instructiona l support. Thus, the findings suggest that the majority of the sample population of faculty surveyed provided minimal instructional support to students and open discussion forums and homework only were the two most prevalent instructional practices provi ded to students when teaching in online format s (Table 4 1). In addition, the mathematics faculty member s surveyed were asked to provide an open ended response to the question asking them to identify types of instructional practices provided to students in online environment s As a result, one respondent provided the following commentary in response to this question : In my studio classes I have 1 or 2 focus group sessions a week (depending on the class). I prepare my lessons by looking at the homework
57 as signments and quizzes they will be doing. I prepare a notetaking guide where I include definitions voc abul ary and key examples that would guide them and help them do their assignments successfully This helps me too because this way I pace myself proper ly by giving them all the tools they will need during the week W hen addressing the survey question with respect to teaching in an online environment and the types of instructional practices that are provided t o students with disabilities, 71 % of the facul ty surv eyed indicated none were given, 6 % of the faculty indicated one was given, 12 % indicated two types of instructional practices were provided, 9 % indicated three practices were provided, and 3 % indicated four instructional practices were utilized This response suggests that a barrier (i.e. disconnect) with faculty is present due to the fact that the provisions of accommodation s is low despite the documented need for students with disabilities (Table 4 1). Research Question Two Research question two explored the provision s of accommodations provided specifically for students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. As previously established both in terms of the literature review a nd in pract ice, the number of students served with accommodations at the DRC and those students who are self identifying as having disabilit ies has grown tremendously As such it was important for the study to examine from the mathematics faculty surveyed the average number of student s with disabilities present in their courses The res ults indicated that the average number of students with disabilities present in their mathematics courses was 1.9 (1.4). This is a vital reporting. Of t hose students who had s elf identified with the DRC as having any type of disability the largest population of students served we re those diagnosed with learning disabilit ies This finding fosters speculation that a discrepancy exists with faculty and students with
58 disabilities they may be serving in their classroom. As a result, faculty members need to not only be aware of accommodations but also prepared to offer accommodat ions Breaking down this barrier begins with professional development and training that may be required for faculty, regardless of the level of mathematics courses taught or years of service in teaching mathematics. There is also a demonstrated need for a higher level of disability aware ness and identif ication of student s who may have disabilit ies Furthermore, faculty members need to foster an awareness of how to implement effective teaching practices for this student population. Only then can they begin to have a greater sense of the various academic accommodations, services, and resources offer ed by the DRC as well as by campus wide departments M athematics faculty members w ere also asked to indicate what accommodations they make when instructing students with disabilities. Of the 34 respondents, 94 % of the mathematics faculty surveyed indica ted they provide these provisions o f accommodation to students. Forty one percent of the faculty indicated they provide classroom, lab, or library provision s of accommodations to their students. Finally, 12 % of faculty surveyed indicated they ha d provid ed the provisions of accommodation in the form of computer and adaptive technology to students with disabilities ( Table 4 1). M athematics faculty members were asked in survey Question #6 When teaching in an online environment, what types of instructional practices do you provide Twelve faculty members responded and t heir open ended responses included the following commentary: Participant One: In my studio classes, I have 1 or 2 focus group sessions a week (depending on the class). I prepare my lesson by looking at the homework assignments and quizzes that they will be doing. I prepare a note taking guide where I include definitions, vocabulary
59 and key examples that would guid e them and help them through their assignments successfully. This helps me too because this way I pace myself properly by giving the students all the tools they will need during the week Participant Two: Multiple tries. Give students time in class to ask questions on online homework, build quizzes based on practice quizzes, open practice quizzes Participant Three: Post notes, videos, links to text, provide discussion forum and encourage que stions Participant Four: Discussion, one on one explanations Parti cipant Five : Limited by provided software Participant Six: Class notes video presentation Participant Seven : Online access, quizzes, tutorials, homework, email Participant Eight: My math lab homework problems Participant Nine: Paperwork and lectures posted Participant Ten : Homework only l ab practice, Live Sessions, Recorded reviews Ten faculty members out of 34 responded to survey Question #10 do you Their open en ded responses included the following commentary: Participant One: the delivery of material and assessing the knowledge and learning Participant Two: By making myself more available to ans wer questions Participant Three: Lectures online. Work online Participant Four: r multiple tries on quizzes too Participant Five : Only delivery changes Participant Six: Longer time on quizzes and tests Participant Seven: Streamline lecture, some group work, open forum for questions Participant Eight: Try to do what department outlines
60 Participant Nine: Pick through the problems to put in the homeworks Participant Ten: Short bits of info in chunks Ten faculty members out o f the 34 responded to survey Question #11 What challenges have you encountered when accommodating students with disabilities in an online mathematics classroom Their open ended responses included the following commentary: Parti cipant One: The biggest challenge for me has been the anxiety levels of students especially in the beginning of the course. It seems to me they feel like they will have no support or not as much support as this is true in studio classes, so I work hard at convincing them that they will have the support and the help they need to be succe ssful. And they do Participant Two: None. I can accommodate students with disabilities easily Participant Three: Never had any challenges Participant Four: Some students react negatively to exposure to computer radiation effects, management issues Participant Five : None. DRC is great to work with Participant Six : Extended time requirements Participant Seven : The visually impaired student is hard to accommodate Participant Eight: I have a visually impaired student and sometimes forget to enlarge a copy for her Participant Nine: Participant Ten: The testing to get the code to testing center and extend the time Once again strengthen the barrier ( i.e. disconnect ) that may be present for faculty and echo that training is needed with respect to delivery of instruction for online classrooms and the provisions of accommodati ons needed for students with disabilities The responses also indicate that perhaps further awareness and collaboration is necessary both by administration, student affairs and
61 academic affairs in an effort to accommodate the challenges that fa c ulty may encounter with respect to students with visual impairments. Research Question Three The purpose of r esearch question three was to provide an analysis of the potential mitigating factors that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations to which they are assigned in either teaching environment. The mitigating factors that were examined included years of expe rience, online experience number of students with disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time and additional classroom accommodations) in either teaching environment. Table 4 2 examines whether differential accommodations (according to modality of instruction) w ere significantly related to years of experience, years of online experience, and number of students with disabilities The test perform e d was the Kruskal Wallis test. With respect to the mitigating factor of whether there are differences in accommodations with respect to years of experience, the results in dicated the following: M athematics faculty who provided no response resulted in a me an of 17.0 (11.8) Mathematics faculty who answered no resulted in a mean of 13.5 (8.7) Mathematics faculty who answered yes resulted in a mean of 10.1 (8.5) As a result of this particular finding the p value is .2645. An important issue to consider is whether there is reason to believe that experienced faculty are more likely to provide accommodations than those faculty who may have fewer years of experience (Table 4 2).
