Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
(USC Thesis Other)
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Disability, Race, and Educational Attainment - (Re)Leveling the Playing Field Through Best
Disability Counseling Practices in Higher Education: An Executive Dissertation
by
Carmen Varela
_______________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2021
Copyright 2021 Carmen Varela
ii
Dedication
To my dearly loved and deeply missed parents, Arturo and Carmen Varela, whose love
and many sacrifices made this possible. And to my precious sons, Jonah and Victor Jimenez,
who have been my greatest teachers and have taught me the most important lessons about my
existence. Lastly, to my best friend in life and sister, Laura Varela, who never stopped believing
in me and kept reminding me of the importance of my accomplishments to my family,
community, and the world.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Introduction to the Problem of Practice .......................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem .......................................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status ................................................................................................. 3
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................... 4
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ........................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................. 5
Methodological Approach .............................................................................................................. 5
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................. 6
Intersectionality: Disability and Race ................................................................................. 7
The History of Higher Education and Students with Disabilities ....................................... 8
Educational Attainment: Persons with Disabilities ........................................................... 10
Students with Disabilities ..................................................................................... 10
Students from Historically Minoritized Backgrounds .......................................... 11
Unemployment, Underemployment and Disengagement ................................................. 11
Disability Counselors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences .......................... 12
Knowledge and Skills-Related Influences ........................................................................ 13
Knowledge of How to Perform a Comprehensive Assessment ............................ 15
Knowledge of Additional Services ....................................................................... 15
Ability to Create Campus Collaborations ............................................................. 16
Motivational Influences .................................................................................................... 17
Disability Counselors’ Self-Efficacy .................................................................... 18
Disability Counselors’ Attainment Value ............................................................. 19
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 20
Campus Culture of Success, Innovation, and Collaboration ................................ 21
Knowledge Development and Stakeholder Collaboration .................................... 21
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Disability Counselors’ Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context .................................................................................................... 23
iv
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment ............................................................... 27
Interview (Recruitment) Criteria and Rationale ............................................................... 28
Criterion 1 ............................................................................................................. 28
Interview Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................... 28
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 29
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 29
Documents and Artifacts ................................................................................................... 30
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 30
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 32
Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Knowledge Findings ......................................................................................................... 33
Disability Counselors’ Robust Conceptual Skills in Identifying Services that
Reduce Barriers and Lead to Student Success ...................................................... 33
Disability Counselors’ Varying Levels of Understanding About Programs
that Go Beyond the Traditional Set of Disability Related Programs .................... 36
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Need to Form Additional Strategic
Collaborations ....................................................................................................... 38
Motivation Findings .......................................................................................................... 40
Disability Counselors’ Mixed Levels of Self-Efficacy Related to
Implementing Best Disability Counseling Practices ............................................. 40
Disability Counselors’ High Levels of Attainment Value About
Implementing Best Disability Counseling Practices ............................................. 43
Organizational Findings .................................................................................................... 46
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Lack of Time and Resources to Develop
New Programs ....................................................................................................... 47
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Lack of Organizational Resources Resulting
in Mixed Levels of Collaboration and Innovation ................................................ 49
Disability Counselors’ Perception of Mixed Levels of Recognition .................... 51
Recommendations for Practice ..................................................................................................... 54
Knowledge Recommendations ......................................................................................... 55
Increasing Ability to Collaborate with Campus Partners ..................................... 56
Motivation Recommendations .......................................................................................... 56
Increasing DCs’ Self-Efficacy and Confidence in the Implementation of Best
Disability Counseling Practices ............................................................................ 57
Organization Recommendations ....................................................................................... 58
Provide Additional Resources to Increase Knowledge About and Foster the
Development of Best Practices ............................................................................. 60
Organization Needs to Create a Culture of Success by Acknowledge Best
Practices ................................................................................................................ 61
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ........................................................................... 62
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ..................................................................... 62
Organizational Purpose, Needs and Expectations ............................................................ 62
Level 4: Leading Indicators .............................................................................................. 63
v
Level 3: Behavior .............................................................................................................. 64
Critical Behaviors ................................................................................................. 64
Required Drivers ................................................................................................... 65
Organizational Support ......................................................................................... 67
Level 2: Learning .............................................................................................................. 67
Learning goals ....................................................................................................... 67
Program ................................................................................................................. 67
Evaluation of the Components of Learning .......................................................... 68
Level 1: Reaction .............................................................................................................. 69
Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................................... 70
Immediately Following the Program Implementation .......................................... 70
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation ..................................... 70
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................ 70
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A: Interview Protocols ................................................................................................. 72
Interview Email Invitation ................................................................................................ 72
Interview Opening Remarks ............................................................................................. 75
Interview Questions .......................................................................................................... 76
Interview Wrap-up ............................................................................................................ 78
Appendix B: Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................. 79
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................. 81
Appendix D: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix E: Program Evaluation Tool ......................................................................................... 85
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation (6-weeks) ................................................................................. 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 90
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge Influences and Types .................................................................................... 17
Table 2: Motivational Influences .................................................................................................. 20
Table 3: Organizational Influences .............................................................................................. 22
Table 4: Disability Councelors’ Year of Experience .................................................................... 32
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Findings ............................... 53
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................... 55
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ............................................ 57
Table 8: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 59
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................... 64
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrcis, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................. 65
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .......................................................... 66
Table 12: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ....................................... 68
Table 13: Compenents to Measure Reactions to the Program ..................................................... 69
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
viii
Abstract
Educational attainment rates of minority students with disabilities (SWDs) were found to
be lower than those of minority and non-minority students without disabilities resulting in
economic disparities (Banks, 2014). Disability counseling services in higher education are
essential to the success of minority students with disabilities in higher education (Getzel, 2008).
This study evaluated Disability Counselors (DCs) knowledge, motivation, and the organizational
elements related to implementing what research identified as best disability counseling practices
within higher education. Disability counselors are expected to know how to provide individual
comprehensive assessments for students with disabilities (AHEAD, 2021). In addition, DCs are
epected to understand the types of services needed by SWDs that go beyond the traditional set of
programs in their efforts to address barriers to the learning environment attributed to the effects
of disability(s) (AHEAD, 2021). The qualitative study interviewed 7 Disability Counselors at a
4-year public Hispanic Serving Institution. The evaluation identified knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs and presented recommendations to address those needs. Based on the
findings, the organization is recommended to build a culture of success, acknowledge DCs for
implementing best practices, provide leadership and support, provide job aides to develop their
ability to engage in campus collaborations, and support DCs by practicing the interactive process
and providing supportive feedback, thereby building DCs self-efficacy leading to mastery.
1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
When disability and race intersect, the result is disproportionately low educational
attainment rates of minority students with disabilities (Banks, 2014). Disability counseling
services in higher education are essential to the success of minority students with disabilities in
higher education (Getzel, 2008). As evidenced by Cornell University’s (2017) American
Community Survey, adults between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-four, 14.8% of persons
with disabilities (PWDs) have a bachelor’s degree or higher vs. 32.5% of persons without
disabilities (PWoDs). In terms of college completion rates by race, a recent study by the National
Center for Education Statistics (2017) found that from 2000-2016, Whites ages twenty-five to
twenty-nine who had attained a bachelor’s degree increased from 34% to 43%, African
Americans 18% to 23%, Hispanics 10% to 19%, Asian/Pacific Islanders 54% to 64%
respectively, and the percentage of American Indian/Alaskan Native 10% in 2016 was not
measurably different from the corresponding percentage in 2000. As for minority students, for all
educational attainment groups, jobless rates for persons with a disability was more than two
times higher than those for persons without a disability (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). The
disproportionate rates of educational attainment of people with disabilities is seen in the low
rates of unemployment, underemployment, and disengagement in the labor force leading to
higher rates of poverty among this demographic (Banks, 2013; U.S. Department of Labor, 2019).
Organizational Context and Mission
Public California University (PCU, a pseudonym) is a large, public Hispanic Serving
Institution in California, which provides services and supports through various programs out of
their office for students with disabilities (OSD). Services are provided by disability counselors
(DCs) under state and federal laws and the university system’s executive orders. The mission of
PCU’s OSD is to provide an equitable learning environment for students with documented
2
disabilities by providing guidance, information, disability counseling, accommodations, assistive
technology, and service coordination that addresses challenges faced by this population. The
primary role of DCs is to interview, observe, and assess how the students’ disability(s) impacts
them within the learning environment with the goal of determining the necessary
accommodation(s) and other disability support services.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of disproportionate educational attainment rates of minority students with
disabilities (SWDs) was important to solve for a number of reasons. Educational attainment rates
of minority students with disabilities were found to be lower than those of minority and non-
minority students without disabilities resulting in economic disparities (Banks, 2014). As
asserted by NCES (2017) a relationship exists between educational attainment and employment.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017) revealed unemployment and underemployment
was significantly higher for persons with disabilities and found lower levels of employment for
persons with disabilities overall reflected the generally lower level of employment for persons
with less education and the lower level of employment for people with disabilities within each
level of educational attainment (high school to Masters or higher degree). Adults with disabilities
across all racial and ethnic groups were more likely than the general population to experience the
effects of poverty and material hardship, including food insecurity, inadequate housing, medical
care, and difficulty in paying bills (Hughes, 2013). Thus, disability counseling services offered
by PCU’s OSD to SWDs, and as mandated by state and federal law, plays a key role in the
provision of an equitable learning environment, thereby increasing the number of people with
disabilities graduating from college and subsequently entering the workforce. The lack of
disability counseling services can lead to low educational attainment rates which can profoundly
impact people with disabilities over their lifespan. From an organizational perspective, the lack
3
of appropriate disability counseling and support services to SWDs may also lead to compliance
complaints against PCU and lower the overall student graduation rates.
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem undergirding this study was the low 4-year
graduation rates of students at PCU. Available PCU data indicated that in 2013 the 4-year
graduation rate was 5.36%; in 2014 it was 6.97% and in 2015 it was 9.03% and by 2018 it was
9.5%, only slightly higher than 3 years prior. Available data by race/ethnicity showed that 4-year
graduation rates from 2012 to 2014 for White students was at 19.0%, 16.5%, and 16.7%
respectively. In 2012 Hispanics were at 7.0%, 6.5%, and 7.7%. Blacks were at 9.0%, 9.2%, and
10.6%. Pacific Islanders were at 0%, 33.0%, and 0%. American Indian students were at 0% with
no change. Asians were at 14.0%, 12.6%, and 14.7% respectively. The PCU’s 4-year graduation
rates were among the lowest of all public universities within its university system. As a result of
the strategic planning process, PCU’s 2018 strategic priorities included a 2025 graduation
initiative indicating that the 4-year freshman graduation rate would improve to 30% by 2025.
The data available by PCU’s university system consisted of enrollment data by campus and
services to SWDs, six-year persistence rates of freshman and junior college SWDs, six-year
graduation rates for successive groups of freshman students from 2010 to 2012, and three cohort
combined average of six-year graduation rates of junior college transfers from 2010 to 2012
entering the university system. There was no available data specific to the 4-year graduation
rates of students with disabilities at PCU. In order for PCU’s OSD to fulfill its mission and
provide an equitable learning environment for SWDs, it was crucial that OSD provide the
disability counseling services necessary to assist SWDs in completing their degree programs.
Failure to assist SWDs in the successful completion of their degrees, would exacerbate already
4
low graduation rates resulting in unemployment and underemployment resulting in lifelong
inequities associated with poverty.
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of PCU’s office of students with disabilities was that by June 2021, it would
graduate 30% of its students. This goal was in alignment with PCU’s 2025 comprehensive
graduation initiative set by the university in an effort to begin addressing the disproportionate
graduation rates of its students. The achievement of OSD’s goal in this study was to be measured
by the results of data compiled by the Chancellor’s Office specific to overall graduation rates
through June 2021.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contributed to the overall organizational goal of
raising the 4-year graduation rate to 30% by 2025, it was essential to understand the importance
of best disability counseling practices by PCU’s disability counselors (DCs). In their role they
were expected to do the following: 1) meet with students individually and collect information
and documentation regarding a student’s disability such as medical and psychological
documentation; 2) observe the student and note information that may assist the DC in
determining accommodations that include extended time for an exams, notetaker services,
flexible attendance, assignment extensions, use of assistive technology; 3) discuss the student’s
history and use of prior accommodations; 4) help the student find the nexus between their
disability and their request for an accommodation; 5) understand the laws and policies that
pertain to the provision of accommodations to SWDs and 6) collaborate with on-campus partners
to develop programs and services leading to student success. Therefore, for practical purposes,
the stakeholder of focus for this analysis was disability counselors. The stakeholder goal was that
100% of disability counselors at PCU would implement best disability counseling practices
5
leading to degree completion of SWDs. The analysis focused their knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to best disability counseling practices. This goal was set by the
Director of PCU to improve the overall attainment rates of SWDs, prevent compliance
complaints, and litigation against PCU. Failure to accomplish this goal could negatively impact
graduation rates of SWDs, result in low student satisfaction, and result in complaints and
litigation against PCU.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to explore the DCs’ knowledge,
motivation, and the organizational elements related to implementing what research identified as
best disability counseling practices. The dissertation is presented in the format of an executive
dissertation. The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering elements
and then by examining them systematically to focus on actual or validated interfering elements.
The guiding questions for this study were as follows:
1. What are the Disability Counselors’ knowledge and motivation related to
implementing best disability counseling practices?
2. What is the interaction between PCU’s culture and context and Disability
Counselors’ knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for PCU’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences?
Methodological Approach
This project explored the capacities of disability counselors (DCs) and employed a
qualitative research design where data was collected within the Office of Students with
Disabilities (OSD) office at PCU. As explained by Creswell (2014), this approach was utilized to
explore and understand the meaning individual groups ascribe to a social or human problem.
6
Furthermore, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted that qualitative research, through interviews
sought to understand how people understood their experiences. Conversely, quantitative data
relies on numbers as data and analyzes them using statistical techniques (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study utilized convenience sampling, a type of purposeful sampling. Convenience
sampling refers to selecting a sample based on time, money, location, and availability of sites or
respondents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Convenience sampling was the best choice in this study
due to the evaluative nature of the study. It was convenient in that the research site and
participants were readily available to this researcher and the site was one of eighteen Hispanic
serving institutions within a university system consisting of more than twenty universities. In
addition, this study utilized a two-tier sampling approach. The first tier or unit of analysis was
evaluating best disability counseling practices and the second being evaluating the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources in the use of best disability counseling practices within
an office of students with disabilities. The qualitative interviews in this study provided insight as
to the interaction of DCs’ knowledge and motivation within the organizational context. Visual
documents and artifacts were gathered from a census sample of seven full-time disability
counselors at PCU. Census sampling occurred when the researcher attempted to list all elements
in a group and to measure one or more characteristics of those elements (Lavrakas, 2008). The
analysis of data gathered revealed themes and patterns about the space being evaluated. A careful
analysis and assessment of the qualitative data resulted in a deeper understanding of the problem
of practice leading to recommendations for future research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Review of the Literature
The presence of a disability coupled with an intersecting identity(s) such as gender, race
or class has been shown to result in disproportionate rates of educational attainment for people
with disabilities. This review of the literature begins with a review of the theory of
7
intersectionality and how multiple identities are constructed in society. The review continues
with a discussion of the history of higher education and the modern-day disparities in education
experienced by minority students and students with disabilities. The review then discusses the
disproportionate rates of educational attainment experienced by minority students. The last
section of the literature review discusses unemployment, underemployment and disengagement
of people with disabilities within the workforce. Following the general literature review, the
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework is used to consider the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences on disability counselors’ (DCs) ability to implement
best disability counseling practices within an institution of higher education.
