University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES i

The Arc of Students with Disabilities in California Community College
through the Lens of the Disabled Student Programs and Services Coordinators
by

Kathryn “Katie” Schellenberg, JD, MA

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

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Kathryn Schellenberg

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to two extraordinary people who have always believed in
all my academic, personal and professional pursuits. To James Schellenberg, my father, and
Phyllis Brourman, my grandmother, you have both taught me the incredible and unstoppable
power of combining grace and grit. Through your unwavering dedication, this thesis is possible
and is but a symbol of all your taught and instilled in me.
This dissertation is also dedicated to two extraordinary pets who have taught me the
power of joy, being present, and long walks, Dude and Dolly Parton.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“It has been a beautiful fight. It still is.'' - Charles Bukowski
“I am, by calling, a dealer in words; and words are, of course, the most powerful
drug used by mankind.” - Rudyard Kipling
“None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives.” - Jane Austen, Persuasion

This thesis and my academic pursuits have been made possible by too many people to
list, but as a verbose and grateful student, I will try.
First, I would like to thank my family: my grandmother, my mother, my father, my
brother, his wife, Wyatt and the little one on the way, my aunts and uncles, my cousins and my
entire very large extended family. I am so grateful that my family of birth would also be my
family of choice.
I would also like to thank my academic family. My dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey,
has been beyond instrumental in the creation of this work. I would like to thank my dissertation
committee, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, Dr. Allison Muraszewski, and Dr. Don Murphy for agreeing to
serve on my committee, being terrific instructors and giving me such valuable input. I would also
like to thank all my teachers from Phillips Academy Andover, USC undergraduate, UCLA law
and my instructors at the MAT and OCL program at USC Rossier’s School of Education. I
would like to thank Reginald Ryder for his support throughout the program. I would also like to
thank Courtney and Jonathan who have helped me with finalizing my survey and my editing,
respectively. A large thank you goes to my stakeholder group, the coordinators of DSPS, for
their time and insight.
I would like to thank my professional colleagues and clients. I would like to extend
gratitude to my legal career which has shaped me into the advocate I am now. I would also like
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES iv
to convey profound thanks to my team at Edutopia who I have been lucky enough to work with
for the past several years.
I would like to thank my amazing and supportive friends. My dear friend, Keriann, has
been battling breast cancer and still been an amazing cheerleader for me as I conclude my
academic journey through this thesis. I would like to thank my law school friends, my friends
from high school, my friends from grade school, my friends from camp and my friends from
Junior League of Los Angeles. My friends from my health and fitness journey (Stronger U,
Orangetheory, tennis and Peloton) deserve a special shoutout for allowing me an opportunity to
relieve stress throughout this process. A thank you also goes to my medical and nutrition team
who have kept me healthy and happy to tackle this pursuit.
I would also like to extend a special thank you to all my dear friends who have supported
me through my defense and thesis process: Kevin, Benjamin, Shoshana, Stefanie, Jason, Irma,
Lila, Victor, and Emily. My colleagues in the OCL program (especially my Thursday night
crew) have been my partners in laughter, success and tenacity throughout this program. I would
also like to thank the best two dogs in the world, Dude and Dolly Parton, and the people and
things in the future that I wish I knew as I finalize this work.
Many of you know the genesis of research is in my own disability, and I want to thank all
the students and people with disabilities (some of whom are my own clients, colleagues and
friends) who chose to remain and advocate for their rights in public life. It is through and for
your bravery, tenacity and advocacy that I write this. I will continue to advocate for all those
who are voiceless, whether it be in a classroom, courtroom or through continued study and
research.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart and the fire in my belly.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii

CHAPTER ONE ..............................................................................................................................1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance Goals ......................................................................................4
Definitions............................................................................................................................4
Related Literature.................................................................................................................5
Lack of Access to Community College ...................................................................5
Community College Success and Students with Disabilities ..................................6
Students with Disabilities and the Workforce .........................................................8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................9
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................10
Description of Stakeholder Groups ....................................................................................11
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals...........................................................................11
Stakeholder Group for the Study .......................................................................................12
Methodological Framework ...............................................................................................12
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................14
Disability and California Students .....................................................................................15
History of Disabilities on Campus .....................................................................................16
Strategic Plan .........................................................................................................16
California Community Colleges System ...............................................................17
California and Disabled Students in Higher Education .....................................................18
Laws and Students of California ........................................................................................19
Disability Law, Policy, and Practice in Higher Education in California ...........................22
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................25
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................26
Understanding of the Student with Disabilities Population They Serve............................27
The Interplay Between Different Academic and Support Offices .....................................28
Career Readiness for Students with Disabilities ................................................................29
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................33
Self-efficacy ...........................................................................................................34
Self-efficacy of Administrators for DSPS .............................................................35
Self-efficacy in College Students with Disabilities ...............................................36
Goal Content Theory..............................................................................................37
SMART Goal Setting of DSPS Administrators .....................................................38
SMART Goal Setting of Students with Disabilities ..............................................39
Organization .......................................................................................................................41
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES vi
General Theory ......................................................................................................41
Budget, Systems, and Processes ................................................................42
Culture........................................................................................................42
Stakeholder Specific Factors......................................................................43
Performance Needs ................................................................................................46
Goal Acceptance and Willingness to Act ..................................................47
Stakeholder Organizational Problems........................................................47
Resource Needs ..........................................................................................47
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction between Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context .......................................................................49
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................54

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................56
Methodological Approach and Rationale ..........................................................................56
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................58
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................................59
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................59
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale............................................................60
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................60
Explanation of Choices ......................................................................................................61
Sampling Strategy and Timeline ........................................................................................63
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................63
Interviews ...............................................................................................................64
Interview Protocol ......................................................................................64
Interview Procedures .................................................................................65
Documents .............................................................................................................65
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................66
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................67
Ethics..................................................................................................................................68
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................69

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS .........................................................................70
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................70
Results ................................................................................................................................74
Findings..............................................................................................................................88
Knowledge .............................................................................................................88
Sharing Knowledge ....................................................................................89
Motivation ..............................................................................................................90
Self-Efficacy ..............................................................................................90
Goal Orientation.........................................................................................93
Self-Advocacy and Referral Goals ............................................................94
Organization ...........................................................................................................95
Resources ...................................................................................................96
Culture........................................................................................................99
Synthesis ..........................................................................................................................100

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES vii
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................101
Introduction and Overview ..............................................................................................101
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..........................................101
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................101
Procedural Knowledge Solutions .............................................................103
Conceptual Knowledge Solutions ............................................................103
Motivation Recommendations .............................................................................105
Training Modules to Increase Self-efficacy Surrounding Students with
Disabilities ...............................................................................................106
SMART Goals Around Workforce Preparedness ....................................106
Organization Recommendations ..........................................................................107
Introduction ..............................................................................................107
Budget Cuts Have Negatively Impacted Access, Performance, and
Service of Students with Disabilities .......................................................108
Policies and Practices for a More Equitable Outcome.............................109
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................110
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ........................................................110
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................111
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ..............................................................111
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................112
Critical Behaviors ....................................................................................112
Required Drivers ......................................................................................113
Organizational Support ............................................................................114
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................114
Learning Goals .........................................................................................114
Program ....................................................................................................115
Evaluation of the Components of Learning .............................................116
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................117
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................118
Immediately Following the Program Implementation .............................118
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation ........................118
Data Analysis and Reporting ...............................................................................119
Summary ..............................................................................................................119
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Clark and Estes (2008) Approach ..............................120
Future Research ...............................................................................................................121
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................121

References ....................................................................................................................................124

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey Questions .......................................................................................139
Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions .........................................................................144
Appendix C: Complete Survey Instrument ......................................................................146
Appendix D: Proposed Post-Training Evaluation Survey Instrument .............................160
Appendix E: Proposed Post-Training Evaluation Data Presentation ...............................161

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES viii
ABSTRACT
This study looks at access, retention, graduation and eventual employment of students with
disabilities on the California Community College through the lens of the departments and
administrators that serve them. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, this
study researches the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that contribute to gaps
in achievement between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Using a
sequential mixed methods study with a census survey and seven qualitative interviews, the study
reveals a stakeholder group with the knowledge and self-efficacy to mitigate achievement gaps.
The research further reveals that this stakeholder group could benefit from increased resources,
highly specialized legal training, organizational support and more concrete and specific goals.
This study concludes with recommendations in achieving organizational aims and more closely
aligning this department with the California Community College mission of making college
more accessible to historically marginalized groups and training an educated California
workforce.
Keywords: students with disabilities, higher education, California Community Colleges,
disability services, higher education administration, higher education policy and legality,
Americans with Disabilities Act

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
This paper addresses the problem of the enrollment and graduation gaps between students
with disabilities and their nondisabled peers in California Community Colleges. There is an
enrollment, transfer, retention, and graduation gap between students with disabilities and their
nondisabled peers among the California Community Colleges. The American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) (1990) defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. In a national annual study of
noninstitutionalized people with disabilities by Erickson and von Schrader (2014), the difference
between the numbers of people who attend college with and without disabilities was revealed to
be 1.6%. In the same study, the difference between people with and without disabilities who
have bachelor’s degrees was reported to be 19.3% (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014). This
evidence highlights the alarming rate at which students with disabilities do not access and
maintain their enrollment in colleges and universities, which is lower than that of their
nondisabled peers. Consequently, these disabled students do not obtain degrees from these
institutions (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014; National Council on Disability, 2003).
This problem is particularly important at the community college level because the
mission of the California Community Colleges System is to provide equity and access to students
who would otherwise not be able to enroll in university and provide job training for Californian
citizens (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012). Further, this system
educates more people with disabilities than any other system of higher education in the United
States. Another goal of this system is to provide job training to California residents and people
with disabilities who are also less likely to be gainfully employed than their nondisabled
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2
counterparts (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014; Ponticelli & Russ-Eft, 2009). The community
college system and the State of California have a vested interest in the equitable enrollment and
obtainment of students with disabilities so that these people can fully participate in the California
job market. If this problem is not addressed and remedied, then people with disabilities will not
be fully represented on California Community College campuses, leading to both a lack of full
diversity on these campuses and disproportionate representation in the California job market.
Organizational Context and Mission
If a student with disabilities is successful in accessing, achieving, and graduating from
the California Community Colleges System, there is not a career readiness gap. If the gap is
closed, the California Community College system is more seamlessly aligned with their mission
(Hoggartt, 2016). California Community Colleges’ mission reads, in part, as follows:
(A) The provision of remedial instruction for those in need of it and, in conjunction with
the school districts, instruction in English as a second language, adult noncredit
instruction, and support services which help students succeed at the postsecondary level
are reaffirmed and supported as essential and important functions of the community
colleges. A primary mission of California Community Colleges is to advance California’s
economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services
that contribute to continuous work force improvement. (California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2012)
When critically looking at the access and achievement rates of students with disabilities in the
California Community Colleges System, it is important to be mindful of the mission of the
colleges and the fact that people with disabilities with associate’s and bachelor’s degrees are
employed at the same rate as their peers. If the California Community Colleges System closes
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 3
the access and achievement gaps between people with disabilities and others, then it will
accomplish its mission of serving the underserved and fully preparing Californians for the job
market.
In this study, I focused on how to narrow the achievement and retention gaps between
students with disabilities and others on the campuses of the California Community Colleges
System. The stakeholders examined in this study are individuals and administrators who serve
the state chancellor’s office on a statewide level and the individuals whom this office serves.
Broadly, the stakeholders are made up of the population of California that benefits from an
educated job force. The students with disabilities in the California community are served by the
Disabled Persons Programs and Services (DPPS) offices. The study endeavored to inform
California Community College Chancellor, Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the Consultation Council, which
advises the Chancellor on state policy decisions, and the administrative heads of the various
DPPS offices in California because these individuals develop policy around the $100,458,964
that this office allocates for general services and instruction each year (California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017). It is the goal of these individuals and offices to empower
students through leadership, support, and advocacy, and it was my goal in this paper to provide
insight and research on how these groups and individuals can profoundly effectuate this goal. As
seen in Table 1, the office in which these administrators serve provided services to 121,854
students with disabilities in 2015 and 2016 (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office,
2017).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 4
Table 1
Students Served During 2015-16
Disability Category
Number of
Students
Percent
Acquired brain injury 4,554 3.74 %
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD)
109 0.09 %
Autism spectrum 22 0.02 %
Developmentally delayed learner 7,267 5.96 %
Hearing impaired 4,873 4.00 %
Learning disabled 18,038 14.80 %
Mobility impaired 11,469 9.41 %
Other disability 51,165 41.99 %
Psychological disability 20,725 17.01 %
Speech/language impaired 842 0.69 %
Visually impaired 2,790 2.29 %
Total 121,854

