learning disabilities 2

Upload: sarah-emmanuel-haryono

Post on 18-Oct-2015

29 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2002 ( C 2002)

    The Nature and Effectiveness of LearningDisability Services for College Students

    Kenneth A. Rath1, 2 and James M. Royer1

    This article summarizes the research literature that describes the nature andeffectiveness of services that are provided to college students with learningdisabilities. Six categories of services are described: assistive technologies andprograms, program modifications, therapy and counseling, strategy training,direct academic assistance, and interventions designed to strengthen weakacademic skills. Nearly all of the literature that was examined fell within thefirst 5 categories, with only 3 studies describing efforts to directly improvethe academic performance that identified a students learning disability. Inaddition, there is almost a total lack of evidence showing that any of the first5 categories of services resulted in improved academic performance. Therewas, however, evidence that attempts at improving academic skills resulted inimproved academic performance. The article concludes with a discussion ofthe role that learning disability services should play in a college environment.

    KEY WORDS: learning disabilities, learning disabilities services; college students.

    Research directed at developing effective procedures for assisting the aca-demic learning of students with learning disabilities has increased dramati-cally in recent years. The vast majority of this research has been concernedwith assisting younger students. There is, however, an increasing need fortechniques that assist older students with learning disabilities. This articlesummarizes the research literature concerned with assisting the academicperformance of college students with learning disabilities. The first sectionof the article documents the lack of research with older students, exam-ines the consequences of having a learning disability for students who enter

    1Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.2Correspondence should be addressed to Kenneth A. Rath, Department of Psychology,University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003. E-mail: [email protected].

    353

    1040-726X/02/1200-0353/0 C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    354 Rath and Royer

    college, and then briefly discusses the general availability of services in U.S.and Canadian universities. The remaining sections of the article describethe nature of services provided to students with disabilities and discuss theadvantages and disadvantages of the different types of services. Where avail-able, the article also reviews evidence regarding the effectiveness of thoseservices.

    Before beginning the literature review, several clarifications regardingterminology are in order. Throughout the article we discuss learning disabil-ities in general, but it should be understood that in the vast majority of thecases the area of disability is reading. When we make specific reference toreading problems, we describe those problems as involving a specific read-ing disability. Many of the studies we review use dyslexia rather thanspecific reading disability. For the purposes of this article, the two terms aresynonymous.

    RESEARCH EMPHASIS ON COLLEGE STUDENTS

    The bulk of research in the field of learning disabilities has concen-trated on children and adolescents, with comparatively little research in-volving adults. Only 13% of the articles published in the Journal of LearningDisabilities and 28% of those published in Learning Disabilities Quarterlyin 1990 focused on adults (Patton and Polloway, 1992). In a follow-up sur-vey by the authors it was found that for the Journal of Learning Disabilities10% of the articles focused on adults in 1997, 71% of these focused oncollege students; in 1998 16% focused on adults, 70% of these focused oncollege students; and in 2000 12% focused on adults, 60% of these focusedon college students. The figures for Learning Disability Quarterly were 10%adult focus in 1997 (all looking at college students), 0% in 1998, and 10% in2000, again all of them regarding college students. It seems that the emphasison adult populations and, specifically, college students is not increasing, ifthe rate of reporting in these major journals is to be taken as a reasonableindication of the actual state of affairs.

    NUMBERS OF STUDENTS IN COLLEGE WITHLEARNING DISABILITIES

    Students with learning disabilities attend college less frequently than dotheir peers without disabilities. Part of the reason for differences in college at-tendance between students with and without disabilities involves differencesin aspirations. White et al. (1982) reported that 84% of high school students

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 355

    without a disability had plans for further education whereas only 67% of highschool students diagnosed with a learning disability described educationalaspirations beyond high school. These numbers have increased substantiallysince that time, but the attendance rates of students with learning disabilitiesare still lower in postsecondary institutions than in the population at large(Henderson, 1999; Sergent et al., 1988).

    Consistent with lower aspirations, students with learning disabilities of-ten enroll in training programs rather than going to college. For instance,Fourqurean et al. (1991) found that 17% of their sample of students iden-tified as being learning disabled attended college and that 9% attendedvocationaltechnical school whereas 35% attended job training or trainingthrough military service. Martins study reported even lower levels of stu-dents with learning disabilities attending college (Martin, 1996). He placedthe percentages at 19% attending vocational school, 14% attending a 2-yearcollege, and a mere 4% attending 4-year colleges. A study by Wagner (1989,as cited in Gregg, 1996) estimated that only 17% of students diagnosed ashaving a learning disability participated in postsecondary education and only9% in 2- or 4-year colleges, as compared to 50% of students without disabil-ities attending postsecondary institutions. Other studies have shown thatattendance rates are higher and are increasing faster in 2-year communitycolleges than in 4-year institutions (HEATH Resource Center, 1993).

    Other studies also estimate the number of college students with learningdisabilities at around 10% or less of the population. Houck et al. (1992)cite figures estimating the percentage of college students having learningdisabilities as being somewhere between 3 and 11%. Astin et al. (1988, ascited in Vogel and Adelman, 1992) reported 1% of all freshmen claimingto have a learning disability, but Vogel and Adelman (1992) estimated thatthe percentage was much greater because of the exclusion of part-time andtransfer students from the data set. In a more recent study, Vogel et al.(1998) conducted a survey of nearly 150 colleges and universities and foundaverages between 1 and 3% for the percentage of students claiming to havea learning disability, on the basis of the type of institution, with the lowestpercentage found in public universities and the highest in 4-year independentcolleges. The number of unreported cases undoubtedly adds to the total.

    Although there is some disagreement about the actual number of col-lege students who have a learning disability, there is general agreement thatthe numbers are increasing. In 1978, 3% of college freshmen reported dis-abilities whereas by 1991 9% did. The vast majority of this increase involvedstudents with learning disabilities (Henderson, 1992). Taking the enrollmentexamination farther and examining only students with learning disabilities,Henderson (1999) found that the number of students reporting having alearning disability rose from 2% in 1991 to 4% in 1998.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    356 Rath and Royer

    The increase is attributed to several factors (Day and Edwards, 1996).The first was the passage of Section 504 E of the Rehabilitation Act of1973, which made accessibility to postsecondary education for students withdisabilities mandatory. This act was followed by the passage of PL 94-142in 1975, mandating elementary and secondary education for children withlearning disabilities. Improvements in educational accessibility in primaryand secondary school allowed increasing numbers of students with learningdisabilities to complete the coursework that enabled college admission.

    Two other factors contributing to the growing numbers of studentswith learning disabilities being admitted to college are (a) the increasedknowledge students have regarding their rights and options and (b) the factthat colleges have become more active in recruiting students with disabili-ties. Advocacy groups and other entities have contributed to the increasingawareness of students with disabilities by preparing guidebooks that informstudents about the legal ramifications of their status, resulting in more stu-dents taking advantage of opportunities available to them. Colleges have alsofelt pressure to expand their recruiting efforts beyond traditional markets,and this pressure, accompanied by an increased use of computers and com-pensatory technology that allow more students to succeed independently,has made students with learning disabilities more attractive candidates forcollege admission.

    Several other reasons for the increased enrollment of students withlearning disabilities in college come from Strichart and Mangrum (1985).They note that high school programs have extended into colleges, therebyallowing secondary students to acquire experience in completing collegelevel coursework. Students have also become increasingly aware of improvedjob opportunities that accompany postsecondary education, and this hasproduced greater desire to go to college.

    Admissions for students with learning disabilities often involve the con-sideration of additional factors that tend not to be emphasized with studentswho are not disabled. From the Vogel et al. (1998) survey, it was found thatonly 45% of the institutions examined used the same admissions proceduresfor their students with learning disabilities as they did for the rest of the stu-dent body. Other institutions used additional reviews, modified standards,or even separated admission procedures to increase the chances that stu-dents with disabilities would be admitted. Additionally, many perspectivecollege students now have the possibility of taking college admissions testsunder modified conditions (Pitoniak and Royer, 2001). This compensationmight increase the enrollment of college students with learning disabilitiesin two ways. First, students with learning disabilities might be more likelyto achieve good test scores with modified conditions. Second, more stu-dents might participate in the college admissions process if they believe they

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 357

    have a reasonable chance of achieving a test score high enough to warrantadmission.

