University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 1

Graduation Rates in College of Students with Disabilities: An Innovation Study
by
Leobardo Barrera III

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 2019 Leobardo Barrera III
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….2
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………6
Acknowledgments.………………………………………………………………………………...7
Introduction to the Problem of Practice…….……………………………………………………..8
Organizational Context and Mission……………………………………………………………...9
Importance of Addressing the Problem………..…………………………………………….......10
Organizational Performance Goals………………………………………………………………10
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal……………………………….…………….12
Purpose of the Project and Questions……………………………………………………………12
Methodological Approach……………………………………………………………………….13
Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………………14
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences…………..…………………….17
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context…………………………………………………………………………..29
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruiting……………………...……………………32
Data Collection and Instrumentation…………………………………………………………….35
Findings………………………………………………………………………………………….37
Recommendations for Practice…………………………………………………………………..50
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences……………………………………51
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….62
References………………………………………………………………………………………..64
Appendix A: Interview Protocol…………………………………………………………………73
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 3

Appendix B: Document Analysis………………………………………………………………..76
Appendix C: Observation Protocol………………………………………………………………77
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness……………………………………….……….….79
Appendix E: Ethics…………………………...…………………………………………….……81
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan…………………………...………83
Appendix G: Sample Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan........................................93
Appendix H: Delayed Evaluation Instrument................................................................................95
Appendix I: Universal Design for Learning Model.......................................................................96
Appendix J: Universal Design for Learning Sample Syllabus......................................................97

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals…………..……………. 11
Table 2: Knowledge Influences….………………………………………………………………22
Table 3: Motivation Influences…………………………………………………………………..26
Table 4: Organizational influences……………………………………………………………....29
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations…………………………...53
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations………………………...…55
Table 7: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations……………………….58
Table 8: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes………………..85
Table 9: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation…………………….86
Table 10: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors………………………………………86
Table 11: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.………………………...88
Table 12: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………………………..90

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 6

Abstract
The graduation rates of Students with Disabilities (SWDs) relies on factors that include
organizational support for students’ academic achievement and faculty’s ability and beliefs
related to providing an inclusive classroom and effective teaching strategies. The purpose of this
study was to understand faculty’s current knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of
organizational culture and resources regarding the implementation of a Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) training by the Disabled Student Services (DSS) office at a moderate sized
private institution in southern California. This study’s assumed influences were the result of a
literature review. Data was collected via interviews, document analysis, and an observation.
The study participants were faculty from various disciplines on a four-year private university
campus. Data demonstrated that the most significant barrier to implementing a UDL was
faculty’s insufficient knowledge of the basic framework, not believing in their own ability to
teach SWDs, and a lack of support by the institution. This study provides recommendations
developed by utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The recommendations identified will ensure that faculty have the necessary tools to support the
academic achievement of SWDs.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 7

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to all of those whom I have had the pleasure to work with during this
process. This work would not have been possible without the direct support of my Committee
Chair, Dr. Helena Seli. Additionally, Dr. Kimberly Ferrario and Dr. Mark Pearson provided me
guidance as part of my dissertation committee. I am indebted to their time and effort during this
process. Thank you Dr. Seli, as you have not only been my teacher but also a mentor and
example of what a good person is.
No one has been more important to me in the pursuit of this degree than members of my
family. Thank you mom and dad for loving me both in your own way. For my aunt, who with a
physical disability herself sparked my compassion for persons with disabilities at an early age,
thank you Sandy. For those family members who worked late nights and long shifts to earn just
enough to get by, thank you for your perseverance. To my best friend Gary, thank you for being
an incredible human being. Most importantly, I wish to thank my loving and supportive wife,
Jessica, and my two wonderful children, Nathanael and Carolina who inspire me to be a better
person every day. “Hasta La Victoria Siempre!”

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 8

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Although there is an increase in the number of SWDs entering college, they continue to
lag behind their non-disabled peers in retention and graduation rates (Getzel, 2008; Herbert et al.,
2014; Knight, Wessel, & Markle, 2016). SWDs encounter numerous barriers in college that
contribute to lower four-year and six-year graduation rates (Herbert et al., 2014). Specifically,
Herbert et al. (2014) found that faculty and staff interactions, along with peer stigmatization,
negatively impact SWDs’ academic performance in college. A longitudinal study examining 10
years of national data from the United States Department of Education found that students with
disabilities graduate postsecondary education institutions at a rate of 34% (Newman et al., 2009),
compared to 59% of the national traditional undergraduate student population, creating a 25%
gap (National Center on Education Statistics, 2017). As SWDs typically graduate college in six
years as compared to four-year completion rates for their non-disabled peers (Newman et al.,
2009), they incur more student loan debt and only 26% of SWDs are likely to be employed after
graduation in comparison to the 76% of their non-disabled peers (United Stated Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2016). Historically, SWDs have received accommodations in college under the
Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (2008). As the goal of a universal design began in
the 1990s in an effort to create physical space for individuals with disabilities UDL began as a
means to create a learning environment for all students in the classroom environment (Access
Project, 2011). UDLs are grounded in scientific research and present a framework that can be
utilized by classroom teachers to develop, present, and assess subject matter in multiple ways
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 9

(Smith, 2012). Further, when a college instructor implements a UDL framework in their
classroom, student interest and engagement increase (Smith, 2012).
Organizational Context and Mission
The University of Pacific Western (UPW) is a moderately sized private not-for-profit
higher education institution located in California. Degrees offered at UPW include associates,
bachelor’s, master’s, doctorates, and juris doctorate. The University of Pacific Western is
accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The mission of UPW
is to provide academic opportunities for all students—regardless of background—to achieve
their educational goals and become engaged global citizens. UPW’s four core values are ethical
reasoning, diversity and inclusivity, lifelong learning, and community and civic engagement.
The UPW has an approximate student enrollment of 8,000 that includes all undergraduate and
graduate students at all of their campuses. The faculty at UPW consists of full-time, part-time,
and adjunct, and they are responsible for teaching, scholarly research, and student academic
advising. The Disabled Student Services (DSS) office is responsible for the implementation of
academic accommodations on campus for registered students.
There are 120 total students registered in the DSS office. The 120 students include
graduate students, law school students, and undergraduate students. For the purposes of this
study, the research will focus on the traditional undergraduate DSS population of approximately
75 students. Traditional undergraduate students at UPW are incoming freshman attending
college for the first time. The numbers mentioned above do not include temporary disabilities
and represent students receiving on-going accommodations. Students with on-going
accommodations register with the DSS office once when they are first enrolled. Students must
self-identify to the DSS office and provide documentation to support their request for
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 10

accommodations. Once students’ requests have been approved, they are not required to register
again.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to evaluate UPW’s organizational performance in relation to their
performance goal of graduating 66% of SWDs with a bachelor’s degree within four years of
admission. This goal caters specifically to traditional undergraduate students and does include
transfer students. The first cohort of students that will be evaluated against the goal are the
entering freshman of fall 2018. The goal is to have the 66% of the entering fall 2018 cohort
graduate with a bachelor’s degree by summer 2022. This goal includes only full-time enrolled
students. First, SWDs consistently have lower four-year graduation rates in college compared to
their non-disabled peers (Herbert et al., 2014). Additionally, due to the increased number of
SWDs enrolling in college without completing a degree, SWDs incur more student loan debt
then their non-disabled peers (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Third, SWDs
who do not graduate within four years are more likely to have difficulty finding employment
opportunities after they graduate.
Organizational Performance Goal
UPW’s goal is to graduate 66% of registered SWDs within four years of admission with a
bachelor’s degree. The university’s goal is to reach this status by 2022. The graduation goal
includes both entering freshman and transfer students. The DSS office at UPW has collected
graduation and retention data for SWDs for the past four years. The DSS office includes transfer
and traditional undergraduates as part of its data collection. Herbert et al. (2014) helped create
the disabled student services’ benchmarks and formal assessment that collects graduation rates
for SWDs at the end of each academic year. They conducted a longitudinal 10-year study that
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 11

examined over 500 SWDs registered within a DSS office and concluded that students who
actively sought and utilized DSS services graduated at a rate of 66%, much higher than the 21%
graduation rate of SWDs who did not seek or utilize DSS services. The National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE) asks entering college freshman in the United States about their
current disability status. Answering yes on the survey does not require students to contact a
disability office. Currently, UPW graduates 50% of its traditional undergraduate disabled
student population in four years which is 16% lower than SWDs who obtained services through a
disability office.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The University of Pacific Western offers a distinctive and relevant educational experience to a
diverse population of traditional-age, adult, and graduate learners preparing them for successful
careers and a commitment to life-long learning across the liberal arts and professional programs.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2022, University of Pacific Western will graduate 66% of students with disabilities with a
bachelor’s degree within 4 years of admission.
Staff
By Fall of 2018, DSS staff will
reach out to all registered DSS
students to inform them of their
current accommodations January
March 2018.
Students
By Spring of 2019, 100% of
students Disabled Students will
meet with the DSS department
coordinator to collect their
accommodation letters.
Faculty
By Fall of 2020, 100%
of faculty who
participate in UDL
training will implement
UDL practices into their
courses.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 12

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
There are three primary stakeholder groups who impact or are impacted by the graduation
rates of SWDs: students, faculty, and staff. Students are important stakeholders as they are
incurring more student loan debt than their non-disabled peers due to the additional time it takes
them to graduate. The DSS office is an important stakeholder as they directly serve SWDs by
providing accommodations based on a documented disability. Finally, faculty members have
direct interactions with SWDs both inside and outside of the classroom. Their role is integral to
the academic achievement and success of all students, including SWDs. While the collaborative
efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the organizational goal of
graduating SWDs, it is important to understand the faculty’s capacity to support them.
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study is faculty members who teach full-time and
part-time at UPW. Part-time faculty at UPW make up 64% of the faculty body. The
stakeholders’ goal, supported by the DSS Director, is that 100% of the faculty who participate in
the UDL training will implement the strategies into their courses. The UDL training is currently
being developed by DSS and will be available to all faculty members on the UPW campus. The
training will include specific strategies and methods that faculty can utilize in their curriculum
development and in-class teaching sessions.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand faculty’s current knowledge, motivation, and
perceptions of organizational culture and resources regarding the implementation of UDL
training by the DSS office at UPW. Although the training will not be required, the DSS office
will work with each respective college dean to encourage faculty to complete the training and
implement the according strategies. While a complete needs’ analysis would focus on all
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 13

stakeholders, for the purposes of this research, the stakeholders of focus was faculty who teach
full-time and part-time on the UPW’s main campus. The analysis began with interviews and
focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the goal.
As such, the following questions guided this study:
1. What is the faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing a universal design
for learning (UDL) into their curriculum?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and faculty knowledge and
motivation in the context on implementing UDL in the organization?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Approach
Given the purpose and research questions of this study, the researcher utilized a
qualitative approach. More specifically, the researcher conducted interviews with full-time and
part-time faculty. Additionally, the researcher conducted a document analysis and classroom
observation. Interviews provided data for understanding faculty knowledge and motivation
regarding a UDL. The document analysis examined faculty syllabi for components of a UDL
framework and support for SWDs. The classroom observation allowed the researcher to collect
data related to UDL strategies that are implemented in the classroom. Qualitative research
utilizes methods that allow the researcher to study everyday life (Creswell, 2003). Additionally,
qualitative research seeks to understand meaning, context, and process in a natural setting. By
utilizing a qualitative approach, new important data can be generated via interviews, document
analysis, and classroom observation. Faculty interviews at UPW provided data that would not
otherwise be obtained in a quantitative study. Conducting interviews with faculty yielded a
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 14

deeper understanding of faculty knowledge and motivation regarding UDL. Additionally,
interviews provided participants with the opportunity to share historical information and further
allow the researcher to shift the line of questions according to participant answers (Creswell,
2003).
Review of the Literature

Students with disabilities (SWDs) have one of the lowest graduation rates in college
compared to their non-disabled peers (Newman et al., 2009). A UDL framework increases
academic achievement for all students with and without disabilities (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009), and
students who enroll and take courses with faculty who have been trained in UDL practices have
an increased comfort level inside the classroom (Izzo, Murray, & Novak, 2008). Faculty beliefs
have the most direct influence on how SWDs receive their accommodations in a college
classroom (Dalun et al., 2010).
Universal Design for Learning
Universal design for learning (UDL) is a “scientifically valid framework for guiding
education practice” (United States Department of Education, 2011, p.1) that provides multiple
means of presentation to engage all students and reduces barriers to instruction while
maintaining high academic expectations for students with and without disabilities (United States
Department of Education, 2008). A UDL integrates differentiated instruction strategies, while
providing faculty with multiple means of assessment that can include technology (Izzo, 2012).
Faculty members have a considerable amount of impact on the academic success of SWDs in
college (Basilice, 2015). Positive student experiences with faculty significantly increased the
social and academic experiences of SWDs in college (Shawn & Wessel, 2013). Faculty who
were appropriately trained in the implementation and strategies for UDL reported a 92% increase
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 15

in the level of comfort in supporting the academic success of SWDs (Izzo et al., 2008).
Although UDL strategies are being implemented in multiple college classrooms, such as Boston
College, the California State University System, and Durham College (UDL on Campus, 2018),
the depth of faculty awareness of how it aligns with their established teaching style is limited
(Vitelli, 2015). Faculty models of UDL in the classroom vary as the framework allows for
flexibility in the development of the curriculum. Although the research regarding the
implementation of a UDL framework in the classroom by faculty is promising and shows an
increase in overall academic achievement, there needs to be an increase in studies (Roberts, Park,
Brown, & Cook, 2011).
Models of UDL in the college classroom. When SWDs and their non-disabled peers are
placed in the same UDL classroom, academic performance increases (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009).
Numerous studies have found the positive impacts of a utilizing a UDL, but few have provided a
comprehensive framework that address issues of inclusivity in the classroom related to social and
emotional learning (Katz, 2013). The three-block model for a UDL increases student
engagement for all students, even those with behavior issues (Glass, 2013) while reducing
aggressive behavior (Katz & Porath, 2011). However, more studies need to be done to on the
effectiveness of UDL faculty training and the impact it has on academic achievement (Roberts et
al., 2011).
The three-block method provides instructors with specific methods for providing an
inclusive environment for all students. Block one examines social and emotional learning; block
two examines inclusive instructional practice; and the final block refers to student autonomy
(Katz, 2013). These models seek to scaffold students through more complex problems by
utilizing regular feedback and assessment as a continual part of the process to foster student
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 16

learning. Chickering et al. (1991) found that there are seven principles of good practice in
undergraduate education: contact between students and faculty, cooperation among students,
active learning techniques in the classroom, providing prompt feedback, time spent on a task,
high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and multiple ways of learning. Although not
directly related to UDL and written during the same time as UDL was formally being created,
the seminal book by Chickering et al. (1991) has parallels to a UDL framework and the specific
applications they both have to higher education. Pflaum (2002) stated that there are three
essential qualities of UDL: multiple means of presentation, expression, and engagement. These
three principles are the most commonly utilized in education today.
UDL in Higher Education