62 With respect to the mitigating factor of whether there are differences in accommodations with respect to online experience s the results indicated the following: Mathematics faculty who provided no response resulted in a mean of 1.7 (2.7 ) Mathematics faculty who answered no resulted in a mean of 2.7 ( 4 .7) Mathematics faculty who answered yes resulted in a mean of 3.3 ( 3.8 ) As a result of this particular finding, the p value is .4150. In other words, there may be no relationship between these two variables (Table 4 2). With respect to the mitigating factor of whether there are differences in accommodations and students with disabilities the results indicated the following: Mathematics faculty who provided no response resulted in a mean of 0.9 (0.7) Mathematics faculty who answered no resulted in a mean of 2.1 (1.0) Mathematics faculty who answered yes resulted in a mean of 2.2 (2.0) As a result of this particular finding, the p value is .0324 and is, thus statistically significant. In other words, the mathematics f aculty members surveyed believe that there is a difference in accommodations and students with disabilities. This strengthens the study with respect to the barrier (i.e. disconnect) present in faculty providing reasonable accommodations for students (Table 4 2). With respect to the mitigating factor of whether there are differences in accommodations by type of instruction the results indicated the following: Developmental mathematics faculty who provided no response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 8 % Mathematics faculty who provided no response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 24 % Developmental mathematics faculty who provided no as a response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 54 % Mathematics faculty who provided no as a response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 38 %
63 Developmental mathematics faculty who provided a yes response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 38 % Mathematics faculty who provided yes as a response to the question presented resulted in a response rate of 38 % As a result of these particular finding s when comparing the developmental mathematics and college level mathematics faculty the p value is .5223 Math em atics faculty who provided no response to the question presented of having no online experience resulted in a response rate of 26 % Mathematics faculty who provided no response to the question presented of having online experience r esulted in a response rate of 7 % Mathematics faculty who provided no as a response to the question presented of having no online experience resulted in a response rate of 37 % Mathematics faculty who provided no as a response to the question presented of having online experi ence resulted in a response rate of 53 % Mathematics faculty who provided yes as a response to the question presented of having no online experience resulted in a response rate of 37 % Mathematics faculty who provided yes as a response to the question pr esented of having online experience resulted in a response rate of 40 % As a result of these particular findings when comparing the mathematics faculty member s experience s with no online teaching and online teaching experience the p value is .3566. In addition, the non response rates are also telling. The results indicat ed by the college mathematics faculty as having the exact percentage reported for those who felt there were differences in accommodations by type of instruction and those who did not is also telling and possibly warrants further research in this area (Table 4 3). With respect to the mitigating factor of provisions of accommodations by years of experience, the results indicated the following:
64 M athematics faculty who provided none or exam only as an accommodation to students with disabilities the N=20, and the response received resulted in a mean of 10.7 (7.5) For mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations and any additional provision s of accommodations for students with disabilities the N=14 and the responses received resulted in a mean of 15.9 (10.9) T he p value for years of experience is .1642 With respect to the mitigating factor of provisions of accommodations by online experi ence, the results indicated the following: Mathematics faculty who provided none or exam only as an accommodation to students with disabilities the N=20, and the response received resulted in a mean of 2.9 (4.2) For mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations and any additional provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities, the N=14 and the responses received resulted in a mean of 2.8 (3.9). The p value for online experience is .9407 With respect to the mitigating factor of provis ions of accommodations and number of students with disabilities, the results indicated the following: Mathematics faculty who provided none or exam only as an accommodation to students with disabilities the N=20, and the response received resulted in a me an of 2.0 (1.5). For mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations and any additional provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities, the N=14 and the responses received resulted in a mean of 1.8 (1.4). The p value for online experience is .7404 (Table 4 4). With respect to the mitigating factor of whether faculty members provide accommodations by type of instruction the results indicated the following: Developmental mathematics faculty who provided no accommodations to studen ts with disabilities or only exam accommodations resulted in a response rate of 69 % College level m athematics faculty who provided no accommodations to students with disabilities or only exam accommodations resulted in a response rate of 52 %
65 Developmen tal mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations plus any additional accommodations by type of instruction resulted in a response rate of 31 % College level mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations plus any additional accommodations b y type of instruction resulted in a response rate of 48 %. As a result of these particular findings when comparing the developmental math ematics courses and college level mathematics courses, the p value is 4774 Mathematics faculty who provided no accommodations to students with disabilities or only exam accommodations by type of instruction and had no online experience resulted in a response rate of 53 % Mathematics faculty who provided no accommodations to stud ents with disabilities or only exam accommodations and had online experience resulted in a response rate of 67 % Mathematics faculty who provided exam accommodations plus any additional accom modations and had no online experience in resulted in a response rate of 47 % M athematics faculty who provided exam accommodations plus any additional accommodations by type of instruction resulted in a response rate of 33 % As a result of these particular findings when comparing the developmental mathematics course s and college level mathematics courses for faculty with no online teaching and online teaching experience the p value is .4953 (Table 4 5 ). Chapter Summary Chapter 4 provided a description of how the data were collected and the report ing of statistical a nalyses in relation to the research question s Overall, the information obtained as a result of the Mathematics Teaching Environments and Students with Disabilit ies S urvey delivered interesting and noteworthy research reporting T he lack of non responses received from the mathematics faculty overall to certain questions
66 contained within the survey proved to be the most telling aspect of the survey itself. O f the 34 surveys returned, 12 were completed by developmental mathematics f aculty members, and 22 were completed by coll ege level mathematics faculty members The results of the survey indicate a strong discrepancy is present with mathematics faculty as evidenced by the number of students who are re ported as being self identifie d as having a disability versus the responses reported by the m athematics faculty per semester. The results also indicated a barrier (i.e. disconnect) regarding the differences in accommodations by years of experience, online experience, and the number o f students with disabilities. Base d on the findings presented in C hapter 4, C hapter 5 include s a summary derived from the study Also conclusions drawn from this study are also discussed Strategies and interv ention models are presented and, f inally, implications of the study are presented and recommendations for future research as a result of this exploratory descriptive study are provided.