    ENROLLMENT PATTERNS AND INDICATORS OF SUCCESS FORCOLLEGE STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

    College students with learning disabilities display course enrollmentpatterns that are different from their classmates without disabilities. Theytend to congregate in fields that place the least burden on areas of weak-ness, usually the fields of reading and writing (Johnston, 1984). Wilczenski(1993) found that students with learning disabilities, when compared withtheir peers, enrolled more frequently in the fine arts, social and behavioralsciences, and physical education than they did in other fields. An earlierstudy by Critchley (1973, as cited in Johnston, 1984) also found a preferencefor drama, music, and dance as majors. More recently, however, Henderson(1999) found that the preferences for certain types of majors are no longeras different between the populations of college students with and withoutdisabilities as they were in the earlier studies.

    Even though they self-select into fields that have a tendency to min-imize the academic impact of their disability, college students with learn-ing disabilities still tend to perform more poorly academically than theirpeers (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; Cohen, 1984; Gregg, 1996; Vogel andAdelman, 1990; Wilczenski and Gillespie-Silver, 1992). Cowles and Keim(1995), for example, found that only 24% of the diagnosed students in theirsample graduated from college compared with 43% in the general studentbody after 6 years, and most of those who graduated had received special sup-port services. Other studies have documented poorer grades among studentswith learning disabilities but have reported they share the same dropoutrates and rates of academic failure as their peers without disabilities (Vogeland Adelman, 1990, 1992; Wilczenski, 1993). Hurst and Smerdon (2000)report that students with learning disabilities are less likely to achievean associates or a bachelors degree within 4 years when compared withthe rest of the college population but that they are more likely to earn acertificate.

    Students with learning disabilities have a variety of problems that con-tribute to their poorer academic performance. Because of the nature of theirdisabilities, they almost always need to spend more time and energy on theirstudies than do their peers (Bireley and Manley, 1980). Available study timeis often a valuable commodity in college settings and making less efficientuse of it is often a burden and a source of discouragement. In some cases,there may not be an adequate amount of time available for studying all

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    358 Rath and Royer

    the coursework effectively regardless of the students best efforts. In addi-tion, students with learning disabilities often have reading comprehensionproblems and other learning difficulties accompanied by unrealistic (usuallyoverly optimistic) views of their abilities. Finally, they often have great dif-ficulty in discovering methods that they can use to increase their academicperformance despite these problems, which can easily lead to feelings offrustration and helplessness (Bireley and Manley, 1980).

    THE LINK BETWEEN SERVICE AVAILABILITYAND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

    Strichart and Mangrum (1985) suggest that virtually all students withlearning disabilities require some degree of remedial services and that theirrelatively poor college performance is often attributable to colleges beingless supportive of their needs than were their former elementary and sec-ondary schools. Furthermore, Cowles and Keim (1995) suggested that thereis a direct link between the likelihood that a student with a learning dis-ability will graduate from college and the availability of support services forstudents with learning disabilities.

    It is certain that the college environment has become more supportivesince Strichart and Mangrum (1985) carried out their research. For example,Vogel et al. (1998) found that approximately 60% of the institutions they sur-veyed had established support services for students with disabilities between1985 and the time of their survey. Nonetheless, most institutions generallyplace the burden of success primarily upon the shoulders of students. On theother hand, many elementary and secondary environments place that bur-den, to a greater degree, upon the teachers and support staff, who assist thestudents in obtaining the help they need (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992). Not onlyare college students who seek learning assistance personally responsible foridentifying and acquiring services and appropriate testing, oftentimes theymust pay for the help they receive. Because of this, a significant number ofstudents do not report their problems and go through their college careersunassisted (Levinson, 1986). The low reporting rates of problems cited byHenderson (1999) suggest that this is still the case.

    There is also a problem with availability of services. A study by McKee(1987, as reported in Cox and Klas, 1996) showed that 10% of Canadiancolleges and universities have no learning disabilities services whatsoeverand that only 16% have a written policy to deal with the issue. The situationis similar in U.S. schools. As of 1997, only 23 U.S. colleges and universitieshad Internet sites that specifically advertised a program for students withlearning disabilities (LD Resources, 1997). Moreover, in 2000, 72% of all

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 359

    institutions reported that they enrolled no students with learning disabilities(Hurst and Smerdon, 2000).

    In the late 1980s, many colleges claimed to offer support services forstudents with learning disabilities, but in reality merely offered programssuch as study skills enhancement that were directed at the entire student body(McGuire and Shaw, 1987; Strichart and Mangrum, 1985). More recently, theprograms themselves have become less ephemeral, but their quality is highlyvariable. Because of administrative fiat, changes in funding, and changes inthe image that the institution is trying to project, programs that were goodone year can become a haphazard mix of services the next (Small, 1996).

    For those students who are able to access specialized services, the im-portant questions are what types of services are available and whether theseservices improve their ability to function in the college environment. Thesections that follow address these questions by examining the research lit-erature regarding the kinds of services that are available and the extent towhich the provided services improve the ability of students to function incollege environments.

    SERVICES FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS WITHLEARNING DISABILITIES

    Students with learning disabilities are legally guaranteed equal educa-tional access, but there is dissention in educational circles as to what con-stitutes such equality. Basically, there are two approaches that institutionstake when addressing the question of equal access. One is to change thestudent so that he or she is fully capable of functioning in any educationalenvironment, and the second is to change the educational environment sothat the student can succeed despite his or her disability.

    There are reasons for preferring the first approach to the second. If thestudents disability can be corrected by directly improving academic skillsor by teaching compensatory strategies, then the student is empowered tosucceed in any learning situation. In contrast, if the learning environmentis changed to allow the student with a disability to succeed, then there isno guarantee that the student is capable of succeeding in an environmentthat has not been altered. There is also the troubling question of whethersuccess in a modified educational environment is equivalent to success in anunaltered environment. For example, is a student who has succeeded in analtered environment equally adept at transferring his or her academic learn-ing to the job place as would a student who has succeeded in an unalteredenvironment?

    On the other hand, it may reasonably be argued that most college stu-dents with disabilities had access to programs designed to improve their

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    360 Rath and Royer

    skills and to develop strategies throughout their elementary and secondaryyears, and that if their disabilities were not corrected by the time theyentered college, there is no reason to expect correction from interventionsoccurring during postsecondary education. This argument assumes that ad-equate interventions were applied in the precollege educational settings, anassumption outside the scope of this article.

    There is also the philosophical issue that, after students enter college,education is no longer considered a right of all students but a privilege avail-able to those students qualified to complete college-level work (Navicky,1998). Because of this belief, colleges are not under the same obligationsthat elementary and secondary schools are to supply remediation and makevast changes to accommodate individuals with learning disabilities. It can beargued that students who require extensive aid to succeed at the college levelmay not be prepared for college work in the first place, and that the collegeneed not make accommodations to assist them. It is the authors opinionthat such beliefs are not entirely unwarranted but that certain modifica-tions that give students with disabilities a boost toward success are definitelyworthwhile.

    The research literature we examined describes both approaches thatattempt to change either the environment or the student. The approachesfor changing the academic environment in an effort to increase the likeli-hood that a college student with a learning disability succeeds consist of (a)providing students with disabilities with assistive technologies and programs,(b) creating changes in programs of study, and (c) providing students with di-rect academic assistance in the form of tutoring and special help. Approachesthat are directed at changing the student include (a) providing therapy andcounseling, (b) teaching students to use learning strategies, and (c) designingprograms to strengthen weak academic skills. The reader should note that itis often the case that an assistance program at a given college or universityincludes more than one of the intervention types. The literature describingeach of these approaches is summarized below.