The focus on UDL has yielded positive results for all learners in the K-12 setting,
particularly for SWDs (Kortering, McClannon, & Braziel, 2008). Additionally, 67% of students
surveyed in the study stated that activities with a UDL framework were more fun and engaging.
Although a UDL allows faculty to think broadly about all students, faculty are not required to
create or implement curriculum with a UDL framework (Parker, 2012). Higher education
institutions are uniquely positioned in comparison to the K-12 system, as colleges support
emerging technologies and have the opportunity to further develop the basic framework created
more than a decade ago (Parker, 2012). The disability landscape in higher education institutions
has changed; now more than 41% of students in college have some form of a learning disability
(Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2005). As learning disabilities become more common in college
classrooms across the nation, the UDL framework becomes crucial for faculty’s support of the
academic success of SWDs (Parker, 2012).
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 17

The Relationship of Faculty and Students with Disabilities (SWDs)
A seminal study by Fichten (1988) concluded that the attitudes of faculty are a vital
component of the success or failure of SWDs in colleges. Faculty members play an essential
role in the success and graduation of all students, including SWDs. The personal beliefs of
faculty have the most direct influence on how SWDs receive their accommodations in a college
classroom (Dalun et al., 2010). Faculty are also more willing to provide additional time
supporting students with a learning disability compared to any other disability (Murray & Keys,
2008). According to Moriña, Cortés-Vega, and Molina (2015), faculty must show a positive
attitude toward disabilities in general in order to support SWDs in the classroom. The authors
explain that faculty should promote inclusive practices by utilizing alternative formats such as
technology as it is an important component of student learning. Higher levels of social
discomfort are reported by students who interact with faculty who are in the 20s, 30s, and near
age 70 (Kjellerson, 2010). A small sub-group of faculty felt that accommodations SWDs
received were unfair as their non-disabled peers did not receive them, although accommodations
are federally mandated (Becker & Palladino, 2016). Additionally, the authors found that faculty
with low efficacy were less likely to endorse positively the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and were more likely to view student accommodations as unfair.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences

A conceptual approach will drive the review of literature currently available regarding a
UDL and faculty knowledge and motivation. The subsequent knowledge types required to reach
this goal are conceptual and metacognitive. The first section examines assumed knowledge
influences related to the stakeholder performance goal. The second section discusses the
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 18

assumed motivational influences that impact the stakeholder performance. The final section
addresses the organizational influences related to stakeholder goal achievement.
Knowledge and Skills
It is important to examine the knowledge-related influences that enable faculty to
implement a UDL framework into their classroom. Faculty tend to value short workshops,
books, videos, and retreats as valuable means of obtaining training related to their teaching
(Lowenthal, Wray, Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2012). In order to develop a faculty centered
UDL training, their current knowledge of the UDL framework will be assessed. Faculty will be
interviewed regarding their knowledge of a UDL framework, their motivation to implement
UDL into their classrooms, and the organizational structure that influence their positions. The
data from the interviews will be utilized to inform the development of UDL training by the
Disabled Student Services Department (DSS). Furthermore, the goal of having 100% of faculty
who attend the training for implementing the UDL framework into their curriculum will
contribute, along with the organization providing an environment that is learning centered,
performance driven, and has a service leadership model to the global goal of graduating 66% of
SWDs within four years of admission. A gap analysis will provide the necessary understanding
regarding faculty and their knowledge and skills to meet this goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
study will examine the faculty at UPW, their knowledge, motivation, and the current
organizational influences regarding the implementation of UDL training.
Knowledge influences. There are four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge is defined as
basic information while conceptual knowledge refers to the interrelatedness of information
connected to a larger structure (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge refers to performance
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 19

of tasks or actions (Rueda, 2011). Finally, metacognition refers to an internal personal reflection
and awareness of one’s thoughts (Baker, 2006). Conceptual knowledge will allow faculty at
UPW to understand the basic ideas of UDL. For faculty at UPW, understanding basic UDL
principles will promote the accomplishment of the organizational mission to increase the
graduation rates of SWDs. At UPW, faculty need basic knowledge of UDL to support SWDs in
the classroom, which would support their organizational performance goal. The following
section discusses literature related to the conceptual knowledge needed for faculty to support
SWDs.
Faculty knowledge of a UDL framework. It is important for faculty to be
knowledgeable of the strategies that support SWDs in college. The number of years faculty have
taught in higher education is a significant factor and indicator of SWDs’ academic success in the
classroom, and SWDs who are enrolled in classes with senior faculty have high academic grades
(Sprong, Dallas, & Upton, 2014). Faculty who received 48 hours or more of training specifically
related to engagement and teaching strategies for SWDs had higher student evaluation scores in
the multiple means of presentation category which refers to the various means by which
information is presented in the classroom (Sprong et al., 2014).
A UDL framework consists of multiple means of presentation, varied means of faculty
and student expression, and the use of numerous assessment strategies (Smith, 2012). Additional
training for faculty allowed them to understand the multiple aspects of supporting and teaching
SWDs in college (Sprong et al., 2014). Therefore, faculty’s understanding of their teaching
strategies and how they relate to the success of all students will provide them with the necessary
knowledge to implement a UDL into their curriculum (Sprong et al., 2014). Utilizing a three-
block strategy for implementing a UDL is both useful and beneficial for teachers and students
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 20

(Katz, 2013). Developing instructional environments for differentiated student learners, training
teachers to incorporate evidence-based practices, and emphasizing student autonomy to increase
critical thinking are all evidence-based strategies for implementing a UDL framework into the
classroom (Katz, 2013).
Faculty attitudes regarding SWDs. Universal design for learning (UDL) faculty
training facilitates new conceptual knowledge required for working with SWDs and significantly
increases SWDs academic achievement in the classroom (Sprong et al., 2014). Murray and Keys
(2008) found that faculty at large urban private universities are more willing to provide minor
accommodations and support SWDs academically rather than provide major accommodations,
despite permission for these accommodations from the university’s disability office. Zhang,
Reber, Hsu, Kwok, and Benz (2010) found that faculty have a good understanding of the legal
obligations of providing accommodations to students but do not feel they have strong support
from the institution to provide additional academic support.
For faculty to support the goals of the University of Pacific Western (UPW) fully, they
would benefit from having metacognitive knowledge of their own stereotypes regarding SWDs.
Faculty tend to have low levels of comfort and understanding of SWDs academic potential, and
if the administration is not perceived as supportive of SWDs on campus, faculty become non-
supportive in the classroom (Zhang et al., 2010). Additionally, Zhang et al. (2010) found that
faculty members believe they need to provide services to students but perceive a lack of
institutional support in the following areas: DSS office, department administrators, and academic
support staff. Faculty view accommodations and modifications of graduation requirements for
SWDs as unfair to their non-disabled peers (Vasek, 2005). More exposure to SWDs and
explaining the differences between them and their non-disabled peers by the institution through
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 21

training positively increases faculty perceptions of SWDs on campus (Zhang et al., 2010).
Faculty who have low self-efficacy are more likely to view accommodations for students with
disabilities as unfair and are less likely to endorse disabilities offices on campus (Becker &
Palladino, 2016). Critical factors to the success of SWDs in college include faculty training and
a willingness to implement and adapt curriculum that supports all students (Leyser, Greenberger,
Sharoni, & Vogel, 2011). However, faculty are reluctant to provide adaptations to curriculum
due to their increased obligations and workload (Riddell & Weedon, 2014).
Murray and Keys (2008) found that university faculty in the education department
generally had more positive perceptions of SWDs than their non-education faculty peers and
were more willing to accommodate student needs and engage in teaching strategies conducive to
the success of their disabled students. Additionally, the authors found female faculty to have
more positive attitudes toward SWDs than their male faculty peers and were more likely to
provide pre-approved accommodations. Faculty perceptions and stereotypes also vary by
disability. Students with mental health and learning disabilities had greater negative
misconceptions by faculty than their physically disabled peers (Sniatecki, Perry, & Snell, 2015).
Disabled student services (DSS) offices typically focus on accommodations and services for
SWDs, but there needs to be a focus on changing faculty members’ personal beliefs regarding
the education of SWDs in college (Zhang et al., 2010). By being aware of their personal
attitudes, faculty can begin to engage positively with SWDs and thereby support the mission and
goals of UPW. According to Murray, Lombardi, and Wren (2011), faculty who engaged in
training related to supporting SWDs were more knowledgeable and understanding of the needs
of these students.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 22

Table 2 indicates the mission and global and stakeholder goals of the University of
Pacific Western along with the two knowledge influences described in the literature review.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Motivation Influences
The academic success of students with disabilities (SWDs) in class depends largely upon
the motivation of faculty to support them through supportive teaching strategies and their
understanding the benefit of graduating SWDs. The motivation of an individual working toward
a goal consists of the following: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008). Active choice refers to action toward the achievement of a goal. Persistence is an
individual’s ability to stay focused on a goal. In order to understand why individuals are likely
to engage with choice, persistence, and mental effort, underlying psychological influences such
as self-efficacy and will be explored. Self-efficacy is defined as the perception a person has of
the ability to complete tasks (Grossman & Salas, 2011) and a person’s beliefs in their ability to
exert influence over events that impact their lives (Bandura, 1994). Finally, mental effort refers
to an individual’s engagement in order to achieve goals. Faculty motivation regarding the value
of utilizing a universal design for learning (UDL) in the classroom and helping SWDs graduate
is crucial for the success of SWDs and the mission and goals of UPW.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Faculty need to be knowledgeable of the basic framework of a
universal design for learning

Conceptual
Faculty need to know about their own stereotypes towards
disabilities.

Metacognitive
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 23

Students with disabilities would benefit from faculty who see the value of utilizing a
UDL in the classroom. Understanding that the additional work necessary to teach a UDL
approach will positively impact SWDs’ academic success is essential to faculty motivation. In
other words, the value of additional work needs to be established for individuals to take part in
the task (Eccles, 2006). Additionally, faculty support of SWDs in the classroom will positively
impact the mission and goals of UPW. Faculty at UPW need to see how their personal values
along with the additional work required for implementing a UDL in the classroom will benefit
their overall student feedback evaluations, student engagement, and student academic
achievement for all students in the classroom, regardless of whether they have a disability. This
alignment between faculty and task value will create utility value, and faculty will become more
likely to engage in the additional work required.
Faculty utility value for UDL. The following sections will explore value and self-
efficacy. Eccles (2006) described utility value as the usefulness of the current task in meeting
future goals. A key component of utility value is extrinsic value. Extrinsic value refers to the
worth that is assigned to an item by external factors (Eccles, 2006). An individual’s motivation
is at its highest when they perform a task they enjoy (Eccles, 2006). If an individual’s personal
identity is aligned with the task, then the person places a higher value on the task and its
achievement (Eccles, 2006). In contrast, if a person’s identity and value set is not central to the
task, then they will place a lower value on the task. Faculty at UPW must see the alignment of
their personal value to the task in order to fully engage in supporting SWDs. According to Izzo
et al. (2008), faculty who were specifically trained in the implementation and strategies of UDL
had a 92% increase in the comfort of supporting the academic success of SWDs which led to
additional student comfort in the classroom. Izzo et al. (2008) found that increased faculty
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 24

training leads to an increase in the use of UDL strategies in the classroom. The utilization of a
UDL framework in a college classroom increases academic achievement for all students,
regardless of disability status (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Additionally, faculty who utilize a UDL
framework in the classroom have clearer alignment to course goals and instructional practices,
and student engagement and interest increases (Smith, 2012). Faculty at UPW need to see how
UDL can improve their overall teaching to all student populations, not only SWDs. Faculty
attitudes toward the implementation of a UDL in their classroom would support the global goal
of graduating 66% of SWDs.
Faculty members’ attainment value. Attainment value refers to a specific task and how

those align to the person’s interest, values, capabilities, and goals (Eccles, 2006). Faculty
members who have more positive interactions and build good rapport with students improve
their teaching performance (Haddad & Taleb, 2016). Faculty members’ capability beliefs are
shaped by their role in the learning community on campus and validation of their educational
value; further, faculty who have the strongest capability beliefs in their work understand their
role and its expectations better than their faculty peers with low capability beliefs (Kennedy,
2011). Faculty at UPW and the importance they place on implementing UDL training into their
curriculum will influence their desire to engage in and further utilize a UDL framework. When a
task aligns with an individual’s self-image, the person will place greater value on the task and it
will have positive attainment value for the individual (Eccles, 2006). This study will assess
faculty at UPW and the value they place on UDL training and, specifically, implementing the
UDL framework in their classroom. As faculty utilize a UDL framework, the relationships with
students will also increase as they will become more comfortable in teaching students with and
without disabilities.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 25

Faculty members’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy provides the base for human motivation
for accomplishing tasks (Pajares, 2006). Faculty need to believe in their ability to implement
and teach a UDL framework in their classrooms. As a person fosters the belief that they can
accomplish a goal, they also cultivate expected outcomes (Pajares, 2006). As faculty engage in
UDL training and become more comfortable and efficient at utilizing the framework, they will
build their self-efficacy and, in turn, support the global goals of UPW. The more self-efficacy a
faculty member possesses about themselves, the more motivated they are to provide effective
classroom instruction (Ladner, 2008). Faculty who received UDL training increased their
comfort in providing support for SWDs (Izzo et al., 2008). As more faculty engage in UDL
training, they may collectively increase their capability to reach the global goal of supporting
SWDs at UPW. Collective efficacy refers to the perception of capability that a group or team
possesses reach a goal together (Huh, Reigeluth, & Lee, 2014). Implementing a UDL framework
into the classroom will contribute to the self-efficacy of faculty and support the goal of
graduating 66% of SWDs.
Table 3 shows the assumed motivational influences for faculty to meet the goal of
graduating 66% of SWD’s within four years of admission.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 26

Table 3
Motivation Influences
Motivation Influences
Utility value Faculty need to see the value of utilizing a
universal design for learning in the
classroom for all students.