67 Table 4 1. Survey results Mean (SD) or % (N) Q #1 Years of Experience 12.8 (9.3) Q# 2 Which of these courses do you typically teach? a) Beginning Algebra b) Elementary Algebra c) Intermediate Algebra d) College Algebra e) Non Algebra Mathematics Courses 65% (22) 41% (14) 50% (17) 44% (15) 35% (12) Q# 3 Years taught in Online Environment 2.8 (9.3) Q# 4 Which type of Teaching do you participate in? a) Web Only b) Hybrid c) No Online Classes d) Both Web Only and Hybrid e) All four types of instruction 3% (1) 32% (11) 56% (19) 6% (2) 9% (3) Q# 5 W hen Teaching in an online format what type of instructional practices do you provide students? a) Online Community b) Open Discussion Forum c) Modules d) Homework only e) Other practices 15% (5) 26% (9) 18% (6) 26% (9) 6% (18) Q# 6 When teaching in an online environment, what types of instructional practices do you provide? a) 0 b) 1 c) 2 c) 3 d) 4 71% (24) 6% (2) 12% (4) 9% (3) 3% (1) Q#7 In a typical section, what is the average number of students with a disability present in your mathematics course? 1.9 (1.4)
68 Table 4 1. Continued. Mean (SD) or % (N) Q# 8 What accommodations are made when instructing students with disabilities? a) Classroom/Lab/Library b) Exam graded in class tasks c) Computer and adaptive technology 41% (14 ) 94% (32) 12% (4) Q# 9 Do you believe there are differences in accommodations when teaching in different formats? a) No response b) No c) Yes 18% (6) 44% (15) 38% (13) Q# 10 In what ways do you adapt, change or modify curriculum in online classrooms? Responded 29% (10) Q# 11 What challenges have you encountered when accommodating students with disabilities in an online mathematics classroom? Responded 29% (10) Q# 12 In what ways are you informed/notified that you have students with disabilities in your classroom? a) No response b) Letter c) Student or other 3% (1) 71% (24) 26% (9) *Multiple choices given to respondents so that responses do not sum up to 100%
69 Table 4 2. Differences in accommodations by years of experience, online experience, and number of students with disabilities No Response Mean (SD) No Mean (SD) Yes Mean (SD) p value Years of Experience 17.0 (11.8) 13.5 (8.7) 10.1(8.5) .2645 Online Experience 1.7 (2.7) 2.7 (4.7) 3.3 (3.8) .4150 Number of Students with Disabilities 0.9 (0.7) 2.1 (1.0) 2.2 (2.0) .0324 *Kruskal Wallis test result Table 4 3. Differences in accommodations by type of instruction No Response No Yes p value Developmental Math ematics 8% 54% 38% .5223 College Level Math ematics 24% 38% 38% No online experience 26% 37% 37% .3566 Online experience 7% 53% 40% Table 4 4 Provisions of accommodations by years of experience, online experience, and number of students with disabilities None or Only Exam N=20 Exam+ N=14 p value Years of Experience 10.7 (7.5) 15.9 (10.9) .1642 Online Experience 2.9 (4.2) 2.6 (3.9) .9407 Number of Students with Disabilities 2.0 (1.5) 1.8 (1.4) .7404 Wilcoxon rank sum test resul t
70 Table 4 5. Provide accommodations by type of instruction None or Only Exam Exam + p value Developmental Math ematics 69% 31% .4774 College Level Math ematics 52% 48% No online experience 53% 47% .4953 Online experience 67% 33%
71 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIO NS, CONCLUSIONS I M PLICATIONS AND RE COMMENDATIONS The purpose of C hapter 5 is to present a summary of the study with respect to faculty provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities. Al conclusions are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to examine the Florida's Community College faculty provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education at a Florida Comm unity C ollege This requir ed an examination of a Florida C ommunity C mathematics courses taught. This examination led to the identification of the types of instruction, the provisions of accommodations provided fo r students with disabilities, the mathematics faculty, and mitigating factors, such as the faculty experience, years of online teaching, number of students with disabilities, and types of instruction for students with disabilities within a Florida C ommunit y C ollege. T he research conducted may shed light on issues related to providing students with math related disabilities access to the reasonable accommodations they are assigned in either teaching environment. As a result, this s tudy examined the following research questions for consideration: 1. What are the types of instruction delivered by mathematics faculty within a F lorida C ommunity C ollege? 2. What are the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a Florida C ommunity C ollege ? 3. The mitigating factors that were examined included the following: years of experience, online experience, number of stu dents with disabilities, and types of instruction for developmental and college level mathematics courses that may be
72 related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations as assigned (extended time on exams or extended time a nd additional classroom accommodations) in either teaching environment? Discussion of Conclusions Based on the infor mation presented in C hapter 4 this section presents Also, the findings are discussed in furt her detail. As with the findings presented in C hapter 4 the conclusions drawn relate back to the three research questions presented as part of this exploratory descriptive study. Research Question One Research question one examined the types of instruction delivered by mathematics faculty within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. What was found as a result of the study is that there are five categories of mathematics course taught and four types of instructi on that are utilized at the C ommunity C ollege surveyed. The course s are as follows : Beginning Algebra Elementary Algebra Intermediate Algebra College Algebra Non Algebra Mathematics C ourses The types of instruction al delivery offered by the mathematics c ourses faculty at the time this study was conducted are as follows : Web Only Hybrid No Online Classes Both Web Only and Hybrid What was found as a result of the mathematics faculty surveyed is that some faculty members particularly those with fewer than five years of experience indicated in their open ended response questions that they felt it would be helpful if they had more
73 professional development and train in g with respect to teaching mathematics in online environment s Research Question Two Re search question two examined the provisions of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in higher education of mathematics faculty within a Florida C ommunity C ollege. What was found as a result of the study is that while some faculty members do provide various forms of accommodations for students with disabilities, the findings suggest there is a barrier ( i.e. disconnect ) pres e nt among the mathematics faculty at the C ommunity C ollege. For example, it is clear from the finding s that an overwhelming majority (94 %) of faculty members are aware of the provisions of extended time on graded in class tasks (94 %). Research Question Three Research question three examined the potential mitigating factors, such as faculty experience, online yea rs of teaching, number of students with disabilities and types of instruction that may be related to providing students with disabilities access to reasonable accommodations to which they are assigned in either teaching environment. What was found as a result of the study is that there is evidentiary support demonstrating there is a barrier ( i.e. disconnect ) present with the Florida C ommunity C ollege mathematics faculty as to the num bers of students the faculty reported as having a disability in their classroom as 1.9 (1.4). Conversely, the number of students who have been reported as having self identi fied with a disability at the Florida C ommunity C is much larger In fact, it is important to note that many of the students who are self identified and eligible to receive accommodations at the DRC are those student s classified as having l earning d isabilit ies ( Figure 5 1 ) There is a