    ENVIRONMENT CHANGING APPROACHES

    Assistive Technologies and Programs

    The research literature describes a variety of assistive technologies andprograms that are designed to put students with learning disabilities on moreeven ground with their peers who do not have disabilities. The categoryconsists of technologies such as taped texts and proofreading programs thatassist students in learning but also includes readers and note-takers that serve

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 361

    a similar purpose. A common characteristic among assistive technologies andprograms is that they are designed to make learning easier for the studentwith a disability by eliminating the necessity to use weak academic skills.For instance, taped texts eliminate the need to read, and scribes eliminatethe need to write. It should be noted, however, that the technologies do noteliminate the need to perform the cognitive activities that drive the academicskill. Individuals with reading disabilities who listen to tape recordings ofassigned texts still must comprehend what they are listening to, and thosewith writing disabilities still must plan and phrase the content that theydictate to scribes.

    Perhaps the most common of the assistive technologies is the use of text-books that are prerecorded onto audiotape, a method used in 69% of theschools surveyed by Yost et al. (1994) and at 55% of those surveyed by Hurstand Smerdon (2000). These tapes are potentially helpful for students withreading difficulties because they significantly reduce the burden of extract-ing information from printed text. A major problem with this technology,however, is that many students still find it difficult to separate important andlesser important material when listening to taped texts (Vogel, 1982). Addi-tionally, there is the problem that the students are not practicing reading thesubject material in question, thereby reducing or eliminating practice of avaluable skill that they might otherwise be acquiring. Of course, there is alsothe problem of availability, because it is likely that many of the textbooksand other materials students need have not been put on tape, especially ifthey are recently published.

    Another assistive method for overcoming reading problems is the useof readers, a method that 69% of Yost et al.s and 69% of Hurst andSmerdons institutions employed (Hurst and Smerdon, 2000; Yost et al.,1994). Readers work much as taped texts do, with a live person substitut-ing for the audio equipment. The use of readers allows the student to askquestions and seek help in identifying material that is most important andeliminates the problem of text being unavailable on tape. Disadvantageswith the use of live readers are that the readers must be knowledgeable inthe content area and have a large amount of available time. These condi-tions are sometimes difficult to meet, especially the time restriction when astudent has a large and pressing reading assignment. In addition, there is theproblem that the intervention reduces the need for the student to developreading experience.

    Other less commonly implemented assistive technologies and programsto help students with a variety of learning disabilities are offered by Raskind(1993, 1994). He includes various computer programs, such as word proces-sors with spell checkers, proofreading programs, outlining programs, speechsensitive programs, personal data managers, and databases. Raskind also

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    362 Rath and Royer

    describes a variety of technologies such as optical character recognitionsystems hooked to speech synthesizers that machine-read textbooks, andvariable speech control tape recorders that allow students to slow down lec-tures and glean more information from them. These technologies are avail-able at some colleges and universities (Day and Edwards, 1996). Hurst andSmerdon (2000) report that 58% of the institutions they surveyed provideaccess to at least one of these specialized technologies.

    Some of these technologies such as spell checkers are useful tools thatdo not eliminate the need to engage in academic activities such as readingand writing. Others such as speech sensitive programs are far more elaborateand expensive, and can limit the practice of skills the student might otherwisebe acquiring.

    Recent legislation, such as Section 504 E of the Rehabilitation Act,the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act,and the Americans with Disabilities Act, has set the stage for situationswhere the lack of provision of assistive technologies could result in litiga-tion against the institution (Day and Edwards, 1996). California has starteda statewide program for the institutionalized use of such technologies inassisting students with learning disabilities and several other colleges arefollowing their lead (Day and Edwards, 1996). The large interest in suchinterventions, coupled with the stated interest of many postsecondary insti-tutions in advanced technology, makes it probable that assistive technologieswill soon become one of the most readily available interventions.

    An example of how assistive technology is used in colleges is the case ofthe Omni 3000 reading machine used at Howard Community College (Yang,1999). This is an advanced PC-based reading machine which incorporatestext-to-speech software that reads text clearly while displaying the text andimages as they appear on the page. At Howard Community College, theexpensive system was available on only three workstations at the time ofYangs article, with several dozen students making regular use of it. Theprogram administrators have not collected any quantitative data, but theywere convinced through anecdotal information that the system increasedstudents ability to read and write on their own.

    Clearly, however, there are vast monetary constraints associated withsystems such as the Omni 3000. In the case of Howard Community College,only three students could use the system at any given time, and only in aparticular place. Other technologies may be available that students can usein a place of their choice, but these are undoubtedly less sophisticated and,presumably, less helpful.

    To sum up, assistive technologies and programs have a number of pos-sible advantages, which include the following: making it possible for stu-dents with disabilities to succeed in the college classroom, allowing for

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 363

    independent work without the assistance of human instructors, and pro-viding success where other methods have failed (Raskind, 1994). These ad-vantages must be balanced, however, by the possibility that once studentsleave the controlled college environment, they may be worse off than theywould have been without assistance because they have become reliant ontechnologies that are no longer available to them. As an example, studentswith disabilities find ready access to devices such as spell checkers upon leav-ing college, but they may not find ready access to personal readers, tapedtexts, or optical character recognition systems with speech synthesizers uponentering the job market.

    Program Modifications

    Program modifications are services that change some portion of a col-lege course or program of study in a manner that makes it easier for the stu-dent with a disability to succeed. Testing procedures are the most frequentlychanged aspect of courses. The basis for changing examination conditions isthe belief that altered conditions can provide students with disabilities withan environment more favorable for academic success than can standard testconditions.

    The most common testing modification is the use of extended or unlim-ited time, which, Hurst and Smerdon (2000) report, is used in 88% of the insti-tutions they surveyed. This testing modification is implemented extensivelybecause it is much easier to implement than other methods (Brinckerhoffet al., 1992). It is also the intervention recommended by a large number ofexperts in the field (Vogel, 1982), and it has been used since concern forcollege students with disabilities began to draw attention (Working Party onthe Needs of the Dyslexic Adult, 1974).

    The empirical basis for the provision of extra time comes from studiesthat examine the consequences of providing both students with and with-out disabilities with extra time on tests. Runyan (1991), for example, foundthat giving students with learning disabilities extra time on reading compre-hension tests resulted in an improvement in their performance. In contrast,students without disabilities who were provided with extra time showed littlechange in their scores. Runyan (1991) used these data to support the viewthat extended time gives the students with a disability an even chance at suc-ceeding in college courses. A similar study (Hill, 1984, as cited in Runyan,1991) found that extended time on the ACT also reduced score gaps betweenstudents with and without disabilities. On the other hand, Jarvis (1997) foundthat although the untimed performances among students with learning dis-abilities improved to the level of the timed performances of students withoutdisabilities on multiple-choice and short-answer tests, when the tests were

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    364 Rath and Royer

    untimed for everyone, the students without disabilities benefited more thanthe ones with disabilities.

    As the results of Jarvis study suggest, there are controversial issuesregarding the fairness of allowing one group of students more time thananother to complete a test (Jarvis, 1997). We personally are concerned aboutwhether the construct being measured by the test changes as a function ofchanging testing time and about how to decide the appropriate extra timeto give to students with learning disabilities who may differ markedly in theseverity of their disability. An examination of the psychometric, legal, andsocial policy issues surrounding the provision of additional time to completetests is found in a recently published article by Pitoniak and Royer (2001).

    Another test modification procedure involves providing a personalproctor during examinations. Allard et al. (1987) recommend allowing stu-dents with disabilities to take examinations alone with a proctor as a meansof reducing distractions in group examination settings. Provision of this mod-ification might be difficult as individual proctors might be in short supply.In addition, we have found no evidence in the literature that documentsthe extent to which personal proctors actually help students with disabilitiesachieve their optimal performance, especially in the absence of other testmodifications.

    Another test modification involves changing the format of the test forthe student with a disability relative to the format for the rest of the class.Vogel and Sattler (1981, as cited in Vogel, 1982) recommend the use of essaysas opposed to objective exams and the use of alternative methods to testingto gage performance among students with disabilities. Allard et al. (1987)also recommend the use of oral or taped exams and acceptance of tapedrather than written answers. In some cases, such as when the test providesan insurmountable barrier to a student who would otherwise succeed, testmodifications of this sort may even be required by law (Brinckerhoff et al.,1992).