Attainment value Faculty members must highly value their
teaching of a UDL framework in relation to
other aspects of their job that supports all
students.

Self-efficacy Faculty need to believe in their ability to
implement a UDL framework into their
classroom.

Organizational Influences
Organizations can produce positive intended results when leaders focus on the climate of
their organizations (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Organizational factors include political,
structural, and cultural barriers that impact communication between the organization and the
employee (Berger, 2008). Organizational issues can contribute to gaps in motivation and
knowledge and determine performance problems (Rueda, 2011). The organizational factors are
typically linked to perceptions, beliefs, and leader practices. There are multiple approaches to
organizational leadership and change that largely depend on culture and include transformational
and transactional as idealized types (Kezar, 2001). Culture can be observed and analyzed within
organizations through both visible and internalized aspects (Schein, 2004).
An organization must determine the skills necessary for employees to perform their job
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, organizational influences are an important factor related to
the achievement of institutional goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Faculty development programs
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 27

include a learning-based environment that can change organizational culture and develop
institutional policies that recognize innovation and scholarship (Steinert et al., 2016).
University holding academic achievement as a priority. The climate in an
organization is based on how its members function during day-to-day operations and the goals it
chooses to pursue (Schneider et al., 1996). Learning experiences can increase by faculty who
engage in active learning strategies and innovative experiences (Megel, Nelson, Black, Vogel, &
Uphoff, 2013). Faculty who have received strong institutional support regarding their learning
and scholarly research reported more satisfaction and were less likely to leave their current
institution (O’Meara, Rivera, Kuveava, & Corrigan, 2017). Meanwhile, faculty who felt
positively about the institutional learning environment felt increased career agency. UPW would
benefit from creating an environment and culture that supports the academic achievement of
SWDs a priority. Creating a positive learning environment on campus will provide opportunities
for UPW faculty to engage in UDL training and ultimately support the global goal of graduating
66% of SWDs.
The frequency at which faculty development occurs is also important. Faculty are
concerned with the type and frequency of faculty development programs (Lowenthal et al.,
2012). The authors went on to explain the importance of institutions’ value of faculty attendance
at development training and the need to create a reward structure for participation.
Administrative, educational, or research academic leadership in an organization is essential to its
effectiveness and overall success (Anam, Aslam, Mannan, & Urooj, 2011). The study explains
that developing a leadership model that includes monetary and non-monetary benefits for faculty
attendance at training will produce positive and lasting impacts on an organization.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 28

Support for faculty. Transformational leaders within organizations communicate clear
goals and empower managers and staff to engage in the decision-making process (Berger, 2008),
while organizations reward their performance based on the established goals (Schneider, White,
& Paul, 1998). The president of UPW provides leadership to the faculty, staff, and students.
The leadership that the administration at UPW provides directly impacts the performance of
faculty both inside and outside of the classroom. A positive climate that aligns with employee
behaviors and goals is more likely to emerge from an organization with a service leader
(Schneider et al., 1998). Providing a climate that allows for faculty to engage positively in the
organization will create opportunities for them to support the global goal of graduating 66% of
SWDs.
University providing UDL training for faculty. Leaders provide resources, set
expectations, model values, engage with employees, and reward desired behavior (Kezar, 2001).
Organizational influences on faculty, such as the development of meaningful training and
teaching evaluations, lead to professional growth (Channing, 2017). The author further explains
that the most important aspect of performance assessment for faculty is their encouragement and
development as educators by administrators within the institution. A learning organizational
culture improves faculty performance as they want to produce a strong performance in a
learning-centered environment (Abbasi & Zamani-Miandashti, 2013). UPW would benefit from
training that meets the specific needs of faculty as they are responsible for the direct interaction
and teaching of all student populations on campus. Additionally, they are required to produce
scholarly research that promotes their respective departments. Creating opportunities for faculty
to engage in meaningful performance training will increase their in-class teaching and support
the global goal of graduating 66% of SWDs.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 29

Table 4 indicates the assumed UPW cultural model and cultural setting influences to
support faculty in graduating SWDs.
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1 / Campus culture The University needs to hold academic
achievement of SWDs as a priority.

Cultural Model Influence 2 / Campus culture The University needs to support the faculty
as they implement a UDL in their
classrooms.

Cultural Setting Influence 1 / Resources The University needs to provide the UDL
training that directly meets the needs of the
faculty.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is defined as the ideas and beliefs that an individual holds about
the research at hand (Maxwell, 2013). The most critical aspect of a conceptual framework is that
it is a tentative theory of the research. The purpose of the tentative theory is to inform the
research questions, select methods, and identify potential threats to validity (Maxwell, 2013).
The terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often used interchangeably;
theoretical framework is a broader term that includes, terms, concepts, and ideas that connect to
specific theories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although the potential influences have been
presented within the research questions, each influence is not independent of the others. UDL
training has not been completely implemented at the UPW. This study explored current faculty
knowledge and pinpoint faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding SWDs and the perceptions of the
organizational culture on the stakeholder goal.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 30

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
University of Pacific Western
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
(Learning environment, performance, service leadership)

Faculty
Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge
and skills related to teaching and utility value
and attainment in relation to implementing a
Universal Design for Learning pedagogy
By Fall of 2019, UPW faculty
will receive training to
incorporate a Universal
Design for Learning in their
class
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 31

The conceptual framework represents the interaction of faculty knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences at UPW. The culture of UPW has a large impact on faculty. A
culture that consist of a learning environment, faculty performance, and service leadership by the
organization will motivate the faculty and support their implementation of a UDL framework
which will assist in reaching the global goal of graduating 66% of SWDs. The University of
Pacific Western is a Hispanic serving institution (HSI). HSIs are defined as colleges or
universities that have at least 25% of enrolled students who identify as Hispanic (United States
Department of Education, 2008a). For the purposes of this this paper, the stakeholders consisted
of the faculty at UPW. As the faculty are the primary stakeholders for this study, they are within
the sphere of UPW’s culture as illustrated in Figure 1. The organizational influences directly
impact the faculty and their conceptual and metacognitive knowledge.
It is important for faculty to be knowledgeable of the fundamental aspects of a UDL
framework and how it supports the organizational mission. A UDL is a “scientifically valid
framework for guiding education practice” (United States Department of Education, 2008, p. 1)
that provides multiple means of presentation to engage all students and reduces barriers to
instruction while maintaining high academic expectations for students with and without
disabilities (United States Department of Education, 2008). UDL integrates differentiated
instruction and self-regulation, while providing faculty with multiple means of assessment that
can include technology (Izzo, 2012). Faculty who feel positively about the institutional learning
environment are less likely to leave the organization (O’Meara et al., 2017) and more likely to
want to produce a strong performance (Abbasi & Zamani-Miandashti, 2013). The organizational
influences ultimately impact the stakeholders’ ability to reach the goal. In this study, the
stakeholders were the faculty, and the goal or UPW is to graduate 66% of SWDs with a
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 32

bachelor’s degree within four years of admission. Therefore, the stakeholder goal, which
supports the organizational goal is to have 100% of faculty who participate in UDL training
implement these strategies into their courses by 2020.
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruiting
The full-time and part-time faculty who teach at the University of Pacific Western
(UPW) main campus were the primary stakeholders for this study. Faculty members have a
considerable amount of impact on the academic success of SWDs in college (Basilice, 2015).
Full-time and part-time faculty at UPW consisted of tenured, tenure-track, and adjunct faculty
from the three colleges on campus: the College of Arts and Sciences, College of Law, and
College of Education. For the purposes of this study, faculty from all three colleges were invited
to participate. The researcher selected faculty who have little to no experience with a UDL
framework. Full-time and part-time faculty members were best suited as stakeholders due to the
direct interaction they have with students who are enrolled at UPW.
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of faculty
members in relation to their current ability support the achievement of students with disabilities
via implementing UDL and the interaction of knowledge and motivation within UPW’s culture
and context. Full-time faculty members at UPW are considered tenured or tenure-track and part-
time faculty are considered adjunct. Faculty from the University of Pacific Western Experience
(UPWE) education course were excluded to avoid potential Institutional Review Board (IRB)
concerns, as the researcher is a faculty lead and the current interim Director of Disabled Student
Services. Utilizing these criteria, the population size for this study consisted of approximately
450 full-time and part-time faculty on campus.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 33

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Faculty were full-time and part-time which includes tenured, tenure track,
and adjunct. There are approximately 450 full-time and part-time faculty at UPW. The rationale
for this criterion was that full-time and part-time faculty who teach at UPW have direct
interaction with all students on campus.
Criterion 2. Faculty taught at UPW’s main campus. There are multiple regional UPW
campuses. Considering that the majority of all full-time and part-time faculty are on the main
campus, they were the chosen stakeholders for this study.
Criterion 3. Faculty did not teach in University of Pacific Western’s Experience (UPWE)
general education course. The researcher is a faculty lead for the UPWE course and choosing
from outside this department will avoid potential Institutional Review Board (IRB) concerns.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Purposeful sampling involves selecting participants that will assist the researcher in
understanding the research questions and informs qualitative research methods (Creswell, 2003).
For the purposes of this study, a purposeful sampling technique was utilized to collect data.
Qualitative interviews are typically semi-structured and developed to elicit the views and
opinions of participants (Creswell, 2003). In qualitative inquiry, the researcher attempts to
determine the use of themes that people use to describe their thoughts, feelings, and experiences,
and qualitative methods allow the researcher to generate theory based on the interviews
conducted (Patton, 2002). Qualitative research also allows for meaning-making and the
utilization of multiple techniques for data collection, and it generally takes place in the natural
setting of the participant (Creswell, 2003).
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 34

Qualitative interviews allowed the researcher to interview faculty and make meaning of
their experiences while examining themes that may emerge. There are approximately 120
faculty members who were be asked to participate in the study via an email sent out by the
human resources department at UPW. The researcher contacted the human resources department
at UPW and asked them to select faculty who meet the criteria for this study. The email included
an explanation of the purpose of the study and how its findings will be used, along with an
assurance that responses are anonymous, as required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Respondents to the email asked for participation were contacted via email by the researcher.
Eight faculty members were chosen for interviews. There was a low-value incentive offered to
participants. The interviews provided the researcher with a deeper understanding of any gaps in
knowledge, motivation, or organizational resources in relation to the stakeholder performance
goal.
Qualitative documents such as newspapers, official reports, and other publically available
information provide additional information during data collection (Creswell, 2003). The
researcher examined publicly available syllabi from the UPW for UDL specific content and
template language related to SWDs utilizing the Document Analysis form (Appendix B).
Document analysis qualitative strategies including observation require the researcher to be
creative and insightful and are largely dependent on the research context (Maxwell, 2013).
When the faculty completed their interview with the researcher, they were asked to allow the
researcher to observe class during a live session. During the observation, the researcher utilized
the Observation Protocol (Appendix C). The triangulation of the data ensured validity of the
findings (Creswell, 2003).
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 35

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study gathered qualitative data by interviewing faculty members at the UPW about
their knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of organizational culture and setting related to the
goal of 100% of the faculty who participate in the UDL training implementing the strategies into
their courses. The qualitative interviews evaluated faculty members’ knowledge of a UDL and
their understanding of their own stereotypes of SWDs. Additionally, faculty were asked about
their perceptions of the organizational environment related to learning environment,
performance, service leadership.
Interviews
The researcher conducted eight one-time interviews with faculty members who were
purposefully selected based on their full-time and part-time status at UPW. Permission to
contact potential faculty participants via email was obtained from the human resources
department. The email (Appendix A) included information related to the study and a separate
link to provide their email address for participation in the interviews. The email explained that
their participation is completely voluntary and offer a small gift card in return for their time. The
researcher emailed participants directly and sent invitations for the meeting.
The researcher invited each professor to a private office on campus where the interviews
will be held. Four of the interviews were conducted via skype or telephone at the request of the
participant. The interviews were scheduled two weeks in advance in order to provide sufficient
time to reserve a private room and for faculty to plan around their personal schedules. Semi-
structured interviews were utilized by the researcher to provide follow-up probes as needed for
clarification and additional information. Qualitative research finds themes and makes
interpretations of the data collected while acknowledging the importance of rendering the
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 36

complexity of a situation (Creswell, 2003). The interview questions were designed to explore
the knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of UPW faculty implementing a
UDL. Patton (2002) offered that familiar language and a mix of question types are utilized that
best fit the participant’s experience, knowledge, and opinions. The interview protocol included
the purpose of the study along with its planned use. Additionally, a request to record the
interview, assurance of privacy and confidentiality and a request for the interviewee to sign the
consent form was provided. The detailed interview protocol is also included in Appendix A.
Document Analysis
The researcher examined 15 publicly available UPW syllabi for tenets of UDL strategies
and template language for SWDs. The documents collected were from multiple departments on
campus to provide breadth and depth of the faculty on campus. Researchers conducting a
qualitative study collect data through examining documents and organize it in order to make
sense (Creswell, 2014). Document analysis allowed the researcher to collect data that represents
the participants as it is written as evidence. The syllabi from UPW allowed the researcher to
examine the knowledge of the faculty and the organizational influences of the UPW. The
detailed document analysis protocol is included in Appendix B.
Classroom Observation
Observations provide the researcher with firsthand experience and can provide unusual
aspects of data not otherwise seen in qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). The researcher observed
one live classroom session at the UPW. Faculty who participated in the interview were asked if
they were willing to allow the researcher to observe one class session. One faculty member
agreed to have their class observed by the researcher. The researcher attended the class and
collected data related to the study. Specifically, the researcher observed and collected data
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 37

related to the knowledge and motivation faculty have in the classroom as it relates to a UDL.
The observation allowed the researcher to collect data without participating and as the
information is occurring to explore topics that may not otherwise be seen in interviews or
document analysis. The detailed observation analysis is included in Appendix C.
Findings
The University of Pacific Western (UPW) is a moderately sized university located in
Southern California. The purpose of this study was to analyze the assumed knowledge and
motivational and organizational influences regarding faculty and the potential implementation of
a UDL training. While a complete needs’ analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for this
specific study, faculty who teach full-time and part-time were chosen.
The presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes related to a UDL at the
UPW were previously discussed. The following questions guided the research study:
1. What is the faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing a universal
design for learning (UDL) into their curriculum?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and faculty knowledge and
motivation in the context on implementing UDL in the organization?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
In order to validate the assumed causes, qualitative data was collected via faculty interviews.
Eight faculty members were interviewed for this study. The interviews conducted were
approximately 20 minutes to one hour in length. The interviewees included part-time and full-
time faculty. Faculty responses were reported and transcribed without any identifiers.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 38

