Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
(USC Thesis Other)
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 1
Capacity Building for STEM Faculty and Leaders: Supporting University Students with
ADHD in Earning STEM Degrees
by
Amy M. Powell
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2015
Copyright 2015 Amy M. Powell
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 2
Acknowledgements
To my children, I am immensely thankful for your patience and understanding of the time
and level of dedication it took for me to conduct, analyze, and synthesize the research for my
dissertation. To your credit, you never complained. Your beautiful smiles, kind hearts, and
unconditional love kept me going, even when I felt as if I hit a wall in the dissertation process, and
could no longer carry on with the journey to launch this original research. Cameron, Christopher,
and Asher, I love you always and eternally, to the moon and beyond.
To my Dissertation Chair and a true gentleman, Dr. Pedro Enrique Garcia, I am forever
grateful for your unrelenting support and guidance. This dissertation would not have been possible
without your support. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of Problem 15
Purpose of Study 17
Significance of the Study 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
ADHD 23
Challenges for University Students with ADHD 31
Building Leadership Capacity 34
STEM Instructional Strategies 35
Multiple Intelligence Theory 46
Unique Talents/Abilities of College Students with ADHD 51
Faculty Perceptions of College Students with ADHD 56
Transformational Leadership Theory 60
Summary 63
Chapter Three: Methodology 65
Sample Population 67
Instrumentation 68
Data Collection 70
Data Analysis 71
Chapter Four: Results 74
Purpose 75
Demographic Data 77
Theoretical Framework 78
Findings for Research Question 1 81
Findings for Research Question 2 90
Findings for Research Question 3 97
Summary 99
Chapter Five: Discussion 102
Introduction 102
Statement of the Problem 103
Purpose of the Study 103
Discussion of Findings 104
Findings for Research Question 1 105
Findings for Research Question 2 110
Findings for Research Question 114
Limitations 115
Implications for Practice 117
Future Research 118
References 119
Appendix A 130
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 4
Appendix B 132
Appendix C 135
Appendix D 137
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 5
List of Tables
Table 1: STEM Faculty Frequency of Technology Integration 82
Table 2: Types of Instructional Technology Used by STEM Faculty 85
Table 3: STEM Faculty Interest in Training on Instructional Technology 86
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Transformational Leadership Model 61
Figure 2: Four I’s of Transformational Leadership 63
Figure 3: Adapted from Creswell’s Model for Data Analysis 72
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 7
Abstract
In this study, the author examined the instructional and leadership practices of STEM
faculty and leaders at a private university on the West Coast. The author seeks to (a) explore the
building of university’s capacity to support students with ADHD in STEM disciplines, (b)
analyze promising leadership and instructional practices to support university students with
ADHD, and (c) assess whether STEM faculty were inspired to meet the needs of university
students with ADHD. The study used a mixed methods approach: data collection involved the
distribution of 247 surveys to the university’s STEM faculty and leaders, as well as interviews
with five STEM faculty and two STEM leaders. The data was analyzed through the lens of the
Transformational Leadership and Multiple Intelligences Theories. The findings indicated that
slightly over half of the STEM faculty reported daily integration of technology into their
instruction. STEM faculty reported using a variety of technology for instructional purposes
during their lessons: Matlab, Kaliedagraph, Blackboard, capture room digital video recording
equipment, clips of videos, Power Point, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Word. Approximately,
47% of the faculty rated their students as being very engaged, and 53% reported that their
students were somewhat engaged in their labs. Despite students with ADHD comprising
approximately 25% of the number of students with disabilities on university campuses, the
university did not offer any professional development opportunities such as training, seminars, or
discussions on ADHD. This study apprised STEM faculty and leaders of their strengths and
areas for growth in supporting university students with ADHD.
Search terms: ADHD, STEM, capacity building, instructional technology, laboratory
experiences, active learning, university students with ADHD, STEM faculty, STEM leaders
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Capacity building is a method which utilizes a developmental approach to build the human
capital and infrastructure of an organization, as defined by Harvard University’s School of
Education, Wide-scale Interactive Development for Educators Project (2014). Capacity building
identifies the impediments that prevent governmental and non-governmental organizations from
achieving their mission and goals (Loureiro, 2011). The primary focus of capacity building is
developing the organization’s human capital and infrastructure to support the building of new
knowledge and skills to increase the organization’s ability to solve organizational problems
(Loureiro, 2011). The development of human capital includes investment in skill building and
education of faculty and leaders. With the development of human capital, faculty and leaders
could develop their knowledge and skills in serving university students with Attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Over the last few decades, a growing number of individuals with ADHD have entered
universities in the United States (Weyant & Dupaul, 2006). ADHD is perhaps the most
prevalent disability of students attending colleges in the United States. ADHD accounts for 25%
of the student reported disabilities in higher education (Weyant & Dupaul, 2006).
Approximately, 7% of the U.S. population is estimated to have this condition (Sakakihara, 2013).
ADHD is a neurological condition characterized by difficulties with sustaining attention,
excessive motor activity, and impulsivity (Schweitzer, Fassbender, Lit, Reeves, & Henderson-
Powell, 2012). Commonly by adulthood, hyperactive symptoms have waned, and the primary
presenting aspects of the condition are symptoms of inattentiveness.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 9
Despite the presence of medical and educational studies within the last few decades on
ADHD, STEM faculty in higher education continue to utilize instructional methods such as the
lecture method to teach students with ADHD (Rasmussen & Baydala, 2008). The American
Competes Act cites that undergraduate graduation rates in STEM fields such as engineering
dropped by 25% within a fifteen year (United States Department of Education, 2009). Overall,
there is a high attrition rate for STEM majors in the general student population (Kokkelenberg &
Sinha, 2010). University students with ADHD have difficulties in sustaining attention, and when
this is coupled with inadequate instruction, the results can be detrimental. The exclusive
utilization of the lecture method, in STEM fields such as engineering is correlated to an
increased attrition rate for students with ADHD.
There are several plausible factors related to an increase attrition rate for university
students with ADHD. Faculty attitudes towards students with ADHD and awareness of
appropriate instructional strategies play a role in student perseverance in STEM majors at the
university level (Vance & Weyant, 2008). Students in higher education with a medical diagnosis
of ADHD are often overlooked in university and college classrooms as they do not have a visible
disability, especially if their current presentation of ADHD symptoms is inattentiveness
(Rasmussen & Baydala, 2008). As stipulated in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, an
additional factor is that in higher education, unlike in the K-12 public education model, students
with disabilities must self-identify themselves to the Disabled Services Department of their
institution (U.S. Congress, 2007). This requires self-awareness and advocacy efforts on the part
of students with ADHD in higher education (Connor, 2012). This is a shift from the K-12 public
education model which places the burden upon the schools to identify students with ADHD and
learning disabilities.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 10
Along with the self-identification, students with ADHD must provide medical
documentation of their disability. In addition to the written medical diagnosis from a Medical
Doctor, the students may also provide assessment data from licensed Psychologists in the form
of a Psychological report. Once university students provide the written documentation of their
ADHD diagnosis, they are eligible through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for classroom
and testing accommodations, typically provided by the Disabilities Office of their college or
university (United States Congress, 2007). However, the presence of specific supports, such as
classroom and testing accommodations do not ensure the success of the students with ADHD.
Often there are other obstacles, which must be overcome, in order for students with ADHD to
maximize their academic success in college.
Prominent among the obstacles for university students with ADHD successfully
accessing STEM disciplines is the lecture format. This specific barrier to students’ academic
success in STEM majors is the widespread use of the lecture format of instruction in universities
throughout the United States (Braxton, Jones, Hirschy & Hartley, 2008). The lecture method
promotes superficial learning creates boredom and disengagement from the lesson (Armbrtuster,
et al., 2009; Auman, 2011; Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009. Frequently instruction is
provided in a lecture format in which the student is a receptacle of information, sitting and
writing notes for long periods of time. The lecture style method, often provided in university
classrooms is not beneficial for students with ADHD, as the long periods of sustaining attention
during the same activity for long periods of time often present learning difficulties. Teacher
factors such as instruction, attitudes concerning students with ADHD, and awareness of
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 11
appropriate instructional and behavior management strategies can significantly affect student
outcomes (Rasmussen, & Baydala, 2008). Frequently environmental modifications and tools for
students with ADHD are not provided.
A lack of understanding and awareness of appropriate instructional strategies by faculty
of environmental accommodations, modifications, and tools for students with ADHD is
pervasive in higher education (Dipeolu, 2010). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
mandates universities to provide full accessibility for students with disabilities (U.S. Congress,
2006). This means that universities are required to offer reasonable accommodations for
students with ADHD.
Reasonable accommodations include the utilization of innovative STEM instructional
strategies by faculty (U.S. Congress, 2006). When students are provided with reasonable
accommodations and innovative instructional strategies, access points to STEM disciplines may
be systematically created for college students with ADHD. Access points are the means of entry
by which students whom have traditionally faced barriers, limiting their participation in higher
education, such as students with ADHD, have accessed curriculum in educational institutions
(Learning Points Associates, 2010). In the context of higher education and ADHD, access points
for college students with ADHD and other disabilities are mandated by federal legislation, such
as the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (2006).
Although qualified college students with ADHD have the legal right to access, according to the
American’s with Disabilities Act (1990) and Section504 of the Rehabilitation Act (2006)
university students with disabilities are not always granted equitable access to STEM coursework
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 12
with appropriate instructional strategies and supports. Without school leadership provided by
faculty leads, Department Chairs, Associate Deans, Deans, Provosts, and Presidents, ensuring the
implementation of access points for STEM fields, the status quo will remain.
Access points for STEM fields have not been formally examined to address promoting
the unique talents and Multiple Intelligences (Gardener, 2006) of college students with ADHD.
A few of the Multiple Intelligences that may be beneficial to college students with ADHD in
STEM disciplines are the logical-mathematical, naturalistic, and spatial intelligences. A
systematic application of specific STEM instructional strategies such as active learning, the
integration of state of the art technology applications, and laboratory experiences, are innovative
STEM instructional strategies that students with ADHD could potentially positively respond.
Active learning is the process by which students are active participants in their own learning, as
opposed to receptacles of information they are filled with (Bransford, Brown, Cocking,
Donovan, & Pellegrino, 2000). For access points to STEM fields to be created and maintained,
faculty and leadership buy-in is needed. Access points are points in which students have the
physical and or intellectual access to the college, its curriculum, and/or resources (Dickert-Collen
& Rubenstein, 2007). A leadership vehicle with the capacity to inspire and motivate faculty and
leaders towards compliance with the provision of instructional and support services for college
students with ADHD is the Transformation Leadership Theory (Northouse, 2013). The aim of
this study is to investigate and explore what innovative instructional strategies are utilized, as
well as determine what specifically inspires faculty and leaders to build their capacity in teaching
and supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. This study will also
attempt to recommend other approaches to build the capacity of faculty and leaders whom serve
university students with ADHD.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 13
Background of the Problem
University students with ADHD have been viewed utilizing a deficit model. Their
specific limitations or presenting ADHD symptoms are the focus, instead of their individual and
collective strengths as college students. Historically, students with ADHD have been judged by
presenting atypical behaviors or symptoms as first identified in the American Psychiatric
Association’s DSM-II in 1968 (Epstein & Loren, 2013). The current DSM-V (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013) defines ADHD as a disorder with marked deficits in attention,
impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The DSM-IV introduced the subgroups for qualification as an
individual with ADHD as predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive/impulsive, and
combined. These definitions do not take into consideration that ADHD symptoms or behavioral
traits are on a continuum and are not set in place for all time (Epstein & Loren, 2013). In higher
education operating from a deficit model, the strengths and talents of university students with
ADHD are often overlooked (Wolf, Simkowitz, & Carlson, 2009). In focusing on deficits,
strengths and abilities are not explored and encouraged. This may contribute to the high attrition
rate in STEM disciplines.
Graduation rates for university students in the general population for STEM degrees has
declined. University students still declare STEM majors, however there is a high attrition rate
for STEM majors (Kokkelenberg & Sinha, 2010). Specifically, undergraduate graduation rates
in STEM fields such as engineering declined by 25% within a fifteen year period (United States
Department of Education, 2009). This data suggests a large decline of STEM majors leave the
STEM disciplines by changing their majors or dropping out of college.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 14
In a United States Department of Education study of first year students in STEM majors,
examiners found that only 37% of the STEM majors earned a certificate or degree within six
years (Chen, 2009). The National Research Council’s Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education published a report titled How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, Cocking,
Donovan, & Pellegrino, 2010). This report discusses a model of effective instructional strategies
and practices for faculty in higher education. According to How People Learn, instruction must
be knowledge centered, learner centered, community centered, and assessment centered
(Bransford, et al, 2010). The focus on students and supporting their academic achievement was
clear in this study.
University students with ADHD face additional barriers to accessing STEM majors and
coursework in the STEM disciplines. Perhaps the most primary barrier of accessing STEM
majors is the STEM faculty themselves. STEM faculty are the least willing out of the colleges or
departments within an institution of higher education to providing instructional accommodations
for students with ADHD (Rush, 2011). In a study conducted by Vance and Weyant (2008), they
learned that 25.8% of the faculty would not be willing to provide lecture notes or other advance
information to college students with ADHD. Faculty was willing to provide copies of their tests
to the Office of Disabled Student Services (Vance & Weyant, 2008). STEM faculty’s
unwillingness to provide instructional accommodations or innovative STEM instructional
strategies and supports poses an academic risk and added stressors for university students with
ADHD. One of the primary innovative strategies, active learning, is often resisted, while STEM
faculty use their instructional staple, the lecture method (Prince, 2009). Active learning
promotes students’ engagement in activities which stimulate learning such as: analysis,
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 15
synthesis, discussion, reading, writing, and exploration (Gregory, 2010). Active learning also
increases student motivation, strengthens critical thinking skills, increases retention, and
improves the transfer of new information.
With the lack of a widespread provision of supports in higher education for college
students with ADHD in STEM, the true potential for the majority of college students with
ADHD earning STEM degrees will not likely be met. University faculty and leaders need to
understand the abilities and talents of all of their students. These talents and abilities include the
eight types of intelligences contained in the Multiple Intelligences Theory, as developed by
Gardner (2006). The eight types of intelligences as defined by Gardner in his seminal work at
Harvard University are: verbal, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, mathematical,
spatial, and naturalistic. By putting forth efforts to learn more about their students’ strengths or
intelligences, faculty could serve as a resource, instead of a barrier which students must
overcome, or suffer through (Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007).
Ultimately, faculty are the university resources responsible for improving students’ content
understanding and achievement. University leaders are charged with providing faculty
opportunities to improve their instructional practices through professional development efforts
including: collaboration, the creation of a shared vision, shared leadership, and professional
learning communities (Williams, 2009). With the capacity building of faculty and leaders to
gain knowledge and skills in serving college students with ADHD, more university students with
ADHD will have the opportunity to earn degrees in STEM disciplines.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 16
Statement of the Problem
Enrollment for college students with ADHD has increased during the last few decades,
since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed by the United States Congress in 1990,
under the support of former U.S. President, George W. Bush. Since that time, enrollment in two
and four year colleges has increased by 30% for college students with ADHD (Wagner,
Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Approximately 6% of the college students with
ADHD attend a four year university (Wagner, et al, 2005). The increase of numbers of college
students’ self-disclosure of ADHD has highlighted the need for faculty and leaders to provide
adequate instruction and supports to meet the needs of the students. Supports include faculty and
leaders working to build their individual and organizational capacities to serve college students
with ADHD. This includes the removal of barriers which block access to the STEM disciplines.
University students with ADHD encounter barriers in the STEM disciplines in which they
must overcome to graduate with STEM degrees. One of the major barriers students with ADHD
face is that the lecture method is the predominant instructional strategy for STEM disciplines
(Kommarraju & Karrau, 2008). The lecture method as the sole means of teaching university
students with ADHD in STEM disciplines is not an adequate method for serving university
students with ADHD. The focus of this study was to understand the existing instructional
strategies and supports in place for university students with ADHD, and provide
recommendations of approaches for inspiring faculty and leaders to build their capacities in
instruction and supports of university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees.
Throughout the literature available, a recurring theme was the inadequacy of instruction in
STEM fields for meeting the needs of university students with ADHD. The intent of the lecture
method is to enable faculty to disseminate large amounts of material in a relatively short amount
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 17
of time (Kommarraju & Karrau, 2008). In a study by Vance & Weyant (2008), STEM faculty
were the least willing to provide instructional accommodations such as providing notes and other
material prior to a lecture for their university students with ADHD. Negative attitudes,
perceptions, and lack of acceptance of college students with ADHD created barriers for college
students with ADHD in accessing STEM majors and coursework in an equitable manner (Vance
& Weyant, 2008). The review of literature in Chapter Two will explore innovative, evidenced-
based practices such as: active learning, laboratory experiences, and the integration of
technology into the curriculum to support university students with ADHD in actualizing their
goal of earning a STEM degree.
The aim of this study was to examine existing STEM instructional strategies and building
leadership capacity for faculty and school leaders in supporting university students with ADHD
in earning STEM degrees. With the integration of a strengths-based perspective, utilizing
Multiple Intelligences Theory (Gardner, 2006), students with ADHD may be taught and
encouraged by faculty and school leaders. For the purposes of this study, a strengths-based
perspective was defined as an educational Transformational leaders with the ability to lead, while
engaging all of their resources to create a community of shared leadership. This included putting
all the right players (faculty) in the right positions and providing them with leadership
opportunities to share in the decision-making process as school leaders do not have the time or
expertise to “make every decision, every time” (Williams, p. 30, 2009).
With appropriate supports in place at institutions of higher education, college students
with ADHD can be successful in their mastery of STEM course contents. The appropriate
supports include adherence to each students’ accommodations, as approved by the Office of
Disabilities at each college. As an effort to improve how STEM faculty and higher education
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 18
leaders teach and support college students with ADHD in their classrooms and campuses,
recommendations for building capacity in serving college students with ADHD will be provided
in this study.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined capacity building for faculty and leaders in supporting college
students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. A strength-based perspective, utilizing the
Multiple Intelligences Theory, was integrated throughout this study to identify how to best meet
college students’ with ADHD individual learning needs within the collegiate classroom
environment. This strength-based approach provides a broad developmental outlook which
focuses on the whole person, whereas a deficit-based approach focuses solely on the problem
(Shah & White, 2006). Altering negative perceptions regarding ADHD is key to unlocking the
unique talents and abilities of college students self-identified with ADHD. One of the methods
for reducing and altering negative perceptions is by framing ADHD with the incorporation of an
asset model. An asset model looks at what academic resources and skill sets college students
with ADHD have. It can also be used to raise awareness of the strengths and needs of university
students with ADHD.
In raising the level of awareness of ADHD in college students and how STEM
instructional strategies influence their learning, faculty may become more effective teachers for
college students with ADHD. The implementation of innovative STEM instructional strategies
can provide the support needed for students with ADHD in higher education to maximize their
fullest potentials and earn degrees in STEM fields such as science, medicine, health, engineering,
technology, and mathematics. The implementation of innovative STEM instructional strategies
may occur during the capacity building process. According to Bubb and Early (2009) the
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 19
capacity building process includes the development of a learning-centered culture where faculty
learning is as highly valued as student learning. Professional development opportunities are
created where coaching, discussions, mentoring, and developing faculty and leaders is part of the
shared vision which is acknowledged and celebrated.
The focus of this study was to answer the following research questions and provide
capacity building steps for faculty and leaders to raise awareness about college students with
ADHD, and improve the achievement levels and outcomes of college students with ADHD in
obtaining their degrees in STEM career fields.
Research Questions
1. What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve university
students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
2. What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving
university students with ADHD?
3. Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting university
students with ADHD?
Significance of the Study
This study provides recommendations for the capacity building of faculty and leaders in
support college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. Additionally, faculty and
leaders are provided with recommendations for incorporating STEM instructional strategies that
hone in on the talents and abilities of college students with ADHD. These instructional strategies
include: Active learning, lab experiences, technology applications, and the incorporation of a
strength-based perspective with the use of Multiple Intelligences Theory (Gardner, 1983). With
the eventuality that these strategies are successful, faculty in higher education can incorporate
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 20
these strategies and tools into their instructional practices to promote student achievement.
Additional supports for college students with ADHD will also be recommended to encourage
positive outcomes with the utilization of instructional and transformational leadership practices.
Transformational leadership practices incorporate the development of human capital in
conjunction with inspiring faculty to improve their instructional performance to maximize
student achievement.
This investigation into how faculty and leaders can build their capacity in supporting
college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees will provide a knowledge base from
which faculty and administrators in higher education may explore alternative strategies to the
lecture methods. These alternative strategies include: active learning, laboratory experiences,
inclusion of technology in lessons, and the utilization of a strengths-based perspective to
positively influencing student achievement. Successful implementation of Transformational
Leadership strategies has the potential of fostering affirmative learning experiences for students,
and increasing student achievement and degree obtainment. Professional development at the
university, such as the training and collaboration necessary to build the procedural knowledge
essential to implement evidence-based STEM instructional strategies and student supports is a
valued contribution to the building of capacity. In the leadership capacity matrix, highly skilled
faculty with high involvement are correlated to high or steadily improving student achievement
matrix (Lambert, 2006). Highly skilled leaders with high involvement promote a shared vision,
inquiry-based use of information to inform practice and decision-making, and encourage
reflective practice to foster innovation with the intent to improve student achievement.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 21
Limitations
This examination was conducted under the constraints of completing the study within a
short time frame. This study was conducted over the course of fifteen month period. The
sample size of this study could have been larger had this researcher had more years to work on
the data collection process. However, due to the feasibility of this study, this was not possible.