Organizational Performance Goals
A global performance goal for the California Community Colleges System is to remove
barriers and increase accessibility for all Californians, including those with disabilities, low-
income students, those who have not accessed college education before, and employed students.
This performance goal reads, “Students have information and access to the resources and
services they need to achieve their educational goals” (California Community College Strategic
Plan, 2013). Mitigating the significant transfer gap between disabled students and their
nondisabled peers is also a significant performance goal of this office (California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2015).
Definitions
Achievement. Achievement is a general term that refers to measures of academic
success, which include course grades, course completion, grade point average, and college
graduation or transfer (York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5
DSPS Coordinators. While the stakeholder of focus, may be either a DSPS coordinator,
dean or director, for the purposes of this study, they will be called DSPS coordinators as per the
listserv on the California Community College Website where the emails were accessed.
Retention. Retention refers to a school’s ability to retain students in academic programs
and is often describe as persistence. Retention is the rate at which students remain enrolled in an
educational program (Voigt & Hundrieser, 2008).
Student with disabilities. The ADA (1990) defines a person with a disability as a person
who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity.
The disabilities of students within the California Community Colleges System include visual
impairment, hearing impairment, developmental delays, autism, psychological disabilities, and
many others (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017).
Related Literature
Lack of Access to Community College
The increase in the number of students with disabilities has stagnated at the community
college level because of the implementation of policies that are not conducive to postsecondary
education access for students with disabilities. In a comprehensive study of the literature,
policies, structures, and practices of the California Community Colleges System, Hoggartt
(2016) found these policies restrictive for students with disabilities. This is particularly notable
because students with disabilities are excluded from policies in two ways: the determination of
funding based on student deficit and the subsequent cutting of 40% of funding for supportive
programs. There are policy issues surrounding access to California’s community colleges, and
transitioning to community college is challenging for students with disabilities for several
reasons, including low expectations at the high school level. In a series of nine focus groups of
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 6
students with disabilities who had utilized disability support services in community college,
Garrison-Wade (2012) identified three themes that were determinative of success at the
collegiate level. These themes are self-determination and efficacy, a concrete and scaffolded
planning process regarding admission, and the provision of support once the student
matriculates.
Despite the actual number of students with disabilities increasing in community colleges,
students with disabilities are statistically underrepresented on community college campuses. In a
10-year-long study of the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of a nationally-
representative sample of youth with disabilities who were 13 to 16 years old and receiving
special education services in Grade 7 or above, on December 1, 2000, Newman et al. (2011)
discovered that students with disabilities had a statistically-significant enrollment gap in
postsecondary institutions compared to their peers concerning access to two-year college (19%
difference), four-year college (9% difference), and vocational or technical education (13%
difference) between 1990 and 2005. Students with disabilities are still underrepresented in the
California Community Colleges System, and policies as well as institutionalized barriers are
restricting their access at the high school level, leading these students to be less likely to enroll
than their nondisabled peers. Once in the community college system, students with disabilities
are less likely to stay enrolled than their peers.
Community College Success and Students with Disabilities
Once students with disabilities enroll in higher education, they are less likely to stay
enrolled than others. These findings are supported by the Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, which revealed that 24.7% of students in the United States who enrolled in a
2-year university program left without returning after the first year of enrollment and 50.6% left
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 7
after the second year of enrollment (Mamiseishvili, 2012). In another study, which was
conducted nationally in anticipation of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the
National Council on Disability (2003) found that students with disabilities do not maintain their
enrollment in universities at the same rate as their nondisabled peers. In this national longitudinal
study, the enrollment rate of people with disabilities in postsecondary institutions was found to
be 50% lower than that of the general population, which has significant effects on the long-term
employment prospects for people with disabilities (National Council on Disability, 2003). For
students with disabilities who have bachelor’s degrees, there is no employment gap between
them and their nondisabled peers (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014). California Community
College policies limit options and opportunities for disabled students, leading to a de-
prioritization of these students and their low levels of success within this system.
Disabled student programs and supports budgets were reduced by over 40% following the
2008 recession (Hoggartt, 2016). This fundamentally altered the services and prognosis of these
individuals in the California Community Colleges System. While the number of students
enrolled in the California Community Colleges System is high, the percentage of enrolled and
graduating students with disabilities is low, indicating that students with disabilities face both an
access gap and an achievement gap in the California Community Colleges System when
compared to their nondisabled peers (Hoggartt, 2016). Simply put, once enrolled in higher
education, students with disabilities do not achieve at the same rate as their peers. Despite having
an institutionalized open-access system in which the school prioritizes access and achievement to
all California residents, students with disabilities do not access or achieve at the same rates as
their peers (Hoggartt, 2016).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 8
Students with Disabilities and the Workforce
Accounting for access and achievement gaps, universities prepare students with
disabilities for careers at the same rate as their peers. In a national study of noninstitutionalized
people with disabilities, using U.S. census data and a sample of more than 3,500,000 people,
Erickson and von Schrader (2014) found that people with disabilities who hold high-level
degrees are more likely to be employed than those who do not and are equally likely to be
employed as their nondisabled peers. The same researchers also found that students with
disabilities who earn associate degrees are less likely to be institutionalized and more likely to be
employed than people with disabilities who do not have degrees (Erickson & von Schrader,
2014). This shows that taking measures to improve access to such degrees has tangible benefits.
As such, systemic efforts must be made on regional, state, and national levels to assist students
with disabilities to succeed in postsecondary education and enter the workforce (The National
Collaborative on Workforce & Disability for Youth and Workforce Strategy Center, 2009). To
do this, community colleges need to function as intermediaries in meeting the local workforce
development needs of employers and promoting career opportunities and job attainment for
students, including those with disabilities. In a study in which over 80 community college leaders
were interviewed at 12 colleges in five states, The National Collaborative on Workforce and
Disability for Youth and Workforce Strategy Center (2009) found that community colleges are
more accessible for students with disabilities than four-year colleges. Therefore, these colleges
should be more deliberate in providing career readiness training for these students. Moreover,
funding for students with disabilities is believed to be inadequate to facilitate a seamless
transition into the workforce.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 9
The California Community Colleges System does not have programs specifically for
career readiness for students with disabilities, and it does not integrate career programs with its
disability services. According to the published mission and organizing principle of the California
Community Colleges System, the goal of the California Community Colleges System is to
provide job training for its citizens, especially those who would otherwise not be able to enroll in
university (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012; Ponticelli & Russ-Eft,
2009). The California Community Colleges System serves an important role in educating
students with disabilities because its mission is one of equity and access and its goal is to provide
job training to the citizens of California (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office,
2012). While people with disabilities are less likely to access, succeed in, and graduate from the
community college system than others, those who do are as likely to be employed as their
counterparts, indicating that this system is successfully preparing these students for the job
market. The goal of the California Community Colleges System is to provide job training to its
citizens, and those who successfully graduate from community college are as successful as their
peers in employment (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012). This shows
that the fulfillment of the goals of this system is possible as long as these students can access and
achieve at the same rates as their peers.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this exploratory project was to analyze the benefits of a scaffolded
workforce readiness course in the Office of Disabled Students and Programs in the California
Community Colleges System. The goal was to mitigate the workforce readiness gap between
disabled students and their nondisabled peers.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 10
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational change must come from the
systemic analysis of the gap between current performance and the organization’s goals for
performance. Performance gaps can be attributed to one or more of three factors: knowledge,
motivation, and organizational environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study included an
examination of the impacts of knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) influences on
the disability service coordinators from various California Community College sites and their
impacts on the performance of students with disabilities in workforce readiness classes.
The project questions that helped achieve the purpose of this study were the following:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs are necessary for the
disability services coordinators of the California Community Colleges System to
implement workforce readiness courses?
2. How does the California Community Colleges System culture and context interact
with stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
Importance of the Evaluation
The community college system is in a unique position to have positive impacts on the
lives of people with disabilities because this system educates more people with disabilities than
any other system of higher education in the United States. Nonetheless, students with disabilities
still face barriers to accessing this system (Newman et al., 2011). Once enrolled, there are
systemic and practical issues with this system that lead to disproportionate achievement levels
between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers (Newman et al., 2011). The
successful completion of higher education enables people with disabilities to enter the workforce
and be employed at the same rates as their peers (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014). In examining
these various stages in the educational prognosis of students with disabilities in the California
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 11
Community Colleges System, one can see that while the system is preventing these students
from accessing and achieving at the same rate as nondisabled students, it is uniquely positioned
to educate and prepare these students for the job market, which fulfills the mission of this
organization (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012; Newman et al., 2011).
For this office to fully align with its mission and strategic goals, the California Community
Colleges System should go beyond its legal requirement to satisfy the ADA. Instead, it should
look to integrate forward-thinking disability policies of inclusion, engagement, and long- and
short-term strategic planning, thereby preparing many Californians for a burgeoning job market.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
This study aims to look at knowledge, motivation and organization factors of DSPS
coordinators and directors that serve and accommodate students with disabilities in the California
Community College system. Per posted job description, the DSPS coordinator,
is a faculty position and is under the general direction of the appropriate Administrator,
the Coordinator of Disabled Student Programs and Services shall be responsible for
coordinating and facilitating the daily operations of Disabled Student Programs and
Services; participating in ensuring program compliance with pertinent federal, state, local
laws and regulations. The Coordinator is also responsible for program development and
ensuring the highest quality of service to students. (Coordinator of Disabled Student
Programs and Services, 2014)
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Broadly, the stakeholder groups’ performance goal is to ensure compliance with state
and laws and regulations, ensure high quality service to students with disabilities and to mitigate
against gaps between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers specifically in the
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 12
areas of educational access, success within their California Community College campus and
workforce readiness.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The census survey was sent to each coordinator of each campus of the California
Community College system, which is 114 campuses and thus 114 coordinators. These DSPS
coordinators run the DSPS offices across the state of California, represent urban and suburban
schools and run offices within different sized communities and campuses. The electronic mail
address of each DSPS coordinator is available through a publicly available listserv on the
California Community College website.
Methodological Framework
This study utilized a sequential mixed method research design starting with a census
survey of the 114 DSPS coordinators of the 114 California Community College Campuses and
ended with an in-depth qualitative interview with seven of the coordinators who elected to
participate in this stage of the study. This study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework to research, analyze and gave recommendations based on the knowledge, motivation
and organization factors that influenced gaps in achievement between students with disabilities
and their peers in the California Community College system. Clark and Estes gap analysis
model is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. A literature review, census survey, interview and
document analysis was used to access the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
of DSPS coordinators. The census survey was selected in order to sample the entire population
of DSPS coordinators across the state and collect identifying pieces of information on each
coordinator. This collection of data from the census survey was used in part to strategically select
participants for the qualitative research component of the study. This qualitative research took
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 13
the form of Skype interviews in order to gather more depth than the census survey could elicit,
get examples of data uncovered in the survey and obtain a heightened understanding of the
influences of the stakeholder group. Document analysis was used to understand written guiding
documents and data about the students DSPS serves.
Organization of the Project
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem of
practice, the stakeholder group of focus, the purpose, the research questions, definitions and the
importance of addressing the problem of students with disabilities accessing, succeeding and
being workplace ready in the California Community College system. Chapter Two is a literature
review that looks into the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that impact this
problem of practice, the evolution of law and policy that protects students with disabilities and
specific research on how to best serve the population of students with disabilities on higher
educational campuses. Chapter Three addresses the methodology utilized in data collection and
analysis. This chapter also addresses the conceptual and methodological framework to ensure
that the research questions are effectively answered by the research. Chapter Four discusses the
results of the survey and qualitative interviews. Finally, Chapter Five offers solutions and
recommendations based on the findings of Chapter Four. These solutions and recommendations
are also informed by the literature review of Chapter Two and the problem of practice discussed
in Chapters Two and Four. Chapter Five ends with implications and limitations of the study,
suggestions for further research and concludes with a vision for administrators and students with
disabilities in higher education.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
There is an enrollment, transfer, retention, and graduation gap between students with
disabilities and their nondisabled peers in California Community Colleges. The California
Community Colleges System has a mission to provide equity and access to students who would
otherwise not be able to enroll in university and provide job training for Californian citizens
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017). In addition, this system aims to
provide job training to California residents and people with disabilities who are less likely to be
gainfully employed than their nondisabled counterparts (Erickson & von Schrader, 2014;
Ponticelli & Russ-Eft, 2009). The community college system and the state of California, which
educate more people with disabilities than any other system of higher education in the United
States, have a vested interest in the equitable enrollment and obtainment of students with
disabilities so that these people can fully participate in the California job market. The research
problem of practice for this dissertation study explored the workforce readiness of the students
with disabilities in the California Community Colleges System. The identified stakeholder goal
was to mitigate gaps between disabled students and their nondisabled peers in workforce
readiness classes. To effectuate the goal of creating a scaffolded course, the administrators of the
Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS) must have the requisite knowledge,
motivation, and organization to mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and their
peers.
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature on the workforce readiness of students
with disabilities, specifically within the California Community Colleges System. First, human
disability and how it manifests itself in the students who attend community colleges will be
discussed. The legal requirements for dealing with students with disabilities in the community
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 15
colleges system will subsequently be addressed. Next, I will address the access, success, and
ultimate employment of students with disabilities within the California Community Colleges
System. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the DSPS administrators to
provide a scaffolded course to students with disabilities on employment readiness will be
addressed, and the chapter will conclude with a presentation of the study’s conceptual
framework.
Disability and California Students
The ADA, Section 12102, defines a person with a disability as a person who has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity (ADA,
1990). The purpose of ADA, among others, is the following:
(1) to carry out the ADA’s objectives of providing “a clear and comprehensive national
mandate for the elimination of discrimination” and “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination” by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be
available under the ADA [(b)(1)].
The ADA pertinently aims to eliminate societal discrimination against people with disabilities.
The implementation of the act within education has to focus on admission, throughput, and
adequate support, as needed by the student with disabilities, to fulfill the requirements of the
ADA.
Disabilities include different categories of disablements, each with its own characteristics
and impacts on the individual’s daily life, functioning, learning needs, and employment situation.
Moreover, the impacts of some disabilities are severe and necessitate different types of
assistance, some of a permanent nature (Kurth, Morningstar, & Kozleski, 2014). As depicted in
Table 1 (see Chapter 1), 121,854 students with disabilities were enrolled in California
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 16
Community Colleges in 2015/2016, representing students with 10 different categories of
disabilities (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017).
Disabilities that are classified as severe include multiple disabilities (e.g., deaf-blindness)
and autism spectrum disorder. Students with such disabilities often require significant
educational support (Ryndak et al., 2014). Students with mild disabilities do not need as much
educational support as their peers who have severe disabilities. Disabilities that are classified as
mild include intellectual, learning, or emotional disabilities, sensory impairments (i.e., deaf or
blind), and disorders of speech and language (Kurth et al., 2014). In schools, students with severe
disabilities are still not fully included in the regular educational system because a perception
exists that they are legally in need of more restrictive programs (Mayton, Carter, Zhang, &
Wheeler, 2014). Although the enrollment of students with disabilities at community colleges has
improved (Fleming, Plotner, & Oertle, 2017; Peña, 2014), it can be expected that students with
severe disabilities might not quality for enrollment because they remain in restrictive
environments, as reported by Mayton et al. (2014).
History of Disabilities on Campus
The mission and goal of the California Community College System is to provide equity
and access to students who would otherwise not be able to enroll in university and provide job
training for Californian citizens (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017).
Further, this system educates more people with disabilities than any other system of higher
education in the United States (DSPS, n.d.)
Strategic Plan
The mission of the California Community College System was formulated in 2013 to
include, among others, (i) instruction toward the attainment of associate degrees/certificates
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 17
associated with increased earning capacity and professional development of students and (ii) the
development of the workforce to address the increasing needs of students. The corresponding
vision states, “California’s Community Colleges provide upward social and economic mobility
through a commitment to open access and student success by delivering high quality, affordable
and comprehensive higher education” (p. 11). This includes all students, including those with
disabilities.
In accordance with the legal requirements for the education of people with disabilities,
the California Community College System must adequately provide for the needs of students
with disabilities. The educational provisions for students with disabilities should be reasonably
similar to those provided to nondisabled students (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office, 2017). It is, therefore, disconcerting to note that students with disabilities do not access
and maintain their enrollment in institutions for higher education (IHE) at the same rate as their
nondisabled peers and, consequently, do not obtain degrees from these institutions (Erickson,
Lee, & von Schrader, 2014).
California Community Colleges System
In executing their vision and mission, as well as acting on educational laws, the DSPS
was established in 1976 with the enactment of Assembly Bill 77, which was enacted in 1976
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017). In the California Community
Colleges System, the DSPS is tasked with developing an academic accommodation plan (AAP)
for students with disabilities to ensure that they reviewed similar education compared to that of
their nondisabled peers (California Community Colleges, 2018). The AAP is an individualized
program that considers student needs with academic adjustments and accompanying aids, goals,
and study courses to provide appropriate education. Prior to developing the AAP, the disability
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 18
status of a student was determined because this program is only available to students with
disabilities that preclude them from benefiting from general education. The services under the
DSPS include test-taking accommodations, assistance with note-taking, specialized counseling,
and tutoring, among others. Assistive services can include parking arrangements and access to
equipment and job development or placement services (California Community Colleges, 2018).
In addition, the DSPS determines the student’s full-time equivalent unit load based on the
individual need of the student, which could be less than nine units (California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012).
The above legal and regulatory frameworks show how the California Community
Colleges System provides for students with special needs to receive adequate instruction and
accommodations to address their specific needs. The legal requirements for accommodating
students with special needs are comprehensive. The 1970s brought major and ongoing changes to
the legislation and education of students with disabilities. Unfortunately, special needs education
is closely linked with funding and the specialized training of instructors, which could impact the
quality of education that students with special needs receive.
California and Disabled Students in Higher Education
A goal of this system is to provide job training to California residents and people with
disabilities who are less likely to be gainfully employed than their abled counterparts (Erickson,
Lee, & von Schrader, 2014; Ponticelli & Russ-Eft, 2009). The community college system and the
State of California have a vested interest in the equitable enrollment and obtainment of students
with disabilities so that these people can fully participate in the California job market. The U.S.
Census Bureau report on educational attainment in 2015 revealed that 25-year-old people with
disabilities still do not compare favorably to their nondisabled peers (Ryan & Bauman, 2016).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 19
Whereas 24.9% of people with disabilities achieved a college degree or more, 45.0% of
nondisabled people made similar achievements. Bachelors’ degrees were earned by 16.7% of
disabled group and 34.9% of the nondisabled group (Ryan & Bauman, 2016). Despite the
provision of accommodations to address their educational needs, Hoggartt (2016) also found that
IHE students with disabilities do not achieve at the same rate as their nondisabled peers.
Laws and Students of California
Generally, there are several federal and California state laws that prohibit disability
discrimination in higher education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), also known as Pub. L. No.101-476, Section 300.114 300.114 LRE, the placement
requirements state the least restrictive environments for people with disabilities which education
systems must adhere to:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in
public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are
not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Section 300.114
300.114 LRE (a)(2)).
These requirements represent changed approaches to educating students with disabilities in 1918.
These students were educationally segregated based on their disabilities and the severities thereof
(Katz & Akpom, 1976).
There are two federal laws that prohibit disability discrimination in higher education
institutions. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability at all public and private
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 20
schools, except for schools that are run by religious institutions. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act (Section 504) prohibits such discrimination at any school, including a church-affiliated
school that receives federal funds, such as student financial aid loan programs. These two laws
provide similar protections to both students and applicants with disabilities. Under the earlier
dispensation, students with disabilities often did not get sufficient education because they were
retained in the same classes for longer than other students and some were not served
educationally (Katz & Akpom, 1976). In 1973, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act (§ 540),
which is focuses on the civil rights of all individuals with disabilities, not only students. Under
this act, appropriate education was defined as equally meeting the educational needs of all
students (Pub. L. No 93-112 § 104.33). The Rehabilitation Act (1973), in combination with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESASA], (Pub. L. No. 107-110, 1965), the 1974
reauthorization of ESASA (Pub. L. No. 93-380), and its latest reauthorization—the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2002—contains the legal basis for providing and funding education for
students with disabilities in schools and IHE.
The IDEA also provided for students with disabilities who were attending IHE in its
Section 1481 Comprehensive Plan for Parts B and C, as revised in 2017. This section deals with
developing an educational plan to fit the needs of student with disabilities, including any
accommodations needed and the funding details thereof. Section 1462 of the IDEA deals with
the development of personnel to improve services and results for students with disabilities, which
includes students in IHE. The legal system of the United States contains several laws that focus
on the education and funding of students with disabilities. However, the implementation and
individual implementation of the laws within the departments of education of specific states
differ.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 21
According to the organization Legal Aid at Work (2018), the government of the State of
California protects students with disabilities as follows:
In California, students and applicants with disabilities are also protected by the Unruh
Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) (private schools), California Government Code Section
11135 (Section 11135) (public schools), and California Civil Code Section 54 (Section
54) (both public and private schools). Generally, any violation of the ADA or Section 504
is also a violation of the Unruh Act, Section 11135, or Section 54, but these state laws
may provide greater protections in some cases. All of these laws apply to online and
distance education courses provided by public and private schools. (Legal Aid at Work,
2018, p. 1)
Californian civil rights provide for various disabilities that interfere with the individual’s
daily life activities (Legal Aid at Work, 2018). Under this provision, individuals have the right to
not be treated differently than others and may use any assistive device to enable their functioning
within general society. This includes petitioning for (and receiving) accommodations that are
available to students without any retaliation for receiving such accommodations. Reasonable
accommodations include various changes in regulations, instruction, assessment, or physical
adaptations to address the needs of students. Such accommodations may include, but are not
limited to, special parking or transport arrangements, campus accessibility, housing
accommodations, exemption of marking errors in spelling for learning disabled students, or
reductions in unit load and extra time to complete assessments or exams. Accommodations
should not be disruptive to the class situation or include exorbitant costs, and students have the
right to refuse any accommodations that are offered to them (Legal Aid at Work, 2018).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 22
Disability Law, Policy, and Practice in Higher Education in California
The community college system and the State of California have a vested interest in the
equitable enrollment and obtainment of students with disabilities so that these people can fully
participate in the California job market. The ADA of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of
2008 (AADA, 2008) were promulgated to regulate and enforce nondiscrimination against people
with disabilities, their equitable access to general education and employment, and the use of
accommodations and assistive devices. The regulations following the ADA and AADA describe
the enrollment and support of students with disabilities in the California University System,
which includes the California Community Colleges System (Gabel, Reid, Pearson, Ruiz, &
Hume-Dawson, 2015).
The ADA (1990) and AADA (2008) regulate not only equitable access to enrollment to
IHE but also continued accessibility to the services provided at these institutions. Equitable
access to the services provided by IHE, especially California Community Colleges, which is the
focus of this study, encompasses the full spectrum of enrollment, teaching, and learning services,
as well as support services, including developing specialized programs and counseling, and the
provision of accommodations (OCR Reference No. 10122118). In short, the ADA (1990) and
AADA (2008) mandate access to all the services and activities to ensure successful retention,
graduation, and employment of students with disabilities.
Following the great recession in 2008–2009, increased numbers of students—also those
with disabilities—enrolled at IHEs. In California, this brought funding reductions of nearly 40%
to DSPS and associated staffing reductions, resulting in insufficient numbers of qualified
lecturers to address the needs of disabled students (MPR Associates, 2012). Apart from staff
reductions, the DSPS programs cut services that were previously provided to students with
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 23
disabilities that were not explicitly required by law. Tutoring programs for students with learning
disabilities and accommodations services for students were among the services that were affected
by the budget cuts. These measures had a ripple effect on the students, who reportedly took
longer to complete their courses or dropped out (MPR Associates, 2012).
The Assembly Bill 77 (Lanterman), which was passed in 1976, brought the DSPS into
life, through which support services and teaching programs for students with disabilities were
funded in California Community Colleges (MPR Associates, 2012). The DSPS provides support
to students with disabilities by means of providing accommodations and other services. These
services support student success and help colleges meet their legal nondiscrimination obligations.
The laws that regulate the nondiscrimination of people with disabilities include the ADA (1990),
AADA (2008), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), and the California Government
Code, Section 11135 et seq. (MPR Associates, 2012). California colleges are not obligated to
receive funding from the DSPS or meet the Title 5 requirements. However, this would not
excuse them from the legal obligations set out by the various laws mentioned in this section.
Similarly, students with disabilities are free to not report their disabilities or participate in the
DSPS but still receive the accommodations that they qualify for under the law.
The legal framework that postsecondary educationalists and administrators must comply
with include promoting accessibility for students with disabilities concerning college programs
and communication avenues, and the accessibility of extramural offerings (AADA, 2008 [Title
II]). To ensure access, as set out by the law, colleges might need to develop and apply
modifications within their policies, practices, and processes, along with providing support aids
and/or services (AADA, 2008). An audit performed by the State Auditor on students with
disabilities’ ease of accessibility to information technology (IT) services and long-term planning
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 24
revealed that California Community Colleges were not sufficiently monitoring accessibility
(California State Auditor, 2017). According to the auditors, plans to monitor individual colleges’
compliance with DSPS plans in reaction to students’ requests were absent or insufficient. There
was also an absence of guidance provided from the Chancellor’s Office in this regard. There is
no way in which the colleges can demonstrate the extent to which they provided auxiliary
services and assistance to students with disabilities, which makes monitoring impossible. The
absence of written plans for IT services further illustrates the lack of monitoring and follow-
through with planning. This audit report serves to illustrate the state of processes and practices to
support students with disabilities who were followed at the community college level in
California (California State Auditor, 2017). It seems that there is a lack of formalizing structures,
plans, and processes, which complicates service delivery to students with disabilities.
Practically, the Interwork Institute (2018) for DSPS Resources hosts an online service
center with 13 sections that discuss different resource options that are available to students with
disabilities. This was developed for the Chancellor’s Office through the collaboration of
responsible people at the various community colleges and DSPS staff. The sections contain
related documentation, references to legal requirements with subsequent policies and processes,
and practical solutions in the form of questions and answers. For example, Section Five of the
Interwork Institute offers student service resources to fit each disability group represented at the
colleges, including reading matter and samples of services or materials to be used and website
links. Handbooks written about each disability ensure ease of access to the needs of students with
that particular disability. Furthermore, the institute offers training to lecturers to help them
manage the needs of specific students with disabilities. Although the findings of the audit report
on IT services for students with disabilities indicated that there was a lack of monitoring of the
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 25
services provided, the Chancellor’s Office provided practical and systematic information on
services and procedures to be followed in DSPS (Interwork Institute, 2018).
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that could impact stakeholder
goal achievement will be addressed in this section. The stakeholders in this study include
administrators as well as students with disabilities. Another important stakeholder group is
lecturers at the community college, but this perspective is not the focus of this study.
The literature review in this section is focused on knowledge- and motivation-related
influences that affect the achievement of DSPS administrators in creating a scaffolded course to
support students with disabilities in workforce readiness classes. In addition to a review of the
related literature, the types of knowledge needed to accomplish the goal will be discussed. There
are four knowledge types needed for the administrators to address the performance issues of their
office and achieve their goals of closing the performance gaps among the populations that they
serve (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). In Krathwohl’s discussion of taxonomy, factual
knowledge is the basic element that the administrators must be acquainted with to solve the
performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is the
understanding of how the basic elements interplay within a larger structure (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). For Rueda (2012), conceptual knowledge consists of “categories, classifications,
principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures” (p. 28). Procedural knowledge
focuses on how to do something, the methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms,
techniques, and methods (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is
knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 26
Knowledge and Skills
In a 2015 California Community College report, the DSPS office found that the most
substantial gap that exists between students with disabilities and their peers is in workforce
preparedness classes (CCCOO, 2015). The identified stakeholder goal is to create a scaffolded
course that aligns with and supports the workforce readiness course in the California Community
College System. This will support the goal of having 80% of students with disabilities complete
a workforce readiness course by 2021.
To effectuate the goal of creating a scaffolded course, the administrators of the DSPS
must have the requisite knowledge and influences to mitigate the gap between students with
disabilities and their peers. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational change must
come from the systemic analysis of the gap between current performance and the organization’s
goals for performance. Performance gaps can be attributed to one or more of three factors:
knowledge, motivation, or organizational environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). This paper
includes an examination of the impacts of knowledge and motivational influences on the
performance of students with disabilities.
In the following section, I discuss the knowledge influences that the administrators need
to consider when accomplishing their goal of creating a scaffolded workforce readiness class.
This is followed by a categorization of these influences based on the four knowledge types
discussed above. This is imperative because categorization into knowledge types will aid in the
inquiry into what methodologies should be used to identify knowledge gaps among the DSPS
administrators.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 27
Understanding of the Student with Disabilities Population They Serve
The administrators of the DSPS serve students with disabilities throughout the
community college campus. In understanding the population that they serve through conceptual
knowledge, DSPS administrators can effectively serve and advocate for student interests within
the DSPS office. While administrators often see students as being clients of their individual
offices, students do not think of themselves as consumers of distinct programs and supports
(Huger, 2011). Even though students do not think of themselves as consumers of distinct
programs and supports, administrators tend to think in silos (Huger, 2011). With this knowledge,
administrators know that they may need to think more comprehensively and cohesively in
designing programs and materials to serve this population.
The population of students with disabilities is dynamic, and there are many different
barriers that prevent disabled students from seeking reasonable and helpful support in their
college and university campuses. In a study of community colleges, five major thematic
categories emerged from the data analysis regarding why students did not seek the support of the
DSPS office (Marshak, van Wieren, Ferrell, Swiss, & Dugan, 2010). The factors identified as
barriers to seeking and utilizing disability support services in college were identity issues, the
desire to avoid negative social reactions, insufficient knowledge, the perceived quality and
usefulness of the services, and negative experiences with professors (Marshak et al., 2010). The
administrators of the Office of the DSPS must know why students utilize the services and
programming that they provide to effectively design any support. Even if students utilize support
programs and services, this support is not as predictive as other factors, such as gender, race,
ethnicity, and incoming grade point average, regarding student success and workforce readiness
(Herbert et al., 2014).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 28
In a national longitudinal study of people who receive support services, Doren, Murray,
and Gau (2014) found that the most salient predictors of school dropout among students with
learning disabilities included individual, family, and school factors. Notably, fixed attributes
related to the sociodemographic characteristics of students were found to not uniquely contribute
to school dropout rates and did not remain in the final multivariate model. Perceptions of the
relationships between peers, faculty, and school community are salient factors that lead to drop
out (Doren, Murray & Gau, 2014). DSPS officials need conceptual knowledge of this network.
Based on this literature, the DSPS must know and understand the population that it serves and
the barriers that students face when seeking support in its offices.
The reasons for and predictors and influences of student success and failure are important
in the construction of an appropriate scaffolding. These influences can be considered to be
conceptual knowledge. The administrators of the DSPS must understand the reasons for which
students do not access the office and how they categorize themselves as students. Surveys and
interviews can be utilized to assess whether the administrators have this requisite knowledge.
The Interplay Between Different Academic and Support Offices
DSPS officials need the procedural knowledge to know how to work with different
offices to impact change, mitigate against achievement gaps, and more profoundly serve students
with disabilities than they do now. An inclusive campus environment enables students to
interface seamlessly. The administrators and officers of the DSPS must know that if an
environment is constructed to be highly inclusive, then students can be seamlessly integrated into
the “fabric of the university” (Huger, 2011, p. 5). To serve the students and seamlessly integrate
them into the university, DSPS administrators must have a plan and the knowledge required to
coordinate with other offices on campus to mitigate against achievement gaps (Huger, 2011).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 29
Getzel (2008) writes, “Several services and supports are key to the retention of students with
disabilities, such as developing self-determination skills, self-management skills, exploring
technology, and obtaining internships or other career-related experiences” (p. 78). DSPS
administrators must have university-specific knowledge to guide and mentor students to other
supports offered on campus. Getzel (2008) advocates for a framework in which students have a
mentor or advisor in DSPS who guides them to other supports and services throughout campus.
This a consumer and customer driven approach that enables the student to receive all the support
available on campus. This model has been used at Virginia Commonwealth University since
2000 with great success (Getzel, 2008).
This knowledge is procedural knowledge. DSPS officials needs to know how to work
with different offices to impact change, mitigate against achievement gaps, and create a highly
inclusive campus. Procedural knowledge can be measured through surveys, interviews, and
observations.
Career Readiness for Students with Disabilities
DSPS officials need to know that providing additional support to students with
disabilities in seeking employment, providing them with early work experiences, and
coordinating between employers in the community and their office leads to improved outcomes
for students with disabilities who are seeking jobs. This knowledge type is conceptual. Typically,
students with disabilities have less career experience than their nondisabled peers, both before
and during college (Getzel, 2008). Students with disabilities often do not benefit from traditional
career planning as much as their nondisabled peers and must have additional support (Getzel,
2008). Students with disabilities may be prevented from applying for certain internship positions
because they often have lower grade point averages than their peers (Getzel, 2008). Figure 1
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 30
outlines ways in which DSPS administrators can support the students whom they advise. They
include assisting students with establishing career objectives, translating accommodations,
connecting students with appropriate resources, and helping them seek work experience prior to
graduation.
Assist students in establishing a post-school career objective.
Identify learner accommodations in the academic setting that can be subsequently transferred to
the employment setting.
Assist students in identifying university and community resources that will assist them during
college and after graduation.
Assist students in identifying one or more work experience prior to graduation (especially if an
internship or practicum is not required), including mentorships, cooperative education
placements, and internships.
Figure 1. Ways administrators can support students (Getzel, 2008).
In a study about a pilot program between a chamber of commerce in the Midwest and an
office of disability supports, Carter et al. (2009) found that scaffolding work experience is
beneficial both to students with disabilities and local employers. Further, early work experiences
can provide adolescents with the skills, opportunities, and aspirations that equip them for success
in their future careers. Researchers and policy makers have called for more concerted efforts to
connect youth with disabilities to opportunities for early work experience while they are still in
high school (Carter et al., 2009).
The employment rate for college graduates with disabilities (52.7%) is still demonstrably
below that of college graduates without disabilities (83.7%; Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader,
2014). One issue that impacts students with disabilities is an intense focus on academic success,
as opposed to a focus on traditional work experiences that are proven to increase employment
outcomes (Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011). By focusing more on employment skills in the
readiness course and less on academic success, students with disabilities may be better prepared
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 31
to succeed in the workforce. When the administrators are designing their scaffolded program,
they must know that students with disabilities do not want to be stigmatized due to their
disabilities (Oswald, Huber & Bonza, 2015). Therefore, this supplemental course must be
mindfully constructed without stigma.
The knowledge type in providing and facilitating the additional support for students is
largely conceptual. This type of knowledge can be measured in the stakeholder group using
surveys and interviews. Figure 2 shows the organizational mission, organizational goal, and
information that is specific to knowledge influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence
assessments. As Figure 2 indicates, both procedural and conceptual knowledge were examined to
assess the knowledge influence of the DSPS administrators in the California Community College
System.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 32