74 significant finding when addressing the number of students with disabilities and the differential response to accommodations for online teaching This finding revealed to have a p value of .0324 (Table 4 2). Strategies & Intervention in the Instructional Delivery Environments One of the challenges is to incorporate effective teaching strategies in both the traditi onal and online environments. This includes, but is not limited to the varying aching beliefs and practices, the level of teaching experience acquired by a faculty member for successful execution of the institutional delivery environment, and the knowledge and skills s. DSPs also share in similar challenges in addressing the academic accommodations needs of student s and finding a balance with what are deemed as the essential requirements of a course. For instance, it is often easy to conceptualize for faculty or staff the need for extended time on exams, but how does one address the appropriate behavior and expectations of working in a lab with a part ner for students who have acquired various degrees of mathematical ski lls or often are accustomed to working alone? A student may be expected to perform or interact in a clinical setting where the clinician may have no idea about the or may have an inability to perform essential mathematical requirements when dealing with patients A delicate balance must protect the confidentially of the student while not disclosing the nature of the disability. This is an all too common scenario f or the DSP s The bottom line in combating such issues is building collaborative partnerships and communication and fostering a more informed awareness approach for students with disabilities between faculty, staff, and students in order to ensur e student success. One
75 collaborative partnership model that has demonstrated success in the K 12 environments is the 5 Model for dropping out. This model also has potential and promise for serving postsecondary educati on students with disabilities ( R e petto et al. 2010). The 5 for dropping out (Repetto et al., 2010) consists of five tenet s. Each one is de scribed in greater detail below M odel tenets are as follows: Care Connect Climat e, Control and Curriculum Care This tenet asserts that an i g; t herefore care should be taken into consideration when incorporating lesson plans and interacting with students. Additionally, educator s can mentor students towards thei r educational goals ( Repetto et al., 2010). This tenet can be most effectively achieved by administration and faculty fostering a caring, disability friendly learning environment where students with disa bilities feel included and not made to feel as less capable than their peers simply because of having a documented disabilit y For instance, a faculty member revealed the following open ended response to a survey question: I have a visually impaired student and sometim es forget to enlarge a copy for her A nother faculty member revealed the following open ended response to a survey question: The biggest challenge for me has been the anxiety levels of students especially in the beginning of the course. It seems to me they feel like they will have no support or not as much support as they do in traditional
76 convincing them that they will have the support and the help they need to be succes sful. And they do provisions of accommodations for a student with a disability that may adversely impact that perceptions as part of the learning process. Therefore, it is vital for administration as well as for the faculty members involved to set the tone and provide as much support as possible to address the student s individual needs as proactively as possible. Connect This tenet can be accomplished in a variety of methods including transition planning evaluation of future and implementation of the steps required in order for student s to meet their intended goal s For instance, virtua l schools are meeting this objective by changing their curric ulum and instructional practices ( Repetto et al., 2010). This objective can begin with the administration by fostering open communication with faculty. This can be accomplished by a variety of ways First, it is important t h at faculty members know they must provide accommodations to a student via facilitation of the accommodation letter that is provided by the DRC on behalf of the student. Second, it is equally important to have all parties actively involved in the accommodation process for the student. This includes knowing what is needed an d expected of the administration, faculty member, and the student in ord er to carry out the accommodations that may be required. For instance, a faculty member indicated the follow ing response when asked to detail the biggest challenge faced when providing accommodations to students with disabilities in an onli ne mathematics classroom : The visually impaired student is hard to accommodate
77 This is a prime example of where the component of connect is so important. Such types of provisions of accommodations cannot be accomplished alone I t is not just the responsi bility of the DRC personnel, the faculty, student, or academic affairs it is a college wide responsibility. Not only is connection necessary for all parties involved, but there is also a legal obligation requiring the college to provide students with disa bilities the access necessary from the moment they enter the higher education environment until they leave. Climate This tenet asserts the importance of providing safe and caring learning environments. The key to changing the school climate is systematic change with teacher and administrative support ( Christie, Jolivette, & Nelson 2007, as cit ed in Repetto et al., 2010). With respect to this study, this tenet must begin with the community college administration if any effective change is to begin. This includes the organization as a whole as well as the respective mathematics departments. As mentioned previously, providing access to professional development and training necessary for faculty is the first step in addressing the need for purposeful syste matic change. In doing so, a more inclusive teaching and learning environment can be achieved. For instance, when asked in the survey to highlight the biggest challenge when providing accommodations to students with disabilities in an online mathematics classroom, a faculty member reported the following: The testing to get the code to testing center and extend the time The component of climate could potentially be improved upon by providing the administrative and departmental support neces