    There are, however, several problems with modifying test formats. Thefirst is that it is often difficult to make a test using a different format thatmeasures the same construct as the general test. Another related issue isthat specialized tests may be graded differently than a standard test. As anexample, it is unreasonable to allow all students in a class to hand in tape-recorded answers to tests, or even to allow all the students in large classesto submit essay answers. In situations where these provisions are made forselect students, there is no guarantee that the grading metric is the same forthe differing test formats. Because of this, test form modifications may endup being quite unfair to either group of students.

    A final program modification, one that does not involve the changing oftests, is the changing of the college experience itself. As an example, Allard

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 365

    et al. (1987) recommend allowing students who have disabilities more time(in semesters) to complete the necessary coursework than would normallybe allowed. This allows them to spend more time on each individual course,thereby creating more of a match between ability and course demands.

    Another college experience modification involves waiving certaincourses that would normally be required to complete a college program,a change that, Hurst and Smerdon reported, was done in 42% of the insti-tutions surveyed. Most often, this type of modification has involved waiv-ing foreign language requirements for students with reading disabilities andmath requirements for students with math disabilities. Yost et al. (1994)found that a minority of college personnel supported course waivers. Only19% of administrators and teachers reacted favorably to foreign languagewaivers, and even fewer (15%) thought it appropriate to drop math require-ments, indicating general disapproval among support providers for this sortof intervention.

    A major problem with interventions that involve waiving course re-quirements is that the course work being waived may be an integral part ofthe students college program, or the course work may prove important aftercollege graduation. In addition, waiving learning requirements does nothingto help students overcome their disabilities, it may even encourage them notto attempt overcoming their disability.

    A variant of course waiver procedures is course substitution. In thiscase, colleges substitute a traditionally required course with another of (pre-sumably) equal value but more in line with the students abilities (LearningDisabilities Support Services, 1997). Substitution may have the same prob-lems as a course waiver if the substitute course does not cover the materialthat was traditionally required. This procedure may be viable, however, incircumstances where the substitute course covers information of equal valueand importance to the student, but is tailored to the students individuallearning needs. Sparks and Javrosky (1999) examined the effects associatedwith the substitution of foreign language course requirements with othercourses across three institutions (Sparks et al., 1999). Their data suggestedthat in the majority of cases the substitutions were unnecessary and thatmost of the students would have succeeded in the foreign language classesdespite their disabilities. In fact, they were successful in high school for-eign language classes before coming to college. The conclusion was thatin most cases the assignment of substituted courses was done without anyregard for the ability of the students and was thus an ineffective programmodification.

    To summarize, modifying the educational program can be done in sucha fashion as to make it easier for the student to succeed despite his or herdisability. There are drawbacks, however, in that the test or program that

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    366 Rath and Royer

    has been modified may be different from that encountered by the rest ofthe students. In the case of tests, the test taken by the student with a dis-ability may not be measuring the same thing as the test taken by the restof the class, making a comparison of scores impossible and making gradesfor the class similarly incomparable. In the case of programs, changing therequirements for students with disabilities can result in a less robust ed-ucational experience than that for students without disabilities and maymean that the degree received by the students with disabilities does notsignify a comparable amount of experience to that of the students withoutdisabilities.

    Direct Assistance

    The most common forms of direct assistance interventions are tutoringand remediation. Both interventions are aimed at helping students learnspecific course material. Yost et al. (1994) found that tutoring, used by 89% ofthe surveyed schools, was the most common form of intervention in collegesand universities, whereas Hurst and Smerdon reported that tutoring wasonly provided in 77% of institutions. Tutoring is also recommended as aneffective procedure by several researchers (Allard et al., 1987; Vogel, 1982).It generally involves direct, one-on-one assistance from a professional or(more commonly) an upper-level undergraduate or graduate student in aparticular course (Bireley and Manley, 1980).

    The biggest problems with tutoring are that it can foster reliance onthe tutor for learning the material (Deshler et al., 1984) and that it hasbeen shown to have few long-term benefits (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992). Manystudents with learning disabilities see their tutors as their key to success incollege and are reluctant or unwilling to let go of the assistance that thetutors provide (Barbaro, 1982). Such dependence can produce situationswhere students believe they are incapable of succeeding without the tutor,a form of learned helplessness that can have severe consequences whenthe tutor is no longer available. These negative factors have led researchersto recommend that tutoring be used in combination with other forms ofassistance such as strategy training in an effort to avoid leaving studentsunprepared to learn on their own (Barbaro, 1982; Brinckerhoff et al., 1992;Deshler et al., 1984).

    Remediation was used as an intervention in 71% of the colleges sam-pled by Yost et al. (1994). Remediation courses are more readily available atcommunity colleges where the proportion of students with learning disabil-ities is higher than at competitive institutions (where they are rare) becauseof lower admissions (Mellard, 1994). Remediation involves the creation of

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 367

    a separate classusually a small group or sometimes just the individual stu-dent and the instructorwith a parallel curriculum specially designed forstudents who need extra help and time in the particular subject area (Vogel,1982). Remedial courses may be taken along with or before the regular cur-riculum courses or may replace them. When students are highly motivated,they can make dramatic gains through remediation (Vogel, 1982). The in-tervention is, however, extremely high in terms of expense per student andmay be beyond the means of the college or student (depending on who ispaying). The advantage of remediation is that as skills improve, the need forcourse support diminishes and students become more independent (Vogel,1982).

    There is some concern, however, that remedial services could diminishthe overall quality of education at colleges where they are provided (Coxand Klas, 1996). This could occur in situations where remedial courses arewatered-down versions of regularly offered courses rather than supple-mental courses designed to prepare students for the regular curriculum. Thewatering down of courses is an important concern and should be weighedcarefully against the benefits incurred from the instruction (Deshler et al.,1984).

    An example of a remedial program implemented at the University ofWisconsin, Oshkosh, is the Project Success Language Remediation Program(as reported by Nash, 1989). This program is a Simultaneous Multi-SensoryInstruction Program. It addresses basic reading and math skills among in-coming freshmen for the eight summer weeks before classes begin. Theprogram uses highly structured teaching methods and immediate feedbackto train students in general strategies and skills so that they are up to speedwhen the semester begins. Once classes commence, the students are expectedto take full course loads but are given the opportunity to use tutors providedthrough the program. The program claims to create average gains of about1.11.5 grade levels in reading and spelling and to have a 71% graduationrate, which is substantially higher than before the program started.

    Programs such as Project Success are supplemental to the normal col-lege curriculum and thereby avoid the negative issues associated with awatered-down curriculum. They do, however, take a substantial amount oftime and money to run and, because they are conducted in the summer, theyconflict with the involved students other summer activities, such as holdinga summer job that may be necessary to fund college.

    Direct assistance interventions serve to improve students performancein a subject area and can be useful in helping students with learning disabil-ities make their way through college (Vogel, 1982). On the other hand, theycan be either expensive (in the case of remediation), dependence causing(as in tutoring), or both.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    368 Rath and Royer

    STUDENT CHANGING APPROACHES

    The approaches to providing services to students with learning disabil-ities that have been described thus far involve changing the college envi-ronment in an effort to increase the probability that students can succeed.We now turn to approaches that change the student rather than the collegeenvironment.

    Therapy and Counseling

    Many colleges offer psychological support to students with learningdisabilities in an attempt to help them deal with their disability and thefeelings of helplessness and frustration that accompany it. In general, stu-dents cope with their disability by becoming either strongly academicallyoriented and independent or depressed and dependent on the help of others(Lefebvre, 1984). Students in the second category often have personalityand social problems, low motivation, low self-esteem, and are often hyper-sensitive (Lutwak and Fine, 1983). Other common problems associated withstudents in this second category are a lack of social skills, dependence onothers, and high levels of stress and anxiety (Price, 1988). It is this group ofstudents, especially, that often needs therapeutic assistance.

