University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 1

UTILIZATION OF ACCOMMODATIONS FOR LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT
DISABILITIES: THE INFLUENCE OF ABLEISM ON STUDENT BEHA VIOR

by
Isis Stansberry

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 2019

Copyright 2018 Isis Stansberry

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Working on this dissertation was beyond my imagination. Since a sophomore in college I
always knew I wanted to obtain a doctorate, initially just to be called “Dr. Ice” but the thought
kept gnawing at me for years to follow. Now, several years later I have reached this milestone of
my educational journey. I would like to start by thanking the creator for giving me the strength to
start, endure and complete this process. I would also like to thank my ancestors and the universe
for giving me the spirit to and courage to fulfill this goal. As a Black woman, I have faced a
multitude of struggles that others simply may not comprehend. Growing up in a predominately
Black community, surrounded by gangs, drug use and low-quality living standards, at the time I
was considered a statistic, someone who would not succeed and get out of the “hood” simply
because of my geographical location and stereotypes placed upon those who lived there. Luckily,
I rose above those stereotypes as well as a multitude of struggles that not only helped me to grow
and support my community but to achieve something that many believed to be impossible.
I could not have achieved this success on my own. I was supported by an entire village of
family, friends, associates and mentors who were there throughout this process. Thank you to my
mother, Rhilander Johnson aka Mother who has always been my number one cheerleader, always
supporting me and my educational pursuits. My aunts (Cynthia, Debra and Barbara) and my
uncle Myron who have also cheered and constantly checked in with me—again thank you. My
sister, Aziza, who listened to me express many of my experiences throughout this process and
who I hope I have inspired to also reach her highest educational goals. I appreciate and Love you
all.
I would like to thank my Chair, Dr. Tracy Tambascia who constantly encouraged me from
the start and continued to do so even when I attempted to give her a hard time that was only a
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 3
reflection of my own self-doubts. Thank you for sticking with me, your expertise and helping me
get this done. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Alan Green and Dr. Karin Elliott
Brown. You two were a tremendous support. Dr. Green, thank you for understanding where I
come from and pushing me to keep moving, encouraging words and even a few laughs. Dr.
Brown, thank you for all of your kindness, your never-ending support, words of wisdom and
your expertise. I appreciate each of you.
I want to especially thank my dear friend, Dr. Frederick Smith who without him I am not
sure if or when I would have begun this journey. I would like to thank all of my supporters
within my University community, particularly the Office for Students with Disabilities, because
the staff constantly worked around my schedule and stepped in when I reached capacity and
could not do one more task; the Student Support Program, because without it I do not think I
would be where I am today; the Division of Student Life, my mentors, and everyone who in their
own unique way were a part of this process.
To all of my friends outside of my University community, thank you for understanding all
of the events, parties and celebrations I could not attend and for constantly providing me with
kind, encouraging words and support and always telling me “you got this.” Lastly, but certainly
not least, I would like to thank all of the students who participated in this study. Without your
voice, experiences and perceptions this study would not exist. I appreciate your time, honesty,
vulnerability and strength. Also, to all of the individuals with disabilities specifically those that I
have had the opportunity to engage with both professionally and personally, your strength is
valuable, your voice is valuable, you are valuable.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Non-Apparent, Invisible or Hidden Disabilities 10
Learning Disabilities 11
Factors to Consider 11
Theoretical Framework 12
Critical Disability Theory 12
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions 17
Definitions 17
Conclusion 19
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Historical Context of Disability 22
Disability from 1800s-1900s 22
Disability Shaped by the Law 24
Educational Practices and Policies Surrounding Disability 25
Models, Scholars, and Research 26
Disability in Academia 30
Disability Studies 31
Critical Disability Studies 33
Students with Disabilities 35
Ableism 37
Intersectionality and Students with Disabilities 37
Accommodations 39
Retention Rates for Students Who Use Accommodations 43
Learning Climate 45
Classroom Environment 45
Faculty’s Role With Accommodations 46
Student Perspectives on Disclosure and Use of Accommodations 48
Factors That Impact Accommodation Use 49
Critical Disability Theory 52
Social Model of Disability 53
Multidimensionality 53
Valuing Diversity 54
Rights 54
Voice 55
Language 55
Transformative Politics 56
CDT Summary 57
Conclusion 58
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 5
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology 59
Methodological Approach 59
Research Questions 60
Site Selection 61
Population 62
Sample 63
Instrumentation 65
Data Collection 67
Data Analysis 69
Validity 71
Role of Researcher 71
Conclusion 72
Chapter Four: Research Findings 74
Summary of Participants 74
Participant Profiles 76
Emerging Themes 78
Positive and Negative Experiences 78
Ableism 80
Identity 83
Relationships and Support 86
Being Vocal 96
Conclusion 100
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 102
Discussion of Findings 103
Research Question 1: Experiences 103
Research Question 1: Experiences as They Relate To Ableism 104
Research Question 1: Understanding Identity 105
Research Question 2: Factors that Affect the Decision-Making Process 107
Research Question 2: How Identity Affects Accommodation Use and Impacts Access 109
Research Question 2: Student Voice, Advocacy and Inclusion 110
Implications for Practice 113
Future Research 117
Conclusion 118
References 121
Appendix A: College Enrollment of Students With Disabilities, by Institutional
Characteristics: 2008–09 142
Appendix B: Recruitment Email 143
Appendix C: Pre-Interview Questionnaire 144
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 145
Appendix E: Information Sheet 149
Appendix F: Participant Confirmation Email 151
Appendix G: Non-Participant Email 152

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical framework and themes. 57
Figure 2: Participant diagnoses (some participants chose multiple identifiers). 75
Figure 3: Participant class standing. 76
Figure 4: Summary of participants’ accommodation use. 76

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 7
ABSTRACT
This study explored the experiences of students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities in relation to their decision to use accommodations in college classrooms and
whether factors related to ableism, intersectionality, or classroom environment affected those
experiences. Participants were undergraduate students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities who were eligible to use accommodations at a four-year public institution. The
qualitative data gathered by in person interviews sought to understand these students’
experiences from their voices and provide suggestions for practice. The research used the
theoretical framework of Critical Disability Theory (CDT) to understand the history and
perspectives of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities and their experiences in
non-disabled dominated systems and policies. The findings provided insights directly from
participants of their lived experiences within a four-year institution and emphasized the
importance, the need and how to begin to create a more inclusive environment for students with
learning or other non-apparent disabilities. This study found that faculty support was a
significant factor for use of accommodations and overall classroom experience for students with
learning or other non-apparent disabilities which is contrary to findings in previous studies that
identified faculty support as lacking and a significant barrier to success for students with
disabilities.
Keywords: Disability, Non-Apparent, Higher Education, Ableism, Critical Disability Theory

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This study explored the lived experiences of higher education students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities. Using qualitative methods, participants’ lived experiences were
investigated to gain a better understanding of the challenges they perceived with regard to
disclosing their disability and utilization of academic accommodations.
This chapter provides a brief introduction on disability, description of students with non-
apparent and learning disabilities, factors that affect their decision-making process, the
theoretical framework, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
significance of the study, limitations, delimitations, and definitions.
There has been a long history of practices, policies and behaviors that have contributed to
the dehumanization and devaluation of individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities are
often viewed as abnormal (Connor & Baglieri, 2009). It is these attitudes and behaviors that
contribute to their disablement rather than a lack of cognitive ability, appropriate behaviors or
other physical or sensory impairment (Connor & Baglieri, 2009). Attitudes that individuals must
have a mind, body, and behavior accepted by society as normal often lead to degrading and
unfair practices towards those with a disability (Hehir, 2002). This behavior is known as ableism.
Ableism propagandizes oppressive behaviors within society, and most people lack the awareness
to understand what they are doing while others do not make it a priority to change (Hehir, 2002).
In this study, ableism is defined as discriminatory ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies, stereotypes
and behavior towards individuals with disabilities. These elements often produce stigma
associated with the word disability and those who have them. Stigma can be defined as applying
negative labels, using stereotypes that create an us versus them status among a group of people
that can lead to discrimination, exclusion and, in some cases, a loss of power.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 9
Identifying how ableism plays a role in students’ decision-making processes and on how
they view the concept itself is an important element of this study because of its pervasiveness.
Students with disabilities in higher education institutions often face a multitude of
physical, cognitive, attitudinal and environmental challenges while trying to obtain a degree
(Paul, 2000). Some of these challenges stem from issues such as ableism, lack of understanding
the intersectionality of students with disabilities and institutional practices that do not account for
their learning needs and classroom environment. Throughout history, there is also evidence of the
devaluation of individuals with disabilities that carries over into educational practices and
policies (Hehir, 2002). These perceptions are one of the many issues that led to the
implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities to ensure equal
opportunities in all segments of society (United States Department of Justice, 2009). The act was
signed into law in 1990 and amended in 2008, but the battle for equality began during the Civil
Rights Era (Mayerson, 1992). Paving the way for the ADA was the passing and implementation
of the first U.S. federal civil rights protection law for individuals with disabilities: the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, specifically Section 504. Section 504 proposed that no individual
who is qualified for employment shall be denied benefits or discriminated against, specifically in
programs or activities receiving federal funding (United States Department of Education, 2018).
The act was the result of advocacy and challenges to the legal system to eliminate discrimination
and provide equal access and opportunities to individuals with disabilities (Katsiyannis, Yell &
Bradley, 2001).

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 10
Non-Apparent, Invisible or Hidden Disabilities
Ableism and lack of inclusion can also occur when a student has a diagnosis referred to
as an invisible or hidden disability (Weiss, 2010). These disabilities are less visible than other
physical sensory or mobility impairments and may not be as readily apparent to the observer
(Gordon & Keiser, 1998; Gordon, Lewandowski, & Keiser, 2000; Kelman & Lester, 1997).
Although some students may experience self-doubt when negotiating whether to disclose their
disability to the university, the majority do choose disclosure to obtain additional support
(Kranke, Jackson, Taylor, Anderson-Fye, & Floersch, 2013). However, this is often difficult for
students with invisible or non-apparent disabilities. This category of disability is important
because the greatest rise in disabilities on campuses is among those whose disability is hidden
(Gordon & Keiser, 1998; Gordon et al., 2000; Kelman, & Lester, 1997).
Hidden disabilities can also be referred to as non-apparent. This heterogeneous group of
students may have a variety of disabilities, including major and minor psychiatric disabilities,
traumatic brain injury, learning disabilities, including attention deficit disorders, and other
neurocognitive disorders and chronic medical conditions that may interfere with academic
functioning (Kranke et al., 2013). Although these students are eligible for protection under
federal disability laws, similar to those with apparent or more visible disabilities, they may be
more subject to misconceptions and stereotypes regarding the validity of their disability and their
need for protection (Gordon & Keiser, 1998; Gordon et al., 2000; Kelman & Lester, 1997).
Students coping with non-apparent disabilities are a vulnerable population who may face
challenges that affect their success and retention (Kranke, et al., 2013).