Figure 2. Knowledge worksheet.
Organizational Mission
(1) The California Community Colleges shall, as a primary mission, offer academic and
vocational instruction at the lower division level for both younger and older students,
including those persons returning to school. Public community colleges shall offer instruction
through but not beyond the second year of college. These institutions may grant the associate
in arts and the associate in science degree.
(2) In addition to the primary mission of academic and vocational instruction, the community
colleges shall offer instruction and courses to achieve all the following:
(3) A primary mission of the California Community Colleges is to advance California’s
economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that
contribute to continuous work force improvement.
By January 2021, 80% of students with disabilities served by the DSPS will complete a
required workforce development course.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2020, DSPS officers will create one scaffolded course that aligns with a workforce
readiness course for students with disabilities to take in conjunction with and in support of
their workforce readiness course.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
DSPS must know the barriers for
disabled students which they serve
and the barriers for seeking
support within their office.
Conceptual Surveys
DSPS officials needs to know how
to work with different offices to
impact change and mitigate
against achievement gaps and
create a more inclusive campus.

Procedural Surveys
Observations

DSPS officials need to know that
providing additional support to
students with disabilities in
seeking employment, providing
them with early experiences with
work and coordinating between
employers in the community leads
to better outcomes for students
with disabilities seeking jobs.
Conceptual Surveys
Focus Groups
Interviews
Observations
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 33
Motivation
Motivation to learn is a prerequisite to meaningful learning (Mayer, 2011). Motivation is
defined as that which influences the initiation, direction, magnitude, perseverance, continuation,
and quality of goal-directed behavior (Dweck & Elliot, 1983). The utility of goals in this
definition is clear; goals give an activity purpose or meaning, thereby increasing motivation
(Ames, 1990). According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation includes active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Pintrich (2003) argued that the existing research focuses on one or
more of three “indexes” or outcomes of motivation: (1) active choice (actively starting to do
something); (2) persistence (continuing to work toward a goal, despite distractions or competing
goals), and (3) mental effort (investing the requisite time and effort necessary to complete the
task). Motivation results from our experiences and beliefs about ourselves and others and our
ability to be successful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture also informs motivation, meaning that
what is motivating for one individual may not be motivating for others (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Stakeholder achievement behavior is important in their own motivation and ability to achieve
their own goals.
This dissertation includes a literature review that focuses on motivation-related influences
that are pertinent to the achievement of the creation of a workforce readiness scaffold for
students with disabilities who are served by the DSPS offices in the California Community
College System. The two motivational constructs that are examined in this paper are self-efficacy
and goal content. The discussion of these motivational constructs informed which methodologies
to use in assessing motivational gaps among DSPS administrators.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 34
Self-efficacy
Albert Bandura (2000) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief in one’s ability to succeed in
a specific situation or accomplish a task. This concept is central to Bandura’s social cognitive
theory. Bandura (2000) asserts that self-efficacy theory is critical to the understanding of
motivation because if individuals do not believe that they can successfully complete a task, then
there is little motivation for them to start, persist in, or complete it. Bandura (2000) further
argues that an individual’s sense of self-efficacy guides the choices they make and creates their
story. Personal and collective efficacy influence our beliefs, determining how we manage our
lives and what paths we take. Allinder (1994) explored the role of self-efficacy in the lives of
special education teachers. In this study, Allinder (1994) found that both teaching efficacy and
personal efficacy were related to instructionally relevant effective teaching components. Allinder
(1994) states that when a teacher has high self-efficacy, the teacher can serve students and foster
positive educational outcomes. Allinder (1994) also found that teachers who had great belief in
their ability to teach were likely to try different ways of teaching and be business-like in working
with students by being organized, planful in their instruction, fair and firm when dealing with
students, and confident and enthusiastic about teaching. Similarly, the more administrators in
DSPS that have efficacy surrounding their job and the ability to perform it proficiently, the more
they can serve the students with disabilities who are their clients. Among this population, self-
efficacy also encourages relating to the students, creativity in problem solving, and enthusiasm
surrounding the work.
In a study from the Netherlands, Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2002) found that special
education teachers’ self‐efficacy beliefs are related to their burnout levels. Teachers with strong
self‐efficacy beliefs seem to be more prepared to experiment with and implement new
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 35
educational practices than others (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002). In examining the
motivations surrounding the issue of workforce preparedness classes, administrator innovation
may be needed and utilized.
Self-efficacy of Administrators for DSPS
In a study about lecturer self-efficacy when faced with the accommodation needs of
students with disabilities, Wright and Meyer (2017) found that lecturers did not perceive
themselves as competent. Even though faculty appreciate the need for accommodations for
students with disabilities, they are unsure what form it should take, how to implement it, and
what degree of accommodation is needed. The administrators of DSPS should recommend the
kinds and degrees of accommodations, but not all colleges and universities have such sections
available. Wright and Meyer determined that the degree of self-disclosure by students with
disabilities and their willingness to communicate their needs to lectures (or administrators)
increase the self-efficacy of the lecturers. In addition, increased self-disclosure and
communication were found to lead to more flexibility, empathy, and insight into the needs of
students with disabilities, which resulted in the provision of better services to these students.
Researchers like Hong (2015) and Lombardi et al. (2016) explored the concept of
accommodations for students with disabilities, whereas others focused on the students’
experiences with having to self-disclose their disabilities and initiate the process to obtain
accommodations and students’ decisions about nondisclosure (Deuchert et al., 2014; Fichten et
al., 2018). An attempt was made to increase administrators’ knowledge and effectiveness in
determining the best accommodations for veteran students with disabilities. For example,
training and guidelines could serve to increase administrator self-efficacy (Goldberg, Cooper,
Milleville, Barry, & Schein, 2015). There is, however, a dearth of literature on DSPS
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 36
administrators’ perceptions, knowledge, and motivation to achieve the organizational goals of
increasing student success, including for those with disabilities (Brown, 2017). The current study
is aimed at addressing this gap in the literature.
Self-Efficacy in College Students with Disabilities
Apart from formal systems that address (or fail to address) students’ special needs, the
student’s self-efficacy that developed from early childhood experiences and self-reflections plays
a role in educating the student. Transitioning from childhood to early adulthood marks an
important milestone in an individual’s life. Self-efficacy and self-image or self-identity are
important during this process (Shattuck et al., 2014). These images and perceptions develop
across the individual’s life, experiences with society, and one’s own feedback when executing
tasks that shape self-image and self-efficacy (Shattuck et al., 2014). Self-efficacy refers to the
individual’s perceptions of their capabilities, which is linked to motivation and resilience.
Individuals with low self-efficacy in a particular area (e.g., mathematics) would not attempt tasks
in this area and would be likely to stop trying early in the process. Studies on the self-efficacy of
postsecondary students demonstrate that there is a link between low self-efficacy and poor
academic persistence (Shattuck et al., 2014).
Regardless of how well the system provides for student with disabilities, students’
perceptions of self-play important roles in their academic achievement and persistence. In the
case of students with disabilities, the development of a disability identification could dispel
stigmatic perceptions of behaviors. Students with disabilities might leave colleges early based on
their perceptions of self, regardless of the support that is provided by the college.
Many students with disabilities do not report their disabilities due to the fear of being
ridiculed or because they are tired of being treated differently than other students. A longitudinal
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 37
study by Newman and Madhaus (2015) revealed that 35% of students with identified disabilities
did not report their statuses when attending an IHE. According to Newman, students did not
consider themselves as having a disability and, therefore, did not report their statuses. Only 28%
of students with identified disabilities during secondary education reported their disabilities.
Among these students, only 19% received accommodations based on their disability statuses and
needs (Newman & Madhaus, 2015). Newman and Madhaus found that 43% of the students who
did not receive accommodations or assistance in postsecondary education reported that it would
be helpful if they did. The IHE can only assist those who report their disabilities. Studies
focusing exclusively on the postsecondary schooling and employment statuses of non-reporting
students with disabilities, nationally or in California only, could not be located. It is, therefore,
not possible to report on these students’ academic or employment achievements compared to
those who did report their disabilities and received assistance at the IHE level.
Goal Content Theory
Achievement goal theory looks at the kinds of goals (purposes or reasons) that direct and
incentivize behavior (Ames, 1990). Goal content theory looks at how and why people engage in
goalsetting as a way to more profoundly engage with their work and achieve stated goals (Yough
& Anderman, 2006). SMART goals are specific, measurable, achievable, reasonable, and time-
bound. The related literature reveals that through the process of constructing SMART goals,
people become motivated and increasingly likely to reach their goals (Ames, 1990; Dweck &
Elliot, 1983). Researchers look at two types of goals that students set for academics: mastery and
performance goals (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Tovar (2015) explores the need for teachers and administrators at the community college
level to have appropriate, smart, and narrowly-tailored goals to effectuate change in underserved
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 38
populations. Tovar (2015) writes, “Consistent with previous studies and given the very nature of
the community college system, it is often difficult for students to form close relationships with
instructors and counselors” (p. 5). DSPS officials must engage in the process of creating SMART
(specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time based) goals to examine the need to
effectuate this change and close any achievement or service gaps. DSPS administrators may look
at the framework of mastery of understanding and service level to sustain motivation in serving
this underserved population. Counselors and administrators at DSPS may also use this as a
framework to form improved and close relationships with students. The studies of this
stakeholder population show that the process of creating goals is an adaptive way to sustain
motivation, increase engagement, and achieve the stated goals and objectives of creating
workforce readiness classes to help mitigate against the achievement gap between students with
disabilities and other students on California Community College campuses (CCCOO, 2015).
SMART Goal Setting of DSPS Administrators
It is important to determine what motivates the goalsetting of DSPS administrators. Are
they motivated by a desire to enable students with disabilities to become integrated into college
life and succeed both academically and in being gainful employed? On the contrary, are the
DSPS administrators motivated to complete the tasks because doing so is stipulated by law and
college regulations? Intrinsically motivated people are more likely to achieve their goals than to
those who are externally motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
With the increased enrollment of students with disabilities at community colleges and
other postsecondary education institutions, it has become even more important for DSPS
administrators to understand student goals and, in turn, set SMART goals to achieve the college
mission of enabling students with disabilities to attain their chosen degrees through equitable
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 39
practices and adequate preparation for employment. Peña (2014) reported that 1 in 10 students in
postsecondary institutions have disabilities. The continual increase of the number of students
with disabilities who attend postsecondary education necessitates increased awareness among
administrators about the needs and goals of this student body. DSPS administrators should
develop goals to understand what drives students with disabilities and implement systematic
ways to determine these students’ goals and needs (Peña, 2014).
SMART Goal Setting of Students with Disabilities
The underlying reason for which a specific goal was set determines students’ paths and
the likelihood of achieving their goal. If a student with a disability attends college because their
parents told them to do so, then the student might not be resilient enough to stay at college until
graduation. However, if a student with a disability enters college based on a goal to master the
chosen course and obtain gainful employment, then the student is in a better position to attain a
college degree (Guskey & Anderman, 2013).
The Virginia self-determination project for students with disabilities used goalsetting and
the reasons for choosing particular goals as part of the project (Moore & McNaught, 2014). This
project aimed to facilitate college readiness in students with disabilities since the transition from
high school, where they did not need to self-advocate for their disabilities and accommodation
needs. However, this was expected of them at the postsecondary level (Fichten et al., 2018). By
developing self-determination in students with disabilities, their sense of self is strengthened, and
they are empowered to exercise control or autonomy over their environments (Moore &
McNaught, 2014). The I’m Determined Project of the Virginia Department of Education was
conducted to develop self-advocacy skills among high school students with disabilities. The
project proved to be successful because the students’ self-determination and self-advocacy skills
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 40
increased, along with their goalsetting abilities and their abilities to successfully achieve sets of
goals. This project and report represented one of the few articles about students with disabilities
at the postsecondary level. Peña (2014) found that there were indeed few articles on students
with disabilities and recommended that researchers, administrators, and faculty pay close
attention to the needs of this student group to inform educational practices. A gap in the literature
on postsecondary education was identified because there were only a small number of articles on
students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Moreover, students with less visible
disabilities, such as cognitively impaired or attention deficit students, received even less attention
than students with visible physical disabilities (Peña, 2014). This finding points to a possible gap
in the goal achievement of DSPS administrators in community colleges.
Students are not required to disclose their disabilities, and about 66% of students with
disabilities do not disclose their disability status (Wright & Meyer, 2017). Fichten et al. (2018)
found that disability disclosure is associated with the intent or definite goal to complete the
chosen college course or program. There is not yet sufficient research as to why this student
population chooses to not disclose their disabilities, a factor that could be used to determine ways
to address these students’ needs (Fichten et al., 2018). One way to address students with
disabilities’ apparent lack of resilience and grit to complete their chosen courses is to develop
programs where the students learn to set SMART goals that would motivate them. When these
goals are developed together with the reasons for choosing the goal and the opportunity to
discuss it with a caring person, the motivational value of the goal is enhanced (Moore &
McNaught, 2014). Such bridging programs could assist in closing the achievement gap between
students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 41
Figure 3 shows the organizational mission, global goal, stakeholder goal, motivational
influences, and motivational influence assessments identified in this literature review.
Figure 3. Motivation worksheet.
Organization
General Theory
The third cause of an organization’s inability to perform and succeed is organizational
problems. Even when the members of an organization have the requisite knowledge and
motivation, organizational barriers such as “missing or inadequate process or materials” can
Organizational Mission
(1) The California Community Colleges shall, as a primary mission, offer academic and
vocational instruction at the lower division level for both younger and older students, including
those persons returning to school. Public community colleges shall offer instruction through but
not beyond the second year of college. These institutions may grant the associate in arts and the
associate in science degree.
(2) In addition to the primary mission of academic and vocational instruction, the community
colleges shall offer instruction and courses to achieve all of the following:
(3) A primary mission of the California Community Colleges is to advance California’s economic
growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that contribute to
continuous work force improvement.
Organizational Global Goal
Students served by DSPS were approximately 4% less likely to complete the workforce
development courses they attempted than their peers without disabilities. The gap demonstrates
the need to develop strategies to improve DSPS student retention in workforce development
courses.
Stakeholder Goal
DSPS officials will create focus groups to determine why workforce courses pose an increased
issue for students with disabilities by 2019.
Assumed Motivation Influences
(Choose 2)
Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy: In the case at hand, the DSPS
officials must believe they can find the why and
be able to solve the problem with appropriate
motivation and knowledge.
Written Survey Item
Observation of Practice

Goal Content: In this case, the DSPS official must
routinely engage in the process of constructing
SMART goals throughout the process of creating
workforce readiness courses.
Written survey item
Asking to rank goals in terms of other
priorities
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 42
impact organizational success (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 108). Clark and Estes (2008) outline ways
in which researchers can analyze organizational barriers: organizational culture and the change
process. I examined budgetary, method, and process constraints and ways that culture may
impede change broadly in the DSPS office of the California Community Colleges System.
Budget, systems, and processes. Part of examining organizational efficacy and
effectiveness is examining the resources and processes of a given organization. Clark and Estes
(2008) advise that “organizations also require tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals”
(p. 104). Conducting interviews and focus groups and examining work records is a way to
examine whether there are sufficient materials and processes to close performance gaps. Clark
and Estes (2008) suggest examining materials resources, value streams, and value chains to
clarify whether an organization has adequate resources and processes to achieve its goals and
close any performance gaps.
Culture. Clark and Estes (2008) describes culture as “a way to describe core values,
goals beliefs, emotions, and processed learned as people develop over time” (p. 108). To mitigate
against performance gaps, organizational culture must align with policy, procedure, mission, and
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) assert that organizational culture
can be analyzed based on the cultural settings and cultural models within it. Cultural models
consist of shared mental schema, how the world works, or how the world should work within an
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011). Cultural settings are more concrete and consist of
employees, tasks, information about why and how tasks are completed, and the social context of
the work performed.
When looking at historically underserved populations, it is important to look at
organizational culture as something that either impedes or supports learning (Argyris & Schön,
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 43
1996; Kezar, Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2004). The perpetuation of performance gaps between
underserved students is a particular kind of organizational learning problem (Bensimon, 2005).
For Bensimon (2005), those with power in higher educational organizations need to become
highly equity-minded to mitigate against achievement gaps between those who have been
historically underserved and those who have not. Institutional actors and culture can create
unequal outcomes. In looking at historically underserved populations and organizations generally
in the framework of equity can change the attitudes of individual actors and organizational actors
and create new awareness within a higher educational community (Bensimon, 2005).
Stakeholder specific factors. There are two specific lenses through which to examine
organizational performance problems in the context of the DSPS office in the California
Community College System: whether the processes, budget, and materials support the
stakeholder goal and whether offices are utilizing a framework of equity to support the goals of
narrowing the performance gaps between students with disabilities and students without
disabilities.
California Community College policies limit options and opportunities for disabled
students, leading to a de-prioritization of these students and their low levels of success within
this system. Disabled student programs and supports budgets were reduced by over 40%
following the 2008 recession (Hoggartt, 2016). The author of the report indicates that this
fundamentally altered the services and prognosis of these individuals in the California
Community Colleges System. Resources, materials, and budget must align with organizational
goals and missions to mitigate against performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). A thorough
account of the impact of this resources and budget cut must be done to assess the organizational
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 44
impact and the impact on the underserved community of students with disabilities on the
individual campuses of the California Community College System.
To achieve its goal of creating workforce readiness classes, the individual DSPS offices
and the community-wide offices should consider the enactment of an equity framework when
they examine performance gaps and develop a workforce readiness scaffold. Using an equitable
framework will enable the California Community College System to challenge cultural settings
and models that do not support the population of students with disabilities. Circulating
disaggregated data about the access, retention, institutional receptivity, and academic outcomes
of student with disabilities and their workforce readiness may also allow individual DSPS offices
to be more conscious and reflective and engage in more profound inquiry of their own bias,
processes, and methods (Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003).
An equitable framework will enable administrators to reflect on their processes and look
at performance problems through a new and more equitable lens. One of the factors that Kezar et
al. (2008) identified as being imperative for equitable institutional cultural change is reflection;
cultural settings and models must be conducive to such reflection. The organization must also
allow for change to follow the reflective process (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 2 shows the organizational influences that impact the DSPS’s ability to create
scaffolds that promote equity and inclusion for students with disabilities and the budget,
processes, and materials to support this goal. In the second column, the type of assessment used
to determine each influence is listed.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 45
Table 2
Assumed Organizational Influences

Figure 4. below shows the organizational, global, and stakeholder goals.

