Journal On Postsecondary Education And Disability

Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Editor

Sally S. Scott, The University of Connecticut

Associate Editors

Manju Banerjee, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic

Elizabeth Getzel, Virginia Commonwealth University

Elaine Manglitz, University of Georgia

Editorial Review Board

Betty Aune, College of St. Scholastica

Ron Blosser, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic

Loring Brinkerhoff, Educational Test Service and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic

Donna Hardy Cox, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Catherine S. Fichten, Dawson College Montreal

Anna Gajar, The Pennsylvania State University

Sam Goodin, University of Michigan

Richard Harris, Ball State University

Cheri Hoy, University of Georgia

Charles A. Hughes, The Pennsylvania State University

Cyndi Jordan, University of Tennessee, Memphis and Hutchison School

Joseph Madaus, University of Connecticut

James K. McAfee, The Pennsylvania State
University

Joan M. McGuire, University of Connecticut

David McNaughton,The Pennsylvania State University

Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas

Ward Newmeyer, University of California, Berkeley

Nicole Ofiesh, University of Arizona

Lynda Price, Temple University

Frank R. Rusch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Daniel J. Ryan, University of Buffalo

Stan Shaw, University of Connecticut

Patricia Silver, University of Massachusetts

Judith Smith, Purdue University Calumet

Judy Smithson

Sharon Suritsky, Upper St. Clair School District

Ruth Warick, University of British Columbia

Marc Wilchesky, York University

AHEAD Board of Directors

Sam Goodin, President

University of Michigan

J. Trey Duffy, Immediate Past President

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Randy Borst, President-Elect

University at Buffalo, SUNY

Carol Funckes, Treasurer

University of Arizona

Kent Jackson, Secretary

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Carol DeSouza, Executive Director

AHEAD

Joanie Friend, Director of Communication

Metropolitan Community Colleges

Jim Kessler, Director of Membership/
Constituent Relations

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Richard Allegra, Director of Professional
Development

University of Illinois at Chicago

David Sweeney, Director of Marketing

Texas A&M University

Eunice Lund-Lucas, International
Director-at-Large

Trent University

Margaret Ottinger, United States
Director-at-Large

University of Vermont

Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Volume 15, Number 1

Fall 2001

Peer-Based Coaching for College Students with

ADHD and Learning Disabilities 5 - 20

Lavonne M. Zwart & Leanne M. Kallemeyn

The Psychosocial Development of College Students

With and Without Learning Disabilities 21 - 33

James J. Costello & R. William English

Computer Technologies For Postsecondary Students

With Disabilities I: Comparison of Student And

Service Provider Perspectives 34 - 66

Catherine S. Fichten

Jennison V. Asuncion

Maria Barile

Myrtis E. Fossey

Chantal Robillard

Computer Technologies For Postsecondary Students

With Disabilities II: Resources and Recommendations

For Postsecondary Service Providers 67 - 92

Catherine S. Fichten

Jennifer V. Asuncion

Maria Barile

Mrytis E. Fossey

Chantal Robillard

Joan Wolforth

Book Review: Meeting the Challenge of Learning Disabilities in Adulthood. 93 - 94

Elaine Manglitz

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability is published two times per year, nonprofit bulk rate postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts. Any article is the personal expression of the authors and does not necessarily carry AHEAD endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.

The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability seeks manuscripts relevant to postsecondary access and support for students with disabilities, including theory, practice and innovative research. For information on submitting a manuscript, see“Author Guidelines” pages 104 - 105 of this issue. Send materials to: Dr. Sally Scott, University of Connecticut, Department of Educational Psychology/Hall 110, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability/ Unit 2064, Storrs, CT, 06269-2064

Note from the Editor

Welcome to the fall issue of the Journal. In this issue, you will find articles on a range of interesting and practical topics as well as some new features of the Journal. I am pleased to welcome three new Associate Editors who will be joining me in piloting several new initiatives pertaining to the Journal this year. Elaine Manglitz, Manju Banerjee, and Liz Getzel will be providing leadership in enhancing outreach efforts for the Journal, creating supports for new writers, and hosting a book review column (see the first review in this issue). We hope you will enjoy these new features of the Journal and welcome your feedback.

