Perceptions of College Students with and without Disabilities and Effects of STEM and Non-STEM Enrollment on Student Engagement and Institutional Involvement.

Abstract

In a college student sample (n = 4,467) chosen among the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) participants in 2006, group differences based on disability (i.e., no disability, single primary disability, multiple primary disabilities) were examined on five NSSE benchmarks of student engagement and institutional performance (i.e., academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, supportive campus environment) and taking into account curricular status (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-STEM, non-STEM). Students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities in their perceptions related to student-faculty interactions and the extent to which they experienced supportive campus environments. Students with disabilities were significantly more favorable in their perceptions of student-faculty interactions, but reported significantly less favorable supportiveness of their respective campus environments. Although curricular status had independent effects on most of the measured outcomes, no compounding effects of curricular status on disability status were found. According to recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, up to 11% of all undergraduates report having a disability (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). Previous research has found that students with disabilities who enroll in postsecondary education are less prepared academically for college, have lower overall retention rates (Horn & Berktold, 1999), take longer to obtain a degree (Freiden, 2004; Stodden, Conway, & Chang, 2003) and have lower persistence rates than their counterparts without disabilities (Horn & Berktold, 1999). According to National Organization on Disabilities survey (2000), only 12% of individuals with disabilities graduate from college, as opposed to 23% of their non-disabled counterparts. In addition, even though the underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors has been shrinking (National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 2004), and approximately 7% of all scientists were individuals with disabilities, they are still underrepresented (i.e., 2%) among those younger than age 35, compared to 15% of those between ages 65–75 (National Science Foundation, 2006). Higher education is one of the most effective means of diminishing the negative consequences of disability (Stodden, Jones, & Chang, 2002). Research on experiences and perceptions of students with disabilities in postsecondary education mostly focused on student factors like self-determination skills as being critical in transitioning, adjusting, and remaining in college (e.g., Getzel & Briel, 2006; Stodden, Galloway, & Stodden, 2003; Thoma & Wehmeyer, 2005; Wehman, 2001). In addition to self-determination skills, self-management skills such as time management, organizational skills, and study skills have also been identified as important student variables (e.g., Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). Research has also looked at the barriers to the access and utilization of disability support services on campuses (e.g., Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005; Getzel, 2008) as variables that impact persistence and retention in postsecondary eduJournal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 23, No. 2; 2010 130 cation. The goal of this study is to extend the literature on experiences and perceptions of students with disabilities in postsecondary education by looking at their perceptions of student engagement and institutional performance that have been extensively documented as leading to student achievement and other desired outcomes of college (e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pike, 2006; Tinto, 1987, 1993). More specifically, we examined if and how college students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities in terms of student engagement and perceptions of institutional performance. The construct of student engagement generally refers to the quality of effort and involvement in productive learning activities and highlights the importance of student involvement, student effort, and student time on task (e.g., Kuh, 2009). However, student engagement is not only conceptualized as an indicator of “student performance,” but also as an indicator of “institutional performance,” and it also highlights the role that institutions have in inducing students to take part in educationally purposeful activities (e.g., Kuh, 2001, 2003; Kuh, Schuh, & Whitt, 1991). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institute developed five benchmarks to measure various aspects of student engagement and institutional performance: Academic Challenge measures the level of aca• demic effort and expectations set for students by the institutions; Active and Collaborative Learning measures • the level of involvement in learning in different settings as well as collaborating with others; Student-Faculty Interaction measures the • amount of learning first-hand by interacting with faculty members both inside and outside the classroom; Enriching Educational Experiences measures • the amount of complementary learning opportunities in and out of class augmenting academic programs and having diverse set of experiences to integrate and apply knowledge; and Supportive Campus Environment measures • if the environments are committed to student success and cultivating positive working and social relations among different groups. Even though engagement in effective educational practices generally benefits all students, the conditional and compensatory effects for specific student groups have been documented (Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Conditional effects are the differences in the amount of learning or development experienced by one group of students relative to other groups. Compensatory effects indicate differences among various groups of students, like students who may start college underprepared, and their differential gains and benefits compared with their relatively advantaged peers. For example, Kuh et al. (2008) documented compensatory effects of student engagement for historically underserved students in terms of earning higher grades and persistence. Since students with disabilities in postsecondary education are shown to be less prepared academically for college and have lower persistence rates than their counterparts without disabilities, it appears that the assessment of student engagement may be critical to the identification of effective interventions for ameliorating the aforementioned negative consequences of disability. The first goal of this study was to examine, if and how, college students with disabilities differed from their counterparts without disabilities on five benchmarks of student engagement and institutional performance in a nationally representative sample: (a) Academic Challenge, (b) Active and Collaborative Learning, (c) Student-Faculty Interaction, (d) Enriching Educational Experiences, and (e) Supportive Campus Environment. The second goal was to assess whether STEM and non-STEM curricular status compounded any effects of disability status in terms of student engagement and institutional performance.