An analysis of the responses collected from the interviews established three themes
relevant to the research questions. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
will be presented along with the themes. The themes emerged from the analyzed qualitative
data. The themes presented provide data that can assist UPW in developing a comprehensive
universal UDL training for faculty. The subsequent sections will address the themes in relation
to the UPW’s goal on graduating 66% of SWDs. Furthermore, the themes will provide context
for working with faculty in supporting SWDs inside and outside of the classroom. Three themes
were discovered from the interviews: 1) faculty are unsure of how to support SWDs inside the
classroom, 2) faculty willing to provide support but lack belief in their ability, and 3) lack of
faculty support by the university. Causes suggested by the literature presented previously, as
well as the qualitative data from the interviews, and document analysis will be utilized to identify
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to the implementation of a
UDL framework.
Faculty uncertainty regarding supporting SWDs. The majority of faculty are unsure
about how to best teach SWDs in the classroom. Echoing results from the document analysis
and classroom observation, faculty were not able to demonstrate the knowledge or skills needed
to teach SWDs in the classroom. They also lack the conceptual knowledge of the basic
framework of a UDL. Comments included, “I don’t typically do things in class,” and “generally
speaking, I don't have skills and specific skills in working with students with disabilities other
than to recognize that everybody's an individual.” When asked about their knowledge related to
what a UDL training might include, a faculty stated, “first is how to identify students that have
disabilities.” Other faculty mentioned having difficulty with SWDs in the classroom
environment. One faculty commented, “It was so new for me, to have those two students in my
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 39

class last semester, who had disabilities. I didn’t quite know how to handle.” This comment
directly suggests the need for a UDL training for faculty in how to support SWDs in the
classroom. However, faculty did mention that they are aware of services available from the
disability office for SWDs. Specifically, one faculty stated, “the DSS office exists for students
with disabilities and if I need any help or if I notice anybody who might use the services that the
office provides. I would encourage the student to go and meet with the person in charge in that
office.” Another faculty mentioned,
I know that there's a department or an office that helps students with disabilities because
I've had, I think two students so far that have identified themselves with disabilities and
having and using the services at that office. But otherwise, other than that, I did not know
it was available. If it hadn't been for those students, I would not have known.
Additionally, two faculty from the education department did express their knowledge of student
learning along with an understanding of how to support SWDs academically. One faculty
specifically stated, “The work that our center for neuro-diversely learning and wellness is doing.
One of the things that I hear faculty talk about a lot, is focusing on the strengths and the
brilliance and the genius of all learners.” The second faculty from the education department
shared that, “these students have every right and privilege that any student has to quality
education. What we need to do is to level the playing field for them so that their access to the
information, the interactions, the assistance, the co-curricular.” It must be noted that the two
faculty who expressed their understanding of student learning were from the education
department. The other faculty who were interviewed in this study were unfamiliar with a UDL
and expressed their uncertainty of how to support SWDs academically which specifically relates
to their lack of conceptual knowledge of the basic framework of a UDL.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 40

When asked about what academic classroom support SWDs need, faculty expressed
interest in workshops. Specifically, one faculty stated: “yeah, I would love training on how to
handle working with students with disabilities.” Another faculty mentioned the use of
technology in the classroom as an aid for supporting SWDs but was unsure of the specific
technology that may be best. Key phrases such as “I didn’t quite know how to handle those
students,” and “I was amazed on finding out that there are so many students who were needing
help because of disabilities,” and “goals would be to educate staff and faculty on appropriate
ways to assist students, talk to students, and just bring awareness” provided the foundation for
the justification of the theme of faculty being unsure of how to support SWDs. Two faculty from
the education department did mention how they were currently implementing strategies to
engage all learning in the classroom. Although neither specifically stated the use of a UDL, they
both explained how a multimodal approach in a classroom is beneficial for all students. One
faculty stated, “currently, I use a multimodal approach in the classroom to ensure that I am
engaging all students, this way I am not only capturing the SWDs but all students in the
classroom.” The second faculty from the education department explained, “the classroom
environment that I try and create is inclusive of all students, it’s important that I start with that in
mind when I plan the curriculum so that I am not working backward during class trying to reach
all students.” These two faculty from the education department of the UPW campus had more
knowledge of supporting SWDs than any of the other faculty interviewed.
Many faculty mentioned the Center for Faculty Excellence (CAFE) as a resource on
campus. When asked about what CAFE offers, many faculty were unsure about what was
speficically offered. One faculty stated: “very few faculty utilize those [trainings] like through
CAFE.” Another faculty stated: “the challenge with CAFE in the past, they created some
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 41

workshops and hardly anyone attends. I attended one and hardly anyone was there.” Additional
training for faculty will help them to understand the multiple aspects of supporting and teaching
SWDs in college (Sprong et al., 2014). The response of faculty indicates that they are unsure of
the resources available to them on campus. There were two participants who mentioned the
utilization of the CAFE workshops and both were from the education department. The perceived
uncertainty of how to support students with disabilities has affected the motivation of faculty
inside and outside of the classroom.
Faculty interviewed explained that they felt SWDs deserved to be on campus and that the
university has an obligation to support them. Specifically, one faculty stated, “We don't know
how this individual functions in a class setting, in a group setting. We don't have that
information. I would say that would be narrow-minded to think that,” when referring to not
supporting SWDs in a college setting. Another faculty explained, “I continually have an internal
battle of being frustrated and judgmental of faculty who want a black and white answer to
everything and they don't seem to want to take the time to try to really help the student,” when
referring to faculty and their understanding of how SWDs are supporting in college. These
responses relate to faculty and their metacognitive knowledge regarding their own stereotypes of
SWDs. Specifically, the responses indicate that faculty are knowledgeable and supportive of
SWDs on a college campus but may feel that their colleagues are not completely supportive.
Another faculty mentioned, “If we can kind of make some accommodations from that
perspective that experts quite honestly who really usually are not the faculty can make happen,
but the faculty just needed to be understanding of that, then so be it,” when referring to SWDs
and they support they may need once they are admitted to college. This statement indicates the
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 42

faculty understands the accommodations needed for SWDs on a university campus. Faculty are
aware of the stereotypes of SWDs on a college campus.
Faculty willing to provide support but lack belief in their ability. The majority of the
interactions between faculty and students takes place inside of the classroom. Faculty report a
substantial increase in the comfort they have while supporting SWDs academic success after
being trained in UDL-specific strategies (Izzo et al., 2008). Faculty motivational factors related
to the utilization of a UDL directly impacts the academic achievement of SWDs. During the
interviews, several faculty mentioned the need for flexibility while teaching SWDs. Specifically,
one faculty member shared, “If I see something that is going to be a little bit dicey, especially
when I put them in teams, I do need to create the trend between the team members.” Another
faculty when asked to describe a classroom that would support SWDs learning stated, “as a
dream, I wish we have a new building and we have our classroom decorated so it is much more
inviting, instead of those four walls and those computers. It makes it much more, it gives them
that belonging feeling, that they belong.” Faculty need to see the value of utilizing a UDL in the
classroom for all students. They need to believe that they possess the ability to implement and
successfully teach a UDL framework. The faculty responses indicate that although they are
willing to support students, they do not completely believe in their ability to implement specific
strategies into their classroom. The self-efficacy required by faculty is essential for them to
appropriately support SWDs. One faculty mentioned, “It was so new for me, to have those two
students in my class last semester, who had disabilities. I didn't quite know how to handle,” when
referring to teaching SWDs in the classroom. It must be noted that one faculty did mention that
that they felt confident in the classroom and supporting SWDs, specifically, they stated, “So, I
think my experience and in all honesty, I've had quite a few students from your office in my
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 43

classrooms and for the most part, I do not see any issues with them in my classes.” The same
faculty when on to explain, “for the most part, I haven't really had a lot of issues with that,”
when referring to teaching and supporting SWDs. These overall responses from faculty indicate
that they need additional support in creating self-efficacy and in the belief in their ability to
support and teach SWDs.
Faculty were asked about their motivation for supporting SWDs inside and outside of the
classroom and the relation it has to other aspects of their job. When describing a classroom
discussion, one faculty said, “However, for the students with the disabilities, they weren’t able to
keep up. So, there were long moments of silence, and waiting from the other students.” Another
faculty mentioned, “they have to feel safe in their environment and the people they’re with, and
they have to build connections and relationships with the people they’re with and with the
faculty member.” Faculty personal beliefs of SWDs have the most direct influence on how
SWDs receive their accommodations in a college classroom (Dalun et al., 2010). When asked
about providing a supporting environment for SWDs on the campus and that it may not be
necessary considering they were admitted under the same requirements as their non-disabled
peers, one faculty stated, “academically speaking, I completely agree with that statement.
Academically speaking. Physically, emotionally, other issues, I'm not too sure I would agree
with that altogether.” The comments by faculty indicate that they may not completely value the
presence on SWDs on campus even though they have been admitted. Additionally, the same
faculty stated, “we at the University of La Verne, myself personally, we're not successful unless
the students are successful, and I believe that if we admit them to the university, we believe they
can succeed,” when asked about reasons for support SWDs on campus. When asked about the
influence supporting SWDs has on other aspects of their jobs, one faculty stated, “Not really. I
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 44

think we have several good things.” When asked the same questions, another faculty said, “I'm
very thankful I had those two students last semester who had official learning disabilities.
Because it made me realize that everyone else has different shades of learning ability. Although
some faculty did state that supporting SWDs did impact other aspects of their job, their
descriptions were typically in relation to teaching in the classroom. Specifically, one faculty
said, “Well, it's honestly, my work with students of differing abilities has strengthened and made
me a better teacher, as I learn how to help all different kinds of learners.” Once faculty, when
asked about the relation of supporting SWDs to other aspects of her job as an administrator,
stated, “the biggest impact has been the increase in mental health and faculty who are so ill-
prepared to help students with mental health issues. And they come to me and their immediate
reaction is kick them out of the program.” Based on these comments, faculty members do not
seem to completely value having SWDs in the classroom and do not see a clear connection of
teaching SWDs influencing other aspects of their job.
Lack of faculty support within the organization. Faculty reported a need for the
organization to continue to support them in their current and future capacity. Supporting faculty
as they engage all students will in turn support the global goal of graduating 66% of SWDs. The
findings suggest that faculty feel that UPW needs to hold the academic achievement of SWDs a
priority on campus. When asked about ways to support SWDs on campus, one faculty member
stated, “continue to support the faculty as they strive to get, not superiority per se, but and
academic success, reasonable academic standards out of the students.” Another faculty,
referencing administration stated, “don’t worry about your students, worry about your faculty
and let us worry about the students.” Faculty also mentioned their feeling of the lack of
administrative support on campus. When asked about how the learning environment on campus
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 45

could improve, one faculty member mentioned, “I think it’s an administration versus faculty, and
many faculty across the campus do not have the tools to successfully assist today’s students.”
Another faculty member asked, “does administration take the faculty seriously to make the
university better, remember the faculty are the university?” The comments show that faculty
view the administration as a key component to the campus but view them as a factor outside of
their control. As such, findings demonstrate that faculty do not feel equipped to meet the needs
of not only SWDS but all students. The UPW needs to support faculty as they support all
students on campus and specifically, SWDs.
The concern that faculty expressed regarding support for their role is important as it is
likely that their perceptions have a direct impact on the support they provide to students.
Specifically, faculty mentioned that although some resources are available on campus, they are
not readily available and are in a format that does not engage faculty who attend. Six faculty
mentioned the Center for Faculty Advancement (CAFÉ) as a resource on campus. Although the
CAFÉ was mentioned, several faculty expressed the lack of meaningful workshops that were
applicable to their roles on campus. One faculty stated, “although the CAFÉ is available for
faculty, I don’t really know what they do, I know they have workshops and I get the emails, but I
don’t hear or know much else.” Another faculty shared, “there are some resources on campus
but they all seem to be doing class time, it makes it difficult to attend and they don’t record the
sessions so I am unable to watch them later.” A lack of engagement and readily available
content impact the ability for faculty to gain valuable learning opportunities. Faculty also
expressed their desire for disability specific training but the lack of availability of such training
on campus. Specifically, on faculty stated, “yeah, I would love training on how to handle
working with students with disabilities.” Another faculty shared, “a training of some kind of
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 46

how to better teach students would be great. Students are always changing and we need to
always be ready.” Key phrases such as “The faculty are the university, so value them. If you
value them, you value their input, you pay them what they are worth, it makes a difference,” and
“As an anjuct faculty, I am really outside of the loop as I don’t spend any time on campus, I get
some of the emails but don’t recall anything about supporting faculty and students with
disbailities,“provided the justification for the support for lack of faculty support as a theme that
diectly connects to the organizational influences mentioned througout this section. Specifically,
there is a lack of support by the university to hold the academic achievement of SWDs as a
priority and therefore, a need for the university to support the faculty as they implement a UDL
in their classrooms.
Document Analysis
A total of 15 publicly available syllabi were examined for UDL components at UPW
utilizing a document analysis form. The analysis form examined the syllabi for language,
availability, format, and assessment. The syllabi examined were captured from multiple
departments on the UPW website in order to provide details regarding a UDL framework within
the syllabi. The analysis revealed data related to faculty knowledge regarding UDL tenets.
Specifically, the analysis revealed two main themes. The two themes discovered from the
document analysis: 1) faculty do not provide template language for SWDs in their syllabus, 2)
elements of media of multimodal teaching is not evident faculty syllabi. The elements of the
syllabus directly relate to faculty and their conceptual knowledge regarding basic tenets of a
UDL framework.
Of the 15 syllabi examined, only two had language specifically mentioning how a student
with a disability may request accommodations through the universities Disabled Student
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 47