    Therapy generally involves having students talk individually with a pro-fessional therapist about their daily experiences (Haufrecht and Berger,1984; Kroll, 1984). The professionals job is to help students deal with fail-ure and build self-esteem (Johnston, 1984). In some cases there may be aneuropsychological aspect to the therapy as well. This consists of the ther-apist explaining and helping students understand the underlying basis fortheir disability (Kemp, 1992). In other cases, the therapist attempts to helpstudents overcome anxiety associated with course work through relaxationtechniques (Decker et al., 1985; Haufrecht and Berger, 1984). There is someevidence that relaxation techniques by themselves do not necessarily im-prove academic performance. For instance, issues aside from anxiety, suchas the disability itself, often contribute to the poor academic performanceof students with learning disabilities (Decker et al., 1985). There are also re-ports that therapy may deal with other behavioral problems such as recklessand uncontrolled behavior that could stem from or be related to the learningdisability (Wren et al., 1987).

    Another way in which colleges provide therapy is through the forma-tion of peer-support groups (Allard et al., 1987; Kroll, 1984). These sup-port groups are designed to provide feelings of acceptance and can helpin developing autonomy, integrity, positive self-identity, and self-esteem

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 369

    (Kroll, 1984; McWhirter and McWhirter, 1990; Orzek, 1984). Peer supportgroups are often run by a trained professional who provides and structuresdiscussion topics (Orzek, 1984). Support groups can also help improve so-cial skills, which are often considered weak in many students with disabilities(Vogel, 1982).

    In general, therapy and support groups do not directly address the aca-demic difficulties associated with learning disabilities, and as the sole methodof intervention they may not be all that effective. They can, however, helpthe students deal with a wide variety of psychological issues that stem fromhaving a disability. These issues may, at times, severely hamper academiclearning and hinder social relationships with peers. Properly conducted ther-apy helps students with emotional and social problems that would otherwisehamper their college performance (Barbaro, 1982).

    A cautionary note that appears in the literature concerns the useof countertherapeutic styles, such as inadvertently limiting the studentsoptions, fostering false autonomy, and developing negative dependency(Lutwak and Fine, 1983). These can have palpably negative effects on the stu-dents college experience. Therapy should only be performed by therapistswho have extensive training working with students with learning disabilitiesto avoid these pitfalls. Unfortunately, many individuals who work with stu-dents with learning disabilities do not have the necessary training, and theiruse of countertherapeutic techniques may do more harm than good (Lutwakand Fine, 1983).

    Counseling is another often-used intervention. A counselor providesstudents with direction in terms of their college decisions and future goals(Vogel, 1982). Although the terms counseling and therapy are often usedinterchangeably in the literature, there is a functional difference between thecounselor who deals with academic and job-related issues and the therapistwho deals with emotional and experiential issues. Counselors may be trainedprofessionals, though in some cases the counselor is a peer assigned to workas a mentor with the student (Allard et al. 1987).

    Counseling sessions can serve a variety of purposes. They help studentschoose and schedule courses, reduce anxiety over perceived threats presentin the academic environment, and identify their needs (Bireley and Manley,1980). In addition, counselors are often responsible for contacting professorsand setting up academic interventions such as special testing arrangements(Sullivan et al., 1993).

    Counseling, again, is not an intervention that is designed to assist stu-dents directly in improving academic performance. Counselors, however,can be helpful in preparing students for the future and in helping themmake intelligent decisions about course work that takes their limitationsinto account.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    370 Rath and Royer

    An excellent example from the literature of a program that makes use oftherapy and counseling within the context of a specially designed course is theLanguage and Learning Seminar at York University in Ontario (Bat-Hayim,1997). This program is taken by students with learning disabilities who alsohave difficulties with social skills. Along with some training in language andwriting, much of the students time is spent in therapy groups. These groupsserve a multitude of purposes: they encourage the development of socialskills, encourage the sharing of important emotional experiences, and allowgroup members to share proven strategies for overcoming the problemsassociated with their disabilities. Additionally, the students are instructedabout their learning disabilities to dispel fears and combat a sensed lack ofcontrol that often accompanies them, and to recognize the universality oftheir experience with learning problems. Although no quantitative evidenceis available, anecdotal evidence suggests that the program helped studentsreframe the problems caused by their disabilities and thereby deal with themmore effectively.

    In summary, counseling and therapeutic services are intervention ser-vices provided by a postsecondary institution to improve the college expe-rience of students by helping them cope with disabilities within the envi-ronment and by aiding them in making decisions about their future. Theseinterventions do not, however, provide any academic support and by them-selves are likely inadequate in providing students with the tools needed forsuccess. The counseling and therapeutic interventions, however, provide ahelpful addition to a wide-ranging set of interventions.

    Strategy Training

    Many students with learning disabilities have problems with a variety ofskills that may not be attributable to the learning disability per se, but whichaffect academic performance. As an example, students often have poor orga-nizational skills that may not stem directly from a learning disability, but donegatively impact academic performance (Wren et al., 1987). One commonform of intervention for college-age students with learning disabilities is toprovide strategy training that addresses difficulties in academic, personal,and study skill areas (McWhirter and McWhirter, 1990). The provision ofstrategy training stems from research on people with learning disabilitieswith specific strategy deficiencies (Deshler et al., 1984; Swanson, 1990).

    Some form of strategy training is a common feature of most collegeintervention programs. It involves training the student in a variety of skillareasacademic, emotional, and self-helpto improve classroom perfor-mance (Hildreth et al., 1994). The goal of strategy training is to help the

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 371

    student approach problems and identify appropriate strategies for solvingthem (Borkowski, 1992; Butler, 1995; Ellis, 1993; Montague, 1993). Strat-egy training has long-lasting effects (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; Swanson,1990), especially if training staff is experienced and well-trained (Westberry,1994). There is evidence that strategy training works best if students arenot told what to do but, rather, are guided to develop the strategies them-selves (Butler, 1995). Guided strategy development, accompanied by en-couragement to explore a variety of strategies provided by course instructors,improves strategy generalization to other learning situations (Borkowski,1992). Self-directed strategy learning also gives students tools that are morein line with their own cognitive processes, as opposed to being taught strate-gies that were designed for someone elses mode of thinking (Borkowski,1992; Butler, 1995).

    Study skill strategy training is also recommended for decreasing stu-dents anxiety (Decker et al., 1985). The idea is that once students havetools they can use to learn more effectively, they become more confidentas learners and feel less anxious in learning situations. In addition, effectivestrategy use can increase a students self-esteem, resulting in a more positiveattitude toward oneself and improved academic performance (Groteluschenet al., 1990).

    Strategy training is provided to remedy a variety of problems. In Yostet al.s survey, they found that 86% of the colleges surveyed taught strategiesrelated to organization, 84% to test-taking, 83% to time management, 81%to studying, 79% to communication, 76% to memory, 74% to note-taking,69% to listening, 64% to social interactions, and 52% to metacognition skills(Yost et al., 1994). In addition, Vogel (1982) found that writing strategiesare taught as well. In some cases, strategy training is provided individuallywhereas in other cases it occurs as part of a college course (McWhirter andMcWhirter, 1990).

    An example of how strategy training works can be seen with memorystrategy training. Memory trainers often focus on teaching techniques suchas elaborative investigation, which entails training students to develop ra-tional explanations for the information being studied. When combined withadditional memory techniques, such as the use of mnemonics, these strate-gies greatly increase memory performance (Scruggs et al., 1993). Generally,the mnemonics used are discovered by the student rather than presented bythe trainer (Haufrecht and Berger, 1984).

    Another related intervention is the training of self-advocacyan inter-vention used by 87% of the institutions in Yost et al.s survey (Yost et al.,1994). This form of training concentrates on raising students awareness oftheir learning disabilities and associated limitations and on developing theirability to convey this information to their professors so that they can get

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    372 Rath and Royer

    the assistance they need (Roffman et al., 1994). Self-advocacy training ex-pands students self-knowledge and makes it usable in varying social contexts(Roffman et al., 1994). Self-advocacy skills are especially important whenstudents must deal with professors who are skeptical about the existenceof learning disabilities (McWhirter and McWhirter, 1990). Self-advocacy isalso a step in the direction of promoting independence instead of reliance onthe help of others in dealing with the disability (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992).