There was a limited amount of research on instruction in higher education for college students
with ADHD. Due to this limited amount of research, a few of the studies cited in the body of
this study are over ten years old.
Delimitations
The study was conducted at a university on the West Coast of the United States. This West
Coast University serves both undergraduate and graduate students. The sample was derived of
fifty STEM faculty and fifty STEM leaders. The faculty and leaders of the university used in
this study are not be representative of all institutions of higher education in the United States as
this is a top-tier research university.
Definitions
Access points - Access points are points in which students have the physical and or intellectual
access to the college, its curriculum, and/or resources (Dickert-Collen & Rubenstein, 2007).
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A neurological condition characterized by
difficulties with sustaining attention, excessive motor activity, and impulsivity (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Neurological condition. A condition involving the structural, biochemical, or electrical
abnormalities of the brain, resulting in a range of symptoms (American Psychiatric Association,
2013).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 22
American’s with Disabilities Act. A federal law instituted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disability or perceived disability for employment, State and local government,
public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, telecommunication, and the
United States Congress (United States Department of Justice, 2010).
Capacity building. Also known as manpower planning or educational development, capacity
building includes policy formation, training, and institution building to create centers of
excellence (Wide-scale Interactive Development for Educators, 2014).
Rehabilitation Act, Section 504. This section of the Rehabilitation Act stipulates that no
individual is to be excluded from, denied benefits of, or discriminated against under any program
or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, or is implemented by any Executive agency
of the United States government or United States Postal Service (United States Department of
Justice, 2009).
Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics are represented in this term (United States Congress,
2009).
Transformational Leadership - A type of leadership in which the leader possesses and actively
utilizes their skills in self-management of emotions, high self-awareness, deep understanding of
human behavior, with their ability to think analytically to make people responsible for their
achievements and potentials, rather than their jobs and short-term goals (Keis, 2014).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This review of the literature serves as a framework for understanding the conceptual
mechanisms for building the capacity of STEM faculty and leaders in teaching and supporting
university students with ADHD. This capacity building includes deploying transformational and
instructional leadership practices to influence achievement for college students with ADHD.
Transformational leadership empowers faculty and leaders to take the necessary risks to
successfully accomplish their tasks in support of their organization’s goals (Avolio, Zhu, Koh,
Bhatia, 2004). The capacity building of STEM faculty and leaders will include knowledge
development and awareness regarding ADHD, as well as promising instructional practices to
serve college students with ADHD.
In this review of the literature, a brief history of ADHD will be presented to provide
fundamental knowledge regarding ADHD that was already established. This cursory information
regarding ADHD provided scaffolding for the focus on capacity building for STEM faculty and
leaders in meeting the needs of this student population. Second, challenges for college students
with ADHD are explored utilizing the existing literature on college students with ADHD. Third,
building capacity with leadership will be closely examined to identify and inform of existing
trends in the available literature. Fourth, section discusses the predominant lecture method in
STEM vs. innovative instructional strategies such as active learning, laboratory experiences, and
the integration of technology. Fifth, a review of the literature on faculty attitudes and awareness
is presented about college students with ADHD. Finally, the utilization of the unique
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 24
talents/ skills of students with ADHD and their application to STEM fields is explored in detail.
The primary theoretical framework for this study is the Transformational Leadership model. The
Transformational Leadership Model is applied throughout this study, utilizing the perspectives of
Bass (1991) and Burns (1978) in their seminal works of the Transformational Leadership Theory.
The intent of this literature review was to provide a framework for building the capacity
of faculty and leaders in supporting college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees with
appropriate, innovative instructional strategies and transformational leadership practices. This
study provides a knowledge base for faculty and leaders in higher education to explore
innovative instructional strategies and supports to positively influence achievement outcomes of
university students with ADHD. The development of this knowledge base for faculty and
leaders to build the capacity of their university to serve university students with ADHD.
ADHD
There are a variety of STEM classroom contexts that college students with ADHD
encounter while attending colleges and universities. University students with ADHD bring their
own individual knowledge, life experience, and traits with along with them into the learning
environment. In order to build faculty and leaders capacity in serving college students with
ADHD, they must have some background knowledge of ADHD. This knowledge includes the
symptoms, treatments, and suggested instructional strategies for faculty. According to
Schirdman & Case (2014), faculty and leaders’ knowledge of ADHD may provide insights to
empower faculty and leaders in supporting college students with ADHD. This empowerment of
faculty and leaders may translate into heightened awareness and sensitivity of college students
with ADHD.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 25
ADHD is one of the most common conditions of college students affecting student
achievement. According to Norvilitis, Ingersoll, Zhang, and Jia, (2008), approximately 4.4% of
the college student populations in the United States and 7.8% in China, report having substantial
symptoms of ADHD. There are specific criteria for presenting symptoms and their effect on
domains in life functioning. The criteria for diagnosis of ADHD is developed by the American
Psychiatric Association (2013) and published in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Five. A
medical doctor typically diagnosis ADHD with recommended treatment options. The treatment
options may be provided by the treating physician or include a referral to a physician
specializing in treating individuals experiencing ADHD symptoms. The physician specialist then
conducts an ADHD assessment with the criteria from the American Psychiatric Association
(2013) and any applicable recommendations from their professional organization such as the
American Pediatric Association.
ADHD symptoms first appear during childhood and adolescence. The assessment of
youth for ADHD involves a clinical interview with the child, the parent, and a collection of
teacher or care provider surveys of the child’s functioning and exhibition of inattentive and
hyperactive/impulsive behaviors (Pliszka, 2007). For an individual to have an initial diagnosis
of ADHD during adulthood is uncommon. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM - V) provides 18 symptoms of ADHD identified (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). According to the DSM – V , ADHD is defined by a group of
identifying symptoms. Individuals must present at least nine symptoms in the domain of
inattentive or hyperactivity/impulsivity or have at least six inattentive domains to qualify for a
diagnosis of ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These are two separate
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 26
qualifications; one diagnosis indicates that inattentiveness is the primary presenting symptom
and the second qualification states that hyperactivity/impulsivity is the key presentation of
ADHD symptoms. In addition, eligible individuals presenting ADHD symptoms may receive a
third type of diagnosis from their medical doctor.
In assessing and diagnosing individuals with ADHD, medical doctors use the qualifying
criteria stipulated in the DSM –V. The DSM – V states that individuals may qualify for a
diagnosis with the combined condition if there is a significant presentation of symptoms in both
areas (American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Individuals must also demonstrate an
impairment caused by their presenting symptoms of ADHD in their life functioning in at least
one environment, either home or school, in order to obtain a diagnosis of this neurobehavioral
condition (Pliszka, 2007). The American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) reported that ADHD
symptoms continue through childhood and adolescence through adulthood in 40% to 70% of
individuals diagnosed with ADHD. This means that most individuals with symptoms of ADHD
still present these symptoms during adulthood, when they are attending college.
While the symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity begin to subdue during adolescence,
symptoms associated with ADHD often provide barriers which college students must overcome
to be successful in college. The observable inattentive symptoms of ADHD are difficulties with
organization, difficulty sustaining attention, does not appear to listen, makes careless mistakes,
struggles to follow through on directions, avoids or dislikes requiring sustained mental effort,
often loses things necessary for tasks, easily distracted, forgetful in daily activities (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). Qualifying symptoms pertaining to the manifestation of
hyperactivity and impulsiveness include fidgeting, difficulty remaining seated, restlessness,
difficulty engaging in activities quietly, acts as if driven by a motor, talks excessively, blurts out
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 27
answers before questions have been completed, difficulty waiting in turn taking situations, and
interrupts or intrudes upon (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Hyperactive symptoms
presented by adults may often appear as restlessness, as opposed to acting as if driven by a
motor. These ADHD symptoms create challenges for college students with ADHD. (Rabiner,
Anastopolous, Costello, Hoyle, Schwartzwelder, 2008). In a study conducted with 1,648 college
students with ADHD, 68 out of 200 randomly selected students reported experiencing academic
challenges caused by their inattentiveness and were unrelated to any hyperactive symptoms
(Rabiner, et. al, 2008). As inattentive symptoms may interfere with learning and life activities of
individuals, inattentive symptoms are one of the criteria needed for the ADHD diagnosis.
Individuals meeting the ADHD criteria for diagnosis are generally either diagnosed with
primary presentation of hyperactivity/impulsivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fifth
Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) informed that the third diagnostic option is the
combined diagnosis in which the individual presents both the hyperactive and inattentive
symptoms. There are medical treatment options that have been approved by the United States
Federal Drug and Alcohol Division such as stimulant medications, norepinephrine-reuptake
inhibitors, and cx2-adrenergic agonists (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). Although,
there has been some controversy within the past two decades concerning prescribing stimulant
medication, stimulant medications have been studied extensively as a viable treatment option for
treating the symptoms of ADHD. Due to studies on viable treatment options, there is a breadth
of information available on best practices for working with students with ADHD.
For the last twenty years, considerable research has been conducted on the benefits and
potential side effects of stimulant medications in treating individuals with ADHD. In order to
maximize the benefits of stimulant medications for the students in their school settings, the
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 28
medications are prescribed to be administered prior to the students arriving at school. The
Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Steering Committee on Quality
Improvement and Management developed the ADHD: Clinical Practice Guideline for the
Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children
and Adolescents (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). The ADHD Clinical Practice
Guidelines assert that stimulant medications are the first line of psychopharmacological
treatment of ADHD (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). Stimulant medications are
generally more widely used than the newer types of medication such as norepinephrine-reuptake
inhibitors and cx2-adrenergic agonists. Stimulant medications have also had a history of being
highly successful in treating core symptoms of ADHD adrenergic agonists. Stimulant
medications are the first line of defense for treating ADHD (American Academy of Pediatrics,
2011). There are other treatment options available to treat the symptoms of ADHD. These
treatment options may involve a multi-disciplinary team of professionals who work with the
student and families to develop and implement a treatment plan.
The second most prevalent treatment option for ADHD is behavioral therapy. According
to a report presented by the American Academy of Pediatrics (2011), behavior therapy teaches
individuals with ADHD specific strategies to improve their ability to self-regulate their
behaviors. Research data have indicated positive benefits of behavior therapy when utilized in
conjunction with stimulant medication (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). Several
individuals with ADHD utilize either stimulant medications or behavior therapy to manage their
symptoms of ADHD, or both (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). Research findings
compiled by the American of Pediatrics (2011) inform that stimulant medications are more
effective for ADHD core symptom management than with behavior therapy alone.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 29
While ADHD is substantiated as a neurological condition which affects learning and
requires a recommended course of treatment, many faculty and administration in higher
education minimize the necessity for innovative instructional strategies such as active learning
opportunities, lab experiences, and the integration of technology into instruction. This
demonstrates that there is a need for capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders. Faculty
and leaders must understand their purpose and become committed to their institutional and
national imperatives for increasing STEM graduation rates by meeting the needs of all students.
Challenges for University Students with ADHD
During the last few decades, both educators and medical providers have learned from
research and practice that ADHD symptoms such as inattentiveness and hyperactivity effect
learning for students with ADHD. Rabiner et al (2008), Barkley (2006), and the Diagnostic and
Statistics Manual Five (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) substantiate the challenges that
university students with ADHD cope with. Conversely, university students with ADHD are more
likely to have experienced academic success related to their academic performance than the
general population of individuals with ADHD (Rabiner et al, 2008). Additionally, university
students with ADHD encounter barriers in STEM disciplines which they must overcome to
progress academically in STEM disciplines and ultimately earn their STEM degrees.
Once matriculated into and attending a university in the U.S., college students with
ADHD university students become aware of the challenges and barriers that exist in their classes
and university institution. Rabiner et al (2008) surveyed 1,648 university students to measure
inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms relevant to university students with ADHD, as
well the students’ academic concerns. Approximately 4% of the college students surveyed
reported that they had an ADHD diagnosis (Rabiner, et al, 2008). The college student study
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 30
participants with ADHD reported that they experienced inattentive symptoms and hyperactive-
impulsive symptoms which they felt affected their academic performance in college. Pertaining
to their inattentiveness, they reported they felt that most of the other students in their classes
concentrated better than they do and that they have difficulty keeping track of their different
school assignments (Rabiner et al, 2008). Difficulty in attending to lectures poses a risk for
college students with ADHD studying STEM disciplines, as the primary instructional method
implemented in colleges in the U.S. is the lecture method. Research also indicates that ADHD
affects the working memory, often referred to as the short-term memory (Marchetta, Hurks,
Krabbendam, & Jolles, 2008; Martinussen, Hayden, Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005). The
working memory deficits coupled with inattentiveness, place burdens on college students with
ADHD being able to encode large amounts of information, as presented in lectures.
The lecture method requires that students sit for long periods of time and take copious,
detailed notes. Sitting in one place and attending to a lecture for long periods of time poses a
great challenge for college students with ADHD as a result of their symptoms of inattentiveness,
and/or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. Faculty can provide instructional supports such as
instructional accommodations to augment instruction for college students with ADHD during
their lecture. These instructional accommodations may include: providing copies of notes,
permitting the use of personal digital assistant devices to record lectures, and/or cooperating with
note-takers assigned to take notes for the students (Connor, 2012). In this article, Connor (2012)
provided twenty one tips to support students with disabilities in making a successful transition to
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 31
college. Connor explained that colleges and universities whom receive federal funding are
required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (2006) to ensure the civil rights of
students with disabilities. This law mandates that colleges and universities make their programs
fully accessible to qualified students with disabilities and make reasonable accommodations that
impact students’ ability to fully participate in college.
The implementation of accommodations is legally mandated when students register with
their college’s Disabilities Services Office and provide their instructors with copies of their
accommodations. Although faculty are required to provide the stipulated instructional
accommodations, as directed by their institution’s Disabilities Services Office, there are faculty
whom resist providing the instructional accommodations and/or the incorporation of instructional
strategies which meet the needs of all of their students into their lessons (Ryan, 2007). This
resistance by some faculty to provide the instructional strategies and accommodations to meet
the needs of all of their students highlights the need for the development of professional capacity
for STEM faculty in serving university students with ADHD.
Another challenge which college students with ADHD may experience are symptoms of
hyperactive-impulsive symptoms which affect their academic performance. In a survey
distributed by Rabiner et al (2008), researchers discovered that in relation to their hyperactive-
impulsive symptoms, college students with ADHD felt restless and fidgety during their classes,
while completing school work outside of class, and considered themselves to be impulsive. The
college students with ADHD also reported more distress over their academic performance than
their peers without ADHD (Rabiner, et al, 2008). The reported prevalence of the symptoms of
inattentiveness and hyperactivity-impulsivity, and how the symptoms are manifested in the
classroom and study environments demonstrates the need for the implementation of instructional
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 32
strategies and supports. There is a great need for faculty and leaders to build their professional
capacities in teaching and supporting college students with ADHD. This faculty and leader
development can be developed in context to STEM coursework so that the application of
innovative instructional strategies and supports are explicit and clear for both faculty and leaders.
Building Capacity with Leadership
The degree to which a university builds their capacity for meeting the diverse needs of
their student body or not, increases or decreases their effectiveness in supporting student
achievement, including degree attainment (Marzano, 2005). Specifically, to meet the needs of
university students with ADHD, leaders must craft a purposeful community. In this context, a
purposeful community is “one with the collective efficacy and capability to develop and use
assets to accomplish goals that matter to all community members through agreed-upon
processes” (Marzano, p. 99, 2005). The first concept in a purposeful community is the collective
efficacy of faculty and leaders shared belief that in their working together with one purpose, they
can positively impact the lives of their students.
Collective Efficacy
With collective efficacy, faculty and leaders embrace the belief the idea and creation of a
professional learning community, where faculty share in the decision-making process, having a
common sense of purpose, engage in collaborative work, and accept joint responsibility for
positive outcomes and failures (Slater, 2008). This study stressed the importance of
communication in building capacity of educational organizations and a school or campus culture
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 33
of empowerment. Slater (2008) emphasized that leaders’ performance must focus on being hero-
makers, as opposed to heroes. This implies that leaders must use their communication skills to
empower their faculty and other leaders to become heroes for students and each other in building
the capacity of their organization to successfully meet the needs of students.
Applied to the context of serving college students with ADHD in STEM disciplines,
departments, and colleges, Transformational leaders are able to use effective communication
skills and emotional competencies such as good listening skills, openness, non-verbal
communication, and empathy to collaboratively establish the framework for building capacity.
Evidence from this study established that people skills, such as possessing emotional
competencies were critical to developing relationships with faculty and other leaders, essential to
powerful collaborative relationships (Slater, 2008). Building the capacity of faculty and leaders
includes focusing on empowerment, collaboration, and inclusion.
With collective efficacy, the university’s leadership teams demonstrated a profound
commitment to increasing faculty’s knowledge of appropriate instructional strategies and
supports (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). In the book, Profound Learning Improvement: building
capacity for a learning community, Mitchell and Sackney (2011) explore how learning
communities can serve as an instrument in professional development for faculty and leaders.
They admonish that professional capacity for faculty and leaders must be developed in three
domains to enhance student learning and achievement: personal, interpersonal, and
organizational. The development of professional capacity in the personal domain for faculty
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 34
encompasses the construction and deconstruction of their professional experiences to reflect on
their own instructional practices, articulate values and beliefs, give shape and form to teaching
theory, and better understand and contribute to decision-making processes (Mitchell & Sackney,
2011).
Next, in the interpersonal domain, educators share the existing norms and values. These
norms and values are further explored in team building and professional development activities
to promote experimentation and critical analysis of existing educational practices in serving
college students with ADHD (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). These critical analysis and
experimentation cycle into collective and individual learning of appropriate innovative
instructional strategies and supports for college students with ADHD.
Finally, in the organizational domain, visible and invisible structures are created to enable
faculty and leaders to support profound teaching and learning in their college. In creating a
structure for collaborative inquiry, critical analysis, experimentation, learning, and reflection
amongst faculty and leaders, time must be set forth to engage in such professional practices
(Muijs & Harris, 2007). Without the structure of time set apart for these professional
development practices, change in changes in the infrastructure of the organization, affecting
teaching and learning are unlikely to be permanent changes within the fiber of the university
organization. Muijis and Harris (2007) presented case studies which further established that
successful faculty-leadership was promoted by changing structures in a very strategic manner,
with full support from all leadership in the organization.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 35
Systems and Structures
Faculty networking assists in changing the structure of colleges because lateral networks,
networks comprised of other faculty, share innovative instructional strategies and supports and
are able to disseminate the information more quickly than top-down approaches. Hargreaves
(2004) advocated that faculty should innovate and collaborate. When faculty are provided with
the structures in which to foster their creative capacity to innovate, they are better able to support
students learning. Innovation is a method to improve instructional skills and supports in
adapting to meet changing circumstances. Specific to this study, these changing circumstances
include changing contexts in which more college students with ADHD are enrolling in colleges
in the U.S.
While the case studies presented by affirming that teacher leadership promotes the
construction of an infrastructure for advancing innovation and collaboration (Muijs & Harris,
2007), there are also other structures which must exist to enact change in faculty instructional
strategies and supports provided to university students with ADHD. Cory (2011) reveals that
colleges have increased their efforts to meet and surpass legal requirements for providing
educational and environmental supports to students of color, women, and LGBT students. She
admonishes that colleges should also increase their efforts to serve college students with ADHD
and other disabilities. Although, college students with ADHD are to provide faculty with copies
of their accommodations from the Disabilities Services Office, faculty need to collaborate with
the Disabilities Services Office to create a plan for the students, which meets the ADHD related-
needs of the students as well as the discipline specific needs (Cory, 2011).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 36
The Disabilities Services Offices also serve as a resource to support faculty and leaders
in honoring the college’s required legal requirements for college students with ADHD and other
disabilities. A few of the ways in which Disabilities Services Offices may serve as resources are
in providing faculty and leaders with campus training. Furthermore, many Disabilities Services
professionals have expertise in accessible curriculum design. Commonly, Disabilities Services
professionals offer one-on-one meetings to collaborate and advise with faculty and leaders on
course development and points of access for students in STEM disciplines (Cory, 2011).
University supports and structures are also improved when a campus culture of
embracing diversity also includes students with ADHD as part of their campus diversity. When
the focus is on embracing diversity and promoting an inclusive environment for all students, the
focus shifts from viewing college students with ADHD as pathological (Corey, 2011). This
paradigm shift is similar to how students of color and women were once seen as abnormal and
not readily accepted on university campuses in the U.S. When appropriate supports and structure
are in place at universities for students with ADHD, there are more opportunities for student
achievement within STEM disciplines. Conversely, when the appropriate systems and structures
either do not exist within a college or are not operating to their intended capacity, university
students with ADHD encounter multiple barriers.