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 11
Learning Disabilities
A learning disability is a non-apparent disability whose diagnosis is based on conditions
that disturb, limit participation or impact cognitive functioning and learning (Remy & Seaman,
2014). For a student with a learning disability, their capacity for learning is the same as their
non-disabled peers. Where they struggle is within their process for learning (Kim & Aquino,
2017). This means that the retrieval, expression, memory and organization of information is
processed differently (Kim & Aquino, 2017). According to research, students identifying as
having a disability have been one of the fastest growing groups in college enrollment, with at
least one in three freshmen reporting a learning disability (Henderson, 2001). Sparks and Lovett
(2009) indicated that, in comparison with other disability types, enrollment of students with
learning disabilities in higher education is much higher. However, the transition to college and
student expectations can be especially difficult for students diagnosed with a learning disability
(Trainin & Swanson, 2005).
Factors to Consider
Ableism, intersectionality and classroom environment are all issues that affect how
students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities decide to utilize accommodations.
Chávez and Guido-DiBrito (1999) found that ableism and practices that stem from it, such as
discrimination and isolation, can cause a student with a non-apparent disability to have self-
doubt about their ability to be academically successful. This can also lead to feelings of
inadequacy based on the multiple identities of a student. The intersection of race, class and
gender are common throughout dialogue regarding intersectionality, but, often, students with
disabilities remain ignored (Reid & Knight, 2006; Orbe, 2004; Erevelles & Minear, 2010). The
term intersectionality is one that addresses the relationships among the various dimensions of
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 12
multiple identities that interact, sometimes simultaneously, for marginalized groups (Crenshaw,
1991). The various identities of a student with a non-apparent disability are often evident in
classroom environments because their learning is impacted in this setting. The classroom is one
of the most important areas of the campus community. The more engaged and supported students
are in academically meaningful activities, the healthier the institution (Quaye & Harper, 2014).
Faculty who fail to incorporate information about appropriate accommodations into the
curriculum and have exclusionary attitudes towards students with disabilities can have a negative
impact on these students’ academic success (Quaye & Harper, 2014). In addition, it is equally
important for the institution to provide faculty with information and tools aimed at meeting the
needs of all students with disabilities, particularly those whose are non-apparent (Graham-Smith,
& Lafayette, 2004).
Theoretical Framework
Critical Disability Theory
Critical disability theory (CDT) includes seven components and helps frame the voices
and lived experiences of individuals with disabilities while also addressing ways in which the
non-disabled can help (Hosking, 2008). Seven components guiding CDT are (a) social model of
disability, (b) multidimensionality, (c) valuing diversity, (d) rights, (e) voice, (f) language and (g)
transformative politics. The strength of CDT is that it does not dismiss the actual functional
limitations, impairment or diagnoses an individual might have (Hosking, 2008). It focuses on
recognizing both the social and biomedical aspects of disability. It is important to recognize the
voices and experiences of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities as they
navigate through educational institutions set up to advance their quality of life (Titchkosky,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 13
2003). The voices of individuals with disabilities are just as important as their experience
(Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Often stemming from ableist practices, prejudice and discrimination against students with
disabilities have a significant impact on these students’ ability to successfully engage in the
campus community (Myers, Lindburg, & Nied, 2014). Understanding the needs, individual
characteristics, learning conditions and the campus environment for students with disabilities
should be a goal for all educators (Aune, 1991; Hall & Belch, 2000).
In the 2008-2009 academic year, there were approximately 4,409 two-year and four-year
postsecondary institutions, of which 3,880 (or 88%) enrolled students with disabilities (Raue &
Lewis (2011). By the 2011-2012 academic year, those figures continued to rise (U.S. Department
of Education, 2016). Given the steady increased enrollment of students with disabilities, it is
important for educators to become more aware of ableist behaviors and assumptions that
perpetuate and reinforce prejudices against and create additional challenges for this population
(Hehir, 2002).
There are few studies on students with disabilities in higher education and their
experiences, specifically under the non-apparent disability category (Trammell, 2009a).
Awareness of how variables such as ableism, intersectionality and classroom support play a role
in the use of accommodations can contribute to the literature on lived experience of these
students. Little is known about the factors that influence the decision of students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities to disclose their disability and use prescribed accommodations in
college. Understanding the factors that influence the decision to use or refrain from using
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 14
prescribed accommodations in the classroom can contribute to greater knowledge and improved
practices for educators who work with them.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore students’ meanings and experiences in relation
to their decision to use accommodations in college classrooms and whether factors related to
ableism, intersectionality or classroom environment affected their experiences. Students who use
accommodations are likely to hold similar thoughts and beliefs in regard to using them. This
study explored the lived experiences of these students. The key focus of this study was to better
understand this unique population as well as their perspectives, needs and limitations as they
relate to accommodations.
For this study, a non-apparent disability refers to a diagnosis that can include psychiatric,
learning, medical conditions, anxiety, ADD/ADHD and challenges related to attention. These are
disabilities that are less visible than other physical, sensory or mobility impairments and,
therefore, may not be as readily apparent to the observer (Gordon & Keiser, 1998; Gordon et al.,
2000; Kelman & Lester, 1997). A student with a learning disability may have cognitive,
developmental or processing issues. A learning disability is also considered non-apparent. Thus,
students can have both learning and invisible diagnoses. This study was guided by the following
research questions:
1. What are the experiences of undergraduate students with learning or other non-
apparent disabilities as they relate to ableism, intersectionality, the classroom
environment and use of accommodations?
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 15
2. What factors affect the decision-making process of undergraduate students with
learning or other non-apparent disabilities to use their prescribed classroom
accommodations?
Significance of the Study
Given the limited amount of recent data on the topic of students with non-apparent
disabilities, especially those who are considered underrepresented minorities, this study can help
to counter the narrative that disabilities are not normal (Pivik, McComas, & Laflamme, 2002). It
also provides recommendations on ways for key stakeholders like senior-level administrators
(presidents, vice presidents, provosts, academic deans) in two- and four-year campuses and the
Office for Students with Disabilities at UoD on ways to collaborate with faculty and students
with and without disabilities to promote a model for inclusion and better support their needs,
which may benefit the entire campus community (Pivik et al., 2002).
Furthermore, multi-cultural competency has come to the forefront within the past decade
and is integrated into literature for counseling psychology and other educational areas (Vera &
Speight, 2003). Multi-cultural competency can be defined as “the ability to understand,
appreciate, and interact with persons from cultures and/or belief systems other than one’s own,
based on various factors” (Cultural Competence, 2002, para. 1). Integrating multi-cultural
competency and the intersectionality of disability into research, practice, and training may lead
to a deeper understanding and development of all diversity and how to promote inclusiveness for
all students, especially those who have non-apparent disabilities (Vera & Speight, 2003).
Scholarship on students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions is scarce. There are
some studies that highlight specific disabilities or diagnoses such as autism, physical
impairments such as wheelchair use, and learning disabilities such as dyslexia. However, there is
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 16
not a large body of research that represents the full spectrum of accommodation use or success
outcomes for students with learning or non-apparent disabilities. Qualitative research on students
with non-apparent or learning disabilities is even less available. Most of the current findings on
the effectiveness of accommodations prescribed by the disability support offices pertain to
students with all types of disabilities, but little is known about the barriers to using
accommodations and how educators can consider using strategies like universal design to be
more inclusive of all students. Most studies focusing on students with disabilities encompass a
wide range of diagnoses. Qualitative research on students with non-apparent disabilities, such as
ADHD and learning disabilities, is gaining momentum because educators are beginning to
realize how important students’ voice are in determining their own needs, limitations and barriers
to using accommodations. The purpose of this study is to provide that voice and to engage in the
conversation, supported with empirical evidence, to promote inclusive and open discussion about
disability.
This study is also important because, as educators and human beings, we should not
continue the diversity narrative and not include students with disabilities in that narrative (Hehir,
2002). College and university educators who do not specialize in counseling, mental health,
education or other related fields need to better understand the additional support that students
with disabilities need to obtain their degree. Specifically, students with learning or other non-
apparent disabilities need their voices heard. Appleby (1994) found these students often seek
counseling due to the multitude of challenges they experience caused mostly by attitudinal
barriers. Previous studies indicate that faculty attitudes and some staff, specifically those within
student affairs contributed to the challenges that many students with disabilities faced (Anderson,
1993). However, barriers affecting the success of college students who have non-apparent
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 17
disabilities have not been fully studied (Johnson, 2006). Thus, this study helps to identify
whether the factors and barriers identified in previous research still exist for this population. If
so, the implications for practice from this study provide suggestions on how to better support the
needs of students with non-apparent disabilities in higher education and contribute to existing
scholarship related to this population.
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions
One limitation of this study centers on confidentiality. Because students with disabilities
are protected by confidentiality laws, most institutions do not release student information without
their consent. Therefore, students had to choose to participate in this study. Although it was
explicitly stated in the participant recruitment email that there would be several measures taken
to keep participants unidentifiable, there may have still be some hesitancy for some to
participate.
Freshman and graduate students were not considered for participation. Freshman students
are new to the campus and, with so many competing variables in a new environment, they may
not have been aware or focused on how disability services work. Graduate students who have
previously disclosed and used accommodations may have had such a familiarity with the system
that they were already aware of how to navigate and deal with barriers that arose as a result of
using accommodations. Students in their second, third and fourth year may have already
navigated these variables and have been more aware of disability services.
Definitions
Intersectionality: refers to looking at a student with disabilities multiple identities and
how they come together/intersect.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 18
Impairments: refers to problems in body function or structure as a significant deviation or
loss (World Health Organization, 2001).
Ableism: refers to society’s pervasive negative attitude about disability (Hehir, 2007)
Invisible or hidden disabilities: refers to diagnosis that can include psychiatric, learning,
medical conditions and challenges related to attention; disabilities that are less visible than other
physical, sensory or mobility impairments and, therefore, may not be as readily apparent to the
observer (Gordon & Keiser, 1998; Gordon et al., 2000; Kelman & Lester, 1997). Same definition
as non-apparent and will be used interchangeably throughout the study.
Non-apparent disabilities: See invisible or hidden disabilities definition.
Persons with disabilities: refers to individuals who have health conditions such as
depression, diabetes, developmentally delayed and those who experience environmental
limitations like stigma, inaccessible buildings and transportation (World Health Organization,
2013).
Post-secondary institutions: refers to a college, university, or technical school that
provides education and training beyond the secondary level and will be used interchangeably
throughout the study with higher education institutions.
Students with disabilities: refers to students who have any type of impairment that
“substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such impairment; or being
regarded as having such an impairment” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Life impairment
can include learning and can encompass health conditions regarding persons with disabilities
definition.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 19
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the study on students with non-apparent
disabilities. In this chapter, the challenges these students face were highlighted. The purpose of
this study, to determine what barriers or influences similar to that in past research still exist for
these students, was also discussed. In addition, key terms used throughout this study were
identified to provide a clear understanding of their meanings. Chapter Two provides a historical
overview and background of disabilities, the role of accommodations in postsecondary
institutions, data on college enrollment for students with disabilities, student perspectives on
disabilities and barriers and influences that promote accommodation use in the classroom. It also
provides information on CDT and its impact on this population as well as factors that affected
disclosure and accommodation use.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, approximately 20% of the non-
institutionalized U.S. population had a disability. However, having a disability is considered not
normal (Neuhaus, Smith, & Burgdorf, 2014). American society often views those who are
normal with being heterosexual, Christian, White and able-bodied (Johnson, 2006). Hehir (2007)
further defines normal as assuming that people who are blind should attempt procedures to
enable sight, those who are deaf should use devices to hear, and those with mobility impairments
to their legs should try to learn how to walk. Assuming that having a disability is not normal
creates an environment of ableism, which in short is “society’s pervasive negative attitude about
disability” (Hehir, 2007, p. 9). These behaviors and attitudes perpetuate ableism.
Smart (2009) asserted that the support and advocacy necessary for inclusiveness for
people with disabilities has increased over time. Although there are many advocates, including
non-disabled, people fear becoming disabled themselves. This fear is primarily caused by stigma
that disability is deviation from the norm (Smart, 2009).
To effectively support people with disabilities, non-disabled people should focus on what
these individuals need to navigate their environments either physically or emotionally (Hehir,
2007). Mackelprang & Salsgiver (2016) note that advocacy comes in the form of valuing
differences and avoiding attempts to fix or cure. By placing effort on a more positive way to
support and empower persons with disabilities, one may become less fearful of being disabled
due to a better understating of this population. This may also reduce the perpetuation of ableism
and marginalization.
Marginalization typically results in social disadvantages, lack of power and exclusions of
members in society due to reasons such as race, class, gender or socioeconomic status. People
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 21
from marginalized groups face many struggles, which can be exacerbated by a disability (Cleary,
Horsfall, & Escott, 2014). Ensuring that society, especially educational institutions, understands
more about disabilities and the people who have them, and incorporates consistent practices of
inclusion, may serve to combat the ableism narrative (Darrow, 2015).
The stigma surrounding disabilities in higher education can have a negative impact on
how students choose to identify and use resources to assist them with their learning limitations.
Stigma can result in non-disabled students, faculty and staff behaving unfavorably towards those
who have disabilities. These behaviors can result in the practice of ableism, where students face
discrimination because of their diagnosis. Additionally, the intersectionality of these students can
be minimized. Students often have multiple identities, such as those pertaining to race, class and
gender. The intersecting of these multiple identities can occur simultaneously (Crenshaw, 1991).
Intersectionality is the idea that individuals have multiple identities that create the whole of a
person. These identities are composed of characteristics that are equally connected to the
individual. Disability, however, often remains an afterthought when discussing the
intersectionality of various student identities. Furthermore, those who contribute to ableist
practices and policies are not always aware that they are doing so because society, throughout
history, has been viewed from a non-disabled lens.
This chapter begins with a historical overview of disabilities and the role of ableism and
stigma that have been projected against people with disabilities since the 20th century. The
chapter also focuses on how disability was shaped by the law and how disability was affected by
society and within education. Models of research, specifically focusing on the social and medical
models of disability, are explained. A brief overview of the four main models used in disability
discourse is presented. Disability in academia specifically focuses on disability studies and
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 22
Critical disability studies (CDS). Next is a section on the background of students with disabilities,
ableism and self-doubt, intersectionality, accommodations, classroom environment, disclosure
and additional factors related to accommodation use. Finally, the chapter concludes with a
discussion on the theoretical framework of CDT and the seven components that drive this theory.
Historical Context of Disability
Disability from 1800s-1900s
Devaluation of individuals with disabilities has a long history in many societies. For
example, people with disabilities in Japan were segregated in employment, school, and the
general population (Weiss, 2010). Only in 2011 were laws and policies in Japan enacted to
prevent the discrimination of people with disabilities (Warren et al., 2015). In Colombia,
although not much literature exists on the treatment of people with disabilities, several anecdotal
stories by adults who were teased and hidden as children provide substantial evidence of their
mistreatment (Cuadros, 2005).
Neuhaus et al. (2014) related that, in the early 1800s, persons with disabilities were often
viewed, due to their impairments, as objects to be ridiculed or needing to be cured through
medical treatment. Many laws and policies during that era replicated those beliefs. For example,
in Chicago, anyone with deformities or diseases was banned from public view (Schweik, 2009).
By the mid-1800s, Massachusetts legislation led to the creation of facilities for persons
considered to suffer from feeblemindedness.
Black (2003) says that these types of laws led to the rise of eugenics in England and the
United States, which resulted in the institutionalization and sterilization of people with
disabilities. In fact, the sterilization law passed in the state of Indiana in 1907 was adopted by at
least 28 other states.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 23
It was not until the late 1970s that the U.S. government finally made the distinction
between mental retardation and learning disability (Sleeter, 2010). From the mid-1800s to the
early 1900s, individuals with disabilities continued to be ostracized and deemed unfit for society
(Neuhaus et al., 2014).
Some of these issues remain today, and can be seen in widespread ableism. Ableism, as
defined by Hehir (2002) is
the devaluation of a disability that results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that
it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell
independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to
other disabled kids. (p. 1)
Stemming from the disability rights movement, ableism has been further defined by scholars
Campbell (2009), Hughes (2007), Overboe, (1999) and Wolbring (2008) as the sociocultural
production of ability, a concept that reflects on the perceptions of both groups and individuals
with disabilities. Ableism further expands into the notion of hegemonic ableism, which is defined
as “a set of processes which delivers sociocultural ability preferences and additionally presumes
a rejection of difference and inaugurates particular understandings of valuable ways of living”
(Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012, p. 43).
Ableism propagandizes oppressive behaviors within society. It calls for the normalization
of people with disabilities, and most people lack the awareness to understand what they are
doing, while others do not make it a priority to change (Hehir, 2002). Freire (2014) asserted that
oppressive behavior caused by ableism often stems from oppressed groups lacking the
knowledge needed to liberate themselves as well as their oppressors. To navigate and rise above
oppression, the first and most critical step is to fully realize and understand the causes of
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 24
oppression so that, in time and with change, a new situation can be created that makes the pursuit
of a holistic humanity possible (Freire, 2014).
To understand pivotal changes made during the 20th century, and to create a new holistic
humanity for individuals with disabilities, the term itself must be clarified. Defining disability
can be a complex process because it is an umbrella term used to cover a variety of both social
and physical aspects of a person (World Health Organization, 2011). The most efficient and
understandable definition comes from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability
and Health (ICF) that defines disability as individuals who have health conditions like
depression, diabetes, or developmental delays and those who experience environmental
limitations like stigma, inaccessible buildings and transportation (World Health Organization,
2013). Based on this definition, these impairments and activity limitations are what constitutes
one to be labeled as having a disability.
Disability Shaped by the Law
To provide rights for people with various disabilities, major federal laws created the
foundation to lessen ableist attitudes that contribute to discrimination. The most prominent were
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, specifically Section 504; the Education of All Handicapped
Children (EHA) Act of 1975, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as
amended in 1989; and the ADA of 1990, as amended in 2008. The Rehabilitation Act,
specifically Section 504, was the first U.S. federal civil rights protection law for individuals with
disabilities (Mayerson, 1992). The Rehabilitation Act proposed that no individual shall be
excluded, subjected to discrimination, or denied benefits in programs or activities from
postsecondary or any other school system institutions receiving federal funding based solely on
disability (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016). IDEA was enacted to ensure that students with
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 25
disabilities would receive an appropriate public education designed to their distinctive needs like
specialized classroom instruction, an interpreter or materials printed in Braille, at no additional
cost. It also mandated the provision of an equal opportunity to education for children with
disabilities ranging from infants to students aged 21 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
The ADA of 1990 prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities to ensure
equal opportunities in all segments of society, such as public accommodations and all businesses
open to the public. It was amended in 2008 to include stronger provisions against discrimination
in employment and to focus on those who discriminate versus the individual with a disability and
the nature of his or her disability. It also expanded the definition of disability, which is very
broad and includes individuals who have any type of impairment that “substantially limits one or
more major life activities; a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an
impairment” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016).
As a result of years of advocacy and challenges to the legal system to eliminate
discrimination and provide equal access and opportunities to individuals with disabilities, these
acts were signed. Although these laws were passed, Mayerson (1992) points out that the actual
battle for equality began during the civil rights era. Advocacy efforts permeated all aspects of
society, especially within educational institutions. However, several challenges for equity and
equality remain.
Educational Practices and Policies Surrounding Disability
The devaluation of disability, generated through attitudes in society, has also historically
carried over into educational practices and policies (Hehir, 2002). In many educational
institutions, the ideology of normalcy often leads to othering students with disabilities (Reid &
Knight, 2006). Early educational legislature and practice viewed students with disabilities from a
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 26
deficit lens (Bejoian & Reid, 2005). This culturally based thinking was evident in areas such as
class curriculum and learning environments, where students with disabilities were separated from
their non-disabled peers (Stiker, 2002). These students were labeled as infantile or with limited
ability to learn (Garland-Thomson, 1997).
For Reid and Knight (2006), these policies and practices have led to systemic
discrimination, whereby the practices and policies of an organization or institution create
disadvantages for those from non-White, marginalized groups (National Research Council,
2004). Disability, often referred to as an abnormality, is frequently used to rationalize inequality,
exclusion, and discrimination by hierarchical systems.
Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA, individuals with disabilities are still
considered defective (Longmore, 2003).
Models, Scholars, and Research
The medical and social models began as frameworks to inform how people view and
interact with people with disabilities. These models also helped transition the study of disability
from predominantly medical and political environments to academia. Beginning in the early
1960s, scholars such as Oliver (1990, 1996a, 1996b, 1999), Grue (2011), and Goodley (2001,
2011, 2013) began to look more closely at how people with disabilities are perceived and to seek
to understand their lived experiences. A framework, even one with limitations, can inform
practice in educational institutions and affect how students benefit from additional support,
which can ultimately lead to their academic success (Grue, 2011).
Medical model of disability. The idea of normalizing disability stems from two
ideologies: the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. The core principle
of the medical model is that the individual is the source and focus of their disability, not society
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 27
or the environment (Areheart, 2008). The current discourse within this model is that the medical
language signifies that limitations and bodily complications are common within the organization
and practice of medicine (Williams, 2001).
The medical model, Siebers (2008) affirmed, suggests that individuals with disabilities
have a defect that must be cured or fixed, thus labeling them disabled due their impairments or
differences. It also implies that individuals with disabilities need to be treated with the assistance
of medical professionals. Historically, medical institutions and practices have been the primary
referral for individuals with a disability.
Marks (1997) found there has also been a history of contention regarding the medical
model as it perpetuates the idea that, if one has a disability, one is ill, will become ill, or that
one’s issue(s) can only be resolved through medical assistance. Discussion, diagnosis, and
medical practice have led the way in the disability field.
In the early 1900s, many individuals with psychological disabilities were institutionalized
by medical professionals as an attempt to rehabilitate or fix them (Longmore, 1995). The idea of
fixing or curing certain diseases or conditions like cancer, blood clots, or hypertension, which
present physical limitations or are life threatening, is considered common within the medical
field. However, if the idea of fixing or curing is centered on trying to normalize an individual so
that they are no longer defective by society’s standards, then these ideas become a form of
othering and can have negative and destructive consequences on an individual (Siebers, 2008).
The medical model creates division between people and perpetuates the idea that people can only
be normal or abnormal, healthy or sick, and that having a disability is life-defining (Grue, 2011).
Thus, researchers and scholars began to move away from this model in the mid-1950s, and,
today, the medical model is rarely used.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 28
Social model of disability. Literature on the social model of disability is quite extensive.
The model was first spearheaded by the work of several activists and scholars from Britain in the
mid-1970s, including Vic Finkelstein, Colin Barnes, and, most notably, Mike Oliver
(Shakespeare & Watson, 2001). Oliver (1999) noted that, although the social model contrasts
with the medical model, both ideologies in some ways still contribute to ableist behaviors and
practices, although the social model has taken far more steps to avoid them.
The social model of disability emerged in 1976 from a document that was published in
The Fundamental Principles of Disability, by an organization called the Union of the Physically
Impaired Against Segregation (Oliver, 1999). The union was an early disability rights
organization in the United Kingdom and established the principles that led to the social model of
disability, marking a sharp distinction between impairment and disability. The model was further
expanded by activists and scholars in several other countries including the United States
(Goodley, 2001).
The premise of the social model of disability is to minimize the focus on impairment or
disability and, instead, operate through the world with an understanding that there are barriers
caused by and within society that can hinder life choices for people with disabilities (Gabel &
Peters, 2004; Goodley, 2001; Hughes & Paterson, 1997; Oliver, 1999).
Oliver (1999) clarified that the social model makes a distinction between impairment and
disability. Impairment is considered a lasting or permanent limitation of mental, sensory, or
physical function. Disability, on the other hand, is viewed as the inability or lack of opportunity
to participate in normal daily life activities, within the environment, on an equal level to that of
non-disabled counterparts due to social and physical barriers. The social model does not focus on
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 29
individuals with disabilities making personal changes or adjusting to their environment but,
instead, on modifying the environment so that it is barrier-free.
This model emphasizes the idea that exclusion and oppression of those with disabilities
are socially produced (Hughes & Paterson, 1997). Advocates for the social model suggest that
modifications to the environment benefits anyone with mobility impairments versus
individualized modifications that only benefit the select few that have access to it (Oliver, 1999).
This idea spurred debate among researchers and scholars alike. Dialogues in these
debates are a mix of social responsibility, politics, the function of the body, and impairment
(Hughes & Paterson, 1997).
For Gabel and Peters (2004), the social model set a precedent for how society should
participate and respond when interacting with individuals with disabilities. This model led to the
emergence of disability studies. However, during the early 2000s, many scholars began to
critique and debate the social model. Some scholars believe that the social model is key in
determining practice, politics, and understanding for individuals with disabilities. Others view it
as lacking the critical lens necessary to advance support for people with disabilities and include
their viewpoints in the advancement of said support (Hughes & Paterson, 1997).

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 30
Table 1
Comparisons Between the Medical and Social Models of Disability Discourse
Source: Haegele and Hodge (2016)
Disability in Academia
The debate among scholars on the social model continues today, specifically between
disability studies and CDS, two schools of thought prominent in the literature. Disability studies
Topic Medical Model Social Model
What is disability? An individual or medical
phenomenon that results from
impairments in body functions or
structures; a deficiency or
abnormality
A social construct that is
imposed on top of impairments
by society; a difference
Access to treatment
or services
Referral by diagnosis Self-referral, experience driven

Targets of
interventions
“Fixing” the disability to the greatest
extent possible; “normalizing “
Social or political change in an
effort to decrease environmental
barriers and increase levels of
understanding

Outcome of
interventions
Normalized function; functioning
member of existing society
Self-advocacy, changes in
environment and understanding,
social inclusion

The agent of
remedy

The professional
Can be the individual, an
advocate, or anyone who
positively affects the
arrangements between the
individual and society
Effects on
individuals who are
typically
functioning
Society remains the same Society evolves to be more
inclusive

Perceptions toward
individuals with
disabilities
The individual is faulty The individual is unique

Cognitive authority
Scientists and doctors
Academics and advocates with
disabilities