78 Control This tenet a sserts that students can be taught t o take control of their learning. Central to the core success of this tenet are metacognitive learning strategies. Such strategies teach students to evaluate academic and behavior situations. These strategies have been shown to have a direct impact on successful studen t learning outcomes ( Repetto et al., 2010). With respect t o higher education this tenet must also begin with the administration and student and academic affairs professionals. This goal can be accomplished by communicating with student s the importance of the role that self advocacy plays in the higher education experience. S tudents with disabilities in postsecondary environment s must self identify and take charge of their individual academic accommodation needs within the classroom. T hey likely did not do this in their secondary education experiences. In order to accomplish this task, students must know via their individualized accommodation plans the accommodations for which they are eligible and they must take control of their acad emic success and learning experience s by communicating th eir needs to their individual faculty members. In essence, it is equally critical that students learn as early as possible the importance of taking responsibility for their own learning experience s This includes being held accountable for their role in the learning process For example, they must request their accommodation letter s at the DRC and consistently utiliz e their provisions of accommodations as assigned
79 Curriculum This tenet d emonstrates that students are more likely to remain engaged in a curriculum that supports their academic needs and exposes them to effective teaching strategies. These strategies include both student and teacher time on task. T his ensures both successful academic and b ehavior experiences ( Repetto et al., 2010). With respect to this tenet, it is critical that faculty know their scope of responsibility and accountabilities associated with the support and academic needs required for effective teaching strat egies for students with disabilities. This includes faculty building in teaching mechanisms and incorporating a more universal design approach for course curriculum and requirements. Another important factor administration and faculty need to take into a ccount is fostering an awareness of accommodations in the first place. In order to accomplish this task, faculty members need to know of the provisions of accommodations that may exist for a student. Also faculty members need to be aware that student s m ay have wide range s of accommodations and collaborations with the DRC and this is essential in understand ing effective teaching strategies and options so they are able to effectively develop and deliver course curricul a as seamlessly as possible for this population of students. E ach one of the tenets highlight ed above detail the potential for successful integration for online instructional delivery environments fo r students with disabilities. This model was initially developed as an intervention model for students enrolled in virtual K 12 schools. Th e model serviced all at risk student populations, including those students iden tified as having disabilit ies The question to explore is whether the same principles within this conceptual model can be applied to the higher education instructional delivery environments. For example, when addressing the needs of online
80 curriculum for students with disabilities, the tenet of connect could be implemented into practice quite easily in the higher education environm ent. This could be achieved by offering more training and professional development in this area. With t hat said, this is not just the responsibility of the C ommunity C DRC and its providers. The strategies and interventions employed must be camp us wide initiative s most especially between student affairs and academic affairs teaching and learning process for dropping out represents a comprehensive view of the social, emotional and academic needs of students with disabilities in high school (Hammon d Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007 as cited in Repetto et al., 2010 ). In addition, the model offers a structure for designing schools and courses to improve graduation rates for these students. has been demonstrated by schools that are successfully increasing course completion and credit r ecovery for students with disabilitie s (as cited by Repetto et al., 2010). As a whole, the 5 for dropping out has the potential to work effect ively in the traditional hybrid, and online environments. This conceptual model of practice can be eas ily implemented for faculty. Ultimately, incorporating such a model within the mathematics course envi ronments can serve as an intervention for both academic and student development. This in turn, can result in successful course completion, addressing s tudent retention and fostering an overall successful teaching and learning experiences for all parties Implications of Study A number of implications can be drawn from this particular study. Most especially, as discussed previously this study identified a need for the mathematics faculty to
81 foster a greater sense of awareness when teaching students with disabilities. The study has d emonstrated that barriers (i.e. disconnect) exist with the mathematics faculty and this could have a profound impact in the teaching and learning proc ess. If faculty members are not taking a proactive approach with respect to the training barriers, and professional development needed to carry out the leg al obligations required of them when addressing the needs o f this particular student population nobody wins. This in turn, might aff ect a number of facets, both departmentally and campus wide, particularly in terms of educating and training individuals on the laws associated with providing access to students with disabilities the reasonable accommodations identified and services that may be required for students with disabilities R egardless of the type of delivery of instruction it is evident that it is essential to have the full cooperation of the organi zation and not just those who work in student a ffairs or in a DRC Graduate sch ool faculty, administrators, and community college faculty and staff are all responsible for becom ing knowledgeable in this area In addition, i ndividuals who aspire to serve in senior level faculty positions, such as department chairs or vice presidents may al so benefit from these findings. O rganizations should increase their efforts to establish mandatory training requirements for new faculty hires and those who serve in adjunct faculty capacit ies T his gives new professionals more opportunities to learn about the expectations and training that may be required of them beforehand as opposed to waiting until the situation presents itself. Some of the st respondents had indicated they not only neede d the training, but they wanted it.