The articles in this issue reflect a range of topics and exemplify outstanding efforts to link research and practice. In the lead article, Zwart and Kallemeyn describe their research examining the effectiveness of a peer-based coaching program for students with ADHD and LD. Following, Costello and English report the results of an empirical study examining psychosocial development of college students with learning disabilities. Wrapping up this issue, two companion articles by Fichten and her colleagues at the Adaptech Project in Montreal, Canada provide us with a comprehensive perspective on their ambitious activities examining computer, information, and adaptive computer technology needs and concerns of Canadian postsecondary students. The first article describes the outcomes of three related research studies and is complemented by the companion article discussing recommendations for practice and service delivery.

As always, I am available for comment, feedback, or inquiries at .

Sally Scott

Editor

Peer-Based Coaching for College Students with ADHD and Learning Disabilities

Lavonne M. Zwart

Leanne M. Kallemeyn

Calvin College

Abstract

A peer-based coaching program for students with ADHD and learning disabilities was studied for its effectiveness in helping college students with self-efficacy and study skills. Participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group, which included students who participated in the coaching program; and a control group, which included students who did not participate in the coaching program. The Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (Weinstein, Schutte, & Palmer, 1987) were given at the beginning and end of the program to all participants. The findings suggest that peer-based support may be an effective means for enhancing general self-efficacy as well as some key areas of learning strategies and study skills for college students with ADHD and learning disabilities.

Students with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often arrive at college with some deficits in study strategies (Javorsky & Gussin, 1994; Zentall, 1993), as do students with learning disabilities (McGuire, Hall, & Litt, 1991; Shaw, Byron, Norlander, McGuire, & Anderson, 1988). Difficulties with organization and executive functioning can affect time-management, procrastination, and study skills including test taking, note-taking, and paper writing (McGuire et al., 1991). In the last decade or so, there has been an emphasis on providing programming and support at the college level for these students. Many of these studies have de-emphasized a specific content tutoring approach and focused instead on a learning strategy instruction approach (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992; McGuire et al., 1991).

Brinckerhoff (1991) encouraged colleges and universities to consider the promotion of learning strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities. He suggested giving tutors specific education in learning disabilities and learning strategies to pass on to each student so they can work with these students more effectively. This insight is also applicable to students with ADHD. Useful learning strategies for students with ADHD include: organizational skills, time-management, goal setting, and specific study skills (Finn, 1998; Willis, Hoben, & Myette, 1995). Self-advocacy training is also recommended to teach students skills of speaking out and educating peers or professors about their disabilities (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; Cullen, Shaw, & McGuire, 1996; Roessler, Brown, & Rumrill, 1998).

Programming that is geared toward gaining skills in learning strategies and self-advocacy can lead to student independence and academic success (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; McGuire et al., 1991). One such program called the “AD/HD Skills and Strategies Program” had positive results with students with ADHD at the college level (Burt, Parks-Charney, & Schwean, 1996). This program was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan by group facilitators and involved a program with eight components that are purported to help students with ADHD implement certain self-advocacy and study techniques.

Peer-based support is another avenue to help students with ADHD learn these skills. A model of peer mentoring for students with disabilities has been used at the University of California, San Diego (Ellis, Gimblett, & Witztum, 1997) with some success. This peer-mentoring program was used to help retain high-risk students with disabilities during their first year of transition to college. Research on peer-based programs emphasizes the need to include knowledge about ADHD and learning disabilities in the training. Training for tutors needs to address the features and symptoms of the disability in approaching the learning styles of each student (Richard, 1995).

Recently, several books have been published specifically for college students with ADHD. These books include educational information about the diagnosis and its manifestation in college. Self-advocacy and study skills for college students including time-management strategies, environment for studying, note-taking and test preparation are discussed (Bramer, 1996; Nadeau, 1994; Quinn, 1994). These books are concisely written and provide helpful information. However, some students with ADHD may find it difficult to garner information from a book alone and may benefit from practicing the tasks with a trained peer.

Some college students diagnosed with ADHD also seem to learn better in a small group format such as a tutorial than in a large group setting such as a seminar or class (Zentall, 1993). Specifically training students as peer coaches so they can help with study strategies and self-advocacy techniques provides students with one-on-one help. According to Hallowell and Ratey (1991), a coach can be any person who is educated about ADHD and provides support and encouragement. Barga (1996) studied several students in college to identify what skills were important in managing their learning disability. She found that those who coped positively utilized the support of a “benefactor,” in this case usually a mother, who helped with homework, advocacy, support, and understanding. In a college setting where a family member is not readily available or when a family member might not be appropriate, peers might also play the role of “benefactor” or “coach.”