Intersectionality: Disability and Race
A careful examination of the responses to people with intersecting identities including
gender, race, class, and/or disability, within institutions of higher education served to deepen the
understanding of educational inequities experienced by minority SWDs. The intersection of
disability and race further compounds low educational rates experienced by minority SWDs.
Understanding and acknowledging educational inequities through an intersectional lens further
informed and strengthened this research project.
The seminal work of (Crenshaw, 1989) entitled Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race
and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist
Theory, and Antiracist Politics sought to examine the experience of Black women in an effort to
contrast the multi-dimensionality of Black women’s experiences with the single-axis that
distorted their experiences. Furthermore, (Crenshaw, 1989) suggested that this single-axis
framework erased Black women in the conceptualization, identification, and remediation of sex
discrimination by limiting the process of inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privileged
members of this group. Her subsequent research asserted that race, gender, and other identity
8
categories are most often treated in mainstream liberal discourse as vestiges of bias and
domination - that is intrinsically negative frameworks in which social power works to exclude
those who are different (Crenshaw, 1991). Intersectionality takes into consideration the various
positionalities and everyday lives of people and the power relations that are central to it and the
mainstreaming of intersectionality expands and deepens the tools available to conduct, catalogue,
and interpret research (Dharmoon, 2011).
Modern-day inequities of persons with intersecting identities, such as disability, are also
found within the context of the educational system. Liasidou (2012) asserted that inclusive
education reflects values and principles and is concerned with challenging the ways in which
educational systems reproduce and perpetuate social inequalities across various domains such as
disabilities, characteristics, developmental trajectories, and socioeconomic trajectories. Specific
to higher education, Dhamoon (2011) found the institution of higher education continues to
perpetuate disparities that it purports to dismantle through education and that equity in
postsecondary education continues to be a struggle for minority SWDs in terms of access,
inclusion, and success.
The History of Higher Education and Students with Disabilities
A historical view of higher education (HE), as an institution, was foundational to the
examination of modern-day disparities in educational attainment of students with disabilities
(SWDs) and minority students. Historically, minorities and people with disabilities have
experienced discrimination within society, inclusive of HE. To protect minorities and people
with disabilities, laws were created such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008, and Section 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Disability laws set forth the parameters for reasonable accommodations to exist within HE and
create a more equitable learning environment. Disparities in educational attainment have been
9
linked to a history of racism and discrimination which still exists today and is reflected in
educational attainment rates of people with disabilities and minorities. The following offers a
brief overview of the history of higher education followed by students with disabilities in higher
education. Attainment rates will be discussed further in the review of the literature section
entitled Educational Attainment -- Minority Students and Students with Disabilities.
Higher Education served as a place where leaders and faculty could intellectualize White
superiority under the guise of science without question, such as the eugenics movement which
was saturated with scholars, scientists, and institutional leaders (Patton et al., 2016). The
institution of higher education was founded on and helped to engineer functions of White
supremacy, including the systematic exclusion of people of color within higher education. White
supremacy defines itself by convincing people of color that they are inherently less intelligent
and evolved, thereby their well-being is of less concern than that of other people (Mustaffa,
2017). In the same way, Patton et al. (2016) affirmed that the function of U.S. higher education
is linked to “imperialistic and capitalistic efforts” that perpetuate the “intersection of race,
poverty, and oppression” (p.317).
After WWII, the first significant number of people with disabilities were admitted into
colleges and universities and disability resources offices were developed to respond to the needs
of these students (Evans, 2017). Prior to WWII, very few, if any, college campuses were
physically accessible to individuals with disabilities (Maddaus, 2000). The University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), was among the first universities to admit veterans with
disabilities for the academic year 1946-47 (Maddaus, 2000). Freshly admitted veterans to UCLA
were carried up to inaccessible buildings by a group of volunteer non-disabled veterans (Brown,
2008). The University of Illinois was the first university to secure funding for accessibility and
other universities across the country followed their lead by establishing programs for students
10
with disabilities in the 1950s (Evans et al., 2017). Twenty-three years later, individuals with
disabilities enrolled in postsecondary institutions and became entitled to protections under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act followed by the enactment of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended in 2008 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
(Rothstein, 2015).
Educational Attainment: Persons with Disabilities
People with disabilities and diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds have experienced
disproportionate rates of educational attainment including having been systematically excluded
from higher education. A variety of factors either individually or collectively were found to
affect success in college, from racial and ethnic inequality, immigration to fear of stigma and the
utilization of disability related accommodations.
Students with Disabilities
Students with learning disabilities comprise the largest group of postsecondary students with
disabilities and complete college at a significantly lower rate than their non-disabled peers
(DuPaul et al., 2017). A study by Newman et al. (2009) found that after leaving high school, only
7% of students with intellectual disabilities attend postsecondary education as a sole postschool
activity. A subsequent report by Newman et al. (2011) analyzing all the range of disabilities in
aggregate form, as opposed to studying individual students based on disability category, found
that student experiences, including their preparation for, access to, and persistence in college,
varied widely by disability type. This same study by Newman el al. (2011) found that despite
89% of SWDs who reported intending on finishing their postsecondary program, inclusive of
two-year community college, vocational, business, or technical school, and four-year college,
only 29% had completed their program, of which 6% had completed at a four-year college.
Boyd-Bradwell (2014) found that students with disabilities may not seek assistance due to the
11
fear of stigmatization or being labeled as needing accommodations. Furthermore, Boyd Bradwell
(2014) asserted that grade point average and self-determination (the process in which a person
controls their own life) affects persistence and attainment rates of students with disabilities.
Students from Historically Minoritized Backgrounds
Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2017) found in 2018, the
percentage of 25- to 29-year old’s who had attained a bachelor’s or higher for Asians was higher
(71%) than any other racial or ethnic group. In addition, the percentage was higher for those who
were White (44%) than for those who were Black (23%) and Hispanic (21%) and from 2000 -
2018, the percentage of 25- to 29-year old’s who had attained a bachelor’s or higher (16%) and
who were American Indian/Alaskan Native was not measurably different from the percentage in
2000. A study by Baum (2013) found at four-year institutions, 46% of all students do not
graduate within six years, a number that increases to 58% for Hispanic students and 63% for
Black students. An earlier study by Rogers et al. (2011) indicated that in terms of race and
ethnicity, U.S. born Mexicans have the lowest average educational levels of other ethnic groups
and asserted that educational attainment changes with changes in society such as, racial and
ethnic inequality, immigration, policies, economy, and opportunities for minorities and women.
Unemployment, Underemployment and Disengagement
The unemployment and underemployment of people with disabilities has contributed to
disproportionate rates of poverty across all racial and ethnic lines in the United States. Low
educational attainment rates have been attributed to higher rates of poverty, unemployment,
underemployment, and increased disengagement in the labor force (Newman et al., 2009). The
rising disparities in disability by educational attainment, elucidate the reasons for the disparities
and help to identify the risks for disability disproportionately borne by adults with low
educational attainment (Montez, 2017).
12
The co-occurrence of disability – including severe disabilities – and poverty is associated
with poor post-school outcomes such as low graduation and post-secondary enrollment rates and
increased disengagement, unemployment, and underemployment (Hughes & Avoke, 2010). The
study by Hughes (2013) found that adults with disabilities across all racial and ethnic groups are
more likely than the general population to experience the effects of poverty and material
hardship, including food insecurity, inadequate housing and medical care, and difficulty in
paying bills. A report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019) indicated that persons with
disabilities are less likely to be in the labor force and found that 92% of people with disabilities
were not in the labor force, 1.5% were unemployed, and 19.3% were employed. For persons
without disabilities, BLS (2019) reported 31.3%, 2.4%, and 66.3% respectively. It is important to
note that labor force participation is defined as “The proportion of the working-age population
that is either working or actively looking for work” (BLS, 2020). A report by NCES (2016)
found that lower levels of educational attainment were associated with lower employment
percentages both for persons with and without disabilities and significantly lower percentages for
persons with disabilities.
Disability Counselors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (K, M, & O) framework was suited to
study stakeholder performance within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). This problem
solving-process was based on two key features as follows: 1) understanding the stakeholder goal
with regard to the organizational goal, and 2) identifying assumed performance influences in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources based on general theory, context
specific literature, and an existing understanding of the organization.
13
Knowledge and Skills-Related Influences
Knowledge-related influences pertaining to the provision of best disability counseling
practices in higher education are important to examine. Job knowledge and skills are strongly and
positively linked to job performance beyond the variation of personality, experience, and ability
(Motowildo, Brownlee, & Schmit, 2008; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986; Torres & Beier,
2016). Disability counselors are expected to know how to provide individual comprehensive
assessments for students with disabilities (AHEAD, 2021). These assessments occur on an
individual and interactive basis which includes collecting information pertaining to the student’s
prior use of accommodations, self-report on the impact of their disability(s), review of medical
and/or psychological documentation, and other factors beyond the student’s control such as
funding for college or familial responsibilities (AHEAD, 2021). In addition to disability
counselors’ understanding of how to provide a comprehensive assessment, they are also expected
to understand the types of services needed by SWDs that go beyond the traditional set of programs
in their efforts to address barriers to the learning environment attributed to the effects of
disability(s) (AHEAD, 2021). The programs are intended to help SWDs improve their one-on-one
and group social and communication skills as well as self-advocacy skills. Self-advocacy skills are
required for students to be able to effectively articulate and communicate their needs, wants,
opinions, and thoughts in-person and in writing (Walker, 2011). A gap analysis was the first step
in determining whether individuals had the knowledge and skills necessary to meet their goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This study evaluates disability counselors’ best disability counseling
practices knowledge and skills to determine whether a gap exists.
Information processing theory identifies sensory memory, working memory, and long-term
memory as the components of human learning and knowledge (Schraw & McCrudeen, 2006).
Individuals are found to use sensory memory to instantaneously process a multitude of impressions
14
and stimuli, selecting and transferring only a very limited set of information to working memory
for further processing (Mayer, 2011; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). According to information
processing theory, working memory is limited to all individuals regardless of their experience or
cognitive ability, while long-term memory is viewed as limitless (Shraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Knowledge is created when information is encoded from working memory to long-term memory
(Shraw & McCrudden, 2006). The ability to connect new information to prior knowledge and
using schemas to organize and store information in long-term memory enables increasingly
complex concepts to be processed in working memory (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006;
Mayer, 2011). If disability counselors have prior knowledge or experience in the provision of best
disability counseling practices, it is easier for them to make the connection between the students’
needs and new programs, services, and collaborations to fill those needs.
Research by Krathwohl (2002) identifies four major types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge includes the basic elements of
terminology of a subject area (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge consists of
the relationships of basic elements to each other, as well the principles, theories, and structures of
the subject area (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge includes the specific steps
and techniques to complete a task (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011) and is linked to
job performance and outcomes (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Metacognitive knowledge
is the self-awareness and control of one’s own cognitive and problem-solving processes, as well
as the strategies to successfully achieve a goal (Baker, 2006; Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, Salas,
& Bowers, 1998; Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer 2011; Rueda, 2011). Employees needed to use self-
awareness and self-regulation to perform effectively in the workplace (Birney, Beckmann, &
Wood, 2012; Sitzman & Ely, 2011). Utilizing these theories, this study examines disability
counselors’ knowledge in two areas. First was conceptual knowledge of how to identify barriers
15
to student success through student observation and comprehensive assessment and the services
needed by students that went beyond the traditional set of programs followed by procedural
knowledge on how to best collaborate with on-campus partners in the development of new
programs.
Knowledge of How to Perform a Comprehensive Assessment
Disability counselors need factual and conceptual knowledge to identify barriers that
inhibit student success through student observations and comprehensive assessment. The
identification of barriers to educational success for students with disabilities is essential to
understanding interventions and services (Lyman, Beecher, Griner, Call, & Jackson, 2017). As
asserted by the research of (Mayer, 2011) and Rueda (2011), the success of learners on a variety
of tasks is contingent on their possession of five kinds of knowledge, two of them being facts as
defined by factual knowledge and conceptual knowledge consisting of elements and their
relation to each other as well as the principles, theories, and structures of the subject area
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Disability counselors need to have knowledge of the different
barriers that could inhibit student success and an understanding of how these barriers, in relation
to each other further compound their ability to complete their programs of study.
Knowledge of Additional Services
To meet the stakeholder goal, disability counselors needed conceptual knowledge of
services necessitated by SWDs that went beyond the traditional set of programs that would help
improve the areas of socialization and communication in one-to-one and group settings and self-
advocacy to improve students’ ability to express their opinions, thoughts, needs, and wants. By
improving these areas students with disabilities could become more adept at self-determination or
the process by which they control their own lives. Services and supports that address these areas
would improve the success of SWDs in higher education (Getzel, 2008). Connecting new
16
information to prior knowledge and using schemas to organize and store information in long-term
memory enables increasingly complex concepts to be processed in working memory (Kirschner,
Kirschner, & Pass, 2006; Mayer, 2011). Disability counselors needed to be able to connect
knowledge acquired from needs assessments to additional service needs by SWDs when
developing new programs to address those needs.
Ability to Create Campus Collaborations
Procedural knowledge is necessary for disability counselors to form successful
collaborations with campus partners in an effort to promote student success. As a result of the
increase of secondary students identifying their goal to attend higher education, a number of
colleges were establishing programs and services to help students stay in school (Getzel, 2008).
Well-designed procedures make it easier for individuals to process information or perform a task
(Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011). Because procedural information is easily held in working
memory, it should be presented at the time it is needed (Kirschner et al., 2006). Disability
counselors developed procedures that provided a step-by-step account of the necessary elements
to working collaboratively and effectively with campus partners which were found to be important
to student success. These steps included creating a shared goal, who to contact, logistics, who
should be involved in the collaboration, and setting action plans that would assist in forming
effective partnerships with campus partners in an effort to meet the needs of SWDs.
Table 1 in the following section will present the knowledge influences that were assumed
to serve as assets.
17
Table 1
Knowledge Influences and Types
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Conceptual
DCs must have knowledge of how to identify barriers that inhibit
student success through student observation and a comprehensive
assessment that includes the following:
● The student’s history and prior use of accommodations.
● A self-report about the impact of the disability.
● Medical or psychological documentation.
● Other factors outside of the classroom -- funding for college
and familial responsibilities.
Conceptual
Disability counselors (DCs) must have knowledge of services needed
by students that go beyond the traditional set of programs that would
help improve the following:
● Socialization and communication -- one-to-one and in a group
setting -- inside and outside of the classroom
● Self-advocacy -- help students improve their ability to express
needs, wants, opinions, and thoughts.
● Self-determination – process by which SWDs control their own
lives.
Procedural
DCs must have knowledge of how to best collaborate with other
campus programs to promote student success. Collaborations may
include the following:
● Partnering with the campus tutoring center to improve study
skills and time management
● Partnering with the campus counseling and psychological
services to reduce stress and test anxiety
● Partnering with the career development center to prepare and
assist students in obtaining internships and improving job
seeking skills.
Motivational Influences
Motivation is important to examine because it impacts individuals’ behaviors and their
likelihood of successfully achieving a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation is
influenced by the degree to which individuals believed they had reasonable goals and sufficient
18
resources to be effective (Clark & Estes, 2008). Three common indicators of motivation are
active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Individuals make an
active choice when they begin working toward the goal regardless of distractions or obstacles
(Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Individuals need to apply sufficient mental effort to successfully
achieve a goal, although the effort required varied depending on the difficulty of the goal as well
as the individuals’ knowledge, experience, and confidence (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation could be impacted by a variety of internal and external factors (Rueda, 2011).
In the following session, two critical motivational factors are put forth as impacting disability
counselors in achieving their goals. First, they have to understand the value of implementing best
practices that address the individual needs of students with disabilities to support degree
completion. Utility value is the perceived usefulness of a goal or activity to an individual’s
personal goals (Eccles, 2006). If disability counselors do not see the stakeholder goal as useful to
their individual goals, they might not actively work to achieve that goal. Second, disability
counselors need to value the goal of developing new programs to address individual student
needs that go beyond the traditional services provided by the office of students with disabilities.