82 Faculty s hould also look at the curriculum, content, and structure of their course materials. Respondents who indicated a no response when asked in what ways they mod ify, change, or adapt course curriculum need to be aware of their scope of responsibility T he conceptual model of the 5 C for dropping out (Repetto et al. 2010) shows promise for being effective in th e higher education environment. This model could provide both a dministration and faculty the opportunity to improve the re te ntion efforts for students with disabilities who may be identified as at risk and to ensure that the provisions of accommodations required for such students are being met. Communi ty college student and academic affairs divisions should make it a priority to invest in professional development experiences for the ir entry level and mid level employees to include aspects of cross training, exposure to disability aspects required for t he various teaching environments, and servicing students with disabilities in the higher education environment. Those who aspire to senior level student affairs positions may also learn important lessons from this s tudy. T hey should begin the process by m eeting with their DRC and its students to really develop a n understanding of the mitigating factors that are impacting the delivery of instruction and service to students with disabilities. Students especially, when given a voice and an encouraging platform on which to exchange ideas, have benefited greatly from this process. Finally, c ommunity c ollege presidents charged with hiring new administrators at senior levels may benefit from developing an awareness of both the faculty and studen ts with disabilities They can determine if the candidates have the desi red skillset s and knowledge base required for this very unique area of student affairs
83 Recommendations for Future Research Generally speaking, many follow up studies could be derived as a result of this study Therefore, continued efforts should be made to contact via additional methods of communication the sample population who did not respond Using a multiple mode survey design approach ( for example, adding phone calls and/or additional letters and self addressed, stamped envelopes sent via U.S. mail ) has been effective in improving data quality. In addition, it can result in increasing overall response rates received by the participants associated with the study ( Dillman, Sm yrth, & Christian, 2009 as cited in Rodkin, 2011 ) More specifically, d ue to this research being a study with a concentrated focus in the examination of mathematics faculty and provisions for students with disabilities in higher education, the explorat ion of the mathematics faculty popul ation was examined as a whole and not as two separate distinc t populations. The research only targeted faculty identified as having taught for one academic year ; t herefore, some future recommendations for follow up studies include, but are not limited to, the following questions for further consideration: What are the differences that exist between developmental and college level mathematics and provisions of accommodations? What are the differences that exist bet ween developmental and college level mathematics and types of instruction? What are the barriers that exist between developmental and college level mathematics and types of instruction? What are the differences that exist between developmental and college level mathematics and types of instruction? What are the differences that exist between developmental and college level mathematics and provisions of accommodations for students with disabilities?
84 What are the differences that exist between developmental a nd college level mathematics and types of instruction for students with disabilities? How can the Five Factors Model (Long, 2004, 2010) be extended to benefit the students who are identified as at risk in the subject area of mathematics in the postsecondar y environment? Ultimately, the quest to answer the research questions stated above could result in rich data collected to demonstrate the interventions and the provisions of accommodations that are necessary for students with disabilities Equally importan t to take into account for further exploration is the possibility of infusing the components from the conceptual m odel The next phase and step to explore is to test s Model for dropping out presented in this exploratory descriptive research study to determine if the conceptual model can be extended in postsecondary environment s Creating a course curriculum and section specifically designed for students with disabilities is another possibility. Identifying students with disabilities before of college can promote successful mathematics course completion If f aculty selected and trained to teach the developmental and college level courses are appointed trained, and provided with the tools needed where the could be combined into a cohort section speci fic to this student population, student retention efforts could be increased and repeated course attempts could quite possibly be decreased. By implementing such a course curriculum and design, everyone stands to benefit. Chapter Summary This exploratory descriptive study examined the provisions of accommodations provided for students with disabilities in the traditional, hybrid and online teaching
85 environments and mathematics faculty who were identified within a Florida C ommunity C ollege S trategies and interventions such as The 5 C s Model for dropping out (Repetto et al., 2010), were discussed in detail With respect to the study itself, w hat was fo u nd as a result reveal ed several key points. The most notable finding illuminated from survey responses is a clear indication from faculty that not only i s training and professional development necessary but it is critical to provid e a ccess and opportunities for their training With respect to the students with disabilities, it is clear from the collective res earch and data collected that there was a clear barrier (i.e., disconnect) present between faculty perceptions of students who ha d self identified as having disabilit ies self disclosed to them versus the actual number reported within this study. Additionally the findings demonstrate d that some faculty members do believe there is a difference in instruction with respect to the type of teaching platfor m and accommodations provided. Ultimately, this study illustrates several key points for consideration First, for those who are in student and academic affairs and who also aspire to serve as experts in the various types of instruction platforms of teaching this study highlights the need for professional development A wareness is also crucial with respect to st udents with disabilities a nd provisions of accommodations. Second this study c ould rs who wish to foster a dialogue about the barriers that are present, including the that may be present for some faculty Finally, this exploratory descriptive study provides a practical and useful model for strategies and intervention within the higher education environment This is the first
86 The model presented is the beginning of providing a more effective teaching and l earning environment for administration, faculty, and student s Ultimately, the goal is to improve teaching p ractice s and the delivery of instruction in order to achieve academic success and retention of at risk students.