Perception of
disability
Being disabled is negative
Being disabled, in itself, is
neither positive nor negative
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 31
(DS) is an academic discipline that is research-oriented, focusing on elements of disability as a
social construct. Researchers of DS advocate for and assist students with disabilities obtain
access derived from political funding and state and federal legislation, specifically stemming
from the civil rights movement to improve their quality of life (Winter, 2003).
Expanding DS to include systemic and social constructs regarding disability, CDS
simultaneously extends these elements into critical discussions centered on impairments and
disablement (Goodley, 2013). In addition, CDS provided the fundamental framework that helped
to guide researchers and scholars discussing and trying to understand people with disabilities.
This foundation helped guide this study by providing insights on how to view the area of
disabilities through a political, societal and educational lens.
Disability Studies
Disability studies (DS), formally established in 1982, has grown dramatically and
continues to be a focal point in the study of disability (Ferguson & Nusbaum, 2012). A diverse
and changing field compared to or often contextualized with gender, ethnic and race studies, DS
explores various approaches to differences among human beings (Ferguson & Nusbaum, 2012).
Also, DS examines societal issues regarding disabilities in the realm of scholarship (Linton,
2005; Reid & Knight, 2006).
Linton (2005) has proposed that research within DS helps to integrate people with
disabilities into society so that their lives, culture, successes, and representations are highlighted
in the same way as those of non-disabled people. Much like the social model, DS aims to
highlight the societal and systemic structures that interfere with ability to navigate through
society. Within DS, Linton has asserted that the focus shifts from examining deficits an
individual with a disability might have to deficits created by the environment, including
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 32
institutional organizations. Another strong purpose of DS is to bring the voices and experiences
of people with disabilities into curriculum.
Within educational systems, DS is used to examine curriculum and educational
structures. DS provides analysis on the discrepancy between the overrepresentation of students
with disabilities in the K-12 system and their underrepresentation in higher education; this is
important because “normal” is often used to label and describe students (Reid & Knight, 2006).
Not viewing a student with a disability as normal within any level in the educational system can
lead to ableist behavior from educators and peers and to challenges for these students (Reid &
Knight, 2006). Davis (1997), Ballard (2004) and Barton (2004) have noted that DS helps to
challenge the idea of normalcy and uncover the history behind labels used in educational policies
and institutions in order to transition from that type of thinking and those types of processes.
Four models of disability studies. There are four models of DS that help to create the
foundation of dialogue within discourse analysis and disability: social, medical, minority, and
gap. Barnes, Mercer, and Shakespeare (1999) and Oliver (1990, 1996a, 1996b) explained that the
social model began discourse analysis by describing disability from the view that political and
economic oppression was enacted upon people whose bodies did not fulfill the necessities of
industrial capitalism. After years of analysis, the social model refocused and began to look at the
systemic features that contributed to the way that disability was interpreted (Grue, 2011).
Colker (2005), Davis (2002), and Krieger (2003) found that the minority model brings
cultural otherness to the forefront. It appeals to people who identify with their biological
difference and consider it an appreciated part of their identity and not something to be cured or
improved. These small populations of people, who may be considered disabled, do not view
themselves as non-disabled.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 33
Grue (2011) asserted most disability discourse is dismissive of the medical model. One of
the primary reasons it is often dismissed is its history perpetuating the inhumane treatment faced
by people with disabilities in medical facilities. Within the model, medical professionals have
dominant power while disability is reduced to bodily impairment. The individual must seek
treatment to normalize through medical assistance (Siebers, 2008).
The work of Grue (2011) further helps in understanding that the gap model is not widely
used and does not fit into any specific category within the models. It simply exists under the
notion that large portions of the population will, at any given time, experience or have an
impairment or disability creating functional limitation. The ‘gap’ is the in-between of capacities
and opportunities when dealing with disability. The gap recommends that all aspects, political,
medical, commercial entities, educational institutions, and so on, be examined when addressing
disability.
Critical Disability Studies
A new approach to studying disability is CDS. Goodley (2013) posited that CDS shifts
theorizing past the social model and explores disability and impairment through critical analysis.
The word “critical” signifies self-assessment and the reexamination of where the field began,
where it is now and where it is headed. Other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology,
have been influenced by CDS.
One of the first academics and prominent researchers on disability studies, Corker (1998,
1999), transitioned from DS and helped to lay the foundation of CDS (Vehmas & Watson, 2014).
The studies of Garland-Thomson (2005), Goodley (2011), and of Roets and Braidotti
(2012) show that through hegemonic dialogues and practices, impairment is often referred to as
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 34
either a personal or environmental issue. CDS seeks to explore this social phenomenon by
recognizing and recapturing impaired bodies, both individually and socially.
For Vehmas and Watson (2014), a dominant idea in conventional studies on disability is
that achieving physical well-being and material possessions are key goals for quality of life. In
the last decade, CDS has sought to challenge this idea. To do this, researchers refocused efforts
on the simultaneous inclusion of physical, spiritual, and intellectual pursuits.
Vehmas and Watson (2014) further suggested that CDS created the space to develop
theory from an intersectional lens because it often includes dialogue focused on disability and
impairment along with race, class, gender, sexual orientation and identity. In fact, the ideas
developed within CDS draw upon concepts from these various areas of difference.
The work of Campbell (2008), a leading disability studies researcher and theorist, has
strong and across-the-board influence in CDS because it provides examples of how to analyze
CDS and intersectionality. Campbell focuses on shifting the narrative of the other, such as
problems of disablism, to problems of ableism. The intersection occurs when those with
disabilities become marginalized and otherness becomes the focus more so than their other
identities.
CDS seeks to challenge hybridized forms of oppression and discrimination of disability
often recognized as a singular issue. CDS affirms that the body matters (Meekosha &
Shuttleworth, 2016), and false narratives of disability threaten to dis-embody the disabled body
and make the disabled individual invisible (McGuire, 2010). Thus, the purpose of CDS is to help
reclaim the person from a position of other and challenge the normative perceptions of able
bodies (Goodley, 2013). This challenge resonates throughout CDS literature (Vehmas & Watson,
2014).
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 35
Olkin (2002) and Goodley (2013) have argued that CDS is characterized by its active
approach to influence allies while refusing to be ignored by them, both politically and
theoretically. One of the goals of CDS is to create a transformed, more instinctive approach by
breaking down the contrast between impaired and non-impaired dualism.
Vehmas and Watson (2014) pointed out that CDS seeks to further understanding of how
these dualisms caused contention and masked connections between people with and without
impairments; and that another purpose of CDS is to help disrupt the assumption-based narrative
about disability and deconstruct misperceived ideas about what disability is as well as how
ideologies regarding disability were shaped.
Students with Disabilities
In the early history of American higher education, institutions were established to educate
elite members of society (Kerr, 2001). However, in response to societal need, legislative changes
and an overall demand for public access, higher education institutions shifted (Kerr, 2001;
Stanley, 2000). Today, there are approximately 4,700 higher education institutions in the United
States with a wide array of students enrolled (Bess & Dee, 2008; National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2018. These institutions range from private to public, 2-year to 4-year, degree
and non-degree granting institutions (NCES, 2018). In addition to changes in infrastructure, the
American higher education system saw significant changes in student population, including
increased enrollment of students with disabilities (Stanley, 2000).
Hughes and Smith (1990) provided historical context showing that for over the past 20
years, researchers have gained a better understanding of the needs of students with disabilities in
post-secondary institutions. Interest in these students began in 1968, when Margaret Rawson
reported on students with dyslexia in secondary schools. At that time, Hughes and Smith say, the
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 36
literature on students with disabilities centered on levels of intellectual functioning and cognitive
profiles. In the late 1970s literature on students with disabilities emerged. In early studies, data
regarding participants and studies were inconsistent. Furthermore, the treatment of students with
disabilities was clinical, focusing on tests and assessments and on how to normalize or fix those
with disabilities.
A significant change that affected students with disabilities was the passage of the ADA
in 1990, 20 years after the initial literature on this population appeared. During this time, there
was a shift in the focus to the growth in enrollment of students with disabilities in postsecondary
institutions and their use of accommodations.
Newman et al. (2011) synthesized results collected from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2 that provided significant data regarding the enrollment, attendance and
outcomes of students with disabilities in postsecondary institutions. In their analysis of the data,
Newman et al. (2011) noted that in the total U.S. population, 60% of young adults with
disabilities continued to postsecondary education within 8 years of leaving high school,
compared to 67% of their non-disabled peers. Among students with learning disabilities, at least
50% were enrolled at two-year or community colleges, which is almost double the rate of the
general population. In addition, 36% attended a vocational or technical school, 20% more than
the general population, and 21% attended a four-year college, which is half of the figure of 40%
from the general population. They further observed that, overall, the postsecondary attendance
for both students with learning disabilities and their non-disabled counterparts was even at 67%.
It is worth noting that data on how many students with disabilities are enrolled in
postsecondary institutions nationwide are collected through various sources, including the
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study facilitated by the Department of Education (Leake,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 37
2015). However, the most reliable source for data is the National Longitudinal Transition Study-
2, which is where these data were retrieved.
Ableism
Data from a 2012 study conducted by The National Center for Learning Disabilities
revealed that 48% of 1,980 U.S. adult participants equated learning disabilities to IQ. This
statistic is important to note because those participants were a sample of the general population.
Society’s belief that there is a discrepancy in a student’s ability to be intelligent because they
have a non-apparent disability can cause further confusion and self-doubt for these students.
Sparks and Lovett (2009) found that students with learning disabilities reported high
levels of anxiety, stress, lack of self-confidence and self-doubt. Educators should include
fostering skills that help students with non-apparent disabilities minimize stress and self-doubt
produced by the normal narrative. Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, and Eddy (2005) noted, “students
must have knowledge of themselves and know that they have rights before they can self-
advocate effectively” (p. 49). If students with disabilities can obtain some of these skills, they are
more likely to overcome any potential barriers as they relate to disclosing and using
accommodations (Summers, White, Zhang, & Gordon,2014).
Intersectionality and Students with Disabilities
Darrow (2015) noted that, although ableism and lack of inclusion have historically been
experienced by people with disabilities, many of today’s teachers are charged with educating
students on the various categories of diversity and the importance of both recognizing and
supporting differences. When asked, most people would state that ethnicity, culture, gender, class
or racial representation makes up diversity. In almost all instances of defining diversity and
addressing inclusion, disability representation is overlooked.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 38
Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA, individuals with disabilities are often
forgotten or ignored when examining what may constitute diversity on campus (Longmore,
2003). For example, Reid and Knight (2006) have found that minority students with
impairments, unlike their White counterparts, are often held to standards that may not be possible
for them to achieve. Instructors are regularly justified for participating in this behavior because
of the idea that students should meet normal expectations. For Reid and Knight, this further
perpetuates oppression, both in theory and practice, of students with disabilities by centering
discussions only on issues of race, class, and gender. Research on minority students with
disabilities has concluded that it is important for higher education stakeholders to listen to the
voices and experiences of these often-marginalized students to implement the kind of support
that will result in their postsecondary success.
When discussing exclusion of marginalized groups by use of power, discourse regularly
regards categories of race, gender and identity as intrinsically negative frameworks (Crenshaw,
1991). In conversations or research on intersectionality, those who identify as having a disability
are often absent. It is important to point out that throughout the many struggles that resulted in
oppression, discrimination or mistreatment of those from marginalized groups, researchers and
scholars are often challenged in theorizing about identity in all its intricate multiplicity (Erevelles
& Minear, 2010). It is even more difficult when the identity of disability is added. Several
researchers attempted to navigate this challenge. However, research shows that students with
disabilities remain underrepresented in the conversation regarding race, class and gender, and
their experiences need further exploration.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 39
Accommodations
A 2010 report on disability and the general population indicated that, among the overall
U.S. population, 1.7% or about 4.6 million confirmed having a learning disability (Cortiella &
Horowitz, 2014).) Scott (2010) reported to the U.S. Government Accountability Office that 11%
of students in the United States enrolled in postsecondary institutions reported having
disabilities. The growth in enrollment and students disclosing they have a disability to access
support services and accommodations helps to emphasize the need for accommodations in
college.
Accommodations are essentially the provision of educational support prescribed to
students with disabilities to enhance their educational success and provide them the same
opportunity to succeed as their non-disabled peers (Upton, 2000). According to Stodden (2001),
postsecondary institutions in the U.S. have disability support services (DSS) or an office for
students with disabilities (OSD), which have the responsibility both legally and ethically to
provide support services to students with disabilities (Szymanski, Hewitt, Watson, & Swett,
1999). Once students disclose their disability to the DSS office and provide support
documentation in the form of a diagnosis or formal assessment from a doctor, psychiatrist or
psychologist, they work with a disability management specialist or counselor to determine the
need for reasonable accommodations (Lyman et al., 2016). Accommodations are determined on
a case-by-case basis to ensure the student receives the most appropriate support based on their
functional limitations (Frank & Wade, 1993; Ofiesh, 2007).
Contrary to common perception, accommodations offered to students with documented
disabilities are not an advantage over students who do not have a disability. Gordon and Keiser
(2000) asserted that the general premise for the prescription and use of accommodations is
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 40
specifically for those with disabilities who are entitled to services to receive them to assist with
their limitations. The educational model reflects society’s ideals to make sure these students can
achieve academic success. They further propose that this model also requires mandated funding
to provide these students with appropriate services to help facilitate successful learning.
Gordon and Keiser (2000) noted that, if a student or instructor requests special
accommodations like an extra week to submit a paper, based upon conditions not within the
scope of those provided to other students, whether the student has formally been prescribed
accommodations or not, they are misinterpreting the purpose of the law. If the request is granted,
there is an unfair advantage over their non-disabled peers. For example, providing a student with
a disability a detailed study guide to prepare for an exam and not giving one to other students can
create an advantage over non-disabled students. A fair solution would be to provide all students
with a study guide.
Although informal accommodations are often provided and allowed by faculty at most
institutions, they still must be fair (Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999). Again, the law
requires the student to have access and opportunity and be on a level playing field with their non-
disabled peers to pass the class, but is not a mandate for the instructor to pass that student
(Gordon & Keiser, 2000).
Types of accommodations. In the 1996-1997 academic year, approximately 98% of
institutions in the United States provided students with disabilities with at least one
accommodation or support service (Lewis, Farris, & Greene, 1999). According to CAS
Standards (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2015),
accommodations often include alternative testing, which allows students additional time to
complete exams, various supports during exams, like calculators, assistive technology, a quiet
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 41
location and a distraction-free testing environment. Other accommodations may be assistive
technology, which can allow students to have their hard copy textbook converted into a digital
file format that can be used with specific assistive technology to read and hear the text
simultaneously. Also, notetaking provides students with a copy of lecture notes from a peer in
the class. Deaf and hard of hearing services may provide a sign-language interpreter or captioner.
Additional supports may take the form of extra time for homework assignments, permission to
ambulate during class or to take breaks.
Students who use alternative testing usually fall under a wide range of disability
diagnoses such as learning disability, specific medical conditions and those on the autism or
Asperger syndrome spectrum. Students can be prescribed more than one accommodation,
resulting in a mixture of extra supports to help them achieve academic success.
Disability support offices. Most researchers agree that DSS offices can play a large role
in providing students with disabilities additional academic support; however, these students still
graduate at rates much lower than their non-disabled peers (Lyman et al., 2016). This leads many
researchers to question the effectiveness of such offices (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001).
Several studies have suggested that accommodations offered through the DSS offices are
beneficial to students with disabilities (Lyman et al., 2016). These programs are often in line
with the university’s strategic plan and mission to help with persistence to graduation (Wessel,
Jones, Markle, & Westfall, 2009). The role of these offices is to provide academic
accommodations and advocate, advise, and direct students with disabilities in navigating the
college campus, in integrating into campus and benefitting from academic accommodations
(Wessel et al., 2009). However, further evidence suggests that DSS departments are
underutilized (Lyman et al., 2016). Only half of the 8% of community college students who
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 42
reported having a disability utilized services from the DSS office, according to Barnett and Li
(1997). Only about 40% of students who received and used accommodations in high school
disclosed to their condition in college to receive accommodations, according the National
Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (Lyman et al., 2016). Also, Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza,
and Levine (2005) found that only 35% of all students with disabilities utilized services in
college.
Identifying support services. Many students with disabilities transition from high school
to college with an individualized education program (IEP; Eckes & Ochoa, 2005), typically
created with high school counselors and parents. As a result of participating in the IEP plan in
high school, parents are often involved in the college application process. They often look for the
types of provisions and support services the university offers (Reid & Knight, 2006). Students’
knowledge of support services for students with disabilities, specifically in the form of
accommodations, can increase their likelihood of attending (Pino & Mortari, 2014). Unlike in
high school, students with disabilities who attend college must self-identify and request
accommodations from the DSS or OSD on campus (Hadley, 2011). However, this self-
identifying process can be intimidating. The stigma and attitudinal barriers some students may
face, perpetuated by ableism, may make them reluctant to do so and can contribute to their
academic failure (Hadley, 2011). In addition to these obstacles, students with disabilities may
also face attitudinal and environmental barriers which cause self-doubt within their own identity
and ability to succeed (Chávez & Guido-DiBrito, 1999).
The impact of not disclosing disability. Studies indicate a disconnect between students
with disabilities using accommodations on campus and their access to them. To address this
disconnect, several researchers, conducted studies on students disclosing their disability at their
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 43
postsecondary institutions’ DSS offices and discovered several barriers that may affect a
student’s decision to disclose (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Kurth & Mellard,
2006; Marshak, Van Wieren, Ferrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010; Trammell & Hathaway, 2007; West
et al., 1993). The barriers they identified included feelings of social disconnection, a
discriminatory attitude from other students and faculty, subpar DSS practices, ineffective
accommodations, unavailable accommodations, accommodations that reduce independence, a
possible lack of assistance-seeking behaviors, stigma attached to disabilities, and insufficient
knowledge among students with disability about their disability. Additional barriers included
stigma associated with disability, faculty attitudes, lack of self-advocacy and self-doubt.
It is for these reasons that these students may refrain from disclosing and using DSS. In
addition, Wolf (2001) found that approximately two-thirds of students with learning disabilities
withdraw from school. Access and encouragement for students with non-apparent disabilities to
disclose and use university support programs are vital to help them maintain enrollment and
reach successful academic achievement. In addition, further research that includes the voice of
students who encountered barriers that led them to refrain from disclosing and using support
services may provide additional insight on their experiences as well as the literature.
Retention Rates for Students Who Use Accommodations
Access to accommodations can play a significant role in the academic success,
persistence, retention and graduation of a student with a disability. In a longitudinal study of
11,317 students between 1994 and 1996, Wessel et al. (2009) compared the retention and
graduation rates of students, some with apparent disabilities and some with non-apparent
disabilities, to those of non-disabled students. A four-year, Carnegie doctoral-granting, public
institution in the Midwest was the site of the study. Wessel and colleagues sought to identify
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 44
how many students with apparent and non-apparent disabilities were eligible for and used the
support services at the office of DSS. They found gaps between the fourth and fifth-year
retention rates between students with non-apparent disabilities and their non-disabled peers. For
example, in year 4, the graduation rates for these students, who were selected in 1994, 1995 and
1996, were as follows: 20.38% for students with no disability, 18.99% for students with an
apparent disability, and 11.96% for students with a non-apparent disability. They also found that
students who use the services provided by DSS offices were more successful than those who did
not. For this particular study, the DSS office was highly regarded and worked diligently to
provide support, information and advocate for students with disabilities. Staff at that office also
created a designated student group to help encourage students with disabilities to self-disclose to
the DSS office to benefit from additional academic support.
According to additional literature focused on the retention and graduation rates for
students with disabilities, Belch (2004) noted that college attendance does not necessarily equate
to obtaining a degree. Belch cited several pieces from others who researched this topic and found
three key factors that can affect the success of students with disabilities. In addition, Enright,
Conyers, and Szymanski (1996) identified social integration with peers, faculty and staff.
Research identified a lack of self-determination or self-esteem (Aune, 1991; deFur, Getzel, &
Trossi, 1996; Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994) and unfavorable faculty attitudes and non-
inclusive curricula (Kalivoda & Higbee, 1998); Seymour & Hunter, 1998; West et al., 1993.
These studies illustrated the importance of identifying all factors that can contribute or impede
academic success for students with disabilities. It also emphasizes the importance of
collaboration among all areas within the university in terms of working with and for students
with disabilities.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 45
Learning Climate
A significant barrier to students with disabilities is the stereotypically negative attitude
about people with disabilities and their ability to achieve success in higher education (Stodden,
Jones, & Chang, 2002). This sort of campus climate, including the classroom setting, that many
students with disabilities experience coincides with the societal environment that the disability
community has experienced, which led to an extensive history of discrimination, segregation and
exclusion (Agarwal, Moya, Yasui, & Seymour, 2015). One of the critical elements to success in
college is a positive experience in the classroom with inclusive curriculum (Graham-Smith, &
Lafayette, 2004).
Classroom Environment
Faculty attitude is one of the most important contributors to the success of students with
disabilities (Rao, 2004). Often, students with disabilities are more aware of faculty’s lack of
understanding of their individual needs than they are, which often leads them to be concerned
and hesitant regarding whether they should disclose or ask for additional support (De Cesarei,
2014). It is important for faculty to include multi-cultural perspectives into class dialogue and
materials, and these perspectives should incorporate topics on disabilities (Quaye & Harper,
2007). This, in turn may allow students with disabilities to feel more comfortable with disclosure
and provide them a more positive classroom experience (Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2014).
In order to provide students with disabilities the opportunities to have a fully enriching
educational experience, simply providing them with support services is not sufficient (Quaye
&Harper, 2014). Faculty must also be mindful that awareness regarding the needs of students
with disabilities is important because even with classroom accommodation and support,
mechanisms like time management, study skills and advisement afford these students the dignity
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 46
of learning with their peers (Roller, 1996). Understanding that students’ lives are integrated
across their campus experience is key (Myers et al., 2014).
Faculty’s Role With Accommodations
Because learning disabilities and/or ADD/ADHD are considered invisible or non-
apparent disabilities, faculty support can be unpredictable. For instance, in a study conducted by
Trainin and Swanson (2005) a student reported, “It’s not like high school. Most classes are so big
nobody cares about you; they don’t even know who you are. Nobody will say anything until they
are ready to kick you out” (p. 271). Other challenges for students within this category include the
emotional recollection of past difficulties, frustrations, and disappointments when trying to get
the support they need. These memories can create a feeling of low-self expectations. Students
with psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, schizophrenia, depression and other mood
disorders, experience similar symptoms, learning barriers, and prejudices and are also included
the group of students diagnosed with a learning disability (Wolf, 2001). Psychological
adjustment and faculty support are particularly important to help facilitate an overall feeling of
well-being, growth and development (Fosco, Caruthers, & Dishion, 2012). This cannot happen if
faculty fails to address the needs of these students by assuming that, because their disability is
not obvious, there is no need to make the classroom accessible or inclusive for students with
disabilities (Wolf, 2001).
Myers et al. (2014) observe that some college faculty, staff and administrators still see
these students as a mystery in terms of what they have, how they function, whether they know
how to think or learn about class topics among other labeling and misinformed thoughts.
Furthermore, even though faculty are aware that they need to adhere to disability-related laws,
they often place the responsibility of support on the students themselves in addition to disability
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 47
support and other offices on campus. The responsibility of creating access, inclusion and equity
in higher education should not rest solely on the individual with the disability, but on everyone
within the institution.
Classroom accommodations through disability support offices at the postsecondary level
are the universities’ method of meeting the challenges of disability and variability in learning
course content. Classroom accommodations and other support mechanisms like time
management and study skill counseling afford students the dignity of learning with their peers
(Roller, 1996) and provide them a sense of shared responsibility.
Nonetheless, ableist micro-aggressions may still take place in classrooms, leaving
students with inferior feelings towards themselves, their learning, and, in some cases, the faculty
(Kattari, 2015). Micro-aggressions are subtle statements or actions often discriminatory
perpetuated by members of the dominant group towards those from marginalized groups
(Gomez, Khurshid, Freitag, & Lachuk, 2011). For example, when an instructor asks a student
with a disability if they can read the text of a handout passed out during class because the
instructor knows the student has a disability, that is a micro-aggressive act towards that student.
These micro-aggressions or inequalities often perpetuated towards marginalized groups may
cause students to feel hurt, embarrassed, misunderstood, and stigmatized due to being different
(Kattari, 2015). In addition, many of the stresses met by students with disabilities are intensified
by university staff and faculty who lack knowledge and intent regarding the special needs of
disabled scholars (Graham-Smith, & Lafayette, 2004).
Faculty should be aware of the needs and abilities of all students in their classrooms.
Furthermore, each student with a disability may require different needs specific to their
diagnosis. For example, students with learning, cognitive, psychological, deaf and hard of
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 48
hearing disabilities along with physical impairments need specific support services to feel
included in the classroom. Thus, identifying these supports should be a priority for faculty and
the institution (Kattari, 2015).
Student Perspectives on Disclosure and Use of Accommodations
Understanding the lived experience of students with non-apparent disabilities can help to
close the degree attainment gap. For many students, the lived experience is a struggle based on
internal and external stressors that can also interfere with their decision to use accommodations,
making them vulnerable to lower degree-completion rates as compared to their non-disabled
peers (Kranke et al., 2013; Summers et al., 2014; Cawthon & Cole, 2010). Kranke et al. (2013)
indicate that the dropout rate for students with non-apparent disabilities is much higher than for
those with no disabilities; thus, completing a college degree can be more difficult for a student
with a disability. Data indicate that approximately four million students with invisible disabilities
dropped out of college in the 1990s (Kessler, Foster, Saunders, & Stang, 1995). Collins and
Mowbray (2005) estimated that 86% of students with psychological disabilities left college. This
is important to note because psychiatric disabilities can also cause learning challenges and are
also non-visible. Furthermore, a national study found that the grade point average for these
students is lower than that of their non-disabled peers (Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Hunt, 2009).
The perceptions students with non-apparent disabilities have of their own diagnoses and of using
accommodations are paramount. Understanding the perceptions of students with disabilities,
specifically those that are non-apparent, can be useful for practitioners in higher education who
seek to provide better support and to identify gaps in accommodation use and degree attainment.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 49
Factors That Impact Accommodation Use
Kranke et al. (2013) found several contributing factors that have an impact on the
decision to disclose: faculty perceptions, autonomy, normality, willingness to disclose,
supportive professors, stress overload and vulnerability. Overall, all of these factors influenced
their decision. Faculty perceptions, again, was key in their decision. Kranke and colleagues
related that those who had a positive experience expressed feeling autonomous and having a
sense of normality, which made them more willing to disclose and use accommodations. Those
who had a negative experience indicated that they felt an overload of stress and vulnerability
because of the stigma associated with disability, especially since theirs is non-apparent. This
study also revealed that students who disclosed were satisfied with the support they received
from the disability support office.
However, in another study conducted by Summers et al. (2014), students with disabilities
also shared that their lack of knowledge of the additional support impacted when they disclosed.
Furthermore, their lack of self-awareness caused a delay in effectively self-advocating for
additional support. These areas that these students are lacking are often caused by their lack of
self-advocacy and self-determination skills.
Although some of the perceived factors have been identified through quantitative and
qualitative inquiry, it is still unclear as to what policies and procedures have been implemented to
help close these gaps. Furthermore, they do not discuss how ableism, intersectionality or
classroom support impact their decision, which is what this study sought to investigate.
Cole and Cawthon’s (2015) research suggests that, in addition to self-determination,
psychological factors also play a role in whether a student discloses. They examined how
psychological attitudes contributed to factors that influence or reduce a student with learning
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 50
disabilities decision to disclose or not. They found that, even if these students self-disclose,
utilizing accommodations may still prove challenging. Rao and Gartin (2003) identified the main
challenge as faculty perception of the student’s disability. If faculty do not see a disability, they
may be less willing to provide accommodations.
The research also indicates that students with learning disabilities who use
accommodations fare better academically than those who do not (Denhart, 2008; Skinner, 1999).
Additional research revealed a connection between high and low levels of self-determination
(Sarver, 2000). At both levels, Cole and Cawthon (2015) looked at characteristics such as
competency, autonomy and motivation. They found that students with learning disabilities who
engaged in high levels of self-determination were more likely to adjust to the overall campus
environment and overcome challenges, specifically with disclosing their disability to utilize
accommodations. They also promoted their decision to pursue accommodations and by doing so
provided themselves with a greater opportunity to be academically successful. The limitation of
this particular study was that most of the participants were already high-achieving students.
However, Rao and Gartin (2003) argued that characteristics such as self-determination could still
be a motivating factor for students with learning disabilities who are not necessarily high-
achieving.
Internal and external stressors. Both Kranke et al. (2013) and Corrigan and Kleinlein
(2005) have studied the internal and external stressors that can have an impact on the
achievement of students with disabilities, but more so for those with invisible disabilities.
Corrigan and Kleinlein found that internal stressors include self-imposed adverse behavior such
as refusing to use accommodations and internalizing others’ negative responses, often leading to
feelings of rejection, which can also be referred to as self-stigma. Kranke and colleagues asserted
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 51
that this internal behavior can interfere with students’ ability or willingness to self-advocate for
what they need to be academically successful. The lack of self-advocacy and even self-efficacy
can transition from the classroom to other life opportunities. Both sets of researchers have
discovered that external stressors can stem from negative perceptions and discrimination by
others, propagated by societal beliefs and stereotypes about students with invisible disabilities.
This can also be referred to as public stigma, which can interfere with students’ ability integrate
into the college community and self-advocate for needs. These stressors can make students with
disabilities vulnerable and may have an impact on whether students seek to disclose their
disability to receive additional supports from the disability office.
Disclosure. Kranke et al. (2013) conducted a longitudinal study to examine the factors
that influence students’ disclosure of a non-apparent disability to receive classroom
accommodations and the factors that influence their decision to delay disclosure. This 2-year
exploratory study was conducted at a private, Midwestern university and consisted of an initial
survey followed by qualitative interviews. Seventeen undergraduate students were selected to
participate. The majority of participants were female (76%) and White (82%) followed by 24%
male and 18% of other races. It is also important to note that only 12% had a diagnosis directly
categorized as a learning disability. However, the other diagnoses did include invisible
disabilities that can present learning difficulties for students, which make the results of this study
relevant.
Using the semi-structured interview instrument, the Subjective Experience of Medication
Interview (Floersch et al., 2009), Kranke et al. found that students with non-apparent disabilities
were often reluctant to disclose their disability and use accommodations based on faculty
perceptions, autonomy, and the idea of normalcy. They also found that some of these students
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 52
were willing to disclose and use accommodations because of faculty support as a means to
reduce stress and due to recognizing they were vulnerable to academic challenges.
This study will use CDT as a theoretical framework to understand the policies, practices
and lived experiences of students with non-apparent disabilities and factors that influence their
decision to disclose their disability and accommodations as well as key factors that impact how
staff perspectives can help with this understanding.
Critical Disability Theory
Hutcheon and Wolbring (2012) assert that within post-secondary institutions, ableism can
contribute to the oppression, discrimination and isolation of students with disabilities. CDT
provides a lens through which ableism can be used as a tool to help non-disabled individuals
look at differences in a way that is not oppressive but instead more inclusive. They affirmed that
differences contribute to our identity, and our responses to them can help influence policy and
have a better understanding of how students with disabilities make meaning of their everyday
experiences. They further assert that most post-secondary institutions function under a
hegemonic lens wherein the ideologies regarding students with disabilities vary from person to
person, some of whom reject difference based on these accepted ideologies.
CDT investigates the tension between the medical and social models and policies that
impact them. It does so by looking at concepts such as the social construction of disability and
the non-disabled, normalcy, individual value and respect, and the intersection of disability with
race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and other socially constructed categories
(Hosking, 2008). The seven components in CDT are social model of disability,
multidimensionality, valuing diversity, rights, voice, language and transformative politics. The
components are explained and outlined to identify issues that are prevalent within educational
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 53
institutions. They also help to provide an adequate lens from which to view this theory as it
relates to students with disabilities. Vehmas and Watson (2014) connected CDT to the field of
education by identifying the ways in which higher education institutions and various segments of
society have continuously left out the voices of those with disabilities.
Social Model of Disability
CDT moves beyond the medical model framework by combining two paradigms, social
construction and minority group, to provide a more critical perspective of disability as it relates
to both the individual and the environment (Peña et al., 2016). The social construction paradigm
is essentially the social model, which asserts that the environment is the main contributor in
creating barriers for persons with disabilities (Peña et al., 2016), while laws and policies
influence how those barriers are responded to. The social model concept within CDT asserts that
public policy needs to respond to the physical and social elements of a disability, not just one or
the other.
Multidimensionality
Identity politics occurs when people form groups based on race, religion or social
background who have politically based alliances steer away from traditional party politics.
Identity politics are common, but, although useful within political arenas, present some dangers.
One of those dangers is defining groups that exclude certain members of the population, creating
a lack of diversity (Ehrenreich, 2003; Holzeithner, 2005). Multidimensionality, an expansion of
intersectionality, is used to steer away exclusion created by identity politics and acknowledge the
intersection of the many axes of one oppression with another (Crenshaw, 1991). While defining
groups may be helpful, students with disabilities are at risk of being excluded from and within
them if they have certain political ideologies attached to them. This concept is relevant to CDT
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 54
because some students may have acquired a disability as a young adult. It brings forth an
understanding that people have multiple layers of their identity that fit into various groups.
Valuing Diversity
The concept of valuing diversity aims to recognize and acknowledge differences instead
of dismissing them. Ignoring people’s differences, such as disability, can lead to them being
marginalized. For CDT, recognizing that disability may or may not be central to one’s core self,
but a recognized identity promotes value and equality. Systemic structures such as educational
institutions who respond to disability by ignoring it or expecting students to function as full
participants under the normative ideology, will not be effective in protecting students’ rights as
members of that community.
Rights
To promote the full participation and integration of people with disabilities both
individually and within society, CDT embraces their legal rights and uses them as a vital tool to
support equality. This concept also values the differences that people with disabilities bring to
their environment, whether in their communities or educational institutions. Individuals with
disabilities should have their needs and interests addressed in ways that their diversity is
recognized among society through the lens of equality. This concept also highlights the way in
which CDT clarifies how the liberal rights theory and politics have failed to adequately react to
this. The various laws put in place within the past two decades, specifically within educational
institutions, speak to the way in which rights of disabled people should be valued and adhered to
as much their non-disabled peers.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 55
Voice
Typically, when people with disabilities voice that their needs are not being met, their
voices have been supressed and they have been marginalized. This concept highlights the
contention regarding when the disabled voice is heard and when it is not. Often, it is only heard
when what is being said aligns with the perspectives shared by those who are able-bodied;
otherwise, it is ignored. When the voice is ignored, it is often in regard to the actual impairment
and not to what is actually being said (Titchokosky, 2003). CDT aims to make the voice of
people with disabilities paramount to understanding their experience. Allowing a student with an
invisible disability to share their experiences and world view provides them with a better sense
of belonging.
Language
Language is important because of the way in which it influences thoughts of disability.
This concept focuses on how words and labels are used to describe people with disabilities. CDT
moves language beyond communication purposes and recognizes it to be fundamentally political
because language carries with its ideological implications. In general, labelling has an inherent
negative attribute, especially with groups. This concept identifies ways in which a label with a
negative social connotation is spread through words, images, and media. Often these words and
images portray negative depictions of people with disabilities, such as their being valueless or
deficient, creating further negative attitudes towards their diagnosis or impairment. CDT is used
to examine how language can perpetuate negative attitudes that can cause individuals with
disabilities to feel powerless. Thus, it is important for educators to understand how their use of
language can impact their students with disabilities in course curriculum, content, and lecture
materials.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 56
Transformative Politics
The link between theory and practice is preserved through CDT. The overarching goal of
theory within this framework is the quest for empowerment and fundamental equality. CDT
recognizes the advancement of technology and its use in the medical field with regard to services
that are necessary to aid individuals with specific diagnoses under the medical model. However,
it suggests that, historically, the use of the medical model as it relates to the social rights of
people with disabilities has been problematic. The transformative politics concept helps to
expose hidden factors associated with unfair policies that impede the success of people with
disability. It also provides a theoretical foundation for those in power to create effective policies
that deal with issues related to disability. The policy responses that are needed are those that
focus on inclusion, equality and autonomy. These policies can play a crucial role within
educational institutions as they will provide the stakeholders with guidelines on how to create a
more inclusive, equitable campus that promotes autonomy while empowering students with
disabilities.
The following figure outlines CDT as related to this study. The first level is the student,
surrounded by the emerging themes. The themes are located within the institution from which
these experiences and understanding stem. The outer level is CDT with each component in
arrows, which indicates the continuum of the model. When using CDT as a guide to help
students with disabilities within the institution, one or multiple components can be used
simultaneously to help address their needs.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 57