A gap analysis identifies whether individuals had the motivation to meet their goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This study examined disability counselors’ perceived utility and self-efficacy in
relation to the stakeholder goal to determine whether a gap existed.
Disability Counselors’ Self-Efficacy
Individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs primarily from four sources: mastery,
experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological reactions (Pajares, 2012).
Self-efficacy beliefs enhance human accomplishments and well-being in a variety of ways. They
influence choices and the courses of action people pursue. Individuals tend to select tasks and
activities in which they feel confident and competent and avoid those in which they do not.
19
Unless people believe their actions will have the desired consequences, they have little incentive
to engage in those activities (Pajares, 2012, p.3). Research by Clark and Estes (2008) found that
“beliefs are (almost) everything” suggesting that when individuals have positive beliefs about
their ability to do something, they are more likely to pursue the goal and increase performance.
Disability Counselors needed adequate self-efficacy to continuously engage in the process of
implementing best disability counseling practices, persisting at implementing these practices and
investing mental effort to optimize the implementation of these practices. In addition, DC’s need
to feel confident in their ability to implement best disability counseling practices as critical to
degree completion, thereby having formed a positive belief about their ability to help students
succeed and making it more likely that DCs would achieve their goals.
Disability Counselors’ Attainment Value
Attainment value refers to the link between a task and an individual’s image of who they
are in terms of personality, capabilities, goals, roles, values, and interests (Eccles, 2006). If a task
aligned with a person’s self-image, the task has positive attainment value to the individual
(Eccles, 2006). The importance that disability counselors place on the task of developing new
programs that go beyond the traditional set of programs provided by OSD was an important
factor examined. This study assessed the relative value DCs placed on the development of new
programs in relation to the provision of traditional services.
Table 2 shows the assumed motivational influences for disability counselors to meet the
goals of implementing best practices that addressed individual needs of students to support
degree completion and the development of new programs that went beyond the traditional set of
services provided by the office of students with disabilities.
20
Table 2
Motivational Influences
Self-efficacy DCs need to feel confident in their ability to implement best
disability counseling practices as critical to degree completion.
Attainment Value DCs must highly value the development of new programs to
address student needs that go beyond the traditional services
provided at the office of students with disabilities in relation to
other aspects of their job.
Organizational Influences
The organizational influences relevant to implementing best disability counseling
practices in a postsecondary setting are important to examine because organizational
performance might be negatively affected if work processes are ineffective or organizational
resources are insufficient (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational issues can contribute to
motivation and knowledge gaps and are often the root of performance problems (Rueda, 2011).
Organizations are seen as complex systems, each with their own culture that evolves over time
from the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes of its members (Clark & Estes,
2008). According to Schein (2004), culture can be viewed as an organization’s personality.
Organizational behavior can be observed, but the causes can be generally unconscious (Schein,
2004). The analysis of organizational culture can occur from different levels such as the most
visible aspects of the culture, to the underlying assumptions that have been internalized by
individuals operating within the culture (Schein, 2004).
Organizational culture can be examined using two units of analysis, models and settings.
Cultural models are the shared assumptions and understandings held by the organization’s
members (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda 2011). Cultural settings are the visible and
tangible manifestations of culture including the physical work environment or the daily routines
21
and practices of the organization’s members (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). An
organization’s cultural setting impacted, and is shaped by, the individuals operating within the
cultural model (Rueda, 2011). This study examined organizational influences within PCU’s
cultural model and cultural setting and determined whether any gaps existed.
Campus Culture of Success, Innovation, and Collaboration
In 2015, PCU developed strategic priorities campus wide to increase the success of all
students as a result of historically low overall graduation rates. The plan included realizing the
promise of diversity in inclusive excellence, promoting strategic thinking and the implementation
of effective practices that engaged distinct student communities. Included among the measures of
success were the increase in retention and graduation rates and a reduction in disparities
pertaining to said rates. The organizational goal of the OSD to create a culture of student success
among DCs by valuing and acknowledging the implementation of best disability counseling
practices, developing innovative strategies, and forming effective collaborations that led to
degree completion were in direct alignment with those of PCUs strategic priorities. An
organization’s ultimate mission, goals, means used to achieve goals, measurement of its
performance, and remedial strategies all require consensus if the organization is to perform
effectively (Schein, 2004). PCU needs to build a culture of student success between the
organization and DCs. Working collaboratively within a culture of success better enables DCs to
implement best disability counseling practices within a collaborative and innovative environment
conducive to the development of new programs that promote the organizational goal of degree
completion.
Knowledge Development and Stakeholder Collaboration
The climate of an organization is inferred by its members based on how the organization
functions day-to-day and the goals it pursues (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Employee
22
perceptions of organizational climate affect individual and organizational outcomes, including
job performance (Lawler, Hall, & Oldham, 1974). Effective change efforts ensure that everyone
has the resources (equipment, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and if there are
resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008). The office of students with disabilities needs to create a climate that is conducive to
knowledge development in the area of best practices in addition to providing the organizational
resources to disability counselors in the way of funding, time, and space to meet with campus
partners to develop new programs, or to find ways to incorporate new strategies in existing
programs, that would meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Table 3 shows the assumed cultural model and cultural setting influences needed to
support disability counselors’ goals of increasing their knowledge in the area of best disability
counseling practices and the organizational goal of providing DC’s with the resources necessary
to develop new programs and strategies that would meet the needs of SWDs.
Table 3
Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1
/ Campus culture
The organization needs to create a culture of student success
amongst disability counselors by individually and publicly
acknowledging and valuing the implementation of best
practices.
Cultural Model Influence 2
/ Campus culture
The organization needs to promote a culture conducive to
innovation and collaboration in order for disability counselors to
assist in the development of new programs that will promote the
institutional goal of degree completion.
Cultural Setting Influence
1 / Knowledge
development
The organization needs to allow DCs to schedule time into their
workday to specifically increase their knowledge about best
practices in disability counseling.
Cultural Setting Influence
2/ Stakeholder
collaboration
The organization needs to provide resources to DCs in the way
of funding, time, and space to meet with on campus partners to
discuss and develop new programs or to find ways to include
23
strategies in existing programs that will meet the needs of
SWDs.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Disability Counselors’ Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework according to Maxwell (2013) is to inform the
research design in assessing and refining goals, developing realistic and relevant research
questions, selecting the appropriate methodological approach, and assisting with the
identification of validity threats to research conclusions. In the same vein, Maxwell (2013)
asserted that a theoretical framework draws upon concepts, terms, definitions, models, and
theories of a specific literature base and disciplinary orientation. The framework also assisted the
researcher in generating the problem of the study, the specific research questions, data collection,
and analysis techniques and how the researcher would interpret the findings. Along with the
specified framework outlined in this study, a convergence of the following worldviews served to
further inform and add breadth to the study.
Two worldviews converged to inform this study: a transformative worldview and a
pragmatic worldview. A transformative worldview focuses on the needs of groups and
individuals in society that were considered marginalized or disenfranchised, placed central
importance on the study of lives and experiences of diverse groups, focused on inequities such as
race and disability, linked political and social action, and theorized the existence of systems of
oppression and domination (Creswell, 2012). The pragmatic worldview arose out of actions,
situations, and consequences rather than previous conditions and was solution based (Creswell,
2014). Additionally, this worldview sought to find the truth and the best understanding of the
research problem, looked to the “what” and “how” to research based on intended consequences,
24
always occurred in social, historical, political, and other contexts and was seen through a lens
that was reflective of social justice and political aims (Creswell, 2014). This researcher strived to
evaluate and garner a deeper understanding of the interactions occurring between DCs within the
context of PCU that contributed to degree completion of students with disabilities.
The purpose of the conceptual framework was to present, through a graphical and written
representation, the fundamental ideas and factors that were being examined and their relationship
to each other (Maxwell, 2013). Although the research presented each of the potential influences
independent of each other, the researcher recognized that they did not remain in isolation from
each other. As evinced by Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs must be attended to, concurrently, for organizational and stakeholder goal achievement to
occur. The ensuing section served to demonstrate the ways in which knowledge and motivation
worked in concert within PCU’s organizational context to achieve the goal of 100% of DCs
implementing best disability counseling practices leading to student success.
25
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 consists of concentric circles, a large circle with a smaller circle nested inside,
and an arrow located at the bottom of the larger circle pointing to a box. The larger circle
represents the cultural models and cultural settings of PCU. Next, is the smaller circle
representing DCs - housed within OSD - the primary stakeholders of focus, within the
organizational context reflecting the knowledge and motivational factors critical to
accomplishing their goal. Lastly, the stakeholder goal is located in the box underneath the
circles, as indicated by the arrow, and is accomplished through an interaction of the knowledge
and motivation factors within the organizational context. The following section provides an
explanation of the interactions between the stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation and the
organizational context.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational framework developed by Clark and Estes
(2008) and as reflected in Figure 1 was used to evaluate the performance of DCs by assessing
their knowledge and motivation in relation to implementing best counseling practices when
26
working with SWDs. As asserted by Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge is found in the form
of terminology, knowledge, and specific details. Factual knowledge is exemplified by DCs
possessing a deep understanding of research-based predictors of student success such as full-time
attendance, on-campus living, degree aspirations, first-year grade point average, and cost of
attendance (Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). By stakeholders increasing their knowledge, they
could become better adept at implementing best disability counseling practices such as services
needed by students that went beyond the traditional set of programs and would help improve
socialization and communication -- one-to-one and in a group setting -- inside and outside of the
classroom and teach strategies such as self-advocacy that will help students improve their ability
to articulate needs, wants, opinions, and thoughts; how to best collaborate with other campus
programs to promote student success including collaborating and partnering with the campus
tutoring center to improve study skills and time management, partnering with the campus
counseling and psychological services to reduce stress and test anxiety, partnering with the
career development center to prepare and assist students in obtaining internships and improving
job seeking skills. In addition, DCs worked toward identifying barriers that inhibited student
success through student observations and a comprehensive assessment that included the student’s
history and prior use of accommodations, self-report about the impact of the disability, medical
or psychological documentation and other extraneous factors outside of the classroom such as
funding for college and familial responsibilities. By effectively addressing these barriers through
the implementation of best practices, DCs begin to effect and shape the organizational context
(Pilay & Bhat, 2012). As suggested by Kirschner, Kirschner and Paas (2006), step-by-step
procedural knowledge is necessary for a learner to be able to perform a certain task.
Additionally, DCs were required to determine student needs through the use of comprehensive
needs assessments which required procedural and conceptual knowledge. As found in Mayer
27
(2011), conceptual knowledge involves complex and organized forms of knowledge including
but not limited to classification, categories, theories, models and structures. This type of
knowledge was employed when DCs were tasked with determining services based on disability
related needs and are formulating a connection between the disability related barrier within the
learning environment and access to the learning environment (Lovett, Nelson, & Lindstrom,
2015).
Motivation is defined by Clark and Estes (2006) as what gets people moving and
provides information about how much effort is exerted for any given task. Additionally,
motivation is demarcated by active choice, persistence, and mental effort. The next motivational
influence was goal orientation relative to DCs’ motivation to create new and innovative
programs to address students’ needs that differed from what was typically provided to college
students. It is necessary for motivational influences to interact with one another for the
achievement of a common goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). The motivational influences
are paired with knowledge influences within the smaller circle situated within the organizational
context. When the learning and motivational elements interact, they lead to the achievement of
the stakeholder goal as denoted by the rectangle. Therefore, this conceptual framework suggests
the tentative theory that if learning and motivation occur within the organizational context, DCs
have the ability to shape organizational culture to one of collaboration, innovation, and
excellence by implementing best disability practices leading to degree completion.
Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment
This researcher employed convenience sampling for the purposes of the proposed study
which included approximately ten disability counselors (DCs). Convenience sampling allowed
the researcher to recruit participants that were available to volunteer or could be easily recruited
to participate in the study (Johnson & Christiensen, 2015). The initial data collection consisted of
28
interviews where ten DCs at PCU were invited to participate in the study. Interview data was
carefully analyzed to explore the DCs’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences in
the implementation of best disability counseling practices. The data was utilized to evaluate and
better understand their knowledge of services needed by students that went beyond the
traditional set of programs, how to best collaborate with other campus programs to promote
student success and identify barriers that inhibited student success through student observation
and a comprehensive assessment. Data from the interviews was used to evaluate the DCs’
motivation and the importance of the implementation of best practices as critical to support
degree completion. Lastly, the data was utilized to understand the interaction of organizational
influences such as campus culture, knowledge development and campus and stakeholder
collaborations. The data gathered pertaining to best disability counseling practices informed the
study about how the interaction of the culture and context of PCU and DCs’ knowledge and
motivation impacted the implementation of best practices.
Interview (Recruitment) Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
To be eligible to participate in the interview, participants had to be employed as disability
counselors. This ensured that interview participants understood how disability impacted SWDs’
access to the learning environment.
Interview Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
The stakeholder population of focus for this study was disability counselors who worked
at the office for students with disabilities (OSD) within PCU. The criteria used for the purpose of
sampling participants is their full-time employment as DCs.
29
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The qualitative data collection and instrumentation utilized for this proposed study was
interviews and the collection of various types of visual documents and artifacts. Interviewing is
necessary when it is not possible to observe behavior, feelings or how people interpret the world
around them and is necessary when we are interested in gathering information about events that
occurred in the past (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In terms of mining data from documents and
artifacts, there are various types of documents and artifacts that are utilized in research studies:
1) public records; 2) personal documents; 3) popular culture documents; 4) visual documents; 5)
physical material and artifacts; and 6) research-generated documents and artifacts (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts considered of “ready-made” sources of data that are
easily accessible to the imaginative and resourceful investigator and could exist in both a
physical and on-line setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Interviews
This study consisted of seven audio taped semi-structured interviews via Zoom and took
place at a time that was most convenient for the respondents (i.e., before work, lunch, or after
work). In-person interviews were not possible due to COVID-19 restrictions. The researcher
asked respondents to set aside 1-1.5 hours for individual interviews to allow for a rich
conversation. As found by Weiss (1994), the location of an interview can minimize the risk of
skewed responses when interviews occur at a respondent’s home or work environment.
Additionally, Weiss (1994) suggested that scheduling interviews for 1-1.5 hours is a sufficient
amount of time when the interviewer does not know what to expect. Audio taping interviews is a
way of ensuring a higher fidelity of information than that of handwritten notes (Weiss, 1994).
Finding relevant materials is generally a systematic procedure that develops out of the process of
30
inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This researcher utilized the interview process as one means
of identifying relevant documents and artifacts.
Documents and Artifacts
Documents and artifacts included items such as departmental statistics, policies and
procedures, redacted student accommodation plans, meeting agendas, memoranda, public
records and visual documents such as PCU brochures, photographs, website, and workshop
announcements. Most documents and artifacts existed prior to the research study at hand and
may have included official records, organizational promotional materials, letters, newspaper
accounts, poems, songs, corporate records, government documents, historical accounts, diaries,
autobiographies, blogs, and so on (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These documents served to
provide support for the interview data of this evaluative study and provided additional data about
the various types of knowledge held by DCs, the organizational influences at PCU as well as the
DCs application of best disability counseling practices. Statistics pertaining to degree
completion, accommodation plans, and meeting minutes were used to understand the extent of
the implementation of best practices by DCs and were obtained on-line and through respondents.
Meeting agendas and memoranda provided evidence about the degree of collaboration between
DCs and other university departments while accommodation plans and visual documents were
demonstrative of the degree of knowledge and motivation of DCs pertaining to best counseling
practices by showing whether DCs understood the relationship between disability and services
needed within the learning environment. These artifacts came directly from respondents and/or
the research environment.
