University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

(USC Thesis Other)

Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EARLY IDENTIFICATION 1
EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF A LEARNING DISABILITY AND ITS IMPACT ON
SUCCESS IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

by

David Michael Morales

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 David Michael Morales
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 2

Acknowledgements
As I complete this educational journey, I would like to thank the Universe for the
blessings in my life, the opportunities that I have had, and the people that have supported me
in life throughout life’s challenges. I would like to thank my mother for teaching me to believe
in myself, to care about what I do, and how I do it. Thank you for your sacrifices and the
countless ways you have supported Al, Matthew, and me. I would also like to thank my
grandmothers for stressing the value of an education and shaping me into the man I am today.
I appreciate the work of each of my committee members, Dr. Patricia Tobey, Dr. Linda
Fischer, and Prof. Shafiqa Ahmadi. Thank you for the guidance you provided throughout the
dissertation process. I appreciate your questions, comments, corrections, and suggestions. In
particular, I must thank my primary advisor, Prof. Shafiqa Ahmadi, for her steadfast guidance,
support, patience, and prodding. I truly appreciate the time you spent with our thematic group,
often answering the same question several times. Thank you for reading the multiple iterations of
my work and for your thoughtful comments. Thank you for opportunities to teach, research,
write, and learn. Most of all, thank you for always believing in the work that we could
accomplish.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my boyfriend, Dutch. Thank you for your
encouragement, patience, and pride in the things I do. It, and you, mean the world to me.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 5

List of Figures 6

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8

Background of the Problem 11

Statement of the Problem 17

Purpose of the Study 18

Significance of the Study 19

Limitations 20

Delimitations 21

Definition of Terms 21

Organization of the Study 22

Chapter Two: Literature Review 24

LD and Higher Education 25

Integration 29

Academic Integration 29

Social Integration 31

LD and Integration 33

Support 35

Academic 36

Social 40

Self-Advocacy 44

Self-Determination 46

Early Identification 48

Theoretical Framework 50

Process 52

Person 52

Context 53

Time 55

Conclusion 56

Chapter Three: Methodology 58

Research Design 59

Qualitative Methods 59

Sample and Population 60

Overview of the School 61

Participant Selection 62

Theoretical Framework 63

Data Collection 65

Instrumentation 66

Data Analysis 68

Approach to Coding 69

Approach to Analysis 70

Ethical Considerations 71

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 4

Conclusion 72

Chapter Four: Results 73

Participant Profiles 74

Research Question 1: Influential Systems and Structures 81

Structure 1: System of Support 82

Academic and Social Integration 83

Early Identification 87

Discussion Structure 1 90

Structure 2: Demonstration of Self-Advocacy Skills 91

Disclosure 92

Asking for Help 94

Positive Sense of Self 97

Innovative Strategies 103

Discussion Structure 2 108

Discussion Research Question 1 109

Research Question 2: Implementation of Systems and Structures 110

Staff Development 111

Discussion Research Question 2 114

Summary of Findings 115

Chapter Five: Discussion 117

Summary of the Findings 121

Implications for Practice and Policy 127

Recommendations for Further Research 129

Conclusions 131

References 133

Appendix A: Innovative Strategies Study Interview Protocol: Postsecondary Students 147

Appendix B: Letter of Introduction 150

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 151

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Student Demographics, Fall 2012 62

Table 2: Correlation of Interview Protocol to Research Questions 70

Table 3: Participant Overview 75

Table 4: Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Naples University 82

Table 5: Naples University’s Systems of an Inclusive Institutional Culture 111

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 6

List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Collegiate Environments 51

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework as Applied to Students with Disabilities 65

Figure 3: Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 68

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 7

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand factors influencing the persistence and
success of early-identified students with learning disabilities in higher education. Data was
collected through a series of semi-structured interviews from a sample of eleven students
presenting verified learning disabilities and attending a postsecondary institution. The key
emerging themes and patterns were identified from analysis of all eleven transcripts.
The findings, placed in the context of previous research into college success for students with
learning disabilities, enabled recognition of a success model with two overarching themes:
1. Supports, such as academic and social integration and early identification, which
supported the needs of students with disabilities in postsecondary education.
2. Self-advocacy skills, such as disclosing one’s disability, asking for help when needed,
developing a positive sense of self, and creating innovative strategies, that helped
students with disabilities persist and thrive in their schooling.
Implications and recommendations for future research were discussed.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Students with disabilities changed the educational landscape of postsecondary education.
Past research documented the continuing increase in students with learning disabilities (LD) and
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) enrolled in postsecondary education
(Brinkerhoff, McGuire, & Shaw, 2002). Presently, LD is the largest category of students
receiving special education services and accounts for 42% of the 5.7 million school-age children
with all kinds of disabilities (Cortiella, 2011). The number of students with LD enrolled in
postsecondary institutions increased dramatically as well. The population of college students
with LD has also more than tripled in the last three decades (Onley, Kennedy, Brockelman, &
Newsom, 2004; Stodden, Conway, and Chang, 2003) and accounts for 10% of all students
attending postsecondary education programs (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008). If individuals,
who have chosen not to formally disclose their disability to university officials are taken into
account, the number of actual students with LD may be even greater (Rath & Royer, 2002;
Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Most importantly, these individuals
represent an emerging and unique population in institutions of higher education because of their
academic needs, accommodations, and abilities (Barnard-Brak, Lechtenberger, & Lan, 2010;
Ward & Merves, 2006). Thus, postsecondary institutions face increasing LD populations and the
challenges of successfully educating these learners.
Several laws contributed to the increase in the number of students with LD accessing
higher education: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and amended
in 2004, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990
defined a learning disability as follows:
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 9

a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding
or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to
listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including
conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. (Part 300/A/300.8/c/10)
Each law contains provisions that stimulated the increase in attendance of students with
LD in postsecondary institutions (Skinner, 2004; O’Day & Goldstein, 2005; Konur, 2006). For
example, IDEA requires transition planning from secondary to postsecondary education and the
participation of the student in such planning. Furthermore, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
and ADA require that institutions receiving federal funding provide reasonable accommodations,
in such areas as academic programming, examinations and evaluations, housing, and recreational
facilities to any college student who meets eligibility for having a disability. Because of these
legislative actions, individuals with LD, who previously may not have considered postsecondary
education, have viable opportunities in higher education.
Even with legislative actions, individuals with LD face unique challenges when entering
postsecondary education after high school and may not be as successful as their peers (Barnard-
Brak, Sulak,, Tate, & Lechtenberger, 2010; Cawthon & Cole, 2010). For instance, sixty-seven
percent of students with LD graduate from high school

with a regular diploma versus seventy-
four percent of students in the general population; ultimately, twenty percent of students with LD
drop out of high school

versus eight percent of students in the general population (Cortiella,
2011). Postsecondary outcomes of individuals with LD, including attendance at and graduation
from institutions of higher education, also continue to lag behind those of their non-disabled
peers, particularly at four-year institutions (Wagner et al., 2005). According to Cortiella (2011),
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 10

ten-percent of students with LD are enrolled in a four-year college within two years of leaving
school, compared with twenty-eight percent of the general population; ultimately, forty-one
percent of students with LD complete college, compared with fifty-two percent of the general
population. Despite the increase in postsecondary enrollment and inclusive legislation, many
students with LD fail to successfully complete their postsecondary education (Kranke, Taylor, &
Floersch, 2013; Quick, Lehmann, & Deniston, 2003). Thus, dropping out is a major, legitimate
concern for many students with LD.
When students are in high school, their services for special education fall under IDEA.
This federal law entitles a student to an individualized education plan (IEP), which specifies the
services, goals, and modifications needed to ensure success in secondary education (DaDeppo,
2009). Educational decisions related to such accommodations are generally mitigated by the
student’s parents and a team of educators (Newman & Madaus, 2014). Yet, students with
disabilities with minimal involvement in the IEP process leave secondary education with limited
understanding of this process (Martin, 2010). In short, although federal law protects their
educational rights, students with disabilities may become too dependent on others to navigate
their educational careers in postsecondary education.
As students with LD enter postsecondary education, they no longer have the support of a
K-12 system and are not prepared to navigate the responsibilities of college life and its
challenges, including the need for greater student self-advocacy at the college level (Newman
and Madaus, 2014). Students are expected to modify their academic and social behaviors to meet
the needs of competent and self-reliant learners. As students with LD transition from secondary
to postsecondary institutions, they encounter additional stressors, unlike their non-LD
counterparts; they display many of the characteristics of nontraditional or at-risk students (Field,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 11

Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). These stressors may significantly influence a student’s successful
participation, self-advocacy, and progress in postsecondary education. Given these challenges,
students with LD are at a greater risk of non-persistence than their non-disabled peers, which
may lead to increasing feelings of frustration, isolation, loneliness, failure, and dropout (Connor,
2012; Kranke, Taylor, & Floersch, 2013). In short, a significant percentage of students with
disabilities is not prepared for postsecondary education. The aim of this study is to understand
the innovations, which could serve as insightful knowledge for educators, developed by students
with LD to overcome obstacles related to integration, support, self-esteem, and self-advocacy to
transition to postsecondary education.
Background of the Problem
LD are both impactive and constant, yet some people may never discern that LD are
responsible for their life-long struggles in such areas as reading, math, written expression, and in
comprehension. Others are not identified as having a disability until they are adults and well past
their formal years of schooling. Cortiella and Horowitz (2014) expressed that many individuals
with LD suffer from low self-esteem, set low expectations for themselves, struggle with
underachievement and underemployment, have few friends, and may end up in trouble with the
law with greater frequency than their non-LD peers. Thus, LD can have a negative effect on a
person’s life.
The most common types of specific LD are those that have an impact on the areas of
reading, math, and written expression (Cortiella and Horowitz, 2014). Although they may co-
occur with other attention, language, and behavior disorders, specific LD are distinct in how they
affect an individual’s ability to learn. The common types of LD are dyslexia, dyscalculia, and
dysgraphia. While not specifically categorized as learning disabilities, a number of other areas of
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 12

information processing, commonly associated with LD, can also affect a person’s capacity to learn.
Weaknesses in the ability to receive, process, associate, retrieve and express information can often
help explain why a person has trouble with learning and performance (Cortiella and Horowitz,
2014). These processing deficits include: auditory, visual, non-verbal, executive functioning, and
ADHD. Cortiella and Horowitz (2014) suggest that understanding how these areas of weakness
affect individuals with LD and ADHD may be beneficial in planning for effective instruction and
support.
Individuals with LD lag behind their non-disabled peers in postsecondary institutions.
Students with disabilities often experience limited access to and success within postsecondary
education programs, which subsequently limits their employment (Mamiseishvili & Koch,
2011). For many students, the most viable outcome of postsecondary education is the attainment
of notable employment, livable wages, and an accompanying improvement in quality of life, but
the economic and social outcomes for dropouts remain dire. These individuals face higher
unemployment rates, placement in lower prestige jobs, lower income from employment, and
higher rates of poverty (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). Among working-age adults with LD
versus those without LD, fifty-five percent versus seventy-six percent are employed; six percent
versus three percent of adults are unemployed; and thirty-nine percent versus twenty-one percent
are not in the labor force partly because of lack of education (Cortiella, 2011). One in two young
adults with LD also reported having some type of involvement with the criminal justice system
within eight years of leaving high school (Cortiella, 2011). Therefore, navigating the college
transition maze requires diligence, perseverance, and stamina. As students with LD transition
from secondary to postsecondary education, they will encounter many obstacles, including
impaired academics, lack of support, lowered self-esteem, and lack of self-advocacy skills.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 13

Students with LD arrive on college and university campuses with varying levels of
academic skills and degrees of preparation. Before entering postsecondary institutions, close to
half of secondary students with LD perform more than three grade levels below their enrolled
grade in essential academic skills (Cortiella, 2011). Regardless, prerequisite cognitive and
academic skills for success in higher education are similar for all students (Foley, 2006).
Students with LD face multiple problems in reading, writing, and mathematics that make
learning in the school environment difficult. Due to the nature of their disabilities, students with
LD demonstrate difficulties in reading, mathematics, and writing in postsecondary education
(Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). However, not all students with LD experience difficulties in
all three academic areas (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). Students with disabilities, to sum
up, are a complex group of heterogeneous students with unique academic challenges.
Lack of social integration into the postsecondary community may also have an impact on
a student’s persistence to succeed. Students with disabilities often consider themselves to have
deficient social and interpersonal skills (May & Stone, 2010). Students with LD, on the other
hand, may also perceive themselves as having less social support than their non-disabled
counterparts (Heiman, 2006). Feelings of being misunderstood can also have a direct impact on
requesting accommodations (Denhart, 2008). However, students, who seek support regularly
may be more likely to persist through their academic challenges and graduate from college
(Troiano, Liefeld, & Trachtenberg, 2010). Thus, greater levels of formal and informal faculty
contact may ultimately lead to increased social integration (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Even though
academic integration is important for predicting persistence, social integration may be the most
powerful (DaDeppo, 2009). Admittedly, these misconceptions can create unrealistic expectations
for both families and students and may lead to an unsuccessful or failing college experience.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 14

Misconceptions about postsecondary students with LD permeate collegiate environments.
These individuals are sometimes perceived by faculty members as having less commitment to
academics than their non-disabled counterparts and may not be afforded the opportunities and
accommodations needed for success (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). Some people attribute
LD to causes that are inaccurate, such as excessive time watching television, poor diet, or
childhood vaccinations. Seven out of ten people may incorrectly associate LD with intellectual
disabilities and autism spectrum disorders (Cortiella, 2011). Although the general public may
view individuals with LD as less intelligent, attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward this
population may be changing (May and Stone, 2010). In their investigation of university faculty
perceptions of students with LD, Murray, Wren, and Keys (2008) noted that faculty generally
had positive perceptions about students with LD and were willing to spend time supporting these
students. Granted, consistent with existing research, faculty expressed greater willingness to
provide minor, instead of major, accommodations. Still, biases against students with disabilities
may be improving.
Unlike their peers, some students with LD in postsecondary institutions may have a lower
self-efficacy and self-esteem (DaDeppo, 2009). In addition, a diagnosis of a learning disability
can negatively affect an individual’s self-esteem (DiTommaso, McNulty, Ross, & Burgess,
2003). Most significantly, college students are less likely to rank themselves as having a high
level of ability (Henderson, 2001). By extension, people who are highly self-determined have a
higher quality of life, and people who lack self-determination have a lesser quality of life
(Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). Self-determination may be detrimental to success. Students with
LD, at times, exhibit higher levels of anxiety associated with academic performance, educational
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 15

success, and social situations in postsecondary education than their non-disabled counterparts
(Caroll and Illes, 2006; Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009).
Most significantly, some students with LD enter postsecondary education with a lack of
self-advocacy skills, yet disclosure and self-advocacy skills are detrimental to presenting the
need for accommodations at the postsecondary level (Foley, 2006). In order for students with LD
to successfully navigate postsecondary contexts, they must not only possess expertise of their
own disability and needs, but also demonstrate knowledge of the resources available at their
institution (Cawthon & Cole, 2010). Students with LD, however, are the facilitators of their
services, needs, and accommodations in postsecondary education, which is an unfamiliar role for
many of these individuals. Section 504 and ADA put the responsibility for identification,
documentation, and requesting accommodations in college solely in the hands of the student,
unlike elementary and secondary education where the parent often serves as the student’s
primary advocate (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; DaDeppo 2009; Martin, 2010).
After leaving high school, students with disabilities must carefully consider the
accompanying benefits and detriments of disclosing or not disclosing their disability because
self-disclosure is a choice (Newman & Madaus, 2014). This process is the beginning of the
student’s responsibility to self-advocate because institutions of higher education are only
required to provide reasonable services and equal access to academic programs. A student is
responsible for his or her academic success, and decisions about accommodations are determined
by the institution on an individual basis. In addition, some students with LD arrive at their
respective postsecondary institutions with either a complete lack of knowledge or insufficient
documentation of their learning disabilities (Harrison, Larochette, & Nichols, 2007). As students
move from a familiar model of special education services at the secondary level, they encounter
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 16

a variable model at many institutions of higher learning; admittedly, their legal rights and
responsibilities change too.
Even though students with LD experience barriers throughout their schooling, some
students with LD who were diagnosed early, persevere and succeed in postsecondary institutions,
sometimes with little or no support (Troiano, 2003). The transition to college for students with
LD is a prominent topic in special education literature, and scholars identified various skills and
knowledge areas important for successful postsecondary transitions. While intervention focus is
to remediate and improve academic skills, past research showed that development of successful
attributes, such as self-awareness, perseverance, proactivity, emotional stability, goal setting, and
the use of support systems, may be a greater predictor of postsecondary success for students with
LD (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999).
People with LD who attain success in their personal, academic, and professional lives
have an ability to take control of their lives, have a strong desire to excel, are goal-oriented, and
are able to reframe their disability into something positive and functional (Goldberg, Higgins,
Raskind, & Herman, 2003). In other words, successful learners with LD are likely to be self-
directed and goal-oriented, aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses, willing to persevere
under adverse conditions, and possess a strong system of family and/or professional support
(Skinner, 2004; Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind, & Herman, 2003). While much of research
literature focused on the successful attributes of all students diagnosed with LD, insight is
needed concerning the success of individuals diagnosed early and how they develop innovative
strategies to combat obstacles related to their schooling.
In short, early recognition that an individual may be at risk for LD may prevent years of
academic and personal struggle and self-doubt. As these individuals grow older, they may learn
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 17

to adequately manage the specific nature of their disability both in their academic and personal
lives. Furthermore, these individuals conceptualize and accept that LD is not who they are but
what they have. They can also orchestrate the types of services, accommodations, and supports
they need to be successful, which will help them overcome barriers to learning and become
independent, self-confident, and contributing members of society.
Statement of the Problem
Students with LD face numerous obstacles when entering postsecondary education.
Further research is needed to examine the impact of early identification of a learning disability
on student success in postsecondary education. These individuals must pave the road for their
own understanding of disability and its effect on their educational future and quality of life.
Some students, diagnosed early as opposed to later in life, understand the construct of their
learning disability, accept themselves and the role it has in their lives, and view their disability’s
impact as a modifiable condition (Troiano, 2003). Therefore, an early diagnosis might give some
students with LD an advantage and allow them to develop innovative strategies to better prepare
for their college years. If students were provided with even minimal instruction on developing
innovative strategies during their K-12 educational experience, they might have academic and
social advantages over their peers who were not identified until college and did not receive
previous instruction on compensatory learning strategies (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009).
Innovative strategies may include direct, explicit instruction in the development of
“successful” attributes, such as self-advocacy, metacognition, or Universal Design for Instruction
(Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003). In fact, students identified in college may not have experienced
the same opportunities as their peers who received individualized accommodations and
modifications by the special education staff in K-12 education. Therefore, examining the impact
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 18

of early identification of disability on student success in college is critical to the education field
(Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). Failure to provide students with appropriate support and
instruction in their elementary and secondary years may create additional academic and personal
hardships culminating in non-persistence and failure (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). These
hardships include integration, support, self-esteem, and self-advocacy.
Using the existing literature, this study examined the obstacles in postsecondary
institutions for students with LD. Integration, specifically academic and social, creates
challenges for students with disabilities, but, in order to succeed, students with LD must integrate
into postsecondary institutions. Support also plays an integral role in persistence and success in
college for students with LD. They must seek academic and social support from a variety of
media throughout their college years to endure the struggles they may encounter. Also, high or
low self-esteem can either advance or deter a student from embracing the college experience.
Last, self-advocacy skills may play a critical role in not only an individual’s college years but
also their formative life. Knowing what a person needs and how to express it to the appropriate
party serves as a key to life-long success for all individuals.
Purpose of the Study
Students with LD are underperforming, unlike their peers, in college and experiencing
obstacles which interfere with success. Even with these challenges, some students with LD, who
were diagnosed early, persevere and succeed in postsecondary institutions and often do so with
little or no support. Early on, these students develop a variety of innovative strategies to
overcome barriers. The purpose of this study was to determine the specific innovative strategies
developed by students and how these innovations helped them overcome obstacles in
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 19

postsecondary education. In order to gain insight into the innovative strategies developed by
early-identified students with LD, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to the persistence and
success of students with LD in collegiate environments?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
students with an identified disability in postsecondary education?
For this study, Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (2005) provides a
framework that looks at an individual’s development in college as an exchange between the
person and his or her environment. Using this framework, the researcher studied how these
interactions form a contextual system of relationships, including students, families, schools, and
communities. Evans (2010) points out that this framework is widely used in understanding
student development as a function of the interactions between individuals and their
environments. Thus, this framework highlights how students with LD persist and succeed in
spite of the obstacles they encounter in their environmental relationships.
Significance of the Study
Understanding the innovations developed by students with LD to overcome obstacles in
postsecondary institutions is of critical importance. This research is instructive for school
leaders, practitioners, researchers, and the general community. The information learned from this
study may be important to school leaders to understand the role innovations play in overcoming
obstacles inherent on their campuses and helping students with LD achieve success. It provides
information to practitioners about the relationship between innovations developed by students
with disabilities and their postsecondary success. This study provides valuable information for
researchers to further examine the direct link between early identification and innovations as it
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 20

relates to persistence and success in postsecondary institutions. Students, families, and
communities will better understand the role of how innovations help individuals with LD
succeed throughout their lives. Ultimately, this study provides information on how innovations
affect persistence and success in postsecondary institutions, which also affect academic and
personal outcomes, school climate, and, ultimately, student dropout.
Limitations
Several limitations were beyond the control of the researcher; nonetheless, they may have
affected its results. The fact that this study was limited to a single university, which has its own
unique history, limits the generalizability of the results. However, Naples University’s program
for students with LD is more than 10 years old, and, as a result, the findings may prove useful to
other institutions. This study was conducted as part of a thematic group, so some of the study’s
components were generated collectively with input from fellow doctoral students. Although
considerable efforts were made to allow for application to a larger population, the small sample
size of 11 students prevents any broad generalization to other postsecondary institutions. The
unique academic and social experiences of these students may also be unique to Naples
University. A final limitation was time. Due to time constraints, as part of the doctoral degree
program requirements, this study only allowed a three-month frame for data collection. Thus, the
short timeframe had an impact on the size of the sample. Finally, information about receipt of
accommodations, modifications, and supports provided to participants at the high school and
postsecondary levels could not be independently verified. At the secondary level, school staff
provided information about receipt of accommodations, supports, and services, whereas students
self-reported rates of receipt at the postsecondary level.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 21

Delimitations
As for delimitations, the researcher selected several parameters for the study. One
postsecondary institution was utilized to gather participants for research. Due to the large number
of potential participants in the study population, the sample population involved in the current
study focused only on eleven members identified for a learning disability in elementary or
secondary education.
Definition of Terms
Several terms are integral to the research of this study. For the purpose of this study,
these terms are defined as follows:
ADA: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures
equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, state and local government
services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation (Americans With
Disabilities Act, 1990).
IDEA: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) outlines rights and regulations
for students with disabilities in the U.S. who require special education, including entitlement to a
free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 1997).
IEP: An Individualized Education Plan is a written document developed for each public school
child who is eligible for special education, stating their individualized educational objectives
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997).
Section 504: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a national law that protects disabled
individuals from discrimination based on their disability, forbids organizations and employers
from excluding or denying individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to receive program
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 22

benefits and services, and defines the rights of individuals with disabilities to participate in, and
have access to, program benefits and services (Education for All Handicapped Children Act,
1975).
Dyslexia: Dyslexia is a specific and persistent learning disability affecting the acquisition and
development of the written language code (reading and spelling) and causing significant
handicap to academic achievement and/or activities of daily life; it is considered where reading
performance is poorer than one standard deviation below the expected level for a given age and
intelligence and where these deficits cannot be explained by sensorial, neurological, psychiatric,
motivational, or other cause or by inadequate educational instruction (Habib & Giraud, 2013).
Dyscalculia: Dyscalculia is the term associated with a wide variety of math difficulties including
the inability to comprehend the meaning of numbers and their quantities, and the inability to
comprehend basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division calculations (Silton &
Maricle, 2011).
Dysgraphia: Dysgraphia is the term that is used to describe an inability to produce legible text
with minimal effort, and is generally used to describe a disorder of written expression with an
onset during childhood (Muenke & Maricle, 2011).
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or (ADHD)
is a term coined to describe, children adolescents, and some adults, who are inattentive easily
distracted, abnormally overactive, and impulsive in their behavior (Millichap, 2011).
Organization of the Study
This study examined the specific innovative strategies used by students who were
diagnosed with a disability for postsecondary persistence and success. Chapter One provides an
introduction to the study, explains its purpose, and details its significance. Chapter Two presents
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 23

a review of the literature on individuals with LD in postsecondary education, focusing on the
obstacles these individuals encounter, including academics, support, self-esteem, and self-
advocacy. Chapter Three provides the research methodology, including the research design,
population and sampling procedure, and the instruments used in the study. Chapter Four presents
the findings of the research, highlights emerging themes, and connects it to the literature review.
Chapter Five presents the conclusions of the study, the implications for practice in the
educational field, and the recommendations for future studies.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 24