Figure 1. Theoretical framework and themes.
CDT Summary
As a society, we have created social norms in which established practices and ideological
based knowledge continues to perpetuate exclusion and control over marginalized groups like
students within various systems and structures such as educational institutions (Peña et al.,
2016). Limited longitudinal quantitative or qualitative research exists that explores the meaning
making experience or established institutional practices for underrepresented students with
invisible disabilities in higher education (Peña, 2014). Examining the experience of students with
disabilities in higher education without delving into systemic, structural, institutional and
inequitable barriers yields research without thorough exploration of their true lived experience
(Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012). The omission of this thorough exploration continues to perpetuate
the hegemonic ableist practices and ideologies that view students with disabilities as people who
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 58
need to be fixed and who should strive towards non-disabled standards (Hutcheon & Wolbring,
2012). According to Hutchinson (as cited in Hosking, 2008), CDT ultimately is “about power
and who gets what valued” (p.15). Through this lens, more equitable practices and policies in
educational institutions can be established to create a fairer and just institutional environment for
students with disabilities, specifically those whose disabilities are non-apparent.
Conclusion
The history of disability provides the foundation for how the struggles and stigma related
to impairments and functional limitations moved beyond society into educational institutions.
Various scholars attempted to create models to use when conducting research on students with
disabilities. Research, laws, and policies all play a role in accommodations. Accommodations
and other academic support services can play an important role in college success for students
with non-apparent disabilities. Educators and practitioners are vital in helping to advocate and
provide healthy and positive ways in which students can navigate their limitations. Research
suggests that the field of study for students with non-apparent diagnosis could still benefit from
further exploration. Institutions should consider being more mindful of how they collect data on
students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities because this can help ensure that those
students have access to the support services they need to improve their academic success, and
have their voices heard and valued.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 59
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used for this qualitative study. Qualitative
methods allowed for the search for deeper meaning and understanding (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) of students’ decision to utilize academic accommodations. Using a qualitative approach
provided an in-depth understanding of students’ experiences within an educational environment
that favors practices and polices created from a non-disabled lens (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The methodological approach is presented in this chapter, followed by the research questions that
guide this study, site selection, population, sample, instrumentation, data collection, data
analysis, validity, role of the researcher and conclusion.
Methodological Approach
There is limited longitudinal quantitative or qualitative research that explores the
meaning making experience or established institutional practices for underrepresented students
with invisible disabilities in higher education (Peña, 2014). Examining the experience of students
with disabilities in higher education without delving into systemic, structural, institutional and
inequitable barriers yields research without thorough exploration of their true lived experience
(Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012). The omission of this thorough exploration continues to perpetuate
the hegemonic ableist practices and ideologies that view students with disabilities as people who
need to be fixed and strive towards the able-bodied standard (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012). By
using CDT, the research conducted for this study examined all aspects of the student in an effort
to fully make meaning of their lived experience. This study also investigated participants’
perceptions of systemic structures, attitudes of peers, faculty and the campus community and the
role they may have played in how students with non-apparent disabilities make the decision to
disclose and use their prescribed accommodations (Hutcheon & Wolbring, 2012).
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 60
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are the experiences of undergraduate students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities as they relate to ableism, intersectionality, the classroom environment and use
of accommodations?
2. What factors affect the decision-making process of undergraduate students with learning
or other non-apparent disabilities to use their prescribed classroom accommodations?
According to research, students identifying as having a disability have been one of the
fastest growing groups in college enrollment, with at least 1 in 3 freshmen reporting a learning
disability (Henderson, 1995). Many people with disabilities are often stigmatized and treated
differently, resulting in a lack of inclusion and focusing on their limitations versus their physical
and cognitive abilities, and it is this reason that educators should make this a priority of topics to
address to help reduce the negative stigma associated with disability (Bruder & Mogro-Wilson,
2014; Connor & Baglieri, 2009; Darrow, 2015; De Cesarei, 2014; Kattari, 2015;). As Darrow
(2015) reported, when asked, most people state that ethnicity, culture, gender, class or racial
representation make up diversity. In almost all instances of defining diversity and addressing
inclusion, disability representation is often overlooked (Darrow, 2015). Historically, discussion
on disability has been vast, whether positive or negative, but, in academia, although there are
numerous topics covered under the disability umbrella, few longitudinal studies exist on students
with disabilities and their experiences, specifically under the learning disability category in
higher education (Trammell, 2009b). The focus of this research is to understand factors that
influence the decision of students with learning or non-apparent disabilities to use or refrain from
using their prescribed accommodations in the classroom.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 61
Site Selection
The study was conducted at University of Discovery (UoD), a pseudonym for an urban
public, four-year higher education institution located in California. It is one of the most multi-
cultural and multi-ethnic campuses in the state. At UoD, students can earn bachelor’s degrees, a
post-baccalaureate certificate, master’s degrees or doctoral degrees. UoD participates in Title IV
federal financial aid programs and holds the designation of being both a Hispanic-serving and
minority-serving institution.
As of fall 2016, UoD had a total undergraduate population of 24,074, with 83% of
students enrolled as full-time undergraduates and 17% as part-time undergraduates. In fact, UoD
has grown significantly in terms of enrollment, according to the UoD institutional research
office. In 2007, the total enrollment population for undergraduate full-time students was 14,700,
and, in 2012, it was 16,096, followed by 18,827 in 2014. The six-year graduation rate, at the time
of this study, was 45%. The campus is widely known for its diverse student body, with 58%
being women and 42% men, with the majority of the population (64%) being Latino/a (Hispanic)
(NCES, 2016). Thus, UoD is designated as a Hispanic-serving institution and eligible to submit
requests for specific federal funding because they meet the necessary requirements (Gasman,
Baez, & Turner, 2008). At least 50% of the student body is Latino/a (Hispanic), 25% of that
population are enrolled as undergraduates and the university is both accredited and non-profit
(Gasman et al., 2008).
In terms of funding, most undergraduate students received some type of financial aid,
with 68% receiving Pell grants and 33% receiving student loans. For many students, UoD
offered one of the lowest tuition costs within the state for a four-year public institution. Since
most of the students who attend UoD are from marginalized groups, the low tuition cost is
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 62
relatively reasonable and attractive for prospective and current students. Low costs result in
higher enrollments. With both state and federal funding, UoD increased the number of courses
added to the curriculum, hired more faculty and provided students with more opportunities to
graduate in a reasonable time. The 1-year retention rate for 2016 was 79% for full-time students
and 48% for part-time students (NCES, 2016).
Population
Throughout each institution within California, policies for disability service programs
have been implemented. These policies are based on the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. These
federal laws require that higher education institutions provide necessary accommodations to
students who qualify. The population for this study was students who were registered with the
OSD and eligible to receive academic accommodations. The population of students identified for
participation from the OSD at UoD included students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities who were undergraduates that completed at least one full year at the institution. The
OSD is a student service program at UoD with a mission that includes promoting student
independence and achievement and ensuring access to academic programs, services and centers
by determining appropriate accommodations as mandated in the ADA. The OSD at UoD has the
sole responsibility of determining all student accommodations and coordinating with faculty and
other staff on campus to ensure proper implementation of those accommodations. By law,
students are required to self-disclose their disability to OSD to receive additional academic
support (Eckes & Ochoa, 2005). As outlined in their mission, the goal is to help students with
learning challenges succeed academically and complete their degree requirements. Wessel et al.
(2009) suggested students with disabilities who are well-supported by student services typically
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 63
succeed at higher rates. While data tracking students with disabilities in post-secondary
institutions is sparse, the same can be said about UoD.
At the time of this study there were 1,500 active students registered with the OSD at UoD
and those students had the option to request accommodation services each semester. The quantity
of active students with the OSD at UoD provided an opportunity for a substantial sample pool. In
addition, UoD’s student population is very diverse, which allowed for multiple voices to be
heard from various backgrounds such as ethnicity, culture, age. The OSD at UoD provides
information workshops for incoming students in addition to faculty and staff training; this is an
important service to assess the awareness of this population and may be a factor in determining
accommodation use.
Sample
Stratified purposive sampling was used to select participants. Stratified purposive
sampling, by definition, is deliberate (Patton, 2002) and was used to pull samples from within a
larger group based on key criteria specific among the participants in terms of gender, ethnicity
and how they identified using multiple identifiers. Because of various stigma and confidentiality
issues that sometimes affect student disability, snowball sampling was also used, which is a
common approach used when a population is not easily identifiable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As participants confirmed their participation in the study, they were asked to refer other students
to participate. Using two methods of sampling helped with possible sampling issues that may
have occurred with just one method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A digital flyer was attached to
the email and copies of flyers were posted in designated posting spots around campus and at the
OSD office on campus.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 64
The criteria for participant selection included having a diagnosed invisible disability such
as a learning, medical condition or ADHD that they disclosed to the OSD office at UoD.
Participants had to have been prescribed the use of accommodations in the classroom, be
enrolled full-time and have sophomore, junior, or senior standing in at least their third semester
at UoD.
The process of selection included a formal email that was sent out by the assistant to the
director on behalf of the director of OSD. The email was sent to all students registered with the
OSD at UoD who had a diagnosed learning disability and met the selection criteria. The email
contained information about a pre-interview questionnaire that asked a series of demographic
questions that pertained to their class standing, gender, major and identity. The pre-interview
questionnaire was used to make sure that the students met the selection criteria. Once the email
was sent out, the respondents who agreed to participate were contacted via email to confirm
receipt of their response and to set up an interview. Two follow-up emails were sent in
increments of two weeks following the initial email to try and yield the most responses.
Ten participants were interviewed to gather as much data as possible (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Because disability diagnoses and accommodations were based on an individual basis,
having more participants allowed for a wider range of access to responses regarding experiences,
perspectives and possible barriers with accommodations (Weiss, 1994). After a few questions at
the start of the interview, it was clear that the participants were knowledgeable about the content
and understood the culture of disability as it related to them. This helped to yield more
meaningful data from the participants.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 65
Instrumentation
In order to obtain information from participants, the researcher was the primary
instrument for data collection. An interview protocol was used, which also contained the
interview questions. The first page of the protocol contained a summary of the research, which is
where the role of the researcher was established, the purpose and goals of the study, why the
study was being conducted, the process of the interview, how the data were going to be analyzed
privacy and confidentiality regarding the data that would be collected as well as their option to
opt out of the interview or refrain from answering specific questions at any time during the
interview. This same information was contained in the information sheet which was provided to
participants for their records. Each interview was face-to-face and began with each participant
completing a five-minute pre-interview questionnaire, followed by an overview of the interview
protocol to verbally explain the purpose, goals, and process for the interview. The interviews
were conducted face to face because thoughts, ideas and feelings are difficult to observe, if at all
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This format also helped to gather in-depth content, process meaning
and exchange information with the participant that gave them a voice (Merriam, & Tisdell,
(2016). The pre-interview questionnaire was also used to obtain additional information that could
be used in data collection. This process was a verbal reiteration of what was in the initial
recruitment email. Using this initial approach to start the interviews allowed for the participant to
become somewhat comfortable with the researcher and ensure them that their participation was
strictly voluntary even if the interview had begun (Weiss, 1994).
A standardized open-ended interview format was used. The reason for this format was
that it was beneficial for a qualitative approach (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014) and helped with
time efficiency, allowing for easier analysis afterwards because the questions were the same for
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 66
each participant (Patton, 2002). The questions were precise and developed ahead of time and
provided an opportunity for participants to respond in their own words, perceptions and thoughts
(Patton, 2002). They were also carefully worded and completely specified and organized so that
each respondent was answering the questions in the same sequence (Patton, 2002). Sub-questions
or probing questions were added as needed during the development phase of the interview
questions to help clarify or obtain additional information based on the participant’s response
(Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014). These probing questions were also organized in a specific
sequence to help reduce the need for additional probing. Each interview was conducted in person
at a public location within the campus. Each participant felt comfortable and found it convenient
to stay on the campus. A goal for the interview was to make sure the participants fully
understood the purpose of the study and were ready to fully engage in the research partnership
that was established with them (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
The interview questions focused on participants’ perspectives and experiences regarding
accommodations to help better understand if they were used. They sought to identify the factors
the participants disclosed that either encouraged their use of accommodations or caused barriers
that may have impeded them from using them (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014) The overall goal
with these interview questions was the same for the study itself, to capture participant meanings
and create a story that brings personal value to the study based on the lived experiences and
perceptions of students with disabilities in public higher education and their interaction with
accommodations (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014). To reach this goal, a copy of the research
questions was provided to a qualitative research expert to check for inaccuracies. The questions
were similar to those tested during a previous pilot study conducted.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 67
Data Collection
In order to begin soliciting participants and collecting data, permission was granted
through the university’s institutional review board. After permission was granted, the email to
gather the sample participants was sent to students by the assistant to the OSD director at UoD. It
was sent to all students registered with the OSD at UoD who had a diagnosis of a learning
disability or other non-apparent disability and met the selection criteria. When the email was sent
and potential participants began to respond, they were analyzed to identify if participants met a
basic selection criterion, which was their class standing. Once the respondents were selected, an
interview was scheduled and they were assigned a temporary letter until the time of their actual
interview. The interview schedules were based on both the participant and researcher’s
availability with priority centered on the participants. As soon as a day, time and location were
established, they were given a temporary letter. This temporary letter was eventually replaced
with a pseudonym name to help maintain anonymity. The participants chose their pseudonym
name, again to help maintain confidentiality. The selected participants data, whether lettered or
with a pseudonym was stored on a flash drive that was designated solely for use with the study
and a copy was also stored on Google drive. Both drives were encrypted password protected to
maintain security and participant confidentiality. At the end of the study all respondent emails
were deleted.
To capture the most accurate data, two recording devices were used: a cell phone audio
recorder and a hand-held recorder. The two recording devices were used in order to be as
attentive as possible to the participants, and not be interrupted by constant note-taking or trying
to write down every word (Patton, 2002). The interviews were given a letter on the interview
protocol and named by pseudonym on both devices. Handwritten field notes were also created
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 68
during the interviews. The cell phone audio recorder was only accessible via fingerprint
password and the handheld recorder remained locked in an office cabinet to which only the
researcher had access. While traveling to the interview sites, the hand-held recorder did not
contain any previous interviews. Interviews from the hand-held recorder were transferred to an
encrypted password protected file immediately following each interview and erased from the
device. These measures were to help maintain security of the data and participant confidentiality.
Interviews on the cell phone audio recorder app were sent to a reputable company for
transcription. The transcripts were emailed back to the researcher, and they were placed in an
encrypted password protected word document and stored on the researcher’s personal computer,
which was also password protected.
Once the researcher and participant met for the interview, the researcher reviewed the
information sheet to make sure the participant was aware of the researcher’s role, and the
purpose, goals, process, data collection and analysis as they related to the study. The information
sheet, which they were made aware of in the initial email, had specifics confirming that they
agree to the recording and ensuring them that the recordings would not be shared with anyone
else. The researcher also provided a brief, verbal review of the introductory information from the
interview protocol and collected the pre-interview questionnaire. The information sheet did not
require a signature but was attached to their interview protocol with a checkmark at the top
indicating that it was reviewed and they would be given a copy of the information sheet for their
records. As compensation for participating in the study, each participant received a $25 Amazon,
Starbucks or university bookstore gift card. At the end of the study, once all participant data had
been collected and analyzed, all data containing participant identifiers were destroyed. All
remaining hard copies of transcripts, specific field notes or emails were stored in a locked file
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 69
cabinet in the researcher’s office. All electronic copies of these same items including recordings
were stored on an encrypted flash drive and locked in the same file cabinet with the hard copy
items. All items were destroyed upon completion of the study. Electronic identifying information
was deleted from their secure sources.
Data Analysis
For data analysis, specifically to help make sense of the data and raise the data to a
conceptual level (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), analytical strategies were used. These
strategies followed Creswell’s research design methods. These strategies included a line-by-line
review of transcribed student interviews. Memos were created, and coding was conducted along
with constant comparisons. Prior to the use of any strategies, the research questions were
reviewed to provide the researcher with a clear understanding of what to look for and to organize
the data. Each interview was numbered and assigned a letter on the recording device and
assigned a letter on the hard copy of the interview protocol sheet that was used during the actual
interview. The hard copy of the protocol also contained a letter that coincides with the number of
the interview conducted: interview 1, participant A; interview 2, participant B. The interviews
were reviewed individually several times to gain a sense of what the data was saying. The first
step in the review process was a play-back of the recorded interview. During this process,
additional memos and notes were documented on a separate sheet of paper attached to the
interview protocol for each participant.
The second review of the interview process was to read through the actual transcripts.
During this process of analysis, the data were coded. The first cycle of open coding was used to
begin to summarize portions of the data (Miles et al., 2014). For this open coding process, the
researcher looked to see if the responses were enough to provide substantial data such as how
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 70
long each response was. The information was examined in depth to see what information stood
out like common themes in addition to anything that seemed pertinent to addressing the research
questions, understanding the phenomenon of accommodation use, and statements or ideas
relating to accommodations or disabilities. The researcher also looked for unanticipated findings.
A document in which participants’ responses were isolated per interview question was
created. Again, this helped to really delve into their responses to see what stood out that seemed
pertinent to addressing the research questions. Common themes which generated criteria to
group items into those themes were also identified. For open coding, the process included
highlighting, circling, color coding and small notations on important themes and information that
stood out as pertinent to the research questions. Once the codes were identified during the first
cycle, they were placed into categories or axial codes. The student interviews were then
reviewed, again coding across the data and making constant comparisons, while using the same
notation techniques. After this step, all interviews and observations were reviewed together, as
one set of data, for additional coding, but most importantly to identify patterns.
A second cycle of coding was conducted, which is where patterns across the data were
identified and further grouped into smaller categories and themes (Creswell, 2003). Possible
relationships and connections with and among people, in addition to theoretical constructs were
also outlined (Creswell, 2003). After the first cycle of the review of transcripts and open coding
was complete, the second cycle of analysis began. For the second cycle of data analysis, pattern
coding was used to identify summaries of the data that were grouped into smaller, color coded
categories or themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). These pattern codes helped to identify any
emergent themes pulled together from the first cycle of coding, and these emergent themes
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 71
helped provide a meaningful unit of analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). All data was presented in
a narrative report with interpretations on what it meant (Creswell, 2003).
Validity
This study focused on fact-finding. Therefore, using stratified purposeful sampling
helped to enhance validity (Patton, 2002). The data collected allowed me to look for
corroboration from the sources as well as inconsistencies or conflicts (Miles et al., 2014). This
process helped with further analysis of the findings while strengthening the overall investigation
process. Another strategy that was used was adequate engagement in data collection. This study
was conducted within a period of two months. Conducting 10 interviews and collecting data
from each of those interviews within two months provided an adequate amount of time to engage
in the data collection process. Each interview remained as close to 60 minutes as possible to
retrieve a significant amount of data that was analyzed to the point of saturation. Throughout the
process of this study, beginning with identifying the problem and conceptual frameworks, all
interviews were detailed by categorizing the decisions made regarding all aspects of the study
including methods and procedures (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher checked for and addressed any potential threats to validity. Strategies used
to promote validity were reviewing findings for accuracy and congruency (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). All these efforts led to a conclusion of trustworthiness. It was also the researcher’s belief
that the study was reliable because the decision-making process and data analysis were
consistent with practices set forth for a qualitative research study (Miles et al., 2014).
Role of Researcher
There are two main threats to validity for researchers: bias and reactivity. The researcher
was very accessible to students with disabilities having dealt with them through some of the
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 72
challenges they often faced with educators and their need for accommodations. For this study,
the researcher had to step away as much as possible from their advocacy role. This was done
with the understanding that remaining as neutral as possible throughout the process, seeking only
to answer the research questions using the data collected, would provide more knowledge and
understanding of how to better advocate for this group of students. The researcher recognized
this personal bias at the onset of identifying the problem. Taking the objective researcher role
helped to check for and acknowledge any biases related to holistic fallacy. This helped interpret
the conversations as they were and not as the researcher wanted them to be. Acknowledging this
early on also helped to reduce this threat to validity.
Reactivity is basically how the researcher, may influence or affect the environment or the
participants in the study (Maxwell, 2013). It can also reflect how the researcher is affected by the
research process itself (Miles et al., 2014). The participants were aware of the researcher’s role at
the university prior to the role as a researcher for this study. Thus, the professional role of the
researcher may have influenced the way participants planned for this interview. This was
checked for using reflexivity and by being transparent, making it clear to participants that the
researcher was acting solely as a researcher for a personal study and not in the capacity as a
professional. It was also made clear that their participation would bear no impact on their
enrollment with the OSD at UoD, their course grades, future employment or their prescribed
accommodations. The hope was to create a positive and balanced influence by doing this.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a step-by-step overview of this qualitative study focused on two
research questions. The theoretical framework of CDT, along with guiding problems analyzed in
the study was also presented. Finally, site selection, population, instrumentation, data collection
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 73
and analysis, validity and role of the researcher were presented. All these steps were necessary to
conduct an ethically sound qualitative study. The overall goal of this study was to create meaning
of the participants lived experiences and to inspire the transformation needed within public
higher education for students with disabilities.
Chapter Four presents results obtained from interviews of college students with learning
or other non-apparent disabilities and their perceptions and experiences with using their
prescribed accommodations. Factors that influenced their decision-making process are identified.
The chapter also presents themes that emerged from the data analysis.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 74
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter presents findings resulting from data collected through interviews and
questionnaires from participants who attended the UoD and self-identified as having a learning
or other non-apparent disability. A description of the participants is presented, followed by
several sub-themes that emerged from six themes which highlight experiences, perceptions and
behavior as they relate to the influence of ableism and accommodations. Two research questions
guided this study:
1. What are the experiences of undergraduate students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities as they relate to ableism, intersectionality, the classroom environment and use
of accommodations?
2. What factors affect the decision-making process of undergraduate students with learning
or other non-apparent disabilities to use their prescribed classroom accommodations?
Summary of Participants
The 10 participants for this study were all women and current students at UoD. To
maintain confidentiality, participants each selected a pseudonym: Emily, Agnes, Victoria,
Jasmine, Ashley, Candance, Jessica, Rachel, Isabel, Shayla. To be eligible to participate in the
study participants needed to meet the following core criteria:
1. Class standing of sophomore, junior or senior
2. Have attended at least two terms at UoD
3. Have a diagnosed learning or other non-apparent disability
4. Have been provided the use of accommodations
The final sample did not include any male participants. Historically, men tend to be
reluctant to seek help for certain issues surrounding disability. They may seek services if their
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 75
impairment is physical or medical, but, for issues surrounding learning disabilities, their help
seeking is less frequent, mostly in part because of disclosure and perceived ideas from others
about disability (Abreu, Hillier, Frye, & Goldstein, 2017). Being able to hear and understand the
perspectives from male students with a learning or other non-apparent disability would have
helped to gain better insight to the overall lived experiences of this population.
To maximize the goal of gathering a deeper understanding of the participants, the pre-
interview questionnaire provided some basic demographic data as well as clarifying that each
participant was eligible to participate in the study. Some of the data obtained from the pre-
interview questionnaire is highlighted in the figures below.