Data Analysis
The analysis of data is the process of making sense out of data. Making sense out of data
involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people say and what the researcher has
31
seen and read – it is the process of making meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
utilized category construction as part of the data analysis process. Category construction began
with reading the first interview transcript, the first set of notes, and the first set of documents
collected in the study. While audio recording notes, the researcher hand recorded her interactions
to specific information provided by the participant, to signal the participant of the importance of
what was being said, or to pace the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Notes, comments,
observations, and queries in the margins or what is also referred to as open coding (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) was utilized. The format of the interview transcript was set up to enable effective
analysis. The top of the first page listed identifying information as to when, where, and with
whom the interview was conducted as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). An
additional recommendation pertaining to interview analysis was adding line numbering down the
left-hand side of the page, beginning with the first page and number sequentially to the end of the
interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The challenge was to construct categories and themes that
captured some recurring patterns across the data. The researcher proceeded with data collection,
assigned category names to the data in a separate memo and retained those that seemed to apply
across more than one interview and proceeded to sort all of the evidence for the scheme into
categories as suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Next, the researcher devised the
categories and named them according to herself, the researcher, the participants’ exact words, or
sources outside of the study, most likely from the literature on the respective topic as suggested
by (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, recording of biases that the researcher brought into
the study were recorded via handwritten notes and were carefully considered during and after the
interviews.
32
Participating Stakeholders
The following pseudonyms were used for the interviewees: Geraldo, Dana, Iliana, Dahlia,
Kenneth, James, and William. Dana, Dahlia, James, and William represent the floor of
experience and tenure. Geraldo, Iliana, and Kenneth represent the ceiling of experience and
tenure. All seven DCs at PCU agreed to participate in an interview. All research participants
were full-time DCs and worked directly with students with disabilities at PCU. Participants were
invited to participate via an email drafted by the researcher and sent out by OSD’s Director.
Table 4 Below indicates each Disability Counselor’s years of experience as a full-time DC.
Table 4
Disability Counselors' Year of Experience
Participant Name
(pseudonym)
Years of Experience
(n)
Geraldo 25
Iliana 10
Kenneth 8
William 7
James 5
Dahlia 4
Dana 2
N = Number of years of experience (n) as a full-time DC.
33
Findings
The findings were derived from multiple sources of qualitative data. Specifically,
interviews, documents, and artifacts were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational assets and barriers DCs at PCU encounter when working with college
students with disabilities. The study utilized a purposeful sample of seven DCs with whom
interviews were conducted, followed by an analysis of documents and artifacts. Triangulation
entailed cross-checking data from multiple sources at various points of the data collection
process. In an effort to thoroughly address the research questions, the findings are organized
according to Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. The knowledge findings are presented
first, followed by the motivation and organizational findings.
Knowledge Findings
The first research question of this study was centered on the DCs’ knowledge and
motivation related to implementing best disability counseling practices. The interviews sought to
reveal whether DCs had an understanding of best disability counseling practices and possessed
the skills and motivation to implement them in their practice. The following section presents
findings to each of the knowledge and motivation influences that guided the study.
Disability Counselors’ Robust Conceptual Skills in Identifying Services that Reduce Barriers
and Lead to Student Success
This study’s first research question centered on DCs’ knowledge and motivation related
to implementing best disability counseling services. The findings from the interviews support
that DCs were able to identify barriers to student success as well as services to reduce those
barriers through an individualized interactive process. A total of seven out of seven interviewees
were in consensus that the interactive process was key in determining services for students that
would serve to reduce disability related barriers. They articulated how they determined what
34
supports and services individual students needed to work toward degree completion. Dahlia who
was promoted to DC in the last year and is relatively new in her position stated, “I review
documentation that students bring in that is relevant to their disability and meet with them in a
one-to-one setting and discuss their previous experience, if any, using accommodations during
high school or college.” Geraldo, who is at the ceiling of tenure and experience, 25-years as a
DC, shared the following:
The critical information I would need from a counseling perspective, is for the student to
let me know, aside from their diagnosis, is how their disability affects them in the
classroom, while attempting to take notes, take exams, read books and do research. After
listening to and digesting this information I can help the student through an interactive
process. I can help determine what support service would best work for them. The caveat
being that the services are not set-in stone and can be adjusted at any time.
Both less experienced and more experienced DCs commented on the importance of
understanding a student’s experience by engaging students in an interactive process. DCs at both
the floor and at the ceiling of tenure and experience explained how the interactive process relates
to determining needed services which translate into the provision of accommodations within the
learning environment. Their responses to the interview questions suggested they possessed
conceptual knowledge, or, in other words, the foundational knowledge related to disability
counseling services. For example, Kenneth, who has considerable experience, articulated the
following about what information is needed to determine and approve accommodations, “First, I
ask the student about what challenges they have experienced at school and what they perceive as
an obstacle for them within the classroom.” Kenneth’s practice of engaging with students in an
interactive process as the primary means of collecting information about a student’s needs was in
alignment with that of his colleagues. Kenneth added, “When it comes down to it, it is all about
functional limitations and challenges each individual student is experiencing.” This demonstrated
that Kenneth understands the relationship between various disabilities and the ways in which the
35
interactive process can help reduce barriers for students who fall on the continuum of disability
and with differing needs. Similarly, Iliana, who represents the ceiling of tenure and experience,
said:
In addition to documentation of their disability, it’s important to ask a student what services
they received while they were attending high school, community college or another
university. I also ask students what challenges they experience in the classroom and have
found that at times students are busy trying to concentrate on a lecture and taking notes
disrupts their ability to focus and retain information. This information tells me that this
particular student may need notetaking services to help them focus on the lecture and what
is being taught.
Iliana’s understanding of the relationship between the student’s previous experience with
accommodations and current challenges within the classroom served to inform her of the
student’s disability-related needs and as a result, helped her to determine the services that may
help reduce barriers to learning. Similarly, William who represents the floor of experience,
expressed a belief that meeting with a student to determine their needs is at the forefront of
understanding the breadth of services one student may need due to the complexity of their
disability. William also demonstrated the importance of the relationship between the interactive
process and multiple elements within the learning environment and how they work in concert to
reduce barriers. James explained the following, “I start by asking for and reviewing
documentation that supports what the student has reported as a disability. We then have a
conversation about what accommodations or combination of accommodations have worked for
them in the past and then begin determining what might help them in their current classes.”
Overall, data demonstrated that the DCs possessed the conceptual knowledge necessary to
identify services that help reduce barriers and lead to student success. This includes DCs
engaging students in the interactive process as a means of understanding how prior use of
accommodations, previous experience with accommodations, and perceived barriers relate to
current needs. There was a consensus by DCs that the interactive process is key to determining
36
accommodations based on a student's unique and individual needs. The interactive process was
found to be of great importance with legal mandates under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act and PCU’s Board of Trustee policies.
Disability Counselors’ Varying Levels of Understanding About Programs that Go Beyond the
Traditional Set of Disability Related Programs
An understanding about programs that go beyond the traditional set of disability-related
programs is important for DCs as they work toward increasing rates of degree completion for
SWDs. Participants were asked to put aside the concern for resources and share what kind of
programs they would like to see developed to meet student needs. Suggestions included
specialized academic advising and tutoring, additional space for accommodated testing,
customization of services, funding, a media center, and a compliance sheriff. The responses by
DCs were diverse and addressed a variety of identified student needs. Kenneth discussed
improving upon current university services and shared the following:
A program of academic advisors trained specifically to work with students with disabilities.
We don’t provide academic advising as a general specialization, so it’s not a stand-alone
program. Currently, general academic advisors don’t understand the needs of SWDs. A
trained academic advisor could help SWDs understand the connections between their major
and choosing a realistic career path. So really taking into account individual needs and the
uniqueness of each student’s disability and how it impacts them planning their education.
Kenneth clarified that the best way to meet the needs of SWDs is by “customizing services” to
each individual student. He also mentioned that it is important for DCs to collaborate with the
career center to help prepare students for life after college.
Dana had another perspective on the needs of SWDs and stated, “Specialized tutoring
provided in our office where there are people who understand the student’s disability and their
needs.” Dana also stated she believed students would benefit greatly from additional space on
campus set aside specifically for accommodated testing needs and would require collaboration
37
with the student union and facilities management. James DC believed the university was in need
of a compliance sheriff that would ensure accessibility of classroom content, departmental
websites, buildings, and programs. He said, “We don’t have anyone with the authority to tell
someone they need to fix something and bring it up to compliance. Another need is funding for a
student organization that would provide SWDs a space they can call their own.” William
expressed his thoughts about space which were somewhat similar and shared the following:
A separate place for students that they could use to their advantage to study. Although we
have a library, it is always full and SWDs need a quiet space to work on homework and
complete projects. A large space, almost arena-like, containing open space and private
rooms for students who need a distraction free environment to work and study.
Iliana indicated, “Additional funding for programming such as an expanded graduation
ceremony, a virtual open house, and a centralized virtual space where students can access training
developed specifically for them.” This DC believed the current staffing levels made it extremely
difficult to develop programs when most of their time was spent working with students to
determine and approve accommodations. Dahlia also believed that additional space for testing was
important. She also expressed that funding for an increase in the number of student assistants who
provide proctoring and act as scribes during testing is needed. Lastly, Geraldo who is at the ceiling
of tenure and experience shared the following:
I would like to see a media center that can provide services not just to SWDs who need it,
but provide services to faculty that need to create accessible materials in accessible formats.
A lot of times we send emails to faculty asking them to provide materials in accessible
formats and they don’t know where or how to begin to do that. Unfortunately, our
department is not in a position where we can support the faculty member but the university
needs to support faculty members. I think ideally a media center would be fantastic and it
could support the needs of both SWDs and faculty. I would also like to see us collaborate
more with the university counseling center to address the stigma associated with mental
health disabilities and the growing number of students needing mental health services.
A review of PCU’s webpage primarily reflected support services or accommodations for SWDs
and a program specifically designed to convert textbooks into accessible formats and did not reflect
38
any services for faculty members or any programs that went beyond the traditional set of
accommodations. DCs expressed recognition for the need of a variety of new programs that go
beyond the traditional set of disability related programs and mentioned resources as a barrier to
developing new programs. This study further addresses those concerns in the subsequent section
entitled Organizational Findings.
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Need to Form Additional Strategic Collaborations
Participant interviews revealed all seven out of seven DCs perceived a need to form
additional strategic campus collaborations. Despite this need, DCs had a robust understanding of
the types of strategic collaborations that could benefit SWDs which included collaborating with
the academic advising center, tutoring center, career center, student union, facilities
management, university compliance office, faculty, and the university counseling center.
College campuses are generally highly collaborative environments where DCs are expected to
work with other departments with the goal of fostering student success. This practice is
especially important because of the unique needs of SWDs as they attempt to access resources
available to all students on campus. William expressed the desire to collaborate more closely
with PCU’s Office of Campus Life, where student organizations are managed, in an effort to
increase social capital of SWDs as a result of interacting with other students. He also discussed
cross-collaborations with other campuses and offered the following:
Working with other campuses can also benefit SWDs. Other campuses have technology
labs and are doing things we’ve barely begun to try on our campus. Looking outside of the
immediate circle of our campus would help us bring in new ideas that could benefit both
staff and students.
Similarly, Kenneth believed SWDs would benefit from a more intentional collaboration with
PCU’s Center for Student Involvement (CSI) which develops programming for traditionally
underserved groups such as women, LGBTQ students and others. Kenneth said, “Disability
39
disproportionately impacts students from marginalized communities and a collaboration with
CSI could potentially benefit SWDs that also experience academic barriers. A collaboration with
CSI could help us identify additional SWDs who could benefit from our services.” Both William
and Kenneth shared similar perspectives about the benefits of including SWDs in existing
student groups as well as creating a space specifically for SWDs to come together. Geraldo
shared the same sentiment as William and Kenneth about the importance of SWDs increased
participation with existing student groups on campus and added the following:
More access to support groups that stem from the counseling and psychological services
area. This is especially critical for students who have dual diagnosis which includes
students on the spectrum. In the last five years, it is my opinion that students on the
spectrum are looking for opportunities where they can expand their social interaction, but
somehow feel inhibited from pursuing this activity. Also, more representation of SWDs in
student organizations and student governance.
liana shared her perspective about campus collaborations and discussed how any campus
department planning an event could greatly benefit from consulting with the Office for Students
with Disabilities (OSD) to ensure their programs and events are inclusive of SWDs. Iliana added
that she believed collaborating more with academic departments to disseminate information
about the benefit of their services to all students would serve to better inform both students with
disabilities and their non-disabled peers.
Dana shared that she believed a closer collaboration with faculty to increase awareness of
the needs of SWDs in the class could be of great benefit to students and faculty alike. She said,
“Having faculty on our side, on the side of the student, is important. They are the ones who have
to implement the accommodations and their collaboration is crucial when it comes to students
passing their classes.” Iliana and Dana emphasized the important role faculty play in the success
of SWDs, identifying new SWDs and implementing accommodations within the learning
environment.
40
Dahlia added her perspective and believed that a collaboration with PCU’s tutoring center
to meet the unique needs of SWDs, including additional tutoring sessions and extended time in
those sessions would meet a long-standing need of SWDs. All DCs demonstrated a robust
understanding of the importance of campus collaborations and were in consensus that more
strategic collaborations could benefit both students and faculty.
Motivation Findings
The motivation portion of the second research question was centered on the interaction
between PCU’s culture and context and disability counselors’ knowledge and motivation. The
data revealed DCs’ mixed levels of self-efficacy related to the implementation of best disability
counseling practices along with high levels of attainment value regarding the development of
new programs. These two motivation types are further discussed below.
Disability Counselors’ Mixed Levels of Self-Efficacy Related to Implementing Best Disability
Counseling Practices
It was apparent from the interviews that all four DCs at the ceiling of tenure and
experience reported higher levels of self-efficacy as compared to the three DCs at the floor of
tenure and experience who reported lower levels of self-efficacy. It is plausible the more tenured
DCs expressed higher levels of self-efficacy due to more years of experience and mastery
implementing best practices. DCs with less experience, did not demonstrate mastery of
determining accommodations which was reflected in a narrower interactive process with
individual students and their on-going need for guidance from more experienced DCs. They also
demonstrated low levels of self-efficacy about how to bring an idea forward and garner support
for the development of new programs. Tenure appeared to be the key differentiator between high
and low levels of self-efficacy among DCs.
41
Kenneth, a DC with a high-level of experience, shared that when working one-on-one
with SWDs to determine accommodations his primary source of information comes directly from
the student’s self-report coupled with any medical or psychological documentation. Kenneth
elaborated on this topic and shared the following:
When it comes down to it, it’s all about the student’s functional limitations or challenges
with each individual student, making it an individualized assessment of the student’s needs.
I also look at different factors such as socioeconomic status, first generation college student
status, immigrant students or children of immigrant parents. Anything that shows us that
they did not have the same resources as other students or don’t currently have resources. I
take all of these things into consideration.
Kenneth additionally shared that when it comes to developing programs that go beyond the set of
traditional programs, he believed he has some good ideas about new programs to develop for
SWDs, especially those that have to do with employment after graduation. He mentioned he had
many contacts and knew that there was a need for this type of programming but there were many
barriers that kept him from pushing his ideas forward.
Iliana and Geraldo who have worked as DCs the longest had similar thoughts about
implementing best disability counseling practices. Iliana stated the following:
Appropriate support documentation is important to review prior to meeting with a student
but isn’t always needed to set up an appointment. I make it a point to ask first year freshmen
whether they had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a 504 Plan while in HS
and ask transfer students if they received accommodations at a previous college. It’s
important to understand any previous experience they might have with accommodations
even if it wasn’t in a college setting. I also ask students about how they learn best and what
they believe is a barrier for them in the classroom.