Organizational Influence Organizational
Influence Type
The organizations culture needs to support DSPS staffers in
providing workforce readiness classes thereby creating equity for
students with disabilities.
Cultural Models

The organization needs to create an environment for administrators
to develop the knowledge and motivation needed to create
workforce readiness courses thereby creating more equitable
outcomes for students with disabilities.
Cultural Settings
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 46

Organizational Mission
1) The California Community Colleges shall, as a primary mission, offer academic and
vocational instruction at the lower division level for both younger and older students,
including those persons returning to school. Public community colleges shall offer instruction
through but not beyond the second year of college. These institutions may grant the associate
in arts and the associate in science degree.
(2) In addition to the primary mission of academic and vocational instruction, the community
colleges shall offer instruction and courses to achieve all the following:
(3) A primary mission of the California Community Colleges is to advance California’s
economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that
contribute to continuous work force improvement.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 2021, 80% of students with disabilities served by the DSPS will complete a
required workforce development course.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2020, DSPS officers will create one scaffolded course that aligns with a workforce
readiness course for students with disabilities to take in conjunction with and in support of
their workforce readiness course.
Organizational Influence Organizational
Influence Type
Organizational
Influence Assessment
The organizations culture needs to support DSPS
staffers in providing workforce readiness classes
thereby creating equity for students with
disabilities.
Cultural
Models

Interviews, focus
groups
The organization needs to create an environment
for administrators to develop the knowledge and
motivation needed to create workforce readiness
courses thereby creating more equitable outcomes
for students with disabilities.
Cultural
Settings
Interviews, focus
groups
The organization needs to have the resources,
processes, and systems to support the workforce
preparedness of students with disabilities.
Budget,
Process,
Materials
Interviews, focus
groups

Figure 4. Organization worksheet.
Performance Needs
A global performance goal for the California Community Colleges System is to remove
barriers and increase accessibility for all Californians, including those with disabilities, and
prepare students for the California job market. However, organizational difficulties can form a
barrier that prevents stakeholders from achieving organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 47
Aspects of organizations that could influence their optimal functioning include organizational
culture, policies, leadership, and resources.
Goal acceptance and willingness to act. An organizational culture is unique to an
organization. It is the essence of what sets organizations in the same sector apart from one
another. Acceptance or identification with the organizational culture leads to organizational
commitment, which brings commitment and motivation to achieve organizational goals. The
stakeholders of the current study, DSPS administrators, may accept the overarching goal of
providing job training to students with disabilities. Put in practical terms, the DSPS
administrators should develop a scaffold course that aligns with a workforce.
Stakeholder organizational problems. Even though the DSPS administrators accept the
organizational goals, the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the students with disabilities
whom they serve may interfere with goal attainment (Adreon & Duocher, 2007). The sheer size
and dynamic differences between the students with disabilities and their particular needs might
be overwhelming to the administrators (Adreon & Durocher, 2007). This includes legislative
knowledge, which is a prerequisite for dealing with the needs of student with disabilities. There
is not sufficient research on the kind of information needed to determine what accommodations
would be appropriate for specific students (Wright & Meyer, 2017). This gap in literature further
complicates the task of the DSPS administrators. While exact figures are not available, employee
turnover could further impact goal achievement because expertise is either lost or the employee
does not remain long enough to develop the needed expertise (Adreon & Durocher, 2007).
Resource needs. California Community College policies limit options and opportunities
for disabled students, leading to a de-prioritization of these students and their low levels of
success within this system. Programs for students with disabilities and supports budgets were
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 48
reduced by 40% following the 2008 recession (Hoggartt, 2016). A study on the impact of
funding reductions for students with disabilities was undertaken by MPR Associates (2012) in
response to the Chancellor’s request. The 2009–2010 fiscal crisis brought revisions of program
funding to California. On July, 28, 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed budget revisions into
law that included budget reductions for DSPS.
MPR Associates studied the impacts of the reduced funding on the community colleges,
accommodations for students with disabilities, DSPS administrators, and staffing (MPR
Associates, 2012). The first change was noted in the staffing of the DSPS office because
reductions in staff represented the initial response to funding reductions. Staff reductions brought
with them a nearly double caseload for existing personnel. The larger caseloads caused burnout
with different illnesses and days absent from work. A large contingent reported that staff might
currently not meet the board-established minimum DSPS qualifications, which has implications
for service delivery. Certain programs and accommodations were affected by the budgetary cuts,
which left the students underprovided. Furthermore, DSPS administrators commented on the
time taken to process applications because it took much longer to do so than it did before the
budget cuts (MPR Associates, 2012).
Although students were appreciative of the DSPS administrators and displayed insight
into their plight, they complained about the long wait times. In addition, the budget cuts were the
cause of students’ prolonged stays at college, and some students reported that it had taken them
nearly one-third longer to complete their course than expected. Administrators warned that with
the program reductions, they would not be able to sustain the current service delivery because it
had reached a critical point. With reduced service delivery to students with disabilities, the
possibility that formal complaints and lawsuits would be raised became a reality. On the positive
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 49
side, administrators reported increased teamwork and creativity to ensure that students received
the accommodations that they deserve (MPR Associates, 2012).
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction between Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool through which to view and understand
research problems. Maxwell (2013) explains that a conceptual framework “is a system of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your
research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). A conceptual theory is a tentative theory of the phenomena
that a researcher is investigating that functions to inform the rest of the researcher’s design
(Maxwell, 2013). A conceptual framework can help researchers assess and refine goals, develop
and hone research questions, select methods, identify threats to validity, and justify research
(Maxwell, 2013). Incorporating gap analysis through knowledge and motivational and
organizational analysis, the conceptual model also includes terms, models, thoughts, and ideas
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using the gap analysis model and knowledge, motivation, and
organization, a conceptual framework allows for a visual narrative of how these concepts relate
to one another. The conceptual framework allows for a visual narrative of how these factors
interact with each other in the California Community College Office of the DSPS.
The research problem of practice for this dissertation study explored the workforce
readiness of the students with disabilities in the California Community Colleges System. The
research problem reflected the conceptual framework, helping the researcher to narrow the
problem, develop and hone the research questions, undertake data collection, and engage in
analytical techniques. It also aided in the interpretation of findings. In a 2015 California
Community College report, the Office of the DSPS found that the most substantial gap that exists
Knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge
types), Skills,
Motivation (i.e.,
self-efficacy,
value, etc.)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 50
between students with disabilities and their peers is in workforce preparedness classes
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2015). The identified stakeholder goal is
to create a scaffolded course that aligns with and supports the workforce readiness in the
California Community Colleges System. To effectuate the goal of creating a scaffolded course,
the administrators of the DSPS must have the requisite knowledge, motivation, and organization
skills to mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. The
conceptual framework served as a visual representation of how the organization, knowledge, and
motivational influences interact with each other and consequently informed the research, data
collection, and recommended solutions to the problem of the workforce readiness gap among
students in the California Community Colleges System. Figure 5 illustrates the conceptual
framework and the interdependency of motivation, knowledge, and organizational factors in
accomplishing the stakeholder goal.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 51
Figure 5. Conceptual framework of workforce readiness in California Community Colleges
System.
The conceptual framework shows how motivational, knowledge, and organizational
factors interplay to accomplish the goal of preparing students with disabilities for the job market.
The goal of the California Community Colleges System is to provide job training services to its
citizens, and if these factors interplay effectively, then the DSPS has the ability to close the
workforce readiness gaps between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012). The conceptual framework shows
the interdependency of these factors and how the knowledge and motivational influences rely on
the resources of the organization.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 52
To effectuate the goal of creating a scaffolded course, the administrators of the DSPS
must have the requisite knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources to mitigate the gap
between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. The conceptual framework
visualizes how these factors work, which served to define the problem, organize the research,
and look toward a solution. DSPS coordinators must have the procedural and conceptual
knowledge required to serve the student with disabilities population, as well as the goal content
and self-efficacy required to accomplish the stated goals. The two motivational constructs
necessary to accomplishing the stated goals are self-efficacy and goal content (Bandura, 2008;
Yough & Anderman, 2006).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational change must come from the
systemic analysis of the gap between current performance and the organization’s goals for
performance. Performance gaps can be attributed to one or more of three factors: knowledge,
motivation, or organizational environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). This conceptual framework
utilizes the Clark and Estes gap analytic conceptual framework and, specifically, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on disability service professionals’ ability to aid the
students with disabilities populations on their campuses. This framework also considers how the
KMO factors interplay and rely on each other to accomplish the stated stakeholder goal. This
framework will show how both budgetary methods and process constrain culture and may
preclude the motivation and knowledge influences. The requisite procedural and conceptual
knowledge that the stakeholders need to create and execute their workforce readiness courses,
remove barriers, and support the student with disabilities population relies on the budget and
organizational priority (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Similarly, the motivational factors of
self-efficacy and goal orientation are detrimentally linked to the organizational factors such as
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 53
the resources, priorities, and culture of the California Community Colleges System (Bandura,
2008; Yough & Anderman, 2006).
The ability to achieve the stakeholder goal is highly dependent on organizational factors
like budget, cultural settings, and cultural models. The stakeholder goal of providing scaffolded
workforce readiness classes must be supported by organizational resources and the culture of the
organization. Part of examining organizational efficacy and effectiveness is examining the
resources and processes of a given organization. Clark and Estes (2008) advise that
“organizations also require tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals” (p. 104). Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that examining material resources, value streams, and value chains can
clarify whether an organization has adequate resources and processes to achieve its goals and
close performance gaps. The conceptual framework reflects the necessity of materials, budgets,
systems, and the requisite culture to achieve stakeholder goals. As seen in the conceptual
framework, having the requisite budget, organizational priorities, and culture is imperative
before addressing knowledge and motivational factors,
The California Community Colleges System’s mission is to provide equity and access to
students who would otherwise not be able to enroll in university and provide job training for
Californian citizens (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012). The conceptual
framework enables the researcher to see the factors at play in perpetuating the workforce
readiness gap between students with disabilities who are being serviced by the DSPS and the
stakeholders of this office’s coordinators. The conceptual framework shows the necessity of
setting organizational support as a foundation for the requisite knowledge and motivational
components. Without the resources and culture illustrated within the California Community
Colleges System broadly and the individual offices of the DSPS, the knowledge and motivational
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 54
components of solving the researched problem have no utility. The organization is the foundation
for study, research, and eventual change.
Conclusion
The California Community Colleges System has the largest population of students with
disabilities in any higher education system in the world. The purpose of this exploratory project
was to analyze the benefits of a scaffolded workforce readiness course in the Office of Disabled
Students and Programs in the California Community Colleges System. The goal was to mitigate
the workforce readiness gap between disabled students and their nondisabled peers.
In the literature review, I examined the concept of disability, the legislation surrounding
the education of students with disabilities, and equitable education, which includes the notion of
providing accommodations to such students. Literature about aspects of knowledge, motivation,
and organization, as related to the education of students with disabilities attending community
colleges, was explored. This exploration was done using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
method to determine possible reasons for the gap between the performance of students with
disabilities and that of their nondisabled peers, especially pertaining to workforce readiness. The
literature study focused on the DSPS administrator stakeholders, as well as students with
disabilities, who are regarded as the clients in this study. The interplay between the actions and
behaviors of administrators and students with disabilities codetermine the outcomes of the
services provided to the students with disabilities. The other stakeholders, lecturers or
instructors, were not explored in depth because they were not the focus of this study. A
discussion of motivation guided by the self-efficacy and goal content theories provided insight
into motivational and possible constricting factors that could contribute to the performance gap
of students with disabilities. Similarly, organizational factors found in organizational climate,
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 55
identification with organizational goals, mutual trust between employees and students with
disabilities, and organizational restraints regarding available budget were explored to identify
possible needs. A visual representation of the conceptual framework that guides this study
concludes this chapter. In the next chapter, the study’s methodology will be discussed.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 56
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Methodological Approach and Rationale
The design of the methodology for this study must include the consideration that a KMO
gap analysis of the ability to implement workforce readiness classes requires systemwide data
from the disability services coordinators of the California Community Colleges System. With the
knowledge that this study required a wide breadth and depth of data, the author of this study
utilized the explanatory sequential mixed-methods model and incorporated both quantitative and
qualitative data (Creswell, 2014).
Creswell (2014) writes that an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design “involves a
two-phase project in which the researcher collects quantitative data in the first phase, analyzes
the results, and then uses the results to plan (or build on to) the second, qualitative phase” (p.
224). The results of the survey of the DSPS coordinators informed and were used to plan the
qualitative inquiry. This was particularly suited to this project because the researcher was not a
member of this system, so she was able to use the quantitative results to inform the types of
qualitative questions that were asked in the second phase of data collection. Using the
explanatory sequential mixed-methods design enabled the researcher to conduct an informed and
deliberate qualitative interview based on the results of the quantitative phase. The benefit of this
method for this study and this researcher was that the “intent of this design is to have the
qualitative data help to provide more depth, more insight into the quantitative results” (Creswell,
2014, p. 225).
Sequential explanatory design is a two-phase design in which the quantitative data is
collected first (Creswell, 2014). This stage is followed by qualitative data collection, which aids
in interpreting the quantitative data. The author began by sending the survey to many disability
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 57
services coordinators in the California Community Colleges System to investigate perceptions of
the efficacy of the current workforce readiness scaffolding. In the second phase of the study, the
researcher interpreted the data from the survey and engaged in qualitative data collection to
expound on the results. The first stage of the study involved a quantitative systemwide survey of
the disability services coordinators of the Office of the DSPS to inquire about their current
feelings, sentiments, and attempts to close the workforce readiness gap between disabled
students and their peers. In this way, the researcher was able to identify themes to explore and
expand upon by conducting interviews in the second phase of data collection. This survey was
also an effective instrument given the relatively large number of DSPS coordinators (n = 114).
The quantitative results were used to plan and inform the qualitative follow-up with
representative DSPS coordinators who were willing to be interviewed.
In the second phase of the study, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with
relatively few representative DSPS departments across the system from suburban and urban
schools, representing different California demographics with similar disabled student populations
and job prospects in their local communities. The researcher used these in-depth interviews to
inform KMO-based solutions to bridge the workforce readiness gap between student with
disabilities and their peers in the California Community Colleges System. Given that there
needed to be similarity in the student population and work availability in the local community,
the number of DSPS coordinators interviewed was relatively small (n < 10).
The researcher was deliberate and cautious in her data collection and handled quantitative
and especially qualitative data collection with mindfulness and care. In using the explanatory
sequential method, she was mindful of maintaining validity with the knowledge that each phase
built upon the other (Creswell, 2014). In collecting data to inform the KMO framework and
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 58
eventual solutions, the researcher was mindful of her role as both the conductor and the
instrument of research (Creswell, 2014). The researcher was deliberate, nonjudgmental, and
friendly. Objectivity was maintained to avoid creating resistance and tainted results, which
would diminish the importance of the research (Creswell, 2014). Being deliberate,
nonjudgmental, and friendly also aided in building trust because the researcher was not a
member of the studied organization.
The DSPS coordinators at the community colleges system are in a unique position to
have positive impacts on the lives of people with disabilities because this system educates more
people with disabilities than any other system of higher education in the United States. The
researcher sought to address the workforce readiness gap between students with disabilities and
others in this system in order to profoundly align the California Community Colleges System
with its mission to educate and prepare students for the California job market. This type of
research has not been done internally in this organization before, and the researcher was not a
member of this organization. For these reasons and those outlined in previous sections, an
explanatory sequential mixed method design was used in this study. This methodology involved
obtaining systemwide data from all California Community College campuses and using this data
to inform the qualitative questioning in the second phase of the study. In order for the DSPS
office and the campus DSPS coordinators to fully align with the organization’s mission and
strategic goals, they must have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational capacity required
to close performance gaps.
Participating Stakeholders
Students with disabilities in the California community are served by the DSPS offices.
The stakeholders who were examined are disability services coordinators in the 114 offices of
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 59
the Disabled Students and Programs. This study was undertaken with the hope that the results
and findings would inform California Community College Chancellor, Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the
Consultation Council, which advises the Chancellor on state policy decisions, and the
administrative heads of the various DSPS offices in California, because these individuals create
and use the policy based on the $100,458,964 that this office allocates for general services and
instruction each year (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017). It is the goal
of these disability services coordinators and the offices that they serve to empower students
through leadership, support, and advocacy. My goal in this study was to provide insight into and
research on how these individuals can profoundly effectuate this goal and better serve students
with disabilities in the California Community Colleges System.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
For the census, the quantitative survey was sent out to the 114 Disability Services
Coordinators of the California Community Colleges System. This is a finite group and the email
addresses are published on the statewide website. The researcher also looked for an introduction
from a contact in the California Community Colleges System.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The first stage of the study was a quantitative systemwide survey of DSPS Coordinators
to inquire about the current feelings, sentiments, and attempts to close the workforce readiness
gap between disabled students and their peers. In this way, the researchers were able to identify
themes to explore and expand upon by conducting interviews in the second phase of data
collection. This survey also was an effective instrument given the relatively large number of
DSPS coordinators (n = 114). Taking the size of this population and the geographical diversity of
these participants into account, the quantitative survey was conducted through census sampling.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 60
The quantitative results were used to plan and inform the qualitative follow-up interviews with
representative DSPS coordinators who were willing to be interviewed.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
For the qualitative interview, the researcher chose representatives from among the
Disability Services Coordinators from different types of California Community College
campuses, such as urban and suburban, Northern and Southern, and those with diverse
populations of students with disabilities.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The second phase of the study was informed and planned through the use of the initial
quantitative survey. The researcher conducted in-depth interviews with relatively few
representative DSPS coordinators across the system from suburban and urban schools,
representing different California demographics with similar disabled student populations and job
prospects in their local communities. The researcher used the results of these in-depth interviews
to inform KMO-based solutions to bridge the workforce readiness gap between student with
disabilities and their peers in the California Community Colleges System. Given that there
needed to be similarity in the student population and work availability in the local community,
the number of DSPS coordinators interviewed was relatively small (n < 10). This was done
through a representative sampling of the coordinators who participated in the census, and the
participants were representative of the diversity of the various California Community College
campuses. Maxwell (2013) argues that the first reason for purposeful selection is to increase
representativeness in setting, activity, or individuals. In utilizing representative sampling in the
qualitative portion of the inquiry, various and representative campuses of the California
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 61
Community Colleges System were studied in depth. The purposeful sampling also allowed for
questioning that fleshed out data from the census survey.
Explanation of Choices
This study utilized a census survey to sample the 114 Disability Services Coordinators of
the California Community Colleges System. Because the researcher was not an employee within
the organization, this sampling methodology was a promising opportunity to get response from a
wide breadth of coordinators. The census sampling method enabled this population to be studied
as a whole during the quantitative phase of the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Although
the population was too large for 114 individual interviews, a census allowed understanding of the
entire population and informed the interview process (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Using a
census survey is also expected to optimize the response rate (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). This
census gave the researcher insight into the problems that led to the gap between students with
disabilities and their peers in the system, and this information informed the types of questions
that were asked during the interview phase of the study.
After examining the data from the census, nonprobable purposeful sampling was utilized
to conduct interviews with coordinators from representative California Community College
campuses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through this sampling, the researcher looked to those who
opted into the interview portion of the study and among them, respondents who represent urban
and suburban campuses, as well as Northern and Southern campuses, were purposively selected.
Throughout this population, the types of disabilities of the people served by the office vary
greatly. This type of sampling sourced data from various populations of students with disabilities
as well as geographically-representative campuses. The focus was on maximum variation and
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 62
getting data from different campuses, which led to recommendations that could be utilized
statewide (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Although observations were not utilized in this study, it is important to discuss
observation and how it may be utilized in a similar study. Because this study was a statewide
study, observations were impractical. Observations may be used to understand the motivational,
knowledge, and organizational influences of the stakeholders in real-world settings (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). The researcher would have been the observer and allowed coordinators to
work, interact, and create policy while simply being observed without interference (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Observation provides a “direct and powerful way of learning about people’s
behavior and the context in which it occurs” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 103). Observation also allows
for the collection of nonverbal data (Maxwell, 2013). Although observation would have been
impractical in this study, it would have allowed for the collection of comprehensive data about
how the stakeholders interacted with the population that they serve (Maxwell, 2013).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 63
Sampling Strategy and Timeline
Table 3
Sampling Strategy and Timeline
Sampling Strategy Number in
Stakeholder
population
Number of
Proposed
participants from
stakeholder
population
Start and
End Date
for Data
Collection
Interviews: Purposeful with
max variation
Approximately
114 head of
disability
services offices
across the
California
Community
College
Campuses
Of the Approx.
114, I will sample
seven. This will be
based on
geographic
diversity,
population
diversity and
participation in the
quantitative stage
(mixed methods)
March 1 to
April 31,
2018
Observations: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Documents: Office handbook,
strategic plan,
guiding documents
from the California
Community
College System,
meeting notes, and
emails
N/A N/A May 1 to
June 30th
2019
Surveys: N/A N/A N/A N/A