Figure 2. Participant diagnoses (some participants chose multiple identifiers).

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 76

Figure 3. Participant class standing.

Figure 4. Summary of participants’ accommodation use.
Participant Profiles
Emily was a junior. Her major was psychology. She identified as White, a woman and a
student. She had a learning disability, specifically a processing deficit. Emily was aware of her
need for accommodations since middle school and regularly used her prescribed
accommodations.
Agnes was a senior. Her major was rehabilitation counseling. She identified as Latina.
She was a part of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) community based on her diagnosis.
Agnes was aware of her need for accommodations since early childhood and regularly used her
prescribed accommodations.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 77
Victoria was a junior. Her major was public health. She identified as Mexican-American,
Chicana, a woman and a student. Her non-apparent disabilities were related to mental health,
psychiatric factors, depression and a learning disability. Victoria was aware of her need for
accommodations since middle school and often used her prescribed accommodations.
Jasmine was a junior. Her major was kinesiology. She identified as a Latina and a
woman. Jasmine had a learning disability and was aware of her need for accommodations since
middle school. She used her prescribed accommodations regularly.
Ashley was a senior. Her major was teaching English as a second language. She
identified as a Black woman. Her diagnosis included ADHD, depression and anxiety. Ashley was
aware of her need for accommodations since high school and did not regularly use her prescribed
accommodations.
Candance was a senior. Her major was nutritional science. She identified as African
American and had a learning disability. Candance was aware of her need for accommodations
since high school and regularly used her prescribed accommodations.
Jessica was a senior. Her major was nutritional science. She identified as Latina. Her non-
apparent diagnosis included ADHD and anxiety. Jessica was aware of her need for
accommodations since middle school and regularly used her prescribed accommodations.
Rachel was a sophomore. Her major was child development. She identified as Latina.
Rachel had a learning disability and was aware of her need for accommodations since
elementary. She regularly used her prescribed accommodations.
Isabel was a junior. Her major was social work. She identified as Latina and a mom. Her
non-apparent diagnosis included ADHD and anxiety. Isabel was aware of her need for
accommodations since high school and regularly used her prescribed accommodations.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 78
Shayla was a senior. Her major was television, video and film. She identified as a Black
woman. Shayla had a learning disability, some mental health issues and ADHD and was aware of
her need for accommodations since high school. She did not regularly use her prescribed
accommodations.
Emerging Themes
The themes that emerged from the data were positive and negative experiences; ableism;
identity; relationships and support; influence on behavior; being vocal. A brief description of
each theme is provided, along with data from surveys and interviews that relate to the theme.
Each theme is also supported by participant responses.
Positive and Negative Experiences
The participants shared their overall perceptions of accommodations and how they felt
knowing they would need them for their classes and what experiences, both positive and
negative, that impacted their decision to use accommodations at this institution. The participants
were able to clearly answer this question because they had a clear grasp on what
accommodations were and how they are used in the academic setting. Based on their responses,
the two sub-themes that emerged from this discussion were students’ embarrassment and that the
accommodations were helpful.
Embarrassment. Eight participants felt that, initially, knowing they would need to use
accommodations was embarrassing. This feeling was presented in their responses based on past
experiences, many of which occurred in either middle or high school that negatively impacted
their view and decision to use accommodations. They also expressed feelings of shame and self-
doubt that they assumed others noticed, although they had a learning or other non-apparent
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 79
disability. Emily talked about her past experience in high school and community college that
contributed to her early feelings of embarrassment:
Well, when I first found out, I was embarrassed. I didn’t accept it well because I felt like
less than, like there is something wrong with me. That wasn’t comfortable. That carried
with me through childhood and high school. Then, it also was a huge factor of why I
didn’t want to go to college because the self-esteem. But, eventually, over time, I realized
that I can use those resources to benefit me and then I accepted it. Then, it was different
in college versus middle school and high school, because the kids are different. I accept it
and now I feel like an acceptance and relief that I have that. My perspectives changed
through age and my life experiences. I’m really grateful that I have accommodations for
my needs now, that it’s available.
Even though Emily was aware of how accommodations might benefit her, the
embarrassment and self-doubt caused her to be uncomfortable. Several of participants expressed
similar feelings. Although they expressed similar feelings of embarrassment they were all in
agreement that accommodations are helpful.
Helpful. The participants discussed how they felt about accommodations in general, and
their responses were that they were helpful. All of the participants had a very clear understanding
of how certain accommodations helped them towards their academic goals. For example,
Candance said, “it’s an assistance tool assisting me in taking exams” while Agnes expressed how
they assisted her with her specific diagnosis,
I think accommodations allow me, as a student, to have the same access to the material or
anything going on in the classroom. I’m able to participate in the classroom. My
disability is deaf and hard of hearing. Sometimes the professor may speak too low or
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 80
they’re too far. Receiving cart services allows me to not only be a participant in the
classroom but also refer to the transcript at a later time.
Understanding that accommodations can be customized for a variety of disabilities is
something that makes them helpful. The participants’ responses reflected an overwhelming sense
of gratitude for being able to have access to accommodations whether they chose to use them or
not. Jessica said,
Accommodations are just very beneficial. It’s helped me with a lot of stress and anxiety
in my program and just do what I need to do and not worry about all of the extra things
that kind of make things difficult.
All participants stated that they believed that accommodations are beneficial and helpful
even though one did not use them regularly. They acknowledged specific accommodations that
they have used or were currently using and the impact these had on their academic success. Their
responses also revealed that there are still many people within and outside of educational
institutions that do not understand the value of accommodations. This lack of understanding may
be the direct impact of ableism.
Ableism
Participants reported feeling judged or discriminated against since their disability was
learning or other non-apparent. They also said they believed society still views disability as
negative. They also discussed questions focused on their knowledge about policies and
procedures within educational institutions and how those policies and procedures may prevent
them from being discriminated against since their disability is non-apparent. Based on their
responses, two sub-themes emerged: the impact of ableism on student perceptions of disability
and the lack of knowledge about policies, procedures and rights as a student with a disability.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 81
The impact of ableism on student perceptions of disability. All participants agreed that
disability was still viewed negatively in today’s society. Based on this perception, they all shared
an experience of when they felt they were judged based on their disability even though it is not
visible. All of the participants’ experiences with judgement were based on those that occurred
within educational institutions. Jasmine mentioned,
Just from students, I would say. Mostly students, because professors, they could have a
deeper understanding. With students, I had one comment where the girl was saying, “You
don’t look retarded,” or something like that. “You don’t have a face.” That caught me off
guard. I didn’t know what to say. I was like, “Thank you?” Because when someone says
that, you kind of get offended and you’re like, “Dang,” you feel belittlement, pretty
much. They’re in kinesiology, and you expect them to understand that situation, but some
people don’t.
A few participants, like Emily and Jessica, shared examples that occurred outside of
school. Though some shared some experiences outside of school, their responses were clear that
they prefer to only discuss their disability within educational institutions. Emily mentioned,
Outside of school I can’t really, like with my disability, like telling my work or whatever
that I’m a slower learner but I can be a great worker. They don’t understand it. So, I am
discriminated towards this performance that needs to be the social norm. They don’t
understand what my disability is because they can’t see it.
Jessica stated,
Out of school, to be honest, I didn’t really have much experience outside of my family, at
least. It wasn’t something that I was comfortable talking about because of my experiences
in school. And now, actually, definitely not something that I bring up unless I’m talking
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 82
to somebody else who’s struggling. Then I might encourage them to go and say that it’s
helped me.
Ableism refers to the discriminatory ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies, practices,
stereotypes and behavior towards individuals with disabilities, whether intentional or not. This
was clear based on the participants’ responses. The responses, provided insight on how negative
labeling especially from non-disabled peers can create feelings of disregard while lack of
understanding by employers can create feelings of discrimination.
Lack of knowledge about policies, procedures and rights as a student with a
disability. When asked about whether the institution had policies and procedures that prevent
students, staff and faculty from discriminating against students with disabilities or whether these
policies prevented such discrimination, specifically for those with disabilities that are non-
apparent, the participant’s responses were that they were not clear or unaware of such policies.
However, one participant did mention the ADA while another mentioned Title IX, neither in the
context of prevention of discrimination. For example, Agnes talked about her eligibility for OSD
but not specifically about policies:
I do think that educational institutions have some procedures. However, I don’t think they
are available as they should be, to me as a student. I just know I qualify for OSD services,
but I don’t know of any other policy or procedure that would cover me, in a sense, as a
student with disability.
Of the 10 participants, Victoria was aware of Title IX, “Yes. Title X, no? Or Title IX but
not really any others that I could really point out to.” Title IX is actually structured on most
university campuses to provide and investigate issues surrounding discrimination, not necessarily
accommodation use. Jasmine mentioned the ADA when she shared, “there are policies where
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 83
they can’t discriminate against you because it’s the law or something. ADA? Yeah, there you go,
ADA.” Other than ADA and Title IX, each mentioned once, the participants were not aware of
any institutional policies or procedures that would protect their rights as students with
disabilities.
Educational institutions have policies and procedures as mandated by the ADA. However,
many of the participants felt that they had been or could still be discriminated against even
though their disability cannot physically be seen. Some of the reasons for these feelings were
expressed when Jessica explained, “[They are] not as accepting because they can’t see it. If you
look to be normal, then they expect you to be able to do everything normally without
accommodations. Whatever normal means really.” Emily added, “Just being labeled in that
category or if they see you with the group, then that’s enough. They’ll make up their own stories
about what it is. It’s already negative because you’re not with them.”
The participants’ responses indicated their perceptions of how society feels about
disability as a result of ableism. They also expressed how they felt during times when they
thought they were being judged because of their disability. Ableism prompted the creation of
several laws, some specifically mandated for educational institutions. The majority were not
aware of these laws that enacted policies and procedures to help reduce discrimination and create
a more inclusive environment. While they were not aware of these policies and procedures one
of the key areas of support that they identified was the OSD.
Identity
Identity refers to the multiple ways that people categorize themselves. When identifiers
such as race, class, gender and disability interact with each other as it relates to navigating
systems of power and marginalization, it is referred to as intersectionality. The participants
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 84
shared their overall perceptions of what identity meant to them. They also responded to questions
regarding whether discussions about race, class and gender should incorporate disability.
However, participants rarely responded with an example of how their multiple identities
intersected, or connected. Rather, they spoke about the multiple ways in which they identified.
The idea of the participants grappling with intersectionality was absent. Thus, a true intersection
of multiple identities, specifically disability, was not identified. Based on their responses, the two
sub-themes that emerged were disability identity and multiple identities.
Disability identity. Identity can mean different things for different people. Many use
various characteristics to describe what they feel makes them who they are. Given the stigma
surrounding disability, the participants were asked if disability was an important identity to them.
Only one of the participants, Emily, agreed that it was when describing herself and how that
characteristic was an important part of her identity. She said, “It is because it explains to me that
I’m different, that I have a need that needs to be met. The word is very strong.”
However, each of the remaining participants stated that disability was not an important
identity for them and explained why. Isabel expressed, “It should be, I believe, an important
identity. However, that would not be on my top five, just because I want to fit in. So, it’s
definitely not the first thing I identify with.” Isabel’s response revealed that although she did not
necessarily view identity as important, it should be something to consider. Shayla was unable to
answer the question as she became what appeared to be overwhelmed with emotion and said,
“This is making me emotional. I don’t know why.” To appropriately address the participant’s
emotional response, I paused the recording device, asked if she wanted to stop the interview,
advised her that she did not have to continue and informed her of on-campus resources that
might be of assistance to her. She chose to continue the interview. Victoria also disagreed, and,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 85
similar to Isabel, stated disability identity is not at the top of her list when describing her basic
identity. She shared, “It’s not necessarily the forefront of my mind. I think. I mean, maybe it is,
but it’s just I don’t really share that with people. Don’t use this as my primary identity.”
The participants’ responses show that most of them did not view disability as a part of
their identity as it relates to other characteristics they used to define themselves. After being
asked the questions, nine participants felt that they would consider reflecting on whether they
should include disability when describing their basic identity.
Multiple identities. Participants were asked if disability should be included in
discussions about race, class and gender, and eight agreed that it should. They felt like one’s true
identity is not always addressed when the focus is just on those main topics. Furthermore, they
addressed the idea that discussions around those main topics can leave people from many other
socially constructed categories, including disability, out. This idea was expressed by Emily,
Agnes, Jasmine and Isabel. Emily stated,
People fight for their rights and their gender, like trying to explain there’s difference
sexes and genders, and identities, but what about if you have… Say you’re transsexual,
and you have a disability, and you are Latino, whatever? Disability should be included in
discussions.
Agnes added, “Race, class, and gender. Those are things that are commonly talked about. If
disability was included, maybe I would feel a little more comfortable sharing or identifying as a
DHH, having someone with that disability. Jasmine said,
I feel that, if disability is a part of that subject, that people would have more of an
understanding of that individual, of what’s going on with them as well. Because mostly
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 86
people just talk about race and gender, which is good, but if you include disability, that’s
another level right there.
Isabel stated,
It’s something that a lot of people aren’t comfortable talking about, and I think there
needs to be more. I don’t know, what’s the word? More discussion around that topic, just
the same way that we have discussions around gender and class and race, so that there’s
more acceptance of that.
Rachel did not agree and believed that disability should only be discussed by those with
them when necessary. She shared, “I’m not sure. I don’t know if you would associate it with
those categories because every kid is different. It’s not always about that. But, I guess it’s just
how society sees it maybe sometimes.” Candace also disagreed and clearly explained her point
when she stated, “I think there’s too many ignorant people, and they could totally make that into
something very negative involving race. I don’t know if it’s anything that we need to talk to
about. I don’t see that being an issue.”
Relationships and Support
The participants shared their overall experiences of notifying faculty about their
eligibility to use accommodations, their perceptions of the role faculty play to help ensure
accommodation needs were met and their interaction with faculty. They also responded to
questions about how they felt when interacting with their classmates in general and, specifically,
when those classmates knew they were eligible for accommodations. They also shared how they
felt overall about using accommodations in the classroom. Based on their responses, the four
sub-themes that emerged were relationship with faculty, relationship with peers, faculty and peer
support, and how disclosure affects these relationships and accommodation use.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 87
Relationship with faculty. In the university setting, it is the responsibility of the student
to seek and obtain accommodations. Once those accommodations are prescribed from the
appropriate office on campus, students are also encouraged to notify faculty of their eligibility to
use them. Each term, students have a different set of faculty whom they should notify. The
participants responded to questions about how they felt surrounding this process. Jessica
explained this feeling when she shared, “I’ve gotten more comfortable with it as time has gone
by. I’ve been here for about 3 years, but it’s still not my favorite subject to talk about.” Isabel and
Rachel shared similar expressions. Isabel said, “Embarrassed sometimes. I feel like, when I go
in, when I have my good days, I look fresh. You get me? Then, when they [OSD] send like that
[notification], I think they’re just like, what?” Rachel stated,
I kind of get nervous at first and shy, because, like, I don’t know how to tell them. I think
I wait until maybe the second or third week of school to see how they are or how they
interact with the class to be like, “Okay, yeah. Sorry I haven’t talked to you before, but I
just wanted to let you know that I am a part of OSD.”
Students notifying faculty that they are eligible to use accommodations is just one part of
the process for receiving academic support in the classroom. Often, there are procedures that
faculty must implement to help ensure accommodation needs for each student are met. When it
comes to faculty roles to help with these procedures, the participants described their idea of what
they believed was the responsibility of faculty. “Treat me like any other student and make sure
they are doing their part as required by their job,” was what Emily said she expected from her
faculty while Shayla expressed, “I think they play the role that is legally set by the school. Once I
disclose that either in an email or in person, they kind of just follow protocol.”
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 88
Once faculty are notified about some students use of accommodations and move forward
with the steps they need to complete to ensure access to those accommodations, the participants
were asked if they noticed any differences in the way that they were treated. Ashley said,
No, and I think, because she has a daughter that struggles with the same thing, she was
way easier to tell, but the other professors I wouldn’t feel comfortable disclosing it to
them because I know I would perceived and treated differently. Which may be an
assumption on my part but that’s what I felt that’s what informed my decision.
Rachel stated,
Yes and no. There’s this one teacher. I guess he knew that I had a disability. He would
always be like, “Oh, hey. How are you?” Or like because they went up to…like extra
friendly? Yeah, extra friendly. “How are you doing today, Rachel?” “Good.” But
sometimes they don’t really pay attention. They don’t care. They just… are like, “Okay.”
They just carry on.
Lastly, Emily mentioned,
Yes, I feel that they’re actually nicer to me. I like that the teachers have an awareness,
because before, I wouldn’t want to let them know because I didn’t want to accept that I
had a problem. I was trying to blend in and be like everyone else.
From the participants’ responses, they felt somewhat uncomfortable notifying faculty at
first, but that did not stop them from doing so when they felt the time was right. They wanted
faculty to do what they needed to do as set forth by policies and procedures to help ensure their
access to accommodations. Sometimes throughout this process, students may have disclosed to
their peers that they were eligible to use accommodations.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 89
Relationship with peers. In terms of peer interaction, the participants’ responses varied
in terms of feeling that their peers were supportive. Several participants indicated that, in
general, their interaction with their peers was okay and like any other classroom setting.
However, they found group work to be somewhat problematic. The issues regarding group work
were primarily caused by the nature of group work itself. A few participants shared that they did
disclose to their peers at various times that they were eligible to use accommodations. After
disclosing, they felt that the treatment by their peers remained the same. In fact, some found their
peers to be encouraging. Rachel said she felt “good. I felt like for the past couple of years being
here I made pretty good friends.” Victoria shared similar feelings,
Nothing. I mean, it’s just another person in the classroom, I guess. I don’t know.
Sometimes I click with people. I know, this semester, I just happened to mention me
being registered with OSD with another classmate. Then, we have two classes together.
We ended up finding together that we are registered with OSD, and so we do help each
other a lot. It’s nice because I never had that. We complement each other, I guess. It’s like
we help each other a lot, a lot.
However, there were a few participants who found group work more challenging after disclosure.
For example, Jasmine stated,
Without not telling them that I have OSD, I’m fine, but, once that’s out there, I feel like
they look at me differently, and I remember I told this one gentlemen that I had OSD and
I was part of the program. In the beginning, they’re like, “Oh, what is that? What does
that mean?” I tell them. They’re like, “Oh.” They’re like, “What disability do you have?”
I’m like, “I have a learning disability.” Later on, they’re like, “Oh, I wish I had this, or I
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 90
had that, so I could have extra time,” being more sarcastic about it. So, I think that’s a
little offensive.
Overall, the participants’ responses were that they felt somewhat comfortable with their
peers who were knowledgeable about their use of accommodations. Even if they did not tell their
peers themselves, when approached with questions they were able to respond enough to give
them an idea of what it meant to use accommodations. Although not all responses reflected a
positive interaction, the majority of participants felt they worked well with their peers whether
they knew they had accommodations or not.
Faculty and peer support. Ultimately, the decision to use classroom accommodations
begins with the student. Using accommodations in the classroom is a collaborative process
between the OSD, the faculty, the student and, sometimes, the students’ peers. The key element
of classroom collaboration is support. The participants talked about whom they felt was more
supportive, their faculty or their peers and their responses were split. Some found their faculty to
be more supportive. Rachel mentioned, “I think faculty would be more supportive than
classmates because classmates don’t really understand. They would just be like, “Why? Why?
Why?” So, I think faculty are more aware of it, of situations.” Others felt their peers were more
supportive. Emily explained, “Actually, I’ve had some students ask, ‘Where’d you go?’ I’m like,
‘Oh, I’m in OSD. I take another test outside.’ They’re like, ‘You’re so lucky.’
Emily’s response highlights the idea that peer support can help encourage those with
learning or other non-apparent disabilities. To further highlight this idea, Agnes shared, “I think
it’s been a little easier to be supported by my classmates. I don’t know if maybe because we have
something in common that we’re students, but, with faculty, it is a little more challenging.”
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 91
Like the support that participants mentioned they received from the OSD, support in the
classroom was equally important to them. They expressed how important it was to them that
faculty have an awareness of how to support and work with the learning limitations of students
with non-apparent disabilities. Many found their peer’s interaction with them to be encouraging.
How disclosure impacts these relationships and accommodation use. While the
decision to use accommodations in the classroom at a university may seem overwhelming to
some, these participants’ past experiences had a huge impact on using them at UoD. Their
responses revealed that overall, they liked using accommodations in the classroom. Shayla,
Isabel and Jasmine’s responses highlight this point. Shayla shared,
It is beneficial to sit, for example, in the front because I’m able to better follow along
with the professor. I can see the notes, and, if there’s any questions, it’s easier to get the
professor’s question. If I’m sitting in the front, raise my hand and try to get any
clarification.
Isabel stated, “I really like them, because I think, especially with this past semester, I realized
how much I did miss that. In the beginning, I didn’t know. I think because the testing, you know?
I really am passing my courses.” Jasmine added, “I’ll just say it’s really helpful using the
accommodations. Setting up note takers, having the additional notes with me just in case I
missed something, that really, really helps me out.” However, Ashley refused to use her
accommodations until she encountered a serious academic downfall and how confident she felt
about passing the class if she used them. She explained,
I didn’t use them before because I didn’t want anyone to know, just simply put. But I
realize that it affects my ability to perform as a student, so I’m not really hurting anyone
but myself by having this personal stigma with mental health issues. So, I failed the exam
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 92
the first time because I didn’t have accommodations, so I had to make sure I got the
accommodations this time.
Understanding accommodations, the process for obtaining them and how faculty and
peers respond when they are knowledgeable of such accommodations, are many of the variables
that students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities must grapple with in order to
achieve greater academic success. Their responses identified how they navigated through these
mechanisms.
Influence on Behavior.
The participants shared not just their understanding of what accommodations are but their
experiences of using them in the classroom. Using accommodations in the classroom is more
than just logistics; it also includes decision-making on the part of the student. In this study, only
two participants included disability when describing their basic identity. However, they all
agreed that disability is a part of their identity in some way and feel that disability identity did
impact their use of accommodations. They also had some negative and positive experiences with
instructors surrounding their identity that also impacted their accommodation use. Based on their
responses, the two sub-themes that emerged were accommodation use and access.
Accommodation use. In this study, there were strong verbal and physical responses to
the discussion surrounding disability identity. Participants’ responses revealed that disability
identity is something they did not really think of as a main characteristic of who they were, but it
did have a profound effect on their decision-making process when it came to using
accommodations. They were split on when they decided to use them and when they did not.
When they did decide to use accommodations, Emily, Agnes, Shayla and Jasmine shared positive
responses on their decision to use accommodations. Emily stated,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 93
It’s impacted me by all the benefits that I have now, like moving forward with my
education. It’s also helped me have more acceptance to my disability and what I can do to
help me with my learning, like asking for help. I wasn’t used to…I didn’t like doing that,
but, now, I feel more comfortable doing that.
Agnes said,
The fact that I’ve, in the past, been able to identify that I do have a disability did help me
to use my accommodations. I’ve been a student without, trying to do it on my own, and I
didn’t get the best grades. Being able to identify and actually register with the OSD at the
previous campus and here has been noted in my grades.
Shayla stated, “Well, I guess to really recognize it and acknowledge it, and just really
take, not take advantage, but, you know, to use them because they are there to help you.” Lastly,
Jasmine said,
It has really impacted me. Just doing well in my classes, getting As and Bs because of
having the accommodations. It really helps me out. So, every semester, I use the
accommodations just to get good grades in the classes.
When they decided not to use accommodations based on their disability identity, their
responses were somewhat negative. Many expressed various feelings ranging from shame,
judgment self-doubt and the assumption that it was cause issues with their instructors or
classroom environment. Emily and Jasmine shared their thoughts. Emily mentioned,
I didn’t want to identify as being disabled or having a learning disability because I felt
stupid, so I wouldn’t take the help. I tried to fit in with everyone else and be a regular
student. It didn’t work for me. I was getting bad grades because I needed that extra time. I
need to be out of the classroom not feeling judged while I’m taking a test.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 94
Jasmine added,
If I feel like if I really do not need it, then I don’t use it or don’t request. I don’t really
push for them. If they haven’t completed the contract, then I won’t push if, like I said, if I
don’t think I really need it.
The decision-making processes expressed by these participants were independent of
anyone else. They also correlated disability with their identity even if not expressed as a main
characteristic. That correlation was expressed in their responses regarding negative and positive
experiences with instructors, from middle school to college, that had an impact on their decision
to use accommodations.
Using accommodations in educational institutions for these students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities requires many steps that include deciding if they, in fact, need to
use them, if they want to use them, how they can obtain them and who will support them through
this process. Regardless of their prior experiences, support was a key factor that they indicated
during the interviews. They all expressed that, if it were not for the support they received from
someone within the institution such as a faculty or staff member, program or peer, they would
have either had challenges understanding the process of using accommodations or waited much
longer than they should have to seek help.
Access. Many universities are using the word inclusion and diversity to define either their
student body, faculty and staff or both. These phrases are often used to show that the institution is
aware of the many backgrounds, specifically culturally, ethnically and financially that each
student belongs to. In addition, it often describes various programming and course content. One
key element of inclusion for students with disabilities was access. Jessica expressed how she
would feel and what she would do if she did not have access to accommodations when she said,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 95
“I don’t know if I would be able to complete the program to be honest with you.” Agnes,
Victoria, and Emily also shared their thoughts. Agnes mentioned,
I would try to see if I can qualify to receive cart services [such as real-time captioning]
through some outside agency or check in with the university about their procedures,
because I don’t think I’d be able to be successful in completing my degree or getting the
grades that I would like without these accommodations.
Victoria stated,
I wouldn’t be here. I would not ever believe that I can do higher education. I would
not believe it was possible. I actually did go to one of those vocational schools to be a
dental assistant because I thought there’s no way that I can pass going to a 4-year
university. With these accommodations, that’s what helped me.
Emily said, “I’m not sure. I guess cry. I don’t know. Work a bit harder as a student, I guess.” As
noted in the literature, there are several reasons accommodations exist. Students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities can struggle due to processing deficits or symptoms related to
medical conditions that impact their learning. Access to accommodations allows them to have the
same opportunity as their non-disabled peers. The participants in this study all agreed that,
whether they used their accommodations regularly or not, without access to them, they would
either struggle more or would not be attending a 4-year university.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 96
Being Vocal
Participants expressed their overall perceptions of how they felt their voice mattered
within the institution, advocacy and institutional suggestions to help create a more inclusive
campus environment. Using one’s voice and advocating can help create a positive or negative
impact on decision-making processes, especially with regard to accommodations within the
university setting. Based on their responses, the three sub-themes that emerged were the voice of
students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities, advocacy and creating more inclusion.
The voices of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities. Nine of the
ten participants agreed that the idea about including disability in the discussion would make them
more willing to discuss their disability and make them feel like their voice mattered. They added
that more discussions about disability would give their voice a stronger presence. They also felt
that these discussions would provide more insight and awareness to students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities. Many stated that, with such awareness, they would be more
willing to use their voice as it relates to sharing information and knowledge about this population
of students. “I feel like my voice should matter, but as I mentioned, it’s kind of hard to be
accepted in society, especially because my disability’s not visible,” explained Shayla. Jessica
provided more detail when she said,
I would say just because somebody doesn’t have an apparent disability doesn’t mean that
their opinion doesn’t matter, so people with non-apparent disability have different
struggles, or maybe even the same struggles, or similar struggles, that matters as well. I
think definitely their voice should be heard.
Although administrators run educational institutions, the student voice is an important
component for educational institutions. Student voice helps create numerous logistics,
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 97
curriculum, structure, policies and other criteria that help the institution run. Often, some of those
voices are left out, causing some students to feel marginalized. So, the participants were asked if
they felt their current institution does what it can to make sure their voice matters and eight
participants agreed that it did, which was expressed by Emily and Agnes. Emily said,
I feel like I’m treated the same as anyone with their disabilities here. I get all the same
rights, and they actually listen to what I need and make sure that I get the
accommodations. I feel like it’s fair.
Agnes stated,
This campus does provide, I think, it’s a disabilities week. They have included DHH in
the past, so that is definitely one way that this university does help us students that have
non-apparent disabilities. They do have other information sessions for students that are
incoming, so I think that the OSD office does do a great job as far as trying to help us.
As the participants’ responses indicated, they felt that their voice should matter. If
discussions around race, class and gender are common, they felt disability should definitely be
included in those types of conversations. Typically, these are the types of conversations that take
place in the classroom.
Advocacy. One of the main features of being a student with a learning or other non-
apparent disability is that others are not usually aware of such diagnoses because they cannot
physically see it. For the students who have these specific diagnoses, they were asked if they had
any experiences where they had to advocate for other students with the same or similar
diagnoses. Only two participants, Emily and Rachel, had such an experience. Emily stated,
It was this girl that I know. I told her about DOR because her brother has a learning
disability, and she told me that he believed that he was stupid. The same stuff like he was
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 98
put in a mentally retard class, like the way they labeled it. I told her about DOR and
accommodations, how they can help him get a job and stuff. She actually took him there,
and he qualified.
Rachel stated,
There was this one friend that I had. She was new to the school. They got a new IEP
teacher. She made us all go into a classroom, like all the kids with an IEP, to work on
homework assignment or something. The girl that was sitting next to me didn’t do
anything. I was like, “Oh, okay. I kind of know this. Yeah, I kind of know this.” “What’s
going on?” She was like, “I don’t get it.” I was like, “Oh, well, this means this. This is
how you do this.” Then, the teacher wanted everybody to be quiet, so she looked at me.
She was like, “Hey, be quiet. Don’t talk.” I said, “Well, she can’t really. She needs help.
Can you help her?” She goes, “No, it’s just about you guys. Like you on your own.” I
was like, “Okay, well, I’m going to help her.”
Although the other participants did not have an experience of advocacy for another
student with the same or similar diagnoses, they all did confirm that they would. They expressed
that they never really thought about advocating for others because they were still trying to
grapple with advocating for themselves. However, when the question was posed, they all felt
that, moving forward, advocacy was something that they would take on if a situation where it
was needed presented itself.
Creating more inclusion. Understanding the many factors that play a role with students
with learning or other non-apparent disabilities can help inform practice for educational
institutions seeking to provide more inclusion for all students. As a researcher, I believe the first
step to obtaining rich feedback on what students feel educational institutions can do to help make
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 99
them feel more connected is to ask them directly. When asked about what they thought
educational institutions could do to better support students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities, Emily shared, “I think that there should be awareness of what type of learning
disabilities there are out there. We take classes for what type of gender there is. I think people
have a limited resource or information about what disability is and how it affects people.” Agnes
and Ashley also had strong responses to this question. Agnes said,
I think if there was, maybe, a general way of communication, for administrators and
faculty especially, like at the department or any of the other offices. I don’t think they’re
fully understanding on how to assist someone with a disability, and I think they should be
a little more open to maybe, in my case, repeating information. Jessica says I’ve gotten
more comfortable with it as time has gone by. I’ve been here for about three years. Okay.
But it’s still not my favorite subject to talk about.
Ashley stated,
I think teachers need to be more informed about what non-apparent disability are, number
one, and how to deal with students that have them. How to recognize when a student is
having difficulties maybe because of a non-apparent situation and just know to be more
compassionate and recognize what these students look like. Even though we don’t look
like something is wrong you should be able to tell it’s not.
The participants all agreed that more could be done to create a more inclusive
environment within educational institutions for students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities. They all felt that their current institution, UoD was doing well but could definitely
improve.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 100
Conclusion
This chapter presented findings from data collected through interviews and
questionnaires from participants who attend the UoD and self-identified as having a learning or
other non-apparent disability. A description of the participants was presented, followed by
several themes and sub-themes that emerged which highlighted their experiences, perceptions
and behavior as they relate to the influence of ableism and accommodations. The two research
questions that provided guidance for this study were also used to guide data analysis.
The findings in this study provided insight into the experiences and behavior that resulted
from those experiences which influenced their decision-making process with regard to
accommodation use for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities. Each theme
lends itself to interpretation based on participant responses as they relate to each other and CDT.
Overall, the participants all had prior use of accommodations at other educational
institutions; thus, they had a clear understanding of what accommodations were, who determined
their eligibility to use them and helped to ensure they had access to them. However, they had a
very low understanding of the policies and procedures at their institution regarding students with
disabilities. They felt that disability is still viewed negatively among society and how that view
impacted their disability identity. Disability identity was something that all participants indicated
in the pre-interview questionnaire but only one expressed as important to them when responding
to the interview questions. They expressed strong feelings of how they viewed the role of faculty
as it relates to accommodation use and shared experiences of how that may have influenced their
decision-making process.
The findings also discussed how these participants felt using accommodations in the
classroom as well as how they felt if they did not have access to them at all. Throughout this
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 101
section, quotes from participant responses were used to provide examples of each of the
categories and themes. Implications for practice gathered from these data as well as an overall
conclusion of this study are presented in Chapter Five.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 102
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This qualitative study examined the meanings and experiences of students with learning
or other non-apparent disabilities, their decision to use accommodations in college classrooms
and whether factors related to ableism, intersectionality or classroom environment affected those
experiences. This study also sought to understand these students’ voices that are often less
recognized than their physically disabled peers. Analysis of participants’ narratives provided
insight to their experience that may have otherwise been misunderstood.
This chapter provides a discussion of findings from participants who attend the UoD and
self-identified as having a learning or other non-apparent disability. The discussion centers on the
six themes that emerged from this study. The discussion of these themes will also address the
research questions (RQ) in this study:
1. What are the experiences of undergraduate students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities as they relate to ableism, intersectionality, the classroom environment and use
of accommodations?
2. What factors affect the decision-making process of undergraduate students with learning
or other non-apparent disabilities to use their prescribed classroom accommodations?
The findings confirm that the conceptual framework, CDT, upon which this study was
based, can help guide practice while working with and supporting students with learning or other
non-apparent disabilities. The seven components that comprise CDT are (a) social model of
disability, (b) multidimensionality, (c) valuing diversity, (d) rights, (e) voice, (f) language and (g)
transformative politics. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research are
also presented.