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Going away to college can be a rite of passage for many young adults. However, leaving
high school and attending college can be overwhelming for all students, especially individuals
with LD (Albrecht, Jones, & Erk, 2011). Academic competition and social demands increase in
college and can present unique challenges to students with LD (Smith, English, & Vasek, 2002).
Furthermore, success rates are comparatively low for students with LD in higher education
(Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). Failure to persist and succeed in postsecondary education is
linked to numerous negative long-term effects, including limited employment opportunities
(Cortiella, 2011). Yet, students with disabilities who complete a college degree have vastly
improved employment options than their non-degreed counterparts (Madaus and Shaw, 2004;
Ponticelli & Russ-Eft, 2009). A seamless transition from secondary to postsecondary institutions
is imperative to their success (Albrecht, Jones, & Erk, 2011). Therefore, the persistence and
graduation of students with disabilities in collegiate environments remains an on-going concern,
and several studies examine the factors that impede and facilitate the academic persistence of
incoming college students (Bozick, 2007; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Tinto,
2004). Most significantly, students’ experiences in their first year of college are identified as
critical to their persistence to long-term educational goals and graduation (Bozick, 2007; Lohfink
& Paulsen, 2005; Tinto, 1993). In short, students with disabilities must be academically and
emotionally prepared to transition to postsecondary education.
This chapter presents an overview of students with LD in higher education and a review
of the literature focusing on the obstacles these students encounter in college. This review
examines the obstacles which magnify a lack of persistence and failure in higher education for
students with disabilities and how these obstacles affect one another. This review identifies
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 25

promising practices that encourage students with LD to persist in college in spite of numerous
obstacles. This review looked into the systems and structures that can have a significant impact
on persistence in higher education, including social and academic integration (Tinto, 1975,
1993), support and self-esteem (Troiano, 2003), self-advocacy (Graham-Smith & Lafayette,
2004), and early identification (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). These systems and structures
are vital to understanding the complexity of persistence and success in college.
This review is organized into six sections. First, the application of LD to higher education
is discussed. Second, the importance of academic and social integration in college is presented.
Third, the impact of academic and social support from peers, family, and institutions for students
with LD in higher education is presented. Fourth, the effects of self-advocacy on postsecondary
persistence and success is reviewed. Fifth, the significance of early identification of a learning
disability is explored. Sixth, a review of Brofenbrenner’s (1979) socio-ecological theoretical
framework is presented as it relates to students and postsecondary success.
LD and Higher Education
Students with LD encounter new challenges, such as student accountability and
appropriate documentation, when transitioning from secondary to postsecondary institutions.
These challenges affect their ability to persist and succeed in collegiate environments. Even
though students with disabilities encounter new challenges in higher education, the definition of
a learning disability remains the same, and it presents a new set of hindrances. For the purposes
of this study, the federal definition of a learning disability is utilized. A learning disability is
defined as:
[A] disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 26

imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical
calculations. (IDEA, 1990)
Although more students with LD are enrolling in college, retention and degree
completion rates are also not following the same path as enrollment. Postsecondary educational
outcomes for failing students with LD are bleak as well (Gregg, 2007). Since the early 1990s,
qualitative researchers have been investigating the barriers to success for students with LD in
postsecondary institutions (Denhart, 2008). College students with disabilities may be particularly
at risk in terms of attrition because these students face the same stressors as the general student
population, with an additional impairment affecting their lives (Adams & Proctor, 2010).
Students with LD, unlike their non-disabled peers, face greater challenges in achieving
postsecondary success.
For students with LD, legislative accountability in elementary and secondary education is
more explicit. As an individual with LD in elementary or secondary education, students are
entitled to specific services under IDEA. As a result, this law entitles qualifying students to an
IEP, which specifies the services, goals, and modifications needed to access and succeed in the
public school setting (DaDeppo, 2009). Identification, timelines, implementation of services,
modifications, accommodations, and the participation of the student, teachers, and parents are
requirements under the law. As part of that process, students and their families interact with
service providers every year by law, and, often times, many more to ensure the student makes
progress in general education. Although the laws that govern special education in secondary
education are explicit, students with LD in secondary education may not understand the
complexities of their disability. These students may not possess self-advocacy skills or know
their rights and responsibilities under the law, yet they may still receive appropriate academic
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 27

services and accommodations because of the system of support that exists under the law in
elementary and secondary settings (Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). However, that system ends
abruptly upon completion of high school and entrance into a postsecondary setting.
The transition to college is marked by a shift in legislative actions for students with
disabilities. The system changes for students from one of entitlement under IDEA to one of
eligibility under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA. Janipa and Costenbader (2002)
view this shift in services as a transformation from an educational law to a civil rights law. As
students with LD enter higher education, their services may change from the familiar to the
unfamiliar. Colleges are under no financial or legislative obligation to provide or pay for a
student’s evaluation for special education services (Madaus & Shaw, 2004). Unlike in
elementary or high school, in college, these individuals are only eligible for “reasonable”
accommodations. The responsibilities and rights of parents and students reverse accordingly.
Whereas parents are the main advocate for services and support in elementary and secondary
education, students with LD have full responsibility when they enter college. Under these federal
legislations, colleges and universities are mandated to provide appropriate services and
programs, so students with LD will have equal access to higher education (Madaus, 2005).
After equal access is provided, students are solely responsible for their progress and
success in college (Hadley, 2007). Rather than depending on the school system and its
representatives to ensure appropriate services and accommodations, in the postsecondary setting,
an individual must self-identify as a person with a disability and seek out appropriate
accommodations. An institution is not obligated to accommodate needs that have not been
brought to its attention or to provide accommodations that have not been requested. Students can
no longer rely on parents or school personnel to ensure that their educational needs are met. In
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 28

short, not only must students with LD self-identify to receive services, but they must also
advocate for the services and accommodations that are legally available. Such a shift in focus
requires students with disabilities to be self-aware, understand their rights and responsibilities,
and possess self-advocacy skills in order to access the services and accommodations available to
them (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). As a result, students with
disabilities inherit dual roles of student and advocate in higher education.
Documentation also presents its own challenges for students with LD in college. Cortiella
(2011) identified three main areas where confusion develops between secondary and
postsecondary institutions: (a) inconsistency in depth and content of documentation
requirements, (b) discrepancies in the laws that govern secondary and postsecondary institutions,
and (c) differences in programs and services offered by respective institutions. In public schools,
service providers in special education initiate assessments according to federal guidelines.
Postsecondary institutions, on the other hand, are under no federal obligation to do so. Students
are solely responsible for providing and paying for the necessary documentation to self-identify.
Therefore, appropriate documentation can promote or inhibit the transition of students with LD
in collegiate environments.
As evidenced, student accountability and appropriate documentation are significant
variables that have an impact on the persistence and success of students with LD in college.
These students must advocate for themselves rather than depend on parents or special education
staff, and they must also present appropriate documentation to receive the necessary
accommodations to access the curriculum. As Hadley (2007) reiterates, students with disabilities
are the keepers to a smooth transition to higher education, progress by advocating their academic
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 29

and social needs, and success, culminating in postsecondary graduation. Thus, ownership of
one’s education is a common theme.
Integration
Social and academic integration are important variables in the persistence and success of
college students (Herrero & Gracia, 2004), as these components are believed to affect learning,
development, and the likelihood of postsecondary persistence. (Tinto, 1975, 1993; Rascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). Thus, the extent and experiences to which students with LD become socially
and academically integrated in colleges may have a direct impact on their commitment and
retention in postsecondary institutions (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Accordingly, student’s experiences
with the systems of the university, as well as their interactions and experiences with peers and
faculty, may determine the extent to which a student fits within the institution and the degree to
which he or she will be socially and academically integrated into his new environment (Tinto,
1975, 1993; Deil-Amen, 2011). Social and academic integration are considered determinants of
the likelihood of a student remaining at the institution (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Thus, the greater an
individual’s academic and social integration, the more likely he or she is to persist. In other
words, students with LD must also embrace academic and social integration to thrive in
postsecondary landscapes.
Academic Integration
Academic integration is an important construct of persistence in higher education. Tinto
(1975) suggests that academic integration is not only a construct in postsecondary persistence but
also of a student’s eventual success. DaDeppo (2009) elaborates further on Tinto’s theory
(1975):
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 30

Academic integration captures a student’s satisfaction with his or her experiences with
the academic systems at the university and his or her perceived intellectual development
and growth. In addition, one must consider the extent to which a student views his or her
interpersonal relationships with faculty and peers on campus as promoting intellectual
growth and development and influencing attitudes, beliefs, and values because these
factors contribute to a student’s academic integration. (p. 123)
However, the results of studies focusing on academic integration have been mixed. For
example, Strauss and Volkwein (2004) found that the level of academic integration had a direct
impact on decisions to persist. In their analysis of first-to-second year persistence of students
with disabilities in postsecondary institutions, Mamiseishvili and Koch (2011) revealed that
students with disabilities who never participated in any academic activities, such as meeting
informally with faculty or participating in study groups, or met with an academic advisor were
less likely to persist through to their second year than students who participated even minimally.
Academic integration, even among first-generation college students, contributes to high grade
point averages (Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). In short, academic integration can affect a
student’s desire to persist and succeed in college.
As part of academic integration, study groups can also encourage student persistence in
college. Study groups help students to set expectations and encourage them to review course
material. Tinto (2010) suggests that study groups are forms of learning communities, which
serve to actively involve students in learning with other students. Through this academic
integration, students engage in deeper thinking and eventually a more powerful and substantial
learning experience. These learning communities also help promote interpersonal and academic
development by providing a positive impact on student motivation and academic achievement,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 31

especially in students who are underprepared or demonstrate high anxiety (Tinto, 2010; Rodgers
& Trembley, 2003). By participating in study groups, students may be guaranteeing their
persistence and academic success in college. Therefore, academic integration is crucial for all
students, especially students with disabilities, to persist and succeed in postsecondary
institutions. Thus, by academically integrating, students develop relationships that foster their
intellectual growth and develop meaningful learning experiences. In turn, they may be more
likely to persist and succeed in college.
Social Integration
Social integration is another construct that affects persistence in college. It is a necessary
component of college success (Tinto, 1975, 1993), and may even have a stronger influence on
persistence than academic integration (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). Social integration is
defined as the interaction between the individual and the social systems of the institution,
including peer groups, faculty and administrators, and extracurricular activities (DaDeppo,
2009). Social integration provides a network of positive affirmation for college students because
it validates their worth and may ultimately be more essential than academic integration.
Participation in community activities and collegiate organizations, which may increase a
person’s social network, can also play an important role in the development of his or her
“autonomy, careers, and social identity” (Herrero & Gracia, 2004, p. 716). An individual’s level
of social integration is determined by the extent to which a student perceives others in the
community as caring about him or her personally and showing a genuine interest in him or her
personally (DaDeppo, 2009). In other words, if a student feels valued and reaffirmed by others
within the college community, he or she will likely engage in more social integration and
persistence at that institution (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Moreover, greater levels of informal faculty
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 32

contact may lead to increased social integration in college (Tinto, 1975, 1993; Mamiseishvili &
Koch, 2011). Positive classroom experiences in college may also be critical to the successful
inclusion of students with disabilities (Graham-Smith & Lafayette, 2004). However, in her
research with academic and social integration among two-year college students, Deil-Amen
(2011) found academic integration to be more significant than social for community college
students, and social integration unrelated to persistence. Regardless, social integration is an
important and possibly necessary construct of student persistence.
Social integration may also be the most critical factor in student persistence in college.
The level of social integration, above and beyond factors, such as high school percentile rank,
Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores, and parental level of education, influences intent to
reenroll and persistence in higher education (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). Constructs such as
academic and social integration may also be useful for predicting GPA in addition to explaining
student persistence (Boulter, 2002). A strong relationship may also exist between personal
adjustment and social integration (Herrero & Gracia, 2004). Thus, social integration may not
only be significant for student persistence, but it may also predict a student’s GPA and social
adjustment.
Inherently, social integration is just as likely to affect student persistence and success in
college. It involves the interactions of students with the social institutions of a university and
validates a student’s sense of worth. Some researchers attest that social integration is more
significant than academic integration (DaDeppo, 2009) for student persistence. As a result, social
integration may be just as critical for student persistence and success for students with LD like
their non-disabled peers.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 33

LD and Integration
Adjusting to a college environment presents challenges for all students; however,
students with disabilities may face additional stressors and obstacles unlike their non-disabled
peers. With regards to students with disabilities, Tinto’s model has a limitation. Mainly, the
model was designed for all students, regardless of disability. However, research shows that
students with disabilities in college encounter more obstacles, including support and self-
advocacy, besides academic and social integration (Skinner, 2004; Madaus, Faggella-Luby, &
Dukes, 2011). Thus, Tinto’s model might lack some of the constructs that explain the non-
persistence and success of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions. Granted,
academic and social integration are just as important for students with disabilities as their non-
disabled peers to succeed in higher education.
Although academic and social integration may be important factors of LD persistence and
success, they are not the sole variables vital to the success of students with disabilities in college.
Researchers promoted concepts related to academic and social integration as key to the academic
success of college students with LD. In their study investigating the differences between
attributional style and student adaptation to college for students with and without disabilities,
Adams and Proctor (2010) found that students with disabilities were more likely to report feeling
that they did not fit in as well as part of the college environment and had thoughts of dropping
out altogether. However, the researchers acknowledge that, after controlling for age and level of
educational experience, students with disabilities did not differ significantly from their non-
disabled peers in terms of personal or emotional adjustment. Experts suggested that college
students with LD would benefit from study skill development as well as self-advocacy and social
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 34

skill development in order to better establish positive relationships with faculty and peers and be
better prepared for the demands of college (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009).
Professional development for instructional faculty may also be needed at the institutional
level. Faculty who have an increased awareness and knowledge of the characteristics and needs
of students with disabilities and incorporate concepts of universal design into their instruction
and curriculum may help students with disabilities persist and succeed in college (Getzel, 2008).
Learners with LD face more obstacles than their non-disabled peers, and, as such, their success is
not only dependent on academic and social integration but also the development of academic and
social skills. In order to understand their persistence in college, research must also focus on how
these learners overcome skill deficiency and advocate for their own needs.
In addition to high school achievement and background characteristics, academic and
social integration, which are part of the college experience for all students, are promising
constructs to help explain the persistence of college students with LD (DaDeppo, 2009). In
research investigating the academic success and intent to persist of college students with LD,
DaDeppo (2009) discovered that integration, primarily social, was a significant predictor of
intent to persist for college students with LD. Likewise, Mamiseishvili and Koch (2011) found
that academic and social integration, in addition to disability-related accommodations, are
significantly associated with first-to-second-year persistence of students with disabilities. In
conclusion, academic and social integration may be important variables in a student’s intent to
persist in college.
Academic and social integration are necessary components of student persistence in
postsecondary institutions (Tinto 1975, 1993). More importantly, these constructs may be just as
important for success for students with disabilities as their peers. The importance of one over the
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 35

other variable is debatable. Hence, the greater the academic and social integration in
postsecondary education, the more likely college students, including individuals with disabilities,
will succeed in higher education. Without any type of integration in college, students are likely
to drop out or fail in postsecondary institutions (Tinto, 1975, 1993). However, students with
disabilities also depend on support academically and socially to remediate deficient or non-
existing skills. By seeking this support, these learners inevitably promote their success. In
addition, their self-esteem, either high or low, plays a role in their ability to persist in college.
The responsibility of managing their accommodations, along with their academic coursework,
presents a new set of challenges that are unique to these learners (Getzel, 2008). Simply focusing
on their integration may miss other constructs that build upon their persistence.
Support
Support plays a vital role in postsecondary education. Students with LD may need
academic support to strengthen deficient skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. Parents and
family, teachers, educators, advisors, support services, personnel, new student orientation staff,
and significant others are the most common sources of support for individuals with LD (Troiano,
2003). These students may also need social support to persist in college. Perceived academic and
social support may shape the reactions that individuals with LD develop toward their disability
(Troiano, 2003). In short, students who experience a high degree of support may understand how
to manage their disability, and those students who experience a low degree of support may
struggle to make meaning of their disability (Troiano, 2003). Students with LD may also
experience a lack of support because of the stigma associated with a disability. Therefore,
support in postsecondary education is a necessary construct for persistence and success, as these
students need academic support to compensate for academic deficiencies in reading, writing, or
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 36

mathematics. They may also need social support from peers, family members, or teachers to
transition to college. Finally, they may need support in overcoming the stigmatization associated
with a learning disability.
Academic
Academic support is crucial for students with LD to succeed in college. Academically
successful college students use significantly different test-taking strategies than do their lower
achieving peers (Holzer, Madaus, Bray, & Kehle, 2009). Students with LD may express self-
doubt about not being able to perform as well in academic coursework as their cohorts (Hall &
Webster, 2008). Heiman (2006) observed that the majority of students with LD attending college
have an average or above average IQ (intelligence quotient), but also academic difficulties that
hinder the learning process. Past research showed that college students with disabilities must
demonstrate basic academic competencies because no degree of support, curriculum
modification, or accommodations can negate for lower cognitive functioning or lack of sufficient
academic preparation for postsecondary education (Lynch & Gussel, 1996). Students with LD
may arrive on college campuses with slightly different characteristics than those of their peers; in
return, these characteristics may cause them to be placed in “developmental” (p. 28) courses
(Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). In addition, academically marginal students may have
difficulty irrespective of course modifications (Allsopp, Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005). In short,
academic support affects student persistence and success.
Postsecondary education programs are an important facet of a student’s ability to persist
and remain in college. Key factors that provide student support include services that develop
stronger self-determination skills, teach and support students’ self-management skills, expose
students to assistive technology, and promote career development by providing internships or
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 37

other career-related experiences (Getzel, 2008). However, Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)
discovered that a caring staff was not only necessary to discern the academic needs of students
with LD, but can also open doors of opportunities for success by empowering students with trust
and encouragement. In an investigation of the use of an academic support center and college
success, Troiano, Liefeld, and Trachtenberg (2010) suggest that students who had higher levels
of attendance in an academic support center had higher overall GPAs and higher rates of
graduation. In other words, students with LD who attended learning support centers regularly
were more likely to have higher grades and graduate college than those who did not. However,
the relationship between the student and the learning support specialist may likely be an essential
element of support that leads to student success, not simply regular attendance (Allsopp,
Minskoff, & Bolt, 2005; Troiano, Liefeld, & Trachtenberg, 2010).
In addition, explicit test-taking strategy instruction for college students with LD may
reduce anxiety and facilitate effective academic intervention for this population (Holzer,
Madaus, Bray, & Kehle, 2009). By contrast, in their investigation of perspectives and obstacles
faced by learners with LD in gaining access to services at a postsecondary institution, Cawthon
and Cole (2010) reported that this student population might not have used the university’s
resources to the extent that they were available because of a lack of awareness of campus
resources. In short, secondary institutions may not provide adequate information and recognition
of the resources that students with disabilities may access.
Accommodations are a necessary academic support for many college students with
disabilities, as they often experience difficulty in achieving in higher education due to their
potential need to request accommodations (Barnard-Brak, Sulak, Tate, & Lechtenberger, 2010,
Getzel, 2008). Unlike in elementary and secondary education where accommodations are provided,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 38

postsecondary institutions are required by law to provide accommodations to qualified students
with disabilities who disclose their disability and request such assistance. Although
accommodations and supports are widespread in elementary and secondary school, they are less
prevalent at the postsecondary level (Newman & Madaus, 2014). Yet, Ofiesh (2007) asserts that
accommodations in postsecondary settings have become commonplace for many students with
LD who have documented needs. Kranke, Taylor, and Floersch (2013) found that three
conditions influenced students’ decisions to disclose their disability to request accommodations:
fear that their disability will greatly limit functioning critical to academic achievement, the
stability of their disability, and stigma. For instance, some students may want a “fresh start” in
college to avoid the pressure of being labeled. Getzel (2008) also discovered that college
students with disabilities may not self-disclose because of being newly diagnosed as having a
disability while in college. Students who may need and qualify for necessary accommodations in
college may not access or utilize these accommodations to their fullest potential.
Failure to self-disclose a disability may have a negative impact on a student’s access to
accommodations in postsecondary education. Students with disabilities enter college unprepared
to disclose their disability or lack the understanding of how to access services on campus
(Getzel, 2008). In examining the disparities between secondary and postsecondary education
accommodations among a nationally representative cohort of three thousand one hundred ninety
students with disabilities, Newman and Madaus (2014) reported that although ninety-five percent
of students received disability-based accommodations at the secondary level, only twenty-three
percent did so at the postsecondary level. Accommodations allow students with disabilities to
access the curriculum by providing the necessary support and services because the nature of their
disability can have an impact on their academic performance (Kranke, Taylor, & Floersch, 2013).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 39

However, faculty members may not place a high priority or know how to satisfactorily address
accommodations within their coursework (Cook, Rumrill, & Tanersley, 2009). Thus, disclosure
of a disability is necessary for student persistence and success in postsecondary education.
A learning disability can affect a person’s long-term retrieval, short-term memory,
processing speed, auditory, visual, and/or cognitive demands. For example, students with LD may
display a slower reading rate than their non-disabled peers, struggle with comprehension and
retention on written material, or have difficulty in identifying important points or themes in
reading. To compensate for their deficits, students may use accommodations, such as note takers,
extra time for exams, or tape/video recordings of lectures. Yet, some encounter difficulty
receiving the necessary accommodations or do not receive them at all. For example, Sharpe,
Johnson, Izzo, and Murray (2005) reported nineteen percent of student participants reported
provision of unnecessary accommodations and thirty-five percent reported denial of
accommodations believed to be needed; however, the authors’ findings generally showed that
instructional accommodations and assistive technologies are provided at much high rates at the
postsecondary level. Despite protective legislation, increased visibility, and disability services, the
special needs of some students with disabilities remain unmet.
Some students with LD encounter academic deficits because of the nature of their
disability. Therefore, accommodations are a necessity for them to access the college curriculum
and succeed like their peers. Even though students may need, qualify, and request
accommodations, collegiate environments may provide inadequate or unnecessary
accommodations. Some students may not receive the needed accommodations at all and are in
danger of dropping out of college altogether. Moreover, it is imperative that students with
disabilities receive the needed academic and social support to persist and succeed in college.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 40