    Strategy training interventions are very useful, especially when they in-volve substantial input from the students about the production of strategies.Strategy training can result in skill acquisition that helps students developindependence from institutional services and use strategies successfully longafter they have left college (Brinckerhoff et al., 1992; Groteluschen et al.,1990). It should be noted, however, that strategy training and the use ofstrategies may not level the academic playing field between students withand without learning disabilities. Moreover, simply teaching a strategy doesnot assure that it is used as intended (Montague, 1993; Swanson, 1990). Forthis reason, it is important to provide enough feedback and support alongwith the training to ensure that the training sticks to the extent possible.To conclude, strategy training aids students in developing means for dealingwith a wide-reaching variety of situations and can help them become moreindependent learners.

    Disability Attacking Interventions

    The final category of services describes interventions designed to im-prove academic weaknesses that define a students learning disability. As anexample, in the case of a student with a specific reading disability, a disabil-ity attacking intervention is designed to improve the reading ability of thestudent to the point where course work is completed without elaborate ac-commodation procedures. Disability attacking interventions are commonlyreported in studies with young children (see Vellutino et al., 1998, as an ex-ample), yet in Yost et al.s survey (Yost et al., 1994) no colleges reportedusing intervention methods of this type and few reports were found in theliterature surveyed for this article.

    The studies that were found suggest that it is possible to improvethe reading performance of college readers with disabilities. A study byGuyer and Sabatino (1989) used a modification of the Orton-Gillinghamapproacha phonics-based skill-building programin an attempt to im-prove the general reading performance of college students diagnosed withreading disabilities. The study involved randomly assigning 30 college stu-dents to one of three groups that participated in a summer school program.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 373

    One group received a version of an Orton-Gillingham approach developedspecifically for use in the study. A second group received a commerciallyavailable non-phonics-based intervention that focused on building basicreading skills such as learning new vocabulary, identifying main ideas, andrecognizing antonyms and synonyms. The third group was a control groupthat completed pretests and posttests but did not receive an interventiontreatment. All students were pretested and posttested on the Wide RangeAchievement Test Revised (WRAT-R) and on the Woodcock ReadingMastery Tests (WRMT). In addition, students completed the Wechsler AdultIntelligence Scale Revised that served as a covariate in the data analysis.

    Guyer and Sabatino (1989) reported that the group receiving theOrton-Gillingham intervention made significantly greater gains on both theWRAT-R and the WRMT than did the two other groups. The group receivingthe nonphonics program and the control group did not differ in performanceon the two tests.

    Phonics-based approaches are based on the commonly accepted ideathat readers with dyslexia have a phonological core deficit that inhibitstheir ability to learn to read (e.g., Blachman, 1997). Phonics-based ap-proaches attempt to repair this deficit by teaching readers about lettersoundcorrespondences, phonics-based word identification strategies, and blendingthe sounds of individual letters and letter sequences to identify words.

    Another approach to remediating reading difficulties is more direct inaddressing the problems experienced by readers with disabilities. Almost allreaders with dyslexia are slow and many are also inaccurate when identifyingwords (e.g., Royer and Sinatra, 1994). Given this, a number of researchershave attempted to assist readers with disabilities by having them practicerapid word recognition. Royer (1997) has used this approach with elemen-tary and secondary students with reading disabilities, and Cisero et al. (1997)report two case studies that describe using the technique with high schoolstudents. The Cisero et al. (1997) study involved two students who had aprior history of poor academic performance and who exhibited poor wordrecognition performance. Their intervention stemmed from the idea thathigh school students with dyslexia have trouble identifying new technicalterms when reading their textbooks. To alleviate this difficulty, the technicalvocabulary was isolated from the textbook and the students practiced rapididentification of the technical words followed by training in rapid retrievalof word meanings. Both students showed improvement in word recogni-tion performance and, more importantly, grade improvement in the courseswhere the words were used.

    Word fluency training, similar to that used by Cisero et al. (1997) withhigh school students, was used to improve the performance of college stu-dents with reading disabilities (Rath, 1999). Raths study involved four

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    374 Rath and Royer

    college students diagnosed with reading disabilities who were asked to com-plete a variety of tests both before and after an 8-week intervention. Thestudents completed computer-based assessments that measured the speedand accuracy of reading activities ranging from letter recognition to sentenceunderstanding, and assessments of oral reading performance. Between thepre- and postassessments, the students practiced the rapid identification ofwords that were copied from textbook glossaries. All the students showedimprovements in the computer-based assessments and improvements in thespeed and accuracy with which they could orally read excerpts from theirtextbooks.

    The benefits of having college students practice rapid performance ofreading and math activities are also reported by Johnson and Layng (1992).Their approach, also based on techniques proven effective with youngerstudents, was not described in great detail, but the results of the programappear remarkable. College students participating in a summer program whowere identified as having difficulties with using fractions in math activities,and who started out with fifth-grade math skills on standardized tests, gainedover 6 years in math computation performance and 2 years in math-problem-solving performance. Students with deficiencies in using whole numbers incomputational activities started out at the fourth-grade level and gainednearly a year in computation, problem solving, and understanding mathconcepts. The program also showed remarkable results in reading. Studentsparticipating in training designed to improve rapid reading activities gained1.1 years on the Nelson Denny test after 20 hr of practice. The authors reportthat the program, which is now fully operational at Malcolm X College inChicago, IL, routinely averages two grade-level gains for every 20 hr ofpractice in both reading and mathematics.

    The fluency training activities described in the Rath (1999) and Johnsonand Layng (1992) studies have both direct achievement and strategic bene-fits. Their research indicates that training college students to rapidly performboth reading and math activities directly benefits their course achievementand/or their achievement on standardized tests. The strategic benefits stemfrom fluency training activities, producing strategies that students can use toimprove performance in new learning situations. Rath and colleagues showstudents how to isolate new vocabulary found in a course of study and howto use fluency training to rapidly recognize and activate the meaning of thenew words. This training provides students with strategies that can aid theirlifetime learning.

    The only major drawback to all of these disability attacking interven-tions is that they require a substantial time commitment beyond that requiredfor classwork from both the student and the intervention provider. Researchshows that the benefits seem worth the time commitment. Nevertheless,

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 375

    practitioners should be aware of the additional strain on a student with alearning disability who is already struggling to get his or her work completedwithin the available time.

    To summarize, disability attacking interventions improve the skills thatare deficient as a result of the disability. It is unknown whether the gainsare enough to level the playing field between the students with and withoutdisabilities. It should also be noted that these interventions often require asizable time commitment that may overburden students with disabilities.

    CONCLUSIONS

    The literature indicates that the number of students with learning dis-abilities attending college has steadily increased over recent years. Althoughmany colleges and universities appear to have responded to this increase bydeveloping programs of services for students with learning disabilities, notall colleges or universities presently have programs in place.

    The programs that are in place fall into two categories of services. Thefirst typeenvironment changing approachesinvolves changing the col-lege experience in an effort to increase the likelihood that students withdisabilities succeed. Included in this category are (a) services that providethese students with technology devices or human helpers that enable themto circumvent their disability, (b) tutors and remedial courses, and (c) spe-cial programs of study so that difficult course work that exceeds deficientacademic skills is avoided.

    The second category of servicesstudent changing approachesconsists of activities designed to provide students who have disabilities withcoping skills or academic skills that enable them to succeed in an existingcollege environment. Examples of student changing services are therapyor counseling activities, teaching students learning strategies, and directefforts to improve deficient academic skills.

    Table I provides a summary of the benefits and potential problems asso-ciated with each of the six specific intervention programs described through-out. It is evident that every intervention has both strengths and drawbacks.