Services office. The statement regarding accommodations was generic and included phrases
such as: “Please contact the office of Disabled Student Services to request accommodations,”
and “The university prohibits discrimination based on disability and any students experiencing
discrimination should contact the Title IX coordinator.” The other 13 syllabi had no mention of
language regarding SWDs and how to formally request accommodations. Although two syllabi
mentioned the disability office for accommodations, the contact information only included a
telephone number. There was no email, website link, or other form of contact information on
any syllabus. Accommodations at the UPW are federally mandated and handled by the DSS
office. Generally, the language within the syllabi was formal and uninviting. Only two syllabi
contained language that was inviting and welcoming. Phrases such as “Welcome to business
270, I look forward to a mutual learning environment.” and “Please feel free to contact me with
any questions you may have via email, cell-phone, or office hours.” were stated in only two
syllabi. Additionally, only one of the syllabi was available in a format other than a portable
document format (PDF). The font on all the syllabi was Time New Roman in a 12-point font
and single spaced. Only one of the syllabi had a course website with access to additional
materials that included resources for the class and university-wide services. There were no
media elements or links of any kind on any of the syllabi. After examining the syllabi, it became
clear that faculty need additional knowledge related to producing syllabi in accessible formats
for all students in order to support their academic goals.
Classroom Observation
A classroom observation was conducted for this study in order to examine faculty
knowledge regarding a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the classroom. A faculty
member who participated in the interview agreed to allow the researcher into the classroom to
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 48

observe. The class, taught on the main campus as the UPW, was Introduction to Accounting
Principles for traditional undergraduate students. The faculty member allowed the researcher to
begin observation at the beginning of class and remain for the entire session. Utilizing the
observation protocol, the researcher observed the class.
The researcher entered the class with the faculty member and sat at the back of class so as
to not cause any disruptions. Class promptly began at the scheduled time and began with the
faculty member welcoming everyone. The faculty member stood at the front of class near the
computer with 31 students all facing them. The first few minutes of class were dedicated to
setting up the PowerPoint at the front of class. The PowerPoint consisted of 71 slides of which
were all one font and similar in size. The use of multiple slides without any other form of media
indicates a lack of multimodal teaching strategies. Pflaum (2002) stated that there are three
essential qualities of UDL: multiple means of presentation, expression, and engagement. Of the
slides utilized during the researcher’s time in class, there were no embedded visual aids such as
diagrams, pictures, graphs or charts as would typically be utilized in a UDL setting. The white
board at the front of class was utilized twice by the faculty member to write down formulas
related to students’ questions. The faculty remained in the front of the room for the majority of
class and walked around to call on students for questions related to the lesson. The lack of
knowledge by the faculty regarding the strategies of a UDL are evident in their teaching.
Specifically, they utilized a traditional classroom design where students were asked questions
regarding class content. As such, the same faculty member mentioned in their interview that
there was a lack of support by the administration and it was an “us versus them mentality,”
which may directly relate to their lack of a UDL framework as the UPW does not provide any
current training for faculty regarding SWDs.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 49

Students were asked to get into groups and answer questions that were in their textbook.
There were about 13 students who had laptops in class and the others had either a hardcopy of
the book or no book at all. Although the students were asked to work in small groups, the
physical layout of the room did not allow for students to engage in face-to-face dialogue. The
seating in class placed students shoulder to shoulder with all the chairs facing the front of the
room. While in small groups, students were forced to speak over their classmates for the next
person in their group to hear. A student with a hidden disability, such as anxiety or a specific
learning disability may struggle in such a setting where only one form of presentation is being
utilized. Students generally seemed engaged as the faculty would call directly on students to
answer the questions and rarely allowed students to volunteer. The faculty made a deliberate
effort to keep the engagement of the class by utilizing humor and reinforcing correct answers.
As there was no multimodal information presented, the faculty relied heavily on the
content to be drawn from the book and the PowerPoint. Additionally, the physical layout of the
classroom did not facilitate a face-to-face dialogue while students engaged in a small group
activity. The PowerPoint that was presented did not have supporting visual aids and utilized one
font with a blue color scheme. A UDL framework allows faculty to utilize a varied means of
presenting information in the classroom and facilitates the learning of all students (Smith, 2012).
Faculty understanding of their teaching and how it supports the learning of all students in the
class provides the foundation of knowledge needed to implement UDL strategies (Sprong et al.,
2014). For the purposes of this research, one faculty from the interview agreed to let the
researcher observe their class. As such, the findings from the observation cannot be generalized
and are not necessarily indicative of all faculty at UPW. That said, the observation yielded
findings that suggest faculty are willing and enthusiastic about support SWDs and their non-
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 50

disabled peers but are not knowledgeable in the specific strategies required for their success.
Moreover, during the interview phase, the same faculty who allowed for the observation
mentioned the lack of administrative support and diversity on campus. The faculty member in
the accounting department specifically mentioned the lack of professors of color in their
department and on campus. With this in mind, the UPW has a direct influence on the hiring of
professors in the college department.
Recommendations for Practice
Introduction and Overview
UPW must provide a supportive environment for faculty that allows them to engage in
UDL training that enables the success of students with disabilities academically. This section
will present recommendations categorized by knowledge, motivation, and organization that will
allow the UPW to accomplish is mission and goals. The recommendation for faculty knowledge
in order to meet the organizational goal of graduating 66% of SWDs within four years of
admission is to provide and engage in UDL training in order for them to implement the strategies
in their classrooms. The motivation recommendation is that the UPW provide modeling,
practice, and targeted feedback to increase faculty confidence and self-efficacy in the classroom.
The organizational recommendation is for the UPW to provide opportunities for the faculty to
understand the importance of their daily functions in relation to support SWDs’ academic
achievement and provide a meaningful faculty-centered UDL training. The UPW must allocate
the appropriate resources in order to develop a UDL training that can be provided to all faculty
on campus in readily accessible format. The final recommendation is for the UPW to hire a
service leader to align faculty behaviors and goals during implementation of UDL in their
classroom. These recommendations will be implemented using the UDL training for faculty at
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 51

UPW that will be developed and presented by the Disabled Student Services (DSS) office. The
training will take place before the beginning of the fall academic semester over the course of two
days. The first session will focus on the developing a basic understanding of UDL principles and
tenets. The second day will focus on implementing the strategies into the classroom during a
mock exercise. The two-day training will focus on developing the knowledge and motivation
needed for faculty to implement UDL strategies in the classroom that will support all students—
not only SWDs.
Program implementation will be evaluated using the Kirkpatrick New World Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model is conducted by course instructors (CIs), subject
matter experts (SMEs), and observer, controller/trainers (OC/Ts) who will make observations
and evaluations. Kirkpatrick’s model consist of four levels of evaluation, including reaction
(level one), learning (level two), behavior (level three), and results (level four). According to
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), level one consists of the degree of interest that stakeholder
has in participating in the training; level two is the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment the participant has during the training; level three evaluates the behavior of the
stakeholder and the application of what they have learned on the job after the training has taken
place; the final level is targeted on outcomes that occur as a result of the training and support.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Conceptual knowledge refers to the interrelatedness of the information connected to a
larger structure (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge refers to an internal personal
reflection and awareness of one’s thoughts (Baker, 2006). This study focused on the conceptual
and metacognitive knowledge of faculty related to SWDs and a UDL. On the following page,
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 52

Table 5 identifies both conceptual and metacognitive knowledge faculty will gain during the
UDL training in order to support SWDs’ academic success and the performance goal.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 53

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to be
knowledgeable of the basic
framework of a universal
design for learning
(conceptual knowledge).
Conceptual knowledge is the
identification and understanding
of greater constructs such as
categories, principles, and
theories. (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011).
Provide information that
improves basic
understanding of a universal
design for learning.

Increasing faculty knowledge regarding a UDL framework. Conceptual knowledge is
the identification and understanding of constructs such as categories, principles, and theories.
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Faculty need to be knowledgeable of the basic framework of a
UDL. Interview data demonstrated that faculty struggle with the basic understanding of the
UDL framework. Without this knowledge, the goal of meeting the stakeholder performance goal
of graduating 66% of SWDs will be difficult to achieve. In order to increase faculty knowledge
regarding a UDL framework, principles on conceptual knowledge will be implemented.
Specifically, Spring (2014) recommends 48 hours of training for faculty specifically related to
engaging and teaching of SWDs in college. The conceptual knowledge that faculty will require
leads to the recommendation of providing UDL training that will be applicable to classroom
teaching. The recommendation is to provide information that improves basic understanding of a
UDL.
A UDL framework consists of multiple means of presentation and assessment strategies
(Smith, 2012). An existing study indicated that faculty who received 48 hours or more of
training specifically related to engagement and teaching strategies for SWDs had higher student
evaluation scores in the multiple means of presentation category which refers to the various
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 54

means by which information is presented in the classroom (Sprong et al., 2014). Therefore,
faculty will benefit from UDL specific information that they can implement in the classroom.
Motivation Recommendations
Faculty have the most direct contact with students on campus as compared to staff and
administrators. For this reason, it is crucial that faculty are motivated to learn how to support
SWDs academically in the classroom. Motivation consists of active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study focused on faculty motivation as it relates to
utility value, attainment value, and self-efficacy in the context of implementing a UDL
framework. Faculty are tasked with teaching a variety of students in a classroom and need to
understand their motivation for doing so. Table 6 contains details regarding the motivational
influences and recommendations.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 55

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty members must highly
value their teaching of a UDL
framework in relation to other
aspects of their job that
supports all students.
(Attainment)
Attainment value refers to a
specific important task and how
those align to the person’s
interest, values, capabilities, and
goals (Eccles, 2006).
Provide faculty with student
success stories who have
succeeded due to supportive
faculty.
Faculty need to believe in
their ability to implement a
UDL framework into their
classroom. (Self-Efficacy)
Self-efficacy provides the base
for human motivation for
accomplishing tasks (Pajares,
2006).
Provide modeling, practice,
and targeted feedback to
increase faculty confidence
in the classroom.

Increasing faculty self-efficacy. Interview data demonstrated that faculty are willing to
support SWDs but do not completely believe in their ability to teach them in the classroom.
Self-efficacy is defined as the perception a person has of the ability to complete tasks (Grossman
& Salas, 2011) and a person’s beliefs in their ability to exert influence over events that impact
their lives (Bandura, 1994). In order to increase faculty motivation in their ability to implement
a UDL framework into their classroom, principles based on self-efficacy will be implemented.
Specifically, the more self-efficacy a faculty member possesses about themselves, the more
motivated they are to provide effective classroom instruction (Ladner, 2008). Self-efficacy
provides the base for human motivation for accomplishing tasks (Pajares, 2006). Therefore, the
recommendation is to provide modeling, practice, and targeted feedback to increase faculty
confidence in the classroom.
High self-efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006). Additionally,
modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and
performance. According to Izzo et al. (2008), faculty increase their comfort in the classroom
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 56

when they have received UDL training to support SWDs. Increased faculty engagement with
implementing UDL may collectively increase their capability to reach the global goal of
supporting SWDs at UPW. Collective efficacy refers to the perception of capability that a group
or team possesses to reach a goal together (Huh et al., 2014). From a theoretical perspective, the
faculty need to believe in their ability to implement a UDL framework into their classroom.
Increasing faculty attainment value. Interview data demonstrated that although faculty
did mention the relation of supporting SWDs to other aspects of their job, they typically
mentioned the teaching aspect and not other areas within their position such as research and
administrative work. In order to increase faculty motivation of implementing a UDL framework
and the influence it has to other aspects of their job, principles based on attainment value.
Specifically, faculty members who have more positive interactions and build good rapport with
students improve their teaching performance (Haddad & Taleb, 2016). Attainment value refers
to specific, important tasks and how those align to the person’s interest, values, capabilities, and
goals (Eccles, 2006). The recommendation, then, is to provide faculty with student success
stories of faculty who have been supporting outside of their typical teaching role on campus.
When a task aligns with an individual’s self-image, the person will place greater value on
the task and it will have positive attainment value for the individual (Eccles, 2006). Faculty
members who have more positive interactions and build good rapport with students improve
their teaching performance (Haddad & Taleb, 2016). From a theoretical perspective, faculty who
value their teaching and student interactions while utilizing a UDL framework will be better
suited to support SWDs.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 57

Organizational Recommendations
Organizational culture can influence stakeholder motivation and the knowledge necessary
to accomplish organizational goals. There are both visible and internal aspects of culture that
can be analyzed within an organization (Schein, 2004). Culture within an organization drives
every aspect of change. Interview findings demonstrated that faculty at the UPW do not feel
supported in their teaching role and often times refer to the relation between administration as
not collaborative. For this reason, UPW must be aware of the organizational culture and how to
best support faculty in order to meet the stakeholder goals. The implementation of a UDL
framework into the classroom by faculty is directly correlated to the effectiveness of the training
developed by the DSS office at UPW. The institutional learning environment for faculty can
directly influence their career agency on campus (O’Meara et al., 2017). Table 7 describes the
organizational influences and recommendations.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 58

Table 7
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The University needs to
hold academic
achievement of SWDs
as a priority. (CM)

The climate in an organization
is based on how its members
function during day-to-day
operations and the goals it
chooses to pursue (Schneider et
al., 1996).
Provide opportunities for faculty to
learn the importance of their
function during the day-to-day
operations for supporting SWDs’
academic achievement.
The University needs to
support the faculty as
they implement a UDL
in their classrooms.
(CM)
A positive climate that aligns
with employee behaviors and
goals is more likely to emerge
from an organization with a
service leader (Schneider et al.,
1998).
Provide a service leader to align
faculty behaviors and goals during
implementation of UDL in their
classroom.
The University needs to
provide the UDL
training that directly
meets the needs of the
faculty. (CS)
Organizational influences on
faculty, such as the
development of meaningful
training and teaching
evaluations, lead to professional
growth (Channing, 2017).
Provide meaningful, faculty-
centered training regarding a UDL
that will lead to professional
growth.