Social
Social support is a necessity for postsecondary success for students with LD. Researchers
have argued that the adjustment for students with LD to college life is no different than for their
non-disabled peers (Estrada, Dupoux, and Wolman, 2006). However, additional factors
challenge this generalization. Some students with LD perceive themselves as having less social
support than students without LD (Heiman, 2006). Some students with LD may have multiple
identities, such as race, to contend with when navigating new social situations (Durodoye,
Combes, and Bryant, 2004). Others must contend with a learning disability and social class
(Rojewski & Kim, 2003). Depending on socioeconomic status, students with LD are more likely
to work full- or part-time jobs when attending college, which reduces their opportunities to
socialize with their peers (Heiman and Kariv, 2004). Regardless of disability, college students
must find a balance between their school and social lives to succeed (DaDeppo, 2009; Heiman,
2006). Encouragement and understanding that comes from teachers and college professors is
another important source of support for students with disabilities (Troiano, 2003). In conclusion,
perceived support influences a student’s reactions to and acceptance of his or her disability.
Students with LD, unlike their peers, may be socially and academically stigmatized in
college because of the nature of their disability. Reidpath Chan, Gifford and Allotey (2005)
describe stigmatization as “the marking of individuals and groups who are unworthy of social
investment” (p. 468). Negative effects on health and well-being may be experienced by those
who are excluded (Martin, 2010). For students with LD who are singled out or labeled as
different, stigmatization may lead to a feeling of hopelessness, and at times a loss of self-
confidence; however, an undisclosed a disability may reduce the likelihood of stigmatization
(Troiano, 2003). Despite the passage of time, the legislative rights guaranteeing inclusiveness,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 41

and an increasing enrollment in postsecondary education, negative stereotypes about students
with disabilities persist. They may be unfairly regarded as intellectually inferior, incompetent,
lacking effort, or attempting to cheat or use unfair advantages when requesting accommodations,
which are within their legal rights (Denhart, 2008). Hence, stigmatization is another obstacle
students with disabilities face in postsecondary education.
Social stigmatization hinders the postsecondary persistence and success of students with
disabilities as found by research into the negative stereotypes about individuals with LD in
earlier studies (Houck, Asselin, Troutman, & Arrington, 1992; Shapiro & Margolis, 1988). In
their study of stereotypes, May and Stone (2010) reported that students with LD were more
likely to report that people in general viewed individuals with LD as less intelligent. However,
one wonders if this perception may be based on the increasing number of students with LD
entering postsecondary institutions and media attention, not on ability (Madaus & Shaw, 2006).
In short, postsecondary students may still hold largely negative stereotypes about students with
disabilities. Being misunderstood by faculty, being reluctant to request accommodations for fear
of invoking stigma, and having to work considerably longer hours are also significant barriers for
this population (Denhart, 2008; Cornett-DeVito & Worley, 2005). As a result, students with
disabilities may feel uncomfortable utilizing accommodations and other support services that
they may need to succeed. Students who experience a high degree of stigmatization may be more
likely to allow their learning disability to define their weaknesses and view their disability as a
permanent condition (Troiano, 2003). General misunderstandings about students with disabilities
can cause these learners to self-doubt their strengths and academic abilities and drop out of
college, even if they have good grades (Connor, 2012; Hall & Webster, 2008). In conclusion,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 42

students with disabilities encounter a social stigma that may impede their persistence and success
in college.
Levels of stress may also be an important predictor of postsecondary persistence.
Students with low self-esteem may experience limited success in postsecondary education unlike
their peers with high self-esteem who experience a greater chance of success in college. College
students with low self-esteem and high levels of perceived stress may also feel inhibited from
initiating or maintaining social contacts and activities in community organizations (Herrero &
Gracia, 2004). They may also experience slightly higher academic stress than students without
LD (Heiman, 2006). Test anxiety is another source of stress for students with disabilities
(LaFrance, Madaus, Bray, & Kehle, 2009). Higher levels of anxiety can also negatively affect an
individual’s well-being (Davis, Nida, Zlomkwe, & Nebel-Schwalm, 2009). Furthermore, higher
levels of anxiety can disrupt a person’s emotional state (Lufi, Okasha, and Cohen, 2004). Low
self-esteem, along with self-monitoring and motivation issues, can be as debilitating to success
as academic challenges (Hall and Webster, 2008). In their examination of the effect of
participation of first-year university students in a full-year mentoring program, Rodger and
Tremblay (2003) concluded that students with high anxiety in the mentored group showed
achievement comparable to that of low anxiety program participants. Conversely, students in the
control group with high anxiety scored significantly worse on achievement than their low anxiety
counterparts. Thus, levels of stress have shown to impede student performance in higher
education.
Elevated or depressed levels of self-esteem, however, may not be a true construct of
persistence in college. Davis, Nida, Zlomke, and Nebel-Schwalm (2009) examined the potential
relationship between a learning disability and heightened levels of anxiety or sadness in adults
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 43

with disabilities in postsecondary settings. The authors assert that undergraduates reporting LD
suffered from an impaired sense of well-being associated with anxious or sad feelings whereas
Estrada, Dupoux, and Wolam (2006) suggest that students with LD, regardless of how they view
themselves, are adjusting as well as their peers without disabilities, which conflicts with existing
research about low self-esteem hindering academic success. However, the authors recognize that
a majority of their participants were female, which might affect their conclusion. Thus, if more
males were included in their study, their findings may have aligned more with current research
about self-esteem and postsecondary persistence. Yet, even when they experience success, some
students with LD struggle against the notion that they are still inadequate as compared to their
peers (Olney & Kim, 2001). Thus, self-esteem may or may not impact a student’s likelihood of
persistence in college.
Academic and social support are important variables in the persistence of students with
disabilities in college. Students with LD may need academic support because of deficits related
to their disability. Social support from parents and family, teachers, and educators may help
some students with LD transition to college and encourage them to succeed. Accordingly,
students who experience a high degree of academic and social support may be able to manage
their disability more effectively than students with LD with no support. Students with LD may
also experience stigmatization from non-disabled peers and faculty because of their disability.
Therefore, adequate social support in postsecondary education is crucial to success. Adequate
support systems may affect and increase a student’s self-esteem. If students with LD are able to
effectively manage their disability and demonstrate higher levels of self-esteem like their
successful peers, they may also have the necessary variables to persist and succeed. With
postsecondary success, these individuals may have more options to a better quality of life.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 44

Self-Advocacy
Self-advocacy and self-determination are closely correlated with one another. As part of
the college experience, students with LD are responsible for requesting their supports and
services, providing documentation to receive these accommodations, and interacting with faculty
to implement their supports. These students now become part of a potentially massive
community of students with disabilities seeking services through a disability support service
(DSS) office on campus (Getzel, 2008). However, self-advocacy may be an underdeveloped skill
for many students with disabilities because their parents in primary and secondary schooling may
have served the role as the student’s primary advocate for services and support in education. In
their research examining supports provided to secondary and postsecondary students with
disabilities, Newman and Madaus (2014) discovered that only thirty-five percent of youth with
disabilities informed their college of their disability. Without full disclosure, postsecondary
institutions are under no legal obligation to provide services and reasonable accommodations and
supports to students with disabilities. For the purposes of this study, Hartman’s (1993)
construction of self-advocacy is defined as follows:
A student understands his or her disability, is as aware of the strengths as of the
weaknesses resulting from the functional limitation imposed by the disability, and is able
to able to articulate reasonable need for academic or physical accommodations (p. 31).
Self-advocacy plays an important role in a student’s success in postsecondary education. Self-
advocacy may even be most crucial for college success (Lombardi, Gerdes, & Murray, 2011).
Past research has identified that the content and timing of self-disclosure are important and
potentially have an impact on outcomes for students with LD (Lynch & Gussel, 1996).
Furthermore, disclosure of a disability and self-advocacy for disability-related needs are still
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 45

marked as key issues that students with LD face in college (Graham-Smith & Lafayette, 2004).
However, in research investigating the perspectives of students with disabilities on
accommodations use and obstacles they faced in gaining access to services, Cawthon and Cole
(2010) indicated that students with LD knew the implications of their disability and were
utilizing many of the same resources that they did in high school. Nevertheless, self-advocacy
and appropriate disclosure are ultimately the responsibility of a postsecondary student in order to
access the available services necessary to complete an advanced education. To obtain
accommodations, a student must disclose disability-related needs to colleges. However, the
attitudes of faculty, staff, and other students may have an impact on disclosure decision-making
and methods (Denhart, 2008). A learning disability may not be obvious to others; therefore, it is
critical that students with disabilities develop the capacity for independence (Connor, 2012).
Thus, disclosure and self-advocacy are variables that affect a student’s ability to persist and
succeed in college.
Students with LD who demonstrate a high level of self-advocacy have greater success in
postsecondary education. Respectively, students with LD with a low degree of self-advocacy
experience greater challenges in postsecondary education. In relation to issues of self-advocacy
in postsecondary education, May and Stone (2010) reported that students with disabilities were
more likely to perceive that their non-disabled peers viewed them as attempting to work the
system. The college environment is not always hospitable to students with LD either, and some
students with LD feel embarrassment, guilt, and regret in asking for their legal accommodations
(Ryan, 2007). Some students with LD are also uneasy about relying on accommodations or
asking for help when they must compete in a merit-based system (Hall & Webster, 2008). Thus,
many students with LD opt not to self-disclose out of fear of rejection by their non-disabled
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 46

peers (Cornett-DeVito and Worley, 2005). Finally, some individuals may choose not to disclose
even after college (Madaus, 2008).
Self-advocacy requires necessary elements. Some researchers suggest that knowledge of
self and knowledge of rights are the foundations of self-advocacy (Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer,
& Eddy, 2005). The elements of self-advocacy can be expanded by including the following:
awareness of individual strengths, challenges, and special needs; understanding the legal and
ethical responsibilities of higher education institutions with respect to disability; and developing
the negotiation skills necessary to make arrangements for services and accommodations
(Troiano, 2003). Students with disabilities must be able to effectively communicate their rights
in order to access their legal accommodations in postsecondary institutions. Test et al. (2005)
concur that learning how to communicate effectively with others through negotiation,
assertiveness, and problem solving in individual and group situations is critical to self-advocacy.
Developing self-advocacy skills may help students with LD better relay their needs to faculty,
staff, and peers (Cook, Rumrill, & Tanersley, 2009). Some educational researchers have even
suggested the importance of developing self-advocacy skills at a younger age to facilitate more
meaningful transitions at a later age (Barrie & McDonald, 2002). Thus, self-advocacy is a
necessary component for individuals with disabilities to develop self-determination and achieve
success.
Self-Determination
Self-determination may be the skill students with LD need to ultimately thrive in college
and beyond. Understanding how to access and use accommodations is a critical self-
determination skill for postsecondary students with disabilities because the accommodations that
students receive in college may not mirror the supports that students previously received in
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 47

secondary school (Getzel, 2008). Self-determination is an individual’s capacity to cope with and
adjust to the demands of everyday life and embrace the qualities of assertiveness, independence,
and creativity (Troiano, 2003). Self-advocacy is a concept and skill associated with self-
determination because individuals must be able to articulate needs and make informed decisions
about the supports necessary to meet those needs (Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, & Eddy, 2005).
However, some students with disabilities may become unsure of how to properly access or
implement these accommodations since they are now the primary person responsible for the
effective use of these accommodation options. In their follow-up study of self-determination and
individuals with cognitive or LD, Wehmeyer and Palmer (2003) suggest that people who are
self-determined have better postsecondary outcomes than those who are not. Characteristics of
self-determined behavior have also been shown to predict overall quality of life in those with
disabilities (Lachapelle, Wehmeyer, Haelewyck, Courbois, Keith, Schalock, Verdugo, & Walsh,
2005; Nota, Ferrari, Soresi, & Wehmeyer, 2007). Additionally, self-advocacy is listed as one of
seven essential characteristics of highly self-determined people (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007).
Without self-determination, students with LD may not have the essential ability to integrate or
seek support in collegiate environments. Likewise, their self-esteem may reflect their lack of
persistence. Consequently, students with LD are in danger of failing out of college.
Self-advocacy is a construct needed for students with disabilities to persist and succeed in
college. However, students with LD may be further limited by either not possessing or not using
the skills necessary to seek out available disability services and advocate their appropriate needs.
Many individuals with LD may not have fully developed this skill because of systems and
structures designed in elementary and secondary education that encourage their parents to act as
the primary advocate. Regardless, when students with LD enter postsecondary education, the
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 48

responsibility of advocating for their needs, accommodations, and services falls upon them.
Institutions are not required to instigate services or accommodations unless a student provides
the necessary and appropriate documentation. Therefore, at the university level students with LD
become the gatekeepers of their persistence and success in college.
Early Identification
Individuals with LD are diagnosed at various periods in their lives, ranging from early
elementary school to college. Early identification may facilitate the successful transition of
students with LD into postsecondary settings and be an asset for postsecondary success. In his
study exploring the experiences of nine college students with LD, Troiano (2003) uncovered that
students who were diagnosed early in their elementary school years were able to accept and
understand their disability, had a deep sense of its impact, and viewed their disability to as a
modifiable condition. Furthermore, students diagnosed in high school expressed regret that their
disability had not been identified earlier in schooling and were still learning how to respond to
the complications of their disabilities. Thus, students with an early diagnosis of disability may be
better prepared for the challenges in college.
Early identification, in addition to academic support, may also increase persistence and
success in college. In their study investigating early identification and the development of
learning strategies, Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, and Hayes (2009) found that early-identified students
come to college with more “ample” test-taking strategies than student who were identified with
LD in college. Thus, early-identified students may receive compensatory strategies in K-12
schooling that fosters their persistence and success in postsecondary institutions.
Early identification may also provide unexpected benefits for parents and students. In his
research exploring the experiences of college students with disabilities, Troiano (2003) found
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 49

that parents may be better equipped to deal with the difficulties associated with a learning
disability if their children were diagnosed early. However, the amount of parental support may
be related to a parent’s level of education or choice of career. In addition, an individual’s ability
to self-advocate may be linked to parental support and time of diagnosis (Troiano, 2003). For
example, a student, who was diagnosed with LD early and experienced a high degree of parental
support, may possess the ability to effectively advocate for himself or herself after years of
practice and refinement. Thus, an early diagnosis may give some students with LD an advantage
over non-identified peers and better prepare them as self-managed learners.
Early identification, however, may create additional obstacles for students with
disabilities in collegiate environments. An earlier study by Reis, McGuire, and Neu (2000)
suggests that early identification of an LD usually results in content remediation rather than
specific skills acquisition. As a result, school personnel may incorrectly “label” these students as
having ability lower than their non-disabled peers. Simply identifying students for LD early in
schooling does not guarantee persistence and success in postsecondary institutions. Students
must be able to access appropriate and timely accommodations, information, and support to
develop the necessary skills to transition to postsecondary institutions. If not, students may
develop “learned helplessness” (p. 36) and experience additional academic failure (Abreu-Ellis,
Ellis, & Hayes, 2009). Students with LD may remain passive in the educational process at the
postsecondary level because they were not given the opportunities to develop self-advocacy skills
in primary and secondary school where services were largely dictated by the school personnel
(Layton & Lock, 2003). It stands to reason that this complex interaction of students with disabilities
with collegiate environments may influence how students with disabilities adapt and persist within
the postsecondary environment.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 50

Early identification of a learning disability may assist some students with LD in their
transition to postsecondary education. By contrast, it can also pose additional obstacles for
students with disabilities without encouragement and support. With an early diagnosis, some
students with disabilities may learn compensatory strategies necessary to assist them in accessing
the general education curriculum and succeeding in schooling. However, an early diagnosis of
disability may also hinder some students’ progress because they may receive remediation of
academic deficiencies rather than the assistance of acquiring the essential skills needed to not
only persist but also to thrive and succeed as life-long learners.
Theoretical Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems (2005) provides a framework that looks at
an individual’s development as an interaction between the person and his or her environment.
This approach is interconnected with the impact of the social world on the development of the
individual (Hess & Schultz, 2008). These interactions form the context of the system of
relationship that form his or her environment, including, students, families, schools, and
communities (Figure 1). This framework is widely used in understanding study development as a
function of the interactions between individuals and their environments that illustrate how and
why outcomes may occur as they do (Evans, 2010). This framework provides the guidance for
this study.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 51

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Collegiate Environments
In the past, some researchers used Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (1993) of human
development in relationship to the early development of individuals with disabilities (Sontag,
1996). However, current research is limited on its application to students with LD in higher
education. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (2005) encompasses human behavior as a mutual
dialogue among four main components, including process, person, context, and time, which is
often referred to as the PPCT model (Evans, 2010). These four components either promote or
inhibit student development. However, it is important to recognize that different students elicit
different responses from different participants in the environment (Renn & Arnold, 2003). In
short, the behaviors of college students are outcomes of not only their interactions with their
environments but also their own individual traits.
Understanding social ecological theory within a context of higher education is important.
Using this framework, each ring must be called upon to identify and implement effective
academic and social interventions for college students to persist. The ecological structure as
applied to persistence in high education helps institutions to understand that the act of persistence
is not one single individual act, but occurs within a system and affects the entire system as well.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 52

Process
Process is the main component of the model and involves particular forms of interaction
between the individual and his or her environment that occur over time and are believed to be the
main systems producing human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). These are
referred to as “proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 795). The most common
and important proximal processes for adolescents and young adults are face-to-face interactions
with family members and peers because these processes play an important role in academic
outcomes (Phinney, Dennis, & Chuateco, 2005). In order for individuals to achieve optimal
development, these processes should become increasingly more complex and be spread out so as
not to overwhelm the developing individual (Evans, 2010). To be effective, the interaction must
occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. Indeed, the effects of proximal
processes may be more powerful than the environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994). Thus, proximal processes are vital in the development of learners, including students with
disabilities.
Person
The person component in addition to process provides a greater understanding of how the
PPCT model exposes what is going on in the how and what of the person-environment dialogue
(Evans, 2010). Personal attributes, which promote or extinguish vital attitudes toward the
immediate environment, shape the course of student development. Bronfenbrenner (1993) called
these attributes “developmentally instigative characteristics” (p. 11) and identified four types.
Renn and Arnold (2003) summarized these four types as follows:
1. Those that act to invite or inhibit responses from the environment (i.e. different students
evoke different responses from administrators, peers, and faculty)
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 53

2. How individuals explore and react to surroundings (i.e. joining student organizations)
3. How individuals persist in increasingly complex activities that are key to development
(i.e. seeking more difficult courses, leadership positions, etc.)
4. How individuals experience agency in relation to environments (i.e. success is the result
of hard work)
These characteristics influence how an individual will experience an environment and
how the environment will respond to that individual, but they do not determine the course of
development (Evans, 2010). The total ecological system has an impact on the development of an
individual, not only a single component. These characteristics may also account for different
outcomes among students whose demographics and corresponding academic profiles might
suggest similar learning and developmental expectations (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Thus, these
instigative traits and characteristics guide students in their individual development and
surrounding environment.
Context
The context element of the ecology model is a critical location for interactions (the
process) between the individual and the environment, even though the person remains the focus
(Evans, 2010). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (2005) proposed a series of contexts in which
the person is the center of the model with four levels of contexts surrounding him/her. The
theory identifies the following four environmental systems: microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and macrosystem. This framework situates college students as the center of the
ecology because they are the developmental entity that interacts with their ecological
surroundings (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 54

Microsystem refers to the immediate surroundings of the individual. Bronfenbrenner
(2005) stipulates there are four microsystems, or contexts: family, teachers, peers and school
environment that surround an individual. It is in these microsystems that the most direct
interactions with these contexts take place. Thus, an individual is not merely a passive recipient
of experiences in these settings, but someone who actually helps to construct the social settings
(Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Mesosystem refers to the relations between the different microsystems or connections
between contexts (Evans, 2010). Some common examples are the connection between family
experiences and school experiences, school experiences to church experiences, and family
experiences to peer experiences. The mesosystem consists of social interconnections, linkages
and processes taking place among participants, such as students, teachers and peers (Evans,
2010). For example, the relations between the home and the school would be reflected in the
mesosystem. In essence, it can be understood as a system of microsystems.
Exosystem is concerned with the connection between a social setting in which the
individual does not have an active role and the individual's immediate context (Evans, 2010).
The exosystem involves experiences in a social setting in which the individual does not have an
active role, but is influenced by this experience (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
Macrosystem describes the culture, or ways, in which individuals live. Cultural contexts
can include socioeconomic status, poverty, and ethnicity. The macrosystem consists of the
cultural values and beliefs that influence family and societal functioning (Evans, 2010). Within
the macrosystem, organizational, social, cultural, and political contexts can shape the interactions
within other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Most importantly, the macrosystem, on the outer
layers of the system, has direct impact on all levels (Evans, 2010).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 55

Time
Time is an important component of the ecological model. Evans (2010) suggests that time
has a critical role to play in student development because it interacts with other necessary
components, including process, person, and context to affect the developmental influence of
proximal processes. Students are also shaped by the era in which they attend college (Renn &
Arnold, 2003). For example, the 1960s were marked by prominent social movements nationally,
whereas the current decade has seen major advances in technology across all aspects of an
individual’s social, educational, and economic lives. It is important to recognize that time also
plays a role across the life span of an individual because individual and societal values change
over the course of a person’s lifetime. Time also refers to the sequencing of events over a
person’s life course. For instance, students who enter postsecondary right after high school have
different roles and expectations than students who enter later in life after having worked
professionally for several years or started raising a family. Also, a parent’s divorce or the birth of
a new sibling in the family may affect individuals differently. Students arrive on college
campuses with unique characteristics and life experiences shaped over the course of a lifetime.
Time plays an important role in every individual’s life because it dictates the societal and
cultural experiences he or she will encounter. Although the timing of events affects individuals
differently, it is still a crucial component of student development.
According to ecological theory, exchanges between an individual’s characteristics and
environment shape development over a lifetime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). At the
postsecondary level, academic success can be viewed as a combination of characteristics based
on an individual’s personality and environment, and constructs, including mental ability,
academic skills, motivation, and goals (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 56

Student development in higher education involves multiple participants and multiple
systems. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory (2005), in order to understand the development of
students with LD in higher education, one must consider the many environments that shape these
individuals, the mutual relationship of the individual to these environments, and the interaction
between multiple settings that all influence the persistence of students with LD in postsecondary
settings.
In order to understand human development, Bronfenbrenner (2005) states that the entire
ecological system must be examined. This framework views human development as an interplay
between individual characteristics and a varied range of contextual systems, such as family, staff,
classes, peers, and administrators (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Therefore, social ecological theory
provides a theoretical framework to investigate the combined impact of social contexts and
influences on behavioral development of college students in postsecondary institutions. Lastly,
within this framework, a student’s family, college, and his or her interactions with peers, staff,
and administrators shape development.
Conclusion
Experiencing a learning disability in postsecondary education is a complex and unique
phenomenon. Students with disabilities are at a greater risk of non-persistence than their non-
disabled peers (Boutin, 2008, DaDeppo, 2009; Getzel, 2008; Wessel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall,
2009). Students with LD, unlike their non-disabled peers, encounter more obstacles in
postsecondary education (Heiman & Precel, 2003), need to adjust to the demands of higher
education, and learn to deal with deficits in their academic and social skills (Heiman, 2006). Yet,
students with disabilities who complete a college degree have improved employment
opportunities (Madaus & Shaw, 2006). The increase in enrollment of students with LD in
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 57

postsecondary institutions requires colleges to become familiar with issues pertaining to this
population. As more people with disabilities enter postsecondary education, it is critical to
understand who these individuals are, their unique academic and social needs, and what factors
influence their persistence. More importantly, students’ experiences in their first year of college
may be the most critical in their commitment to long-term educational goals, persistence, and
graduation (Bozick, 2007; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Tinto, 1993, 1996). The lenses for viewing
student persistence encompassed all students with disabilities, regardless of time of diagnosis.
The data does not disaggregate between those diagnosed early in schooling versus individuals
diagnosed later in life. Therefore, it is important to understand the perceptions of early-identified
students with LD to identify what factors impede or facilitate persistence of these learners.
College can be a new beginning for many individuals to redefine themselves as young
adults, and students with LD see college as a new beginning with an opportunity to redefine
themselves (Connor, 2012). College and university attendance is often regarded as a positive
event that provides opportunities for individual development and constitutes a critical
developmental period in a young person’s life (Heiman, 2006). LD are highly individualized, and
students with disabilities are an ever-changing representation of this disability.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 58