    Although the literature describes a variety of intervention programs forcollege-age students with learning disabilities, there is little concern in theliterature with two crucial issues that would better assist colleges and univer-sities in developing programs for their students with learning disabilities. Thefirst issue involves the goals of service programs for these students. The twocategories of services identified in the literature review appear responsive todifferent goals. Services that entail changing the college environment so thatstudents with learning disabilities can succeed seem responsive to the goal

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    376 Rath and Royer

    Table I. Summary of the Positive and Negative Aspects of the Six Intervention Types Outlinedin This Article

    Intervention type Positive aspects Negative aspects

    Assistive technologiesand programs(recorded texts,readers, computerprograms, etc.)

    Allows for independentwork without tutors, etc. Relieves the burden caused

    by the disability

    Student may become overlyreliant on assistance thatmay become unavailableafter college Does not address

    fundamental skill problemscaused by the disability Some technologies are

    expensive and humanassistance may be limitedbecause of scheduling

    Program modifications(modified tests,modified courserequirements)

    Makes college successmore obtainable despitethe disability Highly cost-effective

    Modified tests and regulartests may measure differentthingsModified programs of study

    may be of lesser quality

    Direct assistance(tutoring, remedialclasses)

    Bolsters deficient skills Gives students opportunity

    for one-on-one instruction

    Tutors may foster reliancerather than independence Remedial classes may be

    easier than nonremedialclasses Offering remedial classes is

    expensive

    Therapy and counseling(emotional, social,guidance, etc.)

    Can help a student copewith problems associatedwith having a disabilityAids student choices on

    course selection, etc.

    Improper counselor trainingcan result incounterproductiveoutcomes Does not address academic

    problems

    Strategy training(memory, specificskills, etc.)

    Helps students develophigher levels of competencyin a variety of fields Encourages independent

    learning

    Requires extensive timecommitment andsubstantial monetaryinvestment

    Disability AttackingInterventions (readingand math training, etc.)

    Improves specific skills thatare deficient as a result ofthe disabilityMay foster academic

    independence andself-efficacy

    Requires extensive timecommitment andsubstantial monetaryinvestment

    of graduating students with disabilities from college. Measuring success inthis manner avoids troubling questions such as whether the degree awardedto a student with a disability is equivalent to the degree awarded to otherstudents or whether the academic competencies of the student with a dis-ability transfer to activities beyond college as readily as the competencies ofthe other students.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 377

    The goal of service programs aimed at changing the student seems differ-ent. These services appear directed at the goal of providing students with lifeskills and learning skills that allow success in an unchanged college environ-ment. Programs with this goal are concerned about whether the interventionsthey provide are sufficient to compensate for the students disabilities.

    Discussions regarding the service program goals for college studentswith learning disabilities should take place in the context of statutory obli-gations. What does it mean to say that a student with a learning disabilityhas equal access to an educational experience? Is equal access defined interms of success rates in altered environments or in terms of the acquisitionof skills that allow success in an unaltered environment?

    The second crucial issue lacking in the literature is the paucity of ev-idence documenting the effectiveness of intervention programs. There aremany descriptions of programs in the literature but relatively little empiricaldocumentation of program effectiveness. Evidence regarding the effective-ness of different types of intervention programs is very useful to collegesand universities initiating or upgrading their own programs of services.

    The effectiveness issue is also directly related to the purpose issue. Itis possible, for example, that the troubling questions regarding whether thecollege experience means the same thing for students with and without dis-abilities have no basis in fact. Research must show that students succeedingin an altered college environment are as well-prepared for life after collegeas those who succeed in an unaltered environment.

    It is unlikely that true experiments will be used to examine the effec-tiveness of service programs. Methodological issues like random assignmentof participants to treatments and ethical issues like the withholding of po-tentially beneficial services to participants make it difficult for colleges anduniversities to conduct controlled experiments comparing service alterna-tives. Examinations of services could be done, though, by using other typesof research designs. Case study data showing performance before and af-ter a treatment intervention is valuable when more controlled studies arenot possible. Another valuable data source is quasi-experimental designsthat compare the performance of students with disabilities receiving ser-vices with those of students who chose not to take advantage of availableservices. More comprehensive research could also involve large surveys thatdocument the services that are provided and the present and postcollegeoutcomes associated with those services.

    We invite researchers to develop a research plan that examines theintervention procedures both within a single institution and across institu-tions using several methods outlined earlier. It is suggested that this researchplan compare individual interventions or compare programs combining in-terventions to determine what works best. We predict that a combination of

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    378 Rath and Royer

    interventions, especially those involving interventions designed to changethe students ability and perception of their situation, will prove most effec-tive in helping college students with disabilities.

    REFERENCES

    Allard, W. G., Dodd, J. M., and Peralez, E. (1987). Keeping LD students in college. Acad. Ther.22(4): 359365.

    Barbaro, F. (1982). The learning disabled college student: Some considerations in setting ob-jectives. J. Learn. Disabil. 15(10): 599603.

    Bat-Hayim, M. (1997). Learning to learn: Learning therapy in a college classroom. Ann.Dyslexia 47: 203238.

    Bireley, M., and Manley, E. (1980). The learning disabled student in a college environment: Areport of Wright State Universitys program. J. Learn. Disabil. 13(1): 1215.

    Blachman, B. A. (ed.) (1997). Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implicationsfor Early Intervention, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing andmath skills. J. Learn. Disabil. 25(4): 253257.

    Brinckerhoff, L. C., Shaw, S. F., and McGuire, J. M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodations,and independence for college students with learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 25(7):417429.

    Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learningdisabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 28(3): 170190.

    Cisero, C. A., Royer, J. M., Marchant, H. G., and Jackson, S. J. (1997). Can the Computer-basedAcademic Assessment System (CAAS) be used to diagnose reading disability in collegestudents? J. Educ. Psychol. 89(4): 599620.

    Cohen, J. (1984). The learning disabled university student: Signs and initial screening. NASPAJ. 21(3): 2231.

    Cowles, J. R., and Keim, M. C. (1995). The graduation rate, intellectual functioning level, andmatriculation time of university students with learning disabilities. Coll. Stud. J. 29(2):145149.

    Cox, D. H., and Klas, L. D. (1996). Students with learning disabilities in Canadian colleges anduniversities: A primer for service provision. J. Learn. Disabil. 29(1): 9397.

    Day, S. L., and Edwards, B. J. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students withlearning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 29(5): 486492, 503.

    Decker, T. W., Polloway, E. A., and Decker, B. B. (1985). Help for the LD college student.Acad. Ther. 20(3): 334345.

    Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., and Ellis, E. (1984). Academic and cognitiveinterventions for LD adolescents: Part II. J. Learn. Disabil. 17(3): 170179.

    Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content areasubjects to adolescents with learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 26(6): 358383, 398.

    Fourqurean, J. M., Meisgeier, C., Swank, P. R., and Williams, R. E. (1991). Correlates of postsec-ondary employment outcomes for young adults with learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil.24(7): 400405.

    Gregg, N. (1996). Research directions leading toward inclusion, diversity, and leadership inthe global economy. In: Cramer, S. C., and Ellis, W. (eds.), Learning Disabilities: LifelongIssues, Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, pp. 121133.

    Groteluschen, A. K., Borkowski, J. G., and Hale, C. (1990). Strategy instruction is often in-sufficient: Addressing the interdependency of executive and attributional processes. In:Scruggs, T., and Wong, B. (eds.), Intervention Research in Learning Disabilities, Springer,New York, pp. 81101.

    Guyer, B. P., and Sabatino, D. (1989). The effectiveness of a multisensory alphabetic phoneticapproach with college students who are learning disabled. J. Learn. Disabil. 22(7): 430434.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 379

    Haufrecht, B., and Berger, P. C. (1984). Adult psychoeducational disorders: An integratedapproach. Soc. Casework 65(8): 478486.

    HEATH Resource Center (1993). Community colleges and students with disabilities. LD On-line. www.ldonline.org/ldindepth/postsecondary/ hrc comcol.html

    Henderson, C. (1992). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction No. ED 354 792, HEATH Resource Center, American Council onEducation, Washington, DC.