Increasing organizational value of SWDs academic achievement. Interview data
suggest that faculty do not believe that the University of Pacific Western (UPW) holds the
academic achievement of SWDs as a priority. In order to increase the support for SWDs
academic achievement on campus, principle based on cultural models will be implemented.
Specifically, faculty who have received strong institutional support regarding their learning and
scholarly research reported more satisfaction and were less likely to leave their current institution
(O’Meara, Rivera, Kuveava, & Corrigan, 2017). The climate in an organization is based on how
its members function during day-to-day operations and the goals it chooses to pursue (Schneider
et al., 1996). The UPW needs to hold academic achievement of SWDs as a priority. As such,
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 59

the recommendation is to provide opportunities for faculty to learn the importance of their work
during the day-to-day operations for supporting SWDs’ academic achievement.
Interview data demonstrated that faculty do not feel supported in their teaching role at
UPW. In order to increase faculty support on campus as they implement a UDL in their
classrooms, principles based on cultural models will be utilized. Specifically, a positive climate
that aligns with employee behaviors and goals is more likely to emerge from an organization
with a service leader (Schneider et al., 1998). The recommendation is to provide a service leader
in the form of a provost to align faculty behaviors and goals during implementation of UDL in
their classroom.
Increasing meaningful training for faculty. Interview data demonstrated that the
university does not provide training to meet the needs of faculty and the implementation of a
UDL. In order to provide UDL specific training for faculty, principles based on cultural settings
will be implemented. Specifically, organizational influences on faculty, such as the development
of a meaningful training and teaching evaluations, lead to professional growth (Channing, 2017).
As such, the UPW needs to provide UDL training that directly meets the needs of the faculty.
Learning and organizational culture improve faculty performance as they want to produce a
strong performance in a learning-centered environment (Abbasi & Zamani-Miandashti, 2013).
The recommendation is to provide a meaningful, faculty-centered training regarding a UDL that
will lead to professional growth.
Leaders reward desired behavior, model values, engage with employees, and set
expectations (Kezar, 2001). Existing research demonstrates that faculty value being encouraged
to engage in continuous development as educators by administrators within the organization
(Channing, 2017). Therefore, the recommendation for the UPW is to have a specific UDL
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 60

training that meets the needs of faculty. Faculty who were trained in the appropriate utilization
and specific classroom strategies for UDL reported a 92% increase in the level of comfort in
supporting the academic success of SWDs (Izzo et al., 2008). Organizations can produce
positive intended results when leaders focus on the climate of their organizations (Schneider et
al., 1996).
Program. UPW’s DSS office will develop the UDL training to support the achievement
of learning for faculty. The Director of DSS will be responsible for the development and
implementation of the training. The learning goals for the faculty listed in the previous section
can be achieved through the development of a UDL training. Specifically, the training will
include the basic tenets of a UDL, classroom implementation strategies, mock classroom
environment, and assessment. The training will be developed by the DSS office at the UPW.
The UDL training will take place during Faculty Awareness Week prior to the beginning
of each semester. Faculty will be contacted via a university-wide email sent to all adjunct and
full-time faculty. The training will be over the course of two-days at three hours each day. The
training will be located in the DSS office. The first day will be dedicated to the basic UDL
tenets, including vocabulary, framework, benefits, and implementation strategies. Faculty will
be provided with an overview of the UDL framework with knowledge checks throughout the
training. The knowledge checks will consist of questions related to comprehension of the UDL
material being presented. The objective of the training will be for faculty to gain enough
knowledge to feel confident to implement a UDL into their classroom.
In addition to a general overview of the UDL framework, faculty will be presented job-
aids and specific examples of what a UDL classroom looks like. The job-aids will be in the form
of graph digital and hardcopy handouts with specific UDL strategies for teaching, student
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 61

engagement, and assessment. The job aid will include links to online resources for faculty and
the development of a UDL classroom. It will also include specific the steps in developing a
successful UDL classroom. Faculty will be able to review the job-aid as the DSS office will
send an email to all participants after the training. Faculty will be asked to develop a UDL
classroom activity that they would potentially utilize in their class. The self-directed activity will
build the confidence of the faculty in order to prepare them for the mock UDL classroom on day
two of the training. The DSS office staff will review the activity along with faculty peers and
provide feedback in order to reinforce the appropriate UDL strategies in a classroom.
The second day will be dedicated to application in a classroom environment and rely
heavily on practical application. The mock UDL classroom will increase faculty learning by
providing faculty the opportunity to transition from the theoretical tenets of a UDL framework
into the practical application in a classroom environment. Faculty will build upon their
previously developed classroom activity and be provided an opportunity to share with their
peers. Classroom instruction will facilitate the procedural learning of a UDL framework that
faculty must acquire in order to implement the strategies. The practical application of the UDL
material will provide a greater chance of the faculty retaining the information.
Faculty will spend the first 30 minutes of the second day reviewing the basic procedural
knowledge from day one of the training. The information will be presented in a multi-modal
format as a way to reinforce the unitization of a UDL framework. The second part of the
training will be dedicated to faculty sharing their UDL activity and receiving feedback from the
DSS staff and peers. The final part of the training will consist of a mock UDL classroom where
faculty will be able to view the complete implementation of a UDL framework in a classroom
environment. The visual observation of the UDL classroom will allow faculty to gain additional
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 62

confidence in developing UDL specific classroom strategies. This will leave the faculty with a
strong visual in order for them to go back and develop their own UDL classrooms. The increase
in UDL proficiency will contribute to faculty motivation and self-efficacy and increase faculty
confidence in the implementation of a UDL framework in the classroom.
Throughout the two days of training, faculty will be observed and evaluated by the
instructors and OC/Ts to determine UDL proficiency. Faculty will have the opportunity to be
coached by subject matter experts, which will strengthen their conceptual knowledge in specific
UDL strategies. Additional training sessions and refresher courses will be offered by the DSS
office to continually support faculty. Faculty will also have the opportunity to speak with other
faculty who are already implementing UDL strategies successfully in the classroom.
Prior to, and upon completion of the UDL training, faculty will have opportunities to
reinforce their learning through the use of job-aids and peer support. The objective of the training
will focus on ensuring faculty understand how UDL can support all students in the classroom
and how to implement and assess UDL strategies.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand faculty’s current knowledge, motivation,
and perceptions of organizational culture and resources regarding the implementation of UDL
training by the DSS office at UPW. The University of Pacific Westerns (UPWs) goal is to
graduate 66% of students with disabilities (SWDs) within four years of admission by 2022.
Currently, SWDs have the lowest graduation rates in college compared to their non-disabled
peers (Herbert et al., 2014). A Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework utilized by
faculty increases engagement for SWDs and their non-disabled peers in college. Although
faculty are willing to support the academic achivement of SWDs, they lack the fundamental
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 63

knowledge of a UDL framework. Addtionally, they do not believe in their ability to teach SWDs
let alone implement a UDL framework. Faculty who engaged in UDL training had higher
student evaluation scores comapred to those who did not participate in the training (Sprong et al.,
2014). Faculty who engage in UDL training and build self-efficacy also increase their comfort in
supporting SWDs both inside and outside the classroom (Izzo et al., 2008; Ladner, 2008). UPW
is also responsible for supporting faculty in order to achieve their missions and goals. Interview
data demonstrated that faculty at the UPW do not feel supported by administration in being
provided resources in order to implement a UDL strategy into their classroom and support the
academic success of SWDs. A UDL training for faculty will support the increase in academic
achievement for SWDs at the UPW.
Questions for further research. The findings in this study provide opportunities for future
research. Specifically, while examing faculty knowledge and motivation, it is evident that
faculty are willing to incorporate UDL training into their classrooms but do not have the basic
knowledge and lack belif in their ability to serve SWDs. Addtionally, faculty mention the lack
of organizational support.
As such, the following questions are for future research:
1. How can a post-secondary institution support faculty in their ability to teach to a diverse
student population?
2. How can faculty self-efficacy regarding teaching SWDs be improved in a non-supportive
institution?

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 64

References
Abbasi, E., & Zamani-Miandashti, N. (2013). The role of transformational leadership,
organizational culture and organizational learning in improving the performance of
Iranian agricultural faculties. Higher Education, 66(4), 505-519.
Access Project. (2011). UDL: A concise introduction. Colorado State University.
Anam S., Aslam, D. H., Mannan K., & Urooj, F. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on
faculty's motivation, and organizational effectiveness in higher education system.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 184-188.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Basilice, L. (2015). Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding students with disabilities in
higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Becker, S., & Palladino, J. (2016). Assessing faculty perspectives about teaching and working
with students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29
(1), 65-82.
Berger, S. (2008). Fundamentals of health care financial management: A practical guide to
fiscal issues and activities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 65

Chickering, G., Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education (New Directions for Teaching and Learning
no. 47). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Channing, J. (2017). Faculty evaluations: Contentious bothers or important tools for faculty
growth? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(11), 757-760.
Dalun, Z., Landmark, L., Reber, A., Hsien Yuan, H., Oi-Man, K., & Benz, M. (2010). University
faculty knowledge, beliefs, and practices in providing reasonable accommodations to
students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 276-286.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act.
(2008). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fichten, C. S. (1988). Students with physical disabilities in higher education: Attitudes and
beliefs that affect integration. In H. E. Yuker, (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with
disabilities (pp. 171-186). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 66

Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on campus. Exceptionality,
16(4), 207-219.
Glass, T. (2013). Creating learning environments for disengaged boys: Bridging the gender gap
with universal design for learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Haddad, S., & Taleb, A. R. (2016). The impact of self-efficacy on performance (An empirical
study on business faculty members in Jordanian universities). Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 877-887.
Herbert, J., Hong, B., Byun, S., Welsh, W., Kurz, C., & Atkinson, H. (2014). Persistence and
graduation of college students seeking disability support services. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22-32.
Huh, Y., Reigeluth C. M., & Lee, D. (2014). Collective efficacy and its relationship with
leadership in a computer medicated project-based group work. Contemporary
Educational Technology 5(1), 1-21.
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective of universal design for
learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60-72.
Izzo, M. (2012). Universal design for learning: Enhancing achievement of students with
disabilities. Procedia Computer Science, 14, 343-350.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 67

Katz, J., & Porath M. (2011). “Teaching to diversity: Creating compassionate learning
communities for diverse elementary school communities.” International Journal of
Special Education 26(2): 1-13.
Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): engaging students
in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.
Kennedy, K. (2011). Understanding faculty's motivation to interact with students outside of
class. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(1), 10-25.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations (ASHE-ERIC higher education report; v. 28, no.
4). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kjellerson, M. S. (2010). Faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities at two midwestern
universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, Humanities and Social Sciences, 70,
10-A.
Knight, W., Wessel. D. R., & Markle, L. (2016). Persistence to graduation for students with
disabilities. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(5), 1-19.
Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T.W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008). Universal design for learning: A
look at what algebra and biology students with and without high incidence conditions are
saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 352-363.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 68

Ladner, O. (2008). What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college
mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice? University of Southern
California, Los Angeles California, CA.
Leyser, Y., Greenberger, L., Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2011). Students with disabilities in
teacher education: Changes in faculty attitudes toward accommodations over ten years.
International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 162-174.
Lowenthal, P., Wray, M., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2012). Examining faculty
motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University
Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3), 149-164.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Megel, M., Nelson A. E., Black J., Vogel J., & Uphoff, M. (2013). A comparison of student and
faculty perceptions of clinical post-conference learning environment. Nurse Education
Today, 33(5), 525-529.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moriña, A., Cortés-Vega, M. D., & Molina, V. (2015). What if we could imagine the ideal
faculty? Proposals for improvement by university students with disabilities. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 52(November 2015), 91-98.
Murray, W., & Keys, C. (2008). University faculty perceptions of students with learning
disabilities: Correlates and group differences. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3), 95-
113.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 69

Murray, M., Lombardi, A., & Wren, C. T. (2011). The effects of disability-focused training on
the attitudes and perceptions of university staff. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4),
290-300.
National Center on Education Statistics. (2017). College navigator data and statistics. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=university+of+la+verne&s=all&id=117140
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. (2009). The post–high school outcomes
of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
O'Meara, K.A., Rivera, M., Kuvaeva, A., & Corrigan, K. (2017). Faculty learning matters:
Organizational conditions and contexts that shape faculty learning. Innovative Higher
Education, 42(4), 355-376.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parker, H. B. (2012). Learning starts with design: Using universal design for learning (UDL) in
higher education course redesign. Advances in Educational Administration, 16, 109-136.
Pflaum, B. (2002). Universal design for learning: Educational research at center for applied
special technology. School Planning and Management, 41(4), 10.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 70

Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in
postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5-15.
Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2014). Disabled students in higher education: Discourses of disability
and the negotiation of identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 38-46.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special
educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67-79.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational
change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer
perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 150-163.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction.
Retrieved from http://www.udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/principles-udi.
Shawn, P., & Wessel, R. D. (2013). Faculty mentorship and transition experiences of students
with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(2), 105-118.
Smith, F. G. (2012). Analyzing a college course that adheres to the universal design for learning
(UDL) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 31-6.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 71

Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., & Snell, L.H. (2015). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding
college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
28(3), 259-275.
Sprong, M. E., Dallas, B. K., & Upton, T. D. (2014). Post-secondary faculty attitudes toward
inclusive teaching strategies. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(2), 12-20.
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Dolmans, D.
(2016). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance
teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Medical Teacher, 38(8),
769-786.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Persons with a disability: Labor force
characteristics summary. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
United States Department of Education. (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States Department of Education. (2008a). Definition of Hispanic serving institution.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/definition.html
United States Department of Education. (2011). Students with disabilities preparing for post
secondary education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transition.html.
Vasek, D. (2005). Assessing the knowledge base of faculty at a private, four-year institution.
College Student Journal, 39(2), 307–315.
Vitelli, E. (2015). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology,
30(3), 166-178.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 72

Zhang, D., Reber L., Hsu Y. H., Kwok H., & Benz, C. (2010). University faculty knowledge,
beliefs, and practices in providing reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 276-286.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 73

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Interview Email Invitation
You are invited to participate in an interview as part of a doctoral study on the graduation
rates of students with disabilities. The research is part of my EdD program in Organizational
Change and Leadership under the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes to complete and consists of 12
questions. If you are interersted in participating, please email lbarrera@laverne.edu and provide
your contact information. Once your information is recieved, you will be contacted by the
researcher in order to schedule the interview.
Interview Opening Remarks
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I am here today not as the Director of
Disabled Student Services but as a student conducting research as part of my EdD program in
Organizational Change and Leadership within the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes to complete and
consists of 12 questions. There are no right or wrong answers, and you can skip any questions
you do not want to answer. You can stop the interview at any time.
Your repsonses will be kept confidential and will be shared only in summary form with
no identifying information. The information collected via this interview will be shared with
University of Pacific Western leadership and will help inform a universal design for learning
(UDL) training. Your answers will be kept confidential, and the summary of findings will be
presented in a way that no individual participant can be identified.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 74