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The intent of this study was to investigate promising practices that foster the persistence
of learners with LD in higher education by specifically focusing on obstacles, such as academic
and social integration, support, and self-advocacy that act as barriers to postsecondary success.
Non-persistence and failure are common risk outcomes for students with LD in college (Wagner
et al., 2005). Increasing numbers of students with LD are entering collegiate environments, but
their success rates are not comparable to peers without LD (Cortiella, 2011). Furthermore, the
need for self-disclosure and accommodations at the postsecondary level have profound
implications for students with disabilities (Newman & Madaus, 2014). This study examined the
experiences of learners with LD, who were diagnosed at different points in their lives, in
postsecondary education. The goals of the study were to identify innovative strategies that
promote the persistence and success of identified students with LD in postsecondary
environments.
In an effort to understand the practices that have been successful in encouraging the
persistence in students with disabilities, who were identified early in schooling, the following
research questions were posed:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to the persistence and
success of students with LD in collegiate environments?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support students
with disabilities in postsecondary education?
This chapter outlines the research design of the study and provides an overview of the
participants and sample selection. Furthermore, it discusses the theoretical framework and
explains the conceptual framework. The theoretical framework and the conceptual framework
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 59

together formulate the foundation for the study. Data collection procedures are examined and the
instrumentation used for this study is reviewed. Finally, the format for data analysis is outlined,
along with the ethical considerations used to ensure the safety and the confidentiality of the
participants.
Research Design
The research questions generated framed the study and guide data collection. A
qualitative methods approach was selected to gather the most useful data to answer the research
questions. Creswell (2013) stated that qualitative approaches allow researchers room to be
innovative and work more within researcher-designed frameworks. In addition, qualitative
methods were used to examine systems and structures that grant persistence and success in
postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Conducting open-ended interviews also
allowed for the exploration of innovative strategies developed by this population. Thus, a
qualitative methods approach developed a framework to dissect the personal narratives of these
students and determine how they had overcome obstacles in their schooling, thereby identifying
possible solutions for other students with disabilities.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative methods were used in order to obtain a rich, in-depth understanding of the
promising practices that encourage early-identified students with disabilities to persist in
schooling. As Merriam (2009) stated, qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how
people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they
attribute to their experiences. In other words, qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding how people make sense of their world. By conducting this study, the phenomenon
was being investigated from the participants’ perspectives, not the researcher’s assumptions.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 60

Merriam (2009) referred to this process as an insider’s perspective. Qualitative research allowed
the researcher to be the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Thus, interviews and
observations were conducted to get a first-hand account of data collection. Merriam (2009)
described qualitative research as being inductive because researchers gathered data to build
concepts, hypotheses, or theories. Hence, by collecting bits and pieces of information from
interviews and observations, the researcher was able to combine and order this data into larger
themes. In essence, the researcher worked from the particular to the general. Merriam (2009)
maintained that the product of a qualitative inquiry was richly descriptive because the quotes and
excerpts contributed to the descriptive nature.
Accordingly, interviews and observations allow the researcher to capture the thoughts
and behaviors of general students with disabilities. Merriam (2009) reminds qualitative
researchers, the design of a qualitative study is emergent and flexible, and sample selection is
usually nonrandom, purposeful, and small. Consequently, sample selection was careful and
meaningful. Lastly, Merriam (2009) reminds researchers of the following competencies: a
questioning stance with regard to one’s work and life context, a high tolerance for ambiguity,
being a careful observer, asking good questions, thinking inductively, and comfort with writing.
Ultimately, the goal of this research was to add to the existing literature of persistence and
success of students with LD in postsecondary education.
Sample and Population
This study examined the promising practices that encouraged students with disabilities,
identified early in schooling, to persist and succeed in collegiate environments. Specific criteria
were established to identify students who were diagnosed early and attended a postsecondary
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 61

institution. This section summarizes the selection criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and
presents an overview of the postsecondary institution.
Purposeful sampling was used to select interviewees. Purposeful sampling was based on
the assumption that the researcher sought to discover, understand, and gain insight; therefore, a
sample was selected in which this is possible (Merriam, 2009). Unique sampling, a type of
purposeful sampling, was used to identify participants based on unique, atypical, or, perhaps,
rare attributes of the phenomenon of interest. Convenience sampling was also used for this study
due to time constraints and availability/convenience of location (Merriam, 2009).
This study involved students with LD in a postsecondary institution who were diagnosed
with a disability early in schooling. Participation was voluntary and only students who were
willing to be interviewed were a part of the study. Those interviewed had varying years of living
with a learning disability and postsecondary experience. A total of eleven college students
participated.
Overview of the School
A private, non-profit research institution in southern California was selected as the site
for interviews because all participants, as well as the researcher, attended this institution; it was
convenient for the participants, as well as the researcher, to conduct this study at this college.
This university was also known for its inclusion and services for students with disabilities,
especially individuals with LD. For the 2012-2013 academic year, it maintained an enrollment
of approximately 18,000 undergraduate and 22,000 graduate students. The majority of students
(39%) at this university are White/Caucasian (Table 1).

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 62

Table 1
Student Demographics, Fall 2012
Race/Ethnicity %
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 14
Asian 23
Black/African-American 5
White, Not Hispanic 39
International 12
Other 7

Approximately 51% of the student population was female and 48% was male. In
addition, the average unweighted GPA for entering freshmen was 3.70.
Participant Selection
Participant selection adopted two ways of identifying potential candidates. For example,
an online bulletin was placed on the university’s webpage seeking students with LD in
postsecondary education. In addition, flyers were placed around the university’s campus
advertising the available study. Students registered with and without disability services inquired
about participating in the study. All consenting students with LD who responded to either the
online bulletin or flyers and met the study criteria were included in the study as part of the group
of students with LD.
A list of characteristics was created to demonstrate the necessary components for an LD
student in college to participate in this study. The selected participants demonstrated the
following characteristics:
1. The participant was diagnosed with a learning disability between the ages of 6 and 25.
2. The participant was enrolled full-time in a preselected postsecondary institution in
September 2014.
3. The participant had experienced one or more months in postsecondary education.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 63

All participants in this study met these criteria and received a letter of introduction (Appendix
B). Interviews were conducted with eight females and three males. By meeting the criteria, the
study utilized purposeful sampling, which reflected the purpose of the study and the interview
guide (Merriam, 2009). Thus, the participants were purposefully selected to ensure the data
collected would serve to answer the established research questions.
Theoretical Framework
In order to study innovative practices in preventing non-persistence of students with
disabilities in postsecondary institutions, it was necessary to ground the research in theory. As
previously elucidated in chapter two, social ecological theory provided a theoretical framework
to investigate the combined context and influences on student development. In this framework,
the systems that directly affected college students include families, institutions, peers, faculty,
and administrators.
Utilizing social ecological theory was a critical component in understanding promising
innovations that encourage students with LD in collegiate environments to persist rather than
dropout or fail. According to this framework, the system levels were all influences that shaped
individual attitudes and behaviors (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The outer systems shaped the
immediate level systems which created a trickle-down effect. As a result, it was vital to align
promising practices in preventing students with LD from non-persistence in higher education
with the social ecological framework to ensure reliability.
Maxwell (2012) explained a conceptual framework as a conception or model of what the
research planned to study, or a “tentative” theory of the phenomena that was being investigated.
The literature review highlighted core concepts, terms, models, and theories that have shaped the
framework for this study. This framework informed the development of the problem of the study,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 64

the formulation of specific research questions, the selection of the appropriate methodology
(qualitative methods) for data collection and analysis, and provided insight of the interpretation
of the findings (Merriam, 2013).
The conceptual framework was based on emerging themes when reviewing the literature.
Identified structures such as academic and social integration, support and self-esteem, self-
advocacy and early identification were key components that fostered the persistence of students
with disabilities in postsecondary institutions. With these structures in place, effective
innovations could be developed. It is the interplay between the institutional structures and
systems that produced an inclusive environment for students with disabilities. Therefore, an
inclusive culture promoted student persistence and dropout prevention. Fostering an inclusive
culture required more than just the structures and systems in place in colleges across the United
States. The foundation of this model was effective institutional leadership. Effective institutional
leadership with a commitment to fostering inclusiveness for students with disabilities
implemented the critical structures and systems needed to effectuate change while
simultaneously creating sustainability by changing the collegiate culture (Figure 2).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 65

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework as Applied to Students with Disabilities
In summary, the conceptual framework illustrated how critical systems and structures
were implemented and sustained to support an inclusive environment for students with
disabilities in colleges. Institutional structures that worked toward encouraging and supporting
inclusive environments in colleges were important. Effective leadership served as the basis for
driving the systems and structures and created the implementation and sustainability of an
inclusive climate for all students with disabilities. In conclusion, this framework composed a
system that worked collaboratively to foster an inclusive environment for students with
disabilities in postsecondary education that promoted student persistence and success, and
respectively, prevented students with disabilities from failing and dropping out of college.
Data Collection
Before collecting data, the rules and regulations set forth by the college’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) were followed, and IRB approval was granted before starting the data
collection process. This study used semi-structured interviews for data collection. As Maxwell
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 66

(2012) reiterated, semi-structured interviews were data collection strategies designed to address
the research questions. All interviews were recorded for accuracy and clarity of participants’
responses. Therefore, interviews contributed to the study as the primary source of data. Data was
also collected from November 2014 to December 2014.
Instrumentation
For the purposes of this study, an interview protocol was created and adapted to align
with the research questions. The interview protocol contained items aligned to the obstacles,
including integration, support, self-esteem, and self-advocacy, which students with disabilities
encountered in college. The interview protocol was carefully constructed to determine the
accuracy of meaning for words and phrases to address the research questions. Careful
consideration was devoted to ensuring that the established and revised interview protocols were
strongly aligned to answering the research questions.
Semi-structured Interviews. The intent of the interview process was to allow open-
ended exploration of the practices that contribute toward the structures and systems that facilitate
the persistence of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions. By using semi-
structured interviews, the interview protocol allowed the researcher freedom to test and alter the
questions as necessary. As Merriam (2009) reiterated, semi-structured interviews allow the
researcher to respond to the situation at hand, the respondent’s worldview, and to new ideas on
the topic. Thus, the interviews were a mix of more- and less-structured interview questions. In
addition, through this process, participants were able to define their own world in unique ways
(Merriam, 2009). The interviews lasted approximately sixty minutes each. An interview protocol
was utilized with a total of twelve questions for each participant (Appendix A). On the interview
protocol, questions one through five were designed to examine the student’s background and
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 67

their experiences as students with a learning disability. Questions six through eight looked into
the student’s academic and social integration in college. This is the same as Tinto’s (1993)
research on academic and social integration which found that college students need to integrate
at the postsecondary level to persist and succeed. If not, students were likely to drop out.
Questions nine through twelve examined the student’s use of academic and social supports to
persist in college and reflected on their views of their own self-esteem. Similarly, the work of
DaDeppo (2009), reflecting the importance of support, such as parents and family, to shape an
individual’s attitude toward their disability, was also used. Questions thirteen through twenty
looked into a student’s ability to self-advocate at the postsecondary level. Troiano’s work (2003)
served as a guide, as it expanded on the definition of self-advocacy to broaden the elements that
encompassed this skill. In order for students to receive their legal and necessary
accommodations, they acted as their case manager for services.
All interviews were conducted on campus. All interviews lasted approximately sixty
minutes and were digitally recorded to allow the researcher to play back and transcribe the
interviews at a later time. All interviews were confidential and voluntary to ensure anonymity as
part of the IRB process. During the interviews, anonymous notes were jotted and important
words or remarks were recorded from each participant. By conducting these interviews, insight
was gained into how the participants viewed obstacles in postsecondary education. As a result,
the participants shared their experiences overcoming obstacles in elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary institutions.
In conclusion, by conducting interviews and reviewing records, the data needed to answer
the established research questions was gathered. More importantly, new insights into the
obstacles students with LD in college faced and the strategies they used to overcome such
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 68

challenges were noted. All data was also kept in a secure, locked location to protect the integrity
of the data and the participants’ anonymity.
Data Analysis
As Merriam (2009) reminded researchers, data analysis was one of the few aspects of
doing qualitative research in which there was a preferred way. Through this process, the
researcher made meaning of the data. Creswell’s (2009) six steps for data analysis provided a
guiding framework for this study. Below, an illustrative version of Creswell’s model, developed
by the 2014 thematic dissertation group, illustrates the process of data analysis (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using the information gathered from the twelve
corresponding interviews. As the model demonstrated, data analysis was organized into six steps.
First, data was organized and prepared for analysis. All interviews were digitally recorded and
transcribed. The interviewer also took notes during each session. Second, data collected from the
interviews and review of records were combined. Third, the data was organized into parts to
Step
Six

Interpret
or
make
meaning
of
the
data.

Step
Five

Decide
how
the
descirp:on
and
themes
will
be
represented
in
the
study
narra:ve.

Step
Four

Use
coding
process
to
develop
a
descrip:on
of

the
par:cipants
and/or
seAng.

Use
coding
to
develop
themes
or
categories.

Themes
are
analyzed
for
each
interview/
observa:on
and
across
interviews/observa:ons.

Step
Three

Begin
detailed
analysis
with
a
coding
process
(organizing
the
material
into
chunks
before
bringing
meaning
to
the
data).

Step
Two

Read
through
all
the
data
(first
obtain
a
general
sense
of
meaning).

Step
One

Organize
and
prepare
the
data
for
analysis.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 69

identify any potential themes. Merriam (2009) described this process as “category construction”
(p. 178). During this process, a list of codes was developed based on the content of the data.
Fourth, the data was coded into similarly themed categories. The categories were scanned and
reviewed for accuracy and coherence. Fifth, a description of participants’ experiences was
developed from the coded data, and themes were analyzed based on recurring patterns (Merriam,
2009). These identified themes were organized into a descriptive narrative for the study. Lastly,
meaning was extracted from the general themes identified in the data analysis.
Approach to Coding
To begin the process, segments were identified in the interviews that were responsive to
the research questions. Table 2 below presents the correlation of the interview protocol to the
study’s research questions. As each interview transcript was read, notes, comments,
observations, and queries were jotted down in the margins of the document when they proved
interesting, potentially relevant, or important. Merriam (2009) described this process as open
coding because the researcher was open to all possibilities. Assigning codes to data is the first
step to constructing categories (Merriam, 2009). So, turning codes into categories was vital to
making meaning of the data. As each interview was examined, the same process was utilized, as
previously mentioned to code the transcript. As part of the process, the researcher listed the
groupings extracted from the transcripts. These lists were merged into one master list of
categories derived from all data. This master list constituted an initial classification system
reflecting the recurring themes in the study, and each category was numbered consecutively.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 70

Table 2
Correlation of Interview Protocol to Research Questions

RQ1
What are the perceived systems and structures
that contribute to student persistence of
students with LD in collegiate environments?
RQ2
How are these systems and structures implemented
and sustained to support students with an identified
disability in postsecondary education?
Section I

1-5 X

Section II
6-7

X
8 X

Section III
9-12 X

Section IV
13-14 X
15-19 X
20-21 X

Merriam (2009) reminded researchers that categories are conceptual elements that span
many individual examples, are derived from the data, and exist separately from the data.
Therefore, with the remaining interviews, a master list of concepts was used to examine the data
and notate any information that might fall into the listed categories. A number was utilized to
identify the corresponding category that was previously generated during the examination of the
interviews. These themes allowed the research questions to be answered. In short, the main goal
was to extrapolate as much valuable information from the gathered data to answer all research
questions.
Approach to Analysis
Merriam (2009) described data analysis as a process of making sense out of data.
Accordingly, the generated categories and subcategories were reviewed to speculate how they
might be interrelated. Through this process, a model or theory of these interrelationships was
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 71

created. As Merriam (2009) reminded researchers, this level of analysis transcended the
formation of categories because it sought to explain a large number of phenomena and tell how
they are related.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical practices were followed in the design and conduction of the qualitative portions
of this study. As Merriam (2009) stated, the burden of producing a study conducted and
disseminated in an ethical manner lies with the researcher. Thus, data collection followed the
rules and regulations set forth by the college’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and IRB
approval was granted for the conduction of this particular study in the fall of 2014. All
participants in this study volunteered to participate and were not coerced in any way. All
participants were asked to sign a consent form (Appendix C) that provided a description of the
research procedure, its purpose, anticipated benefits and potential discomforts, and a statement
offering the subject the opportunity to ask questions and to withdraw at any time from the
research. Participants were also guaranteed assurance of the confidentiality of their statements.
For their participation in the study, participants also received monetary compensation. The
school and all participants were given pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. Last, all data was kept
in a secure location to prevent the unintentional release and harm to the participants.
Analyzing data also presented its own challenges, including researcher bias. Because the
researcher was an elementary special education teacher and the primary instrument for data
collection, data was filtered through his or her particular assumptions and biases (Merriam,
2009). The researcher decided what data was important and should be included in data analysis.
Likewise, the researcher decided what data to leave out. Merriam (2009) reminded researchers
that opportunities exist for the exclusion of data that contradicts one’s personal views, which is
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 72

sometimes unapparent to the researcher. Therefore, data analysis was evaluated through a
critical, not personal, lens.
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the qualitative method and data analysis used in
this case study, and the method should be investigated for future validation and addition to
existing research. Merriam (2009) asserted that a researcher’s main goal is to make meaningful
sense out of the collected data. Thus, the goal of this study was to give the data a sense of
purpose that was insightful, consistent, and accurate for the research community. Chapter four
presents the findings, organization, and emerging themes of the data collected to answers the
research questions. In addition, the findings were correlated with the purpose of this study.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 73

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The aim of this study was to investigate promising practices in promoting the persistence
of learners with LD in higher education by specifically focusing on systems of support and self-
advocacy skills that act as necessary functions to postsecondary success. Social ecological theory
provided a conceptual framework to investigate the combined context and influences on student
development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). In this framework, the systems that directly affected
college students were exhibition of academic and social integration, early identification,
disclosure, asking for help, a positive sense of self, and development of innovative strategies to
encourage persistence and success. Utilizing social ecological theory was a critical component in
understanding promising innovations that encouraged students with LD in collegiate
environments to persist rather than dropout or fail. According to Bronfenbrenner (2005), the
system levels were all influences that shape individual attitudes and behaviors. The outer systems
shaped the immediate level systems which created a trickle-down effect. As a result, it was vital
to align promising practices with the social ecological framework to ensure reliability to prevent
students with LD from dropping out or failing in higher education.
At Naples University, identified structures such as a system of support and demonstration
of self-advocacy skills were key components that fostered the persistence of students with
disabilities. With these structures in place, effective innovations were developed. It was the
interplay between the institutional structures and systems that produced an inclusive environment
for these students. Yet, fostering an inclusive culture required more than just the structures and
systems in place. The foundation of this model was effective institutional leadership. Effective
institutional leadership with a commitment to fostering an inclusive for students with disabilities
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 74

implemented the critical structures and systems needed to effectuate change while
simultaneously creating sustainability by changing the collegiate culture.
The experiences of these eleven students were instructive for currently identified and
non-identified students with disabilities in higher education. Accordingly, all students were
asked to share their experiences navigating their schooling with a disability, supports they
experienced, and strategies they developed and utilized to persist and succeed in college. This
chapter introduced the intricate details about the study’s students, and the results of the inquiry
were presented and organized by the research questions.
To discern how students with LD navigated and persisted through obstacles in college, two
research questions were defined to frame the study. Thus, a related participant interview protocol
was generated from the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to the persistence and
success of students with LD in collegiate environments?
2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support students
with disabilities in postsecondary education?
Data collection occurred via semi-structured interviews with students. After a brief
introduction of the students, the study’s findings were presented in alignment with the
corresponding research questions.
Participant Profiles
Eleven students were purposefully selected for this study via an online bulletin posting
which sought students diagnosed with a learning disability in elementary, secondary, or
postsecondary schooling. For this study, success was defined as the perceived achievement of a
student diagnosed with a disability while also balancing and navigating the perceived and
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 75

documented obstacles in postsecondary education. All students agreed to take part in a recorded
in-person interview.
All eleven students were either undergraduate or graduate students at Naples University.
Students’ ages range from late teens to mid-twenties, and their attendance at the current
institution ranged from 1 semester to 4 years (Table 3). Students’ GPA ranged from 2.9 to 4.0.
The next section provides a brief snapshot of each participant and his or her experiences living
with a disability.
Table 3
Participant Overview
Pseudonym Classification Age
Grade of
Initial
Diagnosis
Eligibility
Total
Semesters
Enrolled at
Naples
University
Ethnicity GPA
Wendy Graduate 23 College Dyslexia 1 White 3.9
Susan Senior 22 9
th
LD 6 White 3.5
Teresa Sophomore 19 3
rd

Dyslexia,
Dysgraphia,
Dyscalculia
3 White 3.15
Blaine Freshmen 19 1
st

Dyslexia,
ADHD
1 White 3.65
Samantha Graduate 25 6
th

Dyslexia,
ADD,
ADHD
2 White 3.8
Mark Sophomore 22 12
th
Dyslexia 1 Persian 4.0
Steven Junior 20 10
th

ADHD,
Depression,
Bi-Polar
5 White 3.65
Elaine Freshmen 18 7
th
ADHD 1 Korean 2.98
Mary Sophomore 19 7
th
ADD 2 White 3.67
Melanie Graduate 25 College ADD 3 Mexican 3.9
Dani Sophomore 19 10
th
ADHD 2 Asian 3.8

The first participant, Wendy, is in her first semester as a graduate student at Naples
University. In her last year of undergraduate study, she was diagnosed with dyslexia. She was
originally from the UK, and Naples University was her first experience in an American
educational institution. Growing up, she described her experiences in school as “very awkward”
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 76

because she was “not good at socializing.” She was an “introvert and very shy” because she had
difficulty “understanding things” or she “forgot things immediately.” She described her love of
karate, figure drawing, and art clubs, but she described her prior academic experiences before her
diagnosis as “very difficult.” In school, she remembered experiencing difficulty memorizing the
alphabet, numbers, and multiple equations. At Naples University, she was part of the Cinema
School, which felt like a “family” to her. As for her family, Wendy felt that her parents were
always “supportive” of her needs and her younger brothers’ needs as well. Her younger brothers,
who were also diagnosed with dyslexia, autism, and a learning disability, were also supportive of
Wendy’s academic needs. Last, in terms of her future, Wendy described herself as “creative” and
hoped that she “ended up somewhere” where her passions would flourish and “people would be
as accommodating” as they were at Naples University (personal communication, December 6,
2014).
The second participant, Susan, had attended Naples University for three years. At the
time of this study, she was in her last year as an undergraduate student. In ninth grade, at the age
of fifteen, she was formally diagnosed with a learning disability involving an unspecified
cognitive and neurological disorder. She described her experiences before her diagnosis as
“generally positive.” Prior to her diagnosis, she was also diagnosed with cancer. This event had a
profound effect on her life. Her “attitude” toward the “whole ordeal” was to “forget about it” and
“not be defined by it.” Therefore, she never mentioned her cancer to anyone because she did not
want to “draw attention” to herself. Her brother was also a “kind of support system” for her
throughout her schooling. Socially, she “never really had issues making friends.” As for her
disability, it was “just a part” of her, and she “coped with it well.” Therefore, most people did not
know she had a disability or believed her when she told them. Last, her hopes for the future
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 77

included getting a job that she “really liked and doing something good for humanity” (personal
communication, November 7, 2014).
The third participant, Teresa, was in her sophomore year at Naples University. In the
third grade, she was diagnosed with a learning disability. She was diagnosed with dyslexia,
dysgraphia, and dyscalculia. Teresa described her elementary and middle school experiences as
“terrible” because she did not learn to read until she was ten years old. Yet, her high school
experiences went “really well” because her learning involved “higher concepts” than the
fundamental skills of reading, spelling, and basic mathematics. She also described herself as a
“very extroverted person” and participated in sports, like swimming, throughout her childhood
and adulthood. She was able to manage herself well in college because of her strong “coping
skills.” Although people perceived her as an extremely confident individual, Teresa believed that
she had created a “fantastic facade” to those around her, and people never realized that she was
struggling in her apartment “to read something.” Yet, by creating a “facade,” Teresa became a
resource for other students who needed advice and feedback because people thought she had
“figured it out” and her “tactics usually worked.” Last, she hoped that her disability gradually
became more “irrelevant” as society advanced technologically, and she stayed employed in an
“understanding work environment” (personal communication, November 4, 2014).
The fourth participant, Blaine, was a first-year student at Naples University. In the first
grade, he was diagnosed with dyslexia. Although he was “good with math,” Blaine struggled
academically with reading and, specifically, foreign languages. At the end of his elementary
schooling, Blaine wrote a letter to himself about his long-term goals and eventually attending
Naples University, which he fulfilled. In high school, he was later diagnosed with ADHD. He
described his experiences throughout his schooling as “hard.” He attended a high-ranking,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 78

competitive public high school in Maryland. Growing up, he played competitive sports such as
baseball, basketball, soccer, track, and tennis. Since starting his freshman year at Naples
University, his experiences in college had been “a lot easier” than his high school experiences.
He described himself as “outgoing,” “quirky,” and “self-reliant.” After college, he did not see his
disability affecting his life “that much” (personal communication, November 10, 2014).
The fifth participant, Samantha, was a graduate student in her first year at Naples
University. In sixth grade, she was diagnosed with severe dyslexia and ADHD. Samantha
described her experiences before her diagnosis as “very organized” and “unfair.” Growing up,
Samantha “didn’t really care about school.” In elementary school, she commented that she was
“really smart,” had a “higher IQ,” and grades “didn’t matter” to her. However, once the work
level started “getting harder,” in middle and high school, Samantha realized that she “had
something.” She also described herself as “hardworking and determined.” Samantha described
her two sisters as “really smart” and “everything they do, they just get.” Although her parents
supported her decisions “one hundred percent,” she believed that they did not encourage her with
as much enthusiasm because they do not want her to “fail” (personal communication, November
14, 2014).
The sixth participant, Mark, was a second-year student at Naples University. He was in
his third year of college but previously attended three colleges for a short duration before finally
transferring to the current institution. In twelfth grade, he was diagnosed with dyslexia. He was
formally diagnosed outside the school system because his mother felt that his SAT scores did not
reflect his true ability. Although he was diagnosed in high school, Mark stated that he did not
“really struggle with school” before his formal diagnosis. He commented that his best subjects
had always been “anything that involves numbers and symbols.” However, in subjects like
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 79