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized semi-structured interviews to expand on the data found in quantitative
data collection. In semi-structured interviews, the questions are more flexibly worded and there
are a mix of structured and unstructured questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While specific
information may be desired, the interview is typically guided by a list of questions and ideas that
are to be explored without exact word order. This allows the researcher to be responsive to the
interview, to the respondent and to new developments and ideas about the topic (Merriam &
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 64
Tisdell, 2016). In the case at hand, by employing semi-structured interviews, the interviewer was
able to learn more about the disability services department of the California Community College
system and respond in real time to any new information or developments. This allowed for richer
data and a more complete narrative.
Documents were used to analyze the motivation, organization, and knowledge of the
disability services coordinators of the California Community College system. Document
discovery and authenticity are both valuable processes in the data collection process (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Data from documents can be used in much the same way other quantitative data is
used because doing so provides description, adds credibility to hypotheses, and is nonreactive.
Documents are not produced for research purposes so could be fragmentary and not fitting of the
research, but they can be viewed as a product of the organization that produced them (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). In this research study, documents were used to understand the organizations’
structural commitment to workforce readiness classes for students with disabilities. Documents
that were reviewed were strategic plan documents, policies, procedures manuals, meeting
minutes, and email correspondence on these issues.
Interviews
Interview protocol. This research utilized semi-structured interviews with representative
coordinators of the 114 disability services offices across the California Community College
Campus. This structure supported both the nature of the study and the fact that the researcher
was not a member of the organization of study. The semi-structured interviews of the
coordinators were used to study knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences. Using
semi-structured interviews allowed for the flexibility to acquire new information and narratives
and explore the specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences being studied.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 65
Semi-structured interviews enable the researcher the benefits of both the structured and
unstructured interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interview questions were used to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of the disability services coordinators of the 114 California Community
College campuses. The questions delved into the knowledge and motivational influences to
create successful workforce readiness courses. The questions also looked at cultural setting and
models and how this impacted the organizational ability to create successful workforce readiness
courses for students with disabilities.
Interview procedures. A disability services coordinator from representative California
Community College campuses who participated in the quantitative portion of the data collection
and agreed to be interviewed was interviewed via Skype or Zoom conferencing. This interview
procedure allowed representative coordinators from across the state to participate in the research
study and allowed for complete and accurate data from across the state. Skype and Zoom are
widely-used in professional settings so the quality of the interview was not diminished due to
unfamiliarity with the interview technology (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Both Zoom and Skype
have built-in technology to allow for audio and video recording. The researcher was also taking
notes by hand throughout the interview which allowed for better questioning in the semi-
structured process and served as a backup if the technology were to fail. After the interviews, the
researcher sent the video and audio recording to a company that transcribed these interviews
verbatim. This ensured all participants and data were accurately recorded.
Documents
Documents are grounded in the organization in which they are produced and are
nonreactive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents may provide data about the cultural setting
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 66
and model and guidance on the research questions pertaining to organizational readiness and
ability. Documents can help “the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and
discover insights relevant to the research problem” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 189). In this
research study, documents were used to uncover organizational commitment to closing the gap
between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers in workforce readiness courses
across the 114 California Community College campuses. The discovery, review, and analysis of
organizational documents such as emails, strategic plan documents, minutes, and the like
allowed the researcher to gain a complete picture of the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational commitment.
Data Analysis
After the census survey, data analysis began. After the survey results were received and
the survey was closed, data was downloaded from Qualtrics and cleaned. After the results were
cleaned, survey data was analyzed using Microsoft excel. The preliminary findings gave depth
and texture to the qualitative interviews.
Survey cleaning and analysis was done concurrently with the qualitative interviews, as is
common in data collection utilizing sequential mixed method design. The interviews were
conducted telephonically and transcripts were sent to rev.com in order to be transcribed. Notes
were concurrently taken to ensure accuracy. Both notes and transcripts were coded utilizing open
coding. The open coding process looked for both empirical codes and applied a priori codes
from the conceptual framework and research questions. After the initial coding was complete,
the empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic and axial codes. Some examples of
axial codes are the needs and gaps of the department in knowledge, motivation and organization,
self-advocacy and organizational support needed in the form of resource allocation and seamless
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 67
integration in the campus communities. These codes were used to identify themes and create
findings from the qualitative data. In the next phase of data analysis, these codes were used to
inform the research questions and conceptual framework.
As data was collected for this study, peer examination was utilized. Findings were shared
and cross-checked with the dissertation chairs and two colleagues familiar with qualitative and
quantitative data analysis to ensure accuracy of the analysis and mitigate against researcher
biases. During this process, themes were discussed along with the transcript and numerical data.
The process of sharing interpretations with raw data reduces bias, increases reliability of results
and allows for better and more aligned recommendations to close achievement gaps.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In the research of workforce readiness courses in the California Community College
system, it was important to ensure that the study was both credible and trustworthy. Credibility
ensures that the results are the believable, accurate, and reliable. Trustworthiness ensures that the
findings can be replicated and that the findings are dependable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). In the case of qualitative research, the researcher is a main tool in her own
research and becomes very close to her own data, subjects and research material (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Although this is a strength in qualitative research, it may lead to bias and a threat
to both credibility and trustworthiness and allow for misinterpretation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Maxwell, 2013).
Several strategies were used to mitigate threats to credibility, including reflection,
triangulation, and peer review. Although threats to validity were unable to be completely
eliminated, these strategies helped ensure appropriate attention to credibility threats.
Additionally, the researcher engaged in self-reflection during the qualitative data collection
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 68
process (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher used triangulation through the use of multiple data
collections which mitigated against the notion that the study’s findings were the product of single
view or source (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher did this by collecting data through
both interviews and document collection. Furthermore, this study submitted to the process of
peer review. Each member of the dissertation committee reviewed the findings to ensure that the
findings were plausible based on the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ensuring credibility and
trustworthiness allowed for the study and disability services coordinators to impact more change
on the students with disabilities in the California Community College system.
Ethics
As a qualitative researcher I focused on meaning and understanding in order to answer
the research questions (Merriam, 2009). To do this, it was important to make ethical choices
when conducting this study because so much of the data collection entailed conversation. In
particular, informed consent forms were given to all participants at the commencement of the
study. According to Glesne (2011), informed consent is necessary to ensure the participants are
aware that their participation is voluntary, all the discussions will be kept confidential and they
can withdraw at any point without penalty. To ensure the safety of the participants I submitted
my study to the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and
followed their rules and guidelines regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of the
participants in this study. All the participants signed consent forms, and I reminded them that this
study was voluntary, and that their identity would be kept confidential. Due to the legal status of
my participants, confidentiality was extremely important participants were informed multiple
times that if at any time they wished to withdraw from the study, they could with no penalty.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 69
Prior to the interviews I gained permission to audio record the interviews and provided
the participants with transcripts of the interviews to allow them the opportunity to ensure I had
not changed their words. I reminded the participants that I would not provide any incentives so
as not to coerce them; however, at the conclusion of the study I sent them a thank you card with
a small monetary gift card as a token of my appreciation for participating in the study. This lack
of incentive was a way to minimize the possibility that participants felt coerced to participate,
while a thank you gift that they would not anticipate when agreeing to participate served as a
way to thank the participants for their time and for sharing their experiences.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study include the nature of qualitative research in which the
researcher is asking the questions and guiding the interview. As this was a sequential mixed
methods study, this limitation chiefly impacted the qualitative research. Another limitation is the
nature of self-reporting. This study was done in a short amount of time through the use of a
census survey and follow up qualitative interviews that were all under one hour long. This time
constraint is another limitation of the study. Although the census survey was sent to 114 DSPS
coordinators statewide, only 7 participated in the interview. While this participation was
deliberate and part of the study design, it is another limitation of the study.
Due to the time and design of the study, the fact that there were no observations and more
interviews is also a delimitation of the study. Another delimitation is the researcher choice to ask
questions in the interview about universal design principles on California Community College
campus.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 70
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors that impact DSPS coordinators as they serve students with disabilities in the California
Community College system. The research questions are as follows:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs are necessary for disability
services coordinators of the California Community College System to implement
workforce readiness courses?
2. How does the California Community College system culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions to those needs?
This study was a sequential mixed methods study beginning with a census survey of all 114
DSPS coordinators of the California Community College system and then an in-depth qualitative
interview with 7 of the respondents. This data was collected over the course of 6 weeks.
Participating Stakeholders
The researcher sent the census survey to 113 stakeholders identified as disability services
coordinators or directors at California community colleges. The survey was sent out to the
stakeholders’ email addresses through a Qualtrics email distribution. Three of these emails failed
and one email bounced, resulting in 109 valid email invitations. Forty-three stakeholders (39%)
responded to the survey. Of these 43 respondents, 40 (93%) indicated that they had read the
informed consent and agreed to participate in the study. Thirty-seven of these respondents
provided at least a semi-complete response (defined as responding more than just the first
question), for an overall response rate of 34%.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 71
Some respondents provided demographic information and others declined. The results
below are based on the number of respondents for each question.
Most of the respondents identified as female (n=23, 74.2%). Table 4 shows that most
respondents had only had up to 3 years of experience in their current position; however, due to a
few respondents with a decade or more in their position, the average number of years in the
position was 4.7. Table 5 shows that although most respondents had only a few years in their
current role, most of them were well-acquainted with the California Community College system;
the average number of years employed in the CCC system was 12.5, with most respondents
(68%) reporting more than 5 years employed with the system. Finally, the vast majority of
respondents reported working directly with 25 or more students on a regular basis (n=26,
83.9%), while only a few reported working with less than 10 (n=2, 6.5%) or between 10 and 25
(n=3, 9.7%).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 72
Table 4

Respondents’ Experience in Their Current Position
Years in Position # %
1 7 5.0%
2 5 7.1%
3 7 15.0%
5 1 3.6%
6 1 4.3%
7 2 10.0%
8 2 11.4%
9 1 6.4%
10 2 14.3%
12 1 8.6%
20 1 14.3%
Total 30 100.0%

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 73
Table 5

Respondents’ Experience in the CCC System
Years in CCC System # %
1 2 0.5%
2 2 1.0%
3 2 1.5%
4 2 2.1%
5 2 2.6%
6 1 1.5%
7 1 1.8%
8 2 4.1%
10 1 2.6%
12 3 9.3%
13 2 6.7%
14 2 7.2%
18 1 4.6%
20 1 5.1%
23 1 5.9%
25 1 6.4%
27 2 13.9%
28 2 14.4%
34 1 8.7%
Total 31 100.0%

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 74
Twenty-four respondents went on to complete the voluntary Google Forms poll to enter the
drawing for one of three gift cards. Of these 24 respondents, 14 (58%) indicated they were
willing to participate in the phone interview for a $20 gift card. Interviews were scheduled with 7
of these respondents, and each respondent completed the full telephone interview.
Results
Survey participants responded to 10 items on working with their office and their college.
These items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The results are
displayed in Table 6. Generally, respondents indicated that they understand the educational
barriers that disabled students face (μ = 4.76), and that they know how to work with different
offices at their college to mitigate and address those barriers and challenges (μ = 4.70).
Respondents were less certain about their college’s ability and willingness to use resources to
support their department’s goals, but still generally agreed with those statements (see the bottom
of Table 6).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 75
Table 6

Average Responses to Agree/Disagree Statements
Statement
Mean
Rating
I understand the educational barriers disabled students seeking support from my
office face.
4.76
I know how to work with different offices at my college to mitigate the challenges
faced by students with disabilities.
4.70
I believe I can help solve the problem of the achievement gap between students
with disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
4.16
My college’s culture supports DSPS staffers. 4.14
My office routinely engages in the process of constructing goals. 4.05
My office knows how to provide additional support to students with disabilities
who are seeking employment.
3.95
My college creates an environment that allows administrators to affect changes
that will mitigate performance gaps for students with disabilities.
3.75
My college has the systems in place to support departmental goals. 3.72
My college has the resources necessary to support departmental goals. 3.72
My college is willing to use organizational resources to support my department’s
goals.
3.69

Regarding barriers faced by students with disabilities, most respondents feel that the
students they serve face academic barriers (86%), financial barriers (78%), and ongoing health
concerns (72%). Respondents also wrote in other barriers, including mental health concerns,
trauma, housing and transportation, a lack of awareness about their own disability or the services
available to them, a lack of faculty support, and other personal challenges.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 76
Table 7

Barriers Faced by Students with Disabilities
Barrier # %
Academic Barriers 31 86%
Finances 28 78%
Ongoing Health Concerns 26 72%
Physical Access 23 64%
Organizational Barriers 20 56%
Lack of Support 17 47%
Other 10 28%

When asked to indicate whether they feel they have the resources and knowledge
necessary to help students address and overcome these barriers, respondents felt most sure about
aiding students with academic barriers (94% yes) and financial barriers (83% yes). Less certainty
was reported for organizational barriers (45% yes, 30% no) and a general lack of support (36%,
46% no).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 77
Table 8
Respondents’ Knowledge and Resources to Address Barriers
Barrier Yes Not sure No
Academic Barriers 94% 0% 6%
Finances 83% 0% 17%
Ongoing Health Concerns 56% 25% 19%
Physical Access 50% 31% 19%
Organizational Barriers 45% 25% 30%
Lack of Support 36% 18% 46%
Other 20% 40% 40%

When asked about which features and services the CCC system offers their office,
respondents indicated that they generally receive services like reader services and
assistive/adaptive technology (93%), notetaker services (90%), access to and arrangements for
adaptive educational resources (87%), counseling services (87%), interpreter services (87%), and
transcription services (87%). On the other hand, few respondents reported benefiting from
speech services from a licensed speech/language pathologist (7%) or off-campus transportation
assistance for students (7%). Job placement services were also rarely reported by respondents
(23%). The “Other” category most often included funding for activities (n=4) and advocacy
(n=2). See Table 9 for full information.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 78
Table 9
Features and Services Provided by CCC System
Feature # %
Reader services and access to assistive/adaptive technology including High Tech
High Center/alternate media/brailing (including the coordination and provision of
services for students with disabilities in the instructional setting).
28 93%
Notetaker services to provide assistance to students with disabilities in the
classroom.
27 90%
Access to and arrangements for adaptive educational equipment/materials/supplies
required by students with disabilities.
26 87%
Counseling (including specialized academic/vocational/personal/peer counseling
services specifically for students with disabilities (not duplicated by ongoing
general counseling services available to all students).
26 87%
Interpreter services (including manual and oral interpreting for hearing-impaired
students).
26 87%
Transcription services (including but not limited to the provision of braille and print
materials).
26 87%
Test-taking facilitation (including arrangement/proctoring and modification of tests
and test administration for students with disabilities.
24 80%
Registration assistance relating to on- or off-campus college registration including
priority enrollment assistance/application for financial aid/related college services.
23 77%
Liaison with campus and/or community agencies including referral to campus or
community agencies and follow-up services.
22 73%
Accommodations for participation in co-curricular activities directly related to the
student's enrollment in state-funded educational courses or programs.
21 70%
Outreach activities designed to recruit potential students with disabilities to the
college.
20 67%
Assessment (including both individual and group assessment not otherwise
provided by the college to determine functional educational and vocational levels)
or to verify specific disabilities.
18 60%
One-time variable costs for purchase of DSPS equipment such as adapted
educational equipment/materials/supplies/transportation vehicles.
18 60%
Supplemental specialized orientation to acquaint students with environmental
aspects of the college and community.
15 50%
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 79
Feature # %
Special parking including on-campus parking registration or while an application
for the State handicapped placard or license plate is pending.
13 43%
Mobility assistance (on-campus) 11 37%
Specialized tutoring services not otherwise provided by the college. 10 33%
Continuing variable cost services which fluctuate with changes in the number of
students or the unit load of the students.
9 30%
Repair of adaptive equipment donated to the DSPS program or purchased with
funds provided under this subchapter.
9 30%
Other 8 27%
Job placement and development services related to transition to employment. 7 23%
Speech services provided by a licensed speech/ language pathologist for students
with verified speech disabilities.
2 7%
Transportation assistance (off-campus) only if not otherwise provided by the
college to all students where public accessible transportation is unavailable or is
deemed inadequate by the Chancellor's Office.
2 7%

When asked how their department provides students with disabilities with additional
services, respondents most often indicated that they provide referrals to other services (n=11),
they collaborate with other offices and organizations to provide resources (n=8), and they
provide counseling services, whether academic or otherwise (n=7). They also frequently reported
providing accommodations, working one-on-one with students, and hosting workshops and skills
training for students (n=6 each). See Table 10.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 80
Table 10

Additional Service Offered by Respondents’ Office
Theme # %
Referrals to other services 11 41%
Collaborations with other offices/orgs 8 30%
Counseling (academic or otherwise) 7 26%
Accommodations 6 22%
Working one-on-one with students 6 22%
Workshops and skills training for students 6 22%
Advocacy 5 19%
Writing help/tutoring/specialized instruction 5 19%
General support 5 19%
Financial aid 4 15%
Training 3 11%
Employment preparation 1 4%
Disability-related counseling 1 4%

Regarding office needs, respondents agreed that they needed more staff (n=11). For
example, one respondent indicated that he or she needed “More time and staff dedicated to
implementing changes to programs and procedures in response to Chancellor's Office and
state/federal mandates (eg: AB705, Adult Ed Block Grant, Student Success).” Several
respondents also noted that they could use more administrative and institutional support (n=8)
and more funding (n=8). See Table 11 for all office needs reported.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 81
Table 11

What Respondents’ Office Needs to Support Students with Disabilities
Theme # %
More staff 11 25%
Administration/Institutional support 8 25%
Funding 8 13%
Training/prof development for staff 4 13%
Tutoring program 4 13%
Other 4 9%
Classes/courses for students w/disabilities 3 9%
Less bureaucracy/changes to policies and procedures 3 9%
Specialized staff (e.g., interpretation, Braille) 3 6%
Psychologists/counselors/therapists 2 6%
Space 2 6%
Personal advising/counseling 2 0%

On a slightly different note, respondents felt that student career counseling and advising training
and programs would help staff to better support students with disabilities (n=11), along with
professional development and training for the staff (n=7) and institutional support and
collaboration with other offices (n=6). This response from one coordinator revealed the desire for
more career counseling and advising training:
We concentrate so much now on getting students through their academic
requirements (and the new issues stemming from guided pathways and AB705)
that career planning is currently minimized. I'd like to be able to offer a course in
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 82
career development for students with disabilities, but the associated costs are not
really in our budget.
See Table 12 for all staff needs reported by respondents.
Table 12

What Respondents’ Department Staff Need to Support Students with Disabilities
Theme # %
Career counseling/advising training and programs 11 34%
Professional development/training 7 22%
Institutional support/collaboration with other offices 6 19%
More staff 5 16%
More time 4 13%
More resources/funding 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Staff is fully capable 2 6%
Staff dedication/commitment 1 3%

In terms of office goal setting and system-wide metrics, Table 13 shows that respondents
reported that most goals are set through program and services reviews, in which progress is
assessed and discussed (n=12). Staff discussion and collaboration (n=11) and annual evaluation
and goal-setting meetings were also commonly reported. In general, respondents reported similar
activities, but the specifics varied. For instance, below are two responses that both noted
conducting a program or services review but differed in how they carried out goal setting. One
participant said, “My department meets frequently to evaluate our processes, we review surveys
and research data to set goals. College wide we have a process for setting goals for additional
funds. Metrics developed by our institutional research department.” Another participant, when
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 83
answering a question about how the department made goals, responded that their department
made goals “Through a formal program review process but also informally via meetings and
casual discussions. We set our own metrics internally within our department and then run these
by administration if we need assistance.”
Table 13
How Respondents’ College and Department Sets Overarching Goals and Metrics
Theme # %
Program/services review and assessment 12 40%
Staff discussion/collaboration 11 37%
Annual evaluation and goal setting 10 33%
Alignment w/ college's goals 9 30%
Mention of data/metrics 7 23%
Personal interaction/Focus on student needs 4 13%
Strategic planning meetings 2 7%
Modify/update goals as needed 1 3%

On a related note, respondents reported on how their department creates goals to mitigate
the gaps for students with disabilities. Table 14 shows the full results. The majority of
respondents indicated that staff discussion and collaboration was used to set goals (n=16), and
several others reported personal interaction with students, a focus on the students’ needs (n=10),
and the use of data to set goals (n=8).

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 84
Table 14
How Respondents’ Department Creates Goals for Mitigating Gaps
Theme # %
Staff discussion/collaboration 16 55%
Personal interaction/Focus on student needs 10 34%
Mention of data/metrics 8 28%
Faculty input 5 17%
Alignment w/ college's goals 4 14%
Strategic planning meetings 3 10%
Modify/update goals on an ongoing basis 3 10%
Annual evaluation and goal setting 2 7%
Program/services review and assessment 2 7%
Other, N/A 2 7%

When asked to explain how their department works with other departments and across
their college to mitigate gaps for students with disabilities, the most common responses included
an emphasis on collaboration (n=13) and networking, awareness, and outreach on the issues
students with disabilities face and ways to address them (n=11). Across the college, respondents
also noted that their department often participates in committees (n=11). Also commonly
reported were focusing on student needs and providing education and training to faculty and staff
in other departments. Respondents frequently mentioned more than one theme in their
comments. One participant, for example, described his department’s work with other
departments as, “By collaboarating [sic] and educating other department about the needs and
strategies of how to work with swd.” Another participant described inter-departmental work to
mitigate achievement gaps by responding, “Collaborative events, outreach to ensure students
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 85
with disabilities are connected with our office for support, training on best practices for working
with students with disabilities and case by case outreach as needed to other departments.” Full
results can be found in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15
How Respondents’ Department Works with Other Departments to Mitigate Gaps
Theme # %
Emphasis on collaboration 13 43%
Networking/awareness/outreach 11 37%
Provide training/education 8 27%
Focus on student needs 6 20%
Refer to other departments 6 20%
Support for students and faculty 6 20%
Participate in committees 6 20%
Internal meetings and discussions 3 10%

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 86
Table 16
How Respondents’ Department Works Across the College to Mitigate Gaps
Theme # %
Participate in committees 11 39%
Networking/awareness/outreach 10 36%
Emphasis on collaboration 8 29%
Focus on student needs 5 18%
Formal reviews/evaluations and reports 5 18%
Provide training/education 4 14%
Internal meetings and discussions 4 14%
Support for students and faculty 2 7%
Refer to other departments 1 4%
Other, N/A 1 4%

Transcripts from the phone interviews were analyzed for common themes. Table 17
outlines the different knowledge, motivational and organizational resources that respondents felt
were vital to providing support to students with disabilities. As can be seen in the table below,
support from above was commonly mentioned as something that was lacking and/or necessary
for success. These will be discussed in more detail below in the findings section. Some
statements taken from the interviews include:
“…[what’s] most frustrating and makes things harder is a lack of
understanding among some senior-level administrators about what we do and why
we do it and the mandates that say we're required to do it.”
“I am lucky in that I have a ton of support from higher administration…”
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 87
“…one thing that is difficult is the curriculum approval process is long
and arduous all the way going to the State Chancellor's level.”
“There are high level administrators at my college who have children with
disabilities. So, they're very in touch with the needs of our students with
disabilities.”
Table 17
Departmental Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Needs
Knowledge Motivational Organizational
· Clear understanding of the services
provided by these offices for faculty,
staff, and students
· Support from upper-level management
to approve services and funding
· Complete awareness and compliance
with state laws
· Consistent messaging about services
available
· Passion from
other
departments to
support
students with
disabilities
· Self-advocacy
to access
services
· Timely and streamlined
processes to offer relevant
courses, services, and
programs
· Collaboration between these
offices and other departments
that serve students
· Physical space to
accommodate students

Finally, Table 18 shows the main solutions identified by telephone interviewees in each
of the three areas. These will also be discussed below in the findings section, but three salient
statements about potential solutions are included below.
“Knowing their full experience makes me better at my job...”
“I think the concepts of universal design are phenomenal, and if we could just
teach everybody to be inclusive and utilize those concepts, we would be so much
further as a society.”
“No stigmas that create the barriers.”