STEM Instructional Strategies
University students with ADHD encounter barriers in accessing the STEM coursework
content when faculty use the lecture method as the primary method of instruction. The lecture
method is widely used to impart massive amounts of information to undergraduate students in
STEM disciplines. In the lecture method the professor lectures aloud while students take lecture
notes. Faculty in STEM fields such as engineering overwhelmingly utilizes the lecture method
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 37
to teach students (Prince, 2004). This study examined the effectiveness of active learning.
Prince (2004) also discussed the relevance of active learning for engineering faculty and how it
can be integrated into engineering classrooms. The aim of the study was to demonstrate how
active learning can be successfully implemented by faculty in engineering. The findings suggest
that active learning is an effective instructional strategies to use in teaching engineering students
concepts and practical applications of engineering that they will be expected to perform in their
careers as engineers. The use of the lecture method, as the predominant instructional strategy for
imparting knowledge is not an effective instructional practice for university students with ADHD
(Epstein & Loren, 2013). The lecture method requires students to be receptacles of information.
With the employment of innovative STEM instructional strategies and supports, students
with ADHD can graduate with STEM degrees (Dipeolu, 2011). Capacity building for STEM
faculty and leaders can assist college students with ADHD in entering STEM careers with STEM
degrees, and positively contributing to society and the U.S. economy. STEM disciplines present
challenges for the majority of college students. This is in part due to the strong reliance on the
lecture method to impart large amounts of complex information to the students for the duration
of each class meeting.
The researchers (Bransford et al, 2010) connected all facets of their study to supporting
the achievement of students and provided recommendations for knowledge centered, learner
centered, community centered, and assessment centered instruction within the scope of active
learning in which college students are full participants in their learning. Knowledge centered
instruction requires planning which contributes to student learning outcomes. In order to design
knowledge-centered instruction, some of the questions that faculty must ask themselves during
their instructional planning: “What do we want students to know and be able to do after
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 38
completing our materials or course? How do we provide learners with the foundational
knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for successful transfer (Bransford, et, p. 138,
2010)?” These are essential questions that faculty must ask themselves to keep the foci of their
instruction on the desired students learning outcomes.
These essential questions support the knowledge and skills in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. In engineering, specifically, students much use their knowledge
as a tool to test and solve problems, and develop concrete solutions. To successfully perform
these tasks university students with ADHD must have opportunities to experience innovative
strategies in their engineering/STEM coursework. These engineering “habits of mind” that
emphasize (a) systems thinking (b) creativity (c) optimism (d) collaboration (f) attention to
ethical considerations (Basham & Moreno, 2013). To fully develop these “habits of mind”,
university students with ADHD must have opportunities to engage in active learning.
Active Learning
Innovative STEM instructional strategies such as active learning have been promoted as
best teaching practices. Active learning incorporates the engineering habits of mind such as
creativity and collaboration. For a considerable amount of faculty in STEM fields such as
engineering, there is a lack of awareness of what exactly active learning consists of (Prince,
2004). In this study active learning was defined as active as instructional methods that engage
students in the learning process (Prince, 2004). Active learning requires that students engage in
meaningful learning activities and have opportunities to reflect on what they are learning. There
are differences in what faculty believe active learning is in practice. In fact, some faculty
consider homework assignments to be forms of active learning as they require action on the part
of the students (Prince, 2004).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 39
As early as 1991, the Association for the Study of Higher Education issued a report on
creating excitement in university courses with active learning (Bowell & Eison). Seminal work
from the Association for the Study of Higher Education (1991) defined active learning as
students’ active engagement in their learning process as being more than just listening. Active
learning involves students’ engagement in activities which promote learning such as: analysis,
synthesis, discussion, reading, writing, and exploration.
Furse (2012) piloted these active learning strategies in the engineering courses she taught
by shifting to lecture-free instruction at the University of Utah. Furse provided pre-recorded
lectures, condensed into four to six five minute segments, with Power Points serving as the
visual. Furse (2012) posted these pre-recorded videos on YouTube, students are able to slow the
video down, pause it, rewind, of fast-forward it to meet their individual learning needs. In class,
the day after she posted the lecture on YouTube, Furse began her lessons with a student-driven
review in which she presents her engineering students with a question or problem for them to
walk her through. With each step, Furse (2012), posted them on the board in the order necessary
to solve the problem.
The third step of the incorporation of active learning into the engineering coursework
included in this study was an active small group work in which the group worked together to
solve the problem, as the engineering professor, Furse (2012), walked around the room and
students are provided with opportunities to ask semi-private questions that they may feel too
uncomfortable to ask of her in the larger, whole group. During her classroom walk-around,
Furse (2012), also observed and collected questions that others may also have so that she may
address and answer them in the whole group.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 40
The fourth step of this active learning instructional strategy in the engineering course was
the professor spending approximately ten minutes to demonstrate how the abstract concepts the
students learned in class apply to real-world engineering applications. Furse (2012) admits that
the primary challenge to the active learning strategies she utilizes is getting the students to watch
the pre-recorded lecture video, prior to class. The YouTube statistics indicated that 80% of the
students watch the video before class and 20% view it after class. Furse (2012) reported that
student satisfaction surveys demonstrate that students are more satisfied with the course and
lecture-free instruction, since the incorporation of these active learning strategies.
As taken from a foundational piece in higher education research on student development,
the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Higher Education, “Student learning is not a spectator
sport. Students do not learn much by sitting in class, listening to teachers, memorizing
prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning,
write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. They must make
what they learn part of themselves (Chickering & Gamson, p. 3, 1987).” These
recommendations by Chickering & Gamson (1987) assert that learning is enhanced when
students are active participants in their learning. In addition to effective STEM instructional
strategies, creating positive learning outcomes for college students with ADHD, they also benefit
the general student population.
Faculty’s metacognition of their instructional strategies is essential to faculty designing
opportunities for students to engage in active learning. The term metacognition is defined by
Purdue University’s College of Education (V ockell, 2014) as the learner’s awareness of their
own knowledge, and their ability to understand and manipulate their own cognitive process. In
short, metacognition, is thinking about one’s own cognitive learning processes. In addition to
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 41
faculty having an awareness of their own knowledge and ability to understand and control their
own cognitive processes, faculty must make learning student-centered. For intended learning
outcomes to occur in STEM fields, instruction needs to be student and learning-centered.
Gamson and Chickering (1987) wrote a foundational article on the seven recommended
practices for student development and instruction in higher education. These recommendations
are still widely implemented in the field of higher education today. In this foundational piece on
best student-centered practices in higher education, learning-centered instruction takes the
strengths and learning differences of students into consideration (Gamson & Chickering,
1987). In the Seven Good Practices in Undergraduate Education, Gamson and Chickering
(1987) assert respect by faculty for diverse ways of learning for college students is critical to
implementing effective instructional strategies and increasing students’ engagement.
University students with ADHD need to be provided with innovative STEM instructional
strategies which allow them to demonstrate their unique talents and abilities. The incorporation
of active learning strategies increases student motivation, strengthens critical thinking skills,
increases retention, and improves the transfer of new information (Gregory, 2010). Currently,
innovative STEM instructional strategies, such as active learning are not implemented in many
of the STEM disciplines, putting university students with ADHD at a greater disadvantage in
persisting in STEM degree majors.
Laboratory Experiences
Laboratory experiences in STEM coursework provide rich benefits for students. The
National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) suggest that laboratory
experiences help students to become interested and actively engaged in a topic. These laboratory
experiences allow students to utilize the scientific method of inquiry to investigate scientific
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 42
phenomena, solve problems, and understand conceptual and procedural knowledge in their
STEM coursework (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). Laboratory experiences provide meaningful
opportunities for students with ADHD and may utilize a constructivist model which allows
students to construct their own ideas and understanding of the scientific phenomena based on a
series of experiences. Students with ADHD can solve real world problems in the context of their
institution’s laboratories. Additionally, laboratories in higher education provide a means for
students to work collaboratively with other students in pairs or small groups
(Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). The use of laboratories also allows students to practice the skills
they will need to implement in their STEM careers.
The goal of many STEM fields such as engineering is to prepare students for the practice
of STEM. Key instruction in engineering is quite often conducted in the laboratory. This
instructional strategy allows students to obtain data to develop a design, analyze a new device,
build a device, or learn key concepts which practicing engineers must understand (Feisel,
Rosa & 2005). The rationale for utilizing the laboratory to fully understand engineering concepts
is due to the practical nature of engineering (Fiesel & Rosa, 2005). Engineering is a profession
which requires the understanding of theory and the hands-on application of theories presented in
the coursework.
The utilization of mathematical and scientific concepts is central to laboratory
experiences for several STEM majors. Glass and Haile (2012) conducted a study with student
focus groups consisting of undergraduates taking coursework in chemical engineering, measured
their rankings of various instructional strategies used in their introductory chemical engineering
course. Undergraduate students taking introductory chemical engineering courses at Newcastle
University gain a deeper understanding of the course material by participating in industrially
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 43
based case studies solved in small groups with opportunities to solve in the laboratories
(Glasse & Haile, 2012). These laboratory experiences provided students with opportunities to
integrate crucial scientific principles to gain a deeper understanding of sustainable energy
sources.
With the goal of most STEM coursework being to prepare graduates for careers in STEM
fields, it is essential that students have curricular experiences in which they are provided with
opportunities to apply their learning in real world laboratories. For example, in a computer
programming undergraduate course, computer games were the focus of student laboratory
experiences (Chen & Cheng, 2007). The faculty chose this laboratory experience as a real world
application of computer programming as it provided a context of applying the units of study in
the course, event driven programming and using application programming interfaces
(Chen & Cheng, 2007). Students reported excitement when they learned they were going to
participate in laboratory experiences creating a game (Chen & Cheng, 2007).
Laboratory experiences provide a means of student engagement as many of the students
found games as enjoyable. Laboratory experiences can serve as two-fold, they provide college
students with applications of their coursework and may serve as an engagement tool. Students
with ADHD also experience higher levels of engagement when they are provided with activities
they find enjoyable.
Technology
College students in STEM fields will be required to integrate technology into their careers.
In today’s global economy, engineers and other STEM professionals are required to employ
technology applications in the course of their day to day employment activities
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 44
(Feisel & Rosa, 2005). Data must be input into engineering software programs or other
software. Information is then transferred into the design, construction, and evaluations of
devices. These technological applications of engineering are learned in coursework at
institutions of higher education (Feisel & Rosa, 2005). This use of technology is beneficial for
college students with ADHD in that they are provided with opportunities to apply new
knowledge and theories, as well as re-conceptualize existing scientific and mathematical
knowledge in their application of technology.
Technology has been utilized to augment the lecture method in STEM coursework in
institutions of higher education. The understanding of Podcasting’s effects on student learning in
higher education has been examined during the last few years. Since its inception in 2006,
Podcasting has been used by some faculty in STEM to augment their instruction
(Fernandez, Simo, & Sallan, 2009). Podcasting has the potential to become an influential tool in
the augmentation of traditional lectures. The three main purposes for using Podcasting in higher
education are providing course content, record live faculty lectures, and improve studying
(Donnelly & Berge, 2006). Students can use STEM Podcasts to review lectures, add to their
notes, and aid them in studying key concepts and course related material. For these reasons,
university faculty have used Podcasting in their courses.
A few STEM faculty have implemented innovative STEM instructional strategies into
their curriculum (Bongey, Cizlado, & Kalnbach, 2006). In one of the natural sciences, Podcasts
were used by a biology professor to provide university students with the lecture and other
instruction prior to each class. The biology professor supplemented his lectures with Podcasts to
learn whether Podcasting had positive effects on students mastering course objectives (Bongey,
Cizlado, Kalnbach & 2006). The study was conducted with 246 undergraduate students taking
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 45
biology course. The findings suggested that students typically used the Podcasts to supplement
and review the course material which was presented by the professor in the course lectures. Of
the university students surveyed, 71% stated that the Podcasts helped them to better understand
the course material. Over half of the students reported that the Podcasts helped them to improve
their performance in the biology course. These findings from this study suggest that Podcasts
provide learning benefits to students. The students are able to review the entire lectures, as well
as specific concepts which they may need to hear again to improve their understanding.
Podcasts can be viewed as instructional technology that break through the typical
instructional constraints of time and space (Garrison & Akyol). When faculty provide
opportunities for students to access Podcasts, they are assisting with the removal of barriers, and
may lessen the pressure on university students with ADHD to process and memorize course
content the first time they hear it. Recording of lectures for students to access outside of class
has been found to be beneficial for many students. Specifically, the recording of lessons is
optimal for students with learning differences (Williams & Fardon, 2005). Due to deficits in
attention, this expectation from many faculty is unrealistic for university students with ADHD.
In this era of technological innovations, most college students in the U.S. have access to a
personal digital assistant (PDA) or mobile learning tools (ML-T) in the form of a smart phone or
tablet.
PDA or ML-Ts can also be a great tool for college students with ADHD to mediate the
STEM curriculum. ML-Ts such as smart phones, tablets, laptops, and other handheld or compact
technologies can provide university students with ADHD calculation tools during course
laboratory experiences, notes to refer to during class discussions, visuals of mathematical
formulas to utilize during engineering projects, spell check tools for quick writes, digital
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 46
recording applications for recording lectures, and other purposes to support student achievement
in STEM courses (Wenderson, Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad, & Haron, 2011). STEM faculty
permitting such uses during their courses could possibly enrich the educational experiences of
their students with ADHD.
Bowden and D’Alessandro (2011) studied the impact of interactive technologies in
enriching the educational experiences of students. They admonished that high quality education
experiences move beyond the traditional lecture format and embrace the whole person with a
growth-oriented educational experience. Bowden and D’Alessandro (2011) advocate that faculty
and students can co-create value and with the use of interactive technologies during instruction.
The National Science Foundation offered grants to institutions to incorporate the use of such
technologies in interdisciplinary projects amongst STEM courses.
The integration of technologies into STEM courses can provide substantial benefits to
college students with ADHD. In Interdisciplinary Lively Application Projects (ILAP) conducted
at the University of Colorado Denver, students were provided with opportunities to use
technology in real world contexts to solve mathematical problems (Schreyer-Bennethum &
Albright, 2010). Training on instructional technologies for the ILAPs were provided to the
mathematics faculty. Schreyer-Bennethum & Albright (2010) found that by increasing the
amount of faculty whom use technology and ILAPs, overall student performance was
significantly improved. This study showed promising student achievement results for the faculty
whom integrated technology into their mathematics instruction (Schreyer-Bennethum &
Albright, 2010). The use of technology has potential to amplify the achievement outcomes for
university students with ADHD. The achievement outcomes of college students with ADHD
may also be increased by reframing faculty perceptions.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 47
In summary, the use of active learning strategies, laboratory experiences, and technology
have the propensity for improving the instructional strategies and supports for college students
with ADHD. These STEM instructional strategies, also may increase student engagement,
student learning, and student application of key concepts from their STEM coursework.
Multiple Intelligence Theory
By reframing the way faculty and leaders perceive the intelligence and abilities of
students with ADHD, faculty in higher education can learn how to identify the unique talents of
their students with ADHD. Additionally, faculty can learn how to better support their students
with exploring their multiple intelligences. Multiple Intelligence theory (MI theory) was
introduced by Howard Gardner, a researcher and professor from Harvard University in his
seminal work, Frames of Mind in 1983. In Frames of Mind (1983), Gardner challenges the
traditional intelligence as defined by an individual’s performance on a singular psychometric
instrument which, when scored, outputs a range of norm-referenced performance scores
regarding an individual’s overall Intelligence Quotient (IQ), as well as their norm-referenced
score in the sub-domains of the psychometric instrument. Traditional intelligence is defined by
IQ testing, which is an individual’s performance at that moment in time in verbal, visual, and
perceptual domains on a psychometric IQ test.
Not all psychologists are in agreement that non-referenced assessments and test can
measure the intelligences which reside within the mind of each individual. Howard Gardner, a
developmental psychologist developed an alternative guide for identifying intelligences, dubbed
Multiple Intelligences which exist within all human mind in some form (1983). MI theory
critiques the practice of basing the provision of education or perception regarding an individual’s
abilities on a single IQ score gained from a psychometric instrument. Applying MI theory in the
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 48
context of higher education, basing faculty and higher education administration’s perceptions
and the provision of education to an individual on a single, one-size-fits all IQ score does not
inform faculty about the various abilities and potentials which lie within each of their students
(Gardner & Moran, 2006). In developing MI theory, Gardner studied hundreds of
multidisciplinary empirical studies and essays (2006) to create a basis for understanding the
brain, cognition, and its ability to perform in various domains at a heightened level. MI theory
provides a perspective from which college students with ADHD may be viewed as whole and
possessing unique strengths. Gardener reported (2011) that this theory is based upon cognitive
research that demonstrated that humans have different types of minds which process information,
and demonstrate knowledge/abilities in diverse ways.
MI theory describes individuals as having the capacity to utilize and maximize eight
various types of intelligences. The term intelligence in this context of refers to the bio-
psychological ability of certain individuals to process information to innovate, create, contribute,
or find solutions of value within the context of the environments in which they exist (Gardner,
1999). In Frames of Mind (1983), one chapter is dedicated to the explanation and description of
each of the intelligences in MI theory. MI theory identifies eight different types of intelligences
which individuals possess.
Each of the eight intelligences is described in great detail with examples and multi-
disciplinary cross references by Gardner in his instrumental work and proposal of MI theory.
The intelligences of MI theory include: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-
kinesthetic, interpersonal, naturalistic, and intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011). These
intelligences refer to abilities which all humans possess in various domains. These abilities can
be used to support students in processing information, solve problems, and achieve goals.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 49
First, the linguistic intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to process the phonology
of sounds of language and the ability to manipulate the syntax and semantics of language in a
purposeful manner (Gardner, 1983). This linguistic intelligence also refers to the ability of
individuals to readily comprehend what they hear, view, and read. Individuals with linguistic
intelligence are able to use this intelligence to accomplish goals requiring language abilities and
learning new languages. Examples of linguistic intelligence are news correspondents, lawyers,
public speakers, writers, and poets. Language is used in various configurations in these careers
based on a linguistic intelligence to perform professional duties, solve problems, and achieve
goals.
The second intelligence is musical intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to
compose or perform musically. It includes sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone, melody and
timbre (Gardner, 2011). Musical intelligence explains how some individuals can communicate
their thoughts, feelings, moods, temperaments, stories through music. Individuals whom may not
have expressive language skills, may still have brilliant musical abilities (Gardner, 1983).
Individuals with musical intelligence may be found in careers such as musician, vocalist,
composer, and music arranger. In these careers, individuals utilize their appreciation of musical
patterns and performance to display their musical intelligences. The prevalence of patterns in
music is correlated with the patterns also found in mathematics and science.
The logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to progress in depth in logic,
mathematics, and scientific thought. Individuals with intelligences in this area are able to solve
complex mathematical and scientific problems utilizing the depth and breadth of their knowledge
in this domain (Gardner, 1983). The logical-mathematical intelligence can also enable
individuals to create algorithms and mathematical/scientific spheres of thought or theories to
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 50
gain understanding into mathematical formulas and the real world applications. STEM careers
such as engineering, scientists, mathematician, statistician, computer scientists, computer
programmers, digital media, and gaming innovators all utilize a logical-mathematical
intelligence. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence also relies on patterns in order to create movement.
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to coordinate mental ability with a mastery
of physical movements to achieve skilled performance. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence can be
viewed in athletes as they move their bodies in patterns, positions, speeds, with or without
objects to accomplish athletic goals (Gardener, 2011). The bodily-kinesthetic intelligence may
involve isolated parts of the body, such as the mouth, or the whole body’s coordinated
movements to solve real world problems (Gardner, 2011). A surgeon’s fine precision in
cognitively coordinated hand movements to remove, repair, or augment the human body can also
be defined as bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (1983). A few examples of careers relying upon
body-kinesthetic intelligence are: dancer, athlete, builder, sculptor, and actor. Those with
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence may or may not also rely on his or her awareness of where their
bodies are in space to accomplish goals.
The spatial intelligence is the ability to interpret visual stimuli and analyze whole,
separate, and patterns in their relation to objects and the world. Spatial intelligence differs from
an individual’s ability to move their bodies solely in a specific point in space (Gardner, 1983). It
also includes their ability to move or coordinate objects in large places of space. Spatial
intelligence is the ability to understand where objects are in the larger coordinates of space
(Gardner, 2011). Careers exemplifying the application of spatial intelligence are pilots, air traffic
controllers, cartographers, architects, and race car drives. These careers require a foundation
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 51
within self to execute their performance goals accurately. Without this grounding within self, the
safety of self and others would be compromised. To a degree, this is connected to an
intrapersonal intelligence.
Intrapersonal is the innate ability of self-awareness and the courage to confront pain and
interpret it into one own existence. Knowledge of self and the ability to act upon this knowledge
is significant for individuals with this intelligence. This intelligence can be referred to as self-
intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Self-intelligence signifies the ability to be sensitive to ones’ own
feelings, anxieties, fears, and the ability to plan and act on one’s awareness of self. An
individual with intrapersonal intelligence can analyze and understand their own thought pattern
and internal motivations and feelings as a basis for their actions (Gardener, 2011). Intrapersonal
intelligence transfers quite well for careers such as writer, philosopher, theorist, and scientist.