Iliana also shared that in terms of developing new programs, when she identifies the need for a
new program, she uses her extensive network at PCU to discuss the possibility of collaboration
and then pitches it to her supervisor and the rest of the team for support and has been successful
at piloting a few programs. Similarly, Geraldo also takes into great consideration the “student
self-report as the primary source of information” and relies heavily on “prior use of
42
accommodations” and anything else outside of school that may be affecting the student’s ability
to participate fully in their education. In terms of developing new programs, Geraldo shared that
there are many programs that he would like to see get off the ground and that at times despite
support or need, it comes down to the departmental budget and the resources available to develop
and implement a new program and said, “Budgets are always tight. We have a very large campus
with many students and most of the time we are only able to meet their accommodation needs so
developing new programs is difficult.”
Dana, a DC at the floor of tenure shared that many times, after student intake meetings,
she needs to consult with her supervisor to ensure she is making the right decisions about what
accommodations to approve. She said, “I started off working at the front office and worked my
way up. I’ve learned on the job but did not have any prior training about how to work with
students with disabilities. I often second guess myself.” When discussing her ability to develop
new programs for students, she shared that she did not feel confident about how to begin to
develop a new program for SWDs and felt more comfortable leaving that up to her supervisors.
A second DC, James, who had not worked very long in his position as a DC shared, “My
specialty is assistive technology. I feel the most comfortable discussing a student's technology
needs. When it comes to other accommodations, I have to go back to the team and discuss other
possible needs and try to figure out what else they might need.” This DC also shared that when
he was hired, there was little to no training for his position and he would like to see a more
effective onboarding process developed for all PCU staff. He also recounted how highly
beneficial a visit to another campus within PCU’s university system was for him and has served
as inspiration for possibly developing a technology lab for SWDs at PCU. William explained
that when it comes to determining accommodations, he relies on what has worked in the past for
a student. He described that he has a discussion with the student and relies on other DCs for
43
more complicated student accommodations. Dahlia, a DC with a similar level of experience
shared that she relies heavily on documentation and the student’s self-report when determining
accommodations. She said, “I do my best to match a student’s needs with an accommodation, but
it isn’t always easy. Accommodations are unique to each student but I will sometimes think
about what might have helped a different student in a similar situation and suggest that to the
current student, usually the idea will require some tweaking but usually works out well.” When
discussing program development, the fourth DC believed that she sees herself as more of an
“idea person'' and enjoyed thinking about and envisioning new programs but not necessarily
being the person to develop or implement the idea. Three of the four DCs at the floor of tenure
and experience shared that they did not always feel confident about determining
accommodations and did not express any motivation to create new programs for students. One of
these DCs seemed a bit more confident and saw herself as someone who could contribute ideas
for new programs but did not believe she was the appropriate person to implement and bring
those ideas to fruition.
Disability Counselors demonstrated mixed levels of self-efficacy related to implementing
best disability counseling practices. Tenure and experience emerged as the key factor in
differentiating between low and high levels of DCs self-efficacy. Despite tenure and experience,
all DCs were in consensus about the importance of developing new programs that would
positively impact student outcomes.
Disability Counselors’ High Levels of Attainment Value About Implementing Best Disability
Counseling Practices
Interviews revealed all seven out of seven DCs demonstrated high levels of attainment
value about implementing best disability counseling practices at PCU. Best practices included
engaging in an interactive process with individual students, comprehensive needs assessments,
44
looking beyond academic struggles, and developing new programs that went beyond the
traditional set of programs with the goal of increasing graduation rates. Geraldo shared his
perspective about the value of assessing SWDs individual needs and shared the following:
Every student with a disability has very specific individual needs. No individual in the
world, especially an individual with a disability, can be compared to a cookie cutter and
then giving them all the same services. You can have ten blind students and all of them
will have different needs so services are individualized because every student will have
their own individual needs. When SWDs don’t get individualized services it affects their
success, it increases their academic struggles, and it denies an individual access to their
education.
Geraldo also shared his perspective about the value of creating new programs and believes that
although DCs set out to provide support services they cannot “guarantee academic success” and
developing programs places students on an “equitable playing field.” He also stated, “We will
never be equal but we can work towards achieving equity.”
Dana, a DC with considerably less experience said, “We provide individualized services
to meet specific needs. No two students with learning disabilities are going to need the same
service which leads me to begin to discuss individual needs and individual accommodations.
Students need individualized services to pass their classes and get their needs met.” When
discussing the development of new programs, Dana shared that she is often the person who poses
a lot of questions and ideas to her supervisors. She shared, “I like to bring things up. I do my own
research, and suggest ways of doing things like using student assistants to provide specialized
tutoring and collaborate in some way with tutoring center to meet the needs of SWDs.” Dana also
shared that she believed, “If we don’t work to meet student needs, we are not doing the job we are
supposed to do.”
Iliana had a similar perspective about individualized services and commented that services
for SWDS are not “one size fits all.” Iliana discussed the accommodation of extended time on
exams and said, “Not all students with disabilities need extended time on their exams to do well.
45
It could be that all they need is a quiet space where they can concentrate better and not be
distracted.” She clarified that if students were not being provided with individualized services,
“they could be getting something they don’t need and isn’t going to benefit them.” When
discussing collaborating and program development she said, “Collaborating to develop new
programs could help our students feel a deeper sense of belonging. The more a student feels
connected to the campus, more engaged, they are more likely to feel better not only about the
campus but about their own success.”
William made similar comments about student needs and shared that the services he
provides students are “customized” based on the student’s “experience and limitations.” William
said, “It’s important to provide customized services, because if we don’t, students don’t feel
supported and I think a lot of them would not end up getting services and would fall between the
cracks.” In the same vein, James offered the following:
Many students with disabilities feel as though they are at a disadvantage, whatever it may
be. Our services provide a way of making everything more fair and equal, and allows them
equal opportunities to succeed. And it’s important because then we’ve given students the
opportunity to succeed as well as to do their part.
Kenneth spoke about how “disability presents itself in different ways, in different people”
and added that there were other factors that compounded disability such as race, class, gender, and
gender identity. Kenneth further elaborated on his viewpoint and added:
You can’t just give students blanket accommodations and say if this student with ADHD
needed this then all students with ADHD will need the same thing. We have to look deeper
and figure out what the student’s individual needs are and look past their disability. We
serve students who identify as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, first generation, Dreamers all of
which can add to the challenges SWDs face. If we didn’t consider the whole student they
might fall through the cracks and there would be nobody to support them, to advocate for
them and they wouldn’t be able to graduate.
Kenneth’s thoughts around the value of collaborating with campus partners to develop new
programs included, “Creating the right programs could help lead students down the right path and
46
set them up for success.” Kenneth believed program development should be a “natural part” of his
job.
Dahlia had very similar thoughts about implementing best practices and reinforced her
peers’ sentiments about students needing individualized services because it is not a “one size fits
all” and believed that in addition to individualized services a “holistic approach'' was imperative
to student success. She poignantly stated, “When SWDs are not successful it negatively impacts
generations of students to come.” When it comes to collaboration and developing new programs,
Dahlia believes that program development is another way of meeting individual student needs that
could increase the graduation rates of SWDs.
All Disability Counselors demonstrated a high level of attainment value about
implementing best disability counseling practices. Interviews showed the driving factor behind
their motivation was student success. It was apparent that the implementation of best disability
counseling practices is highly nuanced, involves a variety of factors, and is a complex and evolving
process.
Organizational Findings
According to document and artifact analysis, a review of PCU’s system wide policies on
the provision of accommodations and disability services and PCU’s Executive Orders affirmed
their s legal responsibilities to meet the needs of students with disabilities. These policies and
executive orders were developed by PCU’s Board of Trustees, Chancellor, and Chief Academic
Officer with input from a variety of internal and external stakeholders. The policies expressly
outline the provisions for accommodations and prohibit discrimination against students with
disabilities in academic programs, services, and activities in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, applicable state laws, Education Code, Higher Education
Act and systemwide executive orders. The policies specifically outlined in PCU’s non-
47
discrimination policy, define disability categories, determination of disability, program
coordination, academic requirements and reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services, provision of services and appeals process. A separate policy by PCUs Board of Trustees
emphasizes PCUs responsibility “to conduct an interactive process” with SWDs to assess the
functional impact of students’ disability and identify reasonable accommodations so that the
student has the opportunity to participate in the University programs and activities in a way that
are equal to those afforded to others.
The organizational portion of the third research question focused on exploring the
interaction between organizational influences and stakeholder knowledge and motivation.
Interviews showed that DCs possessed the desire to develop new programs but felt extremely
limited due to a perceived lack of time and resources. Interviews also revealed DCs’ mixed
levels of collaboration and innovation and perceived low levels of recognition for their work by
PCU. The following sections discuss the organizational findings of this research project.
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Lack of Time and Resources to Develop New Programs
Interviews revealed all seven out of seven DCs perceived a lack of time and resources to
develop new programs. The perceived lack of resources included additional staff, time, and
additional financial resources. Geraldo, the most seasoned DC at PCU, shared that OSD is
mandated to enforce legal mandates or what is “black and white” despite there being more that
students need outside of compliance. When discussing resources to develop new programs,
Geraldo shared the following:
Years ago, I wanted to develop a program for students with Autism. I found it difficult to
properly reach out to these students to provide more support. I would like to see a program
that offers more support to help them assimilate into the university. And we don’t have
that. At that time the Director reached out to the Director of the University Counseling
Center they put up flyers and things like that but it takes much more than that, it really
does. It takes time, resources, and a solid structure. And as much as I worked on that student
initiative, I just don’t think we were structured well enough to provide that support.
48
Geraldo also shared that he believed the number of students with Autism were only going to
increase and he did not want to “lose these students.”
Other DCs’ comments reflected Geraldo’s experiences. Kenneth shared frustrations
similar to Geraldo’s, “Funding prevents us from developing new programs and maybe there are
other things that can help with program development, but we do have job club workshops and
ability awareness week.” Iliana also discussed the need for additional resources to be able to
provide essential services and develop new programs. Her position is that at the top level of
PCU, there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the services OSD provides. This has
resulted in barriers to obtaining funding and resources. She candidly shared her perspective about
the lack of resources as follows:
There just isn’t a lot of buy-in from the top and people just don’t know what we’re doing.
A lack of understanding and knowledge from the top. One of the barriers is they don’t
really care and aren’t interested in what we do and may not really be going out of their way
to support our efforts. People with disabilities are always the last group of people to be
taken into consideration. We hear about race, class, and gender and it’s these groups who
have a seat at the table. People with disabilities should also be at the table. That’s the
biggest barrier, because if we need four more counselors and the person at the top doesn’t
even know what we do, why would they want to sign off on hiring more counselors?
Iliana’s perspective is multi-dimensional and implies that a lack of knowledge by those with
decision making power and the authority to distribute resources results in a deficit of staff and
resources paramount to serving the needs of SWDs. Another DC, William, shared his thoughts
about “missed opportunities” to create programs and improve services for students with
disabilities and said, “I wish I had more time. I wish I had more resources. We’ve had students
show interest but the resources, you know, just haven’t materialized.” Similarly, James said,
“We’d love to develop new programs. I think we need the resources to do it. Do we have the
technology to do it? Do we have the resources to do it? Do we have the budget?” James added
that in addition to financial support “a higher level of support in general” was needed to develop
49
effective programs for SWDs. Dahlia and Dana shared similar thoughts about the barriers to
developing new programs, Dahlia said, “Everyone has such a busy schedule. We need time to sit
and brainstorm and have a creative discussion before we begin planning a program.” Dahlia
believed the biggest barrier was a lack of “time allocation” to participate in a creative process.
Similarly, Dana said, “It’s a budget. The biggest and most important barrier we have is money.”
These findings indicate that the needs of SWDs, aside from mandated services, may not
be getting met due to a lack of time and resources. Although DCs have identified student needs,
demonstrate a desire to develop new programs and work collaboratively with on and off campus
partners, time and resources may be inhibiting their ability to implement this best practice.
Disability Counselors’ Perceived Lack of Organizational Resources Resulting in Mixed Levels
of Collaboration and Innovation
Disability Counselors at PCU demonstrated mixed levels of collaboration and innovation
as a result of a perceived lack of organizational support and resources. Participant responses
revealed that collaboration and innovation can occur in different contexts such as committee
meetings, staff meetings, or in one-on-one conversations with colleagues. In terms of
collaboration, Geraldo said, “I’m an individual who likes to collaborate and I think definitely
collaboration and expertise in the field makes you an ideal candidate for program development.”
Geraldo also shared that collaboration involves being “proactive” and not simply “putting out
fires.” Geraldo provided his perspective and said, “I would like to see more representation on
the President’s Cabinet Committee on issues for students with disabilities. We also need more
programs in general like a media center, a targeted program for students on the spectrum, and a
stand-alone outreach program, there are just so many.”
50
Iliana shared a similar perspective and shared the following:
Last year for disability awareness week we had heavy, heavy, campus partner
collaboration. PCU has something called wellness week and we used that program to kick-
off our disability awareness week and partnered with many, many campus programs like
the university counseling center, wellness committee, campus safety, student health center,
the dreamers resource center, veterans center, and any other program where we thought
they might have contact with students with disabilities. We asked them all to host a table
at our event and bring information about their programs and support our program as well
with their students. They all showed up to this first-time event. It was very successful!
Kenneth, a DC with less years of tenure than that of Geraldo and Iliana, explained different
levels of collaboration to reach SWDs by closely collaborating with their Educational Opportunity
Program (EOP) to reach first time freshman or transfer students and said, “We present to EOP and
other departments on campus and explain to them how our services can help students so that they
can refer students to our department.” Kenneth also discussed how he fosters relationships on
campus by “keeping an open-line of communication” with them and “following-up” about student
referrals. Lastly, Kenneth shared that collaboration for him was very “one-on-one” and many of
his peers preferred to collaborate by sitting on different campus committees. William shared his
thoughts about campus collaboration and innovation and said, “I would like to be able to
collaborate closer with our Information and Technology department and provide students with
assistive technology training. Currently, we don’t have anything like this for our students.” James
discussed the process he believes is necessary to develop new and creative ideas and said, “When
we develop new ideas, or make new changes, we usually have to brainstorm to get a pretty basic
foundation but there are so many demands on my time already. I’m not sure when I’m supposed
to fit that in.” James discussed how collaborating with other DCs was beneficial in that it helped
“pinpoint” gaps in ideas and helped to “strengthen those ideas” that would then lead to “testing
out the ideas.” Dahlia and Dana also discussed new ideas and collaborations, Dahlia stated, “I had
an idea to create a support group for students with visual impairments that would be a support
system for them but was unable to make it happen.” Dahlia also mentioned that due to
51
organizational barriers such as time constraints and resources her ability to collaborate is limited.
Dana had similar thoughts and believed that a lack of time and support prevents her from engaging
in conversations and “coming up with new ideas about how to better help students.”
The interviews identified a lack of resources and time as the primary barriers to
developing new programs. DCs expressed the desire to collaborate with campus partners and
were not short of innovative ideas and a desire to develop new programs to increase graduation
rates of SWDs. This perceived lack of time and resources will be further addressed in the
Recommendations for Practice section of this project.
Disability Counselors’ Perception of Mixed Levels of Recognition
Interviews revealed participants perceived mixed levels of recognition from Pacific Coast
University. There was a differentiation made between acknowledgement by other DCs,
supervisor and upper management. Disability Counselors shared their perceptions about the ways
in which their work is recognized at PCU, and William bluntly responded, “With a paycheck.”