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 88
Table 18
Participant-Identified Solutions to Identified KMO Needs
Knowledge Motivational Organizational
· Awareness campaigns for faculty
and non-disabled students about
the range of disabilities and how
to refer students with disabilities
· Involving legal counsel when
necessary to support expectations
of services that must be provided
· Holistic training or background
knowledge for faculty and staff
on all college-level services
available to students
· Offering courses or programs that
support specialized tutoring and
soft-skills (e.g. self-efficacy,
resume writing, interview tips)
· Including someone from these
offices in decision-making, such as
planning committees
· Reducing the stigma of having a
disability in order for faculty to
successfully support students and
for students to confidently seek out
services
· Sufficient funding
· More staff
· Consideration for
universal design in all
aspects of the campus

Findings
The qualitative data shed light on what California’s community college disability services
departments need to provide students with disabilities with the support necessary to address and
overcome the obstacles they face with the students they serve. The needs of the stakeholder
group of study can be categorized into three different areas: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources. Through the lens of these factors, the findings reveal that coordinators
believe they have the requisite knowledge and self-efficacy to mitigate achievement gaps, but
gaps are caused mainly by lack of metric-based goal setting and organizational factors in the
form of budget and culture.
Knowledge
Data was collected in order to determine whether several assumed knowledge influences
were, in fact, present in the organization of study. These factors include if and to what extend
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 89
DSPS coordinators understand the population that they serve, the interplay of DSPS offices and
other offices on campus and that providing additional scaffolded support to students with
disabilities is instrumental in their success within the California Community College system and
beyond in the California workforce. Both qualitative and quantitative data suggest that DSPS
coordinators understand the population the serve, have the knowledge to work seamlessly with
other departments to serve that population and know that providing additional support is
important in achieving departmental, college and state-wide imperatives to help students with
disabilities within their college communities. The survey and interview data suggest that
coordinators were most confident in the procedural and conceptual knowledge to serve students
with disabilities and to use this knowledge to mitigate gaps between students with disabilities
and their peers. By way of example, questions asking whether coordinators understand the
educational barriers faced by students seeking support and how to work with different offices to
mitigate challenges scored 4.78 and 4.70, respectively.
Sharing knowledge. While the quantitative data shows that DSPS coordinators believe
they have the knowledge to impact change for students with disabilities, the interviews show that
they hope to impart that knowledge to their individual colleges. Participants were all
enthusiastic about the idea of implementing disability training to their campus colleagues. One
respondent said, “I'd love to see our faculty be willing participants in workshops … I'd like to see
academic affairs support because they do certain types of training.” Another respondent hoped
for more opportunities to address the college at a high level. This respondent said:
We're going to spend an hour just on disabilities and students with disabilities, and
everyone's going to attend and it becomes a keynote; now I've got 430 people in the room
and I can start to make headway and I can say, “I'm happy to come to your departments
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 90
and talk about this further, but here's the nuts and bolts of what you need to know about
this.” But I can never get that past the group that decides what kind of training's going to
be done and what kind of keynote's going to be done.
Participants stated that they want college faculty to not only participate, but to do so willingly,
underscoring the hope to share disability knowledge with their colleagues. This desire to host
disability training to campus staff is reiterated by the second respondent but is also tempered by
her description of a gatekeeping committee that will not implement such training. While the
assumed knowledge influence was that DSPS coordinators have knowledge gaps, the survey and
the interviews show that DSPS coordinators believe that not only do they have the knowledge,
but they have the desire to impart this knowledge on their campus communities in order to make
sure that students, faculty and fellow administrators can be effective advocates for the students
with disabilities community.
Motivation
Self-efficacy and goal setting, the two motivational influences, were evaluated through
surveys and interviews within the stakeholder group of DSPS coordinators as they work to
mitigate gaps between students with disabilities and their peers in their offices, on campus and
statewide.
Self-efficacy. DSPS coordinators believe they can and will serve the community of
students with disabilities profoundly. Coordinators believe that absent of other influences outside
their control they can serve their students and work with their staff to impact change. This was
evident in the data as the participants discussed the work they do and how they interact with
students. One coordinator stated:
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 91
Oh, we've got a great department. We've got great people that are there to serve students,
the culture and that we help each other out. You know, sometimes I may have to do
something because somebody is out sick or you know, and vice versa. And, we just
collaborate, and we work as a team because the bottom line is to serve students. And, I
think that culture, that attitude comes from the coordinator, which transforms the
department and then, it goes out campus wide.
In this excerpt, the interviewee describes the importance and link between culture and self-
efficacy within their department and how this link can lead to positive results for students with
disabilities. These coordinators described an attitude of collaboration that positively impacts
their self-efficacy and leads to better results. One coordinator expanded on these results stating:
Participant: ... our students perform, you know, in terms of persistence and retention, at a
higher percent, at a higher rate than the general population.
Interviewer: That's great. What do you think contributes to that?
Participant: Oh, because they're accessing their accommodations. You know, their books
on audio, extended time on exams, counseling. So, I think because we're, our program is
more high touch and some of the general students, they don't necessarily, because a lot of
them are first generation, first to go to college, they're not aware of these kinds of
services or know how to access them. But, once students can get connected, because if
they have a disability, they're wanting services and actually, our students are great
ambassadors because if they're in a classroom and they see somebody struggling, they'll
mention to them, “Hey, have you ever thought about getting services through student
accessibility services?” So, whether they have a diagnosed disability or undiagnosed, our
students in the program, you know, tell other students.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 92
This participant described the seamless integration of positive culture and self- and departmental
advocacy, which shows the strong self-efficacy that is possible for these departments
statewide. These coordinators believe that they can empower their students through their
services, the utilization of these services and the emphasis of the effectiveness of this process in
this explanation showing their strong belief in their own ability to impact change.
DSPS coordinators described their own robust belief that they offer a unique and
compelling service, and this also positively impacts their self-efficacy surrounding their ability to
serve their student population. DSPS coordinators also described using their place in the
administrative hierarchy to advocate for students with disabilities. These strong statements
asserting their confidence in themselves and their departments show that DSPS coordinators
believed that they could achieve immediate change and positive impact for their students. One
coordinator, upon being asked if he felt empowered within his job to impact change, explained:
I'm going to say yes. For the most part. I mean, literally just had a student ... I was ... One
of my counselors said, "Clearly this student felt like they have got the runaround." So,
when that happens ... and I don't think that happens often, I think most students feel taken
care of. But if it happens, [I tell the student] "No, you're going to sit here, I'm going to
call. I'm going to call so and so right now at EOPS. Let's get this handled right now. I
don't want you to leave my office until we understand what you really need to do." Or
[regarding] financial aid, "Let's go ahead and find out what you really need to do at
financial aid, because I don't want you running back and forth. Let's find out exactly what
needs to happen.” So, I think that most ... I think that for the most part, students don't get
the runaround. I think they ... And I have faculty members or staff members come and
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 93
bring students to meet with me all the time. So, again, that warm hand-off is coming in
the other direction as well.
Through this “warm hand-off” and the participants’ description of their ability to do their jobs,
DSPS coordinators demonstrate their own confidence in their office, their services, and
therefore, their own self-efficacy. In the survey, DSPS coordinators also reported feeling
efficacious in their ability to mitigate achievement gaps between students with disabilities and
their peers. When asked in a survey if they believe they can help solve the problem of the
achievement gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers, DSPS
coordinators scored themselves a mean of 4.16 of 5. The highest level of possible self-efficacy
was 5, so a score of 4.16 means that most respondents felt highly efficacious. The data in the
survey responses is congruent with the themes uncovered through the qualitative interviews.
Goal orientation. The quantitative findings on goal orientation were echoed through
qualitative interviews, showing that while most DSPS coordinators have amorphous goals to
serve their student population, they lack SMART goals. One example of a global and
overarching goal without corresponding metrics is seen in one coordinator’s brief description of
the kind of goal his department might set. He stated, “OK, how can we make things better and
easier for our students' through the process, their requests, for a combination, so those are the
types of goals that we've been setting.” Despite a noble overarching goal, this response revealed
the lack of departmental metrics and SMART goals. Another respondent echoed this lack of
metric-based goals, stating, “Most of our goals are about our processing and making things more
efficient than existing, as opposed to 'we're going to have 10% more graduates,' because, you
probably are aware of this, some of our students do not take the 2 year pathway.” This second
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 94
coordinator also showed that her department uses the language of goal setting to create a mission
rather than create highly specific measurable goals.
DSPS coordinators are unified in their global goals to make accommodations more
accessible for their students, but as a population, they rely more on general goals rather than
highly specific and metric-based goals. One coordinator expanded on her department’s goal-
setting process and revealed that the goals they set lack concrete metrics. She stated:
We always have goals. We have program review that we do every year, and we have
departmental goals, but they're somewhat general. The goal of our department is to
seamlessly provide services and accommodations for students with disabilities … And
they're rather general. It's not like we have a goal we're going to serve 1300 students this
year.
In this quote, the participant tacitly acknowledges the lack of numerical goals and reveals that the
mission of service is overarching. The qualitative data parallels the quantitative data that DSPS
coordinators have a passion and mission to serve their population, but generally do not construct
SMART goals. Coordinators reported setting either very concrete or more holistic goals aimed at
improving the level of service for students with disabilities. Indeed, the creation of departmental
goals scored lower than most questions with a mean of 3.72.
Self-advocacy and referral goals. While often not a SMART goal, a theme of the goals
of the DSPS coordinators interviewed were goals surrounding self-advocacy, self-referral and
departmental advocacy. DSPS coordinators promote self- and departmental advocacy. One
coordinator explained that her department considered the encouragement of student self-
advocacy and self-referral to be a large goal that promotes not only the student’s interest, but
also helps the DSPS department run more smoothly. She stated:
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 95
Like one of our biggest goals is for students able to initiate or self-refer themselves to
services. And we want to do that by instructors, for example, adding more syllabus
statements about disability services, promoting the videos that we create about disability
services on their canvas pages, putting screens up all over this campus and basically
marketing our services out. And therefore, we track to see, "Hey, how did they refer? Did
they self-refer? Did they hear it from a sign on campus or something like that?" If I know
that, then they're self-initiating and asking for accommodation. So, like self-advocacy in a
way. One of our biggest ones.
The notion of self-advocacy for students with disabilities, self-referral and parlaying that into
departmental referrals was a common theme amongst the interviewed DSPS coordinators. In a
fundamental way, these DSPS coordinators rely on the students they serve both to advocate for
themselves within the classroom, college and their community, but to also advocate for the DSPS
office and its ability to serve students.
Organization
DSPS coordinators reported the greatest needs in the area of organizational resources.
The examined area of culture and organizational resources had the lowest quantitative scores and
were the focus of the qualitative interviews. Most DSPS coordinators reported positive culture
within their own department and a less positive culture throughout the rest of the college. The
lowest scoring questions were about whether the college has the organizational resources
necessary to support departmental goals and whether the college is willing to use these resources
to support departmental goals. The needed resources, according to respondents, are described in
more detail below.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 96
Resources. Just as with the quantitative survey, the greatest gap identified by participants
is that of organizational support, in particular in the area of resources needed by DSPS
departments. Even in the face of legal disputes and needs, DSPS coordinators feel a lack of
support. One coordinator explained the lack of money for even the most basic legal liability
issues and the administration’s “bottom-line” mentality, stating:
For instance, if it's administrative services, which it is most of the time, they're about the
bottom-line operating budget in campus and so their standard answer is, "We can't spend
this. We don't have this money," regardless of what the situation is. We could be up
against something which is required; for instance, we might need sign language
interpreters for an event, and the initial response is always going to be, "We can't afford
this. We don't have the money." And you have to explain to them that we have a
requirement to provide this and the litmus test that's going to be applied in court on undue
burden is never going to be something we're going to be able to defend.
Participants described organizational environments where, even in the face of debilitating legal
liability, administrators often will not budge, refusing to budget funds for certain kinds of legally
mandated disability services because they stated they could not afford it. That college
management consistently adopts a numbers-first approach was echoed amongst the majority of
the DSPS coordinators interviewed. Indeed, in the face of laws and policy changing the
California Community College on a yearly basis, many DSPS coordinators expressed the need
for additional resources in the face of these changes. One coordinator stated, “And the
community college district, especially ours and also in the state, there's a lot of change happening
now. A lot of us are trying to tread water just to make sure that we're not flooded.” While the
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 97
discussion of needs, mostly surrounds budget, the perceived or actual lack of funding impacted
discussions as far-ranging as legal and global change needs.
Individual department budgets were a reoccurring theme in both the survey and
interviews. Most participants described a lack of budget or individual budgetary resources as a
large problem. Most attributed any gap in service to a lack of budget or other monetary resource.
One coordinator explained:
I'll say for starters just in general, budget is an issue. Every year, we get an allocation
from the state. That allocation formula is being tested right now. There have been some
issues. They tabled using the new allocation formula and we basically got the same
amount of money that we did last year plus cost of living. However, even if that were
enough last year, cost of living would not equate to the amount of money that we have to
pay in contract for all increases for permanent staff. So, we're always getting behind. At
least in recent years, we've started that ... If cost of living isn't enough to pay for the
increases that are contractual, you're already in deficit before the year starts. The other
thing that gets in the way is, and I recently had a conversation with our VP of admin
about this, is that they get information from us. We're required to do an operational plan.
Usually, we turn it in some time in February, and it's for the following year. And what
gets in the way is that we look at what we expect to get from the funding that we get, this
year there were a variety of different changes in how funding is articulated and computed
and calculated and we put in what we believe is a realistic view of where we're going to
be and we always cite if we think we're going to be in deficit, how much we're going to
need. And the initial responses were, “Well, you can't project a deficit. You have to live
within your budget.” And the comment that I'm now coming back to more and more
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 98
often is, “Why do you believe that we're able to live within our budget from year to year?
We're not.” And they're aware of that, but it keeps coming back up because every year
we're a little more in deficit.
This description of the internal roadblocks to comprehensive service funding reveals
organizations and management teams that take reactive approaches to budgeting. This quote
explains and exemplifies that a lack of budget resources can lead to significant problems such as
lack of seamless integration with an operational plan and not being able to adequately staff an
office. This comment was echoed in most interviews, as each interview addressed a lack of funds
or space in some meaningful way while all being subsidized in different ways by their individual
colleges.
As the deficit of these offices grow, so does the lack of ability to provide different
services such as additional counselor support, physical space for testing and these much-needed
counselors and specific special education tutoring. Lack of counselors and space systemwide is a
problem. One coordinator spoke of the need for both more counselors and more corresponding
physical space as services expand. He said, “[We need] more part-time counselors. Now we have
two full-time counselors; we need more. So, we need more space. So, space is an issue.” The
ability to serve more students better was linked to increased funding for services in most
interviews. Indeed, other DSPS coordinators spoke of the need for funding for other specialized
services, stating that the office needs
Not just math and English. And not just generalized tutoring. But we need specialized
tutoring. Like someone that can really be patient with the student. Just deal with the
anger, the swings in emotions if they're not getting a problem correct. The ability to be
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 99
patient and repeat yourself in multiple ways, and in different ways, and try explaining
things differently. Showing with visuals, auditory instruction, whatever works.
In an office that serves many different disabilities, highly specialized tutoring was reported as
often being a costly necessity and, very often, an unfulfilled need. While most participants
described budget as a significant problem, a variety of participants also explored what the budget
would allow. The DSPS coordinators agreed that gap in service could be attributed to lack of
organizational support in the form of funding.
Culture. Another organizational factor discussed in the interviews was that of the
contrasting impact of college and departmental culture. DSPS coordinators either attribute
success to good culture or lack of efficacy to bad culture. One DSPS coordinator who feels
“fortunate” to work in a college with good work culture explained the impact of good culture on
self-efficacy by stating:
I feel very fortunate that I get to work at a place that's always thinking ahead like this. So
therefore, the culture is very much looking ahead, thinking ahead, looking for
efficiencies, looking for better ideas. It's very progressive is how I would describe it. It's
also, the team here is fantastic. Everybody works really well together, is very supportive.
It's pretty wonderful.
In this response, the DSPS coordinator described a progressive, positive and innovative culture
leading to better ideas, more teamwork and better results. This coordinator attributed innovation
and effectiveness to the positive culture of her college. In contrast, another DSPS coordinator
highlighted the importance of positive culture by illustrating the negative culture and its outcome
on his college campus. The DSPS coordinator stated:
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 100
And then, I also feel the lack of patience among general faculty and general staff. I often
notice that people are reluctant to help DSPS students if they're coming across as high
needs or will require additional time. We often have people sending our students back to
us, you know, for help with financial aid, for help with registration, for help with areas
that we're not expert in.
This quote underscores the importance of culture to DSPS departments, which must work with
other campus departments to effectively serve the many needs that students with disabilities face
such as financial aid; many participants described the lack of positive campus culture negatively
impacting DSPS students. DSPS coordinators described their reliance on a culture of respect and
desire to help students with disabilities in order to more appropriately, profoundly, and
effectively serve students with disabilities on their campuses. On campuses on which DSPS
coordinators report a negative mindset and culture and lack of patience and advocacy
surrounding students with disabilities, DSPS coordinators felt less positive about student
outcomes. Therefore, students with disabilities and their DSPS offices rely on good campus
culture for the student and offices’ success.
Synthesis
By and large, DSPS coordinators believe that they have the knowledge and self-efficacy
to mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. The two
main themes that emerged from the data is goal-setting and organizational culture and resources.
In the following chapter, these influences will be discussed, and recommendations will be
proposed. The proposed recommendations will address knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that the studied stakeholder group and their organizations can utilize to
more profoundly serve students with disabilities.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 101
CHAPTER 5

Introduction and Overview

The recommendations here are utilizing the framework of knowledge, motivation and
organization and are designed to address the gaps seen between students with disabilities and
their non-disabled peers. The following sections will outline in detail recommendations based on
this framework in addition using the Kirkpatrick New World (2016) model will provide and
outline how to evaluate the recommendations and align with organizational goals.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge type in providing and facilitating the additional support for students is
largely conceptual. In order to reach stakeholder goals, procedural and conceptual knowledge
was measured in the stakeholder group using surveys and interviews. Table 19 shows, the
organizational mission, organizational goal, and information that is specific to knowledge
influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence assessments. As Figure _ indicates, both
procedural and conceptual knowledge were examined to assess the knowledge influence of the
DSPS administrators in the California Community College System.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 102
Table 19
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
DSPS officials needs to
know how to work with
different offices and
students to impact
change and mitigate
against achievement
gaps and create a more
inclusive campus. (P)
N N N/A

The data shows that the
DSPS coordinators have
this knowledge and are
exercising this
knowledge. No
intervention is needed.
DSPS officials need to
know that providing
additional support to
students with disabilities
in seeking employment,
providing them with early
experiences with work
and coordinating between
employers in the
community leads to better
outcomes for students
with disabilities seeking
jobs and aligns them with
current state laws. (C)
N N N/A The data shows that the
DSPS coordinators have
this knowledge and are
exercising this
knowledge. No
intervention is needed.
DSPS coordinators and
staff would benefit from
specialized knowledge
about changing state law.
(C)
Y N Connect new
information
with factual
knowledge
(Mayer,
2011).
Offer yearly online
specialized trainings in
advances in laws that
impact the DSPS
offices.
DSPS coordinators need
opportunities to educate
the campus community
about the issues facing the
population that DSPS
serves. (C)
Y N Provide tasks
that promote
selecting,
organizing,
and
integrating
(Mayer,
2011).
Give yearly
opportunities for DSPS
coordinators to address
the campus community
and teach about issues
facing people with
disabilities on their
campuses.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 103
Procedural knowledge solutions. Research suggests there may be a procedural
knowledge gap in how DSPS coordinators work with other student support services throughout
their campus. The results and findings of this study indicate that disability services providers do,
in fact, have the procedural knowledge on how to work with different offices in order to fully
realize their organizational mission of mitigating achievement gaps and creating a more inclusive
campus. Further, collected data suggested that DSPS coordinators feel empowered to effectively
advocate for their student population throughout their campuses. DSPS coordinators rated their
procedural knowledge as extremely high and the phone interviews revealed an empowered
population who have the knowledge and advocacy skills to work seamlessly within their
universities. As this study indicates that DSPS coordinators have the procedural knowledge to
serve their student population, no recommendation will be given for this influence.
Conceptual knowledge solutions. The results of the findings of this study indicate that
disability services coordinators of the California Community College system have the measured
conceptual knowledge to provide additional support to students with disabilities in seeking
employment, providing these students with early experiences with work and coordinating
between employers in the community which leads to better outcomes for students with
disabilities seeking jobs. DSPS coordinators were confident in their conceptual knowledge and
report using this knowledge to serve their student populations effectively. While conceptual
knowledge was an anticipated gap, the data collected through quantitative surveys and
qualitative interviews revealed that this stakeholder group has the conceptual knowledge
required to achieve the stakeholder goal.
Interestingly, the data revealed two knowledge gaps that were not purposefully examined
that the DSPS coordinators need in order to be more successful in serving the student population.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 104
The first gap was with conceptual and procedural knowledge that closely relate to each other.
Specifically, DSPS coordinators need more highly specialized legal knowledge and the ability to
impart self-advocacy and population-based knowledge to the campus community on a regular
basis.
The data revealed that DSPS coordinators need more opportunities to impart knowledge
campus-wide about the unique issues impacting students with disabilities. This study selected a
theory rooted in information processing theory to close this knowledge gap. Mayer (2011) found
that providing tasks that promote selecting, organizing, and integrating can aid in knowledge
retention and application. This suggests that giving the campus community opportunities to
understand the population of students with disabilities within a wider context may help with
knowledge acquisition. The administrators and officers of the DSPS must know that if an
environment is constructed to be highly inclusive, then students can be seamlessly integrated into
the “fabric of the university” (Huger, 2011, p. 5). To serve the students and seamlessly integrate
them into the institution, DSPS administrators must have a plan and the knowledge required to
coordinate with other offices on campus to mitigate against achievement gaps (Huger, 2011).
Getzel (2008) writes, “Several services and supports are key to the retention of students with
disabilities, such as developing self-determination skills, self-management skills, exploring
technology, and obtaining internships or other career-related experiences” (p. 78). DSPS
administrators must have the opportunity and imperative to discuss issues facing students with
disabilities beyond their offices.
In analyzing other assumed knowledge gaps, the data revealed a gap in highly specialized
knowledge. While DSPS coordinators have the basic knowledge and advocacy skills to connect
students with other services, respondents asked for specialized knowledge such as legal updates
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 105
as laws are rapidly changing. The study selected to close this conceptual knowledge gap is
rooted in cognitive load theory. Mayer (2011) found that connecting new information with
factual knowledge can help in conceptual knowledge acquisition and retention. This means that
when imparting new knowledge, using past knowledge is helpful and could allow DSPS
coordinators to be even more effective in serving students with disabilities. Considering this, the
recommendation is to provide DSPS coordinators regular trainings on new law and policy.
Motivation Recommendations
Table 20
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
DSPS coordinators
feel efficacious in
their ability to
mitigate gaps
between students
with disabilities and
their peers. (Self-
efficacy)

N Y Self-Efficacy: High
self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares,
2006).
The data shows that
the DSPS
coordinators are
efficacious. No
intervention is
needed.
DSPS make
SMART goals, but
not as uniform or
specific as they
could be in their
creation. (Goal
attainment theory)

Y Y Encourage people to set
specific goals (Dembo
& Eaton, 2000) and
measurable
performance goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Provide goal-directed
practice coupled with
frequent, accurate,
credible, targeted and
private feedback on
progress in learning and
performance
(Pajares, 2006).
DSPS coordinators
to make SMART
goals related to their
student population
(including
workforce
preparedness, stigma
reduction and
advocacy) with
specific metrics
along with regular
private feedback on
performance
achievement.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 106

Training modules to increase self-efficacy surrounding students with disabilities.
While this study anticipated a gap in self-efficacy, the data reveals DSPS coordinators are
generally motivated. Pajares (2006) found that high self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006). This would suggest that the fact that DSPS coordinators have high
self-rated self-efficacy would lead to motivation and positive results for the student population
they serve.
In a study in the Netherlands, Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2002) found that special
education teachers’ self‐efficacy beliefs are related to their burnout levels and ability to make
positive impact with their students. Teachers with high self‐efficacy are more prepared to
experiment with and implement new educational practices than others (Evers, Brouwers, &
Tomic, 2002). In examining the motivations with DSPS officials, self-efficacy is
imperative. The fact that DSPS coordinators believe that they can help students with disabilities
on their campuses will lead to better outcomes for students with disabilities across the California
Community College campuses.
SMART goals around workforce preparedness. Due to ever-changing laws, goals and
policies, DSPS lack the specificity and uniformity in SMART goals surrounding preparedness
for students with disabilities, stigma reduction and empowering their students through self-
advocacy. A recommendation rooted in goal attainment theory has been selected to close this
knowledge gap. Clark & Estes (2008) and Dembo & Eaton (2000) found success in encouraging
people to set specific and measurable goals. Parajes (2006) found the importance of providing
goal-directed practice coupled with frequent, accurate, credible, targeted and private feedback on
progress in learning and performance. This suggests that both the creation and execution of
highly specific and uniform SMART goals could lesson motivational problems and encourage
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 107
organizational achievement. The recommendation is to provide DSPS officials SMART goals
related to student workforce preparedness, stigma reduction and self-advocacy along with regular
private feedback on performance achievement. This combination of goal creation and regular
private feedback can negate motivational issues stemmed in goal attainment.
McCollum & Kajs (2009) found that goal orientation theory is a key element in success
in educational leadership. In a study of 326 principal candidates and early career principals,
McCollum & Kajs (2009) found that goal orientation theory is an extremely viable model of
success in educational leadership and administrative settings. These findings indicate that within
the upper levels of leadership in the California Community College disability services
departments, goal attainment theory may be utilized to combat motivational issues and allow for
more organizational success. Therefore, creating and providing SMART goals would support
institutional goals surrounding the population of students with disabilities.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Cultural setting influences play an important role in the construction of
context-specific recommendations. The data reveals that organizational influences contribute to
the gaps in service and achievement between students with disabilities and their non-disabled
peers. The recommendations are aligned and informed by the setting and influence. This can be
seen in Table 21 below.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 108
Table 21
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting:
There needs to be
system-wide
organizational
economic imperative
to support students
with disabilities and
their ability to find
jobs in the California
job market.
Y Y Budget must align
with
organizational
goals and
missions to
mitigate against
performance gaps
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
The California
Community College
System should increase
the budget of DSPS
offices systemwide so
these offices can more
profoundly serve students
with disabilities.
Cultural Setting: The
individual DSPS
offices should have
the policies, methods
and practices needed
to counsel the
students with
disabilities that
attend their offices
for support.