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 103
Discussion of Findings
The findings revealed that students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities had a
strong sense of what accommodations were and their purpose for use inside the classroom. In
some cases, knowing what accommodations were deterred some participants from wanting to use
them. All but two participants in this study used them consistently. In addition, all participants
felt that disability is still stigmatized in today’s society and that stigma often impacted their
decision to use their accommodations in the classroom. Although the findings suggest stigma
caused by ableist practices negatively affected some of their behavior, they still found that it was
important for faculty to support their efforts with using accommodations and often relied on that
support. The participants felt that it was important for their voice to be heard, yet most did not
find disability an important part of their identity. Thus, they did not describe experiences
regarding the intersectionality of their disability. The findings sought answers to the research
questions that guided this study and are addressed in the next section of this discussion and
examined the holistic approach of CDT dealing with individuals’ disabilities, laws surrounding
disability and provide insight on how to counter discrimination and oppression towards
disability, which is also addressed in the next section of this discussion.
Research Question 1: Experiences
Embarrassment. Many of the participants initially felt a sense of embarrassment
knowing that they were eligible to use accommodations, especially during their elementary,
middle and high school years. However, at the college level, although the participants may have
still felt embarrassment, especially because it was up to them to disclose in order to be eligible
for accommodations, they found them to be helpful.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 104
Helpful. Participants also reflected on the idea of not having the extra support of
accommodations and how that would negatively impact their ability to fully succeed
academically. Thus, having the help of accommodations can yield more positive outcomes. Jeff
Ogden, coordinator of student accessibility services at Franklin Pierce University (as cited in
Hamblet, 2018) explained, “The way accommodations are delivered in college is far preferable
to what they experienced in high school,” (p. 6). can also contribute to how helpful students
perceive them.
The rights component of CDT explains that it is necessary to promote full participation
and integration of people with disabilities both individually and within society. The participant
responses revealed that although they may have felt embarrassed knowing they needed
accommodations, it was their right to have access to them. With prior negative experiences
surrounding accommodations, most of the participants changed their views about them once they
reached college, which in turn changed their behavior.
Research Question 1: Experiences as They Relate To Ableism
The impact of ableism on student perceptions of disability. All participants felt
strongly that the stigma surrounding disability throughout society was pervasive enough to cause
them to doubt about their own ability to succeed academically. The summary of findings from
other studies suggests that educators need to place more effort into helping students address their
self-perceptions as related to their disability to help reduce the myths that lead to the
internalization of negative societal views of disability as well as their own (Lightfoot, Janemi, &
Rudman, 2018). The results from this study also revealed that the participants believe that
society automatically associates a negative connotation to the word “disability.” That association
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 105
can lead to being judged, labeled and treated differently by those who are less accepting and lack
understanding towards disabilities in general.
Lack of knowledge about policies, procedures and rights as a student with a
disability. Educational institutions have policies, laws, guidelines and several other procedural
criteria that help facilitate the day-to-day operations and compliance with federal and state
mandates set forth for university system requirements. However, this study revealed that the
participants were not aware of such laws, with the exception of one participant who mentioned
the ADA. They assumed that the university had laws to help protect them from discrimination
but were not able to delineate any. Furthermore, some participants were not sure what it meant
for such policies to exist. The participants mentioned only one campus entity that they believed
supported efforts to prevent them from discrimination because they had a disability, which was
the OSD. They also suggested that these policies were not a direct indicator that discrimination
would be prevented.
The CDT components valuing diversity and rights propose that we as a society should be
more accepting of differences instead of dismissing them. Even though these participants had a
non-apparent disability, they still talked about some of the negative experiences and treatment
they received both inside and outside of the campus community. Those experiences, along with
others they had seen over time, impacted the way they felt about having a disability. What
encouraged the participants to feel less pressure from the stigma surrounding disability was to
only discuss their diagnosis within the educational institution where they felt more comfortable.
Research Question 1: Understanding Identity
Disability identity. When asked about their identity, most of the participants shared
characteristics other than having a disability. They indicated that being a person with a disability
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 106
was not a core identity to them and not something they had even considered prior to being asked
the question during the interview. Although several participants did not feel that their disability
identity was important to them, they also indicated that it should be. These responses may stem
from the perceptions they have in terms of how society views disability from a negative lens.
Furthermore, it may have influenced their level of disclosure as it related to their perception of
disability identity.
Multiple identities. The terms diversity and inclusion have seen rapid growth in their use
among educational institutions within the last 10 years. Often, when speaking of diversity,
categories such as race, class, gender and ethnicity come to the forefront. However, in these
discussions, conversation surrounding disability is lacking. Many theorists often link disability to
the cultural diversity realm, which can often be problematic because it is based on the minority
model of disability (Anastasiou, Kauffman, & Michail, 2016). This model makes cultural
differences more appealing, thus leaving students who have disabilities questioning whether or
not it is a true representation of their overall identity (Colker, 2005; Davis, 2002; Krieger, 2003).
The CDT components multidimensionality and transformative politics, can be used to
guide this area. Multidimensionality can contribute to reducing stigma surrounding disability or
promoting it. Disability identity is something that can be recognized early on by an individual or
develop over time. Even when it is recognized, it may not be something that individuals with
disabilities see as central to their identity, like many of the participants of this study. The
intersectionality of identity, disability and the politics that surround them can often create more
marginalization for specific groups because of their differences, rather than creating more
inclusion because of them. While the participants in this study chose multiple identities they
identified with, it was clear that disability was something with which they struggled. In order to
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 107
be able to truly navigate intersectionality, they would have first have to identify with their
disability identity. Once identified, transformative politics can help provide empowerment and
equity leading one to confidently challenge systems of power in a search for equity.
Research Question 2: Factors that Affect the Decision-Making Process
Relationship with faculty. The faculty-student relationship is one of the driving forces
of higher educational institutions. This is because “the most vital role of faculty members (tutors,
consultants and school administrators) is to improve the student learning experience” (Abi-Raad,
2018, p. 14). What stood out the most in this study was that several of the participants had a
preconceived notion of fear of notifying faculty that they were eligible to use accommodations.
In previous studies with students with disabilities, participants mentioned several
experiences they had with faculty that contributed to their hesitancy to either let them know they
were eligible to use accommodations or actually use them. However, studies like this one found
that the majority of the time students inform faculty of their eligibility to use accommodations,
that faculty are quite supportive. Educators play a key role in the development of student
success. Interpersonal skills and an understanding of accommodations can also contribute to a
positive relationship between faculty and students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities.
Relationship with peers. The relationship between students with learning or other non-
apparent disabilities and their non-disabled peers is also important to student success. Research
suggests that a part of creating a learning environment that is beneficial to all is to strengthen the
attitudes of non-disabled students so that it is more positive towards their peers with disabilities
(Everett & Oswald, 2018). Disclosure to peers about accommodation use can often be a sensitive
topic for students with disabilities because of the stigma associated with it. While all students can
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 108
benefit from their peer relationships, these can prove to be even more valuable and provide an
additional source of support for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities.
Faculty and peer support. When using accommodations, it is typically the faculty
member who receives notification that the student is eligible to use them. Thus, the first level of
support often comes from faculty. Faculty who are aware of ADA laws and understand the
purpose of accommodations are more often more equipped to offer the additional support that
these students require to help with their academic success.
Similar to faculty support, peer support also encourages a healthy classroom
environment, especially for students with non-apparent disabilities. Participants felt very strongly
that their peers would support them if they knew they were eligible to use accommodations.
They attributed these feelings to the fact that both they and their peers were striving towards the
same goal. When faculty and students collaborate and work together for the success of all
students in the class, stigma can be reduced and greater success can be obtained (Sachs &
Schreuer, 2011).
How disclosure impacts classroom accommodation use. Disclosure in order to use
accommodations in the classroom is the one of the most important first steps that may hinder
accommodation use by students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities. The participants
in this study took many factors, such as professor response, stigma and stereotypes about
disability, into consideration prior to initiating their accommodation use at UoD. As a result, all
of them had some hesitancy with disclosing, especially with regard to how their instructor would
perceive them. Interestingly, after disclosing their need for accommodations to faculty, only two
participants noticed any change in their professors’ behavior towards them. The stigma
surrounding disabilities, past negative experiences and fear of being judged often create
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 109
hesitancy with disclosing and using accommodations in the classroom (Grimes, Southgate,
Scevak, & Buchanan, 2018). For these participants, their overall experience with disclosure was
positive.
All seven components of CDT are encompassed within this area; however, it centers on
how to work around the negative impact of the social model of disability in the classroom. The
classroom is the nucleus for student learning. The concept of teaching and learning has been
socially constructed to view the instructor as the expert and the student as the learner when
entering the classroom. As the social model of CDT points out, understanding that social and
physical elements can contribute to environmental barriers for students with disabilities can help
increase a healthy classroom environment and provide a more comprehensive way of addressing
the needs for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities in the classroom.
Research Question 2: How Identity Affects Accommodation Use and Impacts Access
Accommodation use. Because most of the participants did not initially see disability as a
central part of their identity, it was difficult for them to determine if it had any impact on their
willingness to use their prescribed accommodations in the classroom. Some participants shared
that, although their disability was non-apparent, they still encountered some negative
experiences. By understanding and being content that their disability identity was but one
characteristic of their true self, this population of students can move beyond those negative
experiences, engage in the conversation about reducing associated stigmas and be confident with
their accommodation use. In addition, with additional encouragement and support from faculty,
peers and the institution, the stigma surrounding disability identity can be reduced, allowing this
population of students to move beyond negative experiences and be confident with disability
identity and their accommodation use.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 110
Access. As mentioned in the literature, there are several reasons why accommodations
exist, the most pertinent being the ADA. Having access to accommodations allows them to be on
the same playing field as their non-disabled peers. The participants all agreed, whether they used
their accommodations regularly or not, that, without access to them, they would either struggle
more or would not be attending a four-year university. This speaks to their understanding of the
importance of access to accommodations. Without access, not only would an educational
institution be in violation of ADA laws, but they would also be failing to create an inclusive and
equitable learning environment for students with disabilities.
Whether primary or not, disability identity can dictate whether a student who is eligible
to use accommodations in the classroom does so or not. For example, the participants from this
study felt that, if the instructor was doing what they could to ensure that their learning limitations
were valued in the classroom, they would be more likely to use their accommodations. If they
felt that they were being marginalized, they might refrain from doing so. CDT can provide
guidance on how to deal with students’ disability identity and their access to accommodation use
in the classroom.
Research Question 2: Student Voice, Advocacy and Inclusion
The voices of students with non-apparent disabilities. The voices of students with non-
apparent disabilities was lacking in research and was one of the driving forces for this study. It is
important that educators understand the perceptions of all students as they relate to their overall
success. As mentioned in the literature, individuals with disabilities are often ignored or
overlooked when examining what diversity looks like on a college campus (Longmore, 2003).
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 111
In addition, not only are they being overlooked as a whole, but their voices often go unheard and
their perceptions of their voice not mattering both in society and within educational institutions
remain.
Advocacy. In order to create, improve and maintain access to accommodations, students
with learning or other non-apparent disabilities would benefit by becoming advocates for
themselves. According to Edwards (2006), there are three types of advocacy or allyship (self-
interest, altruism and social justice) that work with members of oppressed groups. The
participants for this study have the potential to fall into all three categories, so this study sought
to learn whether they perceived themselves as advocates for other students with learning or other
non-apparent disabilities, or if they had actually been an advocate for others or for themselves. It
was clear from their responses that only two participants had actually advocated for themselves
or someone else. The other participants revealed that they did not think of themselves as
advocates or had the potential to advocate for someone else prior to the questions asked in this
study. Advocacy from a social justice lens leadership is an important element, particularly
because advocacy is action-oriented (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Reason, Broido, Davis, & Evans,
2005a). While several of the participants did not really consider advocacy for themselves or
others prior to the interview, they understood the importance of it.
Creating more inclusion. The saying “we have an inclusive campus” is a message heard
often among many urban colleges but saying it is not enough. Higher education institution
stakeholders who say that should have true understanding of what inclusion is so that they are
able to show it as well as say it. In order to be fully inclusive, all students need access to the
supports that will help them succeed. Participants had several suggestions about what they
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 112
thought the institution could do to promote more inclusion for them and as well as other students
with disabilities:
• Providing awareness among the campus community regarding learning disabilities;
• Finding a collaborative way for faculty, staff and administrators to communicate about
the needs for students in this particular diagnosis category;
• Providing more information to faculty, especially adjuncts, on the ADA and how
accommodations work in the classroom;
• Providing learning tools to all students that would greatly benefit those with disabilities;
• Creating a program specifically taught by the OSD for both faculty and students;
• Providing guidance to faculty on how to deal with students who have non-apparent
disabilities; and
• Increasing or continuing the idea of acceptance for students who have these particular
diagnoses.
While the participants felt that UoD was doing a satisfactory job at making sure the institution
was inclusive to their needs, these suggestions highlight that there is still a possibility for
improvements.
CDT emphasizes that disability needs are often expressed by those who are non-disabled
and that it is important to understand their needs by hearing directly from them. All participants
felt that it was important for their voice to matter. Using the voice component of CDT would
provide the participants the opportunity for their voice to matter and allow them to have a better
feeling of belonging.
Furthermore, that feeling of belonging can be a catalyst for advocacy, which can carry
over into institutions to create change. The participants shared several ways they felt the
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 113
institution could do more to improve inclusion throughout the campus for students with
disabilities. The theory behind transformative politics within CDT is that the success of students
with disabilities may be negatively impacted by hidden factors associated with unfair policies.
The goal is to recognize those policies and identify if they are based around the social model, so
that they are less problematic. CDT emphasizes the need for those in power to use their power to
create policies that are effective and fair for students with disabilities.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study can be used by administrators, faculty, staff and policy makers
to help create a more inclusive institutional environment for students with learning or other non-
apparent disabilities that will foster meaningful relationships to help them through their college
experience while allowing them to feel safe and confident as they take ownership of their
learning limitations. All entities within the campus community are responsible for providing an
opportunity for student success. The need to support students with disabilities is growing. The
information provided in this study can provide a foundation to help better understand the needs
of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities. The components of CDT, which are
not widely recognized, can also be valuable tools when making policy decisions centered on
disability and access. The following recommendations can help provide guidance for these
implications.
Increase faculty engagement. Based on participants’ responses regarding their
classroom environment, university administrators should look at and analyze current policies,
procedures, curriculum and instruction to see how they might be able to increase the number of
faculty who already use specific learning strategies to help support students with non-apparent
disabilities. Faculty should be encouraged to implement Universal Design of Instruction (UDI) in
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 114
the classroom environment if they have not done so already. Furthermore, traditional Universal
Design (UD) should be used throughout the campus. The participants in this study felt that
faculty were supportive as it related to their learning limitations, which is contrary to prior
research. Faculty currently engaged in using learning strategies to support this population can be
called upon to help increase engagement by participating in a forum where they can share their
methods, which may not only provide new information to other faculty, but help them to better
understand the need to continue to create a more inclusive learning environment for this
population of students. Faculty engagement must be collaborative among all stakeholders:
administrators, faculty, staff and students for continued success working with students in this
population. This recommendation would address the concerns of several participants who
resonated with the conclusion of Quaye and Harper (2014) that, in order to provide students with
disabilities the opportunities to have a fully enriching educational experience, simply providing
them with support services is not sufficient.
Increase training. Eight of the participants in the study suggested that the campus
community needed to be more aware of the different types of disabilities and diagnosis, the ADA
and how to interact with individuals who have them. Often, higher education institutions run
workshops and trainings with a specific focus to promote professional development and highlight
resources. For students, workshops often consist of those highlighting academic scholarship,
study tools and special topics such as those surrounding current events. In order to provide more
awareness to non-disabled students about how to interact with their disabled peers, there needs to
be consistency and repetition in the distribution of this type of information. The UoD should
work in collaboration with the OSD to present information on the services they provide, the
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 115
various diagnoses and the ADA just as the participants mentioned. This would provide more
opportunities for these stakeholders to obtain this information.
The workshops and trainings will focus on the services that students with disabilities are
eligible for, a clear understanding of the ADA and how those laws impact accommodation use in
the classroom, and how to better understand the various types of learning disabilities their peers
may have. Most importantly, these activities should provide students with tools on how to
interact with students with non-apparent disabilities. The first step to help students better
understand how to interact with students from this population and develop their empathy skills
around their learning limitations is to change their thinking about them. For example, believing
that, because the student does not have a physical disability that can be seen, the student is faking
or does not have a real disability or need accommodations. Many of the participants expressed
several challenges they had with some of their peers because they could not see their disability.
This type of thinking can promote stereotype threat, a phenomenon that causes one to identify
with and confirm negative stereotypes about themselves that often leads to underperformance
and mostly impacts those from marginalized backgrounds (Spencer, Logel, & Davies, 2016).
Moving from deficit thinking to thinking that helps promote a growth mindset, motivates
students to improve, and giving them a greater sense of belonging (Spencer et at., 2016) can have
a positive impact on a student’s overall learning process and classroom experience. In addition to
changing the thinking about students with disabilities, being well informed on how to interact
and empathize with students with non-apparent disabilities and being well educated on the ADA
may empower non-disabled students to help reduce the stigma surrounding disability and provide
greater support to their peers who have them.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 116
Policy makers and high-level administrators should work to promote and support these
types of workshops and trainings the same way they work to promote other areas within the
campus community. This recommendation is in alignment with the literature, specifically the
work of Belch (2004), who cited several pieces from others who researched this topic and found
three key factors that can affect the success of students with disabilities, which were (a) social
integration with peers, faculty and staff, (b) a lack of self-determination or self-esteem and (c)
unfavorable faculty attitudes and non-inclusive curricula. The trainings and workshops along
with distribution of ADA information will be a collaborative effort between the OSD office,
chairs, deans, provosts, faculty and should take place periodically throughout each semester.
Although geared towards non-disabled students, the workshops and trainings would also be open
to faculty and staff who are interested in learning about the peer dynamic between students with
non-apparent disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
Create a stronger sense of belonging. Most institutions take the necessary steps to
incorporate basic accessibility, such as providing interpreters for large events, ramps and
elevators for buildings, assistive technology and accommodation statements on syllabus.
However, often, the basics are not sufficient because they only fit the needs of a few, leaving
others out. Providing OSD students, specifically those whose disability is non-apparent, with
information as it pertains to their rights as a college student under the ADA is lacking and
necessary. When this population of students needs are not met within the campus community it
can create a sense of isolation and disconnect. This may be because they are not sure how to
navigate the system especially with regard to their ADA rights. In the literature, Corrigan and
Kleinlein (2005) and Kranke et al. (2013) discussed how external stressors can stem from
negative perceptions and discrimination by others and be propagated by societal beliefs and
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 117
stereotypes. These external stressors can manifest internally because students with non-apparent
disabilities are unaware of how to adequately address issues that arise as they relate to their
rights. Furthermore, those who do not choose to advocate may be doing so for something they
are not eligible for or that is not under the purview of the ADA. Providing them with accurate
information and giving them an opportunity to be at the table so their voice can be heard may
allow this population to better understand their rights and encourage, empower and support their
academic success. This information should be provided by the OSD office but require support
and collaborative efforts with chairs, deans, provosts, faculty and should be distributed
periodically throughout each semester. Incorporating this recommendation can help to reduce
public stigma that can interfere with these students’ overall ability to successfully integrate into
the college community.
Future Research
Additional research on students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities is
essential. Enrollment of students with disabilities at four-year institutions continues to grow, and
the number of students who disclose disabilities continues to as well. Any additional data on this
population will contribute to the importance of understanding their lived experience. It is
imperative that their voice is present in the data so that stakeholders within the institution take
the necessary steps to not only support their needs but to know what they need. The support for
students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities is often different than what is needed by
those with physical impairments. Students with disabilities should be viewed through a social
justice and human rights lens. By viewing them through these lenses, data can help educators be
sure that the support the students are receiving in four-year institutions is sufficient enough to
help them graduate. Also, by having additional evidence backed data, institutional stakeholders
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 118
can have a better understanding of the lived experiences of this population, as well as tools that
help support their role in effectively addressing the needs for this population.
An additional focus of this future research should be to look at self-advocacy and self-
efficacy for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities, which can also strengthen
the data on this topic. Some students have full knowledge and understanding of themselves, their
rights and their learning limitations (Test et al., 2005). It would be interesting to see data on
students within this population, who have shared how confident they feel about their learning
ability and ways they approach learning challenges. Having a sense of strong self-efficacy can
influence self-advocacy. The more aware and confident these students are about their disability
identity and their ability to approach their learning challenges, the more likely they are advocate
for themselves or others.
It would also be helpful to study students who are not already registered with the Office
for Students with Disabilities and use that data as a comparison cohort. Students that are already
registered indicates that they are somewhat open to disclosure. However, there may be other
students who due to various reasons are still choosing not to disclose. Thus, if they were
provided with an opportunity to use accommodations, would they and why have they chosen to
not disclose.
Conclusion
Throughout history, individuals with disabilities have been viewed as abnormal (Connor
& Baglieri, 2009). Because of this, throughout society today, much stigma surrounding
disabilities still exists. The fear of being labeled judged or treated differently increases this
stigma. This study provided an in-depth historical overview of disabilities. The literature for this
study focused on the historical overview and on the various elements that have contributed to
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 119
development of DS as well as on the students who are impacted by laws set forth by the ADA.
Various aspects of students with disabilities in higher education were also addressed. However,
the current research is limited and dated and focuses mostly on disabilities in general and not
those that are learning or non-apparent. In addition, the voice of students is missing.
The findings of this study provided insight on the lived experiences of undergraduate
students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities and how ableism, intersectionality, the
classroom environment and use of accommodations affected their decision to use their prescribed
accommodations. Participant responses indicated that, although they believed there is still stigma
surrounding disability, the need for them to use their accommodations in the classroom
outweighs that stigma. However, the responses also revealed that most of them lack a true
understanding of the ADA and how it supports them as college students with disabilities.