I would like to record the interview for my notes. Immediately following the session, I
will upload the recording to a secure computer and delete it from the recording device. The
recording will be permenantly deleted after transcription. The storage of the recording will be
labeled with a pseudonym.
Do I have your permission to record the interview?
Do I have your permission to take notes during the interview?
Do you have any questions before we get started?
Interview Questions
1. Please share what you know about the current university goals and priorities for SWDs’
academic success.
2. In what ways does the university support SWDs?
3. Can you describe the teaching support (such as course development or diversity training),
if any, the university provides for faculty inside and outside of the classroom?
 How can the learning environment on campus improve?
4. Can you talk about what you perceive to be some reasons for supporting SWDs inside
and outside of the classroom?
 Probe: Why might supporting SWDs be important for their academic success?
5. Describe what you think would be good training to better support SWDs. What should
this training include?
6. What is your knowledge and understanding regarding how people learn?
7. Please tell me what you know about teaching students with disabilities (SWDs).
 Probe: Can you provide some examples you use to support SWDs?
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 75

8. Please describe your understanding of the multiple types of disabilities that students in a
classroom may have.
9. Can you please tell me about your teaching style and how it relates to how individuals
learn? Can you describe how your teaching style might change according to student
needs?
10. What do you believe SWDs need in a classroom to support their learning?
11. Some may say that providing a supportive environment for SWDs may not be necessary
considering that they were admitted to college under the same requirements as their non-
disabled peers. What are your feelings regarding that statement?
12. Do you believe supporting SWDs has influence in other aspects of your job? Why or why
not?
Thank you very much for your time and your willingness to participate. As a small
token of my appreciation, here is a gift card to a local coffee shop.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 76

Appendix B
Document Analysis
Sources: Publically available syllabi
1. Is there template langauge for students with disabilities (SWDs)? Yes ____ No ____
2. What is the tone of the language? Formal ____ Personal ____ Inviting ____
3. Is the syallbus organized in a manner that students can understand? Yes ____ No ____
4. Is the syllabus available online for download? Yes ____ No ____
5. Is the syallbus available in multiple formates (e.g., PDF, Microsoft Word, etc.)?
Yes ____ No ____
6. Does the syllabus have multiple means of instructor contact (i.e., Email, telephone, office
location)? Yes ____ No ____
7. Are there media elements to the syllabus (e.g., YouTube video link) Yes ____ No ____
a. If so, explain: ______________________________________________________
8. Is there a course website? Yes ____ No ____
9. Does the syallbus have multiple means of assessment (e.g., exams, presentations, class
participation, etc.)? Yes ____ No ____

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 77

Appendix C
Observation Protocol
Observation Details
Date:
Time
(start/end):

Content Topic/Lesson
Objective:

Whole Group

Small Group

One-on-One

Other
Reflective Notes Descriptive Notes

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 78

1. Does the instructor utilize multiple means of presentation (e.g., lecture, multi-media,
group activity, etc.)? Explain:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. To what degree do the students seem engaged? Explain:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Does the physical layout of the classroom provide opportunities for students to engage
with each other and the instructor? Explain:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 79

Appendix D
Credibility and Trustworthininess
A qualitative study must be conducted ethically and rigorously in order for it to be
considered credible and trustworthy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Credibility and trustworthiness
are essential because of the outcomes the research can have on people’s lives (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). A threat to validity represents the ways by which qualitative data can be
interpreted that differ from the conclusions reached by the researcher (Maxwell, 2013).
Alternate explanations for the data and design will be aniticipated by the researcher to the extent
possible (Maxwell, 2013). Researchers must have confidence in the way that they conduct their
study if they want to apply the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher must carefully design the qualitative study while underderstanding that
reality is relative and not fixed (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I presented myself
neutrally during the interviews. In order to gather data that has bredth and depth, faculty from
the three different colleges on the University of Pacific Western’s (UPW) main campus were
selected. Recordings of each interview were transcribed and verbatim exerpts were utilized as
data to eliminate bias. A researcher must be as transparent as possible regarding their
relationship to the study, participants, and worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Feedback
from interviewees was soliticited during the analysis phase in order to minimize potential biases
and misinterpretation. Addtionally, a full disclosure of the my biases and perspectives was
provided to minimize validity threats and ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
The triangulation of the data ensured validity of the findings (Creswell, 2003).
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 80

Additionally, negative cases within the research were presented accordingly. Adequate
engagement in data collections refers to the time spent reviewing discrepancies or negative cases
within the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I reviewed the data collected and looked for any
discrepancies reflected in the work or in the literature included in this study.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 81

Appendix E
Ethics
A qualitative approach to this study was utilized to gain breadth and depth of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps that may impact UPW faculty’s ability to support SWDs
academically. Participants were provided with an informed consent form stating that their
participating is voluntary, and they can stop their participation at any time. Conifdentiality and
informed consent are the rights of participants that include making participants aware that their
involvement is voluntary and their information will be kept in strict confidence (Glesne, 2011;
Rubin & Rubin, 2011). The recordings were transcribed immediately following the interview
and were deleted once the transcription was complete.
The purpose of the study aligns with the UPW global goal of graduating 66% of students
with disabilities within four years of being admitted and one contributing factor, faculty’s ability
to implement a universal design for learning (UDL) into the classroom. Participants received
full disclosure regarding the purpose of the study and how the results will be distributed. The
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of faculty are important in reaching the
stakeholder goals of this study. The results of the study will be shared with UPW’s disability
office in order to develop future faculty training. More specifically, the data from this study will
inform a universal design for learning (UDL) training for faculty at UPW.
As the interim Director of Disabled Student Services, my interest in this study is for
academic and professional purposes. In oder to not coerce interviewees, they were invited to
participate and informed that they can end the interview at any time. During the interview, I
looked for discomfort or reluctance to participate and reminded them that it is not necessary that
they continue. Additionally, as the Director of Disabled Student Services, I reflected in action on
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 82

my own bias during the interview and will listen without imposing my personal opinions. Rubin
and Rubin (2011) suggested that in order to show respect to the interviewee, the researcher
should conduct themselves in a manner that is honest and not deceitful; ask for permission to
record, and by being on time and courteous during the interview. I requested peer reviews of the
findings in order to minimize biases the researcher may have missed.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 83

Appendix F
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New Kirkpatrick Model is an essential piece for the effective development and
implementation of a universal design for learning (UDL) training and provides a method of
evaluation. The model will allow the University of Pacific Western (UPW) to provide UDL
training to faculty that is engaging and leads to critical behaviors of supporting students with
disabilities (SWDs) in the classroom. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model present
three reasons to evaluate training: 1. program improvement 2. maximize learning and
organizational results and 3. demonstrate the values of training within an organization.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of UPW is to provide academic opportunities for all students—regardless of
background—to achieve their educational goals and become engaged global citizens. UPWs
four core values are ethical reasoning, diversity and inclusivity, lifelong learning, and
community and civic engagement. The performance goals is to graduate 66% of SWDs with a
bachelor’s degree within four years of admission. This goal is specifically for traditional
undergraduate students and transfer students.
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is the faculty at UPW. They were selected
as they have the most direct consistent contact with SWDs at UPW. Faculty play a critical role
in the academic success of all students and more specifically, SWDs. The stakeholder goal is
that 100% of faculty who engage in a UDL training will implement the framwork into their
classroom by 2020. For this reason their goal is that 100% of faculty who participate in a UDL
training will implement key UDL practices into their courses by 2020. This stakeholder group
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 84

will have a direct impact on the global goal of graduating 66% of SWDs with a bachelor’s
degree within four years of admission.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The internal and external outcomes, if achieved, will indicate if the faculty at UPW are
exhibiting critical behaviors that support the stakeholder and organizational performance
goal. The first external outcome is that the UPW is viewed as a supportive higher education
institution for SWDs academic success. The second outcome is that the UPW is confident in its
faculty’s ability to present a UDL-competent school to the public. The metrics for the external
outcomes will be an increase in the enrollment and graduation of SWDs at UPW and an increase
of the UPW faculty attending UDL conferences to support their ongoing learning.
There are two desired internal outcomes that will indicate that faculty are meeting the
organizational goal of graduating 66% of SWDs within four-years of admission. The first is that
UPW faculty will attend UDL training sessions provided by the Disabled Student Services (DSS)
office. The DSS office will collect data from faculty attendance at the UDL training. The data
will also serve as a means to contact faculty and survey them regarding their implementation of
the strategies from the training. The second desired outcome is that the UPW faculty will
implement a UDL framework into their classroom after completing the training. The
measurement will be a self-reported survey sent to faculty asking about the implementation of
UDL strategies into their classroom. The goal is to have 100% of faculty who attended the
training implement the strategies into their classroom by 2020.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 85

Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
UPW is viewed as a supportive
higher education institution for
SWDs.
Increased enrollment of
SWDs.
Utilize enrollment data via
institutional research.
Public is confident in UPW
faculty UDL competency.
Number of UDL
functions attended by
faculty.
Quarterly reports from the
professional development office.
Internal Outcomes
UPW Faculty implement a
UDL framework in their
classroom.
Number of faculty
utilizing a UDL in their
classrooms.
The DSS office survey faculty
who participated in the UDL
training.
100% of faculty will attend
UDL training provided by the
DSS office.
Faculty attendance at
UDL training sessions.
The DSS office will utilize internal
data for this assessment.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The table below explains the critical behaviors faculty must
demonstrate to achieve the internal and external outcomes desired by the UPW. The critical
behaviors described in the table below include faculty implementing UDL assessment models
into their syllabus as well as faculty performing UDL-specific teaching models as indicated in
their syllabus. Faculty must demonstrate proficiency in their ability to learn, understand, and
implement UDL strategies in their classroom. Faculty syllabi will be collected at the beginning
of the semester and examined for UDL language, strategies, and assessment. The goal is to have
the DSS office examine the syllabi syllabus and faculty for critical behaviors and certify that
they are demonstrating proficiency related to the global goal.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 86

Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Faculty implement
UDL assessment models
within their syllabus
The number of syllabi
with UDL related
classroom assessments
Collection of faculty
syllabi at the
beginning on each
semester.
At the beginning
of each
semester.
2. Faculty perform UDL
specific teaching models
as stated in their
syllabus.

The number of syllabi
with UDL related
classroom teaching
models.
Collection of faculty
syllabi at the
beginning of each
semester.
Throughout
each semester.

Required drivers. Required drivers are processes and systems that reinforce, monitor,
encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 10 lists the required drivers for faculty, the timing of the use of the drivers and the
accompanying critical behaviors. The UPW will utilize these drivers during the UDL training in
order to produce the critical behaviors in support of the global goal. These drivers will also
support the accomplishment of the level four behaviors.
Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including glossary of UDL models and
framework
Ongoing 1,2
Monthly workshop supporting UDL in the
classroom
Monthly 1,2
Attendance at faculty meetings to reinforce and
answer questions
Monthly 1,2
Encouraging
Provide opportunities for faculty to collaborate
with peers
Monthly 1,2
Feedback and coaching from the DSS office Quarterly 1,2
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 87

Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of increase in faculty
use of UDL
Quarterly 1,2

Monitoring
DSS Director will ask faculty to self-report via
an online survey
Two months after
training
1,2

Organizational support. The University of Pacific Western (UPW) must ensure that
faculty are appropriately trained in supporting students with disabilities (SWDs) in order to meet
the global goal of graduating 66% of SWDs in four years. It is important that the DSS office
develop and implement the training for faculty. It is critical that faculty understand their overall
contribution to the accomplishment of the global goal. In order to reach the goal, UPW must
create an effective training that engages faculty and motivates them to implement UDL strategies
in the classroom. Specifically, UPW must provide and encourage faculty opportunities to
collaborate with their peers, acknowledge utilization of UDL strategies in the classroom, and
reinforce faculty attendance at UDL training sessions.
As faculty implement UDL strategies into their classroom, the will become more
confident in their ability to support the academic success of SWDs. Additionally, the UPW will
be able to present a university that is competent in supporting SWDs inside and outside of the
classroom. The techniques, skills, and abilities of the faculty and their ability to implement UDL
strategies can be publically displayed by the UPW. The DSS office will ensure that the
curriculum remains relevant and modified as needed in order to provide the most updated UDL
specific information. The organization in a concerted effort with the DSS office will support the
faculty in achieving their stakeholder goal of implementing a UDL framework into the
classroom.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 88

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. During the training, faculty will achieve the following learning
objectives as part of their demonstrated understanding of the training:
1. Articulate the universal design for learning framework and how it supports all students
(C-M)
2. Explain the basic tenets of a universal design for learning (C)
3. Demonstrate basic classroom strategies related to a universal design for learning (C)
4. Demonstrate proficiency in implementing universal design for learning assessment (C)
5. Display confidence in their ability to apply universal design for learning strategies and
assessment within a classroom setting (Self-efficacy)
Evaluation of the components of learning. The table below describes the evaluation
process for the components of the learning for the universal design for learning (UDL)
training. The methods of learning are presented utilizing the following categories: declarative,
procedural, metacognitive, confidence, and attitude. The first category is procedural knowledge
in which training will focus on their understanding of the basic tenets of a UDL. Confirmation
of proficiency in the procedural and metacognitive task will be evaluated by examining faculty
syllabi at the beginning the following semester after the training and during a simulated
classroom during the training session. Confidence and attitude will be examined during the
simulated classroom training session as well to look for indicators of motivation and
engagement.
Table 11
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 89

Faculty understand the tenets of a UDL framework During course instruction
Faculty articulate how to implement and assess
students utilizing a UDL framework
During course instruction
Faculty show competency in the UDL classroom
framework
After instruction
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Faculty demonstrate competency in their classroom
teaching
During mock classroom training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Faculty display a desire to engage in the training
being provided
During course instruction and mock
classroom training
Faculty display an enthusiasm for the training During course instruction and mock
classroom training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Faculty display confidence in the execution of the
UDL framework
During mock classroom training and
during faculty-student teaching
Faculty have confidence in their ability to execute
the UDL framework in the classroom
During mock classroom and during
faculty-student teaching
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Faculty are prepared to conduct UDL specific
strategies in a faculty-student classroom
During faculty-student classroom
teaching