William clarified his response by adding, “I don’t wanna say that I’m not acknowledged. I would
have to say that if anything, I am probably now looking for that and maybe I’m conscious about
it.” James shared that he would “almost feel bad” if he was acknowledged for “just doing my
job.” Dahlia shared that “sometimes” there’s acknowledgement during staff meetings depending
on a specific situation that took place where she or other DCs were directly involved. She
recounted the time when she feels most acknowledged and said, “...it would probably be during
graduation because you know it’s very rewarding to see students graduate and be successful and
know that you helped them by providing services.” Dana had similar perceptions about how her
work is acknowledged and said, “I think we’re more acknowledged by students than by staff.
Sometimes after students graduate, they come back and say, “It’s because of you guys that I was
able to graduate.”” In terms of acknowledgment by PCU, she said the following:
52
Our supervisors know and see what we do but the university doesn’t see what we’re doing.
Sometimes our supervisors highlight our work during staff meetings, or the Workability
program lets us know that one of our students got a federal job. We also recognize each
other's work. But in the bigger picture, the university doesn’t see that we administer over
three hundred tests during finals, they only see that students passed and graduated. They
don’t see what we do in the classroom setting. The university doesn’t acknowledge our
work.
Similarly, Kenneth felt there was little acknowledgement from PCU and said, “There’s no
structured incentives or anything like that, it’s just informal. Sometimes our supervisors will take
us out for coffee or maybe by talking to their bosses in upper management about our work.”
James shared, “Other departments will refer their students to our office for help because they
know we do a good job and that’s acknowledgment enough.” Similarly, Geraldo said, “The
university acknowledges our work simply by continuing to support our program. The fact that
they reach out to us to tap us for our expertise is tremendous acknowledgement of our area.”
Iliana said, “They invite us to present at different committee meetings, this started happening in
the last year. The Provost’s Office felt that faculty departments needed to hear about what we are
doing and that, I would say, is acknowledgement of our work.”
In summation, the findings pertaining to organizational culture suggest that there is a lack
of time, resources, and acknowledgement inhibiting DCs from fully implementing best disability
practices within PCU. The interviews also revealed that DCs possessed a robust understanding of
student needs and the motivation to think innovatively to meet those needs. Lastly, interviews
demonstrated mixed levels of recognition by PCU about the services and work DCs provide on a
consistent basis with a goal of student success. It is assumed that addressing these perceived
deficits can lead to increased graduation rates of students with disabilities. Table 5 provides a
summary of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational findings which includes the assumed
influences and whether each influence emerged as a need or asset. Influences were categorized
as needs when participant responses revealed a gap in knowledge, motivation or organizational
53
support. It is important to ensure that all DCs have the same level of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support in order for them to understand the importance of their performance goal.
Only when seven out of seven participant responses did not reveal a gap or need, were influences
categorized as an asset. The following section entitled Recommendations for Practice, addresses
each need in detail.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Findings
Assumed Influence Asset or Need
Disability Counselors’ conceptual skills in
identifying services that reduce barriers and
lead to student success
Asset
Disability Counselors’ conceptual skills
related to understanding about programs that
go beyond the traditional set of disability
related programs
Asset
Disability Counselors’ perceived need to
form additional strategic collaborations
Need
Disability Counselors’ mixed levels of self-
efficacy related to implementing best
disability counseling practices
Need
Disability Counselors’ high levels of
attainment value about implementing best
disability counseling practices
Asset
54
Disability counselors’ perceived lack of time
and resources to develop new programs
Need
Disability Counselors’ perceived lack of
organizational resources resulting in mixed
levels of collaboration and innovation
Need
Disability Counselors’ perception of mixed
levels of recognition
Need
Recommendations for Practice
This research study and its subsequent evaluation is informed by the Kirkpatrick New
World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Unlike other training and evaluation plans, the
New World Model calls for the planning to begin in reverse order, then implemented in order. In
this study, the reader will find knowledge recommendations that consist of the following:
disability counselors (DCs) developing a list of student needs and matching non-traditional
programs ideas to those needs; developing a step-by-step job aid describing the interactive
process and an interactive process template that will document the steps involved. Motivation
recommendations include providing models that are credible, similar, and enthusiastic, and
whose behavior has functional value (Denler et al., 2009) as well as helping DCs develop
mastery by helping them acquire skills, practice integrating these skills into their work, and
helping them understand when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). Lastly, organizational recommendations call for the organization to DCs’ foster
teamwork and to develop priorities around knowledge development necessary to effectively
assess the needs of SWDs through an interactive process, and address the need for time and
resources fundamental to supporting the development of innovative programs that go beyond the
55
traditional set of programs. By addressing identified needs DCs will be better equipped to assist
students in completing their programs of study, thereby increasing the graduation rates of
students with disabilities.
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences in Table 3 represent the complete list of assumed knowledge
influences, principle citations, and context-specific recommendations. As found in Clark and
Estes (2008), declarative knowledge about something is often necessary before applying it to
classify or identify it, as is in the case of having the knowledge of how to engage in the
interactive process with SWDs when determining reasonable accommodations. As such, as seen
in Table 6, it is anticipated the influences listed will lead to achieving the stakeholders’ goals of
increasing the graduation rates of students with disabilities. In addition, Table 3 reflects the
recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Disability counselors
must have knowledge of
how to best collaborate
with other campus
programs to promote
student success.
Procedural
When information is
not enough, a job aid
that contains the
essential “how to do
it” information - such
as a brief checklist
form -- is adequate
support for most
people to achieve
performance goals.
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Supervisors and
team leads will
work with DCs to
develop a step-by-
step job aid or
guide describing
how they will
collaborate with
other campus
programs to create
strategic
partnerships.
56
Increasing Ability to Collaborate with Campus Partners
The data analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed a need to increase DCs
ability to collaborate with campus partners. The collaboration between DCs and on-campus
partners is an important element that contributes to the success of students with disabilities.
Professionals tasked with supporting students with disabilities must have the procedural
knowledge necessary to collaborate and effectively engage with on-campus partners. Effectively
designed procedural knowledge solutions can make it easier for individuals to process
information (Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer 2011). As asserted by Clark and Estes (2008), when
information does not suffice, a job aid that consists of the essentials can be enough to help
someone understand “how to do it” essentials in the form of a checklist is adequate for most
people to achieve performance goals. This would suggest that by supervisors assisting DC’s in
the development of a job aid in the form of a step-by-step guide outlining the steps needed to
best collaborate with on-campus partners such as, identifying student needs as they relate to
other campus services, scheduling meetings, drafting agendas, developing a pitch, and creating
short and long-term goals, would help DCs increase student success.
Motivation Recommendations
Below Table 7 contains a summary of motivation influences, motivation principles and
citations, and context-specific recommendations for practice. The table includes the assumed
motivational influence self-efficacy necessary for DCs to become motivated to create
accommodation plans that address the needs of students with disabilities leading to increased
graduation rates as well as creating new programs that go beyond the traditional set of services
provided to SWDs.
57
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-efficacy
DCs need to believe
they are capable of
providing best
disability counseling
practices and
effectively engage the
interactive process
leading to
accommodations
within the learning
environment.
Bandura (2000)
suggested that for
a person or team
to function
effectively, it is
important they
possess a high
level of self-
efficacy.
Pajares (2006)
suggests that the
self-efficacy
beliefs that people
hold are the basis
for motivation and
when they believe
their actions will
have a positive
outcome, they will
attempt the task at
hand.
Supervisors and team
leads will work with
DCs to increase self-
efficacy through
practicing the
interactive process and
providing supportive
feedback resulting in
mastery.
Increasing DCs’ Self-Efficacy and Confidence in the Implementation of Best Disability
Counseling Practices
The data demonstrated that DCs, particularly those with lower levels of tenure, struggled
with low confidence levels and consistently sought assistance from more tenured DCs and
supervisors in determining accommodations for SWDs. Disability Counselors need to believe
they are capable of providing best disability counseling practices by engaging students in an
effective one-on-one interactive process as part of a comprehensive assessment leading to degree
completion. Pajares (2006) suggested that self-efficacy beliefs that people hold serve as the basis
58
for motivation: when individuals believe their actions will have a positive outcome, they will
attempt the task at hand. Additionally, Pajares (2006) suggested that it is important for an
individual to attain mastery of a task to increase their self-efficacy. Bandura (2000) suggests that
for a person or team to function effectively, it is important they possess a high level of self-
efficacy. This would suggest that providing DCs with feedback and the ability to improve upon
the interactive process and collaborations with campus partners will increase their level of self-
efficacy. Therefore, it is recommended that supervisors lead group discussion about the
interactive process, provide opportunities for DCS to practice the interactive process, allow DCs
to shadow more experienced DCs, and provide feedback and support. Additionally, supervisors
will document ongoing discussions about necessary changes to the interactive process each
semester in an effort to increase graduation rates and demonstrate to DCs that the interactive
process leading to accommodations was successful. Supervisors will work closely with DCs as a
means of practicing the interactive process by participating in a supervisor-led training where
case studies will be utilized and supervisors will provide support in the form of feedback and
recommended strategies.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational influences seen below in Table 8 include the assumed organizational
influences of this study. The research has been concluded and the recommendations are based on
semi-structured interviews, a review of artifacts, and the literature review. It is anticipated that
by addressing the organizational influences DCs can implement best disability counseling
practices leading to an increase in the graduation rates of students with disabilities.
59
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs
to allow DCs to
schedule time into their
workday to specifically
increase their
knowledge about best
practices in disability
counseling
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
The organization will
foster teamwork of
DC’s to develop
priorities around
knowledge
development
necessary to improve
the interactive
process and develop
new programs in
collaboration with
campus partners.
The organization will
support DCs in
blocking time out of
their workday to
increase knowledge
about best practices.
The organization needs
to provide resources to
DCs in the way of
funding, time and space
to meet with on campus
partners to discuss and
develop new programs
or to find ways to
include new strategies
in existing programs
that will meet the needs
of SWDs.
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
The organization will
provide DCs with the
time and space, on or
off-campus to
collaborate with
campus partners.
.
The organization needs
to create a culture of
student success
amongst disability
Cultural models are
shared mental
schema or normative
understandings of
The organization will
consistently
acknowledge
successful outcomes
60
Provide Additional Resources to Increase Knowledge About and Foster the Development of
Best Practices
The study established that PCU needs to provide DCs with additional resources to
increase knowledge about and foster the development of best practices. Additional resources
include allowing DCs to carve time into their workday to develop a model interactive
counselors by
individually and
publicly
acknowledging and
valuing the
implementation of best
practices.
how the world works
or should work
(Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
There may be
conflicts between the
different levels of
culture such as
between groups and
organizational
cultures. Effective
change begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change (Gati,
2004).
Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change. It then
addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and skill
needs (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
at weekly DC
meetings.
61
process/case notes template leading to the effective implementation of accommodations and
develop a step-by-step guide that shows counselors how to best collaborate with campus
partners. Resources provided by PCU can also include space on and off-campus for strategic
partnerships in an effort to develop new programs for SWDs. As found in Clark and Estes
(2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources such as equipment,
personnel and time needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources
are aligned with organizational priorities. This suggests that DCs need to have time to learn
about disability laws and apply acquired knowledge when drafting accommodation plans.
In a study that surveyed 23 reengineering projects to identify the factors that seemed to
produce success, Dixon (1994) recommended a variety of supports including aligning the
structures and the processes of the organization with goals. Similarly, Rummler and Brache
(1995) provide guidance on how to map an organization to ensure that they have accountable
organizational resources and tested processes to produce intended results. As such it appears the
literature supports that effective change is possible when resources are aligned with
organizational priorities such as providing additional resources to increase knowledge about and
implement best practices.
Organization Needs to Create a Culture of Success by Acknowledge Best Practices
The study revealed a need for PCU to create a culture of success by acknowledging the
implementation of best practices by DCs. Cultural models, according to Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001), are shared mental schema or normative understandings of how the world
works or should work. As pointed out by Erez and Gati (2004), there may be conflicts between
the different levels of culture such as between groups and organizational cultures. Effective
change begins by addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it needs to
change. It then addresses organizational barriers and then knowledge and skills needs (Clark &
62
Estes, 2008). This suggests that literature supports that by PCU creating a culture of success by
acknowledging DCs for implementing best practices, DCs will be motivated to continuously
implement best practices leading to student success.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
For the purposes of this study, this researcher will employ the New World Kirkpatrick
Model training evaluation strategy as a means of training and driving performance initiatives
which are undergirded by the following: 1) to improve the program; 2) to maximize transfer of
learning to behavior and subsequent organizational results and 3) to demonstrate the value of
training to the evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Additionally, Kirkpatrick’s New
World Model is defined by four levels: 1) reaction - the degree to which participants find the
training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs; 2) learning - the degree to which
participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based
on their participation in the training; 3) behavior - the degree to which participants apply what
they learned during training when they are back on the job and 4) results - the level to which
targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and support and accountability package
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Lastly, the four levels are planned in reverse, starting with 4
and ending in 1, and then implemented in order.
Organizational Purpose, Needs and Expectations
Public California University is a teaching-intensive, Hispanic-serving, research-driven
university that promotes student engagement, scholarly and creative achievement, community
engagement, global perspectives, and aims to provide a high quality of student services and
support. Disability and race profoundly impact postsecondary educational attainment. When
disability and race intersect, the result is disproportionately low educational attainment rates of
63
students with disabilities from historically marginalized populations (Banks, 2014). Evaluating
best disability counseling practices can help identify successful strategies in service provision
related to the unique barriers experienced by students with disabilities and thereby, promoting
student success. Through the implementation of best disability counseling practices, students
with disabilities are able to persist and complete their degree programs, increase their chances of
moving into employment, and are less likely to experience poverty, improve their quality of life,
and help to create healthy communities.
In 2016, PCU created a strategic plan that included goals to raise the four-year student
graduation rate to 30% by 2021. This goal, among others, is reflected in PCU's strategic
priorities and goals. It is PCU's core academic purpose to promote student success by graduating
students with highly valued degrees. PCUs graduation rates are among the lowest within PCU’s
university system. PCU has developed a strategic plan that addresses its low graduation rates
with a goal to increase graduation rates each semester.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to student success of the overall
organizational goal to raise the four-year student graduation rate to 30% by 2021, it was
important to understand the best practices and strategies utilized by DCs at PCU. In their role as
DCs, they are tasked with implementing best disability counseling practices that align with
PCU’s strategic priority of student success.
Level 4: Leading Indicators
The leading indicators are utilized to measure accomplishments as well as undesirable
outcomes by tracking the critical behaviors impact on the desired outcome (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The proposed leading indicators internal and external outcomes, metrics, and
methods are reflected in Table 9. The expectation is that with training, job aids, and
64
organizational support the external outcomes will be met as the internal outcomes are
accomplished.
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased graduation rates of students with
disabilities.
Increase in the number of
degrees granted to
students with disabilities.
Reports from
Chancellor’s
Office and OSD
data.
Internal Outcomes
100% of SWDs will have accommodation
plans that address functional limitations and
classroom needs.
Number of completed and
verified accommodation
plans.
Review and
verify completed
accommodation
plans.
Each student file will include an interactive
process/case notes template reflecting DCs
engaging in an interactive process when
determining and approving
accommodations.
Interactive process/case
notes template developed
by DCs and Director.
Number of files reflecting
DCs case management
notes pertaining to the
interactive process.
Randomized
student file
reviews by
supervisors who
will initial
reviewed files and
will offer DCs
constructive
feedback on the
interactive
process.
100% of DC will increase their knowledge
of best disability counseling practices.
St SWDs’ graduation
statistics.
Direct
observation.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors as defined by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) are behaviors that are
specific, observable, and measurable. Critical behaviors should pass what he coins as the “video
test,” meaning that one could actually capture them on camera and be able to explain what is
happening. In this study, the stakeholders of focus are the DCs who are tasked with having the
65
knowledge necessary to effectively engage in an interactive process with students leading to the
development of individualized accommodation plans. The first critical behavior is that DCs will
block time in their calendars dedicated to research on best disability counseling practices. The
second critical behavior is that DCs will document the interactive process in their case notes and
found in individual student files. Lastly, DCs will save exemplar accommodation plans,
stemming from the interactive process, for their individual and collective use. Table 10 reflects
critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation.
Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
DCs will block time in their
calendars dedicated to research on
best disability counseling practices
e.g., research, workshops, and
webinars.
DC’s work calendars. Compare to
previous
calendars.
Monthly
DCs will document the interactive
process by using the “the
interactive process template,” a
best disability counseling practice,
when meeting with students.
Number of student
files containing a
completed interactive
process/case
management notes
template.
Review of
interactive
process/case
management notes
template.
Bi-weekly
DCs will save exemplar
accommodation plans to reference
for their individual and collective
use.
Number of DC’s e-
file with exemplar
accommodation
plans.
Compare previous
month exemplars
with current month
exemplars.
Every 2
months or bi-
monthly
Required Drivers
Required drivers fall under the two categories of support and accountability (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Disability Counselors require the support of their supervisors, peers, and
the organization to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor their activities learned from
trainings. Kirkpatrick et al. described methods of reinforcement as items that remind training
66
graduates of what is required of them and provide additional training and guidance. Methods of
encouragement should happen often on the job and may come from coaches or mentors. Rewards
can be intrinsic or informal and can consist of acknowledging good work done, a departmental
award, or a financial bonus. Lastly, accountability is critical in ensuring that critical behaviors
are occurring and measures must be developed to ensure that DCs do not wander back to doing
things the way they were done in the past. Table 11 shows the required drivers to support the
DCs critical behaviors. Table 11 reflects the required drivers to support DCs’ critical behaviors.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Director and Assistant Director will model best disability
counseling practices.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Director and Assistant Director will provide a job aid to
assist DCs in effectively engaging in the interactive process
leading to accommodation plans.
Ongoing 2
Team leads will send email reminders to the team to block
off time for research.
Monthly 1
Supervisors and team leads will develop best disability
counseling practice modules for DCs to review and discuss
with other DCs, team leads, and supervisors.
Quarterly 2,3
Encouraging
DCs will meet 2x a week to conference difficult cases and
participate in team problem solving.
2x week 2,3
Less experienced DCs will shadow and work with more
experienced staff members to learn skills necessary to
determine accommodation needs.
2-3xs per
week
1,2,3
Rewarding
Director will publicly acknowledge successful outcomes at
bi-weekly case conferencing meetings.
Bi-weekly 1,2,3
Monitoring
Create a system to monitor use of the interactive process
template to ensure compliance with Board of Trustees’
policies and procedures.
monthly 2,3
67
Informal check-ins with staff to get a pulse on casework and
the interactive process.
weekly 1,2,3
Organizational Support
To ensure that the required drivers are implemented the organization will provide the
following resources/support for the program to be successful as follows: 1) hotel space; 2)
speaker fees; 3) materials; 4) meals; 5) time to prepare the program; and 6) funding for post-
program follow-up. Furthermore, post-program weekly case conferencing meetings will be
scheduled to allow staff to conference challenging cases and participate in team problem solving.
The weekly meetings will serve as a space where DCs will collaboratively build self-efficacy and
learn from each other’s experiences and feedback. Moreover, management, including the
Director and Associate Director will review completed interactive process and case management
notes’ template to ensure DCs have accurately documented the interactive process. Lastly, PCU
will collect data indicating the graduation/success rates of students with disabilities as a way to
reinforce the work of DCs as well as disaggregate data by race and ethnicity.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals
Upon completion of the recommended solutions, DCs will be able to:
● Develop an interactive process template for use when meeting with students and
determining reasonable accommodations.
● Develop a list of on-campus partners/collaborators and begin developing
relationships leading to new programs and services for students.
● Develop a job aid that lists campus partners and the steps necessary to collaborate
with campus programs.
● Achieve mastery of the interactive process.
Program
The learning goals provided will be achieved through training, exercises, and role plays
that will increase the knowledge and motivation of the DCs. The goals will serve to determine
68
accommodations through a comprehensive assessment of needs utilizing the interactive process.
In addition, DCs will develop the beginning stages of a plan to collaborate with on-campus
partners in the creation of new programs and services that go beyond the traditional set of
programs for SWDs. The program will consist of a two-day training that will include role plays
and scenarios where DCs will be able to practice engaging in the interactive process with
students. Peer feedback will be solicited and encouraged after role plays as a means of critically
assessing the interactive process. The Associate Director and Director will also model best
practices and the interactive process for DCs through the use of hypotheticals regarding student
requests for accommodations. DCs will work in teams to identify student needs and on-campus
partners and develop a “dream program” to address an identified problem. DCs will demonstrate
mastery via practice and feedback from their peers and their supervisors.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The DCs will be evaluated during and after the Program using the methods listed in Table
12. Components of learning will include knowledge checks, hypotheticals and role plays, pre and
post-tests, checklists, scenarios that demonstrate knowledge, discussions, group discussions,
action plans and self-reports.
Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies)
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks reiterating the various elements of the interactive
process.
Create hypothetical student cases, divide team into pairs, allow them to
participate in team problem solving and share out to the group.
Pre-tests and post-tests
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Checklist of interactive process elements
Scenarios that demonstrate the use of procedural knowledge
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
69
Discussion about the value and rationale of utilizing best disability
counseling practices.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Surveys regarding their abilities to effectively address the needs of
students with disabilities.
Group discussion of any issues
Observations by supervisors of DCs utilizing best disability practices
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Action plans on how to implement best counseling practices to all new
student cases.
Self-reports of progress and challenges
Individual action plans on how to implement new skills
Level 1: Reaction
It is important to determine and understand how the participants react to the program,
thereby making it essential to confirm that the quality of the program was meaningful to the
participants. As such, Table 8 lists the reactions of the participants of the program being
favorable, engaging, and relevant. Table 13 reflects the components to measure DCs’ reactions to
the program including methods and timing.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records At the beginning
Asking meaningful questions During the workshop
Completion of practice of case scenarios During the workshop
Relevance
Pulse check via survey and/or discussion Before and after breaks during the
workshop
Anonymous survey End of workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Dedicated observer who gauges DCs commentary and
body language
During each training session
Anonymous survey After each training session
70
Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
An evaluation tool will be created for immediate use after program implementation as
found in Appendix E. The instrument will consist of items that reflect Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) Level 1 (engagement, relevance, and customer service) and Level 2
(declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment). The evaluation tool utilizes a Likert scale, open ended questions, and check boxes
to capture relevant L1 and L2 information.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
An evaluation tool will be created for delayed use, 6-weeks, after program
implementation. The evaluation tool is blended in nature and consists of items that reflect
Kirkpatrick et al., (2016) L1 (engagement, relevance, and customer service), L2 (declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment), L3
(metrics/methods/timing, required drivers, and organizational support), and L4 (internal and
external drivers). The tool will utilize a variety of rating scales, open-ended questions, and check
boxes to capture relevant and critical information post-implementation .
Data Analysis and Reporting
Findings will be reported by developing a progress report addressing the needs of DCs. The
report will be generated based on the appropriate timing as set forth in Table 7 - Critical Behaviors,
Metrics, Methods, and Behaviors.
Summary
The Kirkpatrick New World Model informs the study and the evaluation plan of the
research study. (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four levels of training and evaluation are
planned in reverse order then implemented in order and are utilized to ensure that disability
71
counselors have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to implement best
disability counseling practices leading to student success. This training program, similar to this
model, begins with defining and identifying the metrics, and methods to measure the results of
carefully crafted outcomes which are weaved into the organizational goals. Subsequently, the
program establishes the critical behaviors necessary to assess if the DCs are utilizing and
implementing what they have learned when they return to work and begin working with students.
Furthermore, learning outcomes are identified and DCs are evaluated on their learning and
knowledge, commitment, attitude, and confidence. Lastly, evaluation instruments will be
developed to assess how DCs reacted to training developed to assist in determining their
engagement, satisfaction, and the relevance of the training. It is anticipated that by utilizing
Kirkpatrick’s New World Model, coupled with the training program recommendations such as
training exercises, templates, supervisor feedback and support, and time to build knowledge and
engage in campus collaborations, DCs will be better equipped to serve the needs of students with
disabilities and will play a critical role in achieving the organizational performance goal of
increasing the graduation rates of students with disabilities and reducing the chances of people
with disabilities experiencing lifelong inequities associated with low educational attainment rates
such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and food insecurity.
72
Appendix A: Interview Protocols
Interview Email Invitation
You are invited to participate in an interview as part of a doctoral study on best disability
counseling practices in higher education. The purpose of this project is to explore disability
counselors’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational elements related to implementing
what research identifies as best disability counseling practices. Results will be summarized and
used to identify recommendations on how to continuously improve services to college students
with disabilities. The interview should take about 1 to 1.5 hours to complete and will be held via
Zoom, Skype, or at a private room located at the university library (see instructions below).
There will be 2 interview schedules, week 1 and week 2, allowing you a variety of options. All
responses will be kept anonymous.
Interview Schedule Instructions
1) Write your name and contact information;
2) Choose your interview preference Zoom/Skype or in-person and
3) Choose your top 3 preferred interview dates and times.
73
Interview Schedule - Week 1________________
Name: Email: Phone#: _____________
Check your interview preference: ___Zoom or Skype ___In-person at university library
Check 3 dates and corresponding times
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
7:00 AM
7:30 AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:30 PM
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
5:00 PM
5:30 PM
74
Interview Schedule - Week 2 _______________
Name: Email: Phone#: _____________
Check your interview preference: ___Zoom or Skype ___In-person at university library
Check 3 dates and corresponding times
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
7:00 AM
7:30 AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:30 PM
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
5:00 PM
5:30 PM
75
Interview Opening Remarks
Thank you very much for your time and agreeing to participate in this study. I am
conducting research as part of my Ed.D. program in Organizational Change and Leadership with
the Rossier School of Education. The interview will take approximately 1- 1.5 hours. There are
no right, or wrong answers and you can stop the interview at any time.
Your responses will be kept confidential, and will only be shared in summary form, with
no identifying information. I also plan on making a specific recommendation to OSD leadership
regarding ways in which to improve and implement best disability counseling practices. Again,
your answers will be kept confidential, and will be summarized with other interview responses
so that no individual participant can be identified.
I would like to record the interview to help me remember your responses. Immediately
following this session, I will upload the recording to a secure server and delete it from any
device. Within 2 weeks, I will transcribe the session and permanently delete the recording. The
transcription will be stored under a pseudonym so your responses cannot be connected back to
you.
Do I have your permission to interview?
Do you mind if I jot down a few notes to jog my memory?
Do you have any questions for me before we get started?
Please review the Interview Information Sheet. I brought in an extra copy in case you
would like to keep one. Remember that you can skip any question or stop the interview at any
time. Okay let’s get started:
76
Interview Questions
Knowledge
1. What are the various services and programs OSD provides to students with disabilities?
2. Of the services and programs, OSD provides to students, which three to five do you
believe are the most important to degree completion?
3. For each of the services and programs you mentioned, can you tell me a little bit about
why you think they are most important to degree completion?
4. What campus collaborations do you think would benefit SWDs?
5. Tell me why you believe they would benefit SWDs.
a. Probe for what student needs these collaborations will address.
6. Describe to me the steps taken to collaborate with campus partners?
a. Probe for knowledge on what collaboration looks like.
7. If resources were not an object, what additional/new programs for students with
disabilities would you like to see developed?
a. Probe for knowledge on student needs
8. What student needs would these programs address?
9. Explain what information you need to help students determine accommodations?
a. Probe for knowledge of best practices
Motivation
10. Explain to me why students with disabilities necessitate individualized services.
11. What do you believe would happen if students with disabilities were not provided with
individualized services?
77
12. Going back to the previous question about the development of additional programs, can
you share your thoughts about how you see those programs contributing to students’
degree completion?
13. What role do you see yourself in with regards to program development?
Organizational Influences
14. From an organizational perspective, what supported you in doing the best job possible to
support the degree completion of students?
a. Probe to see if a culture of success exists.
15. What challenges prevent you from doing your best job to support the degree completion
of students?
16. Tell me about what you think is needed to better support students with completing their
degree.
17. In terms of program development, tell me how OSD supports you in developing new
programs?
a. Probe for funding, time, space, support for campus collaborations.
18. What challenges prevent you from developing new programs?
a. Probe for lack of organizational resources.
19. Explain how OSD or PCU acknowledges your work with students?
78
Interview Wrap-up
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in an interview. Your responses
and participation will remain anonymous. All interview participants will receive a small gift of
appreciation for their time.
79
Appendix B: Limitations and Delimitations
Having an interest in knowing more about one’s own practice, and in improving one’s own
practice, led to asking researchable questions, some of which were best approached through a
qualitative research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The primary methods of data collection
were interviews, document reviews, and artifacts. With a small population from which to sample,
the researcher sought to capture and deeply understand the perspectives of the research participants
– disability counselors at the office of students with disabilities at a Public California University
(PCU). These disability counselors worked within the same geographical area making it relatively
convenient to invite them to participate in the study. Nevertheless, anticipated limitations were
those things that the researcher was not able to control. The researcher was not able to observe
disability counselors providing comprehensive assessments due to confidentiality laws pertaining
to access of protected information and access to people with disabilities. The researcher offered
interview times shortly after work and during lunch hours, which may have influenced how much
time the participants were willing to spend in an interview. The researcher was not able to dictate
the schedules of participants nor their inclination to fully complete each interview session. The
researcher was not able to control the truthfulness of the interview participants or their willingness
to provide in-depth responses to all interview questions. Social desirability bias occurred when
participants provided responses, they perceived were more socially desirable than reflections of
their true perceptions (Lee & Woodliffe, 2010). Although steps were taken to ask questions in a
neutral manner to minimize social desirability bias, the bias may have been a factor to some extent
in some of the interviews. The quality of the interaction between the interview participant and the
interviewer highly depended on the skills of the interviewer (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
researcher was not an experienced interviewer and may have missed opportunities to probe further
to gather potentially more descriptive information from participants. Furthermore, data collection
80
was limited to documents that were publicly available rather than internal performance reports that
might have been informative to this inquiry but were not accessible to the public.
Delimitations were the choices that the researcher made about the factors of the study that
had implications for data collection (Simone & Goes, 2013). Delimitations included the boundary
decision the researcher made about the scope of the study. The researcher bounded the research
sample to the disability counselors who were at that time employed at PCU. The population size
was too small to claim generalizability to disability counselors across a broad range of contexts.
The researcher agreed to one round of interviews to be relatively accommodating and respectful
of participants’ schedules during one of the busiest times of the year. Additional delimitations were
the researchers’ decisions to follow the USC Rossier academic program’s timeline and suggestions
to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The framework was used to inform the
research questions and conceptual framework for this study. The multidimensional structure
offered in the framework provided constraints within which the researcher explored specific
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the stakeholder group of focus.
81
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness required attention to the study’s conceptualization and the
ways in which data was collected, analyzed, and interpreted and ultimately the ways in which it
is presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This proposed research study undertook various efforts
to increase credibility and trustworthiness that included the following: 1) triangulation; 2)
member checks and 3) reflexivity. Triangulation entailed cross-checking data against itself at
various points throughout the data collection process. As found in Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
triangulation was an approach that involved the use of multiple sources of data means comparing
and cross-checking data collected through observations at different times and in different spaces,
or interview data collected from research participants who held different perspectives from
follow-up interviews with the same people. Next, member checks entailed requesting follow-up
feedback from respondents to ensure their perspectives were being accurately documented and
interpreted. Member checks were scheduled with respondents who had differing perspectives and
were cross-checked against data from other respondents. Member checks, as noted by Merriam
et al. (2016), were for the purpose of soliciting feedback on preliminary and emerging findings
from some of the respondents and served as the single most important way to rule out the
possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of information shared by respondents. This method
also assisted the researcher in identifying her own biases or misunderstandings, thereby
increasing trustworthiness and credibility. Lastly, the researcher kept a journal where she
recorded the ways in which she affected and was affected by the research process. Journal entries
were completed before and immediately after the various data collection methods.