English and History, he found a way to “get by.” Regarding his reading challenges, Mark
remembered mistakenly inserting his own words in a sentence, skipping lines, or reading words
incorrectly. Although he switched colleges three times before transferring to Naples University,
he maintained a 4.0 GPA. Although he did not come from a “wealthy” family, he was always
been motivated to succeed. In terms of his future, he had a “natural drive” for Computer Science
and hoped to be highly regarded and famous in his field (personal communication, December 6,
2014).
The seventh participant, Steven, was a third-year student at Naples University. He
described himself as “always being very ambitious in his schoolwork.” He did “especially well”
in elementary because of his effort and attended a fine arts high school because he was
“artistically inclined.” He studied ballet in middle school as well. In his sophomore year, his
mother passed away. After her death, that incident “put things in two different perspectives” for
him. First, he did not stress as much about his schoolwork and second, he was more productive
in his studies. In the tenth grade, he was diagnosed with depression and bi-polar disorder and
ADHD in his freshman year in college. That year was also “very difficult” because he “couldn’t
focus.” However, after moving off campus, he found his “sanctuary.” At Naples University, he
joined an improve group, which has been the “crest” of his social life in his freshman year. In the
future, Steven hoped that his disabilities would “serve” him in ways because he had a “different
perspective on things.” However, after college, he expressed concern “about being left to his
own devices” (personal communication, November 12, 2014).
The eighth participant, Elaine, was a first-year student at Naples University. She
described herself as a “very sociable person.” In elementary school, she was reprimanded for
being “talkative.” In the seventh grade, she was diagnosed with ADHD and began taking
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 80

medication for it in middle school. In her sophomore year of high school, she was diagnosed
with general anxiety disorder. In addition, in her junior year of high school, she experienced
several “traumatizing events” and “took on a lot of difficult courses and received zero
accommodations for them.” In college, she was diagnosed with a spatial visual processing
disorder. Before her initial diagnosis, she described her experiences in school as “very
frustrating” because she “rejected the notion” that she had any disability. As for her future,
Emily believed her ADHD would “benefit” her in the “long run” because she intended to be in a
“social or dynamic occupation” (personal communication, October 27, 2014).
Mary, the ninth participant, was a second-year student at Naples University. She was
born and raised on the east coast. Prior to attending this institution, she attended a public
university on the west coast for one semester. In the beginning of her eighth grade year, she was
diagnosed with ADD. Her father also passed away that school year. Thus, she described her
experiences in middle school before her diagnosis as “very difficult.” However, that event
motivated her to do well in school from that point forward because she did not want “to let her
dad down” and was intent on “making something” of her life. In college, she had “high hopes”
about her disability, but currently she was experiencing difficulty focusing and memorizing
information. Mary viewed determination and the internet as the instruments to her success in life
after college. As for her future, Mary was intent on “not giving up or settling for less” (personal
communication, October 20, 2014).
The tenth participant, Melanie, was a second-year graduate student at Naples University.
She was recently diagnosed, at the age of twenty-five, with ADD. She described her experiences
in school as “not too bad.” Her experiences in grade school were more difficult than her
experiences in high school. In grade school, she had difficulty keeping focused and had a
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 81

“tendency to ask too many questions.” She reported that her fifth grade teacher restricted her to
five questions a day. She also described herself as having “a lot of problems with math growing
up.” Melanie reported that she had “always been at least a step or two behind everybody else.”
As an adult, she reported that she has “a tendency to lose track of things.” Last, Melanie did not
have any “huge concerns” about her disability affecting her life after college (personal
communication, November 11, 2014).
The eleventh participant, Dani, was a second-year undergraduate student in her second
semester at Naples University. Growing up, she felt that “something was wrong” with her.
Throughout her years in schooling, she “always got in trouble just for talking in class” because
she was “restless.” Between her middle and high school years, she was active in sports, such as
running, swimming, track, tennis, golf, and figure skating, but she was distracted easily. In the
tenth grade, she was diagnosed with ADHD. After her diagnosis, she was trying to find ways to
“cope” with her disability. In high school, Dani had passions and goals that she wanted to
achieve, but when it came time to do the work, her “brain couldn’t do it” and she “couldn’t
commit.” Dani transferred from a local community college from her hometown and was
struggling to adjust to life in a larger educational setting. In the future, she hoped her disability
would not negatively affect her dreams of becoming a physician (personal communication,
December 18, 2014).
Research Question 1: Influential Systems and Structures
The first research question asked, “What are the perceived systems and structures that
contribute to persistence of students with disabilities in collegiate environments?” The
organizational structures contributing to student persistence and success of students with LD in
postsecondary education included a supportive network and demonstration of self-advocacy
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 82

skills. The organizational systems that contributed to persistence and success included academic
and social integration, early identification, disclosure, asking for help, a positive sense of self,
and innovative strategies.
This section discusses structures followed by the systems that operated within them
(Table 4). Based on the data extracted from the students’ interviews, two perceived structures,
support and self-advocacy, emerged as noteworthy themes that facilitated the persistence and
success of students with disabilities at Naples University. Academic and social integration, early
identification, disclosure, asking for help, a positive sense of self, and innovative strategies
cropped up as the systems that have an impact on the perceived structures.
Table 4
Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Naples University
Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
1. System of Support
• Academic and social integration
• Early identification
2. Demonstration of Self-Advocacy Skills
• Disclosure
• Asking for help
• Positive sense of self
• Innovative strategies

Structure 1: System of Support
Support was an important construct to the persistence and success of the respondents.
Troiano (2003) summarized that systems of support, such as parents and family, teachers,
educators, advisors, support services personnel, new student orientation staff, and significant
others were the most common sources of assistance for individuals with LD. Based on the
study’s findings, students with disabilities employed systems of support to persist and succeed in
their schooling. Students utilized academic and social integration and an early diagnosis to
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 83

persist and succeed in college. As Troiano (2003) suggested, individuals with LD developed
positive dispositions because of increased perceived academic and social support. To integrate
academically, student with disabilities communicated with their professors and peers about
course material. To integrate socially, students participated in campus organizations, such as
clubs, to meet their social needs. Next, early identification favored students with the necessary
academic and emotional supports that allowed them to thrive and function in their schooling.
Thus, academic and social integration and early identification are three important constructs to
the persistence and success of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions.
Academic and Social Integration
Research suggests that social and academic integration are important variables in the
persistence and success of college students (Herrero & Gracia, 2004). In addition, social and
academic integration are considered determinants of the likelihood of a student to remain in
college (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Thus, the extent and experiences to which students with disabilities
became socially and academically integrated in colleges had a direct impact on their commitment
and retention (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Accordingly, a student’s experiences with the systems of the
university, as well as their interactions and experiences with peers and faculty, determined the
extent to which a student fits within the institution and the degree to which he or she would be
socially and academically integrated into this new environment (Tinto, 1975, 1993; Deil-Amen,
2011). Thus, the greater an individual’s academic and social integration, the more probable he or
she would persist.
Based on data extracted from the interviews, students with disabilities chose to integrate
academically and socially like their non-disabled peers. Social and academic integration were
important variables in the persistence and success of college students. Based on data extracted
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 84

from the interviews, students with disabilities chose to integrate academically primarily in two
ways. First, students with disabilities interacted with their professors to seek help and
clarification about course material. Second, students discussed coursework with their peers to
enhance their general understanding. In terms of social integration, students with disabilities used
campus organizations to build social relationships with other peers. Thus, social integration, like
academic, was an important variable in the persistence and success for students with disabilities.
Academically, students with disabilities met with their professors to communicate their
needs and sought help about course material. Nine out of eleven students chose to instigate
conversations with their professors. For instance, Mary asserted that she talked with “every
professor” about her college courses (personal communication, October 20, 2014). Like Mary,
Melanie talked to her professors in and out of class. As she remembered, “I did talk to my
professors in class; sometimes out of class, during thesis meetings” (personal communication,
November 11, 2014). Like Melanie, Blaine talked with his professors about his coursework too.
He explained, “I kind of to talk about the stories we're reading in class because I enjoy what
we're doing” (personal communication, November 10, 2014). In order to persist and succeed,
Elaine explained her method:
I end up calculating my grade breakdown. After that, I contact my professor. I usually
say, “I’m interested in getting this grade and I plan on like checking in with you more
often to get that support.” So the primarily source for academic support I get is like from
my professors themselves. (personal communication, October 27, 2014)
Elaine’s example illustrated how students with disabilities utilized academic integration, such as
faculty support, to persist and succeed in college.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 85

Like her fellow students, Dani utilized academic integration to persist and succeed in
college. Dani commented, “I have two professors specifically that have invested energy and
attention to me. And I feel that they really do support whatever endeavors that I decide to go for”
(personal communication, December 18, 2014). She also went to office hours. By doing so, Dani
believed “that’s like showing that I have invested and dedicated and I want to do well” (personal
communication, December 18, 2014). Teresa also utilized academic integration to persist and
succeed in college. She explained that it was an “interesting shift” for her to integrate her
academic needs into her college coursework. She commented, “I have no problem with that
[academic integration] because I am sitting in the front row, and I make sure my professor knows
me because I am going to bombard them with emails and things like that” (personal
communication, November 4, 2014). This also allowed her to utilize any accommodations she
may need “just in case” because professors know her, and she attended office hours “at least
once a week” to clarify any questions (personal communication, November 4, 2014).
Like other students, Mark talked with his professors outside of class about his
coursework. However, he typically discussed only the subjects he was “good” with. Like Mark,
Steven also met with his professors. As he elaborated, “I’m eager to learn as much as I can… so
I definitely do utilize their office hours” (personal communication, November 12, 2014). Wendy
also talked to her professors. Before she came to Naples University, she knew she had disability
and wanted to discuss her disability with her professors prior to starting classes. As a result, if
she had any problems, her professors contacted her to follow up about the coursework, which she
found very helpful. Teachers were also receptive to giving her extra help in class. Wendy
explained, “They [professors] wanted to know more, they wanted to help, they wanted to see
how they could actually help, in the lessons and outside of lessons, to make sure that I'm
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 86

learning” (personal communication, December 6, 2014). In summary, communicating with
professors facilitated the persistence and success of students with disabilities in college.
Peer contact was also an important construct of academic integration. Five out of eleven
students talked to their peers about their coursework. For example, Mary talked to her peers. If
she was having difficulty understanding a concept, Mary would also ask her friends or someone
in class “that seems to know what is going on” (personal communication, October 20, 2014).
Teresa studied “a lot” with her peers for major tests (personal communication, November 4,
2014). Melanie also talked to her peers. She found it “easier” to talk to her peers because she
could “ask them a bunch of obnoxious questions without annoying them” (personal
communication, November 11, 2014).
Wendy utilized her peers in her graduate program to academically integrate into Naples
University. She preferred to talk informally with her classmates about the material. Although her
undergraduate peer group was much smaller, Wendy explained her experiences at Naples
University from a much different perspective, “Here everyone's like a big family in the semester,
and there's six of us so we all kind of talk and it's much more open. So I feel happy talking to any
of them saying: "Yeah, I don't quite understand this in class"” Thus, Wendy met her academic
needs informally through her academic program (personal communication, December 6, 2014).
While some students chose to integrate academically, other students chose to integrate
socially. Joining campus organizations, a form of social integration, emerged as a noteworthy
construct to the persistence and success of students with disabilities. Five out of eleven students
chose to join social activities associated with Naples University. After she transferred to her
undergraduate university from her community college, Samantha stated, “I joined as many clubs
as possible because I knew it would be much harder for me to make friends than it was for kids
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 87

who started their freshman year” (personal communication, November 14, 2014). Elaine also
joined “productive activities” (personal communication, October 27, 2014). At Naples
University, she has joined undergraduate student government, the academic affairs committee,
and the marathon club. Dani became involved with a youth ministry group on campus. As a
result, she also found mentors from her participation (personal communication, December 18,
2014). Melanie also joined a social organization at Naples University. She joined a literary
magazine that Naples University released and has been going to meetings (personal
communication, November 11, 2014). Mark also integrated socially into the culture of Naples
University. He joined several clubs through the university. He joined the jujitsu club and the
Association for Computer Machinery (ACM). However, he commented, “When I join a club, I
didn’t join it to think I wanted to meet people…wanting that too, but I join it more because of the
subject matter, that I wanted to learn more about for myself and I just happen to meet people.”
(personal communication, December 6, 2014). Mark used social clubs as a way to grow first and
make friends second. To sum up, becoming involved in campus organizations bolstered the
continued persistence of success of these students in college.
Early Identification
Early identification facilitated the successful transition of students with disabilities into
postsecondary settings and was an asset for postsecondary success. Early-identified students
have received compensatory strategies in K-12 schooling that fostered their persistence and
success in postsecondary institutions (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, and Hayes, 2009). Students who were
diagnosed early and experienced a high degree of parental support possessed the ability to
effectively advocate for themselves after years of practice and refinement (Troiano, 2003). Thus,
an early diagnosis gave some students with LD an advantage over non-identified peers and better
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 88

prepared them as self-managed learners. However, Troiano (2003) stated that even those students
who were not identified until college were able to accept and understand their disability, had a
strong sense of the effects of it, and viewed it as modifiable. Based on data extracted from the
interviews, students found early identification as a strength in their ability to persist and succeed
in college. Early identification assisted students with the necessary academic and emotional
support that allowed them to constructively thrive in their schooling. In conclusion, early
identification was a significant element to the persistence and success for students with
disabilities.
Early identification provided students with the necessary academic support to feel
successful in school. Three out of eleven students received academic intervention as part of their
diagnosis. For these students, early identification provided the explicit instruction and academic
intervention that these students needed. When she was younger, Teresa described her special
reading, writing, and math programs as “really helpful” to her success (personal communication,
November 4, 2014). Like Teresa, Mary discussed the services that she received as an identified
student with a disability from special education staff in her high school. Mary commented,
I would check in with these specialists and qualified people who would make sure I am
organized and that helped so much. They assigned a liaison that kept track of me
throughout high school and whenever I needed help and stuff they would always be there
for me. (personal communication, October 20, 2014)
Mary’s example illustrated the benefits some students received from an early diagnosis. She
received academic support that helped her persist and succeed throughout high school, which
eventually lead her to postsecondary education. Although she initially “hated it and did not really
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 89

want it” because she wanted to do “everything” on her own, over time Mary eventually realized
the supports helped her in school (personal communication, October 20, 2014).
Like Mary, Wendy received the necessary academic support to help her persist and
succeed in college. She received help in her last year as an undergraduate after her diagnosis.
Consequently, she was offered help sessions, and she spoke to her counselors about how to write
paragraphs and strategies for reading better (personal communication, December 6, 2014). Thus,
the sooner students are appropriately diagnosed, the better off they may be academically in their
schooling.
Early identification also provided an opportunity for respondents to attain emotional
support. Two students reported on how early identification provided them with vital emotional
support. For instance, early identification allowed Elaine an opportunity to develop self-help
skills, which helped her persist throughout high school and into college. She developed skills to
“have more successful interpersonal relationships” and more ways to think about herself and
others. To Elaine, these skills were “very helpful” and allowed her to “frame” her high school
success and the way she looked at her ADHD and anxiety. She acknowledged that she was able
to embrace her differences and disability (personal communication, October 27, 2014). Thus,
early identification helped her find acceptance from within. Early identification also played an
important role in helping Teresa find emotional support. She found “some great mentors” who
really understood her struggles. These teachers were “a really a strong influence” for Teresa
because they were able to help her “harness” her strengths and “implement those into a
classroom environment.” She described these experiences as allowing her to “even the playing
field” and reinforced her smartness. She elaborated,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 90

Which is something kids don’t, it’s not that they don’t need, they need to hear that but at
the certain point like when people keep telling you, “Oh, no you have LD, you are at a
disadvantage” you know at some point, someone needs to step and say, “Wait, you have
so many other skills that in you know the lower grades aren’t appreciated because it’s all
about the fundamental mechanics of learning which is something that I don’t really have.
So, that sort of what she was able to do sort of like, make it more substantial. (personal
communication, November 4, 2014)
Teresa’s example shows how encouraging educators were important to her persistence and
success. Teresa described this support as “revolutionary” for her (personal communication,
November 4, 2014). Thus, early identification provided the development of self-advocacy skills
by helping these students strengthen their abilities and allowed them to view themselves as equal
and not inferior to their non-disabled peers.
Discussion Structure 1
Support is a necessary construct for students with disabilities to persist and succeed in
postsecondary education. First, academic integration allowed respondents to interact with
professors and peers and answer questions or misunderstandings about subject matter. In short,
academic integration was an avenue for additional help for this population. Second, to integrate
socially, students joined activities, such as campus organizations, to connect with other students
at the university. This allowed them to utilize these relationships in a constructive manner, which
helped enhance their social relationships. Third, early identification altered the lives of students
because it provided the necessary academic and emotional supports they needed to persist and
succeed in school. Explicit, academic instruction allowed some students to develop skills they
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 91

lacked in core academic subjects. It follows, then, academic and social integration and early
identification fostered the persistence and success of students with disabilities in school.
Structure 2: Demonstration of Self-Advocacy Skills
Self-advocacy was a significant factor in the persistence and success of students with
disabilities at Naples University. As Lombardi, Gerdes, and Murray (2011) found, self-advocacy
may be the most crucial skill for college success for these students. Because students disclosed
their disability at the postsecondary level, they demonstrated the capacity to self-manage their
learning and academic needs. Some educational researchers suggest the importance of
developing self-advocacy skills at a younger age to facilitate more meaningful transitions at a
later age (Barrie & McDonald, 2002). Self-advocacy was a skill needed by interviewees because
it played an important role in their success. As Cook, Rumrill, & Tanersley (2009) concluded,
students with LD, who developed self-advocacy skills, relayed their needs to faculty, staff, and
peers more effectively than students without these skills.
Based on data extracted from the interviews, students at Naples University demonstrated
self-advocacy skills, such as disclosure, the ability to ask for help, construction of a positive
sense of self, and the development of innovative strategies to encourage academic persistence
and success. First, students disclosed their disability to professors to seek the necessary
accommodations for their coursework. Second, students were comfortable asking for help when
they needed it. Third, students saw their disability as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Last, students were the creators of their own strategies to persist and succeed in school. Thus,
self-advocacy skills, such as disclosing one’s disability to professors, asking for help,
constructing a positive sense of self, and develop innovative strategies were critical components
to the persistence and success of students with disabilities at Naples University.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 92

Disclosure
Disclosure was an important variable to the persistence of success of students with
disabilities in postsecondary education. Foley (2006) suggested that disclosure and self-advocacy
skills were detrimental to presenting the need for accommodations at the postsecondary level.
Past research has identified that the content and timing of self-disclosure were important and
potentially had an impact on outcomes for students with LD (Lynch & Gussel, 1996). At Naples
University, respondents chose to disclose their disability in order to access accommodations and
supports through the DSP. Troiano (2003) mentioned that developing the negotiation skills
necessary to make arrangements for services and accommodations was an important skill of self-
advocacy. Based on data extracted from the interviews, students disclosed their disability to their
professors in order to access accommodations and services available through the DSP. Thus, by
disclosing, students demonstrated their self-advocacy skills, which enhanced their ability to
persist and succeed in college.
Disclosure to faculty members allowed students to access available accommodations and
supports. Significantly, nine out of eleven students chose to disclose to staff. For instance, as an
undergraduate student, Samantha stated, “I always made it clear to the professors that I had a
disability. In short, she was not embarrassed about disclosing her disability. As Samantha
pointed out,
Explaining to someone in academia is not like telling your boss who possible has not that
much education. If someone is dyslexic, maybe they assume you stupid in the workplace
but if you tell someone in the research field that you are stupid. If you have dyslexia, they
don’t think you are stupid, they understand that much more. (personal communication,
November 14, 2014)
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 93