Self-intelligence can aid in the understanding of others.
The understanding of others is interpersonal intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence is the
ability to become aware of the moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions of others
(Gardner, 1983). Those with interpersonal intelligence are skilled at accurately assessing and
interpreting the feelings, moods, and behaviors of others existing in the environments around
them. Individuals possessing interpersonal intelligence often have excellent interpersonal
communication skills are able to resolve conflicts related to interpersonal factors. They are also
able to perceive differing views and perspectives. Careers relying heavily on this intelligence are
counselor, psychologist, psychologist, politician, and a salesperson.
The eighth and final intelligence is the natural intelligence. Gardner, (2004) identified
naturalistic intelligence as the ability to categorize living and non-living objects. Those with
natural intelligence may languish in the outdoors and around objects in their natural states. They
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 52
may be natural ecologists and thrive in naturalistic settings and learning environments. Some
examples of careers which are based upon a naturalistic intelligence are botanist, farmers,
horticulturalists, conservationists, and ecologists.
Gardener (1991) posited that MI theory with its eight intelligences is based upon brain
research. Gardner discussed his surprise that his intended audience of developmental
psychologists such as he was not his actual professional audience. Gardener reported that he had
gathered an unintended audience in that of educators. In exploring MI theory (1996), faculty
and leaders can engage in “a complex mental model from which to construct curriculum”
(Campbell, p. 19, 1997). MI theory may provide a framework in which effective instructional
strategies are developed.
MI theory offers hope and information for university students, faculty, and leaders in
reframing their thinking and understanding of how to work with students’ intelligences. The
strength’s based concept along with the Multiple Intelligences theory holds fundamental promise
for learning. Students, whom may be at risk of failing their classes in the linguistic or lecture
style instructional method, can be reached in other ways (Gardner, 1996). When faculty include
learning strategies, which incorporate students’ unique learning patterns, university students with
ADHD may experience more success in their STEM fields of study and degree attainment. The
implementation of instructional strategies supportive in nature for university students with
ADHD allows for students to maximize their learning outcomes in STEM disciplines.
Unique Talents/Abilities of College Students with ADHD
If faculty and leaders viewed college students with ADHD as whole people with unique
talents and abilities, a positive, supportive approach would be established for working with
university students with ADHD. Hartman (2003) advocates that students with ADHD may have
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 53
some behaviors, which are adaptive and enable them to be successful in various academic
disciplines and careers. University students with ADHD have traits which may be considered
advantageous or adaptive in nature. Capitalizing on university students’ with ADHD unique
strengths can encourage the development of the great potential that every individual carries
within him or herself. The talents and abilities of individuals with ADHD are needed in the
United States to increase the pool of qualified professionals in STEM fields. If individuals with
ADHD are 7% of the total U.S. population, the number of potential university trained
professionals in the fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine is
immense.
University students with ADHD have traits which may be considered advantageous or
adaptive in nature. Hartman (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature of the
advantageous traits of ADHD. Individuals with ADHD have characteristics which may be
viewed as strengths, in specific contexts they may be considered beneficial (Hartmann, 2003).
University students with ADHD attending elite universities also may have the dual diagnosis of
giftedness as they had to achieve specific rigorous requirements to be granted admission into
their institutions (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Neihart, 2003; Webb, 2000). The presentation of
giftedness may actually mask the ability of faculty to observe the ADHD symptomology within
their university students with ADHD.
University students with ADHD may use their intellectual capabilities to compensate for
their ADHD symptomology. In a study conducted by Antshel, Faraone, Maglione, Doyle, Fried,
Seidman & Biederman (2010), they assessed adults with a high intelligence quotient (IQ)
utilizing various assessments to measure executive functioning levels. For the purposes of this
particular study, the existence of a high IQ in adults was defined as a general IQ score equal to or
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 54
greater than 120 (Antshel et al, 2010). The study examined the differences in executive
functioning between adults with high IQ’s with ADHD and adults with high IQ’s without
ADHD. They found that the adults with high IQ with ADHD reported less positive achievement
outcomes than those adults with high IQs without ADHD (Anstshel et al., 2010). The adults
with high IQ without ADHD did not have to overcome the symptomology of ADHD, which
create barriers for college students with and without high IQs having the diagnosis of ADHD
towards obtaining positive achievement outcomes in college. The differences in the achievement
outcomes between these two groups of adults demonstrate that although university students with
ADHD may have some unique abilities, they still have barriers to overcome which impact their
achievement outcomes in college. This supports that university students with ADHD need
innovative instructional strategies to assist them with increasing their achievement outcomes for
university.
Gifted students with and without ADHD exhibit some traits which closely resemble one
another. The National Association for Gifted Children (2014) define a gifted student as one who
possesses or has the potential to exhibit exceptional performance in their general intellectual
ability, academic achievement, creative thinking, leadership ability, or visual or performing arts.
Gifted students are not identified by a single performance on a test, but by the capacities and
potentials which they demonstrate. The first trait which is similar is the tendency to hyper focus
on tasks that interest them (Hua, Shore, Macrova, 2014). Hyper focus is the repeated tendency
for individuals with ADHD to appear to have a one track mind on things that interest them. This
hyper focus can motivate and drive college students with ADHD to create and innovate. It can
also cause them to tune out other things that are going on around them in their environment and
ignore other priorities. However, when this drive to create and innovate is combined with a hyper
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 55
focus, students with ADHD can deliver extraordinary results quickly. Innovative instructional
strategies often provide opportunities for university students with ADHD to utilize their positive
traits or strengths and accommodate for their weaknesses.
Traits in university students with ADHD have been identified as beneficial in specific
contexts, both in and out of the academic environment. Research conducted by Sherman,
Rasmussen, & Baydala (2006) asserts that individuals with ADHD possess traits which allow
them to continually monitor their environment, react quickly to new stimuli in their
environments, be flexible, and are ready to change strategies. These traits are also known as
hunter and gatherer traits and were viewed as beneficial to living in hunter-gatherer societies
(Sherman, Rasmussen, & Baydala, 2006). These traits are now defined in more negative terms
and perceived as symptoms such as impulsivity, inattentiveness, and hyperactivity in today’s
modern society. Individuals with ADHD have the trait of poly-activity in which they are able to
work on multiple tasks at one time (Sherman, Rasmussen, & Baydala, 2006). This trait enables
university students with ADHD to perform well in brainstorming. This ability to bounce ideas
off others verbally can support university students with ADHD in their creative endeavors. This
process of creativity, innovation, and thinking outside of the box is considered divergent
thinking.
College students with ADHD may be at a creative advantage over their non-ADHD peers
in divergent thinking. A quantitative study conducted by Shah & White (2006) indicated that
adults with ADHD performed better than adults without ADHD on tasks that utilized divergent
thinking. These research findings demonstrate a unique ability of adults with ADHD. Divergent
thinking is defined in the Encyclopedia of Creativity, Giftedness, and Talent (Runco, 2009) as the
potential for creative thinking and problem solving. Divergent thinking allows an individual to
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 56
undertake a cognitive process to brainstorm and identify and create non-conventional ideas,
products, and artifacts (Runco, 2009). Divergent thinking allows for the ability of college
students with ADHD to potentially excel in developing innovations such as new engineering
designs, software programs, medical products, and other STEM applications. These unique
talents, abilities, and traits provide a means for the 7% of the population with ADHD to earn
STEM degrees and enter STEM fields (Shaw & White, 2006). Although, a large population of
individuals with ADHD does not stipulate that all will have unique talents/abilities and traits, the
possibility is still present for the college students with ADHD whom receive the appropriate
amount of support to achieve STEM degrees, thus increasing the STEM workforce and pipeline.
In 2011, economics researchers presented a report on the shortage of STEM workers in the
U.S. to the United States House Congress on Science, Space, and Technology. They argued that
a well-educated and highly trained workforce is essential to the economic stability and growth of
the U.S. economy (United States Congress House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, 2011). The U.S. has remained competitive in the global economy, despite the most
recent economic challenges the Nation has faced (United States Congress House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, 2011). This has in large part has been due to the innovations
and technology created by America’s STEM workforce. In preparation for STEM careers,
America’s STEM workforce is primarily educated and trained at institutions of higher education
in the U.S. (United States Congress House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
2011). Both community colleges and four-year universities remain a crucial part of the
education and training essential for the development and growth of innovations and technology.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 57
As creative and innovative thinkers with poly-active minds, able to jump from multiple ideas at a
time, college students with ADHD represent untapped human capital for increasing U.S.
innovative development, creativity, and entrance into STEM careers.
Faculty Perceptions of University Students with ADHD
Literature regarding faculty perceptions of university students with ADHD will be
reviewed for its relevance to the implementation or lack thereof of innovative STEM
instructional strategies. Faculty employed by institutions of higher learning in the U.S. are
mandated to offer accommodations to students with documented ADHD and other disabilities
per the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and the Reauthorization of Section 504. The
legal necessity of implementing accommodations does not guarantee that each faculty member
will integrate accommodations, including innovative STEM instructional strategies into their
STEM discipline’s coursework. Many support centers for university students with disabilities in
their higher education institutions, advise that the faculty contact them immediately with any
questions regarding appropriate instructional accommodations, and other matters related to the
college student with ADHD’s eligibility for services. As university students with ADHD
increase in their enrollment in higher education, faculty’s level of responsibilities to serve
university students with ADHD, incorporating innovative STEM instructional strategies and
stipulated accommodations will also increase.
Increasingly, STEM faculty have students with ADHD in the courses they teach. There
are a variety of STEM faculty perceptions concerning university students with ADHD. Even
faculty whom are considered scientific experts on ADHD may have negative perceptions
regarding university students with ADHD (Denhart, 2008). These scientific experts are quite
often STEM faculty members at U.S. institutions of higher education. An investigation was
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 58
conducted on faculty perceptions of university student with disabilities. The results have
indicated that faculty hold significant negative attitudinal barriers which produce a large
obstruction for many university students with ADHD (Rao, 2004). These barriers interfere with
university students’ with ADHD success.
Negative perceptions of ADHD may cause direct or indirect limitations for college
students with ADHD. In one of the primary studies regarding faculty perceptions of student with
disabilities, 109 university faculty were surveyed (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington,
1992). The results of this study revealed that faculty believed that the presence of a disability,
such as ADHD, limits the majors that students can declare and take classes in (Houck, et al.,
1992). Additionally, faculty held discriminatory views about which majors and courses, students
with disabilities may enroll in (Houck, et al., 1992). As a result of these discriminatory views,
college students with ADHD may not feel able to declare STEM majors, as they may be
discouraged by STEM faculty to declare STEM majors or enroll in STEM coursework.
An investigation at a northwestern university in the U.S. was conducted to evaluate the
instructional practices of faculty (Vance & Weyant, 2008). The examiners also wanted to learn
the differences in faculty perceptions between various academic disciplines. The results
indicated that faculty from the College of Education were the most willing to alter their
instructional strategies and provide instructional accommodations. The College of Education
was 69.2% more willing to alter their instructional strategies than faculty from the College of
Business and the College of Science faculty (Vance & Weyant, 2008). This demonstrated a
greater level of flexibility and supportive practices were exhibited by faculty from the College of
Education at the university.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 59
The lack of support for college students with ADHD can contribute to a low self-
confidence. In an inquiry on higher education faculty’s perceptions of students with disabilities,
the faculty indicated that they feel less comfortable teaching college students with disabilities,
including university students with ADHD (Scott & Greg, 2000). Moreover, faculty have
decreased expectations of what university students with ADHD are capable of accomplishing in
their classes (Scott & Greg, 2000). These types of perceptions held by faculty create less
supportive structures in higher education for university students with ADHD.
Yet, another factor which influences university students with ADHD are the perceptions
of various faculty regarding invisible disabilities. In an investigation of faculty member’s
acceptance of ADHD in higher education, Buchanan, Charles, Rigler, and Hart (2010), surveyed
faculty in a southeastern university in the U.S with surveys completed by 137 faculty. The
survey participants included both part-time and full-time faculty members, including both
tenured and non-tenured tract faculty. Faculty were provided with a list of disabilities, both
visible and invisible disabilities, and were asked to state which disabilities they deemed as
deserving of instructional accommodations. The survey also asked about faculty’s perceptions
regarding the difficulty of university and actions needed if university student was struggling.
The survey also included a vignette about a university student, Mary, with ADHD.
The vignette in the survey described ADHD symptoms which Mary experienced such as
inattentive, distracted, and forgetful behaviors. University faculty were then asked to judge why
Mary experienced these behaviors. They were asked to use a Likert scale to rate the likelihood
that: Mary wouldn’t struggle with completing assignments on time if Mary showed more
initiative; these issues are caused by Mary’s bad behavior; Mary could improve with more
discipline on her part. The rating of a 1 was that these were not at all likely and a rating of a 5
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 60
was that they were very likely. Several faculty responded that it was very likely that Mary’s
issues were due to a lack of initiative and/or due to Mary’s bad behavior (Buchanan, et al.,
2010). The findings also suggested that older faculty were more accepting of college students’
diagnosis of ADHD than younger faculty (Buchanan, et al., 2010). One of the most intriguing
pieces of data was the data from a logistic regression predicting indication of ADHD as worth of
special accommodations.
Faculty older than 60 years old were 1.429 times more likely to rate ADHD as a
disability worthy of special accommodations than faculty under forty years of age (Buchanan, et
al., 2010). The data also suggested that quite possibly faculty become more accepting of college
students with ADHD the longer they are in higher education. Faculty having personal
experience with ADHD also appeared to be more accepting of university students with ADHD.
Many of the faculty members over the age of forty reported having friends and family members
with ADHD. This study was one of the first studies which analyzed faculty perceptions of
university students with ADHD. Prior to this, most of the research was of student perceptions
and teachers attitudes and perceptions at the K-12 level of students with ADHD.
A final consideration of faculty perceptions of university students with ADHD in this
review of the literature is that if the university students are successful, the faculty members often
do not believe the students with deserve any innovative instructional strategies or other
instructional accommodations. In a dissertation study at Pennsylvania University (Rush, 2011),
an independent samples t-test was given to compare the faculty willingness to provide
instructional accommodations by field of study. Member of STEM fields had the lowest scores
for willingness to provide accommodations for college students with ADHD (Rush, 2011).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 61
The lowest score of willingness to provide accommodations for college students with ADHD
were earned by natural sciences faculty, followed by formal sciences and social science faculty.
The most willing were faculty from the professional/applied colleges at the top tier universities
studied.
Transformational Leadership
This study was conducted from the lens of the Transformational Leadership Theory.
Transformational theory is a synergistic leadership approach which inspires followers to look
beyond their own self-interests for the good of the group (Bass, 1991). Transformational leaders
build organizational capacity by improving the outcomes at all levels. This is accomplished by
creating a shared vision in which the leader creates a connection with followers that raises the
level of motivation and positive contributions in both the leader and the followers (Bass, 1991).
Followers are inspired to positively contribute to their organization based on their relationship
with their leader. The transformational leader motivates followers by raising their consciousness
about the importance of the organization’s goals by holding their followers responsible for their
achievements and potentials (Keis, 2014). Empowerment of followers is central to building
commitment to organizational goals and objectives (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia, 2004). This
transformational leadership model informed building the capacity of faculty and leaders in higher
education in supporting college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 62
Figure 1: Transformational Leadership Model
One of the greatest challenges in education today, is improving human capital. In this
study, capacity building to improve the human capital of university students with ADHD is the
focus. The transformational leadership model inspires faculty and leaders to implement and
sustain change (Northouse, 2013). Transformational leaders focus on building a collaborative
school culture in which the mantra of the culture of the organization becomes, “we can do this
together”. In a seminal piece on Transformational Leadership, Burns (1978) informs that a
leader is attentive to the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers reach their
fullest potential. Mahatma Gandhi was a perfect example of a transformational leader. Gandhi
attended to the needs and motives of his followers, while supporting them in reaching their
fullest potential.
Faculty and leaders have their own needs and motives that a transformational leader
would address. Transformational leaders apply their deep understanding of human behavior and
motives to get faculty and various school leaders’ buy-in (Northouse, 2013). They inspire their
faculty and instructional leaders to transcend self-interest for the greater good of the organization
(Bass, 1985). By inspiring faculty and instructional leaders to transcend their self-interest for the
greater good, faculty would be more open to supporting university students with ADHD in
• Showing genuine concern
• Being accessible
• Enabling positive contributions
• Encouraging questioning
Engaging Faculty
& Leaders
• Being honest & consistent
• Acting with integrity
• Self-monitoring of emotions
• Self-awareness
Personal
Qualities • Supporting a developmental
culture
• Inspiring others
• Focusing team efforts
• Improving collaboration within
the organization
Engaging the
Organization
• Building shared vision
• Organizational capacity
building
• Networking
• Resolving complex problems
Embracing
Change
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 63
maximizing their fullest potentials, and earn STEM degrees.
To inspire faculty and school leaders to implement and sustain the necessary changes to
improve achievement outcomes and STEM degree attainment for university students with
ADHD, transformational leaders may do the following:
Promote connecting of the identity of followers to the collective identity of the
organization
Shape this linking the emphasis on intrinsic rewards & the de-emphasis of extrinsic
rewards
Explicitly express high expectations for followers
Help followers gain a sense of self-confidence and self-efficacy
The aforementioned transformational actions are accomplished by following the four I’s
of transformational leadership. The four I’s of transformational leadership were developed by
Burns (1978). The four I’s revolve upon the principle of self-improvement, becoming a better
person and inspire one’s faculty and school leaders to follow suit. The four I’s include idealized
influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation
(Burns, 1978). These four I’s are the core concepts of transformational leadership.
With idealized influence, the transformational leader recognizes their capacity to serve as
a role model. The transformational leaders earn the respect and admiration of their faculty and
school leaders by demonstrating high standards of conduct, taking risks, and empowering the
innate potential of each of their followers (Northouse, 2013). Secondly, transformational leaders
give individualized consideration to each of their followers. A supportive climate is provided by
transformational leaders, inspires teamwork. Transformational leaders are good listeners and act
as coaches and advisors (Northouse, 2013). By means of inspirational motivation, faculty and
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 64
school leaders are inspired to work enthusiastically to demonstrate their commitment to the
organization’s goals. Transformational leaders use symbols and emotional appeals to rally
group members to inspire change and achieve more team and organizational goals
(Northouse, 2013). Finally, transformational leaders intellectually stimulate faculty and school
leaders’ analytical skills and problem solving ability (Burns, 1978). They empower their faculty
and school leaders to try new approaches and develop innovative ways of solving organizational
issues.
Figure 2: The Four I’s of Transformational Leadership
Summary
The intent of this review of the literature was to understand what was already known on
capacity building of faculty and leaders to improve achievement outcomes for college students
with ADHD. Traditionally, university students with ADHD have been instructed using the
lecture method in STEM disciplines. This method is not advantageous for college students with
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 65
ADHD as a breadth of material is covered in a relatively short period of time, such as in a three
hour class meeting. Throughout this review of the literature, it was found that many STEM
faculty have pervasive negative attitudes and perceptions regarding college students with ADHD.
In research data included in the literature, STEM faculty were the least willing to
implement any instructional accommodations. Vance and Weyant (2008) found in their study
that STEM faculty were 62.5% less willing to alter their instructional strategies than faculty from
the College of Education. Negative perceptions and an unwilling spirit demonstrated by faculty
towards university students with ADHD can impact students’ self-confidence (Scott & Gregg,
2000) and achievement in STEM disciplines.
A paradigm shift from viewing university students with ADHD from a deficit model to an
asset model has the potential to impact the improvement of structures and supports within higher
education for university students with ADHD. Viewing students with an asset model would
propel the motivation of faculty and administration for the inclusion of innovative STEM
instructional strategies into curricular experiences. By consistently and transparently integrating
the transformational leadership model and strategies into faculty and capacity building, a
developmental culture is born.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 66
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In institutions of higher education across the country, the lecture method is the most
common form of instruction utilized by faculty in STEM fields. According to Norton,
Richardson, Hartley, New stead, and Mayes (2005), the lecture method is an example of an
instructional strategy intended to cover a breadth of material to students for the conveyance of
knowledge in a given academic discipline. Students in higher education acquire a deeper level of
knowledge as opposed to surface level learning when faculty use more student-centered
approaches (Norton, et. al). This study explored what instructional strategies and supports are
utilized at the West Coast University to support university students with ADHD in earning
STEM degrees. Additionally, this study examined what leadership practices are being used to
meet the academic needs of university students with ADHD. Finally, the factors related to
inspiring faculty and leaders were analyzed. The literature revealed research on ADHD, barriers
facing university students with ADHD, faculty perceptions of college students with ADHD, and
innovative instructional strategies for STEM disciplines such as engineering, computer science,
and pre-health.
The first research question explored the instructional strategies implemented by STEM
faculty. Secondly, this study investigated what leadership practices are used to support
university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. These questions, examine the faculty
and leadership existing practices to understand how they are serving students with ADHD in
earning STEM degrees. Their existing practices can inform any needs to increase knowledge
and skills in teaching and supporting university students with ADHD. Finally, factors relating to
the inspiration of faculty and school leaders were probed. The research questions were
developed to gather information about the current STEM instructional strategies and supports
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 67
being implemented in college for students with ADHD. The researcher also sought to establish
how faculty and leaders could build their capacity to improve their practice in teaching and
supporting university students with ADHD. The factors connected to the inspiration of faculty
and leaders to improve their practice were also explored. The research questions were as
follows:
1. What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve
university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
2. What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving
university students with ADHD?
3. Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting
university students with ADHD?
This study employed a mixed methods approach. Specifically, the researcher applied
both qualitative and quantitative research methods to collect and analyze data gathered from
study participants. The qualitative methods consisted of records reviews of the institution and
interviews and semi-structured interviews with five STEM faculty and two STEM leaders at a
university in the Western United States. The quantitative methods involved a STEM faculty and
a STEM leader survey.
The researcher e-mailed 207 online surveys to STEM faculty whom taught courses in the
STEM disciplines at the university. The response rate was 14% of the STEM surveys. STEM
faculty at the university were also e-mailed surveys. This data was gathered to further
investigate which instructional strategies were in place to support university students with
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 68
ADHD in earning STEM degrees; to determine what leadership practices were used to serve
university students with ADHD; and finally to examine whether STEM faculty and school
leaders were inspired to build their own capacity to support students with ADHD.
Sample Population
This study utilized a purposive sample derived from a convenience sample from the
university’s faculty listings collected during the last year, as a means of identifying my interview
respondents. A purposive sample means that the qualitative researcher will select the individuals
which best assists them in understanding the research problem and answering their research
questions (Creswell, 2009). For the operational purposes of this study to connect and make
meaning of the interview data, as represented in the research questions, the researcher needed to
ensure that the faculty taught in STEM fields and that the school leaders worked in STEM
programs or had potential influence over STEM instruction and/or supports.
Location
The location of the research study was at a private university on the West Coast. This
private, Western university was located in an urban area. The student body was comprised of
18,000 undergraduate and 22,000 graduate students. The demographic of the student body
included: 39% Caucasians, 23%, Asians, 14% Latinos, 5% African American, 7% other, and
12% International students. Additionally, the university was renowned for the reputation of its
3, 353 research and clinical full-time faculty.
Participants
Participants were identified from the university’s schedule of classes. Once I identified
my purposive sample, I began the process of requesting informed consent from the faculty and
school leaders I selected to interview. My purposive sample consisted 254 STEM faculty and
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 69
leaders at the university. Study participants were comprised of 207 STEM faculty and forty
seven STEM leaders. Participants were selected based on the disciplines they taught to
undergraduate university students at the university, and or leadership responsibilities.
Instrumentation
The researcher employed a mixed methods study. For the purposes of this study, the
researcher integrated both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. While the research
questions were used as a guide to the methodology of this study, the research questions did not
dictate which methodology would be utilized. The first two research questions could potentially
be answered with either the quantitative or qualitative research methodology.
Maxwell explained that “there is no necessary similarity or deductive relationship
between your research questions and the methods you use to collect your data (including
your research questions); are two distinct and separate parts of your design” (p. 74, 2013).
There is no clear logical way to convert your research questions into interview questions
(Maxwell, 2013). In essence, research questions cannot be “operationalized” or
“translated” to form my interview questions (p. 74, 2013).
As noted by Maxwell (2013), qualitative research doesn’t start from a fixed point and
follow a pre-determined, mandatory sequence of steps. Qualitative research uses an interactive
model, with a flexible and interconnected structure. The interactive and flexible model of this
study did not decrease the rigor involved in the research design and implementation. In a
qualitative research design, the focus is on process, meaning, and understanding (Merriam,
2009). This study was conducted in four phases, including: document analysis, participant
selection, protocol development, and research method implementation. These four phases were
performed with the intent of making meaning out of the data and creating understanding.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 70
The first data collection instrument used was the data collected from analyzing
documents from the university’s website and STEM programs. The documents analyzed
included: Disabilities Services Office brochures, registration for Disabilities Services guide,
College Catalog, Schedule of Classes, university listing of professional developments and
training offered for faculty and school leaders, and five STEM course syllabi. These documents
were analyzed to understand which supports were in place to support university students with
ADHD in earning STEM degrees.
The interview protocols were developed to identify what types of supports and
information the STEM faculty and school leaders felt they needed to develop their capacities in
supporting college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. Next, the interview
protocols contained in Appendix A and C used open-ended questions to gather information and
develop an understanding of how faculty and school leader capacity could be built to better
support college student with ADHD. The protocols were one of the secondary instruments
incorporated into the study to answer the research questions and contribute to the current body of
research in higher education in supporting students with ADHD pursuing STEM degrees.
The faculty and leader surveys contained in Appendix B and D examined which STEM
instructional strategies the faculty utilized in their instructional practices. The surveys also were
intended to measure STEM faculty’s willingness to improve their knowledge and application of
innovative STEM instructional strategies into their courses to support their university students
with ADHD. “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their world, and what meaning they contribute to their
experiences” (Merriam, p. 5, 2009).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 71
The fourth instrument which was used was the researcher. The researcher was the
primary instrument for collecting the interview and survey data, as well as conducting the
document analysis (Merriam, 2009). The interviews allowed the researcher to delve further into
the faculty and school leader capacity building needs. Interviews, surveys, and document
analysis were the ideal qualitative and quantitative methods for this study as they provided a
means of exploring what current instructional strategies and supports were in place to support
college students with ADHD in STEM disciplines, as well as capacity building needs, and buy-in
of faculty and school leaders.
Data Collection
Prior to collecting any data, full consent and permission was received by the university’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). This process of gaining consent from the study participants
was essential to my being ethically able to interview these students as part of this study. The
university’s website and online resources were used to ascertain STEM teaching faculty and
STEM leaders to identify and contact a potential listing of study participants. I sent e-mails to
STEM faculty and leaders, introducing myself as a graduate researcher at the institution and
informed them that I was conducting a study to better understand how what types of supports and
information the faculty and school leaders felt they needed to build their professional
competence in supporting college students with ADHD. I also attached a consent form to the
e-mail, with a request for the participants to contact me with any questions.
Once participants were identified and consent was received, the interviews were
scheduled with the student participants. Online faculty surveys were e-mailed to 50 STEM
faculty using the university’s e-mail system. Fifty leader online surveys were e-mailed to
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 72
university leaders involved in STEM. The survey information was safeguarded by coding each
survey received with a number, instead of the faculty or leader’s given name.
Data Analysis
Creswell (2009) recommends that the researcher follows a prescribed path of data analysis.
In following this path, the researcher input the data from the surveys received from STEM
faculty and leaders into a statistical software application, SPSS. Once the survey data was
entered into the SPSS, the user interactive interface provided visuals such as algorithms, charts,
and graphs for the survey analysis. The SPSS visuals, algorithms, charts, and graphs were
printed and saved for interpretation and comparison. To analyze the interview data, an entirely
different approach was used called qualitative analysis.
Consistent with Creswell’s approach to the qualitative portion of the mixed methods
research design, the researcher began mentally organizing the data after each interview. To
prepare for data analysis, the researcher first organized the interview data for analysis with
coding. The interview transcripts were thoroughly read through. Subsequently, the data and
codes were input into Atlas ti, a qualitative analysis software program. Inductive analysis was
practiced to study and find running themes in my notes from the twenty-four interviews
conducted (Creswell, 2009). These themes were interpreted for meaning making to inform the
results section, recommendations, and a summary of this study. The following descriptive data
collected during the course of this study were examined:
Reconstructed dialogues – recorded interviews between researcher and participants.
Accounts of particular events - the notes included a listing of events mentioned during the
interviews. For example, who was involved in the event, in what manner, and the nature
of the action.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 73
Depiction of activities during the interview- included detailed descriptions of behavior,
trying to reproduce the sequence of both behaviors and particular acts.
Figure 3: Adapted from Creswell’s Mixed Methods Model for Data Analysis (2009)
Subsequently, the researcher conducted a cross-case analysis, which examined the data I
had in my possession for the twenty student participants and four faculty members. The cross-
case analysis augmented the researcher’s efforts to search for emerging themes by looking for
interrelated themes between cases (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher reflected upon the themes
and wrote notes in the margins to connect the themes found. Data analysis is an inductive
process because the researcher compares each unit of data to another looking for common patters
(Merriam, 2009). The coding process is when the research gives significant data, such as
meaningful quotes, phrases, behaviors names or assigns them to a category (Merriam, 2009).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 74
The researcher then color-coded each of the emerging themes with colored highlighters as there
were found. A qualitative software program Atlas ti was then used as a tool to aid in the data
analysis process.
After the data were color coded, the data was entered into Atlas the software to aid in the
organization and structure of the data. The researcher then analyzed the data inputted into Atlas
ti to search for emerging themes. Atlas ti is a computer program used in qualitative researcher for
qualitative data analysis. The IPad version of Atlas ti also serves as recording software for
interviews. Atlas ti is able to support researchers with the following tasks (Atlas ti Scientific
Computing, 2014):
Record, assign, segment, and code photos, audio, and videos
Assign, segment and code existing photos, audio, and videos
Assign, segment and code PDF documents, including Web downloads
Create and edit text documents
Create fine-grained quotation segments of text, images, audio and video files
Create and edit comments for all types of objects
Create and edit memos
Tag images, recordings, videos, and documents with Geo-location info
One-step export of full project via Dropbox or iTunes file shares
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 75
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Capacity building within universities in the U.S. is not a new phenomenon. Capacity
building is also known as educational development and includes policy formation, training, and
institution building to create institutions or centers of excellence (Wide-scale Interactive
Development for Educators, 2014). A growing change of climate in higher education is
demanding innovative, interdisciplinary instructional strategies to become more responsive to the
rapidly changing social contexts involved in the construction of industry demands and student
driven needs (Davison, Brown, Pharo, Warr, McGregor, Terkes, Abuodha, 2014). Despite the
demand for college graduates with STEM degrees in the U.S., examiners found that less than
half of STEM majors earned their degrees within a six year period (Chen, 2009). With the rising
number of students with ADHD entering universities across the U.S., there is a need for capacity
building to better serve and support college students with ADHD in STEM fields. Universities
need to build their human capital and infrastructure to support the construction of new
knowledge and skills to increase the universities’ ability to serve students with ADHD in STEM
fields.
Universities increase or decrease their effectiveness in supporting student achievement by
the extent to which they build their capacity for meeting the diverse needs of their student body
(Marzano, 2005). Commonly, universities have a fragmented approach to building
organizational capacity. This fragmentation hinders the change process involving the building of
new knowledge and skills to increase the universities’ capacity to meet the needs of their
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 76
students with ADHD. The research questions explored leadership practices and instructional
strategies in support of the researcher’s focus on contributing to the construction of new
knowledge and promising practices for university capacity building. The capacity building of
university faculty and leaders includes focusing on empowerment, collaboration, and inclusion.
This chapter will reaffirm the intent of this study and provide a description of the West
Coast University in which this study was conducted. Next, the demographics of the STEM
faculty at this West Coast University was listed and described. Then, an analysis of the
theoretical framework for this study was presented. The analysis of the theoretical framework
was followed by the results concluded by this investigation. Finally, this chapter culminates with
a concluding summary and discussion of the overall results of this study.
Purpose
The intent of this study was to examine the building of university’s capacity to support
students with ADHD in STEM disciplines, raise awareness of promising leadership and
instructional practices to support university students with ADHD. Transformational leaders
inspire and model effective change for faculty in addressing and meeting the needs of their
university’s students. The primary factor connected to student achievement is effective teaching
(Schmoker & Marzano, 2011). In connection with effective teaching, influencing students’
achievement, it made sense to explore STEM faculty’s use of a variety of STEM instructional
strategies. A notable goal of this study was to provide recommendations for university capacity
building based upon the results gathered from this study. This study investigated leadership
practices and instructional strategies and supports implemented to support college students with
ADHD in earning STEM degrees.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 77
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in this study:
1. What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve
university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
2. What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving
university students with ADHD?
3. Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting
university students with ADHD?
Brief description of the West Coast University
The West Coast University, where this study was conducted is a large, private research
university. The university offers a diverse range of academic offerings and encourages faculty,
staff, and students to participate in public service opportunities. Within the university, there are
twenty one various schools and educational units. According to the university’s catalog, a wide
range of bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and professional degrees are offered to meet students’
educational and professional needs. The six year graduation rate for students working towards
earning a Bachelor’s degree is 91%, as listed on the university’s website. A 2013 university
report indicated that there were 5,470 university faculty. Over 60% of the faculty were full-
time, 3488. The remaining 1,907 faculty were part time. As one of the metropolitan city’s
largest employers, the university also employed 12,547 staff more than half time.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 78
Demographic Data
This study employed a purposeful criterion sample from a private, research university on
the West Coast of the U.S. The sample consisted of STEM faculty and leaders with teaching
and/or leadership assignments at the university. University faculty and leaders were selected on
the criterion that they taught STEM courses or held STEM leadership positions. Both university
faculty and leader participants were solicited to voluntarily participate in the study. I designed
the faculty surveys and e-mailed them to STEM faculty whom were teaching biological sciences,
physics, earth sciences, astronomy, chemistry, engineering, accounting, psychology, sociology,
economics, and mathematics courses. I also developed leadership surveys and distributed them
to department chairs and university leaders within these STEM fields.
University faculty and leaders were also interviewed individually in locations on the
university’s campus where confidentiality was feasible. The typical educational level of each
faculty member and was a Ph.D. in their respective STEM disciplines from research universities,
primarily in the U.S. Of the five STEM faculty interviewed, two had taught at the university
under five years. Two had conducted research and taught at the university for over twenty years.
The fifth STEM faculty member had been a professor at the university for over ten years. The
STEM faculty members comprised of both full time and part time positions. Of the two STEM
leaders interviewed, one had been a STEM leader at the university for twenty years and the other
had become a department chair approximately three years ago. The STEM leaders held doctoral
degrees and all retained full-time positions working for the university.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 79
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework utilized in this study supported the analysis and interpretation
of the data. Analysis and interpretation of the data were performed to understand the conceptual
mechanisms needed for building the capacity of university’s STEM faculty and leaders in
teaching and supporting university students with ADHD. This study analyzed capacity building
through the theoretical lens of the Transformational Leadership Model (Burns, 1978) and
Multiple Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983). The Transformational Leadership Model can be
described as a synergistic leadership approach that demands that leaders act beyond their own
self-interests to connect, inspire, motivate, and engage their followers to achieve their
organization’s goals (Bass, 1991). Multiple Intelligence Theory (MI) relies on cognitive
research that demonstrates that individuals have various frames of mind which process
information, and demonstrate the individuals’ knowledge and abilities in divergent manners.
The principles of the Transformational Leadership Model and Multiple Intelligence Theory are
both multi-faceted and promote the development of human capital and the construction of new
knowledge.
In capacity building, individuals, organizations, and systems are empowered to make
positive changes, and strengthen their capacity to solve organizational issues. Empowerment of
university faculty by university leaders is key to build commitment to the university’s goals.
The Transformational Leadership Model relies on empowerment to raise the consciousness of
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 80
the faculty in relation to the university’s goals in conjunction with holding both the faculty and
followers responsible for their own achievements and actualization of potentials (Keis, 2014).
Empowerment of faculty and leaders shifts away from dependence on traditional top-down
approaches which employ fragmentation in instruction, student supports, and leadership.
Transformational leaders value collaboration and focus on team efforts to support a
developmental culture.
Transformational leaders have a genuine concern for their faculty and students. They are
accessible to their university faculty and students. They are honest and consistent, and act with
integrity. These leadership traits provide the foundation for providing a collaborative, engaging
atmosphere for university faculty to support the achievement of students with ADHD.
Transformational leaders inspire university faculty to implement and sustain positive changes in
their instructional practices to improve student achievement and STEM degree attainment. With
a Transformational leader, faculty may be inspired by their leaders transcend their own agendas
or self-interests for the greater good of the university or organization (Bass, 1991). With
transcendence of self-interest faculty may be more open to gain knowledge of ADHD and the
challenges university students with ADHD cope with. With this knowledge, faculty may be
inspired or prompted to utilize innovative STEM instructional strategies to deliver instruction to
meet the learning needs of their students with ADHD.
This understanding and awareness of others is defined as interpersonal intelligence in
Howard Gardner’s seminal work, Frames of Mind (1983). In Frames of Mind (1983), Gardner
asserts that individuals have the capacity to employ eight different types of intelligences. These
eight intelligences are: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, naturalistic, and intrapersonal. In viewing university students with ADHD with
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 81
through the lens of MI theory, they can be viewed as whole people and possessing unique
strengths. Multiple intelligences that university students with ADHD possess can be tapped into
for the purpose of supporting students in processing information gathered in their STEM
instruction, coursework, readings, collaborative learning experiences, projects, and learning
applications. With enhanced learning outcomes, university students with ADHD can experience
success in STEM disciplines.
Ultimately, throughout this investigation, I viewed, analyzed, and interpreted the data
collected in this study with the incorporation of these two significant theoretical frameworks, the
Transformational Leadership Model and MI Theory. Transformational Leadership aims to
engage both the leaders and followers in meaningful discourse and collaboration to support a
developmental culture. Both leaders and followers are empowered to make positive changes to
reach organizational goals. Through the Transformational Leadership lens university faculty are
viewed as instrumental in supporting and enhancing student achievement to meet the
organization’s goals. MI theory argues that each individual has his or her own unique potential
that can be actualized by the building and application of their multiple intelligences. This
argument is in support of university students with ADHD being viewed as whole individuals
with unique talents and abilities, fully capable of earning degrees in STEM disciplines.
This study suggests that transformational leaders build their university’s capacity for
change and development when they invest in their faculty’s teaching and professional
development. Instead of merely placing pressure on their faculty to perform, transformational
leaders balance performance expectations with built-in supports for their faculty. In a university
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 82
setting, transformational leaders may employ a variety of supports for their faculty. Educational
performance data suggests that transformational leaders empower their faculty (McKinsley,
2011). In the next section of this study, I will describe the results of this study to answer my
research questions.
First, the STEM instructional strategies implemented by the STEM faculty were
examined. Second, the leadership practices used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in
serving the university’s students were explored. Last, I assessed STEM and faculty inspiration to
serve university students with ADHD.
Findings for Research Question One
What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve college students
with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
Higher education faculty have been noted as frequently using technology in their
research. In other studies, university faculty have generally been reported as reluctant to integrate
technology into their instruction (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2008). A growing emphasis
has been placed on the faculty instructional technology use in higher education. The faculty
surveys distributed to STEM faculty at the university probed various areas regarding faculty
integration of technology into their instruction.
One of the areas I examined was the frequency that STEM faculty integrated technology
into their instruction. As seen in Table 1, slightly over half (52%) of the STEM faculty reported
daily integration of technology into their instruction. Conversely, twenty percent of STEM
faculty reported that they never integrated technology into their lessons. The STEM faculty
survey data indicated that 72% used technology in their lessons at least once per week. Most the
university’s STEM faculty were integrating technology into their lessons.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 83
Table 1
STEM faculty’s frequency of technology integration in lessons
How often do you use technology in your lessons?
Answer
%
Never
20%
Less than
Once a
Month
0%
Once a
Month
4%
2-3 Times a
Month
4%
Once a Week
8%
2-3 Times a
Week
12%
Daily
52%
Total 100%
Another area that I probed with the STEM faculty surveys was their level of comfort in
using technology. I cross-tabulated the STEM faculty survey data on their frequency of
instructional technology in their lessons with their comfort level in using technology. Only two
faculty reported being uncomfortable using technology. These two faculty also reported that
they never used instructional technology in their lessons. Faculty who were somewhat
comfortable also reported that they never used technology in their lessons. In contrast, the
majority of the STEM faculty who reported being very comfortable using technology used
technology on a daily basis in their teaching. All of the STEM five faculty I interviewed
reported being very comfortable using technology. When I asked the STEM faculty what types
of technology they were comfortable using, two of the STEM faculty stated, “just about
anything” and one professor said, “I can use basically any type of technology or device. That is
not a problem.” I also used qualitative interviews to elicit the types and functions of STEM
faculty integration of technology into their instruction.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 84
Integration of technology by STEM faculty
All five STEM faculty interviewed shared that they used technology during their
instruction. As seen in Table 2, STEM faculty reported using a variety of technology for
instructional purposes during their lessons. An engineering faculty member used Power Point
and Matlab during his engineering lessons. Mat lab is a multi-dimensional engineering and
scientific software. Matlab is primarily used for mathematical computation, application
development, and integrating algorithms into external applications and languages, visualization.
It also has tools for improving the quality of codes, as well as performance maintenance and
improvement. This engineering professor used Matlab for teaching and through simulations to
provide students opportunities for applying concepts learned in his courses.
While a biological sciences faculty member integrated Power Point and Blackboard into
her teaching of her biological sciences courses. She also encouraged her students to use their
personal devices, such as Smart phones, laptops, and tablets, to answer questions in her online
quizzes which she directed her students to answer specific questions online during her lessons.
The earth science professor, primarily used Power Point as a medium to present his
curriculum. He mentioned that he was considering discontinuing posting his Power Points on
Blackboard. “It’s a disincentive to go to class. Fewer students take notes because they have the
Power Points.” I learned that he had a 50% decrease in class attendance by the end of the
semester. This earth science professor attributed the poor attendance to mostly upperclassmen.