87 Figure 5 1. Disabilities Resource Center (DRC) student population snapshot
88 APPENDIX A MATHEMATICS TEACHING ENVIRONMENTS AND STU DENTS WITH DISABILIT IES SURVEY
91 APPENDIX B ENDORSEMENT OF STUDY LETTER
95 APPENDIX C DEVELOPMENTAL MATHEMATICS SURVEY INVITATION
96 APPENDIX D COLLEGE LEVEL MATHEMATICS SURVEY INVITATION
97 APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENTAL MATHEMATICS FOLLOW UP PAPER SURVEY REMI NDER
99 APPENDIX F DEVELOPMENTAL MATHEMATICS FOLLOW UP PAPER SURVEY REMI NDER
101 APPENDIX G KEY DEFINITIONS Americans with Disabilities Act. l population. Major life activities include, but are not limited to, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, (Excelsior College, 2012). Attitudinal Barriers. According to Rao (200 4), attitudes are characterized by more than 30 operational definitions. Researchers have been concerned with understanding how social behaviors and attitudes serve as motiva tors for behaviors (Rao, 2004). 227). garding academic accommodations. College Level Mathematics Courses. For the purposes of this study, a college level mathematics course is defined as the courses of Intermediate Algebra (MAT 1033) College Algebra (MAC 1105) and Non Algebra courses. Commun ity College. For the purposes of this study, a c ommunity c ollege is referred to as a nonprofit, two year institution of higher education where the most common degree being conferred to students is an ass Disability. The ADA d compared with the average person in the general population. Major life activities
102 include, but are n ot limited to, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, performing (Exce lsior College, 2012). Disabilities Resource Center. According to 42 USCS, the term Disability Resource Center means "an entity established by a State as part of the State system of long term care, to provide a coordinated system for providing: (A) comprehe nsive information on the full range of available public and private long term care programs, options, service providers, and resources within a community, including information on the availability of integrated long term care; (B) personal counseling to as sist individuals in assessing their existing or anticipated long term care needs, and developing and implementing a plan for long term care designed to meet their specific needs and circumstances; and; (C) consumers access to the range of publicly support ed long term care programs for which consumers may be eligible, by serving as a convenient point of entry for such programs ( Aging and D isabilities 2012). Developmental Mathematics Courses. For the purposes of this study, a developmental level math course is defined the following courses: Prep Pre Algebra (MAT 0002), Elementary Algebra plus Arithmetic (MAT 0020), and Elementary Algebra (MAT 0024). Hybrid Learning. For the purposes of this stu z etto More & Sweat Guy, 2006, p. 152). Math Difficulty. Math difficulty is characterized by those elements in which environmental, social or economic factors impede the d evelopment of mathematical 2009).
103 Math Related Learning Disability. According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD, 2012), students with a math related learning disability may cause d ifficulty in visualizing patterns, different parts associated with a math problem or identifying the critical information that is required in order to solve equations and more complex problems. Online Learning. For the purposes of this study, online learni ng is defined as ( U.S. Department of Education [ED] 2010, p. 30). Provisions of Accommodations. The provisions of academic accommodations can be characterized as having a shared responsibility between the C ollege and the student requesting an accommodation. In addition, it is recognized that such academic disabilities, but are not intended to give students an academic advantage (University of Guelph, 2012). Reasonable Accommodations. provision of aids or modification to testing, services or a program of study, which allows Student Affairs. Student affairs refers to the division within a college or university charged with assuming a number of complex administrative and learning experiential 1996). Positive experience and interactions with programs under the purview of student affairs has been shown to have a significant impact on st udent retention, persistence, and learning (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 1991; National Association of Student
104 Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association [ NASPA & ACPA ] 2004; Tinto, 1993, as cited in Rodkin, 2011, p. 22). Tradit ional Learning. For the purposes of this study, traditional learning is to f ED p. 30).
105 LIST OF REFERENCES ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ( 2008 ). R etrieved from http://www.access board.gov/about/laws/ada amendments. htm Aging and disabilities resource center law and legal definition. (2012). In U.S. Leg al online Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/aging and disability resource center/ Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101 336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991). Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education 77 (5), 886 924 Bahr, P. R. (2010). Revisiting the efficacy of postsecondary remediation: T he moderating effects of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher Education 33 (2), 177 205. Bailey T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2009). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences i n community colleges. Economics of Education Review 29 255 270. Bellanca, J. (1998). Teaching for intelligence: I n search of best practices. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (9), 658 660. Bento, R. (1996). Faculty decision disabled college students: Informational, ethical and attitudinal issues. College Student Journal, 30, 494 501. Berdie, D. R., Anderson, J. F., & Neibuhr, M. A. (1986). Questionnaires: Design and use (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2006). Institutional responses to reduce inequalities in college outcomes: R emedial and developmental courses in higher education. In S. Dikert Conlin & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Economic i nequality and h igher e ducation: Access, p ersistence and s uccess Co nlin & Rubenstein, (e ds.) New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Boylan, H. R. (1999). Demographics, outcomes, and activities. Journal of Developmental Education 23 (2) 2 8. Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & White, S. R. (1999). Developmental and remedial education in postsecondary education. New Directions for Higher Education 108 87 101. Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO ED.
106 Burley, H. E., Butner, B. K., & Cejda, B. (2001). Dropout and stopout pattterns among developmental education students in Texas community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 25 (10), 767 78 2. Buzzetto More N. A. & Sweat G. R. (2006) Incorporating the hybrid learning model into minority education at a historically black university. Journal of Informa tion Technology Education 5, 153 162. Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T. & Jenkins D. (2007). Stepping stones to a degree: The impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community college student outcomes. Research in Higher Education 48 (7) 775 801. d oi:10:1007/s11162 007 9053 8 Christie, C Jolivette, K., & Nelson, M. (2007). School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6), 325 339. Colbridge, T. (2000). Defining disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69 28 32. D illman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Excelsior College. (2012). Reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities Retrieve d from http://www.excelsior.edu/c/document_library/get_file? uuid=02e135cd 77ab 490d be06 f3df4c31fdb0&groupId=12408 Gerlaugh, K., Thompson, L., Boylan, H., & Davis, H. (2007) National study of developmental education II: Baseline data for community colleges. Research in Getzel, L., Stodden, R.A., & Briel, L. (2001). Pursuing postsecondary education opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In P. Wehman (Eds.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities. (3rd. ed. pp 247 260). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Publishing Co. Developmental Education 20 (4) 1 4. Getzel, L., Stodden, R.A., & Briel, L. (2001). Pursuing postsecondary education opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In P. Wehman (Eds.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities. (3rd. ed., pp 247 260). Baltimore MD : Paul H. Brookes Hammond, C Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S.(2007). Dropout risk factors and exemplary programs: A technical report Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center Network and Communities in Schools Inc. Retrieved from http://ww w.dropoutprevention.org/sites/default/files/uploads/major_reports/Dr opoutRiskFactorsandExemplaryProgramsFINAL5 16 07.pdf Henderson, C. (2001). 2001 College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington DC: Heath Resource Center American Council of Educa tion. Retrieved from http://www.heath resource center.org/