Samantha’s example shows she was comfortable disclosing her disability to her professors
because she believed she would not be stigmatized. Since the eleventh grade, Blaine has been
informing his teachers of his disability. He elaborated,
I tell teachers. Going back to high school, since there was no paperwork in the beginning,
you told your teachers once you started a class and I started telling them in the eleventh
grade. Everyone I talked to was supportive. (personal communication, November 10,
2014)
Blaine’s example illustrates how students demonstrate their self-advocacy by disclosing their
disability to teachers. Teresa also introduced herself to her professors and disclosed her
disability. For example, she would hand them her disability profile because she needed their
signature. This allowed her to take advantage of her accommodations, at a later date if needed,
without resistance from her professors. Teresa started disclosing her disability in high school and
continued into college. She explained,
In high school, I was very good about self-advocating, I did the same thing at first day of
class, introduced myself, told them about my LD. I always send an email out with the
online copy and give them a paper copy of everything. So, high school was very similar
to how I dealt with the college. (personal communication, November 4, 2014)
Teresa demonstrated how she disclosed her disability to educators to advocate for her own needs.
Susan, like Teresa, informed her professors privately during their office hours at the
beginning of each semester. She handed her professors her letter from the DSP that explained her
disability. By disclosing to her professors, Susan remarked, “I explain that’s why I really don’t
talk up in class that much” (personal communication, November 7, 2014). Like fellow students,
Mark also disclosed his disability to his professors. Mark asserted, “My professors know because
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 94

we [students with disabilities] give them a slip at the beginning, that’s part of the program. If
you’re not comfortable telling them then you’re screwed. I mean, who else are you going to
tell?” (personal communication, December 6, 2014). Like Mark, Elaine informed her professors
with a letter that specified her accommodations. Elaine later explained, “I feel uncomfortable
telling my professors, which is why I never tell them exactly, but I do feel comfortable just being
like, ‘Oh, I need special accommodations’” (personal communication, October 27, 2014). Like
other students, Dani disclosed her disability to her professors by presenting them with the letter
from the DSP (personal communication, December 18, 2014). To notify people of his disability,
Steven gave his teachers the “notice at the beginning of the semester” (personal communication,
November 12, 2014). Like Steven, Wendy notified professors of her disability by handing them
her letter from DSP and explaining, “Well, I'm dyslexic. This is the sort of things I struggle with
and here's some things that could help me” (personal communication, December 6, 2014). Thus,
disclosure of one’s disability allowed students with disabilities to access their accommodations
and supports, which fostered their persistence and success in college.
Asking for Help
The ability to ask for help was a noticeable construct of persistence and success for
respondents. Students who sought help were not hesitant when their needs were not met. They
actively sought help from others to utilize needed accommodations or clear up
misunderstandings about curriculum. Thus, respondents were not hesitant about getting their
needs met in school. In fact, it was a necessity. By asking for help, students exhibited their self-
advocacy, which furthered their persistence and success in school.
Interviewees were comfortable asking for help when they needed it in order to overcome
obstacles in school. Ten out of eleven students were comfortable asking for help to meet their
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 95

academic needs. For example, Samantha was “really open” about asking for help from her
professors or peers (personal communication, November 14, 2014). Similarly, Mary was
confident in her abilities to seek help. She commented,
If I have a question, I ask them. I’m not scared of adults or anything… I will figure it out.
If I do not understand something, I ensure I do before I move on. So, I talk to people. It’s
something I do naturally. (personal communication, October 20, 2014)
This example clarified Mary’s comfort in seeking help when she need it.
Likewise, in the summer between her junior and senior years in high school, Elaine made
it a goal for herself to be “more comfortable with seeking emotional help from others.” Elaine
acknowledged that making that goal helped her immensely. In college, Elaine concurred that she
frequently sought social and emotional help “before anything really big arises.” She explained,
“Whenever I think I might need it…it’s prevented bigger things from happening” (personal
communication, October 27, 2014).
Although Dani felt nervous about asking for help, she did initiate assistance, regardless of
her anxiety. For example, Dani mentioned,
When it comes to things, like time on tests or very clear things in terms of equality or
justice, I definitely know where I understand and I know I deserve things, so I’m not
nervous about telling my professors that I need help. (personal communication,
December 18, 2014)
As Teresa also pointed out, “In classes that are for like 200 people, or larger than that,
you really have to be self-advocating” (personal communication, November 4, 2014). Teresa
explained that it was vital to be “upfront” with professors. Furthermore, she frequently emailed
her professors and went to their office hours. Teresa put it bluntly, “I am never afraid to say, hey,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 96

I need help on something.” Teresa explained that asking for help always benefitted her and that
students should “never want to stay silent.” Teresa asserted,
That’s something that I didn’t learn until later on in middle school that if you just say
something, if you say you are unhappy, you say you are struggling then people are lot
more willing as opposed to just angrily brooding. People are really not going to approach
you but if you just say like, “Hey! This is not working” and then I found it’s been a very
beneficial experience. (personal communication, November 4, 2014)
Based on her experiences in school, Teresa learned that asking for help did not equate with her
being a failure. She recognized that asking for help informed others of her academic struggles.
She learned to self-advocate through this process, and it made her learning difficulties more
manageable. Teresa learned to “self-advocate” with the help of a grammar school teacher. She
recalled her teacher’s words, “You are the one that knows you best, so you have to describe
what’s going in your mind. Nobody’s knows what’s happening.” From that experience, Teresa
learned that each time she advocated “things got a little better” and if she asked for help more
“it’s going to get even better.” In the end, she was “sitting in the front, talking to people” and
making sure her feelings and her concerns were “being heard.” Through the years, she gradually
regained her confidence in school (personal communication, November 4, 2014).
For Steven, asking for help was “a shift” of his attention. Although he did not find it
“immediately helpful,” it kept him motivated to continue to find ways to make things easier for
himself. As Steven asserted, “I feel like I have a different perspective on things” (personal
communication, November 12, 2014). Like Steven, Mark acknowledged that asking for help has
helped him “immensely,” and he would not be in college “without it” (personal communication,
December 6, 2014). Wendy, like Mark, benefitted by asking for help. Because of continued
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 97

practice, she felt more “comfortable” asking for help. As she acknowledged, “It [asking for help]
does help a lot. If I'm stuck on something, I can then learn it properly. A lot of people are very
willing to help me with it, whether it's teachers or peers” (personal communication, December 6,
2014).
Like other students, Susan sought help, but she “usually” asked her family first,
professors second, and then her friends because “they might be able to help more” (personal
communication, November 7, 2014). Although asking for help was initially “pretty difficult,”
Melanie managed over time to seek assistance, when necessary. Melanie also mentioned that it
did not make her feel like a failure for asking for help. She stated, “If you keep asking for help,
then nothing bad happens” (personal communication, November 11, 2014). Through this growth
and learning process, Melanie recognized that asking for help had gotten “a little bit easier”
(personal communication, November 11, 2014). As the data has shown, students were
“comfortable” asking for help, which demonstrated their self-advocacy in their schooling. To
summarize, the ability to ask for help assisted students with their persistence and continued
success in college.
Positive Sense of Self
A positive sense of self was a relevant component for students’ persistence and success at
the postsecondary level and was critical to the development of an individual’s self-advocacy
skills. Like Troiano (2003) suggest, students who are diagnosed early may be able to process
their disability in a constructive manner that allows them to view their condition as modifiable
and not permanent. In other words, students with a positive sense of self may also be better
prepared for the challenges in college. Conversely, students with a low sense of self may not be
properly equipped with the necessary skills to handle postsecondary education. Based on data
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 98

deduced from the interviews, students demonstrated a positive sense of self, which allowed them
to overcome obstacles in education after their diagnosis. Forgiving oneself and seeing disability
as a strength emerged as two prominent findings for a construction of a positive sense of self.
First, respondents conceptualized themselves in a positive manner by forgiving
themselves for their past mistakes and frustrations. Seven out of eleven students explained they
were more forgiving of their past and current struggles in life. Melanie conceptualized herself in
a constructive manner by forgiving herself for her struggles. Before she was diagnosed, she
thought she was “careless.” Many times, if she did not write things down, then she did not
remember them. She would also continuously “forget things,” like dates and messages, which
made her feel like an “idiot,” but, after she was diagnosed, her diagnosis provided an explanation
as to why it was so difficult for her to focus on one thing continuously. Her diagnosis allowed
her to speak openly with her mother, and they reflected on events in her life that might have been
related to her disability. As Melanie pointed out,
Before, any time I made a mistake, it was just me blaming myself for not learning from
my past mistakes rather than... It feels like I have a reason for it now. So it's been helpful
to know what the problem was, so I go a little bit easier on myself if I make a mistake.
(personal communication, November 11, 2014)
Melanie’s example illustrated how she “forgave” herself for past mistakes and stopped
blaming herself. By recognizing the characteristics of her disability in past events in her life,
Melanie understood how to navigate her future without her disability affecting her self-esteem.
For example, Melanie stated,
Before, any time I made a mistake, it was just me blaming myself for not learning from
my past mistakes rather than... It feels like I have a reason for it now. So it's been helpful
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 99

to know what the problem was, so I go a little bit easier on myself if I make a mistake.
(personal communication, November 11, 2014)
As Melanie’s example illustrated, she was able to refrain from “blaming” herself for her
academic struggles. As Samantha also pointed out, “Just because you have disability doesn’t
mean you can’t do anything in your life” (personal communication, November 14, 2014). Elaine
also does not feel like she is it a “disadvantage” because of her disabilities. Elaine touched upon
this clearly,
For the longest time, I didn’t recognize like why certain things might be harder for me or
I thought it was all in my head. Thought it was like me not trying hard enough, but over
time, I began to realize that it wasn’t just like me not trying hard enough. “Oh, that’s why
that doesn’t make sense because I actually have a severe disadvantage of processing this
sort of information versus my peers. (personal communication, October 27, 2014)
Like Melanie and Samantha, Elaine learned to understand that her needs did not outweigh her
strengths. By learning to appreciate and understand her disability, Elaine understood that her
struggles were not a result of her lack of initiative. While she perceived her peers having an
“advantage” over her, she understood that her struggles had a medical not an assumptive
explanation (personal communication, October 27, 2014). Like fellow students, Dani exhibited a
positive sense of self. Dani reflected, “I feel like I found more so of myself and I’ve been more
accepting of all these flaws that I’ve had” instead of “not feeling like a normal person” (personal
communication, December 18, 2014).
Steven also saw himself through a new lens. Although it was difficult for him to come to
terms with his diagnosis, he was able to “not blame symptoms on something but to explain it.” It
made him feel less “abnormal” because he realized why he was in a “certain state,” and it also
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 100

gave him “something to manage.” As he expressed, “It [his disability] gives me, it tells me that I
need to start managing myself. Where otherwise, I think that I would be hard on myself.” His
diagnosis allowed him to take control of the events and situations in his life and prompted him to
“acknowledge to take care of symptoms.” Steven felt “strongly” about advocating for himself
and his disability because he did not want others to view him as “socially unhealthy” (personal
communication, November 12, 2014).
His diagnosis also helped Mark make “sense” of his struggles. He remembered,
Like one time, there was this kid in my music class and she misread a word, and, at the
end, she said, I think I might be dyslexic. And then I went and Google, I was like, “Oh, I
never knew about this.” And so, that made me want to go and get tested for it, because I
had a thing like all of a sudden everything made sense. (personal communication,
December 6, 2014)
Mark explained that he read the symptoms of his disability online before his eventual diagnosis
and found out “on his own” about the nature of his disability. Consequently, he had a “moment”
where his academic struggles in reading made “sense” to him (personal communication,
December 6, 2014).
Likewise, Wendy developed a positive sense of self about her disability. She viewed her
disability as an answer to her past struggles. As she commented, “In a way, it made me feel a bit
more relaxed. I stopped being as angry with myself.” Instead of blaming herself for her past
mistakes, she viewed her academic struggles in a reaffirming manner. As a result, she taught
herself “techniques” to compensate for her academic struggles in school. Although she did not
feel “equal,” Wendy still problem-solved and sought out ways for help. Before her formal
diagnosis, she blamed herself for not succeeding. With a formal diagnosis, her life was “a lot
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 101

easier.” Although her disability did not give her an “excuse,” she explained her disability to her
peers clearly, which elicited understanding from them (personal communication, December 6,
2014). To sum up, a positive sense of self enabled students with disabilities to persist and
succeed in their education.
Next, interviewees saw their disability as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. Six
out of eleven students expressed that they viewed their disability as a benefit to their identity. For
example, Samantha refocused her disability in a positive manner. Samantha explained, “I think
that if I didn’t have a disability maybe I wouldn’t be as smart as I am” (personal communication,
November 14, 2014). Like Samantha, Blaine also saw his disability as a strength. He
commented,
I think it’s interesting to know that you have a different mindset than other people…
there was always the thinking outside the box aspect that people tried to give me,
definitely just kind of viewing things in a different way that I thought was interesting.
Everyone wants to be unique. (personal communication, November 10, 2014)
From this example, Blaine saw his disability as benefit rather than a liability to his learning
process. His disability was a part of his character and defined him as an individual with unique,
not deficit needs.
Elaine agreed. Having a disability was not a detriment to her learning or abilities. Elaine
explained that she felt “proud” because she was able to “achieve more than others” even with a
disability. Her disability’s differences made things “a lot more interesting” for her. For example,
she found herself to be “a more divergent thinker than others.” With her uniqueness, she was
able to “brainstorm more” because if she was able to “tie something” to herself she became very
excited and sustained her attention for a longer duration of time. As she concluded, “I think it
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 102

[her disability] will benefit me far more than it will ever like hurt me or like impede my desire to
succeed or anything like that.” As she pointed out, being diagnosed with a disability is “not the
end of the world;” therefore, she was not going to “complain about it too much” (personal
communication, October 27, 2014).
Teresa, like Elaine, viewed her disability in a constructive manner. She realized that she
developed confidence and had many strengths, regardless of her “disadvantage.” She
commented, “Once I was able to see my own self-worth, then I was happier, people wanted to be
around me, I was more social.” Teresa was not “defined” by her disability. When she was
younger, she viewed herself as the “kid with the issues.” As an adult, her disability did not
greatly affect her life, and she did not “think about it a lot” until she confronted challenging
academic tasks in college. As she explained,
I have a very healthy approach to it now, I don’t necessarily view as a disability. I more
view as my mind works differently and especially because I am in the higher concepts of
learning, it’s been so much easier for me to differentiate myself and skills that I have
developed super strongly and people don’t have. (personal communication, November 4,
2014)
From Teresa’s perspective, having a disability was not without its challenges, but it also had its
strengths. Like Teresa, Susan was not “defined” by her disability. She always separated it from
her identity. She also learned to “cope with it well.” As Susan remarked, “It’s [her disability] just
part of me.” Likewise, her “ability to cope” has strengthened her confidence and abilities. Susan
also commented that “people don’t believe her” when she told them she had a disability. After
she was diagnosed, her diagnosis “reconfirmed” what she thought about herself and it gave her
more strategies to utilize what she learned (personal communication, November 7, 2014).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 103

Like other students, Mark viewed his disability as an asset. As he explained, “I don’t
think I would be as good in my major if I didn’t have the disability.” Even though he felt
insecure with reading, Mark stated that he had “an organic passion for mathematics and subjects
with numbers and symbols.” He attributed his good grades in subjects with “numbers and
symbols like chemistry and organic chemistry” to his disability because he would not be “as
good” without his disability. As Mark interjected, “I think it just makes me that much better,”
because some subjects came to him “organically” (personal communication, December 6, 2014).
Therefore, viewing a disability as an advantage, rather than a drawback, allowed students with
disabilities to persevere and flourish in their schooling. To conclude, students in this study
demonstrated a positive sense of self after their initial diagnosis.
Innovative Strategies
Developing innovative strategies assisted students with disabilities in their persistence
and success in schooling. As research pointed out, students with disabilities encounter obstacles
in their schooling (Madaus, Faggella-Luby, & Dukes, 2011; Skinner, 2004). Therefore, students
developed strategies to overcome obstacles and solved their own learning problems. Respondents
struggled in core academic subjects, such as reading, writing, and mathematics. Therefore, they
figured out how they learned best and created innovative strategies to compensate for any
shortcomings. As they became advocates for their own learning, they found ways to persist and
succeed. Based on the interviews, the students utilized innovative strategies to develop their own
strategies to succeed in college. Mainly, they were the inventors of their own strategies. In short,
innovative strategies were critical to their success.
Students were the creators of their own strategies to persist and succeed in school.
Significantly, ten out of eleven students discussed how they had developed their own innovative
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 104

strategies to remain in school. Samantha was the creator of her own strategies that helped her
persist and succeed in school. For instance, Samantha pointed out,
When you are trying to do better, now you have to come up with ways to help yourself
study and things like that. I had never even tried, so, like, now it’d be, “Okay you have to
focus during class.” Focusing just doesn’t mean work. Now you need to write notes or
your notes won’t make any sense. So, now you have to have someone else take notes for
you or like you have to write down important things. Like if you don’t study days before
test, it’s not going to work. (personal communication, November 14, 2014)
Samantha’s example shows she became the solution to her own struggles. Thus, she learned how
to help herself become a better learner. Like Samantha’s example, Blaine also developed his own
strategies to overcome obstacles and persist in college. He expounded,
I've gone through enough school to accommodate myself. I have all the notes from DSP
and I have friends that, well in high school, basically the notes that DSP gives me, I just
ask them for. But the classes I've taken so far, which I hope will continue in the future,
it's one of those things where time is kind of everything and I know if I look at these
notes long enough and if I don't get something I can look it up online and if I just spend
enough time doing that then I will know all the information. (personal communication,
November 10, 2014)
Thus, he found ways to learn the material, even if he did not understand it. As Blaine recalled,
“Since I can't really keep up in the classrooms with the pace of the lectures and everything, I
learned most of the material from just text books reading at home.” In short, he was not defeated
because he found “ways to get around things.” He came up with new strategies, like using
extended time to complete assignments and tests, which were more time consuming. As he
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 105

explained, “It's one of those things where now I kind of have the skill to take a lot more time on
the assignments.” He developed useful strategies to help him with academic tasks. Usually for
tests, he read through all his notes once, wrote all the notes down again, and reread them one
more time. He found this technique “convenient” and efficient for him because reading notes out
loud took too long and pronouncing difficult words was a challenge for him (personal
communication, November 10, 2014).
Like fellow students, Teresa developed strategies to help her compensate for her
academic struggles. For instance, Teresa did not learn to read until she was ten years old. To
persist in school, she memorized books when they were read out loud. If teachers asked her to
read, she read what she memorized. Teresa learned how to compensate for her reading skills
when she discovered audio books, which were “revolutionary” for her. As she expounded,
I found audio books then I realized, if I listen to a book, I’ll learn really well and then if I
listen to a book and read at the same time, I’ll learn even better. So, it’s of just sort of
been like constant trial and error process about finding the best strategy, works for me.
You know talking something out loud and things like that. (personal communication,
November 4, 2014)
From her experience, Teresa developed strategies to help her compensate for her reading
challenges in school. Although she did not “seek out” these strategies and they were not
explicitly instructed, she discovered how to best teach herself.
Like Teresa, Susan developed her own strategies to help her cope with her learning
challenges in reading. Rereading her notes “definitely” helped her study for her exams. As she
noticed, “It [rereading her notes] is really crucial for me to understand. I then go over my notes
after the class once again just to refresh. Then go over the reading again, to see if I can pick up
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 106

more things” (personal communication, November 7, 2014). Susan also learned to budget her
time because it took her longer than her peers to complete assignments. As she remarked, “I have
to anticipate a longer portion of time.” Talking about the subject matter with another individual
also helped Susan comprehend material better because it allowed her to “learn about it or think
about it a different way.” Last, she also made mental notes as she read as a strategy to improve
her comprehension of material. As she explained, “That really helps my process and writing
questions as I think of them in the reading, so I don’t have to be put on the spot in class. I have a
question ready” (personal communication, November 7, 2014).
Mary also developed strategies to help her persist and succeed in school. Although she
took notes, seeing other people’s own notes compared to her own helped her to understand the
material better. She also studied “a solid 3, 4 days prior to a test” and woke up early to do it.
These were strategies she “figured out.” She also took notes, rewrote them, and highlighted them
twice. After writing her notes, she made diagrams and developed mnemonics to help her
remember the material (personal communication, October 20, 2014). Like Mary, Elaine found
study techniques that “work” for her. In short, Elaine found “small ways to make learning more
meaningful” to her. For example, she made “personal and time connections” between material
that she learned and “real life.” She sat near the front in her classes, which allowed her to feel
“more engaged personally with the professor.” Furthermore, she tried to “think about the
material of at least two courses every day.” She was in the habit of familiarizing herself about
assignments that were due at a later date. As she commented, “Even though it may not feel like
you’re doing much, just knowing what an assignment is makes a huge difference.” By knowing
the assignment, it was “easier” for her to start it later. Elaine also explained a strategy she
developed her freshman year in college,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 107

Like you take a piece of paper, write it in half, notes like taking and making sort of so
factual information and connections. So like images, symbols or like the making the sign
of it, interpretations, questions and just factual stuff on one side. (personal
communication, October 27, 2014)
This strategy helped her to persist through her academic challenges her freshman year. She also
used three different learning channels, such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic to help her learn
and engaged at least two of them at all times. Last, performing a small “unobtrusive” activity
helped her refocus her attention and energy. As Elaine pointed out, “I took up drinking more
water as a hobby…And I found that helps your brain and it’s also like really good for like just
kind of refocusing” (personal communication, October 27, 2014).
Melanie developed her own strategies to persist in college. For example, as Melanie
stated, “I’ve been studying enough to know what works for me now.” These strategies included
studying or doing work in a completely quiet area, listening to white noise to lessen distractions,
writing notes on margins to refer back to, or taking small breaks. She also started writing on the
margins of her papers if she did not understand the material. She wrote the “basics of what each
paragraph was saying,” which helped her to stay focused. She also found a “completely quiet”
area for studying and working, and also listened to “white noise” to keep her focused on her
studies. If she did not understand material, she wrote notes on the margins to refer back to. If
needed, Melanie would also take small breaks. As Melanie affirmed, “I’ve been studying enough
to know what works for me now” (personal communication, November 11, 2014).
Steven also developed innovative strategies to help him persist and succeed in school.
For instance, he found writing down “every train of thought” and then rereading his notes and
dismissing irrelevant elements “worked best for him.” However, he clarified that he did not
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 108

“necessarily” write down everything that the professor said. Steven felt “very comfortable with
just doing what comes naturally” to him. He also mentioned that he usually found students and
paid them to give him their study guides on what he should have read (personal communication,
November 12, 2014).
Mark developed his strategies in a different manner. Instead of trying to “solve” his
“problem,” he commented that he “finds a way to get around it” because he read there was “no
cure” for his disability and all other solutions were “too expensive.” As a result, Mark asked his
friends for help summarizing material or to “figure out what’s what.” He explained that students
“can explain it to you in a way that made sense instead of asking the professor.” As he reiterated,
“I just did everything on my own.” Mark also stated that he had “a pretty good feeling of what
the professor was expecting.” Therefore, he posed his questions based on his professors’
expectations and asked them to summarize certain chapters. By doing so, he explained, “I got
exactly what I want” (personal communication, December 6, 2014).
Like fellow students, Wendy was successful at developing strategies to help her persist
and succeed. She used the library “a lot” to have an “academic space” to work in because her
brain would “wander off” or she would forget a sentence and her brain “wouldn't want to focus
anymore.” By working in the library, she could study in silence with everyone else working
around her, which she found very helpful (personal communication, December 6, 2014). Finally,
the development of innovative strategies enabled students with disabilities to conquer academic
challenges encountered in their schooling.
Discussion Structure 2
From this study, students demonstrated four distinctive traits related to their self-
advocacy skills, such as disclosure of their disability, the ability to ask for help, a positive sense
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 109

of self, and creation of unique innovative strategies, which allowed them to overcome obstacles
in education. First, disclosure of a disability allowed students to access the necessary
accommodations and supports they needed in their courses. By doing so, students advocated for
their educational needs. Second, the ability to ask for help fostered the development of self-
advocacy skills needed at the postsecondary level. By asking for help, they received the
academic support they needed to further enhance their skills. Because some students
demonstrated the ability to ask for help, they persisted and succeeded in college, regardless of
challenges or obstacles. Forgiving themselves and seeing disability as a strength allowed them to
see past their mistakes and construct their identities in a positive frame. Furthermore, seeing
disability as a strength helped students re-evaluate their worth in relation to their lives. Last, the
development of innovative strategies also allowed them to persist and succeed. Respondents
cited strategies they discovered foster their learning over the years. Also, these strategies were
developed by the students themselves, not by teachers, to determine what strategies worked best
for them. Hence, by developing self-advocacy skills unique to their learning needs, students
persisted and succeed in schooling.
Discussion Research Question 1
Supports and self-advocacy skills were essential constructs to the persistence and success
of students with disabilities in postsecondary education at Naples University. Although none of
the eleven students demonstrated all ten characteristics, all students utilized at least three of the
ten characteristics to persist and succeed in college. In fact, nine out of eleven students integrated
academically and/or socially and demonstrated at least one or more self-advocacy skills. Some
characteristics affected their respective structures. For example, all students, who talked with
their peers about their coursework, also met with their professors too. However, social
integration may be more dependent on academic integration because those students who
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 110

integrated socially also integrated academically but not vice-versa. Likewise, those students, who
disclosed their disability, also sought help in school. Yet, all students chose to integrate and
exhibited self-advocacy in their learning.
Each construct influenced the other. For instance, integrating academically, an identified
support, encouraged students to seek help, which was an identified self-advocacy skill. Likewise,
disclosing disability to a professor increased that student’s academic integration. In addition,
construction of a positive sense of self influenced a person’s decision to disclose to professors
because these students viewed themselves as individuals with unique needs rather than “disabled
and helpless.” Thus, academic and social integration and self-advocacy improved a participant’s
likelihood of persisting and succeeding in college. As a result, these students were better
prepared for postsecondary challenges and obstacles. Conversely, students with an inability to
integrate and/or self-advocate may be in danger of continually struggling in school and dropping
out. In other words, the more students with disabilities integrate and self-advocate in
postsecondary education, the likelier they are to persist and succeed.
Research Question 2: Implementation of Systems and Structures
The second research question asked, “How are these systems and structures implemented
and sustained to support students with an identified disability in postsecondary education?”
Effective leadership is identified by this study’s theoretical framework as an essential structure
for the implementation and sustainability of an inclusive climate for all students. By fostering an
inclusive environment, effective leadership could prevent students with disabilities in from
failing and dropping out of college. However, a climate of effective leadership was not observed
by the study’s participants at Naples University. Based on the students’ interviews, staff
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 111

development addressing their needs was underdeveloped. Thus, effective leadership was not a
major structure observed at this institution by students with disabilities.
As indicated in Table 5 below, students reported that Naples University lacked one
distinct characteristic, staff development, to establish the presence of an inclusive institutional
culture, which was discussed as a system that has not been implemented or sustained to promote
the persistence and success of these students.
Table 5
Naples University’s Systems of an Inclusive Institutional Culture
Perceived Structures Perceived Systems Structures and
Systems Discussed by
Ed.D. Thematic
Group (2013)
Implemented and
Sustained Systems at
Naples University
Staff Development
Lack of awareness of
services and supports
for students with
disabilities through
the DSP
Faculty continuously
informed of the
unique needs of
students with
disabilities
No