Level 1: Reaction
Level one evaluation is defined as the degree to which participants find training
favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). The table
below presents the observations the DSS staff must make in order to assess the level of faculty
engagement. UPW relies on its faculty to support the academic achievement of all students in
the classroom and therefore become invested in the UDL training presented by the DSS
office. Establishing a solid understanding of UDL will allow the faculty at UPW to support the
organizational goals. The table below shows the method of evaluation the DSS staff will utilize
to assess the reaction of faculty during the UDL training.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 90

Table 12
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Faculty engagement in UDL training Throughout the training
Faculty answering questions presented by the DSS staff Throughout the training
DSS observation of the faculty during the training Throughout the course
Relevance

Interaction with faculty during class Throughout the training
Evaluation of the training At the completion of the training
Customer Satisfaction

Pulse check of faculty satisfaction At the midpoint and end of the training
Evaluation of the training At the completion of the program

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluation of the program
training will take place at the completion of the two-day training. Observation will be the
primary means of evaluation during the training. The observer will monitor the faculty
participation in the training and the DSS staff providing the training. There will be one observer
that will specifically monitor both days of the UDL training. The observer will monitor faculty
engagement and focus on overall satisfaction. Upon completion of the first iteration of the
program, a subsequent survey will be sent to faculty focusing on giving the participants the
opportunity to share their perspective. As the focal point is the faculty, it is important to provide
opportunity for them to share feedback and viewpoints.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The training evaluation will
take place with the faculty no later than one month after the beginning of the academic
semester. The evaluation will be in the form of a Qualtrics survey sent to faculty emails. The
survey will focus on the faculty and the material presented to them. Items included in the survey
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 91

will include instructor evaluations and if the course material achieved its goal of providing
faculty with the basic tenets of a UDL framework. There will also be a plan for ongoing
evaluation at the end of each academic semester in order to collect data of utilization of the
training programs learning outcomes. The follow-up will allow the DSS department to re-
engage with faculty and adjust the training for future sessions. Faculty will have the opportunity
to evaluate the training received during and after the academic semester. This will ensure that
the training is consistently evolving with the needs of the faculty.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Findings related to this study will be crucial in order to assess the UDL training and its
effectiveness of the information presented to faculty. Presenting the data is a meaningful way in
order to efficiently capture will be utilized via a multimodal approach. Excel spreadsheets,
reports, PowerPoints, and additional visual aids will be the most effective way to present the
information. The data will highlight the stages on the UDL training and faculty implementation
of the techniques and strategies for their classroom.
Summary
The Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is a framework for
the implementation and design of a UDL training to meet the UPW goal of graduating 66% of
SWDs with four-years of admission. The data collected through document analysis, interviews,
and observation show that the faculty at the UPW need additional knowledge related to a UDL.
During the data collection, the barriers related to the organization, knowledge, and motivation of
faculty became apparent. The recommendations were created in order to address the challenges
utilizing research-based principles. The training will provide faculty an opportunity to engage in
best practices of a UDL framework while receiving feedback regarding their lesson plans and
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 92

curriculum development. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model will be applied to increase
the likelihood of the training and its effectiveness of the desired behaviors. The utilization of the
framework ensures that there are acquired skills in training that lead to the increase in
performance for faculty.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 93

Appendix G
Sample Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Immediate Evaluation Survey
1. The course materials were well organized, and the content was relevant.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
2. I understand the basic concepts of a Universal Design for Learning.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
3. I understand the how to implement UDL strategies into my classroom teaching.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
4. The mock UDL classroom was effective in reinforcing the knowledge taught throughout
the training.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
5. The training was interesting and informative.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
6. The UDL content and instruction were easy to follow.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
7. I am confident in my ability to implement UDL strategies into my classroom.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
8. The instructor was well informed and prepared to provide expertise on the subject
matter.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
9. The classroom instruction was supported by the mock UDL classroom exercise.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 94

10. The training achieved its goal of providing faculty the basic tenets of a UDL framework
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 95

Appendix H
Delayed Evaluation Instrument: Levels 1-4
1. The training aids provided were relevant and informative.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
2. The mock classroom exercise provided was a valuable resource.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
3. I am confident in my ability to implement a UDL framework into my classroom.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
4. I am confident in utilizing UDL assessment strategies to grade students.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree
5. The information provided in the session was applicable to my current job.
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 96

Appendix I
Universal Design for Learning Model
Presentation Expression Engagement Assessment
Provide information
in a multimodal
format
Provide opportunities
for students to express
themselves in a
diverse manner.
Provide opportunities
for students to engage
in a diverse learning
environment.
Provide opportunities
for multiple
assessment strategies.
Scaffold students to
higher level thinking
Include classroom
options such as,
physical movement,
vocal expressions, and
written expression.
Include classroom
options such as, think-
pair-share, small
group discussions,
virtual polls, lecture,
etc.
Include classroom
assessment that is
clearly identified and
readily available.
Clearly and concisely
provide information
across multiple
platforms.
Include outside
classroom options
such as, written,
video, and face-to-
face.
Include outside
classroom options
such as, email, virtual
platforms such as
Black Board,
discussion boards, etc.
Include classroom
assessment options
such as, participation,
quizzes, live polls,
student presentations.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 97

Appendix J
Universal Design for Learning Sample Syllabus
My personal syllabus from a course I teach at UPW. Adapted for the purposes of this
study. Attention should be focused on the elements of presentation, expression, engagement, and
assessment. Specifically, you will notice a multimodal approach for all elements throughout the
syllabus. Additionally, there is a section regarding services for SWDs which utilizes inclusive
language.
UNIVERSITY OF PACIFIC WESTERN

Course Title Spring 2019
Instructor: Email:
Office:
Phone:
Skype:
Zoom:
Course Website:
Accessible Syllabus:
Office hours and location:

Course Description:
Welcome to the Pacific Western Experience Class that focuses on the university values. I am
excited that you have enrolled in class and look forward to our time together. This class extends
the curricular experience into the co-curricular and builds the e-portfolio (a tool that will present
artifacts that demonstrate transformative learning through the application of discipline and
integrative knowledge). The goal of this class is to expose students to how their liberal arts
education provides a foundation that reveals the inter-connection of social justice, civic
engagement, diversity and inclusivity, and their role in solving local, national, and global
problems. The seminar provides a safe space for students to begin exploring their belief systems,
develop skills in cultural competence, cultivate and expand their sense of personal and social
responsibility, as well as identify their strengths and creativity, as they engage with the university
and local community.

Required Books, Readings, and Fees:

Strengths Quest website fee of $10.00

Astin, Alexander, Astin, Helen, and Lindholm, Jennifer. (2011). Why spirituality matters &
Higher education and the life of the spirit. Cultivating the spirit: how college can enhance
students’ inner lives. CA: Jossey-Bass.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 98

Baxter Magolda, Marcia B. (2009). Introduction. Authoring your life: Developing an internal
voice to navigate life’s challenges. VA: Stylus Publishing.

Eck, Diana L. (2006). Preface. Building the interfaith youth movement: Beyond dialogue to
action, edited by Eboo Patel and Patrice Brodeur, ix-xi. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.

Patel, Eboo. (2012). Colleges. Sacred ground: Pluralism, prejudice, and the promise of
America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Reflection:
Given the content of this course it is important for students to take time to reflect on the learning
that will take place. Be sure to allow yourself time to process the content covered. Engaging
your classmates outside of class will assist in this process. Use this course as an opportunity for
personal and professional growth and to develop your whole self.

Specific Learning Outcomes:
a. Create reflective artifacts that contemplate, examine, and connect many aspects of the
undergraduate experience at UPW
b. Demonstrate transformative learning which integrates disciplinary knowledge and
values through the e-portfolio presentation.
c. Articulate a thorough understanding of the mission and values of UPW

Evidence of Learning:
Students will be expected to demonstrate proficient analysis, synthesis and organized
insight articulated through:
a. Consistent participation in classroom discussion.
b. Attendance and personal reflection within an e-Portfolio of eight co-curricular events
(six university sponsored, main campus events and two off-campus events).
c. Demonstration of effective critical thinking and evidence of meaningful reflection on
the UPW values, reading assignments, and class discussions within the e-Portfolio.

Tentative Schedule*

Date Description Assignments
Week
1
Introduction to course and ULV values Email Self-
Perceived
Upload
MBTI to BB
assessment
on BB
Week
2
Career pt I: Career Services - Introduction and Strengths Quest Email Self-
Perceived
Strengths
Strengths
Quest
Reflection
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 99

Week
3
ePortfolio training
Stress Test
Portal-Digication-Digication Resources for UPW- Example
ePortfolios- Learning wide ePortfolios
Looking ahead; community engagement
CCW & ABCD
View
ePortfolio
template
Stress Test
Results
Resume
Strengths
Test
Reflection

Week
4
Community Engagement:

Debrief
Watch Ted
Talk on
ABCD
Asset
mapping
activity
Week
5
Diversity and Inclusivity

About me CE
Co-curricular
Reflection
Reading
TBD
Week
6
Career pt II: What career do you want to pursue?
What are you qualified for now?
What do you want to be?
What do you need to do to be qualified for what you want to be?

Class Discussion/Diversity and inclusivity pt 1:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-
smarter/

About me
D&I

Museum of
choice

How
Diversity
Makes us
Smarter
Week
7
Spring Break
Week
8
Create Your Future assignment

Looking Ahead; Diversity and Inclusivity

Week
9
Class Discussion/ Diversity an Inclusivity pt 2:

Debrief
Diversity
Reading
Week
10
Report out on co-curricular events, D&I debrief
Registration and Academic Advising
Debrief
Looking ahead; Interfaith Cooperation

5-Year Map

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 100

Week
11
Good Friday Co-
Curricular
Reflection
About Me
(D&I)
Week
12
Interfaith Cooperation

Ted Talk by Karen Armstrong called “My Wish; The Charter for
Compassion

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_makes_her_ted_prize_
wish_the_charter_for_compassion?language=en

Eck, Preface
in Building
the interfaith
youth
movement
Patel,
Colleges in
Sacred
Ground
View Ted
Talk
Week
13
Interfaith Debrief
Report out on co-curricular events
Positionality
Peer Review Braid Reflection Workshop
About Me
(Interfaith)
Week
14
Financial Literacy
Braid Breakdown
Event
progress and
questions
Week
15
Positionality debrief – Course review

Braid
Reflection
Week
16
(Finals Week) Final Presentations

Assessment: My assessment of the student will be based on the following:
Class attendance and participation: 100 pts.
Weekly assignments (about me reflections): 100 pts.
ePortfolio: 100 pts.
Co-curricular event attendance: 60 pts.
Braid reflection: 100 pts.
Create Your Future: 100 pts.

Total: 560 pts.

Grades: 93-100% = A; 92.9-90% = A-; 89.9-87% = B+; 86.9-83% = B; 82.9-80% = B-;
79.9-77% = C+; 76.9-73% = C; 72.9-70% = C-; 60-69% = D; < 59% = F

Class Attendance and Discussion: Regular and prompt attendance is required for this class.
Students are expected to complete assigned readings before class and to participate in class
discussions and activities. Students are expected to attend faculty panels and values workshops.
All students are expected to participate in one or all of the following formats; think-pair-share,
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 101

individual work, written expression, group discussion, large group discussion, virtual polls via a
cellular phone, and in class presentations.

Co-curricular events: Students will attend six co-curricular events (four university sponsored,
main campus events and two off-campus events). Attendance at events is another form of
learning and are a valuable way to connect course content to outside of class. Off campus events
will be cleared at the discretion of the instructor.

e-Portfolio and About me: Students will build an E-Portfolio via the Digication Platform and
will create reflective artifacts that contemplate, examine, and internalize university values, co-
curricular events, readings, class discussions, speakers, faculty panels, and workshops. E-
Portfolios will be presented to the class in a presentation at the end of the semester. The
presentation format can include a formal presentation, a video recording, a class discussion, and
other formats that students feel will meet the core points of the assignment. Please speak with the
instructor prior to beginning your presentation to ensure approval.
Braid reflection: Near the end of the semester each student will write and submit a paper to the
following prompt: "Positionality is the multiple, unique experiences that situate each of us."
Consider how your experiences have influenced your epistemology, ethical core beliefs, and
cultural self-identity; using specific examples from your life, discuss what has shaped your
beliefs, your understanding of your cultural identity, and your positionality.
As an extension of this discussion, think forward to your life beyond Pacific western, including
your work and life plans. How do imagine that the UPW core values (Ethical Reasoning,
Diversity and Inclusivity, Civic and Community Engagement, and Life-long Learning) and your
knowledge of intercultural/interfaith perspectives will influence your life and your understanding
of the world as well as your epistemology?
Responses should include: (a) experience and learning both inside and outside of the classroom,
(b) event attendance, (c) intentional and unintentional learning from all aspects of the class, (d)
connection and relation to the Universities Baccalaureate Goals and values (e) a deepened
understanding of your values and beliefs as they relate to your holistic development.
The paper should incorporate both objective and subjective reflection. The paper should be
between four to five pages. The rubric is available on Digication and will be discussed in class.
Create Your Future: Students will visit the career center and through classroom dialogue,
develop a five-year career map. The map can be hand drawn, created utilizing technology

Disabled Student Services: This course is supportive of all student including those with
disabilities. If you have a disability or believe that you may have one you may be eligible for
academic accommodations due to a documented disability and are asked to contact the Disabled
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 102

Student Services office. You can reach the Disabled Student Services office at (909) 448-4938.
The office is located at 2215 “E” Street. Students with disabilities must document their
disability with the Disabled Student Services office in order to be considered for.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Going through it all: an evaluation of medical leave policy impact on persistence rates for students with disabilities

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing workplace training transfer

Asset Metadata

Creator Barrera, Leobardo III (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/19/2019

Defense Date 02/07/2019

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

Tag disability offices,Higher education,knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of faculty,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-secondary education,students with disabilities (SWDs),UDL,UDL training,universal design for learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Pearson, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email lbarrerab16@gmail.com,leobardb@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-123252

Unique identifier UC11675623

Identifier etd-BarreraLeo-7087.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-123252 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BarreraLeo-7087.pdf

Dmrecord 123252

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Barrera, Leobardo III

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