At some colleges and universities, service provision options available for students with ADHD include coaching services (Parker, 1998). Coaching services may involve some instruction in learning strategies but these services also encourage students to have their own answers, and ideas for studying. Coaches are trained to build on what the student already knows. The peer coach is a person who learns from the student with a disability and inquires about what is already working. The peer coach then offers ideas for the student to accept or not accept depending on what is helpful.

This study is an outcome research project which looked at the effectiveness of a peer-based coaching program for students primarily with the diagnosis of ADHD and/or learning disabilities implemented at a 4-year private college. It was hypothesized that students who participated in the peer-based coaching program would show significant improvements in self-efficacy (as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale; Sherer et al., 1982) and study skills (as measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory; Weinstein et al., 1987) in comparison with students who were not involved in the program.

Method

Participants

This study was conducted at a private college with a student body of approximately 4,000 students. Fifty students agreed to participate in the study. This sample was 94% Caucasian while 6% of students were from other racial backgrounds; 52% were males and 48% females. The majority of students (66%) were freshmen; 22% were sophomores; 12% were juniors and seniors. Seventy-two percent of students were diagnosed with ADHD; of whom 9% were also diagnosed with a learning disability. Twenty-two percent of students were diagnosed with only a learning disability; 6% had no diagnosis but struggled academically.

Before the fall semester, students with ADHD and learning disabilities submitted documentation to the Services for Students with Disabilities Office after gaining admission to the college (first-year students) or after completing recent assessment for ADHD or LD (second through fourth year students). The documentation for ADHD followed the Guidelines for Documentation of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents and Adults (Consortium on ADHD, 1998) and included a DSM-IV diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The documentation for learning disabilities followed the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) guidelines (1997). As the documentation was received and read, particular attention was paid to the recommendations section in the student’s documentation. If the professional who provided the assessment recommended a coaching program, or specific help that the coaching program targeted, such as time-management or study skills, the student was identified for participation in the coaching program. There were also several students who were not diagnosed or not yet diagnosed with a disability but who had pronounced academic struggles who were receiving help through the Disabilities Office. Even though the coaching program targeted students with ADHD and LD, students who could benefit from the program but did not have a diagnosis were not excluded. Thirty-five students with ADHD, a learning disability, or pronounced academic struggles were invited to participate in the coaching program.

Out of the 35 identified students, 27 students committed to participate in the program. These students completed the pretest measures with a research assistant prior to their first meeting with their coach. Also, at the beginning of the semester 35 students were contacted to participate in the control group. Out of the 35 students, 23 students agreed to serve as controls. These students were not randomly selected but recruited through the Services to Students with Disabilities Office in an attempt to have similar experimental and control groups. These students also completed the pretest measures with a research assistant. At the time of pretest, all students were asked to sign a consent form to be in the program and informed about confidentiality.

Of the 27 students in the experimental condition, 22 students completed the coaching program and the post measures. Of the 23 students in the control group, 20 completed the posttests approximately one month prior to the end of the semester, which is typically when students in the experimental group completed the program. Participants were involved in the program in the Fall Semester (September to December 1999). Depending on the participants’ needs, they attended between 2 and 10 coaching sessions, with a mean of 5.5 sessions.

Measures

All students were given two measures at the beginning and end of the study and a third measure at the end of the study only. The following instruments comprised the measures for the study. The Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) is a 30-item instrument that measures general expectations of self-efficacy, which are a person’s expectations of mastery based on past experiences of success, which lead to behavioral changes. The SES has two subscales: General and Social. For the purpose of this study, the General Self-Efficacy Scale was used, which focuses on self-efficacy in the face of educational and vocational challenges. General self-efficacy focuses on initiation and persistence with tasks and a sense of efficacy in the face of adversity (e.g., a disability). Items were assessed with a five-response Likert scale, ranging from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). Scale scores are devised by summing items in the subscale. The SES has fairly good internal consistency, with alpha scores of .86 for the general subscale. The scale was also shown to have good construct validity in that the scale correlated moderately in a predicted fashion with other measures of a similar nature. Criterion-related validity was shown by a positive correlation between success experiences in educational, vocational, and military areas and scores on the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). The authors encourage the use of this scale as an index of progress based on a particular intervention.