Y Y Effective leaders
address
institutional
policies and
practices that
create barriers for
equity (Bensimon,
2005).
Remove policies,
methods and practices
that are barriers to DSPS
counseling students with
disabilities who attend
their offices for support.

Budget cuts have negatively impacted access, performance and service of students
with disabilities. Many DSPS offices do not receive the economic support they need to provide
necessary support and counseling for students with disabilities. The lack of budget for this type
of support leads to gaps between students with disabilities and their non-disabled counterparts. A
tool for helping understand and overcome this barrier can be found in the cultural settings model.
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that the budget must align with organizational goals and mission
to mitigate against performance gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) further suggest that the
systemwide budget should align fully with organizational goals in order to mitigate against
outcome gaps so that offices may serve more students more effectively. The recommendation is
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 109
for the organization to increase the budget of DSPS offices systemwide so they can more
profoundly serve students with disabilities. Another budget-related recommendation is for
individual campuses to plan on funding offices when their state budget is not sufficient.
In a report commissioned by the Public Policy Institute of California, Bohn, Reyes and
Johnson (2013) found that the decrease in the budget of the California Community College
System has had a detrimental impact on the outcomes of students, particularly historically
marginalized students. These budget cuts have decreased access to this system for historically
underserved groups. Bohn, Reyes and Johnson (2013) found that “77 percent of administrators
said that cuts in state funding had a strong impact on students’ academic experience” (p. 2). This
research shows that budget cuts have a dramatic impact on the cultural setting of the California
Community College campuses, and that increasing the budget would benefit the institutions and
educational outcomes. Both individual campuses and statewide budget offices should adequately
fund DSPS offices as the data revealed resource problems as a chief concern among DSPS
coordinators.
Policies and practices for a more equitable outcome. Some DSPS offices do not have
official, public and distributed policies, methods and practices to address the barriers for students
with disabilities who seek support in their offices. A recommendation rooted in cultural settings
theory can close this gap. Bensimon (2005) states that effective leaders address institutional
policies and practices that create barriers for equity. This suggests that more appropriate and
effective policies and practices lead to a more equitable outcome. The recommendation is to
remove policies, methods and practices that are barriers to DSPS counseling students with
disabilities who attend their offices for support. DSPS coordinators cited the following barriers
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 110
as issues facing their student population: academic, financial, ongoing health concerns, physical
access, organizational barriers, and lack of support.
Tovar (2014) discusses the importance of administrators in student success and intention
to persist in an underserved population. Stanton-Salazar (2001) states that such administrators
have a “determining role in either reproducing or interfering with the reproduction of class,
racial, and gendered inequality” (p. 161). Stanton-Salazar (2001) goes further by outlining
essential policies, methods and procedures that make these administrators “empowered” and
allows these administrators to provide guidance to underserved populations that would allow
these students to “transform themselves, their communities, and society as a whole” (p. 1068).
In order to establish policy that is congruent with the study’s results and findings as well as the
literature, DSPS offices statewide or on individual campuses could consider holistic approaches
and solutions that consider the barriers faced to the students seeking support within their offices.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed the implementation and evaluation framework is the New
World Kirkpatrick model. In this model, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) outline a
framework for implementing change by starting with overarching organizational goals and
working backwards towards smaller solutions. This way of constructing goals and identifying
the immediate solutions needed for these large institutional goals is a way of constructing and
creating “buy in” and success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The four steps of the
Kirkpatrick (2006) model are 1. reaction 2. learning 3. behavioral change 4. organizational
performance. These four steps will be discussed in detail with organizational, purpose, need, and
expectations in mind.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 111
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
An organizational mission and imperative of the California Community College System
is to allow access and education to students who would not traditionally have access to higher
education. With this overarching mission in mind, the DSPS offices seek to mitigate gaps
between persons with disabilities and their non-disabled peers and provide the legal
accommodations that put students with disabilities on an equal playing field as their non-disabled
peers. A goal of this department is to decrease gaps with students with disabilities and their
peers. The reason this goal was selected is because it aligns both with organizational and
departmental goals of allowing students with disabilities to access higher education, succeed
within the California Community College System and graduate with employment in the
California job market.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 22 shows level 4 goals and the metrics and methods necessary to complete and
achieve said goals. This table shows how outcomes, metrics and methods seamlessly align to
produce external and internal outcomes.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 112
Table 22

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Community College removes policies,
methods and practices that are barriers
to DSPS counseling students with
disabilities who attend their offices
for support.
Number of students
receiving counseling
within DSPS per
organizational
databases.
Information is already
collected as part of
procedures in
organizational
databases.
More participation of students with
disabilities in the California job
market.
Increase internship
opportunities for students
with disabilities.
Information is already
collected as part of
procedures.
Internal Outcomes
Community College increases budget
of DSPS offices systemwide to
target students with disabilities.
Percentage of budget
increase in funding
dollars targeting students
with disabilities
Track community
college budgeting
patterns across the
system.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), critical behaviors
are specific, observable, and achievable. Additionally, they are defined in terms that connect
them to the outcome. A critical behavior is any behavior that is unacceptable not to
perform. Critical behaviors are performed by the stakeholder of focus, or “primary training
audience” (p. 52). The critical behavior in the case at hand are these specific, observable and
achievable action items that are required to support level 4 organizational goals.
Table 23 shows critical behaviors as they relate to metrics, methods and timing. This
table shows how critical behaviors are supported by metric and methods, and the timing of these
behaviors.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 113
Table 23

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
DSPS works with different
offices on campus to make
systemic goals and increase
budgets around students with
disabilities.
Number of new systemic
goals related to budget
increase for students will
disabilities.

Groups and
Meetings.
90 days
DSPS creates groups to study
students with problems and
support front-facing
administrators of this problem.
Number of groups created to
study students with problems
and support front-facing
administrators of this
problem.

Data will be
collected via
the group.
Every
90 days.

Required drivers. The required drivers reinforce, encourage, reward, and
monitor. “These four components operate together to drive performance of critical behaviors on
the job (p. 53).” Required drivers fall under two broader categories: support and accountability
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The four types of required drivers are not mutually
exclusive: a weekly team meeting could address all four dimensions. Finally, required drivers
are a customized and integrate package tailored to the organization under study. Table 24 shows
the drivers of the studied organization and how they relate to timing and critical behaviors.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 114
Table 24
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing

Provide DSPS with contacts in other offices systemwide to
impact change and mitigate against achievement gaps and create
a more inclusive campus. (P)
Trainings
quarterly.
1,2
Provide DSPS additional support to students with disabilities. (C) Ongoing. 1,2
Encouraging

Provide DSPS SMART goals around workforce preparedness in
their student population. (Goal attainment theory)

1x per year. 1,2
Rewarding

Provide DSPS a System-wide organizational economic
imperative to support students with disabilities and their ability to
find jobs in the California job market.
Budget
process
1,2
Provide DSPS Policies, methods and practices needed to counsel
the students with disabilities that attend their offices for support.

1x per year 1,2
Monitoring

Other Campus offices and budget provide organizational and
service support.
Ongoing. 1,2

Organizational support. The DSPS offices need to be supported by other campus
offices and the budget. While students may seek guidance and support about their disability from
various DSPS offices, they also may seek this support from other offices on campus, professors
and other members of the community. For this, it is an organizational imperative that these
offices work together to support these students and the main point of contact, DSPS. This goal
can be accomplished through goal setting, budget process and strategic planning.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The DSPS coordinators need to be able to:

1. Know that there is a gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
(D)
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 115
2. Know concrete steps on how to mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and
their non-disabled peers. (D)
3. Train members of their own department on workforce readiness. (P)
4. Connect with other departments on campus in order to more profoundly serve students
with disabilities. (P)
5. Engage in trainings regularly. (P, confidence)
6. Believe that trainings, other scaffolding and increased budget can close the gap between
students with disabilities and their peers (attitude)
Program. The program recommended is connected and aligned with organizational and
departmental goals. The program is designed to integrate seamlessly within the contact
administrators already have with their staff and that the staff already has with the students which
they serve. The program will be intensive for the first year and then ongoing. The entire
program will be designed through the Clark and Estes (2006) knowledge, motivational and
organizational framework. All sessions will be mandatory, collaborative and essential for gap
mitigation.
The first step to the creation of a new training is the budget, organizational support,
human capital, and buy-in from the various departments that support students with disabilities. A
dedicated budget is required to support these trainings which is discussed in detail in earlier steps
of this training protocol. The training will be designed to support higher ordered thinking with
an emphasis on conceptual and metacognitive knowledge so the trainees will begin to grapple
with their own thinking, thereby internalizing the material and concepts (Anderson & Krathwohl,
et al., 2000). Metacognitive learning will be emphasized through learning goals and outcomes
that focus on creation and reflection (Anderson & Krathwohl, et al., 2000).
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 116
Given the logistics of 114 community college campuses and the demanding schedules of
the stakeholders, online trainings must be utilized. An online platform like Zoom can allow for
meaningful collaboration, dialogue, and reflection that aligns with the goal of metacognitive
learning. Materials will be housed in the Google suite so that participants can refer back and the
instructor can give live real-time feedback. The fact that trainees can revisit learning materials
promotes metacognition and reflection. The Google suite will also promote group accountability
and collaboration.
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is important to ensure that DSPS
administrators have the requisite declarative and procedural knowledge in order to accomplish
the required drivers as well as the external and internal goals. The DSPS administrators should
also have the confidence and appropriate attitude to accomplish the program goals. Table 25 lists
the methods and activities that will be used to evaluate the components of the listed learning
goals.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 117
Table 25
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge check through formative questioning. Throughout
trainings.
Trainer checking knowledge as administrators/trainees are trained. Throughout
trainings.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Skill checks by hypothetical scenarios using an organizational chart. Throughout training.
Skill check in simulating interacting with students. Throughout training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Group discussions throughout training to increase group buy in. Throughout training.
Post trainings calls and emails increase group buy in. After training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Create calendar of trainings both informal and formal. Yearly.
Create email chain for support. Once and monitor
throughout.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Encouraging reflective journaling can increase metacognition and
efficacy.
In training and after.
Creation of SMART goals during training groups can increase
motivation and ability to make positive change.
During training.

Level 1: Reaction
It is also important to determine how participants react to the learning events outlined.
Table 26 lists the methods that will be used to determine how and when the participants will
react to the learning events.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 118
Table 26
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Observation by instructor. During training.
Formative peer feedback. During group work.
Attendance At start of training.
Questioning throughout the trainings. Throughout training.
Periodic Pulse Checks. Throughout training.
Relevance

Post session surveys. After sessions.
Follow up group emails. Periodically after sessions.
Customer Satisfaction

Periodic Pulse Checks. During and through informal conversations.
Post survey. After sessions.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Six weeks after the training as
outlined above and then after 15 weeks, the trainer will administer a survey to ensure that
learning goals and outcomes were achieved and that no follow up is needed. This survey will
use blended evaluation to measure the training’s effectiveness from the DSPS coordinators’
perspectives. It will evaluate the perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1),
trainees’ confidence (Level 2), and application of the training and support (Level 3). This survey
can be found in Appendix C.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The level 4 goal is measured
by how DSPS coordinators mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and their non-
disabled peers in workforce readiness classes. The instrument will evaluate the effectiveness of
the program and serve as a monitoring tool. The tool will evaluate sustained learning as seen
through the Kirkpatrick model that was utilized in creating the learning system. This tool is
outlined in Appendix D.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 119
Data Analysis and Reporting
After the two instruments are administered, the result will be represented in the form of
charts. Charts will graphically represent the results of the immediate and delayed instruments
and will allow for data comparison, analysis, and reporting. Appendix E shows these charts and
the graphic representation of the data compiled in the instruments detailed in the previous two
sections. Below Figure 6 shows a chart that illustrates the theoretical equity return on the
stakeholder performance goal.

Figure 6. Return on Equity in Mitigating Gaps for Students with Disabilities
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the
recommendations given to the DSPS coordinators in the California Community College System
on how to mitigate gaps between disabled students and their non-disabled peers. This framework
will be used continually to monitor progress and align all steps with high-level organizational
goals. Using the Kirkpatrick Model will ensure all steps will support the ultimate goal of
mitigating the gaps of students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. This will allow the
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 120
California Community College to be more profoundly aligned with their mission of giving
access to students who would not ordinarily have access and be successful in higher education.
A quantitative survey and qualitative interview revealed that there are knowledge,
motivational and organizational factors that need to be addressed in order for DSPS coordinators
to play their essential role in mitigating the gap between students with disabilities and their non-
disabled peers. These factors will then be used to inform the creation or solutions.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model informs and is informed by the Clark and Estes
knowledge, motivation and organization framework. Solutions were formed utilizing both of
these frameworks. The New World Kirkpatrick Model instructs us to first look at overarching
institutional goals and the results the organization would like to obtain. In the case at hand, the
result is to mitigate the gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
Next, the New World Kirkpatrick Model asks us to look at behaviors that inform these
results. Finally, this model asks us to look at the reactions and learning that inform behaviors
and therefore results. As outlined in the preceding sections, the DSPS coordinators will use this
model to align their results, behaviors, reactions and learning to mitigate the gaps of students
with disabilities in particular in workforce readiness classes. This model will allow the DSPS
coordinators to streamline and focus on the results desired. This will also set in place a
framework for future gap mitigation.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Clark and Estes (2008) Approach
Methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model allows evaluate gaps in achievement through the lens of knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences. The strength of this approach that through this lens, organizations
can be studied and very practical and streamlined next steps are able to be made. A weakness of
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 121
this approach is the myopia of looking at a comprehensive organizational problem through such
a concrete lens. In the case at hand, the Clark and Estes (2008) approach allowed for a study of
all 114 DSPS offices in the California Community College system in a relatively short amount of
time. This approach also allowed for recommendations that can be utilized system wide. A
weakness would be that this study did not present findings beyond the Clark and Estes (2008)
lens.
Future Research
This study can lead to more research, better outcomes and more profound service of
people with disabilities. While the research into this field that would benefit the population of
students with disabilities served is seemingly limitless, the study findings indicate that a look
into laws and organizational resource allocation would be most beneficial in mitigating gaps
between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. The results of this study suggest
that future research can examine whether California state law, particularly in higher education,
aligns with statewide goals and how California Community college goals can more appropriately
inform state law. Another possible area of future research is the powerful link between service,
legislation, law and policy, and a final opportunity for future research would be promising
practice research in organizations whose resource allocation aligns with goals for students or
employees with disabilities.
Conclusion
The problem examined is that students with disabilities aren’t accessing, succeeding,
graduating and securing employment out of the California Community College system at the
same rate as other non-disabled students. This study chose the stakeholder group of DSPS
coordinators in the 114 DSPS offices of the California Community College System for a
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 122
statewide study on how to mitigate gaps for students with disabilities through the lens of the
offices and administrators who serve them. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework
was utilized to organize, study and suggest recommendations based on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that influence the performance gap. The research revealed
that DSPS coordinators have the knowledge and high self-efficacy, but lack the organizational
support, resources and highly specific goals and metrics to serve students with disabilities on
their campus. Recommendations where then designed in order to ensure that these coordinators
have the goals and resources needed to more profoundly and effectively serve their student
populations thus being even more aligned with the inspirational organizational mission of the
California Community College System.
The California Community College system DSPS offices are “all about equity and
making sure any student can reach his or her full potential. DSPS assists students with
disabilities so they have equal access to all educational programs and activities on campus”
(cite). This study aims to inform the offices on how to more effectively and seamlessly ensure
that each of its students can reach his or her potential. Between the 114 DSPS offices, the
California Community College system educates, accommodates and advocates for 121,854
students with disabilities. This system informs and is informed by law and policy on students
with disabilities in higher education. The hope of this research is to provide information on how
these offices and this organization as a whole can continue to serve the current student
population, allow more students to access, graduate and become successful participants in the
California job market, and to be a small step in the advocacy for progressive principles that
benefit students with disabilities and all people, such as universal design. The aim is for law,
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 123
policy and organization to support all students, particularly those students who are underserved
and historically marginalized.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 124
References
Adreon, D., & Durocher, J. S. (2007). Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(5),
271–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070420050201
Ahmad, F., Abbas, T., Latif, S., & Rasheed, A. (2014). Impact of transformational leadership on
employee motivation in telecommunication sector. Journal of Management Policies and
Practices, 2(2), 11–25. Retrieved from
http://jmppnet.com/journals/jmpp/Vol_2_No_2_June_2014/2.pdf
Allinder, R. (1994). The Relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86–
95.
Ames, C. (1990). The relationship of achievement goals to student motivation in classroom
settings. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston,
MA.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2016). Disability support services in community
colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/projectreach/Pages/surveyofcc.aspx
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., et al. (2000). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice.
Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 125
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher
education: Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Bensimon, E. M., & Kezar, A. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. Organizational Learning in Higher Education,
2005(131). 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Bohn, S, Reyes, B., & Johnson, H. (2013) The impact of budget cuts on California’s community
colleges, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco. Retrieved Aug. 5, 2019,
from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1048
Broido, E. M. (2014). Engaging students with disabilities. In Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.).
(2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations (pp. 187–208). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, K. R. (2017). Accommodations and support services for students with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD): A national survey of disability resource providers. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 141–156. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/kirsten_r_brown/6/