What defines research studies as rigorous and trustworthy is the researcher’s careful
design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview questions were designed to be open-ended and
neutral, and gathered sufficient data about the implementation of best disability counseling
82
practices that included services and programs for SWDs. In this qualitative inquiry, the
researcher was the data collection instrument, and had a responsibility to be as transparent as
possible about his or her relationship to the study participants, worldview, assumptions, and
biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In an effort to address the researcher’s potential biases and
misinterpretations, she solicited feedback from the interviewees at the analysis phase regarding
the conclusions of the study and conveyed credibility and trustworthiness when read by
participants and stakeholders, as well as by other researchers.
83
Appendix D: Ethics
This researcher’s responsibilities with respect to involving human subjects was directed
by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and PCU’s IRB.
The IRB was tasked with ensuring human subject research was conducted in accordance with
federal, institutional, and ethical requirements including reviewing, approving, and monitoring
research activities involving human subjects (Office for the Protection of Human Subjects, n.d.).
This researcher shared the information sheet, using a USC IRB-approved template, with each
research participant. The consent form also included information emphasizing that their
participation was voluntary, confidential, the potential effects to their well-being, and that they
reserved the right to end their participation at any time during the study. PCU’s IRB accepts
external investigators when the involvement of PCU meets the definition of not engaged in
research, the investigator’s home IRB takes full responsibility for the study, training for the
protection of human subjects has been completed according to the home institution’s policy, the
investigator abides by all applicable laws, assumes primary responsibility for the safeguarding of
human subjects, and ensures proper approvals are in place for the study. As asserted by Glesne
(2011), consent forms that had been approved by PCU’s and USC’s Institutional Review Board
served to ensure participants were aware of the following: 1) that participation was voluntary; 2)
of any aspects of the research that may have affected their well-being and 3) that they could
freely withdraw their participation at any point during the course of the study. In further regards
to the confidentiality of participants and the research site, this researcher used pseudonyms to
ensure anonymity. Guaranteeing confidentiality included the researcher using made-up names in
notes and publications (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). An information sheet was developed outlining
the participants’ informed consent to record interviews, guaranteeing confidentiality of
recordings, and the measures taken to secure, store and destroy data after the research study was
84
concluded. As asserted by Rubin and Rubin (2012), protecting confidentiality may at times
mean keeping interviews in a secure place as a means of eliminating the chances of others
coming across the data as well as destroying data that links research participants to the
interviews. This researcher upheld the highest standards of confidentiality throughout the study,
safeguarded recordings and notes, and destroyed any data at the end of the study that may have
linked participants to the research study.
The research study included a section explaining the researcher’s relationship to the
research site, PCU. In the researcher’s previous professional role as Director of an office of
students with disabilities within the same university system, this could have placed PCU in a
protective position regarding the details of PCU’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources as they related to their programs and services. The explanation was thorough and
distinguished between the researcher’s previous professional role and that of a researcher who
was seeking to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context of disability
counselors at PCU. In addition, the researcher addressed assumptions and biases stemming from
her 16-years as an advocate for people with disabilities as well as those related to race, ethnicity,
and socioeconomic status through intentional self-reflection and documenting of biases for
review throughout the study. When serving as an advocate for persons with disabilities, the
researcher primarily represented minority students with disabilities and assisted them resolving
issues of discrimination and a lack of reasonable accommodations by various universities and
colleges. The researcher herself is a first-generation student who grew up in a working-class
community and is the parent of two adult sons with disabilities, all of which shape her worldview
and interest in the research study. As recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), researchers
need to explain their dispositions, biases, and assumptions of the research they are undertaking.
85
Appendix E: Program Evaluation Tool
Instructions: Where applicable, rate each statement below by circling the number that best
represents your answer.
The class environment helped me to learn.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I was engaged during the training.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I understand how to apply what I learned on the job.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I am clear about what is expected of me on the job after this training.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
What additional information do you believe should be added to the training?
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I received helpful information prior to the session.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I would be glad to help others with what I learned.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
How could this program be improved? ____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What were your biggest knowledge takeaways from this training?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
I intend to apply what I learned in the job
86
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I believe the content of this training will help me be successful on the job.
Explain the importance of applying what you learned?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Please comment on how committed you are to applying what you have learned on the job.
I am committed to applying what I learned on the job.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
If you circled 6 or below, choose all that apply. My commitment is not high because:
__ I do not have the necessary knowledge and skills.
__ I do not have a clear picture of what is expected of me.
__ I have other, higher priorities.
__ I do not have the human support to apply what I’ve learned.
__ I don’t think what I learned will work.
__ There is not an adequate level of accountability to ensure the application of what I learned.
__ Other (please explain):
______________________________________________________________________________
87
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation (6-weeks)
Instructions: Where applicable, rate each statement below by circling the number that best
represents your answer.
This course provided all of the information I needed to be able to perform all of the skills I
learned successfully.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
The information provided in this course is fully applicable to my job.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
What information in this course has been most relevant to your job?
______________________________________________________________________________
What information should be added to this course to make it more relevant to your work? Taking
this course was a good use of my time.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
Looking back how could this program have
improved?_____________________________________________________________________
_________
I have successfully applied on the job what I learned in the training.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
Instructions: Using this rating scale, circle the rating that best describes your current level of on-
the-job application for each listed behavior.
1 - Little or no application
2 - Mild to moderate application
3 - Moderate degree of application
4 - Strong degree of application
88
5 - Very strong degree of application, and desire to help others do the same
I have knowledge of the services needed by students that
go beyond the traditional set of programs.
1 2 3 4 5
I am better able to collaborate with other campus programs
to promote student success.
1 2 3 4 5
I am able to effectively engage in the interactive process
with students and determine disability related
accommodations.
1 2 3 4 5
Check the answer that best applies.
I applied what I learned to my work:
__ Within a week
__ Within 2-4 weeks
__ Within 5-12 weeks
__ I have not applied it, but plan to in the future
__ I have not applied it, and do not expect to apply it in the future
To what degree have you applied what you have learned?
______________________________________________________________________________
What steps do you plan to take in the future to continue your progress?
______________________________________________________________________________
I have received performance support in order to apply what I learned successfully.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
I have the necessary resources to apply what I learned successfully.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
What additional training or support do you need to increase your effectiveness?
89
______________________________________________________________________________
I am already seeing positive results from the training.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
To what degree have the results occurred to the degree you expected?
______________________________________________________________________________
This training has positively impacted this organization?
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree
What impact is this training having on the organization as a whole?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
90
References
Association on Higher Education and Disability. (2021). AHEAD Program Standards and
Performance Indicators. Retrieved, January 11, 2021.
https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/information-services-portal/data-
collection-and-management/performance-indicators
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Articles.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Banks, J. (2014). Barriers and supports to postsecondary transition: Case studies of African
American students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 28-39.
10.1177/0741932513512209
Baum, S. (2013). The American Dream 2.0: Reforming Student Aid. Journal of College
Admission, 219, 2–.
Birney, D. P., Beckmann, J. F., & Wood, R. E. (2012). Precursors to the development of flexible
expertise: Metacognitive self-evaluations as antecedents and consequences in adult
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(5), 563-574.
Boyd-Bradwell, N., Marin, P., Johansen, K., & Welstead, C. (2014). A study of the factors that
Influence persistence of students with disabilities at four-year colleges and/or
universities. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1549976392/.
Cannon-Bowers, J., Rhodenizer, L., Salas, E., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). A framework for
understanding pre-practice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel
Psychology, 51(2), 291-320.
91
Center for Disease Control. (2018, August 17). Prevalence of disability and health care access
by disability status and types among adults – United States, 2016.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6732a3.htm?s_cid=mm6732a3_w.
Center for Education Statistics. (2017, May). The condition of education 2017. Retrieved August
25, 2019, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cornell University. (2017). Disability statistics. Retrieved September 1, 2019, from
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=9.
Cory, R. C. (2011). Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus
resource. New Directions for Higher Education, 2011(154), 27-36. 10.1002/he.431
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 89(8), 139-167.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. 10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dhamoon, R.Â. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research
Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243.
DuPaul, G. J., Dahlstrom-Hakki, I., Gormley, M. J., Fu, Q., Pinho, T. D., & Banerjee, M. (2017).
College students with ADHD and LD: Effects of support services on academic
performance. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 246–256.
10.1111/ldrp.12143
92
Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2000, January). Expectancy – value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25. 68-81. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & (2000, January). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement
Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
https:/doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Evans, N.J., Broido, E.M., Wilke, A.K., & Herriott, T.K. (2017). Disability in Higher
Education : A Social Justice Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2017.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=4816152
Everett, B. G., Rogers, R. G., Hummer, R. A., & Krueger, P. M. (2011, January 28). Trends in
educational attainment by race/ethnicity, nativity, and sex in the united states, 1989-
2005. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9), 1543-1566. 10.1080/01419870.2010.543139
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re)segregated
education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453-474. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00483.x
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-46.
Getzel, E. E. (2008). Addressing the persistence and retention of students with disabilities in
higher education: Incorporating key strategies and supports on
campus. Exceptionality, 16(4), 207-219.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
93
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2). 103-120
Herbert, J., Welsh, W., Hong, B., Kurz, C., Byun, S., & Atkinson, H. (2014). Persistence and
graduation of college students seeking disability support services. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 80(1), 22-32.
Hughes, C. (2013). Poverty and disability: Addressing the challenge of inequality. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 36(1), 37-42.
Hughes, C., & Avoke, S. (2010). The elephant in the room: Poverty, disability, and employment.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35(1-2), 5-14.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive Load Theory. Articles.
http:/www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Knight, W., Wessel, R. D., & Markle, L. (2016, February 22). Persistence to graduation for
students with disabilities: Implications for performance-based outcomes. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 0(0). 1-19. 1521025116632534
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of research survey methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Lawler, E. E., Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate: Relationship to
organizational structure, process and performance. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance, 11(1), 139-155.
94
Lee, Z., & Woodlifee, L. (2010). Donor misreporting: Conceptualizing social desirability bias in
giving surveys. Voluntas, 21(4), 569-587.
Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability,
race, gender and class. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 168-184.
Lovett, B. J., Nelson, J. M., & Lindstrom, W. (2015). Documenting hidden disabilities in higher
education: Analysis of recent guidance from the association on higher education and
disability (AHEAD). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(1), 44-53.
10.1177/1044207314533383
Lyman, M., Beecher, M.E., Griner, D., Brooks, M., Call, J., and Jackson A. (2017). What keeps
students from using accommodations in postsecondary education? Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2), 123-140.
Madaus, J. W. (2000). Services for college and university students with disabilities: A historical
perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14(1), 4-21.
Mamiseishvili, K., & Koch, L. C. (2011). First-to-second-year persistence of students with
disabilities in postsecondary institutions in the united states. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 54(2), 93-105. 10.1177/0034355210382580
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works. In Applying the science of learning (pp. 13–37, 44–
49). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Montez, Z. (2017). Disparities in
Disability by Educational Attainment Across US States. American Journal of Public
Health (1971), 107(7), 1101–1108. 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303768
95
Mustaffa, J. (2017). Mapping violence, naming life: A history of anti-Black oppression in the
higher education system. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
30(8), 711-727.
Motowidlo, S. J., Brownlee, A. L., & Schmit, M. J. (2008). Effects of personality characteristics
on knowledge, skill, and performance in servicing retail customers. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 16(3), 272-280.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017, May 26). Disability rates and employment status
by educational attainment. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tad.asp#f1
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017, May 25). The condition of education 2017.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes
of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report of findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). MenloPark, CA: SRI International.
http://www.nlts2
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011).
The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high
school: A report from NLTS2 (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Pajares, F. (2012, May). Self-efficacy theory. Articles. Retrieved September 3, 2019.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory-/
Pilay, Y., & Bhat, S. C. (2012). Facilitating support for students with asperger’s syndrome.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 26(2), 140-154.
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.
96
Patton, L., Donnor, J., Dixson, A., & Anderson, C. (2016, September 1). Disrupting
postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban
Education, 51(3), 315–342. 10.1177./0042085915602542
Reinschmiedt, H. J., Buono, F. D., Sprong, M. E., Upton, T. D., & Dallas, B. (2013). Post-
secondary students with disabilities receiving accommodations: A survey of satisfaction
and subjective well-being. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79(3), 3-10.
Rothstein, L. (2015). The Americans with Disabilities Act and higher education 25 years later:
An update on the history and current disability discrimination issues for higher education.
Journal of College and University Law, 41(3), 531-589.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2102). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Salzer, M. S., Wick, L. C., & Rogers, J. A. (2008, April 1). Familiarity with and use of
accommodations and supports among postsecondary students with mental illnesses.
Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 59(4), 370-375. 10.1176/appi.ps.59.4.370
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability
on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 432-439.
97
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Articles
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Simon, M.K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, delimitations, and scope of the study. Recipes for
Success. https://studylib.net/doc/8312011/assumptions---limitations-and-delimitations
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related
training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442.
The Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. (n.d.). About IRB review. Retrieved January
24, 2018, from https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/.
Torres, W. J., & Beier, M. E. (2016). It's time to examine the nomological net of job knowledge.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 51-55.
United States Department of Commerce. (2008). Census bureau, current population survey
(CPS). March and annual social and economic supplement, educational attainment and
median earnings. Washington, DC: Author.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, June 15). Persons with a
Disability: Labor Force Characteristics 2015.
https:/www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, June). Persons with a
Disability: Labor Force Characteristics News Release.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/disabl_06212018.pdf
United States Department of Labor. (2019). Office of Disability Employment Policy: Disability
Statistics. https://www.dol.gov/odep/
98
United States Department of Labor. (2019). Office of Disability Employment Policy: Labor
Statistics from the Current Population Study.
https:/www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#1fpr
Walker, T. (2011, August 26). Using a Self‐Advocacy Intervention on African American College
Students’ Ability to Request Academic Accommodations. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 26(3), 134–144. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00333.x
Ward, N. L., Strambler, M. J., & Linke, L. H. (2013). Increasing educational attainment among
urban minority youth: A model of university, school, and community partnerships. The
Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 312-325. 10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0312
Ward, M.J., & Berry, H.G. (2005). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education:
Accommodations received and needed. Retrieved July 20, 2017.
https://www.gwu.edu/files/downloads/postsecondary_with_disabilities.pdf
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. 10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study
PDF
Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study
PDF
The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study
PDF
The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction
PDF
A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study
PDF
Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study
PDF
Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study
PDF
High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study
PDF
The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study
PDF
An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation
PDF
Evaluating technical support provided in online education for students with disabilities
PDF
Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students
PDF
Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study
PDF
Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education
PDF
Implementing a digital information management system for advising adult students in professional education programs
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
Going through it all: an evaluation of medical leave policy impact on persistence rates for students with disabilities
PDF
Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Leadership competencies in healthcare administration graduate degree programs: an evaluative study
PDF
Impact of mindfulness on early education teacher well-being: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Varela, Carmen V.
(author)
Core Title
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
03/08/2021
Defense Date
01/20/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
best practices,Disability,disability counselor,educational attainment,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary,students with disabilities
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Martinez-Kellar, Frances (
committee member
), Robles, Darline (
committee member
)
Creator Email
carmenv@usc.edu,crmnvarela@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-426440
Unique identifier
UC11668789
Identifier
etd-VarelaCarm-9309.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-426440 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-VarelaCarm-9309.pdf
Dmrecord
426440
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Varela, Carmen V.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
best practices
disability counselor
educational attainment
postsecondary
students with disabilities