He expressed that the freshman at the university were usually “gung ho” about attending his
classes.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 85
During his earth science lessons, he used Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, Kaleidagraph
for graphing, and Matlabs to perform algorithms. Kaleidagraph is a software program used for
graphing and data analysis in research, business, and engineering. I asked the earth science
professor to describe to me how he used Kaliedagraph. The professor explained that he
primarily used Kaliedagraph for graphing. He described it as “a powerful data fitting routine”
and that he used it as part of his “curve fitting routine”. He further explained that a data set was
used and applied to a theoretical model. Equations are then used to determine if the theoretical
model can be applied to the data set. Application of STEM concepts taught was a running theme
amongst the STEM faculty I interviewed.
During my interview with the accounting professor, he stated that he used file
presentations in Blackboard. He also put homework problems on Blackboard for the students to
work on to apply the concepts that he taught in class. He felt that the homework problems he
placed on Blackboard provided his students with the necessity to “read the textbook, and not just
depend on the supplements”. The accounting professor also described using Microsoft Office
Suites to “occasionally use spreadsheets to show relationships” in his accounting lessons. He
utilized PowerPoint slides in his instruction and Word to show solutions to homework problems.
An accounting professor expressed that he required students to use “low level technology”, such
as Microsoft Office Suites and simple calculators during his classes.
Similarly, the physics professor also reported using Power Point and Blackboard in his
teaching. He also noted that many of the classes he taught were in video capture rooms at the
university. The capture rooms at the university provide state-of-the-art technology for recording,
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 86
webcasting, or teleconferencing. Faculty can use the university’s capture rooms to digitally
record lectures and guest speakers. The capture rooms may also be used by faculty to present
live and on-demand webcasts and Podcasts for students. To augment his instruction, the physics
professor provided passwords to students to be able to watch videos of his lessons.
Table 2
Types of instructional technology used by STEM faculty
Faculty
member’s
STEM discipline
Technology
used during
instruction in
class
meetings
(Y/N)
Hardware
used during
instruction
Type of
instructional
technology/software
used during class
meetings
Student use of
technology required
during instruction
in class meetings
(Y/N)
Engineering Yes Laptop and
projector
Power Point, Mat
Lab
Yes
Biological
Sciences
Yes Laptop
projector
Power Point,
Blackboard
Yes
Earth Sciences Yes Laptop and
projector
Power Point,
Blackboard, Mat
Lab, Kaleidagraph,
Clips of Internet
Movies, Microsoft
Excel, Microsoft
Word
Yes
Accounting Yes Laptop,
projector,
video camera
Power Point,
Blackboard,
Microsoft Excel,
Microsoft Word,
Yes
Physics Yes Laptop,
projector,
classroom
plasma
screens, video
camera
Power Point,
Blackboard
No
Like the physics professor, slightly more than half at 52% of the STEM faculty whom
completed the surveys reported using YouTube, Blackboard, or other Internet broadcasting
technology to post their lectures for their students. The accounting professor noted that one of his
courses was digitally recorded in a capture room. He indicated that he had not provided his
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 87
recorded lectures to his students. Of the STEM faculty whom completed my survey, only 3%
reported using Podcasting to supplement their lectures or course materials. None of the STEM
faculty I interviewed disclosed using Podcasts to augment their instruction.
As seen in Table 3, the STEM faculty survey data suggested that most faculty were
interested in participating in small group trainings on using new instructional technology in their
instruction. In fact, 68% of STEM faculty surveyed indicated that they were interested to some
degree in attending instructional technology trainings. In a study conducted at another
university, most faculty discussed that they would be more likely to use instructional technology
with peer support, cross collaboration with other faculty using instructional technology, and a
university provided incentive (Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2008). The STEM faculty
were largely open to participating in the trainings on instructional technology without an
incentive offered by the university. Perhaps, their level of interest would be increased with more
peer support, collaboration, and an external reward such as a university incentive.
Table 3
STEM faculty interest in training on new instructional technology
If provided the opportunity, would you be interested in having small group trainings on using new instructional
technology?
Answer
%
Very interested
24%
Somewhat
interested
44%
Not interested
32%
Total 100%
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 88
Active Learning
Engaging, stimulating, efficient, student participation, interactive, individual research,
Socratic, group, and involvement were the words that STEM faculty used to describe active
learning. STEM faculty whom rated their understanding of active learning as good or average
were more likely to have positive thoughts about using active learning their own instructional
practice. This correlation between faculty knowledge of active learning and their attitudes
suggests that with increased knowledge of active learning, faculty attitudes also improve.
During the interviews, three out of the five STEM faculty one of my interviews admitted
to using active learning strategies in their lessons. One STEM professor used active learning
strategies in his labs, but, not the lectures. The STEM professors used active learning strategies
such as simulations on software, data analytics quizzes, group activities, and demonstrations of
physics concepts.
A biological sciences professor created her own data analytics quizzes for students to
access online with their mobile devices during her lessons. Data analytics quizzes provided
formative assessments to students. When the students took the quizzes, the professor could
immediately view how many students answered a question correct and the amount of students
whom answered incorrectly. This gave immediate feedback to both the professor and the
students. The quiz questions were asked intermittently during the lecture, usually after the
explanation of a key concept.
I can either ask questions that are simple knowledge to make sure that they understood
the concept or I can ask questions that require them to apply a concept which I just
explained. For example, I can ask them, which do you think is a carnivore or an
herbivore, then ask what do you think the sheep is? With these quizzes, I am priming
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 89
them and also they are understanding the types of questions that will be on the exam. So
they are getting used to the type of questions. Now, the difference is that during my
classes, I cannot assume that they have any prior knowledge on the topic. So, if I ask a
question, let’s say a formula, I am giving them the formula, and they just have to put in
the values. Or, if I ask them a question about the mechanism and then apply it. But I am
not expecting them to know a topic, because I just introduced the topic. While on the
exam, they will have to study and they will have to give additional information.
To provide the quiz to her students, the biological science professor showed the students
a Power Point slide with the number of the question and the actual quiz questions. Students were
then prompted to login to their Blackboard account to enter their answers. As the quiz questions
were not in Blackboard, the students had to be in class to view the quiz questions via Power
Point. The biological sciences professor was able to gather valuable insights from the quiz data
which she used to inform her instruction.
An accounting professor also engaged his classes in active learning. The accounting
professor stated that he tried to “start discussions, asking questions with current events.” He
predominately used Google News articles to prompt his students to make connections to what
they learned in his classes. The articles were used in in-class activities that required students to
attempt to apply concepts to a real-world situation. These activities enhanced the classroom
experience for his students. Through the implementation of active learning strategies, student
learning seemed to increase, and his active learning strategies reached more students “in the way
they liked to learn.”
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 90
STEM faculty use of laboratory experiences
The majority of STEM faculty surveyed reported that they used laboratory experiences
or experimentation in their teaching. Likewise, four of the five faculty interviewed used
laboratory experiences or experimentation to provide their students with opportunities to apply
the concepts presented in the courses. The only STEM faculty that did not use laboratory
experiences or experimentation in his teaching, stated, “I never developed one. It’s a good idea.
The texts come with labs.” He seemed open to the possibility of using labs or experimentation in
his courses.
This means that most of the students taking the classes of the participants in this study
were provided with opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of the course material by
applying STEM concepts in the labs via experimentation. Students also gain practical
knowledge in using the scientific method. The utilization of mathematical and scientific
concepts is essential in laboratory experiences for STEM majors. Laboratory experiences help
students to become actively engaged and peaks their interest in a topic.
In describing a specific laboratory experience, a STEM professor shared, students had to
measure body composition, cardiac fitness, and things like that. For instance, last week,
we were doing hydrostatic composition which is weighing a person underwater.
Because the buoyance of the body is different in water. Body buoyance in water is
strictly dependent on fat and the percentage of fat. So, hydrostatic weighing is used as a
tool to measure body fat. Laboratories help because they can practically see how in this
case underwater weighing works, and they can grasp the concept.
All of the STEM faculty surveyed rated their students as engaged in the laboratories
experiences and activities. Approximately 47% of STEM faculty rated their students as being
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 91
highly engaged, and 53% reported their students as somewhat engaged in their labs. One STEM
professor mentioned that the overwhelming message from his students’ survey data collected by
the university is that students said they learned more in their laboratory experiences through
experimentation than they do from his lectures. “The student reviews say that the students
consider that the labs are where they are really learning.”
Findings for Research Question Two
What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving university
students with ADHD?
As a private university, the university has the authority to select and implement its own
institutional leadership model and practices. Through one-to-one interviews with five STEM
faculty and two STEM leaders, I was able to assess the leadership practices which were
employed in the STEM departments and schools within the university. I also examined the data
from the STEM faculty and leader surveys to triangulate the data. To investigate the leadership
practices employed to build the capacity of STEM faculty, leaders were asked questions to probe
this area of practice. I asked university leaders to what extent they facilitated group processes,
developed shared purpose of learning, collaborated in planning, managed changes and
transitions, and encouraged individual and group initiative. Faculty and leaders were also asked
about their own inspiration in serving students with ADHD at the university.
Shared decision making
As a private university, the university had the authority to select its own governance
structure and decision-making processes. As extracted from both the interview and survey data,
the university empowered their STEM and other faculty to participate in committees which made
recommendations to the university on various decisions. These committees comprised of faculty
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 92
and leaders were given a task and asked for their recommendations in the form of a report to the
Vice Provosts or Provost’s office. These committees typically meet monthly or bi-weekly to
discuss and participate in a shared decision making process on behalf of a specific department,
school, or the university.
Consistent with data gathered from the STEM leader interviews and surveys, it was
discovered that the leaders utilized shared governance for decision-making. Using the lens of
transformational leadership, shared governance is one of the key processes that a university
leader uses to build a collaborative school culture in which the mantra of the culture of the
organization becomes, “we can do this together.” This university’s STEM leaders facilitated
collaborative decision-making by establishing committees where faculty members serve. This is
an example of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership is a leadership approach in which
collaborative efforts are embarked upon by people who respect each other’s input and
contributions. It is more likely to occur in an open culture within an organization.
When asked about how his department’s collaboration toward decisions, a STEM
department chair stated, “It’s common practice to collaborate. There is discussion amongst
faculty.” The STEM department of this chair was one of the largest on campus, and was the size
of some schools. Both a STEM department chair and high ranking STEM leader informed that
the committees comprised of faculty and leaders met monthly or twice per month to collaborate
on projects, discuss complex issues, and make recommendations to administration.
The committee shared decision making in the STEM departments and schools at the
university included: making includes restructuring of curriculum, analysis of student reviews of
faculty, developing new curriculum, and departmental changes. A top-ranked STEM department
on campus recently made major changes to its curriculum, “we had almost a complete overhaul
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 93
of the curriculum.” In response to my inquiring about how he inquires about issues confronting
his department, the department chair, noted “We have an open dialogue with the dean.” The
dean of his school maintained an open dialogue with his department chairs. Through this open
dialogue with his dean and collaboration with faculty, the department chair lead the process to
make major changes to the curriculum. He elaborated, “We tried to arrive at our own unique
take on it. We wanted to have unique coursework that other schools don’t have.” He described
that they did not want their curriculum to be a duplication of what other universities offered their
students. The recommendations for the restructuring of the curriculum came from the
department’s faculty.
Restructuring or change came about at the department level at least every five years.
Every five years departments had to produce a self - study of areas to improve. A committee
was appointed and an outside consultant was hired from another university. Meetings were held
to create a joint plan. A STEM leader at the university believed that, “The more you can
pinpoint or give a few people the responsibility, one to two, the easier it is to get results. You
can hold meetings and ask, can you tell me who has been contacted? What are the problems?
Who else can we get involved?” The one to two people who have the responsibility of getting
things done were called a “core team.” It’s also “easier to track and hold people accountable.”
In this approach to executing change, this STEM leader was depending on followers he trusted to
act.
When asked about how he develops a shared purpose with faculty, a STEM leader stated,
“It’s a benefit to have someone (a teaching faculty member) involved in the organization. In
some cases, it’s difficult to get faculty to take enough interest for student concerns.” He also
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 94
mentioned that, “sometimes individuals or groups of faculty raise issues.” He further explained
that this was addressed, “By the Academic Senate with representatives from each school. Then,
task forces are assembled and reports are issued by the task forces each year.”
Faculty initiated professional development
STEM faculty at the university had a great deal of autonomy. Faculty were not required
to attend any professional development. Professional development for STEM faculty was self-
initiated. Centrally, there was a center at the university’s main campus that was for faculty and
students to have discussions about learning and teaching. Participation in the center’s
discussions was completely optional for both faculty and students. The center relied on faculty
fellows to have conversations with faculty about teaching and learning, and what makes
outstanding teaching at the university. In order to become a faculty fellow, faculty must have
five years of teaching at the university and be nominated by their department chair or dean. The
faculty fellows were required to commit to at least three hours per week to the center.
Additionally, the faculty fellow is expected to facilitate two hour long discussions with faculty
and students at the center. They were also given the responsibility of training the graduate
teaching assistants and mentoring students at the center. In exchange for their service, faculty
received a $2,500 annual grant to cover the expenses of self-initiated professional development
in teaching and learning for the individual faculty member. More importantly, they received
university recognition for their service in the center.
Faculty attendance at the center’s presentations and discussions was generally low. In
observing four of the presentations conducted by fellows at the center, only a handful of faculty
and students were present for the lunchtime teaching and learning presentations. Attendance and
participation in the lunchtime presentations were completely optional for faculty. The
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 95
presentations on topics related to teaching and learning were taped and uploaded into the center’s
website for later viewing by faculty. I was not able to approximate how many faculty viewed the
presentations online. This center served as the university’s primary vehicle for faculty
development and was mentioned in the university’s strategic plan as such.
At a departmental level, a STEM department chair described the professional
development for his department as being “self-initiated.” There was a “small fund for
professional development for “teaching related activities.” To secure funding the faculty needed
to, “fill out a short proposal”. The funds could be used to attend conferences on teaching in the
STEM field, “investigate new software tools”, or other STEM education “teaching related
activities.” The chair informed that he was committed to “fund as many as we can during the
summer.”
Professional development related specifically to STEM was not offered by the university.
Technology is a crucial tool in STEM fields such as engineering, biological sciences,
mathematics, physics, accounting, astronomy, earth sciences, and chemistry. Most STEM
faculty reported an interest in participating in small group technology trainings to improve their
skills in using new instructional technology. In fact, 67% of STEM faculty reported an interest
in small group technology trainings. STEM faculty who were more comfortable using
technology were more interested in the trainings than faculty who were not as comfortable using
technology in their instruction.
A STEM department chair explained that “faculty do their own professional
developments on (STEM discipline) in their research.” Perhaps this insight could explain why
only 17% of the STEM faculty surveyed wanted support or training in new laboratory methods.
I learned that teaching faculty taught full time at the university. Tenure track faculty taught one
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 96
course per semester and conducted research in their research career for the remainder of their
time at the university. Research faculty primarily spent their time on research and occasionally
taught advanced graduate courses. Engagement in research informed faculty of current trends
and practices in their disciplines.
Lack of training on ADHD
Despite students with ADHD comprising approximately 25% of the number of students
with disabilities on university campuses, this university did not offer any training, seminars, or
discussions at the university (Weyant & Dupaul, 2006). The two programs on campus
responsible for providing services for students with disabilities on campus and collaborating with
their faculty, did not offer any type of professional development for faculty such as seminars,
discussions, trainings, or informational sessions. These two programs on the campus that were
developed to support students with disabilities and collaborate with faculty were a Disabilities
Services Program (DSP) and the other program was a Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Program. Specifically lacking in support for students with ADHD and teaching faculty, faculty
were not offered or provided with information or trainings about the symptomology and best
practices for teaching university students with ADHD. Only 8% percent of STEM faculty
surveyed reported having a good understanding of the instructional needs of students with
ADHD. Additionally, 36% of STEM faculty reported having a limited or lack of understanding
of what students with ADHD needed from an instructional perspective to benefit from their
classes.
Typically, the DSP and UDL programs on campus charged with collaborating with
faculty and supporting students with disabilities. The DSP staff proactively communicated with
faculty on accommodations. The counselors and other staff from the DSP provided faculty with
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 97
a listing of the accommodations that specific students required. All of the faculty interviewed
stated that the most common accommodation requested was extra time on exams. Due to
confidentiality, the staff from the DSP for students with disabilities did not provide faculty with
the disability diagnosis of students. With a signed student consent form, information may be
provided to faculty or staff within the university on a need to know basis. Student
confidentiality was protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). As
such, faculty reported being unsure of which of their students had ADHD and what the best
practices were for supporting them.
Autonomy in teaching
Faculty had almost absolute autonomy in their teaching. School leaders established
norms or standards for good teaching and expected everyone to abide by the standards. “There is
a shared belief in good teaching. All faculty understands we are expected to teach well,” noted a
STEM department chair. Faculty were expected to be self-motivated to teach well. Unless a
faculty member had a negative evaluation, no specific teaching supports were provided at the
department level, as most services were centralized. Faculty members were at liberty to seek
what they needed with little or no input from their STEM department chairs or other leaders. The
faculty was largely left alone to self-initiate working with other faculty who were teaching the
same courses.
STEM faculty were also given the autonomy to decide which courses they wanted to
teach. “Faculty discuss amongst themselves. Once per semester I ask, what changes do they
anticipate? After that, I look for holes to plug.” A STEM chair informed that faculty data is
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 98
projected each semester to plan which faculty will teach what STEM courses. Overall, the
faculty selected which courses they will teach in collaboration with their peers. The department
chair gave the faculty the power to work together to select their teaching schedule each semester.
Faculty’s autonomy decreased when they had a negative evaluation. Primarily, the types
of support the faculty members received were determined by the outcome of their evaluation.
Towards the end of each semester, students completed reviews or surveys of their professors. In
one large STEM department, the results of the student reviews are examined annually by a
committee. The committee then wrote a short report of each professor’s overall student reviews,
and gave them to their department chair. If and when a faculty member received a negative
report from the committee, he or she counseled with the chair and received corrective feedback.
Similarly, a different STEM leader described an almost identical model for reflecting on
teaching practices. He explained that non tenured faculty were evaluated annually and tenured
faculty were evaluated every three years. What was different was that peer evaluations were
conducted in his STEM department. Faculty made arrangements with each other to visit each
other’s classrooms. They provided their peer they visited with “short comments” about their
teaching. The faculty who was visited then replies to the comments received. Faculty feedback
varied across STEM departments.
Findings for Research Question Three
Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting college
students with ADHD?
When asked if they ever felt inspired to learn more about teaching or supporting their
students with ADHD three of the five STEM faculty interviewed answered in the affirmative.
The other two STEM faculty answered that they were inspired “as much as I am to help the other
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 99
students” or explained that he was not sure which of his students had ADHD. Survey data
indicated that 32% of the STEM faculty were inspired to improve their knowledge or teaching
practices to support their student with ADHD. The cross tabulation of the faculty data regarding
whether faculty were inspired, and the amount of contact with one of the students with
disabilities office reflected that 75% of the inspired faculty also collaborated on a consistent
basis with the DSP. Approximately one third of STEM faculty were inspired to gain more
knowledge of teaching and supporting their students with ADHD.
All STEM leaders stated that they were inspired to meet the needs of students with
ADHD. The higher ranking STEM leader affirmed, “Absolutely! Sometimes it’s difficult to get
faculty to take an interest in student needs.” The ability to be inspired and to inspire other is a
crucial component of the Transformational leadership model. Characteristics of
Transformational leaders such as social boldness, introspection, thoughtfulness, maturity,
creativity, integrity, and a high activity level of activity are also expected from a
Transformational leader (Miner, 2005). Transformational leaders tend to thrive at higher levels
within an organization. The STEM leaders I interviewed displayed most of these characteristics.
Transformational leaders also work with their followers to transcend self-interest, increase their
awareness, and shift their focus from personal safety and comfort to achievement. The higher
ranking STEM leader described how he worked with STEM faculty to encourage them to shift
their goals form personal comfort to student achievement, “I find that faculty are often more
motivated when they are offered incentives such as recognition, and other things.”
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 100
Summary
The findings of this study distinguished areas in which the university was excelling in
building their capacity for serving university students with ADHD in STEM disciplines. The
results of this study also identified areas for growth to build the university’s STEM capacity in
serving their students with ADHD. Through the examination of the STEM instructional
strategies identified in the existing research, such as instructional technology, laboratory
experiences, and active learning strategies, this study investigated the university’s capacity in the
implementation of these STEM instructional strategies to their students. I also examined STEM
leadership practices in building the STEM faculty’s capacity in serving university students with
ADHD. Finally, I explored the inspiration of STEM faculty in leaders in supporting students
with ADHD in earning STEM degrees.
I discovered that slightly over half of the STEM faculty integrated instructional
technology into their teaching on a daily basis. Conversely, twenty percent of the STEM faculty
reported that they never used instructional technology in their teaching. Survey data also
indicated that the more comfortable STEM faculty were with using instructional technology, the
more likely they were to integrate it into their instruction. Most STEM faculty stated that they
would like to participate in small group trainings on integrating new instructional technology
into their teaching.