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 126
Cahalan, M., Perna, L. W., Yamashita, M., Wright, J., & Santillan, S. (2018). 2018 Indicators of
higher education equity in the United States: Historical trend report. Washington, DC:
The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for
Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of
the University of Pennsylvania.
California Community Colleges. (2013). California community college system strategic plan.
Retrieved from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/
2013Strategic Plan_062013.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2012). Frequently asked questions.
Retrieved from http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/EOPS
CARE/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017). Facts sheet. Retrieved from
https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/SSSP/DSPS/Fact%20Sheets/DSPS-FactSheet-2017-
Accessible.pdf
California Community Colleges (2018). Disabled student programs and services (DSPS).
Retrieved from http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/DSPS.aspx
California State Auditor (2017). California community colleges: Report 2017-102. Retrieved
from https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2017-102/sections.html
Carter, E., Trainor, A. A., Cakiroglu, O., Cole, O., Swedeen, B., Ditchman, N., & Owens, L. A.
(2009). Exploring school-employer partnerships to expand career development and early
work experiences for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 145–159. https://doi.org/0.1177/0885728809344590
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 127
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Coordinator of Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS). (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.edjoin.org/Home/JobPosting/545529
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deuchert, E., Kauer, L., Liebert, H., & Wuppermann, C. (2014). No disabled student left behind?
Evidence from a field experiment. Retrieved from
http://www.iwaee.org/PaperValidi2014/20140225165900_paper.pdf
Doren, B., Murray, C., & Gau, J. (2014). Salient predictors of school dropout among secondary
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4),
150–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12044
DSPS (Disabled students programs and services). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-
and-Support/Special-Populations/What-we-do/Disabled-Student-Programs-and-Services
Dutta, A., Kundu, M., & Schiro-Geist, C. (2009). Coordination of postsecondary transition
services for students with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(1), 10–17. Retrieved
from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Coordination+of+postsecondary+transition+
services+for+students+with...-a0196534321
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Gen. Ed.) & E.
M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4) (pp. 643–691). New
York, NY: Wiley.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 128
Emery, A., Sanders, M., Anderman, L. H., & Yu, S. L. (2017). When mastery goals meet
mastery learning: Administrator, teacher, and student perceptions. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1341863
Erickson, W., Lee, C., & von Schrader, S. (2014). 2012 disability status report: United States.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Yang Tan Institute.
Evers, W., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’
beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(20), 227–243.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158865
Fichten, C. S., Jorgensen, S., Havel, A., Barile, M., Ferraro, V., Landry, M. E., & Asuncion J.
(2012). What happens after graduation? Outcomes, employment, and recommendations
of recent junior/community college graduates with and without disabilities. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 34, 917–924. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.626488
Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., King, L., Jorgensen, M., Budd, J., Asuncion, J., ... & Marcil, E. (2018).
Are you in or out? Canadian students who register for disability-related services in
junior/community colleges versus those who do not. Journal of Education and Human
Development, 7(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v7n1a19
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fleming, A. R., Plotner, A. J., & Oertle, K. M. (2017). College students with disabilities: The
relationship between student characteristics, the academic environment, and performance.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(3), 209–221. Retrieved from
ERIC (EJ1163997). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1163997.pdf
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 129
Gabel, S. L., Reid, D., Pearson, H., Ruiz, L., & Hume-Dawson, R. (2015, May 4). Disability and
diversity on CSU websites: A critical discourse study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education [Advance online publication.] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039256
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garrison-Wade, D. F. (2012). Listening to their voices: Factors that inhibit or enhance
postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 27, 113–125. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982866.pdf
Getzel, 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. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-11-4
Ghorbanhosseini, M. (2013). The effect of organizational culture, teamwork and organizational
development on organizational commitment: The mediating role of human capital.
Tehnicki vjesnik, 20(6), 1019–1025. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27b4/324d103474ce96fa19a33c25af26b179a675.pdf
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In C. Glesne (Ed.),
Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162–183). Boston, MA:
Pearson.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 130
Goldberg, M., Cooper, R., Milleville, M., Barry, A., & Schein, M. (2015). Ensuring success for
veterans with disabilities in STEM degree programs: Recommendations from a workshop
and case study of an evidence-based transition program. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 16(1), 16–24. Retrieved from http://ojs.jstem.org/index.
php?journal=JSTEM&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1841
Guskey, T. R., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). In search of a useful definition of mastery.
Educational Leadership 71(4), 18–23. Retrieved from
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/10
Hadley, W. (2017). The four-year college experience of one student with multiple learning
disabilities. College Student Journal, 51(1), 19–28. Retrieved from
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/csj/2017/00000051/00000001/art00003
Herbert, J. T., Hong, B. S., Byun, S. Y., Welsh, W. A., Kurz, C., & Atkinson, H. (2014).
Persistence and graduation of college students seeking disability support services.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22–32. Retrieved from https://www.kon.org/
urc/v14/dent.html
Hoggatt, M. J. (2016). Access in community college policy: An examination of the social and
political space afforded disabled students in California community college policies.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(10), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1216475
Hong, B. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities
experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56, 209–226.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0032
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 131
Huger, M. S. (2011). Fostering a disability‐friendly institutional climate. New Directions for
Student Services, 134, 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.390
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U. S. C. §§ 1401 et seq. (2000).
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (1970). Sec. 300.114 LRE requirements. Retrieved
from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114
Interwork Institute. (2018). DSPS solutions. Retrieved from http://www.dspssolutions.org/
resources
Johnson, B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, W.A. (2010). The impact of social integration on subsequence institutional commitment
conditional on gender. Research in Higher Education, 51(7). 687–700.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9172-5
Katz, S., & Akpom, C. A. (1976). 12. Index of ADL. Medical Care, 14(5), 116–118. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/132585
Kezar, A., Glenn, W., Lester, J., & Nakamoto, J. (2004). Institutional contexts and equitable
educational outcomes: Empowered to learn. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California: Center for Urban Education.
Kimball, E., Friedensen, R., & Silva, E. (2017). Engaging disability: Trajectories of involvement
for college students with disabilities. In E. Kim & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability as
diversity in higher education: policies and practices to enhance student success. New
York: Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 132
Kuh, G. D. (2007). What students’ engagement tells us about college readiness. Peer Review,
9(1), 4–8. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/uploads/PRWI07_Kuh.pdf
Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive
special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914555580
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of
methods. Waveland Press.
Legal Aid at Work. (2018). Fact sheet: Disabilities in higher education. Retrieved from
https://legalaidatwork.org/factsheet/disabilities-in-higher-education/
Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., & Miesch, J. (2011). Waging a living: Career development and long-
term employment outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children,
77(4), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440291107700403Term_Employment
_Outcomes_for_Young_Adults_With_Disabilities/download
Lombardi, A., Gelbar, N., Dukes, L. L., III, Kowitt, J., Wei, Y., Madaus, J., … & FaggellaLuby,
M. (2016). Higher education and disability: A systematic review of assessment
instruments designed for students, faculty, and staff. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 3(4), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000027

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 133
Lombardi, A. R., & Lalor, A. R. (2017). Faculty and administrators’ knowledge and attitudes
regarding disabilities. In E. Kim & K. C. Aquino (Eds.), Disability as diversity in higher
education: Policies and practices to enhance students’ success (pp. 107–121). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Academic and social integration and persistence of international
students at U.S. two-year institutions. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 36(1), 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.619093
Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D. R., Swiss, L., & Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to
college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 22(3), 151–165. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov
/fulltext/EJ906688.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mayton, M. R., Carter, S. L., Zhang, J., & Wheeler, J. J. (2014). Intrusiveness of behavioral
treatments for children with autism and developmental disabilities: An initial
investigation. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 92-
101. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880657
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 134
McCollum, D. L., & Kajs, L. T. (2009). A confirmatory factor analytic study of the goal
orientation theory of motivation in educational leadership. Educational Research
Quarterly, 33(1), 3-17. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/216197632?accountid=14749
McDonald, K., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2007). Disability, race/ethnicity and gender: Themes of
cultural oppression, acts of individual resistance. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 39(1–2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9094-3
McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moore, M., & McNaught, J. (2014). Virginia’s self-determination project: Assisting students
with disabilities to become college and career ready. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 40(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140690
MPR Associates. (2012). Effects of reduced funding on disabled student programs and services
in California Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.yodisabledproud.org/organize/docs/DSPS-fund-reduc-Final-Report.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., … & Schwarting, M.
(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years
after high school: National longitudinal transition study-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
National Council on Disability. (2003). People with disabilities and postsecondary education: A
position paper. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/
education.htm.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 135
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). 1995–96 national postsecondary student aid
study (NPSAS:96), undergraduate data analysis system Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Newman, L. A., & Madaus, J. M. (2015). Reported accommodations and supports provided to
secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Career
Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(3), 173–181.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413518235
No Child Left Behind Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 107–110.
Oswald, G. R., Huber, M. J., & Bonza, A. (2015). Practice brief: Effective job-seeking
preparation and employment services for college students with disabilities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3), 375–382. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083848.pdf
Peña, E. V. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in
higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 30–40.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0006
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.66
Ponticelli, J., & Russ-Eft, D. (2009). Community college students with disabilities and transfer to
a four-year college. Exceptionality, 17(3), 164–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903028473
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 136
Ryan, C. L., & Bauman, K. (2016). Educational attainment in the United States: 2015. Retrieved
from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/83682/Educational
Attainment2015US.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Ryndak, D. L., Taub, D., Jorgensen, C. M., Gonsier-Gerdin, J., Arndt, K., Sauer, J., Ruppar, A.,
Morningstar, M. E., & Allcock, H. (2014). Policy and the impact on placement,
involvement, and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 65–74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914533942
Senko, E. (2016). Achievement goal theory: A story of early promises, eventual discords, and
future possibilities. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school
(Vol. 2) (pp. 75–98). London, UK: Routledge.
Shattuck, P. T., Steinberg, J., Yu, J., Wei, X., Cooper, B. P. Newman, L., & Roux, A. M. (2014).
Disability identification and self-efficacy among college students on the autism spectrum.
Autism Research & Treatment, 2014, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/924182
Stachová, K., Stacho, Z., & Bartáková, G. P. (2015). Influencing organisational culture by means
of employee remuneration. Business: Theory and Practice/Verslas: Teorija ir Praktika,
16(3), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.492
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0044118X10382877
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 137
The National Collaborative on Workforce & Disability for Youth and Workforce Strategy
Center. (2009). Career-focused services for students with disabilities at community
colleges. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Tovar, E. (2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on Latino/a community
college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College Review, 43(1), 46–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552114553788
Voigt, L., & Hundrieser, J. (2008). Student success, retention, and graduation: Definitions,
theories, practices, patterns, and trends. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/318480513/student-success-retention-and-graduation-
definitions-theories-practices-patterns-and-trends
Walker, D. K. (2008). Minority and non-minority students with disabilities in higher education:
Are current university policies meeting their needs? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest. (3337955).
Weatherton, Y. P., Mayes, R. D., & Villanueva-Perez, C. (2017). Barriers to persistence for
engineering students with disabilities. In Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
https://peer.asee.org/barriers-to-persistence-for-engineering-students-with-disabilities
Weis, R., Dean, E. L., & Osborne, K. J. (2016). Accommodation decision making for
postsecondary students with learning disabilities: Individually tailored or one size fits all?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 484–498.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414559648
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2017). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A
comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 138
Wright, A., & Meyer, K. (2017). Exploring the relationship between students with
accommodations and instructor self-efficacy in complying with accommodations. Higher
Learning Research Communications, 7(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v7i1.367
Yenney, C. B., & Sacco, J. II. (2016). Delivering disability accommodations at a community
college: A case study. College Student Affairs Leadership, 3(1), Article 5. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/vol3/iss1/5
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zohar, A., & Lustov, E. (2018). Challenges in addressing metacognition in professional
development programs in the context of instruction of higher-order thinking. In Y.
Weinberger & Z. Libman (Eds.), Contemporary pedagogies in teacher education and
development (pp. 87–100). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen76592

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 139
Appendix A: Survey Questions
Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representation
Consent N/A
I have read the above information and
I agree/do not agree to participate in
the study.
N/A N/A Table
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?

K- C I understand the educational barriers
disabled students seeking support from
my office face.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar chart
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?

K-P I know how to work with different
offices at my college to mitigate the
challenges faced by students with
disabilities.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?

K-C My office knows how to provide
additional support to students with
disabilities who are seeking
employment.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
What are the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational
solutions to those needs?

M – SE I believe I can help solve the problem
of the achievement gap between
students with disabilities and their non-
disabled peers.
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 140

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
What are the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational
solutions to those needs?

M-GC My office routinely engages in the
process of constructing goals.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?

O - My college’s culture supports DSPS
staffers.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?

O – CM My college creates an environment
that allows administrators to affect
changes that will mitigate performance
gaps for students with disabilities.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)

Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?

O -B My college has the resources necessary
to support departmental goals.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
My college is willing to use
organizational resources to support my
department’s goals.
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 141
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?

O-B My college has the systems in place to
support departmental goals.

(Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree)
Ordinal Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Range
Table, Stacked
bar char
What barriers do students with
disabilities face?
K-C What are the barriers faced by students
seeking support in your office?

(Physical Access, Ongoing Health
Concerns, Academic Barriers,
Finances, Lack of Support,
Organizational Barriers, Other)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?

K-C Do you feel that you have the
resources and knowledge to address
these barriers?

(Physical Access, Ongoing Health
Concerns, Academic Barriers,
Finances, Lack of Support,
Organizational Barriers, Other)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?

K-C How do you provide additional support
for students with disabilities?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
What are the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational
solutions to those needs?

? What do you think your office needs
to mitigate gaps in achievement for
students with disabilities?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
What are the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational
solutions to those needs?
? What do you think your staff need to
help students with disabilities find
success in their careers?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 142

How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
KMO How does your department set goals?
How does the system set college-wide
metrics?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
KMO How do you create departmental
goals to mitigate gaps for students with
disabilities?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
KMO How do you work with other
departments to mitigate gaps for
students with disabilities?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O How do you work within the
organization to mitigate gaps for
students with disabilities?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O Which of the following features does
the California Community College
System offer to support your office and
students with disabilities?

(see list in appendix)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart
Demographics – Sample
Description
NA How many years have you worked in
the California Community College
System?

(Dropdown with “Less than 1 year” up
to “More than 50 years”)
Interval Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Mean, Standard
Deviation,
Range
Table
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A How long have you been in your
current position?

Interval Percentage,
Frequency,
Mode, Median,
Table
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 143
(Dropdown with “Less than 1 year” up
to “More than 50 years”)
Mean, Standard
Deviation,
Range
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A With which gender do you identify?

(Male, Female, Other (please specify))
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table/Pie Chart
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A How many students do you work with
directly?

(Less than 5, 5 – 9, 10 – 14, 15 – 19,
20 – 24, 25 +)
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
Table/Pie Chart
K-F=Knowledge-Factual, K-C = Knowledge-Conceptual, K-P – Knowledge-Procedural, M- SE – Self Efficacy, M-GC=Goal Content, O-
CM=Cultural Models, O-CS=Cultural Settings, O-B = Budget/Resources

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 144
Appendix B: Phone Interview Questions

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analyses
Visual
Representation
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O
What has made it easier or harder for
you to implement programs within
your department?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
M Can you give me examples of goals
and how you set goals?
(If necessary: Can you give me an
example?)
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
KM What has your experience been this
year with respect to developing
programs within your department?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O Tell me about the culture of your
department?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O How do you interact with other
departments?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
How does the California
Community College system
culture and context interact with
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?
O How do you interact with the system
as a whole?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 145
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?
O What do you think you need to more
effectively accomplish departmental
and statewide goals?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?
KMO What do you need to more profoundly
serve students with disabilities on your
campus?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
What knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs are
necessary for disability services
coordinators of the California
Community College System to
implement workforce readiness
courses?
KMO What are some of the factors that
contribute to gaps between students
with disabilities and their peers?
Qualitative Thematic
Analysis
Table, Bar Chart,
Pie Chart, Quotes
K-F=Knowledge-Factual, K-C = Knowledge-Conceptual, K-P – Knowledge-Procedural, M- SE – Self Efficacy, M-GC=Goal Content, O-
CM=Cultural Models, O-CS=Cultural Settings, O-B = Budget/Resources

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 146
Appendix C: Complete Survey Instrument

California Community College

Start of Block: Informed Consent

Q1 Informed Consent

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy
Los Angeles, CA 90089

DSPS COORDINATORS STUDY

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Kathryn Schellenberg
(Principal Investigator) and Dr. Patricia Tobey (Faculty advisor) from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. Your participation is completely
voluntary. The following sections explain the purpose and details of this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors impacting students with disabilities in the California Community College System
through the lens of the Disability Services and Programs (DSPS) offices, DSPS coordinators
and DSPS staff.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey,
which is anticipated to take no more than 20 minutes. You are not obligated to answer
every question and you may choose to end the survey at any time.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be entered into a drawing for three gift
cards: one $100 gift card and two $50 gift cards.

CONFIDENTIALITY
This study is completely anonymous and your responses will not be associated at any
point with your name or other identifiable information. The data obtained from this study
will be stored on a password protected computer.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 147
Kathryn Schellenberg (Principal Investigator) at kschelle@usc.edu or 310-745-2721
OR
Dr. Patricia Tobey (Faculty Advisor) at tobey@rossier.usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700, Los
Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

Q2
o I have read the above information and I agree to participate in this study. (1)
o I have read the above information and I do not agree to participate in this study. (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If = I have read the above information and I do not agree to participate in
this study.
End of Block: Informed Consent

Start of Block: Agree/Disagree Questions

Q30 Please read each of the following statements carefully and indicate your agreement on
a scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Q3 I understand the educational barriers disabled students seeking support from my office
face.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 148

Q4 I know how to work with different offices at my college to mitigate the challenges faced
by students with disabilities.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

Q5 My office knows how to provide additional support to students with disabilities who are
seeking employment.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 149
Q6 I believe I can help solve the problem of the achievement gap between students with
disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

Q7 My office routinely engages in the process of constructing goals.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 150

Q31 Please read each of the following statements carefully and indicate your agreement on
a scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Q8 My college’s culture supports DSPS staffers.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

Q9 My college creates an environment that allows administrators to affect changes that will
mitigate performance gaps for students with disabilities.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 151
Q10 My college has the resources necessary to support departmental goals.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

Q11 My college is willing to use organizational resources to support my department’s goals.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

Q12 My college has the systems in place to support departmental goals.
o Strongly Agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
o Disagree (4)
o Strongly Disagree (5)

End of Block: Agree/Disagree Questions

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 152
Start of Block: Barriers, Support, and Strategies

Q13 What are the barriers faced by students seeking support in your office?
▢ Physical Access (5)
▢ Ongoing Health Concerns (6)
▢ Academic Barriers (7)
▢ Finances (8)
▢ Lack of Support (9)
▢ Organizational Barriers (10)
▢ Other, please specify: (11) ________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If If What are the barriers faced by students seeking support in your office? q://QID13/SelectedChoicesCount Is
Greater Than 0
Carry Forward Selected Choices from "What are the barriers faced by students seeking support in your office?"

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 153
Q14 Do you feel that you have the resources and knowledge to address these barriers?
Yes (1) No (2) Not sure (3)
Physical Access (x5)
o o o
Ongoing Health
Concerns (x6)
o o o
Academic Barriers
(x7)
o o o
Finances (x8)
o o o
Lack of Support (x9)
o o o
Organizational
Barriers (x10)
o o o
Other, please specify:
(x11)
o o o

Q15 How do you provide additional support for students with disabilities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 154

Q16 What do you think your office needs to mitigate gaps in achievement for students
with disabilities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q17 What do you think your staff need to help students with disabilities find success in
their careers?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 155

Q22 Please answer each of the following questions if applicable. If you're not sure how to
answer the question, feel free to skip it and write in "N/A."

Q19 How does your department set goals? How does the system set college-wide metrics?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q21 How do you create departmental goals to mitigate gaps for students with
disabilities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q18 How do you work with other departments to mitigate gaps for students with
disabilities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 156

Q20 How do you work within the organization to mitigate gaps for students with
disabilities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 157
Q23 Which of the following features does the California Community College System offer to
support your office and students with disabilities?
▢ Access to and arrangements for adaptive educational equipment, materials and supplies
required by students with disabilities. (925)
▢ Job placement and development services related to transition to employment. (926)
▢ Liaison with campus and/or community agencies, including referral to campus or
community agencies and follow-up services. (927)
▢ Registration assistance relating to on- or off-campus college registration, including
priority enrollment assistance, application for financial aid and related college services.
(928)
▢ Special parking, including on-campus parking registration or while an application for the
State handicapped placard or license plate is pending, provision of a temporary parking
permit. (929)
▢ Supplemental specialized orientation to acquaint students with environmental aspects of
the college and community. (930)
▢ Continuing variable cost services which fluctuate with changes in the number of students
or the unit load of the students. These services include, but are not limited to. (931)
▢ Test-taking facilitation, including arrangement, proctoring and modification of tests and
test administration for students with disabilities. (932)
▢ Assessment, including both individual and group assessment not otherwise provided by
the college to determine functional educational and vocational levels, or to verify specific
disabilities. (933)
▢ Counseling, including specialized academic, vocational, personal, and peer counseling
services specifically for students with disabilities, not duplicated by ongoing general
counseling services available to all students. (934)
▢ Interpreter services, including manual and oral interpreting for hearing-impaired students.
(935)
ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 158
▢ Mobility assistance (on-campus), including manual or motorized transportation to and
from college courses and related educational activities. (936)
▢ Notetaker services, to provide assistance to students with disabilities in the classroom.
(937)
▢ Reader services, access to assistive/adaptive technology including High Tech High
Center, alternate media, brailing, including the coordination and provision of services for
students with disabilities in the instructional setting. (938)
▢ Speech services provided by a licensed speech/ language pathologist for students with
verified speech disabilities. (939)
▢ Transcription services, including but not limited to, the provision of braille and print
materials. (940)
▢ Transportation assistance (off-campus), only if not otherwise provided by the college to
all students, where public accessible transportation is unavailable or is deemed inadequate by
the Chancellor's Office. (941)
▢ Specialized tutoring services not otherwise provided by the college. (942)
▢ Outreach activities designed to recruit potential students with disabilities to the college.
(943)
▢ Accommodations for participation in co-curricular activities directly related to the
student's enrollment in state-funded educational courses or programs. (944)
▢ Repair of adaptive equipment donated to the DSPS program or purchased with funds
provided under this subchapter. (945)
▢ One-time variable costs for purchase of DSPS equipment, such as adapted educational
equipment, materials, supplies, and transportation vehicles. (946)
▢ Other, please specify: (947) ________________________________________________

End of Block: Barriers, Support, and Strategies

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 159
Start of Block: Demographics

Q24 How many years have you worked in the California Community College System?
▼ Less than 1 year (1) ... More than 50 years (52)

Q27 How long have you been in your current position?
▼ Less than 1 year (1) ... More than 50 years (52)

Q28 With which gender do you identify?
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Other, please specify: (3) ________________________________________________

Q25 How many students do you work with directly?
o Less than 5 (1)
o 5 - 9 (2)
o 10 - 14 (3)
o 15 - 19 (4)
o 20 - 24 (5)
o 25 + (6)

End of Block: Demographics

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 160
Appendix D: Proposed Post-Training Evaluation Survey Instrument
Delayed 90 days after the training (see pgs. 110-117) for L1- L4 broad levels
Scale 1-7 (Strongly disagree to strongly agree)
1. What I learned in the workshop has been very valuable to learning in my department ( L1)
2. What I have learned in the workshop has been very valuable to performance in my
department. (L1)
2. I was able to create programs for students with disabilities and their workforce readiness. (L2)
3. My peers ( colleagues ) and I use the job aid for creating solutions to the gap identified (L3)
4. I am able to close the gap between students with disabilities and their peers in workforce
readiness classes (L4)

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 161
Appendix E: Proposed Post-Training Evaluation Data Presentation

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 162

ARC OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 163

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The under-representation of Native Americans in masters of social work programs

PDF

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

PDF

PBIS and equity for African American students with and without disabilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Disproportionate exclusionary discipline for special education‐identified students: an improvement study

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

Asset Metadata

Creator Schellenberg, Kathryn (Katie) Elizabeth (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/15/2019

Defense Date 10/15/2019

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

Tag Americans with Disabilities Act,California Community Colleges,disability services,Higher education,higher education administration,higher education policy and legality,OAI-PMH Harvest,students with disabilities

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Muraszewski, Allison (committee member)

Creator Email katieschellenberg@gmail.com,kschelle@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-235400

Unique identifier UC11673466

Identifier etd-Schellenbe-7931.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-235400 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Schellenbe-7931.pdf

Dmrecord 235400

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Schellenberg, Kathryn (Katie) Elizabeth

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