Because of the social justice lens, these elements are unique and significant to this study. The
participants shared of wealth of information detailing their lived experiences within a four-year
institution as they related to these areas. Their responses also revealed many implications for
stakeholders of higher education institutions and how they can create a more inclusive
environment for this population. Published literature indicates that one of the barriers to success
for students with disabilities is the student-faculty relationship. One of the findings of this study
was that most participants found faculty to be very supportive and, as a result, had a positive
student-faculty relationship. In fact, most of the barriers revealed in their responses indicated that
their perceptions and behavior stemmed from their own feelings as they related to stigma and
their ability to perform academically.
This research is important because it adds to the limited research on this specific
population and views disability from a social justice lens. This study also provides awareness of
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 120
how ableist practices, whether intentional or not, can have a negative impact on student behavior,
specifically as it relates to accommodation use. Therefore, the findings from this study can be
useful for those who work daily with students in higher education institutions because they
emphasize the importance of creating a more stigma free environment that reduces the taboo-like
discussions around disabilities and promotes more acceptance for students with them. Many of
the participants valued the support they received from the OSD, and some of their faculty did as
well. Understanding the importance of empowerment, support and student voice for this
population can serve as tools to providing valuable opportunities for students with learning or
other non-apparent disabilities. Finally, there is a crucial need for more collaboration among
stakeholders within higher education institutions to create more inclusive environments by
examining the current attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about this population and their non-
disabled peers.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 121
REFERENCES
Abi-Raad, M. (2018). The Implicit role of first-years' higher education faculties. IAFOR Journal
of Education, 6(1), 7-23.
Abreu, M., Hillier, A., Frye, A., & Goldstein, J. (2017). Student experiences utilizing disability
support services in a university setting. College Student Journal, 50(3), 323-328.
Agarwal, N., Moya, E. M., Yasui, N. Y., & Seymour, C. (2015). Participatory action research
with college students with disabilities: Photovoice for an inclusive campus. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 243–250.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990)
Anderson, M. P. I. (1993). Social support and barriers to higher education: Experience of
students with physical disabilities (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Michail, D. (2016). Disability in multicultural theory:
Conceptual and social justice issues. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(1), 3-12.
Appleby, E. T. (1994). The relationship between self-advocacy and self-concept among college
students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Database. (9411230)
Areheart, B. A. (2008). When disability isn’t just right: The entrenchment of the medical model
of disability and the goldilocks dilemma. Industrial Law Journal, 83, 181, 214–265.
Aune, E. (1991). A transitional model for postsecondary-bound students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(3), 177–187.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 122
Ballard, K. (2004). Ideology and the origins of exclusion: A case study. In L. Ware (Ed.),
Ideology and the politics of (in)exclusion (pp. 89–107). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Barnes, C. M., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological
introduction. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Barnett, L., & Li, Y. (1997). Disability support services in community colleges research.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Barton, L. (2004). The politics of special education: A necessary or irrelevant approach? In L.
Ware (Ed.), Ideology and the politics of (in)exclusion (pp. 63–75). New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Bejoian, L. M., & Reid, D. K. (2005). A disability studies perspective on the bush education
agenda: The no child left behind act of 2001 1. Equity & Excellence in Education,38(3),
220–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680591002597
Belch, H. A. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of College Student
Retention, 6(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.2190/MC5A-DHRV-1GHM-N0CD
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for
effective policy and practice (Vol. 2). Sterling VA: Stylus.
Black, E. (2003). War against the weak. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Data. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bruder, M. B., & Mogro-Wilson, C. (2014). Student and faculty awareness and attitudes about
students with disabilities. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 6(2), 1–
66.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 123
Campbell, F. (2008). Refusing Able(ness): A preliminary conversation about ableism. M/C
Journal, 11(3). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/
article/view/46%2C
Campbell, K. (2009). Contours of ableism: Territories, objects, disability and desire. London,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245181
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.
Chávez, A. F., & Guido ‐DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity and development. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1999(84), 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.8405
Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., & Escott, P. (2014). Marginalization and associated concepts and
processes in relation to mental health/illness. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35(3),
224–226. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2014.883792
Colker, R. (2005). The disability pendulum: The first decade of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Collins, M. E., & Mowbray, C. T. (2005). Higher education and psychiatric disabilities: National
survey of campus disability services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(2), 304-
315.
Connor, D. J., & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: Disability studies asks “How much
diversity can you take?” In S. R. Steinberg (Ed.). Diversity and multiculturalism: A
reader (pp. 341–362). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 124
Corker, M. (1998). Deaf and disabled, or deafness disabled? Towards a human rights
perspective. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Corker, M. (1999). Differences, conflations and foundations: The limits to ‘accurate’ theoretical
representation of disabled people’s experience? Disability & Society, 14(5), 627–642.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925984
Corrigan, P., & Kleinlein, P. (2005). The impact of mental illness stigma. In P. Corrigan (Ed.), On
the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change (pp. 11-
44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and
emerging issues. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS professional
standards for higher education (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1229039
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cuadros, J. H. (2005). The status of disability in Colombia and the importance of parental
perceptions on the development of special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children
Plus,1(5), 1–7.
Cultural Competence. (2002). In McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.
Retrieved from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cultural+competence
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 125
Darrow, A. (2015). Ableism and social justice. In C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, G. Spruce, P.
Woodford, & A. Darrow. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Social Justice in Music
Education (pp. 204–220). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Davis, L. J. (1997). Constructing normalcy: The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the
disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies (pp. 9-
20). New York, NY: Routledge.
Davis, L. (2002). Bending over backwards : Disability, dismodernism, and other difficult
positions. New York, NY: New York University Press.
De Cesarei, A. (2014). Disclosure of disability by university students: Development of a study
protocol. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(8), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2014.
28012
deFur, S. H., Getzel, E. E., & Trossi, K. (1996). Making the postsecondary education match: A
role for transition planning. Journal of V ocational Rehabilitation, 6(3), 231–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1052-2263(96)00188-2
Denhart, H. (2008). Deconstructing barriers: Perceptions of students labeled with learning
disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 483-497.
Durlak, C. M., Rose, E., & Bursuck, W. D. (1994). Preparing high school students with learning
disabilities for the transition to postsecondary education: Teaching the skills of self-
determination. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00
2221949402700108
Eckes, S. E., & Ochoa, T. A. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school to
higher education. American Secondary Education, 3(3), 6–20.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 126
Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual
model. NASP A journal, 43(4), 39-60.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in
college. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Enright, M. S., Conyers, L. M., & Szymanski, E. M. (1996). Career and career ‐related
educational concerns of college students with disabilities. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 75(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb02320.x
Erevelles, N., & Minear, A. (2010). Unspeakable offenses: Untangling race and disability in
discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 4(2),
127–145. https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2010.11
Everett, S., & Oswald, G. (2018). Engaging and training students in the development of inclusive
learning materials for their peers. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 802–817.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1421631
Ferguson, P. M., & Nusbaum, E. (2012). Disability studies: What is it and what difference does it
make? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 70–80.
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494812802573530
Floersch, J., Townsend, L., Longhofer, J., Munson, M. R., Winbush, V., Kranke, D. et al. (2009).
Adolescent experience of psychotropic treatment. Transcultural Psychiatry, 46(1), 157-
179.
Fosco, G. M., Caruthers, A. S., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). A six-year predictive test of adolescent
family relationship quality and effortful control pathways to emerging adult social and
emotional health. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028873
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 127
Frank, K., & Wade, P. (1993). Disabled student services in postsecondary education: Who’s
responsible for what? Journal of College Student Development, 34, 26–30.
Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Bloomsbury.
Gabel, S., & Peters, S. (2004). Presage of a paradigm shift? Beyond the social model of disability
toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19(6), 585–600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759042000252515
Garland-Thomson, R. (2005). Feminist disability studies. Signs, 30(2), 1557–1587.
https://doi.org/10.1086/423352
Gasman, M., Baez, B., & Turner, C. S. V. (2008). Understanding minority-serving institutions.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gomez, M. L., Khurshid, A., Freitag, M. B., & Lachuk, A. J. (2011). Microaggressions in
graduate students’ lives: How they are encountered and their consequences. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27(8), 1189–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.003
Goodley, D. (2001). ‘Learning difficulties’, the social model of disability and impairment:
Challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society, 16(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.108
0/09687590120035816
Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London, England:
SAGE.
Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–
644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717884
Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (1998). Accommodations in Higher Education Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 128
Gordon, M., & Keiser, S. (Eds.). (2000). Accommodations in higher education under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians, educators,
administrators, and lawyers. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (2000). The LD label for relatively well-functioning
students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 485–490.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200603
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.
Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2018). University student perspectives on
institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: reasons for staying
invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2018, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507
Grue, J. (2011). Discourse analysis and disability: Some topics and issues. Discourse & Society,
22(5), 532–546.
Hamblet, E. C. (2018). Use a variety of ways to encourage students to use supports. Disability
Compliance for Higher Education, 23(6), 6-6.
Hadley, W. M. (2011). College students with disabilities: A student development perspective.
New Directions for Higher Education, 2011(154), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.436
Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical
and social models. Quest, 68(2), 193-206.
Hall, L. M., & Belch, H. A. (2000). Setting the context: Reconsidering the principles of full
participation and meaningful access for students with disabilities. New Directions for
Student Services, 2000(91), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.9101
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 129
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity
expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of
College Student Development, 48(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0012
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105
Hehir, T. (2007). Confronting ableism. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 8–14.
Henderson, C. (1995). College freshmen with disabilities: A triennial statistical profile.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Henderson, C. (2001). College freshman with disabilities, 2001: A biennial statistical study.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Holzleithner, E. (2004). Mainstreaming equality: Dis/Entangling grounds of
discrimination. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 14, 927.
Hosking, D. L. (2008, September). Critical disability theory. Paper presented at the 4th Biennial
Disability Studies Conference at Lancaster University, UK.
Hughes, B. (2007) Being disabled: Toward a critical social ontology for disability
studies. Disability & Society 22(7), 673-684.
Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body:
Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3), 325–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599727209
Hughes, C. A., & Smith, J. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students
with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly,
13(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510393
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 130
Hutcheon, E. J., & Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of “disabled” post-secondary students:
Examining higher education “disability” policy using an ableism lens. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027002
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kalivoda, K. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1998). Influencing faculty attitudes toward accommodating
students with disabilities: A theoretical approach. Learning Assistance Review, 3(2), 12–
25.
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324-
334.
Kattari, S. K. (2015). Examining ableism in higher education through social dominance theory
and social learning theory. Innovative Higher Education, 40(5), 375–386.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9320-0
Kelman, M., & Lester, G. (1997). Jumping the queue: An inquiry into the legal treatment of
students with learning disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kessler, R. C., Foster, C. L., Saunders, W. B., & Stang, P. E. (1995). Social consequences of
psychiatric disorders, I: Educational attainment. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
152(7), 1026–1032. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.7.1026
Kim, E., & Aquino, K. C. (Eds.). (2017). Disability as diversity in higher education: Policies and
practices to enhance student success. New York, NY: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644004
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 131
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.
Krieger, L. (Ed.). (2003). Backlash against the ADA: Reinterpreting disability rights. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11962
Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). Student perceptions of the accommodation process in
postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), 71–
84.
Leake, D. (2015). Problematic data on how many students in postsecondary education have a
disability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(1), 73–87.
Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1999). An institutional perspective on students with
disabilities in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e432382005-001
Lightfoot, A., Janemi, R., & Rudman, D. L. (2018). Perspectives of North American
postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A scoping review. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(1), 57-74.
Linton, S. (2005). What is disability studies? PMLA, 120(2), 518–522.
Longmore, P. (2003). Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Longmore, P. K. (1995). Medical decision making and people with disabilities: A clash of
cultures. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 23(1), 82–87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1995.tb01335.x
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 132
Lyman, M., Beecher, M. E., Griner, D., Brooks, M., Call, J., & Jackson, A. (2016). What keeps
students with disabilities from using accommodations in postsecondary education? A
qualitative review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2), 123–140.
Mackelprang, R. W., & Salsgiver, R. (2016). Disability: A diversity model approach in human
service practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Marks, D. (1997). Models of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(3), 85–91.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289709166831
Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D., Swiss, L., & Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to
college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 22, 151–165.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Mayerson, A. (1992). The history of the ADA: A movement perspective. Retrieved from
https://dredf.org/about-us/publications/the-history-of-the-ada/
McGuire, A. (2010). Disability, non-disability and the politics of mourning: Re-conceiving the
‘we’. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3/4).
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2016). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? In
L. J. Davis (Ed.). The Disability Studies Reader (pp. 175–194). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 133
Mull, C., Sitlington, P. L., & Alper, S. (2001). Post-secondary education for students with
learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 97–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106800106
Myers, K. A., Lindburg, J. J., & Nied, D. M. (2014). Allies for inclusion: Disability and equity in
higher education: Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). College navigator. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016b). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014 (2016-
006). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016c). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES
2016-014), Table 105.50. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
National Research Council. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10887
Neuhaus, R., Smith, C., & Burgdorf, M. (2014). Equality for people with disabilities, then and
now. Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/gpsolo31&div=143&id=&
page=
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011).
The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high
school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER
2011-3005. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 134
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00252.x
Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare
State. New York, USA: Palcrave Macmillan.
Oliver, M. (1996a). A sociology of disability or a disablist sociology. In L. Barton (Ed.).
Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights (pp. 18–42). Essez, England:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Oliver, M. J. (1996b). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York, NY: St
Martin’s Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24269-6
Oliver, M. J. (1999). The disability movement and the professions. British Journal of Therapy
and Rehabilitation, 6(8), 377–379. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.1999.6.8.13949
Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-
9809.8.2.130
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: an analysis of first ‐
generation college students. Communication Education, 53(2), 131-149.
Overboe, James. “Difference in Itself': Validating Disabled People's Lived Experience.” Body
and Society5 (1999): 17-29.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Paul, S. (2000). Students with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature. College
Student Journal, 34(2), 200-210
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 135
Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in
higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 30–40.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0006
Petersen, A. J. (2011). Research with individuals labeled ‘other’: Reflections on the research
process. Disability & Society, 26(3), 293–305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.560413
Pino, M., & Mortari, L. (2014). The inclusion of students with dyslexia in higher education: A
systematic review using narrative synthesis. Dyslexia, 20(4), 346–369.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1484
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education.
Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206900107
Plano Clark, V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2014). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide.
London, England: Pearson Higher Ed.
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student Engagement in Higher Education Theoretical
Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163
Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal, 38(2), 191–199.
Rao, S., & Gartin, B. C. (2003). Attitudes of university faculty toward accommodations to
students with disabilities. The Journal for V ocational Special Needs Education, 25, 47–
54.
Raue, K., and Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions (NCES 2011–018). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 136
Rawson, M. B. (1968). Developmental language disability: Adult accomplishments of dyslexic
boys. (Hood College Monograph Series, No 2). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Reason, R. D., Broido, E. M., Davis, T. L., & Evans, N. J. (2005). The development of social
justice attitudes and actions: An overview of current understandings. New Directions for
Student Services, 2005(110), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.162
Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18–23.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006018
Remy, C., & Seaman, P. (2014). Evolving from disability to diversity: How to better serve high-
functioning autistic students. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 54(1), 24–28.
https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.54n1.24
Roets, G., & Braidotti, R. (2012). Nomadology and subjectivity: Deleuze, Guattari and critical
disability studies. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes, & L. Davis (Eds.). Disability and social
theory (pp. 161-178). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roller, C. M. (1996). V ariability not disability: Struggling readers in a workshop classroom.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative data: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2011). Inclusion of Students with disabilities in higher education:
Performance and participation in student's experiences. Disability Studies
Quarterly, 31(2).
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 137
Sarver, M. D. (2000). A study of the relationship between personal and environmental factors
bearing on self-determination and the academic success of university students with
learning disabilities. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: NYU Press.
Scott, G. A. (2010). Higher education and disability: Education needs a coordinated approach to
improve its assistance to schools in supporting students. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Seymour, E., & Hunter, A. B. (1998). Talking about disability: The education and work
experience of graduates and undergraduates with disabilities in science, mathematics,
and engineering majors. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? In
S. N. Barnatt & B. M. Altman (Eds.). Exploring theories and expanding methodologies:
Where we are and where we need to go (pp. 9–28). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X
Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.309723
Skinner, M. E. (1999, April). Characteristics of “successful” and “unsuccessful” college
students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
Council For Exceptional Children, Charlotte, NC.
Sleeter, C. (2010). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of the field in
its social context. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(2). 210–237.
https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i2.1261
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 138
Smart, J. F. (2009). The power of models of disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(2), 3–11.
Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2009). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who
are they and how do they perform? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(6), 494–510.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338746
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of
Psychology, 67(1), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235
Stiker, H. J. (2002). A history of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Stodden, R. A. (2001). Postsecondary education supports for students with disabilities: A review
and response. The Journal for V ocational Special Needs Education, 23(2), 4–11.
Stodden, R. A., Jones, M. A., & Chang, K. (2002). Services, supports and accommodations for
individuals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary
education and employment. Unpublished manuscript.
Summers, J. A., White, G. W., Zhang, E., & Gordon, J. M. (2014). Providing support to
postsecondary students with disabilities to request accommodations: A framework for
intervention. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 37(3), 245–260.
Szymanski, E., Hewitt, G. J., Watson, E. A., & Swett, E. A. (1999). Faculty and instructor
perception of disability support services and student communication. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22(1), 117–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088572889902200109
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual
framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education,26(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010601
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 139
Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture
and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Titchkosky, T. (2003). Disability, self, and society. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Trainin, G., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 261–272.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4126965
Trammell, J. (2009a). Postsecondary students and disability stigma: Development of the
postsecondary student survey of disability-related stigma (PSSDS). Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(2), 106–116.
Trammell, J. (2009b). Red-shirting college students with disabilities. Learning Assistance
Review, 14(2), 21–31.
Trammell, J., & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with disabilities.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(1), 5–15.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2016 (NCES 2017-094). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
United States Department of Education. (2018). Protecting students with disabilities. Retrieved
from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
United States Department of Justice. (2016). Americans with Disabilities Act Title III
Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_
2010_regulations.htm
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 140
United States Department of Labor (2016). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Retrieved from https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Individuals%20With%20
Disabilities%20Education%20Act.pdf
Upton, T. D. (2000). College student attitudes toward educational accommodation (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (9975849).
Vehmas, S., & Watson, N. (2014). Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: A critique of
critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 29(4), 638–650.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.831751
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling
psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 253–272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003031003001
Vogel, S. A., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A. (1999). Students with learning disabilities in
higher education: Faculty attitude and practices. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice,14(3), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/sldrp1403_5
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). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Weiss, T. C. (2010). Disability in Japan. Retrieved from http://www.disabledworld.com/news/
asia/japan/japan.php.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 141
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.
West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E. E., Zhu, M., Ipsen, S. M., & Martin, E. D. (1993). Beyond
Section 504: Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher
education. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 456–467.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299305900508
Williams, G. (2001). Theorizing disability. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury. (Eds.).
Handbook of disability studies (pp. 123–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Winter, J. A. (2003). The development of the disability rights movement as a social problem
solver. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v23i1.399
Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51(2), 252-258.
Wolf, L. E. (2001). College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 931(1), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2001.tb05792.x
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and
health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240685215_eng.pdf?ua=1
World Health Organization. (2013). Disability and health. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 142
APPENDIX A
College Enrollment of Students With Disabilities, by Institutional Characteristics: 2008–09