STEM faculty’s integration of active learning varied. Engaging, stimulating, efficient,
student participation, interactive, individual research, Socratic, group, and involvement were
some of the words that STEM faculty used to describe active learning. Faculty reported using
active learning strategies such as simulations on software, data analytics quizzes, group
activities, and interactive demonstrations of concepts. STEM faculty with a higher level of
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 101
knowledge in active learning had more positive attitudes regarding the use of active learning in
their teaching. Faculty demonstrated a higher level of knowledge by using laboratory
experiences in their teaching than active learning strategies.
The majority of STEM faculty surveyed reported that they used laboratory
experimentation in their teaching. Likewise, four of the five faculty interviewed used laboratory
experimentation to provide their students with opportunities to apply the concepts presented in
the courses. Largely, students were observed by their STEM faculty as being engaged in their
laboratory experimentation.
STEM leaders discussed the great degree of autonomy provided to STEM faculty. STEM
faculty were tasked with seeking out their own professional development opportunities. In some
cases, financial support from their STEM department could be requested by the faculty to secure
the faculty’s chosen professional development. The university did not provide seminars,
training, or discussions for STEM faculty on supporting university students with ADHD.
Clearly, this is an area that could be strengthened to build the university’s capacity for serving
students with ADHD.
The exploration and probing of STEM faculty and leader’s inspiration to meet the needs
of their students with ADHD were mixed. For this study, inspiration was considered the process
of being mentally stimulated to act on the behalf of university students with ADHD.
Approximately, one third of STEM faculty surveyed reported being inspired. Three out of the
five STEM faculty interviewed stated inspiration. Whereas, the STEM leaders unanimously
affirmed their inspiration. Inspiration is critical to the building of human capital to meet the
needs of a vulnerable population. Inspiration involves the transcendence of self-serving
behaviors and limitations (Kaufman, 2011).
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 102
Chapter five will present a discussion of the findings of chapter four. The findings
answered all three of the research questions. Next, implications for building the capacity of
STEM faculty and leaders will be offered. Considerations for future recommendations will be
proposed, followed by the conclusion of this study.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 103
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
Since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, enrollment for students
with disabilities has increased in the U.S. With the implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, enrollment of students with ADHD increased by 30% in both two and
four year colleges and universities (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). As
enrollments for students with ADHD increased, the responsibility of universities to support
college students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees also rose. This amplified the need for
universities to build their capacity in meeting the needs of students with ADHD in STEM
disciplines.
University capacity building necessitates developing the organization’s human capital and
infrastructure to support the building of new knowledge and skills to increase the organization’s
ability to meet student needs. Transactional Leadership, common in western universities in the
last 100 years is now outdated. In the U.S., human rights are legislated, and transactional
leadership has become undesirable in such a context. Reliance on university leaders alone is not
a viable option in the ever changing STEM landscape in higher education. In a contemporary
leadership model, Transformational Leadership, leadership capacity is built and sustained
through creating optimal conditions for collaboration, growth, and reflection. Transformational
Leadership is an evolution of influence that transpires between leaders and followers.
Essentially, Transformational Leadership involves establishing vision, aligning resources, and
providing inspiration to achieve the goals of the organization. Developing university human
capital includes the supporting of STEM faculty and leaders in building their instructional skills
and leadership practices.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 104
Statement of the Problem
The widespread use of the lecture method of instruction in which students are
“receptacles” of information to be filled by the content of the “teacher’s narration” poses
substantial challenges for university students with ADHD. The banking concept of education
(Friere, 2000) in which the teachers teach and the students are taught, is alive and well with the
lecture method. Coupled with pre-existing attention deficits derived from the neurological
disorder of ADHD, the lecture method disengages student with ADHD from the presentation of
STEM course curriculum. College students with ADHD report more distress over their
academic performance than their peers without ADHD (Rabiner, et al, 2008). In higher
education, there is a pervasive lack of faculty understanding and awareness of appropriate
instructional strategies and environmental accommodations, modifications, and tools for students
with ADHD (Dipeolu, 2010). To date, few investigations into the capacity building of STEM
leaders and faculty in supporting students with ADHD have been conducted.
Purpose of the study
This study investigated capacity building for faculty and leaders in supporting university
students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees. Data was analyzed through the lens of a
strength-based perspective, utilizing the Multiple Intelligences Theory (Gardner, 1978) to
examine how students ADHD individual learning needs were being met within the university
classroom environment. Additionally, I explored the leadership practices of STEM leaders at a
private university to inform of the existing supports in place to build and promote the
implementation of innovative STEM instructional strategies. Bubb and Early (2009) emphasize
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 105
the development of a learning-centered culture where faculty learning is as highly valued as
student learning. In a learning-centered culture, professional development opportunities are
created where coaching, discussions, mentoring, and developing faculty and leaders are part of
the norms of the university.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in this study:
1. What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve
university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
2. What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving
university students with ADHD?
3. Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting
college students with ADHD?
Discussion of Findings
As an educator of students with diverse learning needs, many with ADHD and interests
in STEM disciplines, I was inspired to examine how students with ADHD were being instructed
and supported. During the last few years, I have seen a rise in the promotion of STEM
instructional strategies in the K-12 education sector. I wanted to explore the utilization of STEM
Instructional strategies and the leadership critical to implementation and sustenance in the
university. As described in Chapter Two, this study was conducted with STEM faculty and
leaders, at a private university on the West Coast. I was able to answer all three of my research
questions from analyzing the data I collected in this study. The findings are structured below
with the related research questions.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 106
Findings for Research Question One
What are the instructional strategies and supports being implemented to serve college students
with ADHD in earning STEM degrees?
Active Learning
STEM faculty whom rated their understanding of active learning as good or average had
more positive thoughts about implementing active learning in their own instructional practices.
Three out of the five professors I interviewed identified using active learning as an STEM
instructional strategy. The STEM professors shared using active learning strategies such as
simulations on software, data analytics quizzes, group activities, and demonstrations of physics
concepts. Data analytics were used as a formative assessment tool for a biological sciences
professor. She encouraged her students to use their personal devices such as laptops and tablets
to periodically answer questions online that she posed in her lessons. The questions immediately
followed her instruction of the concept.
I can either ask questions that are simple knowledge to make sure that they understood
the concept or I can ask questions that require them to apply a concept which I just
explained. For example, I can ask them, which do you think is a carnivore or an
herbivore, then ask what do you think the sheep is? With these quizzes, I am priming
them and also they are understanding the types of questions that will be in the exam. So
they are getting used to the type of questions.
Through the use of this active learning strategy, the biological science professor was able
to conduct a formative assessment to ascertain whether the students were grasping the concepts.
Accordingly, she expressed that she was able to modify her instruction, re-teaching concepts, as
needed to ensure that students were learning the key concepts of the course curriculum. This
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 107
practice of using interactive technologies in which the students answer a question, and the
professor is able to immediately view the aggregate totals of how many students answered
correctly, enables STEM faculty and students to co-create the value of the learning.
In a foundational article, the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Higher Education,
Chickering & Gamson (, p. 3, 1987) advocated, “Student learning is not a spectator sport.
Students do not learn much by sitting in class, listening to teachers, memorizing
prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are
learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives.
They must make what they learn part of themselves.”
The use of active learning by STEM faculty, as reported in Chapter Four was supported
by the literature analyzed in Chapter Two. Correspondingly, an action research study by Furse
(2012) found that student satisfaction surveys demonstrate that students are more satisfied with
the course and lecture-free instruction, since the incorporation of these active learning strategies.
When students are stimulated with active learning strategies, they are better able to apply the
concepts in their writing, discussions, and real-world applications.
Faculty integration of technology
I discovered that the university employed all three of the innovative STEM instructional
strategies identified in literature in Chapter Two in varying degrees. The existence of the
implementation of the STEM instructional strategies in university classrooms was identified
through faculty surveys and interviews. Instructional technology was widely used by STEM
faculty in their teaching. All five of the STEM faculty I interviewed integrated technology into
their lessons.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 108
STEM faculty use varied from Power Points to the implementation of Mat Labs and
Kaliedagraph. Bowden and D’Alessandro (2011) advocated that faculty and students co-create
value and with the use of interactive technologies during instruction. The use of interactive
technologies in university classrooms enriches the learning experiences of students. High quality
learning experiences move beyond the traditional lecture method as this biological science
professor demonstrated during the interview.
In transcending the traditional lecture method, both engineering and earth sciences
professors explained that they used Matlabs in their lessons. The engineering professor used
Matlabs for simulations with his students. The literature presented in Chapter Two identified
that technological applications of engineering were learned in coursework at universities (Feisel
& Rosa, 2005). The engineering professor interviewed identified that he used these
technological applications in his teaching. As such, his students were provided with
opportunities to gain valuable experience applying engineering concepts to technological
applications.
Conversely, Podcasting was rarely used by the STEM faculty. Only 12% of the STEM
faculty I surveyed used Podcasting. By not using Podcasting, there may be missed opportunities
for increased student learning. A study of 245 university students revealed that Podcasting
provided learning benefits (Bongey, Cizlado, Kalnbach & 2006). The Podcasts presented and
reviewed key concepts from the curriculum. The findings reported that 71% of the students
indicated Podcasting increased their understanding of the course material. Podcasting also
helped 50% of the students surveyed to perform better on exams with Podcasting to augment
their learning of course material (Bongey, Cizlado, Kalnbach & 2006). Faculty’s use of
Podcasting could have the potential to greatly enhance student learning achievement.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 109
STEM faculty utilized broadcasting technology such as broadcasting technology
significantly more than they used Podcasting. Over half of the faculty reported using YouTube,
Blackboard, or other broadcasting technology to post their lectures. A physics faculty member
informed that he taught his classes in a capture room which digitally videotaped his lessons and
demonstrations. Later, he provided a password for students to access this supplementary course
content. Students’ access to view the lessons taught by their STEM professors has the ability to
substantially increase student learning, particularly students with ADHD. With access to their
STEM lessons via a password encrypted digital video file, students such as those with ADHD
with pre-existing attentional deficits, whom struggle with attending to instruction for longer
periods of time, are able to access the instruction to review concepts. With access to the digital
video files online, students may view, pause, rewind, and fast forward their professor’s lesson to
review concepts and improve their overall understanding of the material from STEM curriculum.
The literature supported video and audio recording of lectures (Laurillard, 1993; Biggs,
2003). Recording of lectures for students to access outside of class has been found to be
beneficial for many students. Specifically, the recording of lessons is optimal for students with
learning differences (Williams & Fardon, 2005). Access to digitally recorded lectures aids in
removing learning barriers for university students with ADHD, such as inability to sustain
attention for long periods of time, as required by the traditional lecture method. Bowden and
D’Alessandro (2011) admonished faculty to transcend the traditional lecture method to embrace
the whole person (student) with a growth-oriented, student and learning-centered education.
A growth-orientation was also probed in the survey and via interviews. Most faculty
reported being somewhat or very comfortable with using technology in their instruction of
students. As experts in their STEM fields, all STEM faculty interviewed expressed feeling very
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 110
comfortable with hardware and software commonly used in their STEM disciplines. Survey data
indicated that the majority of STEM indicated that they were interested in accessing small group
instruction to learn new instructional technologies. This willingness to learn new technology to
enhance the teaching and learning experience conveyed a growth-orientation of these STEM
faculty. As noted in Chapter Two, in a study at the University of Colorado Denver, faculty were
provided training on instructional technology. Schreyer-Bennethum & Albright (2010) found
that the training in instructional technology significantly the number of faculty whom used
technology in their instruction. With the increase of faculty use of technology during lessons,
students’ overall performance in their mathematics courses was considerably increased. The use
of technology in STEM instruction has the propensity to greatly impact student achievement.
This is critical for students with ADHD as they frequently have lower GPAs than students
without ADHD (Weyandt & DuPaul, 2006).
Laboratory Experiences
STEM faculty reported high rates of use of experimentation in their courses. More than
half of STEM faculty observed their students as being very engaged in their course laboratory
experiences, and 47% observed students as somewhat engaged. In describing a specific
laboratory experience, a biological sciences professor shared, “Students had to measure body
composition, cardiac fitness, and things like that. For instance, last week, we were doing
hydrostatic composition which is weighing a person underwater.” Student engagement enhanced
student learning. An earth sciences professor stated, “The student reviews say that the students
consider that the labs are where they are really learning.”
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 111
The use of laboratory methods was endorsed in the literature. Undergraduate students
taking introductory chemical engineering courses at Newcastle University gained a deeper
understanding of the course material by participating in laboratory experiences. These
experiences were solving industrially based case studies in small groups with opportunities to
solve in the laboratories (Glasse & Haile, 2012). Applied learning in the form of laboratory
experimentation provides students with opportunities to gain hands-on experiences in applying
the scientific theory and application of STEM concepts. In an undergraduate computer
programming course, Chen & Cheng (2007) found that students were highly engaged in
developing games. Laboratory experiences can serve multiple purposes. They provide college
students with applications of their coursework and may serve as an engagement tool. Students
with ADHD experience higher levels of engagement when they are provided with activities they
find enjoyable.
Findings from Research Question Two
What leadership practices are used to build the capacity of STEM faculty in serving university
students with ADHD?
STEM leaders described their decision-making processes. Their responses indicated a
shared decision-making process between STEM leadership and faculty. Under the direction of
the President, Provost, and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, STEM leaders were
encouraged to empower their faculty by utilizing a collaborative decision-making process. The
committee shared decision-making in the STEM departments and schools at the university
included: making includes restructuring of curriculum, analysis of student reviews of faculty,
developing new curriculum, and departmental changes. A top-ranked STEM department on
campus recently made major changes to its curriculum. When asked to elaborate on the change
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 112
process, he led, the department chair stated, “We had almost a complete overhaul of the
curriculum… we tried to arrive at our own unique take on it. We wanted to have unique
coursework that other schools don’t have.” The recommendations for the restructuring of the
curriculum came from the department’s faculty.
As noted in Chapter Two, shared decision-making is a component of building collective
efficacy. Marzano recommended that leaders craft a purposeful community “with the collective
efficacy and capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all
community members through agreed-upon processes” (Marzano, p. 99, 2005). A key concept in
a purposeful community is the collective efficacy of faculty and leaders’ shared belief that in
their working together with one purpose, they can positively impact the lives of their students.
Slater (2008) emphasized that leaders become hero-makers instead of the heroes through
empowering their followers.
STEM faculty were empowered to the degree that they were given almost absolute
autonomy to their faculty in their teaching. Faculty were expected to teach well. A STEM
department chair noted, “There is a shared belief in good teaching. All faculty understands we
are expected to teach well.” Faculty retained their autonomy, unless they had a negative
evaluation. Additionally, if and when a faculty member had a statistically significant number of
negative student reviews, the faculty member was required to meet with their chair and given
suggestions to improve their teaching.
A STEM leader informed that non-tenured faculty were evaluated on an annual basis and
tenured faculty were evaluated every three years. STEM departments differed in the way that
they conducted evaluations. The physics department used peer evaluations as a means of
engaging in reflection of teaching. Faculty made appointments with faculty to observe them
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 113
teaching a lesson. After the peer teaching observation, the peer evaluator provided “short
comments” about what they observed. The faculty member observed replied to the comments to
conclude the teaching reflection and development process. Peer evaluations were validated in
the literature as being important aspects of faculty collaboration in supporting the processes of
teaching and learning (Hargreaves, 2004).
Overall, there were no formal professional development opportunities provided to faculty.
STEM faculty were largely left on their own to initiate their own professional developments,
self-educate or train themselves. Centrally, a center for teaching existed for faculty and students
to have informal discussions about learning and teaching. Seminars were conducted on various
types of teaching strategies and practices. The seminars were conducted by faculty teaching
fellows and guest speakers. Participation in the center’s discussions and seminars in teaching
and learning were completely optional for both faculty and students. None of the faculty I
interviewed reported interacting with the center in any context. Attendance was very low in the
four seminars I observed with only a handful of faculty and students in attendance. While the
center’s purpose of improving teaching and learning at the university was notable, this
professional development program was ineffective. The seminars and discussions appeared to be
primarily presented in a “sit and get” format. As discussed in a report by the National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), the era of “sit and get” for faculty professional
development is over and done with (2009). Overall, the university faculty did not appear to be
engaged in the overall teaching and learning programming offered by the center.
Moreover, without time set apart for professional development, it may not be feasible
for many STEM faculty to participate in professional development activities to improve their
teaching. The literature supported the creation of visible and invisible structures to enable
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 114
faculty and leaders to support profound teaching and learning (Muijs & Harris, 2007; Dover,
2008). While there were some visible and invisible structures in place at the university, they
were not found to be effective in meeting the professional development needs of STEM faculty.
Other than sabbatical leaves granted for faculty research and time allotted during the summer for
conference attendance, no set time was reported as specifically set apart for professional
development during the Fall and Spring semesters. Professional development practices require
time set apart for changes in the infrastructure of the organization, affecting teaching and
learning to occur (Muijs & Harris, 2007). Additionally, STEM leaders need to be involved in
professional development. The NJCLD (1999) advocated that everyone who has an impact on
student learning be involved in a continuous process of development to improve their
knowledge, skills, and attitudes in serving students with learning differences.
The learning differences involved with ADHD were not conveyed to STEM faculty.
There was a lack of both decentralized and centralized STEM faculty training in ADHD. This
was disappointing considering that students with ADHD typically comprise 25% of the
population of students with disabilities. Over a third of the STEM faculty reported having a
limited or lack of understanding of what instructional strategies and supports students with
ADHD needed to benefit from their classes. Neither of the two programs on the campus, a
Disabilities Services Program (DSP) and a Universal Design Learning Center (UDL), developed
specifically to support students with disabilities and collaborate with faculty, offered seminars,
discussions, or training for faculty. The lack of faculty outreach, consultation, and professional
development in supporting students with disabilities such as ADHD was contrary to what was
reported as best practice in the literature.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 115
Corey (2011) informed that it was common practice for universities to offer one-to-one
consultations with faculty on recommended instructional strategies to accommodate and support
the learning differences of students with ADHD. Students with ADHD have access to the DSP
and UDL for support and academic and life coaching, however, little is done to improve faculty
awareness and knowledge in teaching university students with ADHD. To improve the
university’s ability to meet the needs of students with diverse learning needs, the university
needs to make faculty knowledge building in serving student with ADHD with innovative STEM
instructional strategies a priority.
Findings for Research Question Three
Are faculty and leaders inspired to build their capacity in teaching and supporting college
students with ADHD?
Approximately one third of STEM faculty were inspired to gain more knowledge of
teaching and supporting their students with ADHD. A cross tabulation of the faculty data
regarding whether faculty were inspired, and the amount of contact with the DSP, reflected that
75% of the inspired faculty also collaborated on a consistent basis with the DSP. The STEM
leaders affirmed that they were inspired to meet the needs of their students with ADHD. The
higher ranking STEM leader affirmed, “Absolutely! Sometimes it’s difficult to get faculty to take
an interest in student needs.”
Why do the faculty and leaders’ inspiration to meet the needs of students with ADHD
make a difference? Kaufman (2011) informs that inspiration elevates levels of positive affect,
lowers negative affect, and increases task involvement. Inspiration is also part of the
transformational leadership process. In analyzing and triangulating the interview data, I found
that the faculty whom affirmed they were inspired to support students with ADHD, used more
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 116
active learning practices than those who were not inspired. When followers, in this case, STEM
faculty are inspired to support their students with disabilities, their desire to engage in STEM
instructional practices to support student learning may increase. Inspired individuals are also
more intrinsically motivated (Kaufman, 2011). Intrinsic motivation positively impacts work
performance. In a study using an Inspiration Scale, inspired individuals also had a drive to
master their work (Thrasher & Elliott, 2003). With inspiration, STEM faculty and leaders can
increase their knowledge and awareness, and build their skills in serving university students with
ADHD.
Limitations
The limitations of this study may include a low response rate for both STEM faculty and
leaders. I sent out 207 surveys to STEM faculty and received 25 completed surveys. The STEM
faculty’s response rate was 12%. Only two STEM leaders of the 45 surveyed responded to the
online surveys. The STEM leader was 4%. This was quite a low response rate. There are many
possibilities as to why the survey response was so low for STEM leaders. Although, there is not
a standard response rate in survey research, the data from STEM leader surveys were not
included in this study.
Implications for Practice
The current study was an in-depth study of teaching and leading in the STEM disciplines at
at a private, top-tier, West Coast University. It informed STEM faculty and leaders as to what
innovative STEM instructional strategies are supported in the research. It also provided findings
of how innovative STEM instructional strategies were being implemented by university STEM
faculty, and to what extent. As noted in Chapter Two, these strategies were reported to increase
student motivation, engagement, and learning.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 117
Additionally, it apprised STEM and university leaders of the strengths and areas for growth
in supporting university students with ADHD. This study identified promising leadership
practices, supported in the research, which STEM leaders were utilizing in leading STEM
departments and schools at the university. As noted in Chapter Four, areas of growth for STEM
leaders and the university were documented. STEM leaders excelled at facilitating shared
decision-making, empowerment of STEM faculty as leaders, and self-reported inspiration to
meet the needs of their students with ADHD. Specifically, STEM and university leaders need to
engage in reflection of the existing professional development practices they are administering.
