What are Learning Disabilities and Accommodation?
Of the general population of college students with disabilities, students with LD represent one of the fastest growing segments (McDonnell, McLauglin, & Morison, 1997). The statutory framework for modern disability law was established in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandated assistance measures for the disabled in federal facilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines an individual with a disability as one who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of having such impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment. Major life activities are “those basic activities that the average person can perform with little or no difficulty.” Courts have expanded the list to include sitting and standing, reading, sleeping, writing, studying, and test taking. Western psychology has conceptualized LD in terms of deficits in specific types of learning such as math, reading, and writing that is statistically below the student’s own general capability or potential as measured by standardized tests. These learning problems are usually correlated with other problems, e.g., social-emotional issues, insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-efficacy, inadequate peer relationships, poor self-concept, and social isolation (Roer-Strier, 2002). Although LD impacts all areas of learning, i.e., processes in the cognitive, social, affective, and psychomotor domains (2.3.3 Classification of Learning Skills), opportunities exist for improving learning performance of all students with LD challenges.
Both Section 504 and the ADA define reasonable accommodation as changes in policies or procedures that are necessary to provide goods, services, facilities, or privileges to individuals with disabilities. Reasonable accommodation is required unless it can be demonstrated that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. In Jarrow’s (1992) interpretation, this means that educational programs are required to make modifications extending beyond the classroom, unless those modifications would substantially change the curriculum. Some examples of possible accommodations include access to textbooks on tape, providing extended times for exams, the help of a notetaker, the use of a tape recorder to record lectures, substituting oral examinations for written ones, and allowing students to substitute specific courses to meet degree requirements.
The Social Construction of LD
One cannot be learning disabled on one’s own (Dudley-Marling, 2004) because it involves a complex pattern of interactions performed in just the right way, at the right time, in the right context (school). The “labeling” process inherent in early identification and diagnosis of LD in childhood and the resultant school accommodations often, paradoxically, contribute to “learned helplessness” and limit future growth opportunities (4.2.2 Becoming a Self-Grower). Formally diagnosing students with learning disabilities shields schools from the consequences of inadequate performance and enables students to accept low-quality performance as due to their “diagnosed” disability. The stigmatization caused by these systematic labeling procedures follows learners from grade school and high school into college.
In higher education, accommodation of individuals with LD starts as soon as a prospective college student enters the admissions process. Once a prospective student claims to have a learning disability, modifications for entry into a college will result in continued stigmatization of the student, at least in the mind of the student. Every institution of higher learning is required to develop a formal mechanism ensuring that reasonable accommodations are in place for the LD student. This stigmatizing cycle continues; once a student is labeled as LD, instructors have an ethical responsibility to support the learner and to prevent the problems of the LD student from being revealed to the other students. The self-esteem of an LD student is eroded over time by shame, labels of incompetence, and experiences of dependency, fear, anxiety, and helplessness (Roer-Strier, 2002).
Accommodation versus Quality Service
Whether a student has a particular disability that substantially limits a major life activity according to Section 504 is largely a subjective interpretation even though formal diagnostic evaluation by a qualified professional is required. Evaluating claims that a student has LD and requires accommodation is becoming an increasingly time consuming and arduous process for college administration even if the institution requires students to submit external professional or medical evidence.
How can faculty provide quality service under these conditions? First, faculty should be supportive of LD students and encourage them to minimize their reliance on accommodating assistance so that they may develop alternative strategies to overcome their LD and find additional sources of strength. Second, faculty should use strategies to enhance the self-assessment and life planning skills of LD students (1.2.2 Profile of a Quality Learner). It is more effective to help LD students develop new learning strategies that create personally rewarding and important life goals than it is to focus efforts only on accommodating methods that will help students complete a particular class with at least a passing grade. A faculty member can shift from accommodating strategies by focusing attention on creating a quality learning environment (3.1.3 Methodology for Creating a Quality Learning Environment). The key to reversing an “accommodating” mode to one of accountability is to facilitate a change of attitude so that students commit to taking responsibility for learning (3.1.5 Getting Student Buy-In and 1.4.5 Performance Levels for Learners and Self-Growers). In this way, students invest adequate effort, take on challenging assignments that raise self-expectations, and persist with positive goals and effective academic strategies that help them move beyond barriers and obstacles (3.4.6 Persistence Log and 4.3.4 The Accelerator Model).