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 143
APPENDIX B
Recruitment Email

Dear (Name),

My name is Isis Stansberry and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, which seeks to examine the experiences of undergraduate college students with a
learning or other non-apparent disability. The goal of the research will provide more information
and awareness on this population of students. You are cordially invited to participate.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a general questionnaire prior to the start
of the interview, which will take between 8-10 minutes to complete.

If you meet the eligibility criteria of being an undergraduate sophomore, junior or senior with an
invisible disability, you may contact me to schedule an individual interview. The interview will
be about 45-60 minutes and will be audio-recorded.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity will remain confidential at
all times during and after the study. If you decide not to participate, it will not affect your
existing relationship with any offices on your campus, your course grades, future employment or
your accommodations. For your participation, you will be compensated with a $25 gift card.

If you have questions, or would like to participate, please contact me at istansbe@usc.edu or
323-377-5562.
Thank you for your participation consideration,

Isis Stansberry
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 144
APPENDIX C
Pre-Interview Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. All responses will remain
confidential.

1. What is your current class standing (e.g., Freshman, Soph, Junior., Senior., Graduate
Student)?
2. What is your major?
3. If you are working towards a minor, what is in?
4. How many units are you currently enrolled in?
5. Are you a first-generation college student?
6. Gender _________________
7. What is your age ___________
8. How do you identify (e.g., Latino/a, African American, White, student, scholar, woman,
male, non-conforming, parent, minority, etc.) Please list all that apply.
a. ____________________________________________________________________
b. Other ___________________________
9. What is your disability type (circle all that apply)?
a. Invisible/Non-Apparent—medical condition, mental health, psychiatric, learning
disability, ADHD, depression, anxiety
b. Other ___________________
10. Have you been prescribed the use of accommodations?
a. Yes b. No
11. Who prescribed them to you? ______________________________
12. Do you use them regularly?
a. Yes b. No

Would you be willing to participate in a 45-60 minute interview?

If yes, please fill out the information below:
Cell__________________________
Email_________________________

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 145
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol
Hi, (name of participant). Thank you for agreeing to allow me to interview you for my study.
Again, my name is Isis Stansberry and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California conducting research in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Higher Education Administration.

For this interview, my role is solely as a researcher. Nothing you say will be used against you,
personally, academically or impact anything pertaining to your accommodations. My role is only
to gather, learn and understand your perceptions. The data collected will be held confidential and
will not be shared with other students on campus or with faculty/staff.

I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this interview and would like for you to
understand that as a volunteer, you can choose to not answer any questions if you do not feel
comfortable doing so. In addition, you can withdraw from participation in the interview at any
time without penalty. I have an information sheet, that I would like for you to take a moment a
read. You may keep a copy for your records.

Before we get started with the actual interview I’d like to briefly go over the purpose of my
study, which is to explore the thoughts, feelings, meanings and experiences of students with a
learning or other non-apparent disabilities, specifically as they relate to using accommodations in
college.

Lastly, I would like to ask your permission to record the interview. This will allow me to focus
more on listening to what you are saying instead of trying to write down every word. The
recorded interviews will not be shared with anyone else and will be destroyed at the end of study.
Do I have your permission to record the interview?
To guide this qualitative study, the following research questions were developed:

1. What are the experiences of undergraduate students with learning or other non-
apparent disabilities as they relate to ableism, intersectionality, the classroom
environment and use of accommodations?
2. What factors affect the decision-making process of undergraduate students with
learning or other non-apparent disabilities to use their prescribed classroom
accommodations?

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 146
Interview Questions:
I. Setting the Stage, Developing Rapport and Demographic items of interest (e.g., personal
experience, role of student, etc.)

I’d like to start by asking you some general questions about your diagnosis as it relates to
disclosure and accommodations.

Section – Starting College
1. How did you feel knowing that you would need accommodations for your classes?
Section – Disclosure
1. Can you describe how you decided to disclose that you had a disability so that you would
receive any available support on campus?
2. Have you had any positive experiences with disclosing in the past that helped you
disclose at this institution?
3. Have you had any challenging experiences with disclosing in the past that made you
second-guess disclosing at this institution?
4. Can you explain your perceptions on what it is like to have to disclose your disability in
order to be eligible to use accommodations?
Section – Accommodations
1. At your institution, who helps ensure that you have access to accommodations?
2. What is your overall perception of accommodations?
3. Can you describe your experience using accommodations in the classroom?
4. Can you tell me what you would do if you did not have access to accommodations?

II. Core of the Interview: key factors that may influence accommodation use (directly tied
to research questions).

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about ableism, intersectionality, classroom support and
use of accommodations. For clarification, ableism refers to the discriminatory ideas, thoughts,
beliefs, policies, practices, stereotypes and behavior towards individuals with disabilities
whether intentional or not. Intersectionality refers to the relationship between multiple
identities that a person uses to categorize themselves that interact with other identities such as
race, class, gender and disability.

Section – Ableism
1. Can you describe what ableism means to you?
2. What experiences have you had when you felt you were being judged differently based
on your disability?
a. Outside of school?
b. In school?
3. Do you think that having a disability is still viewed negatively in today’s society?
a. How so?
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 147
4. Do you think that educational institutions have policies and procedures that prevent
students, staff and faculty from discriminating against students with disabilities?
a. How so?
5. Do you think that students with an invisible or non-apparent disability still get
discriminated against, even though others cannot physically see it?
a. How so?
6. Explain any experiences you have had at this institution in which you believed that
policies and procedures have prevented you from being discriminated against?

Section – Intersectionality
1. What does identity mean to you?
2. Is disability an important identity to you?
a. If yes, how?
3. Do you believe that discussions about race, class and gender should include disability?
a. Why?
4. As a student with a non-apparent disability, do you feel that your voice matters in
conversations that focus on supporting students with disabilities?
5. Do you feel that this institution does what it can to make sure that the voice of students
with non-apparent disabilities matters?
a. How so?
Section – Classroom Environment
1. How do you feel about notifying faculty that you have a disability?
a. As a result of notifying them, have you ever noticed any differences in the way
they address you in class?
b. If yes, how?
2. Can you explain how you perceive the role your instructors play in ensuring that your
classroom accommodation needs are met? (opinion/value)
a. Can you describe any informal support you received from your instructors with
regards to your learning limitations?
3. Can you tell me about your interaction with your classmates? (experience/behavior)
a. How do you feel when you interact with them?
4. Do you feel that your classmates are supportive regardless of your disclosure of
disability?
a. How so?
5. Do you feel that faculty and your classmates are equally supportive?
a. How so?
Section – Use of Accommodations
1. Can you describe how your disability identity has impacted your decision to use your
prescribed accommodations?
2. Can you describe how your disability identify has impacted your decision to not use your
prescribed accommodations?
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 148
3. Can you tell me about any positive experiences you had with instructors who encouraged
you to use your accommodations?
4. Can you tell me about any negative experiences you had with instructors who did not
want you to use your accommodations?
a. If this happened, did you use them anyway?
III. Closing
We have now arrived at our last two questions that focus on advocacy and suggestions.
Section – Closing
1. Can you describe any experiences where you had to advocate for another student who
had a non-apparent disability?
a. If you have had such an experience, why did you decide to advocate?
2. How can administrators, faculty and staff in higher education institutions, help create a
more positive experience for students with non-apparent disabilities?

Closing Question (Anything else to add)
We have concluded all of the questions I have prepared for this interview. Are there any
additional items you would like to add or questions you would like to ask that I might not have
covered?

Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedule to share your experience and
perspectives with me. Everything that you have shared will greatly add to my study. If I come
across a follow-up question that I feel is pertinent to my study, may I contact you again? If so,
would email be okay? To show my appreciation, here is a $25 gift card. Thank you again and
enjoy the rest of your day!

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 149
APPENDIX E
Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4033

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

HOW ABLEISM, INTERSECTIONALITY, CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER
FACTORS MAY INFLUENCE THE USE OF ACCOMMODATIONS BY STUDENTS WITH
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Isis Stansberry under the supervision of
Dr. Tracy Tambascia, at the University of Southern California. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask
questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore students’ meanings and experiences in relation to their decision to
use accommodations in college classrooms and whether factors related to ableism, intersectionality or
classroom environment affect their experiences.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-60 minute, audio-recorded
interview. You will be asked to answer the questions to the best of your knowledge, with no right or
wrong parameters. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and can decide to
end the interview at any time. You can also decline to be recorded. In this case, handwritten notes will be
taken. If recording has been initiated, you will be able to stop being recorded at any time.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information acquired in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be assigned a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. Data will be saved on
the researcher’s computer and password protected. Any hard-copy data will be shredded immediately
after the study has been completed. You have the right to review the audio-recording within 48 hours of
the interview, as they will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. You may review the transcripts
of your interview until the study has been completed at which point they will shredded. Both the audio-
recording and transcripts will be destroyed once their intended use has been fulfilled for this study.
LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 150
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 rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published, or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information
will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research study, please contact the following Isis
Stansberry at istansbe@usc.edu or phone at 323-377-5562 or Faculty Advisor Dr. Tracy Tambascia at
tpoon@rossier.usc.edu or (213) 740-9747.

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

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 151
APPENDIX F
Participant Confirmation Email
Dear [Name],
Thank you for being willing to participate in my study. Again, the goal of my study is to
examine the experiences and perceptions of students with learning or other non-apparent
disabilities and factors that may contribute to disclosure and use of accommodations. I will call
you during the week to schedule an interview time, day and location that is most convenient to
you. Each interview is expected to last approximately 45-60 minutes, which includes a pre-
interview questionnaire and may be audio-taped, with your permission. Most importantly,
participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. Again, you will receive a $25 gift card for
participating in this study.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at: istansbe@usc.edu.
or 323-377-5562.
Thank you again for your willingness to participate in this study.

I look forward to speaking with you soon,
Isis Stansberry
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

LEARNING OR OTHER NON-APPARENT DISABILITIES 152
APPENDIX G
Non-Participant Email
Dear [Name],
Thank you for taking the time to complete the pre-interview questionnaire and being willing to
participate in my study. Again, the goal of my study is to examine the experiences and
perceptions of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities and factors that may
contribute to disclosure and use of accommodations. Because this study will use a fairly small
purposeful sample with specific participant criteria and because (specific reason they did not
meet the eligibility criteria), you were not selected to participate in the study. However, the
information you provided in the questionnaire is valuable, as it helps to further identify the
make-up of the students/staff that have disabilities (work with students with disabilities) and
therefore is useful and relevant to the study. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to respond
and fill out the questionnaire.

Respectfully,
Isis Stansberry
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the experiences of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities in relation to their decision to use accommodations in college classrooms and whether factors related to ableism, intersectionality, or classroom environment affected those experiences. Participants were undergraduate students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities who were eligible to use accommodations at a four-year public institution. The qualitative data gathered by in person interviews sought to understand these students’ experiences from their voices and provide suggestions for practice. The research used the theoretical framework of Critical Disability Theory (CDT) to understand the history and perspectives of students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities and their experiences in non-disabled dominated systems and policies. The findings provided insights directly from participants of their lived experiences within a four-year institution and emphasized the importance, the need and how to begin to create a more inclusive environment for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities. This study found that faculty support was a significant factor for use of accommodations and overall classroom experience for students with learning or other non-apparent disabilities which is contrary to findings in previous studies that identified faculty support as lacking and a significant barrier to success for students with disabilities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Asian American college student well-being: racial identity consciousness as model minorities at an elite university

PDF

Practices for assigning academic accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities

PDF

Students with disabiltiies and identity development: higher education, ableism, meritocracy, and meaning making

PDF

Exploring the satisfaction, experiences, institutional support of student veterans in transition to higher education: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Innovative strategies to accommodate postsecondary students with learning disabilities

PDF

Latino/a college student-athletes: Influences on recruitment, enrollment and degree completion

PDF

The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

An examination of outsourcing student services for online graduate students

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Stansberry, Isis D. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/13/2019

Defense Date 10/31/2018

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

Tag ableism,critical disability theory,Disability,Higher education,non-apparent,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Brown, Karin E. (committee member), Green, Alan (committee member)

Creator Email icestansb@gmail.com,istansbe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-119162

Unique identifier UC11675357

Identifier etd-Stansberry-7060.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-119162 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Stansberry-7060.pdf

Dmrecord 119162

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Stansberry, Isis D.

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