Another consideration is the lack thereof in building the capacity of their STEM faculty and the
organization in supporting the needs of university students with ADHD. STEM leaders may
consider using this study as a glimpse of the ineffectiveness of their center for teaching and
learning, as well as the DSP and UDL center, in engaging STEM faculty in the work of teaching
and supporting students with ADHD.
Future Research
Although, there were numerous medical studies on the symptomology and comorbidity
of ADHD, few researchers have examined capacity building of universities in meeting the needs
of university students with ADHD. The present study was designed as an in-depth study of
capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders in meeting the learning needs of university
students with ADHD. The nature of this study was exploratory in nature. As a result, while the
study presented findings for STEM faculty and leader capacity building to meet the needs of
university students with ADHD, the study was conducted at a private university on the West
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 118
coast and may not be generalizable to all STEM faculty and leaders in the U.S. To increase the
generalizability of the study, it would be advantageous to conduct a similar study simultaneously
at multiple universities within the U.S. and internationally.
Conclusions
This study emphasizes the importance of building organizational capacity of universities
in meeting the needs of their students with ADHD. As highlighted in this study, professional
development is critical for faculty in improving their knowledge, awareness, and instructional
practices in meeting the needs of students with diverse learning needs. Both faculty and leaders
are valuable to the reform process. Reform is more successful and sustainable when faculty are
involved in shared decision-making and empowered to make changes essential to effective
teaching and learning. University leaders support teaching and learning by listening,
collaborating with faculty, taking risks, inspiring faculty, and aligning resources with supporting
improvements in teaching and learning. As instructional support for university students in
STEM fields with ADHD improves, student achievement will increase. To enable an increase in
STEM graduation rates at universities in the U.S for university students with ADHD, more
research is needed to increase the effectiveness of teaching students with and without ADHD in
STEM disciplines.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 119
References
A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. (2009). A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. Retrieved
April 17, 2014, from http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm
2010 ADA regulations. (2010). 2010 ADA regulations. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from
http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm
Adler, L., Cohen, J. (2004) Diagnosis and evaluation of adults with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 27 (2), 187.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the
transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Research & Integration of Instructional Technology, 21(1), 19-30.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder, Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management (2011).
ADHD: Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics,
128, 1007-1022.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Retrieved
from http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/book.aspx?bookid=556
Armbruster, P., M. Patel, E. Johnson, & M. Weiss. (2009). Active learning and student-
centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology.
CBE-Life Science Education 8(3): 203-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025
Auman, C. (2011). Using simulation games to increase student and instructor engagement.
College Teaching 59(4): 154-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.602134
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 120
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational. Behavior.,
25: 951–968. doi: 10.1002/job.283
Banning, J. Folkestad, J. (2012). STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A
bounded qualitative meta-study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21
(6), 730-741.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Open University Press,
Berkshire.
Bok, D. C., & Ebrary, I. (2013). Higher education in america. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bongey, S.B., Cizadlo, G., Kalnbach, L. (2006). Explorations in course-casting: podcasts
in higher education, Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(5), 350–367.
Bowden, J. L., & D'Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: The
role of interactive classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7(11),
35-49. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/906290365?accountid=14749
Bowell, C.C. Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the
classroom. Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 121
Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., Donovan, M., and Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How
People Learn, National Academy Press.
Braxton, J. M., W. A. Jones, A. S. Hirschy, & H. V. Hartley III. (2008). The role of active
learning in college student persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning
115: 71-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.326
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chen, W., Yu, C.C. (2007). Teaching object-oriented programming laboratory with
computer game programming. Education, IEEE Transactions on,50(3), 197-203.
doi:10.1109/TE.2007.900026
Chen, X. (2009). Students Who Study Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) in Postsecondary Education. Stats in Brief. NCES 2009-
161. National Center for Education Statistics.
Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education, AAHE Bulletin, 3 H.
Congress, U. S. (2007). America Competes Act. Public Law, 110-69.
Cory, R. C. (2011), Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus
resource. New Directions for Higher Education, 2011: 27–36. doi: 10.1002/he.431
Davison, A., Brown, P., Pharo, E., Warr, K., McGregor, H., Terkes, S., Abuodha, P.
(2014). Distributed leadership. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 15(1), 98-110. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1467819047?accountid=14749
Dickert-Conlin, S., & Rubenstein, R. H. (2007). Economic inequality and higher
education: Access, persistence, and success. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 122
Dipeolu, A. (2011). College students with ADHD: Prescriptive practices for best
practices in career development, 38(5) 408-427.
Donnelly, D.M., Berge, Z.L. (2006). Podcasting: Co-opting MP3 players for education
and training purposes. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(3).
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and
classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Edwards, H., Smith, B. & Webb, G. (2001). Introduction. In H. Edwards, B. Smith & G.
Webb (Eds), Lecturing: Case studies, experience and practice (pp. 1-10). London
and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Fernandez, V ., Simo, P., & Sallan, J. M. (2009). Podcasting: A new technological tool to
facilitate good practice in higher education. Computers & Education, 53(2), 385-
392. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.014
Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and
achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a
concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1),
49-65. doi:10.1177/00222194070400010401
Freire, Paulo. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed /New York : Continuum.
Gardner, H. (1983/2003). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1996). Probing more deeply into the theory of multiple intelligences.
NAASP Bulletin 80(583), 1-7.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 123
Gardner, Howard (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Gauci, S. A., A. M. Dantas, D. A. Williams, & R. E. Kemm. (2009). Promoting student-
centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in
Physiology Education 33, 60-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2007
Glasse, J., Haile, S. (2012). Sustainability in chemical engineering curriculum.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 354-364.
Gregory, J. L. (2013). Lecture is not a dirty word, how to use active lecture to increase
student engagement. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4).
Hakim, Y . (2012). Capacity building of knowledge through quality management of
education and institutions of higher learning. International Journal of Future
Computer and Communication, 1(3), 232.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Teaching in the Knowledge Society. Teachers College Press. New
York, New York.
Hua, O., Shore, B. M., & Makarova, E. (2014). Inquiry-based instruction within a
community of practice for gifted–ADHD college students. Gifted Education
International, 30(1), 74-86. doi:10.1177/0261429412447709
Hofstein, A., Lunetta, V . N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for
the twenty-first century. Sci. Ed., 88: 28–54. doi: 10.1002/sce.10106
Kaufman, S. (2011). Why Inspiration Matters. Retrieved March 4, 2015, from
https://hbr.org/2011/11/why-inspiration-matters/
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 124
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications
for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(1), 23-28. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9126-2
Keis, K. (2014). Transforming leadership. Leadership Excellence, 31(5), 8-9. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1535668234?accountid=14749
Kokkelenberg, E.C., Sinha, E. (2010). Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of
Binghamton University undergraduate students, Economics of Education Review,
V olume 29, Issue pp, 935-946. doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.016.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective
Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, London.
Learning Point Associates. (2010, March 1). Connecting research about access to higher
education to practice. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/AccessToHigherEd.pdf
Lopez, S., Louis, M. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of
College and Character, X(4), 1-8.
Loureiro, M. (2011). Capacity Building. Oxford Bibliographies Online: Public Health.
doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0051
Marchetta, N. D. J., Hurks, P. P. M., Krabbendam, L., Jolles, J. (2008). Interference
control, working memory, concept shifting, and verbal fluency in adults with
attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 22, 74-84.
doi:10.1037/08944105.22.1.74
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 125
Martinussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., Tannock, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of working
memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 377-384.
doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000153228.72591.73
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
Matlab. (2015). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/features.html
Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2011), Profound improvement: Building learning-community
capacity on living-system principles. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York:
Routledge.
Muijs, D. and Harris, A. (2007), Teacher-leadership in action, Educational Management
and Administration, 35(1), 111-134.
National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Norton, L., Richardson, T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’
beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education,
50(4), 537-571. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6363-z
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 126
Norvilitis, J. M., Ingersoll, T., Jie Zhang, & Shuhua Jia 2008). Self-reported symptoms of
ADHD among college students in china and the united states. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 11(5), 558-567. doi:10.1177/1087054707308496
Paul, C., Clarke, C., Grill, B., Young, S., Moroney, J., Hogler, J., et al. (2013). What
Works Best When Building Partner Capacity and Under What Circumstances?
What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity and Under What
Circumstances? Retrieved July 3, 2014, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1253z1.html
Pliszka, S., (2007). Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and
adolescents with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, Journal American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 271-294.
Prince, M. (2004), Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93: 223–231. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Prober, C. G., & Heath, C. (2012). Lecture halls without lectures - A proposal for medical
education. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366(18), 1657-9.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS. (2000). Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23(1), 2.
Slater, L. (2008), Pathways to building leadership-capacity, Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 55-69.
Reid, K., & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability:
Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 37(6), 466–481.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 127
Runco, M. (2009, January 1). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and
talent. Shibboleth Authentication Request. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.4135/9781412971959.n114
Schirdmuan, V ., Case, K., Faryniarz, J. (2002). How ADHD students are smart. The
Education Forum, 66, 324-328.
Schreyer-Bennethum, L., & Albright, L. (2011). Evaluating the incorporation of
technology and application projects in the higher education mathematics
classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 42(1), 53-63. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2010.510216
Schweitzer, J., Fassbender, C., Lit, L., Reeves, G., Henderson Powell, S. (2012).
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, (106)
3, 391-399.
Sherman
J., Rasmussen, C., Baydala, L. (2008). The impact of teacher factors on
achievement and behavioural outcomes of children with Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): a review of the literature. Educational
Research, 50(4).
Solomon, C., V olkow, N., Swanson, J. (2013). Adult attention deficit-hyperactivity
disorder. The New England Journal of Medicine, 369(20), 1935-44. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1459148188?accountid=14749
STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of the future (2012). Retrieved April 17, 2014,
from: http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&Fil
id=6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-326f47658320
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 128
Taylor, A., and McIntosh, B. (2012). Building leadership capacity to drive change:
Lessons from a new program. Proceedings of the Environmental 2012
Conference, 24 – 26 July 2012, Adelaide, South Australia
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871-889. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.84.4.871
United States Congress (2007). Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act of 2007 (2007 -
S. 1881). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1881
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013) STEM
attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES Publication 2014-
0001). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Wide-scale Interactive Development for Educators (2014). WIDE World. Retrieved July
22, 2014, from https://learnweb.harvard.edu/wide/en/about/index.html
Wolf, L., Simkowitz, P., Carlson, H. (2009) College students with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Current Psychiatry Reports,11(5), 415.
Wolf, L. and Wasserstein, J. (2001), Adults ADHD. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 931: 396–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05793.x
Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V . N. (2004), The laboratory in science education: Foundations
for the twenty-first century. Sci. Ed., 88: 28–54. doi: 10.1002/sce.10106
Runco, M. (2009, January 1). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Shibboleth
Authentication Request. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.4135/9781412971959.n114
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 129
Schreyer-Bennethum, L., & Albright, L. (2011). Evaluating the incorporation of technology and
application projects in the higher education mathematics classroom. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(1), 53-63.
doi:10.1080/0020739X.2010.510216
Taylor, A., and McIntosh, B. (2012). Building leadership capacity to drive change: Lessons from
a new program. Proceedings of the Environmental 2012 Conference, 24 – 26 July 2012,
Adelaide, South Australia.
Wendeson, S., Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad, & Haron, N. S. (2011). Platform independent mobile
learning tool (M-LT). International Journal of Computer Applications, 19(2)
doi:10.5120/2332-3034
Weyandt, L. L., & DuPaul, G. (2006). ADHD in college students. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 10, 9-19.
Williams, J. & Fardon, M. (2005). On-demand internet-transmitted lecture recordings:
attempting to enhance and support the lecture experience. Proceedings of Alt-C 2005
(Manchester, September 2005), Association for Learning Technology, 153-161.
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 130
Appendix A
STEM Faculty Survey
What is your position? _____________________________________________
Which courses do you teach? ________________________________________
Please circle or write your response for each question
Section I. Technology
1. How often do you use technology in your lessons?
4– on a daily basis 3- on a weekly basis 2– on a monthly basis 1- seldom
2. Have you ever posted your lectures for your students to view on You Tube, Blackboard or
another Internet broadcasting technology?
1- Yes 0- No
3. Do you use Podcasting to supplement your lectures and/or course materials?
1- Yes 0- No
4. How comfortable do you feel with using technology in your instruction of students?
2- very comfortable 1-somewhat comfortable 0 -not comfortable
5. If provided the opportunity, would you be interested in having small group trainings on
using new instructional technology in your instruction?
3- very interested 2- somewhat interested 1-not interested
Section II. Active Learning
6. What level do you consider your understanding of active learning to be?
5- good understanding 4- average understanding 3- basic understanding
2- limited understanding 1- no understanding
7. As a faculty member, which term best describes your thoughts about using or the
possibility of using active learning in your own practice?
3- positive 2- ambivalent 1- negative
Section III. Laboratory Experiences
8. Do you use laboratory experiences or experimentation in your teaching?
Yes No
9. Are there any new laboratory methods that you would like more training or support in?
Yes No
10. If you use laboratory experiences/experimentation in your teaching, how engaged are
your students in the laboratory?
3- very engaged 2- somewhat engaged 1-not engaged 0-N/A
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 131
Section IV . Teaching Students with ADHD
11. What is your current understanding of the instructional needs of college students with
ADHD?
5- good understanding 4- average understanding 3- basic understanding
2- limited understanding 1- no understanding
12. Are you aware of any trainings, consultations, or other types of professional development
offered in your organization to support you in learning more about teaching college
students with ADHD?
3- Yes, I am sure there are 2– I am not sure 1– No, there are not
13. How often do you collaborate or work with the Disabilities Office to support your
students with ADHD?
4– on a weekly basis 3- on a monthly basis 2- per semester 1- annually 0- not at all
12. Have you ever felt inspired to learn more about teaching or supporting your students with
ADHD?
1- Yes 0- No
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 132
Appendix B
FACULTY INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE
Background Question:
1. Please, introduce yourself: your name, title and length of time in your current
position.
2. Briefly tell me about yourself including the training and experience that prepared
you for your current position.
Research Questions Interview Questions
1. What are the
instructional strategies and
supports being
implemented to serve
college students with
ADHD in earning STEM
degrees?
Description of Instructional Strategies and Supports Utilized
1. What types of technology (hardware) or devices are you
comfortable using?
2. Which software do you use in your instruction?
3. Please describe the types of technology your students use in
your courses? What are the purposes for use?
4. Please give three words or phrases which you personally
associate with the term active learning.
5. If you have used active learning in your instructional practice,
please give a brief example of how you have used active
learning in your teaching:
6. How did you feel about the overall outcome of the example
given above?
7. Please describe the effect that active learning has had on your
students? On your teaching?
8. How did you feel about the overall outcome of the example
given above?
9. Do you use laboratory experiences in the courses you teach? If
so, please describe.
10. How do these laboratory experiences influence students
learning of the course material?
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 133
What leadership practices
are used to build the
capacity of STEM faculty
in serving university
students with ADHD?
Capacity building
11. Please describe your experience in teaching college students with
ADHD.
12. What types of training or information have you received about
teaching college students with ADHD in your organization?
Are faculty and leaders
inspired to build their
professional capacities to
serve college students
with ADHD?
Inspiration to meet student needs
Do you feel inspired to meet the needs of college students with
ADHD? Why or why not?
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 134
Appendix C
LEADER SURVEY
Section I: Instructional Leadership
1. How often do you provide access to training for your faculty in using technology
learning tools?
3- on a monthly basis 2- per semester 1- annually 0- not at all
2. How often do you provide access to training for your faculty in instructional
strategies to meet the needs of students with ADHD?
3- on a monthly basis 2- per semester 1- annually 0- not at all
3. How often do you visit your faculty’s classes?
4– on a daily basis 3- on a weekly basis 2– on a monthly basis 1- seldom
4. Please rate your level of knowledge in serving college students with ADHD
4- Advanced 3- Proficient 2- Adequate 1- Minimal
5. Would you attend a seminar on supporting college students with ADHD at your
college?
1-Yes 0- No
Section II: Building Organizational Capacity
6. Do you provide opportunities for faculty at many levels to assume leadership
roles?
1-Yes 0-No
7. How often do you participate in the establishment of work groups and
committees?
4– on a weekly basis 3- on a monthly basis 2- per semester 1- annually
0-not at all
8. Is the school organized to facilitate interactions among school members?
1-Yes 0-No
9. Do you develop plans and schedules for the creation of a learning cycle where
you share time with your faculty for dialogue and reflection?
1-Yes 0-No
10. What elements of a learning-community are observable, elusive, or hidden in your
school?
o Supportive and shared leadership
o Teacher participate in decision making
o Shared mission, vision, and values
o Collective inquiry and creativity
o Collaborative teams and work and accept joint responsibility for work outcome
(shared personal practice)
Section III. Inspiration
11. Please circle your level of experience with college students with ADHD
4- family member with ADHD 3- friend with ADHD 2-former students with
ADHD 1-aquaintances with ADHD
12. Do you feel inspired to meet the needs of college students with ADHD?
1-Yes 0-No
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 135
Appendix D
LEADER INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE
Background Question:
3. Please, introduce yourself: your name, title and length of time in your current
position.
4. Briefly tell me about yourself including the training and experience that prepared
you for your current position.
Research Questions Interview Questions
1. What are the
instructional strategies and
supports being
implemented to serve
college students with
ADHD in earning STEM
degrees?
Description of Instructional Strategies and Supports Utilized
1. What types of training or professional development have you
provided your faculty in improving their instructional strategies to
serve college students with ADHD?
2. In what ways do you focus on supporting faculty in improving their
instruction?
3. What are the types of technology your faculty have access to in the
classrooms?
4. What software do you or the college give them access to for
instructional purposes?
What leadership practices
are used to build the
capacity of STEM faculty
in serving university
students with ADHD?
Capacity building
5. How do you identify, discover and interpret information and
school/data evidence that are used to inform your decision and
teaching practices?
6. How do you communicate this data to school members?
7. How do you model, describe, and display the following leadership
skills?
a) Develop shared purposes of learning with teachers
b) Facilitate group processes
c) Communicate
d) Reflect on teaching practices
e) Inquire into issues confronting your school community
f) Collaborate in planning
g) Manage change and transitions
8. What types of training or information have you provided your
faculty with for serving college students with ADHD in your
organization?
9. How do you demonstrate and encourage individual and group
initiative by providing access to resources, personnel, time, and
outside network such as other schools and organizations?
Running head: STEM CAPACITY BUILDING 136
Are faculty and leaders
inspired to build their
professional capacities to
serve college students
with ADHD?
Do you feel inspired to meet the needs of college students with
ADHD? Why or why not?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In this study, the author examined the instructional and leadership practices of STEM faculty and leaders at a private university on the West Coast. The author seeks to (a) explore the building of university's capacity to support students with ADHD in STEM disciplines, (b) analyze promising leadership and instructional practices to support university students with ADHD, and (c) assess whether STEM faculty were inspired to meet the needs of university students with ADHD. The study used a mixed methods approach: data collection involved the distribution of 247 surveys to the university’s STEM faculty and leaders, as well as interviews with five STEM faculty and two STEM leaders. The data was analyzed through the lens of the Transformational Leadership and Multiple Intelligences Theories. The findings indicated that slightly over half of the STEM faculty reported daily integration of technology into their instruction. STEM faculty reported using a variety of technology for instructional purposes during their lessons: Matlab, Kaliedagraph, Blackboard, capture room digital video recording equipment, clips of videos, Power Point, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Word. Approximately, 47% of the STEM faculty rated their students as being very engaged, and 53% reported that their students were somewhat engaged in their labs. Despite students with ADHD comprising approximately 25% of the number of students with disabilities on university campuses, the university did not offer any professional development opportunities such as training, seminars, or discussions on ADHD. This study apprised STEM faculty and leaders of their strengths and areas for growth in supporting university students with ADHD.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development
PDF
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools
PDF
Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change
PDF
Leadership strategies, skills, and professional approaches utilized by effective senior-level student affairs administrators at urban universities
PDF
Microdevelopments in adaptive expertise in STEM-based, ill-structured problem solving
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success
PDF
Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD
PDF
Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions
PDF
Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability
PDF
The influence of leadership on the development of 21st century skills throughout Irish schools
PDF
Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...
PDF
A comparative analysis of the role of educational leadership on the participation of two schools in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs in Costa Rica
PDF
Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement
PDF
Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders
PDF
Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions
PDF
Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...
Asset Metadata
Creator
Powell, Amy M.
(author)
Core Title
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
08/04/2015
Defense Date
03/23/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
active learning,ADHD,capacity building,instructional technology,laboratory experiences,multiple intelligences,OAI-PMH Harvest,podcasting,professional development,STEM,STEM faculty,STEM leaders,transformational leadership,university students with ADHD
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
García, Pedro Enrique (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee member
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ampowell@usc.edu,teacherapowell@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-625492
Unique identifier
UC11305950
Identifier
etd-PowellAmyM-3802.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-625492 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PowellAmyM-3802.pdf
Dmrecord
625492
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Powell, Amy M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
active learning
ADHD
capacity building
instructional technology
laboratory experiences
multiple intelligences
podcasting
professional development
STEM
STEM faculty
STEM leaders
transformational leadership
university students with ADHD