107 Huber, M. T. (1997) Community college faculty attitudes and trends,1997 Retrieved from http://maryscott.acadnet.ca/FacultySite/CollegeFacultyAttitudes.pdf Knapp, L. G. (2005). Postsecondary i nstitutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and degrees and other awards conferred: 2002 03 Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom San F rancisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Lehmann J., Davies, T., & Laurin, K. (2000). Listening to student voices about postsecondary education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 60 65. Long, A. (2004). Community college attrition of GED certificate holders and regular high school graduates: A compar ative study using national BPS data Retrieved from https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstrea m/handle/1957/30476/LongAngelaC 2004.pdf?sequence=1 Long, A. Putting the puzzle p ieces back together: A stud ent led initiative (2010). Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C. A. & Wilson, M. G. (2007). A follow up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22 (1), 58 74. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradig m, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 17(1), 10 20. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson. Mone ta, L., & Jackson, M. L. (2011). The new world of student affairs. In G. J. Dungy & S. E. Ellis (Eds.), Strategies and competencies for success (pp. 1 14). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel A ssociation. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus wide focus on the student experience Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/ LearningRec onsidered.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (1991). Colle ge level remedial education in the Fall of 1989 Washington, D C : U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Learni ng Disabilities. Math Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/ld basics/ld aamp language/ld aamp math
108 National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at risk: Imperative for educational Reform. Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial education at degree granting postsecondary institutions in F all 2000 Washington, D C : U.S. Department of Education. Paul, S. (2000). Students with disabi lities in higher education: A review of literature. College Student Journal 34 (2) 200 2 10. Porter, S. (2004). Pros and cons of paper and electronic surveys. New Directions for Institutional Research 121 91 97. Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and s tudent with disabilities in higher education: A literature review. College Student Journal 38 (2), 191 198. Repetto, J. Cava naugh, C., Wayer, N. & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving outcomes for stud ents with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 11 (2), 91 104. Rodkin, D. M. (2011). Leadership competencies of community college senior student affairs officers in the Un ited States University of Florida : Gainesvi lle, FL. Sandeen, A. (199 6). Organization, functions, and standards of practice. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed., pp. 435 457). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Smittle, P. (2003). Principles for effective teaching in developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 26 (3), 10. Soder, M. (1990). Prejudice or ambivalence? Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Di sability and Society, 5 (3), 227 241. Stodden, R. A. (2006 ). Designing pr ofessional development for faculty Journal of Postsecondary of Education of Disability, 18(2), 1 109. Swanson, H. L. (2009). Science s upported m ath i nstruction for children with m ath d ifficulties: Converting a m eta analysis to p ractice. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Translating science supported instruction into evidence based practices: Understanding and applying implementation processes (pp. 85 106) New York, NY: Oxford University P ress. Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes a nd cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Digest of education statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009 020), Table 50 Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
109 U.S. Dep artment of Edu cation. (2009b). The condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009 081), Table A 20 2 Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. (2010 ). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online l earning : A meta a nalysis and review of online learning s tudies Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program St udies Service Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. University of Guelph. (2012). Academic accommodation for students with disabilities, guidelines and procedures Retrieved from http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/ calendars/graduate/current/genreg/sec_d0e1587.shtml Umoh, U. J. Eddy, J., & Spa u lding, D. (1994). Factors related to student retention in community college develo pmental educat ion mathematics. Community College Review 22 (2) 37 47. Wang, X. (2009). Baccalaureate attainment and college persistence of community college transfer students at four year institutions. Research in Higher Education 50 570 588. doi : 10.1007/s11162 009 9133 z Waycaster, P. W., (20 01). Factors impacting success in community college developmental mathematics courses and subsequent courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 25 (5 6) 403 416. Wolford, W. P. (1996). Ten rules to te ach by. Journal of Developmental Education, 20 (2), 38.
1 10 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kelly Anne Mo ngiovi was born on July 18 in Charleston, South Carolina. Kelly and her family lived in Buffalo, New York until she was 9 years old at which time, they moved to Palm Bay, Florida. After graduating from Palm Bay High School in 1995 (she ranked No. 2 in her graduating class ) Kelly attended Brevard Community College where she received a full academic scholarship. Upon graduating with honors from Brevard Community College in 1997, she transferred to the University of Florida to pursu e degrees in o ccupational and s peech t herapy. After graduating from the University of Florida and receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in communication sciences and disorders in 2000, she began her career as a student affairs professiona l. S he held positions with the University of Florida D isability R esource C enter (DRC) In 2004, s tudent p ersonnel and h igher e ducation, and she maintain ed her appointment with the Dean of Students Office. During this time, she was the recipient of various accolades, including the Unive of the Month Award on behalf of the College of Education, and the prestigious wide Superior Accomplishment Award. Upon receiving her Master of Educat i o n degree in 2006, Kelly returned to her roots and assumed the position of c ounseling s pecialist with the DRC at Santa Fe College. At the urging and support of key faculty members at the University of Florida, Kelly decided to pursue her doctorate in h igher e ducation a dministration. She was admitted to the University of Florida as a doctoral student in 20 09 and she earned her degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education Administration in 2012.
111 During the completion of her doctoral program K elly continued her appointment and passion for teaching and helping students succeed at Santa Fe College. She also began advanced research on various students with disabilities and faculty populations with respect to attitudes and perceptions, the leader ship gap that can often exist withi n student and academic affairs, as well as examination of teaching and learning styles. She served as the c o lead princip al investigator for a study with the support of University of Flo rida faculty, Santa Fe College a dm inistration, and a fellow University of Florida doctoral student. She also presented her research findings throughout her service to Santa Fe College at various national and state conferences. Her research interests include higher education administration and policy, best practices for fostering successful teaching and learning environments for students with disabilities special populations such as GED, transition from seconda ry to postsecondary education, and promoting the needs for access and advocacy for students with disabilities as well as underr epresented student populations.