Staff Development
Staff development is critical to the persistence and success of students with disabilities in
college. Troiano (2003) concluded that parents and family, teachers, educators, advisors, support
services, personnel, new student orientation staff, and significant others were the most common
sources of support for individuals with LD. However, Graham-Smith and Lafayette (2004)
discovered that a caring staff was not only necessary to discerning the academic needs of
students with LD, but also to providing opportunities for success by empowering students with
trust and encouragement. Yet, staff development was needed to support the unique community of
learners with disabilities at Naples University. Furthermore, Denhart (2008) reported that the
attitudes of faculty, staff, and other students had an impact on disclosure decision-making and
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 112

methods. Students reported that staff development was needed to create an awareness of
available resources and supports for students with disabilities and to encourage “community
awareness” among this population. Thus, student development was a much-needed component
that was lacking at Naples University because it discouraged the continued persistence and
success for students with disabilities.
Students expressed that staff development was needed to support the awareness of
support services available at Naples University. Four out of eleven students observed that staff
development was needed to support “community awareness” among students with disabilities at
Naples University. For instance, Samantha found a lack of communication about the available
resources at Naples University. As she explained,
If you ask for it, I feel like they [Naples University] give it to you. I think people don’t
know what resources are available. They never offered me a note taker at Naples
University. And then I was like, “Can I get a note taker?” and they were like, “Okay!”
But if I didn’t ask, if I didn’t know that was an option, I wouldn’t have gotten it.
(personal communication, November 14, 2014)
Samantha’s example shows a lack of knowledge hinders students with disabilities from accessing
the supports necessary to persist and succeed. Like Samantha, Elaine described a lack of
“awareness” on campus about the available services and supports for students with disabilities
(personal communication, October 27, 2014).
Like fellow students, Mary found that awareness about disability services at her previous
public university were “better” than the services offered at Naples University, a private
university. As Mary remarked, “Their system was a lot better and organized, and you could tell
that a lot more students there used the program.” She expressed her disappointment,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 113

They had a building with on spot tutors that could help you in whatever class. It was a
clean facility, welcoming. Here, they shove it in some closet in a rundown building, I feel
like there are more kids that need help at public universities rather than here where kids
simply buy their way in here, or they do not exactly need it. They just had a better set up
and help on spot if you needed it. Their notes were always up to date, organized.
(personal communication, October 20, 2014)
Mary’s example shows she perceived awareness of disability services more visible and inviting
at her previous public university than her current private university. As she reflected, “I feel like
state schools are more aware of that aspect of disabilities” (personal communication, October 20,
2014). Like other students, Teresa commented on the lack of awareness of services offered
through the DSP. As she explained, “I wish the disability center was more active in terms of, I
don’t want to say like, getting information out but just sort of approaching the learning difference
community with sort of more resources.” In short, Teresa wanted the DSP to be “more upfront
about what their services are.” She felt other students with disabilities were “blindly walking
through and they have no idea what they need to do or when they do it” (personal
communication, November 4, 2014). In conclusion, a lack of awareness prevented students with
disabilities from accessing all the necessary and available resources and supports available for
this population at Naples University.
Staff development was also needed to create more of a “community” awareness among
the students with disabilities. Three out of eleven students identified a lack of “community”
among this population at Naples University. For instance, Dani wished the university had
established an avenue for students with disabilities to “share about the problems that we have
and discuss tangible, possible ways to deal with them.” Sometimes, Dani mentioned, she felt
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 114

“singled out” because “everybody else is totally normal” and there was no one she could “really
talk to” (personal communication, December 18, 2014). By creating a support group for students
with disabilities at Naples University, Dani hoped that they could ideally create a community
that acknowledged its “common problem and are all dedicated to working on it.” Like Dani,
Wendy wanted the DSP to create a community for its population. As she explained,
It should be a sort of safe place for other people with disabilities, whether learning or
physical, where we can kind of hang out… or just talk about certain things. I sometimes
go to these meetings or these kind of sessions where they kind of tell you how to deal
with disability in the real world… And coming from that, a lot of people wanted to keep
talking about it so to have that sort of safe space, where you can just discuss it or discuss
anything you want or just to hang out. (personal communication, December 6, 2014)
Wendy’s example touched upon the lack of community support among its own population for
students with disabilities. Like Wendy, Teresa mentioned that students with disabilities “could
benefit from even just other people talking and discussing things to help them.” If staff
developed a community, Teresa could “pass on to other friends that are dyslexic or struggling
with similar things” information or strategies that they “never knew about that.” Thus, a lack of
community awareness hindered students with disabilities from feeling connected to one another.
Discussion Research Question 2
Staff development was needed to support the continuous efforts and needs of students
with disabilities at Naples University. Increasing staff development at this institution would
support an inclusive institutional environment. Six out of eleven identified staff development as a
need. The students that demonstrated the most characteristics of integration and self-advocacy,
Teresa and Elaine, also commented on the university’s need for better staff development. Thus,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 115

students with a high degree of integration and self-advocacy skills may be more in tune with the
necessary structures needed for an inclusive, institutional environment. These students may feel
more connected to staff and peers and have developed a healthy perspective about the needs and
challenges in their lives. Furthermore, a lack of staff development may prevent other students
with disabilities from persisting and succeeding at Naples University. Thus, staff development
may encourage more students with disabilities to integrate and advocate for their needs if they
feel their institution supported and validated them.
Summary of Findings
Overall, there were nine meaningful findings in response to the research questions. First,
students with disabilities integrated academically at Naples University with professors and/or
peers. Next, students with disabilities became actively involved in different types of social
organizations on campus. Third, students were comfortable asking for help when they needed it.
Fourth, early identification provided students with the necessary academic and emotional
supports that they needed to feel successful. Fifth, students disclosed their disabilities to access
crucial accommodations and supports. Sixth, students conceptualize themselves in a positive
manner by forgiving themselves for their past mistakes and frustrations. Seventh, students saw
their disability as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. Eighth, students were the creators of
their own innovative strategies to persist and succeed. Last, students expressed that staff
development was needed to support awareness of available resources and supports at Naples
University and to foster a supportive community of learners with unique challenges and
strengths.
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected followed by a detailed
analysis and discussion of the answers to the two research questions based on the literature. The
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 116

findings offered in this study were based on semi-structured interviews conducted with students
with disabilities at the postsecondary level. The summary, conclusions, and implications of this
study are presented in the next chapter.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 117

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Historically, students with disabilities do not succeed like their non-disabled peers in
postsecondary education, as evidenced existing research. Students with disabilities often
experience limited access to and success within postsecondary institutions, which, consequently,
limits their future employment options (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). The importance of
assisting these students persist and succeed in college continues to be a significant focus in
policy. Longstanding laws protecting the rights of these individuals allowed them to enter
college and access the necessary supports, and, as a result, many achieved success by persisting
and succeeding in spite of longstanding obstacles and thriving into their adult lives. However, to
address issues of retention and persistence in higher education, colleges and universities seek
strategies to assist this population.
Students with LD arrive on college and university campuses with varying academic skills
and preparation. Regardless, cognitive and academic skills required for students with disabilities
for success in higher education are similar to those for their non-disabled peers (Foley, 2006).
Nevertheless, due to their nature of their disabilities, these students may demonstrate difficulties
which affect their persistence and success in reading, mathematics, and/or writing (Abreu-Ellis,
Ellis, & Hayes, 2009).
Furthermore, lack of social integration into the postsecondary community may affect a
student’s persistence. May and Stone (2010) suggest that students with disabilities often consider
themselves to have deficient social/social interpersonal skills. These individuals may also
perceive themselves as having less social support that do their non-disabled counterparts
(Heiman, 2006). Feelings of being misunderstood can also have a direct impact on requesting
accommodations (Denhart, 2008). However, students who seek support regularly may be more
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 118

likely to persist through their academic challenges and graduate college (Troiano, Liefeld, &
Trachtenberg, 2010). Thus, greater levels of formal and informal faculty contact may ultimately
lead to increased social integration (Tinto, 1975, 1993).
However, misconceptions about students with disabilities still permeate the
postsecondary community. Individuals with LD are sometimes perceived by faculty members as
having less commitment to academics than their non-disabled counterparts and may not be
afforded the opportunities and accommodations needed for success (Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes,
2009). Moreover, the general public may view individuals with LD as less intelligent too (May
& Stone, 2010).
Unlike their peers, students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions may have lower
self-efficacy and self-esteem (DaDeppo, 2009). DiTommaso, McNulty, Ross, and Burgess
(2003) conclude that a diagnosis of a learning disability can negatively affect an individual’s
self-esteem. Most significantly, college students are less likely to rank themselves as having a
high level of ability (Henderson, 2001). Hence, students with LD, at times, exhibit higher levels
of anxiety associated with academic performance, educational success, and social situations in
postsecondary education than their non-disabled counterparts (Caroll & Illes, 2006; Abreu-Ellis,
Ellis, & Hayes, 2009).
Finally, some students with LD enter postsecondary education with a lack of self-
advocacy skills. Yet, in order to access accommodations at the postsecondary level, students with
disabilities must demonstrate disclosure and self-advocacy skills (Foley, 2006). In order for
students with LD to successfully navigate postsecondary contexts, they must not only possess
expertise of their own disability and needs, but also demonstrate knowledge of the available
resources available at the institution (Cawthon & Cole, 2010). After leaving high school,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 119

students with disabilities must carefully consider the accompanying strengths and weaknesses of
disclosing or not disclosing their disability because self-disclosure is a choice (Newman &
Madaus, 2014). This process is the beginning of the student’s responsibility to self-advocate
because institutions of higher education are only required to provide reasonable services and
equal access to academic programs. A student is solely responsible for his or her academic
success, and decisions about accommodations are determined by the institution on an individual
basis.
Although students with LD experience barriers throughout their schooling, some who
were diagnosed early persevere and succeed in college while receiving little if any support
(Troiano, 2003). The transition to college for students with LD is a prominent topic in the special
education literature, and scholars identified various skills and knowledge areas important for
successful postsecondary transitions. While the focus or intervention is to remediate and improve
academic skills, developing successful attributes, such as self-awareness, perseverance,
proactivity, emotional stability, goal setting, and the use of support systems may signal higher
college success for students with LD (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999).
Consequently, individuals with disabilities who attain success in their personal,
academic, and professional lives are likely to be self-directed and goal-oriented, aware of their
learning strengths and weaknesses, willing to persevere under adverse conditions, and possess a
strong system of family and/or professional support (Skinner, 2004; Goldberg, Higgins, Raskind,
& Herman, 2003). While much of literature focused on the successful attributes of all students
diagnosed with LD, insights are needed concerning the success of individuals diagnosed early
and how they develop innovative strategies to combat obstacles in their schooling.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 120

In short, early identification of a disability may prevent years of academic and personal
struggle and self-doubt. As these individuals grow older, they may learn to adequately manage
the specific nature of their disability both in their academic and personal lives. Furthermore,
these individuals may conceptualize and accept that their disability is not who they are but what
they have. They can also orchestrate the types of services, accommodations, and supports they
need to be successful, which will help them overcome barriers to learning and become
independent, self-confident, and contributing members of society.
This study examined the innovative strategies developed by students with LD institutions
to persist and succeed in college. Integration, specifically academic and social integration,
creates challenges for students with disabilities, but, in order to succeed, students with LD must
embrace both forms of integration. Support also plays an integral role in the persistence and
success of these students. They must seek academic and social support from their family and
friends to endure the struggles they may encounter. Also, a high or low self-esteem can either
advance or deter a student with a disability from embracing the college experience. Last, self-
advocacy skills may play a critical role in not only an individual’s college years but also their
formative life. Knowing what a person needs and how to express it to the appropriate party
serves as a key to life-long success for all individuals.
The purpose of this study was to determine the specific innovative strategies developed
by students with disabilities and how these innovations helped them overcome obstacles in
postsecondary education. In order to gain insight into the innovative strategies developed by
early-identified students with LD, this study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived systems and structures that contribute to student persistence
of students with LD in collegiate environments?
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 121

2. How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
students with an identified disability in postsecondary education?
While many systems and structures contribute to student persistence, this research
utilized social ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) as a guide for analyzing students’
responses. Two key structures, including a system of support and demonstration of self-advocacy
skills, were perceived by these students to support their persistence and success in college. Many
structures within postsecondary education exist, but this research focused on one key structure,
staff development addressing the unique needs of students with disabilities, that prevented
inclusive practices at Naples University.
Data collection for this study occurred via semi-structured interviews. While previous
research on the topic of students with disabilities focused on skills needed to succeed at the
postsecondary level, this study aimed to provide a more thorough examination of early
identification and its potential impact on postsecondary success for this population.
Summary of the Findings
The previous chapter established the study’s findings and outlined the challenges,
supports, and strategies experienced by eleven students with disabilities. It was revealed that
these students persist and succeed in college with specific supports and self-advocacy skills.
Overall, there were nine meaningful findings in response to the research questions. First,
respondents integrated academically at Naples University with professors and/or peers. Next,
they became actively involved in different types of social organizations on campus. Third, they
were comfortable asking for help when they needed it. Fourth, early identification provided them
with the necessary academic and emotional supports to feel successful in school. Fifth, the
respondents disclosed their disabilities to access crucial accommodations and supports. Sixth,
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 122

they conceptualized themselves in a positive manner by forgiving themselves for their past
mistakes and frustrations. Seventh, they saw their disability as an advantage, rather than a
disadvantage. Eighth, they were the creators of their own innovative strategies to persist and
succeed in school. Last, respondents expressed that staff development was needed to support the
awareness of available resources and supports at Naples University and to foster a supportive
community of learners with unique challenges and strengths.
First, respondents disclosed their disabilities to their professors to access crucial
accommodations and supports. Yet, disclosure was a choice for students with disabilities.
Newman and Madaus (2014) summed up that students with disabilities must carefully consider
the accompanying strengths and weaknesses of disclosing or not disclosing because self-
disclosure is a choice in postsecondary education, but disclosing was important because it
allowed students to access services and supports through the DSP. Thus, students persisted and
succeeded in college, even if they encountered obstacles. Unless students chose to disclose,
Naples University was under no legal obligation to support them. Connor (2012) mentioned that
a learning disability may not be obvious to others, so students with disabilities must develop the
capacity for independence. Yet, Denhart (2008) suggested that the attitudes of faculty, staff, and
other students may have an impact on disclosure decision-making and methods. Bronfenbrenner
(2005) theorized that the most direct interaction took place with an individual’s immediate
surroundings or contexts, such as family, teachers, peers and school environment. Thus, the
interactions with students with their professors positively influenced their ability and desire to
persist and succeed. In other words, students with disabilities are active, not passive, recipients of
their experiences in college (Renn & Arnold, 2003). More importantly, they constructed their
own positive college experiences.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 123

Second, respondents met with their professors and/or peers to seek help about course
material. Meeting with professors and peers was important because it fostered the learning of
students with disabilities. By fostering their learning, students with disabilities took proactive
measures to persevere through their academic challenges in college rather than giving up and
dropping out. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) posited that the interactions between an
individual and his or her environment that occurred over time were the main systems producing
human development. Moreover, Bronfenbrenner (2005) stipulated that microsystems, such as
teachers and peers, influenced a person’s reaction to his or her environment. Thus, by meeting
with professors and peers, students were fostering and encouraging their own human
development and success not only in college but beyond. Thus, individuals constructed their
social settings. In other words, these interactions allowed respondents to produce positive
relationships, which bolstered their persistence and success.
Next, interviewees became actively involved in different types of social organizations on
campus. Of importance, participating in campus organizations and clubs promoted the
persistence and success for students with disabilities. Students felt “connected” to their
university and peers. As Bronfenbrenner (2005) concluded, microsystems, such as peers,
influence a person’s reaction to his or her environment. Thus, this positive influence was a
component that helped students overcome obstacles in postsecondary education. DaDeppo
(2009) discovered that integration, primarily social, was a significant predictor of intent to persist
for college students with LD. Thus, participation in collegiate organizations played an important
role in the development of a person’s being (Herrero & Garcia, 2004). Participating in campus
life, such as clubs and organizations, allowed students with disabilities to develop a healthy
outlook on college life and encouraged them to persevere and succeed.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 124

Fourth, students were comfortable asking for help when they needed it. Asking for help
enabled them to conquer challenges in learning and to find solutions to their own problems.
Seeking help, when they needed it, prevented students from failing and dropping out of college.
Although limited research exists on the impact of seeking assistance for students with
disabilities, its importance was still noteworthy. In order to seek help, students must interact with
their immediate environment. Bronfenbrenner (2005) stipulated the interactions between
teachers, peers, and school environment, helped students actively construct their social setting in
a healthy constructive manner. Thus, seeking help encouraged the persistence and success of the
respondents.
Fifth, early identification provided students with the necessary academic and emotional
support that they needed to feel successful in school. These academic and emotional supports
helped them compensate for their learning and organizational challenges by developing
compensatory skills. Consequently, these skills carried over into postsecondary education. Most
importantly, the students were better prepared for the challenges in college because they received
compensatory strategies in their schooling. As evidenced by Abreu-Ellis, Ellis, and Hayes
(2009), early-identified students come to college with more “ample” test-taking strategies than
students who were identified in college. As Bronfenbrenner (2005) noted, individuals actively
construct their social setting when they interact with microsystems, such as their teachers and
school environment. Therefore, early identification promoted the persistence and success of
these students.
Sixth, respondents conceptualized themselves in a positive manner. Rather than
perceiving themselves as unintelligent and “defective,” they “forgave” themselves for their
struggles and past failures. Conceptualizing oneself in a positive manner encouraged students to
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 125

persist rather than give up when they encountered challenges. It follows then, students who
constructed a positive sense of self were better prepared for the challenges in college. Students
learned how to utilize their strengths to compensate for their academic weaknesses and see their
disability as an asset. As Troiano (2003) concluded, students who were diagnosed early in their
elementary school years were able to accept and understand their disability. Thus, construction
of a positive sense of self allowed them a healthy outlook on their schooling, which fostered their
persistence and success.
Seventh, having a disability was exposed as an advantage among the students. Seeing
disability as an asset was important because it inspired them to recognize and harness their
strengths. Students viewed themselves as equally capable as their non-disabled peers. As Troiano
(2003) uncovered, students who were diagnosed early in their elementary school years had a
deep sense of the impact of their learning disability and viewed it as modifiable. Thus, viewing
disability in a positive manner facilitated the persistence and success in schooling.
Eighth, students were the creators of their own innovative strategies to persist and
succeed in school. Regardless of external supports, instruction, and time of diagnosis, individuals
developed innovative strategies to persist and succeed in their schooling. In short, individuals
learned or researched strategies to help them learn better. Students developed their own strategies
to persist and succeed in their schooling, even without external support from school staff or
parents. Yet, as Bronfenbrenner (2205) pointed out, four components, process, person, context,
and time, either promote or inhibit students’ development. Thus, students developed unique
strategies dependent on their needs and environments. Renn and Arnold (2003) determined that
different students elicit different responses from different students in the environment. In other
words, although students developed their own innovative strategies, the interplay between the
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 126

process, person, context, and time influenced the development of these strategies. Hence,
students developed innovative strategies specific to their educational needs. Although research
regarding detailed innovative strategies developed by students with disabilities was scarce, this
study aimed to enhance that research. Therefore, students with disabilities developed strategies to
solve their own problems and self-manage their disabilities. As students became their own
advocates for their learning, they found ways to persist and succeed.
Last, students expressed that staff development was needed to support awareness of
resources and support services available at Naples University and build a community among
students with disabilities. Postsecondary education programs are an important component of a
student’s persistence through college. Key factors that provided student support were services
that develop stronger self-determination skills, teach and support students’ self-management
skills, expose students to assistive technology, and promote career development by providing
internships or other career-related experiences (Getzel, 2008). Thus, staff development could
improve awareness of available services and encourage more students to utilize the DSP. As
Troiano, Liefeld, and Trachtenberg (2010) suggest, students who had higher levels of attendance
in an academic support center had higher overall GPAs and higher rates of graduation. In other
words, if students with disabilities attended learning support centers more regularly, they would
have higher grades and graduate college at a higher rate than those who did not. However, staff
development was needed to increase that awareness on campus for this population. Based on
Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) four components, staff development could encourage the interaction of
students with disabilities to increase the likelihood of their persistence and success in
postsecondary education.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 127