Because of their learning histories, LD students often show behaviors that are limiting and self-defeating. For example, Rath and Royer (2002) found self-directed learning skills to be usually less developed in LD students. Some of the stereotypic patterns of LD learners are contrasted in Table 1 with those of quality learners (1.2.2 Profile of a Quality Learner). It is essential to attend to and respect actual individual differences of all students but the profiles highlight some reasons LD students tend to be passive and avoidant, and they describe what kinds of skills and attitudes they must develop in order to achieve. Clearly, accommodation that encourages dependency will lead in exactly the wrong direction.
Facilitating Learning of LD Students
Faculty can address learning disabilities by developing facilitation techniques that are more comprehensive and thorough for all students. For example, methodologies (2.3.8 Learning Process Methodology) help to bridge the gap between the expert knowledge of faculty and beginning learners’ understanding by identifying the specific steps that must be flexibly followed for full success. The following strategies can facilitate improved self-efficacy (i.e., valid beliefs about one’s performance) of LD students but are essential for all students and are therefore more likely to be successful in helping students overcome problems associated with accommodation.
Systematically design curricula to sequence material from easiest to most difficult (2.4.8 Methodology for Course Design).
Assure that everyone is equally ready to start work on learning activities by providing prerequisite foundation knowledge needed for learning.
Maximize opportunities to practice basic communication skills such as listening, speaking, and writing.
Emphasize assessment more than evaluation (4.1.3 Mindset for Assessment) by providing immediate and detailed performance feedback to guide and elevate learning processes.
Emphasize “authentic” forms of assessment and evaluation to keep learners focused on the value of outcomes. Minimize the use of methods that are problematic for some, e.g., multiple-choice tests.
Encourage students to monitor their own progress and to use time management strategies.
Provide self-directed learning opportunities during class to ensure that students are ready to handle expected homework.
Raise awareness of performance standards through faculty and peer modeling.
Encourage tutors to focus attention on facilitating developmentally appropriate strategies that fit the learning situation and required learning outcomes.
Arrange mentoring relationships to facilitate personal development and to recognize success.
Self-Determination of Growth Outcomes by LD Students
The intent of accommodation for LD students is not to erode academic integrity or to reduce the quality of course outcomes, but rather to level the playing field. The ten strategies previously mentioned suggest why the accommodation approach often does not work. Yost, Shaw, Cullen, and Bagaj (1994) found that more emphasis is typically placed on accommodating students with LD than on developing strategies that foster independence and self-determination. Because all students vary in their learning styles, they must be fully engaged in determining how to build their strengths and to learn to use effective learning strategies related to their personal development goals in order to be successful.
Self-determination involves self-awareness, goal setting, decision-making, and assertive communication. Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003) identified five important variables that promote self-determined behavior:
Access to self-determined role models
Effectiveness of instruction and support for the development of knowledge, skills, and beliefs
Opportunities for choice
Frequency of communication with others about choices
Availability of a student support network
All students, including LD students, can be intentional actors in growth-enhancing decisions to the extent that educators and institutions provide these supportive processes and resources.
Establishing clear performance criteria and setting high expectations are methods that will help LD students succeed in quality learning environments. As emphasized in the ten suggested methods in a previous section, these expectations should be communicated to all students and not just to the LD student. Clear performance criteria will help the LD students commit to a quality self-assessment process that will support their continued growth as self-determining persons.
Concluding Thoughts
College students with learning disabilities need opportunities to make growth-enhancing choices and to take greater responsibility for their academic learning. Creating an institutional culture that is learner focused and performance based will help stem the tide of over-accommodating student learners. Teachers can help LD students to become self-growers by holding them accountable for measurable learning outcomes, and by fostering a supportive environment based upon trust, motivation, and self-determination. Although faculty must recognize that learning disabilities of students are more significant than learning styles, the best strategies for all students involve growth-oriented strategies that foster self-determination, goal-directed outcomes, and autonomous behaviors. To provide the best context in which LD students can achieve positive adult outcomes, facilitators should strongly focus on authentic methods of assessment and evaluation to enhance personal development and acquisition of learning skills for all students.
References
Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482-489.
Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 339-349.
Jarrow, J. (1992). Disability issues on campus and the road to ADA. Educational Review, 72, 26-31.
McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rath, K., & Royer, J. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353-381.
Roer-Strier, D. (2002). University students with learning disabilities advocating for change. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 914-924.
Yost, D., Shaw, S., Cullen, J., & Bagaj, S. (1994). Practices and attitudes of postsecondary LD service providers in North America. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 631-640.
|
Profile of a Quality Learner |
Profile of a LD Student |
|
|
Information Processing |
|
|
|
Values |
|
|
|
Learning Skills |
|
|
|
Interpersonal Skills |
|
|
|
Intrapersonal Skills |
|
|
|
Thinking Skills |
|
|