Implications for Practice and Policy
This study focused on the innovations developed by early-identified students with
disabilities to persist and succeed in postsecondary schooling. While much of what was
discussed with students was research-based, the results of this study may be useful for future
practices and policies in supporting this population. Three implications emerged from the
findings. First, the importance of developing self-advocacy skills at a younger age to facilitate
more meaningful transitions at a later age is understated because students with disabilities
demonstrated self-advocacy skills. Second, disability should be identified early in order for
students to receive the academic support and interventions necessary to succeed at the
postsecondary level. Last, postsecondary education programs are an important facet of a
student’s ability to persist and remain in college because students disclosed their disabilities to
their professors. Thus, the study's findings have important implications for educators and
postsecondary institutions.
First, the importance of developing self-advocacy skills at a younger age to facilitate
more meaningful transitions at a later age is understated. Students with disabilities at the
postsecondary level demonstrated self-advocacy skills to persist and succeed. Students
demonstrated self-advocacy skills, such as the ability to ask for help, disclose their disability to
staff, positively conceptualize their abilities, and create innovative strategies. Therefore,
educators must explore ways for these students to develop these skills because they are necessary
to becoming functioning, independent learners. General and special education staff should
investigate ways to encourage and facilitate the development of self-advocacy skills in younger
learners. Educators can model and stress the importance of advocating for one’s own needs, and,
while some teachers may inadvertently stress some of the skills in their students, schools can
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 128

develop or adopt curriculum that supports the self-advocacy needs of all learners because some
students may have needs that have not been properly identified. Thus, students with disabilities,
who have been explicitly taught these skills earlier in life, may be better prepared to advocate for
themselves later in postsecondary institutions.
Second, early identification is critical to the success at the postsecondary level. Based on
the study’s fourth finding, early identification provided students with the necessary academic
support to feel successful in school. Therefore, students should be diagnosed before college, so
they can receive critical support and intervention at the elementary and secondary levels.
Educators must be cognizant of the unique academic needs of this population in order to properly
provide academic intervention and instruction. If students demonstrate academic difficulties
early in their schooling, educators can step in to not only remediate but also provide explicit
instruction and intervention that will help these learners develop academic skills comparable to
those of their non-disabled peers. Thus, with increased academic skills, students with disabilities
will persist and succeed in college.
Last, postsecondary education programs are an important facet of a student’s persistence
through college. Getzel (2008) identified key factors that provide student support, such as
services that develop stronger self-determination skills, teach and support students’ self-
management skills, expose students to assistive technology, and promote career development by
providing internships or other career-related experiences. In addition, as Holzer et al. (2009)
suggest, explicit test-taking strategy instruction for college students with LD may also reduce
anxiety and facilitate effective academic intervention for this population. Postsecondary
institutions, such as Naples University, can investigate their own programs to identify the
consistent or needed components at their sites to properly support and assist these learners. In
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 129

this study, students mainly utilized their accommodations at this university, but students may not
be aware of other available key supports or services at Naples University. It follows that this
student population might not have fully used the university’s resources to the extent they were
available because of a lack of awareness (Cawthon and Cole, 2010). Thus, an education program
may help these learners develop academic skills that they may lack and provide them with the
necessary supports that will help sustain them well-beyond their college years.
Recommendations for Further Research
In order to establish noteworthy findings that identify the systems and structures that
support early-identified students in their schooling, additional studies, focusing on identified
methodologies, are needed. Three recommendations will improve the study’s validity and
reliability factors. First, the significance of parental support in the lives of early-identified
students should be investigated further. Second, quantitative data that investigates the level to
which students with disabilities utilize different accommodations and supports at Naples
University is an area for exploration. Last, examination of early-identified students in elementary
school and the innovations they specifically develop to persist and succeed in their schooling is a
topic that could extend this study. Thus, these three recommendations will add significant
information and insights and further the research to this existing study.
First, the ability to persist and succeed in postsecondary education may be linked to the
amount of parental support students with disabilities received. Participants reported receiving
various levels of parental support throughout their schooling. If students received a high-level of
parental support, they may be more prepared to overcome any obstacles in education. A high- or
low-level of support may also influence an individual’s ability to self-advocate in his or her
schooling. For example, a student, who was diagnosed with LD early and experienced a high
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 130

degree of parental support, may be able to effectively self-advocate after years of practice and
refinement. Conversely, a student who was identified early but experienced a low degree of
parental support may not be able to advocate for his or her needs. Thus, an early diagnosis and a
high level of parental support may give some students with LD an advantage over identified
peers with LD with low degrees or no parental support and better prepare them as self-managed
learners.
Second, gathering and analyzing quantitative data related to the different
accommodations and supports utilized by students with disabilities at Naples University is
another area for investigation. Accommodations, such as note takers and extended time on
examinations, were available at Naples University. However, students may be utilizing some
accommodations more frequently than others. Thus, one or more accommodations or services
may be assisting them to persist and succeed in postsecondary education. Naples University
could also investigate why some accommodations or supports are being used more than others.
The frequency or infrequency of use could be related to awareness or a lack thereof. By
quantifying this data, programs at other institutions may be able to analyze or structure their
services accordingly.
Third, examination of early-identified students in elementary school and the innovations
they specifically develop to persist and succeed in their schooling is a topic that could extend this
study. Based on the study’s fourth finding, early identification provided respondents with much-
needed academic intervention. Analyzing the specific innovations developed by this population
could provide additional insights and professional development for educators at the elementary
level. If these students are developing unique innovations, teachers could also learn from these
learners and teach these strategies to other students. Therefore, the innovative strategies
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 131

developed by early-identified students can be a “roadmap” for other students who are newly
diagnosed or will be diagnosed in the near future.
Conclusions
Disability is a condition, not a disease. Being diagnosed with a learning disability is not a
precursor to continuous failure. On the contrary, having a disability is only a segment of a
person’s individuality and complements it. Several laws contributed to the increase in the
number of students with LD accessing higher education. The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 1990 and amended in 2004, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 opened the doors to postsecondary
education for many students with disabilities. However, these laws were only part of the
solution. Now, students with disabilities pave a new landscape in postsecondary education.
Because their attendance in college has steadily increased over the past two decades, students
with disabilities are becoming a visible population. Even though they may experience barriers
throughout their schooling, they acquire and develop the necessary academic and emotional
skills to persist and succeed in schooling, sometimes with little or no help from staff or parents.
As part of this study, respondents identified support and self-advocacy as the primary
reasons for their continued persistence and success. Academic and social integration, along with
early identification, can provide assistance for students with disabilities to thrive and feel
connected to staff and their peers rather than fail or dropout of school. Self-advocacy skills, such
as disclosing a disability, asking for help, developing a positive sense of self, and creating
innovative strategies, are tools that can allow these students to be the creators of their own
success. If they can develop their own systems of support and self-advocacy skills,
postsecondary education is not only accessible but also beneficial for their post-college careers.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 132

Thus, students with disabilities can and will succeed in postsecondary education with the
appropriate support and skills needed to transition from secondary to postsecondary education
and further into their adult lives.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 133

References
Abreu-Ellis, C., Ellis, J., & Hayes, R. (2009). College preparedness and time of learning
disability identification. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 28.
Adams, K. S., & Proctor, B. E. (2010). Adaptation to college for students with and without
disabilities: Group differences and predictors. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability,22(3), 166-184.
Albrecht, A. C., Jones, D. G., & Erk, R. R. (2011). From modification to accommodation:
High school to college transition issues for students with learning disabilities.
Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., & Bolt, L. (2005). Individualized Course-‐Specific Strategy
Instruction for College Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD: Lessons
Learned From a Model Demonstration Project. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20(2), 103-118.
American’s With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, A. § 1201 et. Seq., 29 U.S.C.
Barnard-Brak, L., Lechtenberger, D., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Accommodation strategies of
college students with disabilities. The Qualitative Report, 15(2), 411-429.
Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, T., Tate, A., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Measuring college
students' attitudes toward requesting accommodations: A national multi-institutional
study. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
Barrie, W., & Mcdonald, J. (2002). Administrative support for student-led individualized
education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 23(2), 116-121.
Boulter, L. T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshman academic adjustment.
College Student Journal, 36(2).
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 134

Boutin, D. L. (2008). Persistence in postsecondary environments of students with hearing
impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74(1).
Bozick, R. (2007). Making it through the first year of college: The role of students' economic
resources, employment, and living arrangements. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 261-
284. 0
Brinckerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and
transition for students with learning disabilities. PRO-ED, Inc., 8700 Shoal Creek
Blvd., Austin, TX 48757-6897.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1917-2005. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and
fugitive findings.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 1993, 37-43.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human
development. Handbook of Child Psychology, 2006, Wiley Online Library.
Carroll, J. M., & Iles, J. E. (2006). An assessment of anxiety levels in dyslexic students in
higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 651-662.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 135

Cawthon, S. W., & Cole, E. V. (2010). Postsecondary students who have a learning disability:
Student perspectives on accommodations access and obstacles. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(2), 112-128.
Connor, D. J. (2012). Actively navigating the transition into college: Narratives of students
with learning disabilities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
25(8), 1005-1036.
Cook, L., Rumrill, P. D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). Priorities and Understanding of Faculty
Members regarding College Students with Disabilities. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 84-96.
Cornett-DeVito, M. M., & Worley, D. W. (2005). A front row seat: A phenomenological
investigation of learning disabilities. Communication Education, 54(4), 312-333.
Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York: National Center for
Learning Disabilities.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). the state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and
emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DaDeppo, L. M. W. (2009). Integration factors related to the academic success and intent to
persist of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 24(3), 122-131.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 136

Davis III, T. E., Nida, R. E., Zlomke, K. R., & Nebel-Schwalm, M. S. (2009). Health-related
quality of life in college undergraduates with learning disabilities: The mediational
roles of anxiety and sadness. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
31(3), 228-234.
Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social
integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal
of Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 483-497.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental
support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.
DiTommaso, E., Brannen-McNulty, C., Ross, L., & Burgess, M. (2003). Attachment styles,
social skills and loneliness in young adults. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35(2), 303-312.
Durodoye, B. A., Combes, B. H., & Bryant, R. M. (2004). Counselor intervention in the
postsecondary planning of African american students with learning disabilities.
Professional School Counseling, 7(3).
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975)
(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (2006)).
Estrada, L., Dupoux, E., & Wolman, C. (2006). The relationship between locus of control and
personal-emotional adjustment and social adjustment to college life in students with
and without learning disabilities. College Student Journal, 40(1), 43-54.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 137

Evans, N. J., 1947. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination A key to success in
postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 24(6), 339-349.
Foley, N. E. (2006). Preparing for college: Improving the odds for students with learning
disabilities. College Student Journal, 40(3), 641-645.
Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus. Exceptionality,
16(4), 207-219.
Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people
with disabilities. Baltimore, Md: P.H. Brookes Pub.
Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., Raskind, M. H., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Predictors of
success in individuals with learning disabilities: A qualitative analysis of a 20-year
longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 222-236.
Graham-Smith, S., & Lafayette, S. (2004). Quality disability support for promoting belonging
and academic success within the college community. College Student Journal, 38(1),
90-99.
Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(4), 219-228.
Habib, M., & Giraud, K. (2013). Dyslexia. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 111, 229.
Hadley, W. M. (2007). The necessity of academic accommodations for first-year college
students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Admission, 195, 9.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 138

Hall, C. W., & Webster, R. E. (2008). Metacognitive and affective factors of college students
with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 21(1), 32-41.
Hartman, R. C. (1993). Transition to higher education. New Directions for Student Services,
1993(64), 31-43.
Heiman, T. (2006). Social support networks, stress, sense of coherence and academic success
of university students with learning disabilities. Social Psychology of Education, 9(4),
461-478.
Heiman, T., & Kariv, D. (2004). Coping experience among students in higher education.
Educational Studies, 30(4), 441-455.
Heiman, T., & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education:
Academic strategies profile. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 248-258.
Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities, 2001: A biennial statistical profile.
Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2004). Predicting social integration in the community among college
students. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(6), 707-720.
Hess, S. A., & Schultz, J. M. (2008). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model. Lenses: Applying
Lifespan Development Theories in Counseling: Applying Lifespan Development
Theories in Counseling, 52.
Holzer, M. L., Madaus, J. W., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2009). The Test-‐Taking strategy
intervention for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 24(1), 44-56.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 139

Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with
learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student
perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 678-684.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No.
105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1998) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (2006)).
Jackson, I., & Cunningham, T. (2012). Navigating the postsecondary landscape. Learning
about Learning Disabilities, 355.
Janiga, S. J., & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transition from high school to postsecondary
education for students with learning disabilities: A survey of college service
coordinators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 462-8, 479.
Konur, O. (2006). Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teaching in Higher
Education, 11(3), 351-363.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal
of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.
Kranke, D., Jackson, S. E., Taylor, D. A., Anderson-Fye, E., & Floersch, J. (2013). College
Student Disclosure of Non-Apparent Disabilities to Receive Classroom
Accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(1), 35-51.
Layton, C. A., & Lock, R. H. (2003). Reasoning and self-advocacy for postsecondary students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(2),
49-55.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 140

Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-
generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(4), 409-428.
Lombardi, A., Gerdes, H., & Murray, C. (2011). Validating an assessment of individual
actions, postsecondary, and social supports of college students with
disabilities. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(1), 104-123.
Lufi, D., Okasha, S., & Cohen, A. (2004). Test anxiety and its effect on the personality of
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(3), 176-184.
Lynch, R. T., & Gussel, L. (1996). Disclosure and Self-‐Advocacy regarding Disability-‐
Related needs: Strategies to maximize integration in postsecondary education. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 74(4), 352-357.
Madaus, J. W. (2005). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for students with
learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 32-37.
Madaus, J. W. (2006). Employment outcomes of university graduates with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 19-31.
Madaus, J. W., Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Dukes III, L. L. (2011). The role of non-academic
factors in the academic success of college students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 77-82.
Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Section 504 differences in the regulations for secondary
and postsecondary education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 81-87.
Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2011). First-to-second-year persistence of students with
disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the united states. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 54(2), 93-105.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 141

Martin, J. M. (2010). Stigma and student mental health in higher education. Higher Education
Research & Development, 29(3), 259-274.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
May, A. L., & Stone, C. A. (2010). Stereotypes of individuals with learning disabilities:
Views of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(6), 483-499.
Merriman, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Millichap, J. G. (2011). Definition and History of ADHD. In Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder Handbook (pp. 1-7). New York, NY: Springer.
Muenke, R. C., & Maricle, D. E. (2011). Dysgraphia. In Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and
Development (pp. 533-535). Springer US.
Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., & Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with
learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 97-118.
Newman, L. A., & Madaus, J. W. (2014). Reported accommodations and supports provided to
secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 2165143413518235.
O'Day, B., & Goldstein, M. (2005). Advocacy issues and strategies for the 21st century key
informant interviews. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(4), 240-250.
Ofiesh, N. S. (2007). Math, Science, and Foreign Language: Evidence-‐Based Accommodation
Decision Making at the Postsecondary Level. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 22(4), 237-245.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 142

Olney, M. F., Brockelman, K. F., Kennedy, J., & Newsom, M. A. (2004). Do you have a
disability? A population-based test of acceptance, denial, and adjustments among
adults with disabilities in the US. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(1), 4-9.
Olney, M. F., & Kim, A. (2001). Beyond adjustment: Integration of cognitive disability into
identity. Disability & Society, 16(4), 563-583.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Feldman, K. A. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phinney, J. S., Dennis, J. M., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental
support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.
Ponticelli, J. E., & Russ-Eft, D. (2009). Community college students with disabilities and
transfer to a four-year college. Exceptionality, 17(3), 164-176.
Prospero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,
integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 31(12), 963-975.
Quick, D., Lehmann, J., & Deniston, T. (2003). Opening doors for students with disabilities
on community college campuses: What have we learned? What do we still need to
know? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(9-10), 815-827.
Raskind, M. H., Goldberg, R. J., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L. (1999). Patterns of change
and predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: Results from a
twenty-year longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 35-
49.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 143

Rath, K. A., & Royer, J. M. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability
services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 353-381.
Reidpath, D. D., Chan, K. Y., Gifford, S. M., & Allotey, P. (2005). ‘He hath the french pox’:
Stigma, social value and social exclusion. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(4), 468-
489.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college student peer
culture. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 261-291. doi:10.1353/jhe.2003.0025
Rodger, S., & Tremblay, P. F. (2003). The effects of a peer mentoring program on academic
success among first year university students. Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
33(3), 1-17.
Rojewski, J. W., & Kim, H. (2003). Career choice patterns and behavior of work-bound youth
during early adolescence. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 89-108.
Ryan, J. (2007). Learning disabilities in Australian universities: Hidden, ignored, and
unwelcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 436-442.
Shapiro, A., & Margolis, H. (1988). Changing negative peer attitudes toward students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities
International, 4(2), 133-146.
Sharpe, M. N., Johnson, D. R., Izzo, M., & Murray, A. (2005). An analysis of instructional
accommodations and assistive technologies used by postsecondary graduates with
disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 3-11.
Silton, N. R., & Maricle, D. E. (2011). Dyscalculia. In Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and
Development (pp. 531-533). Springer US.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 144

Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college:
Strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(3), 132-137.
Skinner, M. E. (2004). College students with learning disabilities speak out: What it takes to
be successful in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 17(2), 91-104.
Smith, S. G., English, R., & Vasek, D. (2002). Student and parent involvement in the
transition process for college freshmen with learning disabilities. College Student
Journal, 36(4), 491-503.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2008). Digest of education statistics, 2007.
NCES 2008-022. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Sontag, J. C. (1996). Toward a comprehensive theoretical framework for disability research
Bronfenbrenner revisited. The Journal of Special Education, 30(3), 319-344.
Stodden, R. A., Conway, M. A., & Chang, K. B. T. (2003). Findings from the study of
transition, technology and postsecondary supports for youth with disabilities:
Implications for secondary school educators. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 18(4), 29-44.
Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at two-year and
four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 203-227.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 145

Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the
consequences. occasional paper 1. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.
Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student
retention. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 51-89).
Springer Netherlands.
Troiano, P. F. (2003). College students and learning disability: Elements of self-style. Journal
of College Student Development, 44(3), 404-419.
Troiano, P. F., Liefeld, J. A., & Trachtenberg, J. V. (2010). Academic support and college
success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College
Reading & Learning, 40(2), 35-44.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A
first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the
national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
Ward, M., & Merves, E. (2006). Full time freshmen with disabilities enrolled in 4 year
colleges: A statistical profile. Information from HEATH. Retrieved December, 23,
2008.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive
disabilities three-years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(2), 131-144.
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 146

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life:
Implications for special education services and supports. Focus on exceptional
Children, 33(8), 1-16.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. L. (2007). Self-determination: Instructional and assessment
strategies. Corwin Press.
Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of
students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 21(3), 116-125.
Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. M. (2007). College students with learning disabilities
(SWLD) and their responses to teacher power. Communication Studies, 58(1), 17-33.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 147

Appendix A
Innovative Strategies Study Interview Protocol: Postsecondary Students

Interviewer: ______________________ Date:_____________
Interviewee: _____________________
Pseudonym: _______________________
Classification (sophomore, junior, senior, graduate) :_____________________
Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________
Introduction:
Thank you for being here today. I know that you received my introduction by email. I want to
make sure you feel comfortable with the interview process. At any time during or after the
interview, if you feel uncomfortable with the process, your information will not be used. You
will still receive $25 as compensation.
I would like to tape record this interview in order to have an accurate record of our conversation.
Would that be okay?
Do you have any questions before we begin?
I. Background
Before I ask you specific questions about your experiences in school, I would like to start by
asking you some background questions about your background.
1. How many years have you been in college?
2. At what grade and age, were you diagnosed with a disability?
3. Before college, what have your prior experiences in school as a student with a disability
been like? Can you be more specific?
4. As a college student, what have your experiences been like as a student with a disability?
Can you be more specific?

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 148

II. Integration
I’d like to know a bit more about your experiences in college.
5. Tell me about how you approach joining the academic community. Do you participate in
study groups? Do you talk with your professors in class or after class about the material?
Can you give me an example?
6. Tell me about how you approach joining the social community. Do you join any social
groups? How do you socialize with your classmates? Can you give me an example? Are
there any other students with LD in these communities?
III. Support
9. Before college, what resources or services do you use to seek social support? Can you
give an example? In college, what resources or services do you use to seek social
support? (Be sure to get details on strategies or coaching relating to social skills.)
10. Before college, what resources or services do you use to seek academic support? In
college, what resources or services do you use to seek academic support? Do you utilize
the disability center? Are there any subjects or skills that you get assistance with?
11. How do you feel about having a disability? Have you always felt this way?
12. How do you perceive others seeing you? Academically? Socially?
IV. Self-advocacy
13. How do you let people know you have a disability in school? How do you let your
professors know? How do you let your friends know? Can you provide an example?
14. How would you describe your comfort level in doing so?
15. How do you ask for support or help when you need it? Can you provide an example?
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 149

16. Before college, how do you ask for accommodations? Can you give an example in
elementary, middle, or high school? In college, how do you ask for accommodations? Do
you seek outside support in helping you approach staff?
17. How do or have you selected innovative strategies to do well in school? Can you give an
example?
18. How comfortable do you feel using innovative strategies?
19. What opportunities have you had to learn about using these strategies? Can you give an
example?
20. How do you feel asking for help has helped you? What could have support you better?
V. Future
21. How do you see your disability affecting your life after college? What are your hopes?
What are your concerns?
Thank you for your time and input. Is there anything else you like to add to today’s
conversation? If I have any additional questions or need clarification, may I contact you be
email?

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 150

Appendix B
Letter of Introduction

Date:
Name:
Address:

Dear [Name],
My name is David M. Morales and I am a Co-‐Investigator of the thematic group titled,
“Innovative Strategies for Students with Special Needs” at the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California. I am conducting a study as part of a thematic group;
specifically, I will examine the specific innovative strategies developed by students with LD
and how these innovations helped overcome obstacles in secondary and postsecondary
education. You are cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree, I would like to
conduct an interview with you.
The interview is anticipated to take up to 45-60 minutes to complete. Participation in this
study is completely voluntary and confidential. Interviews may be audio-taped. Interviews will
be scheduled based on your preference before or after the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., or on
a Saturday.
Each participant will receive a $25 as a token of our appreciation. If you have questions
or would like to participate, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your participation.

David M Morales
Co-Investigator
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

EARLY IDENTIFICATION 151

Appendix C
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
Early Identification of a Disability and Its Impact on Success in Postsecondary Education
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by our thematic group studying
innovative strategies for students with disabilities in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California (USC). The data from this study may contribute to research
projects related to the outcomes of this study. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because your institution has been identified as an inclusive institution for students
with LD.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this study because we are trying to learn more about
promising practices for the support of students with LD in postsecondary education.

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to:
• Participate in a 45-60 minute audio-recorded individual interview before or after school
hours

Interviews
Interviews will consist of a 45-60 minute individual interview in a private setting, such as a
closed-door office or classroom. Interviews will be audio-recorded for the purposes of
qualitative data analysis.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort in
completing the interview or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to
participate in the interview process. Interviews will take place before or after school operating
hours, or on a Saturday if preferred.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with
you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by
law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or
initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. However, the information, which has your
identifiable information, will be kept separately from the rest of our data. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
EARLY IDENTIFICATION 152

rights and welfare of research students. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
RESEARCH STUDY TIME LINE
September
2014
• Obtain potential interview students January –
February
2015
• Analysis of data
October
2014
• Identify student students
• Provide all students study information
• Secure consent forms for all students
March
2015
• Share
preliminary
findings
with
thematic
group
November
2014
• Begin interviews April
2015
• Finalize
conclusions
from study December
2014
• Complete interviews May 2015 • Research
study
completio
n

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Shafiqa Ahmadi, JD,
Assistant Professor Rossier
School of Education
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

I agree to participate in the above referenced study and understand that
interviews will be audio-recorded.

____________________________________ ____________________________ ___________________________
Print Name Signature Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand factors influencing the persistence and success of early-identified students with learning disabilities in higher education. Data was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews from a sample of eleven students presenting verified learning disabilities and attending a postsecondary institution. The key emerging themes and patterns were identified from analysis of all eleven transcripts. ❧ The findings, placed in the context of previous research into college success for students with learning disabilities, enabled recognition of a success model with two overarching themes: 1. Supports, such as academic and social integration and early identification, which supported the needs of students with disabilities in postsecondary education. 2. Self-advocacy skills, such as disclosing one’s disability, asking for help when needed, developing a positive sense of self, and creating innovative strategies, that helped students with disabilities persist and thrive in their schooling. ❧ Implications and recommendations for future research were discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Innovative strategies to accommodate postsecondary students with learning disabilities

PDF

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Innovative strategies for students with special needs

PDF

A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty

PDF

Applying Schlossberg's transition theory to students with learning disabilities in the transition from high school to college

PDF

Academic coaching practices for students with learning disabilities and differences

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Students with disabilities experience in higher education online courses: an exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile media

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

Peer mentor curriculum: post-secondary students with autism: success in self-regulation and thriving

PDF

How does the evidence-based method of training impact learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and mastery goal orientation compared to the traditional method of training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu?

PDF

A phenomenological study on cultural taxation and racially minoritized students in graduate postsecondary education

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior

Asset Metadata

Creator Morales, David Michael (author)

Core Title Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2015

Defense Date 03/07/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag early identification,learning disability,OAI-PMH Harvest,obstacles,postsecondary,Success

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email dmmorale@usc.edu,dmmorales@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-548540

Unique identifier UC11298894

Identifier etd-MoralesDav-3291.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-548540 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MoralesDav-3291.pdf

Dmrecord 548540

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Morales, David Michael

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