    Henderson, C. (1999). College freshmen with disabilities, 1999: A biennial statistical profile,statistical year 1998. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 436 900, HEATH ResourceCenter, Washington, DC.

    Hildreth, B. L., Dixon, M. E., Frerichs, D. K., and Heflin, L. J. (1994). College readiness forstudents with learning disabilities: The role of the school counselor. Sch. Couns. 41(5):343346.

    Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C., and Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with learningdisabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. J.Learn. Disabil. 25(10): 678684.

    Hurst, D., and Smerdon, B. (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, ser-vices and persistence. Stats in brief. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 444 329,National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

    Jarvis, K. (1997). Leveling the playing field: A comparison of scores of college students withand without learning disabilities on classroom tests. ERIC Document Reproduction No.ED 415 261.

    Johnson, K. R., and Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy andnumeracy with fluency. Am. Psychol. 47: 14751490.

    Johnston, C. L. (1984). The learning disabled adolescent and young adult: An overview andcritique of current practices. J. Learn. Disabil. 17(7): 386391.

    Kemp, A. D. (1992). Counseling center psychologists in neuropsychology: Counseling neu-ropsychology. Couns. Psychol. 20(4): 571604.

    Kroll, L. G. (1984). LDsWhat happens when they are no longer children? Acad. Ther. 20(2):133148.

    Learning Disabilities Support Services (1997). Modification of the Foreign Language Require-ment for Students with Learning Disabilities, Unpublished policy guidelines, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

    Resources, L. D. (1997). LD Resources Homepage. www.ldresources.com.Lefebvre, C. R. (1984). A psychological consultation program for learning-disabled adults. J.

    Coll. Stud. Pers. 25(4): 361362.Levinson, E. M. (1986). School psychology and college learning disabled students: Training and

    service possibilities. Psychol. Sch. 23(3): 295302.Lutwak, N., and Fine, E. (1983). Countertherapeutic styles when counseling the learning-

    disabled college student. J. Coll. Stud. Pers. 24(4): 320324.Martin, E. W. (1996). Public policy: An agenda for the future. In: Cramer, S. C., and Ellis, W.

    (eds.), Learning Disabilities: Lifelong Issues, Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, pp. 7176.McGuire, J. M., and Shaw, S. F. (1987). A decision-making process for the college-bound student

    matching learner, institution, and support program. Learn. Disabil. Q. 10(2): 106111.McWhirter, B. T., and McWhirter, J. J. (1990). University survival strategies and the learning

    disabled college student. Acad. Ther. 25(3): 345357.Mellard, D. F. (1994). Services for students with learning disabilities in the community colleges.

    In: Gerber, P. J., and Reiff, H. B. (eds.), Learning Disabilities in Adulthood, Pro-ed, Austin,TX, pp. 130140.

    Montague, M. (1993). Student-centered or strategy-centered instruction: What is our purpose?J. Learn. Disabil. 26(7): 433437, 481.

    Nash, R. T. (1989). Project Success: A remedial program for postsecondary learning disabledstudents. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 306 893, American Association of StateColleges and Universities, Washington, DC.

    Navicky, J. (1998, Winter). A match made by design not accident. The PostSecondary LDReport.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    380 Rath and Royer

    Orzek, A. M. (1984). Special needs of the learning disabled college student: Implications forinterventions through peer support groups. Pers. Guid. J. 62(7): 404407.

    Patton, J. R., and Polloway, E. A. (1992). Learning disabilities: The challenges of adulthood. J.Learn. Disabil. 25(7): 410415.

    Pitoniak, M. J., and Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities:A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Rev. Educ. Res. 71: 53104.

    Price, L. (1988). Effective counseling techniques for LD adolescents and adults in secondaryand postsecondary settings. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 6(3): 716.

    Raskind, M. (1993). Assistive technology and adults with learning disabilities: A blueprint forexploration and advancement. Learn. Disabil. Q. 16: 185196.

    Raskind, M. H. (1994). Assistive technology for adults with learning disabilities: A rationalefor use. In: Gerber, P. J., and Reiff, H. B. (eds.), Learning Disabilities in Adulthood, Pro-ed,Austin, TX, pp. 152162.

    Rath, K. A. (1999). An Intervention Program Designed to Increase the Reading Ability of CollegeStudents Diagnosed with Dyslexia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

    Roffman, A. J., Herzog, J. E., and Wershba-Gershon, P. M. (1994). Helping young adults un-derstand their learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 27(7): 413419.

    Royer, J. M. (1997). A cognitive perspective on the assessment, diagnosis and remediation ofreading skills. In: Phye, G. D. (ed.), Handbook of Academic Learning, Academic Press,San Diego, CA, pp. 199234.

    Royer, J. M., and Sinatra, G. M. (1994). A cognitive theoretical approach to reading diagnostics.Educ. Psychol. Rev. 6(2): 81113.

    Runyan, M. K. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for universitystudents with and without learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 24(2): 104108.

    Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Sullivan, G. S., and Hesser, L. S. (1993). Improving reasoningand recall: The differential effects of elaborative interrogation and mnemonic elaboration.Learn. Disabil. Q. 16: 233240.

    Sergent, M. T., Carter, R. T., Sedlacek, W. E., and Scales, W. E. (1988). A five-year analysis ofdisabled student services in higher education. J. Postsecondary Educ. Disabil. 6(4): 2127.

    Small, W. (1996). Choosing a college for students with learning disabilities. LD ResourcesHomepage. www.ldresources.com/collegechoice.html

    Sparks, R. L., and Javrosky, J. (1999). Students classified as LD and the college foreign languagerequirement: Replication and comparison studies. J. Learn. Disabil. 32(4): 329349.

    Sparks, R. L., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., and Javorsky, J. (1999). Students classified as LD andthe college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. J. Learn. Disabil. 32(6):566580.

    Strichart, S. S., and Mangrum, C. T., II (1985). Selecting a college for the LD student. Acad.Ther. 20(4): 475479.

    Sullivan, A. P., Nicolellis, D. L., Danley, K. S., and MacDonald-Wilson, K. (1993). Choose-get-keep: A psychiatric rehabilitation approach to supported education. Psychosoc. Rehabil.J. 17(1): 5568.

    Swanson, H. L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy deficit model: Overview of princi-ples and procedures. In: Scruggs, T., and Wong, B. (eds.), Intervention Research in LearningDisabilities, Springer, New York, pp. 3465.

    Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., and Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for early intervention indiagnosing specific reading disability. J. Sch. Psychol. 36(4): 367397.

    Vogel, S. A. (1982). On developing LD college programs. J. Learn. Disabil. 15(9): 518528.Vogel, S. A., and Adelman, P. B. (1990). Intervention effectiveness at the postsecondary level

    for the learning disabled. In: Scruggs, T., and Wong, B. (eds.), Intervention Research inLearning Disabilities, Springer, New York, pp. 329344.

    Vogel, S. A., and Adelman, P. B. (1992). The success of college students with learning disabilities:Factors related to educational attainment. J. Learn. Disabil. 25(7): 430441.

    Vogel, S. A., Leonard, F., Scales, W., Hayeslip, P., Hermansen, J., and Donnells, L. (1998). TheNational Learning Disabilities Postsecondary Databank: An overview. J. Learn. Disabil.31(3): 234247.

  • Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp609-379451 October 11, 2002 15:18 Style file version June 4th, 2002

    Learning Disability Services for College Students 381

    Westberry, S. J. (1994). A review of learning strategies with adults with learning disabilitiespreparing for the GED exam. J. Learn. Disabil. 27(4): 202209.

    White, W. J., Alley, G. R., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Warner, M. M., and Clark, F. L.(1982). Are there learning disabilities after high school? Except. Child. 49: 273274.

    Wilczenski, F. L. (1993). Comparison of academic performances, graduation rates, and timingof drop out for LD and nonLD college students. Coll. Stud. J. 27(2): 184194.

    Wilczenski, F. L., and Gillespie-Silver, P. (1992). Challenging the norm: Academic performanceof university students with learning disabilities. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 33: 197202.

    Working Party on the Needs of the Dyslexic Adult (1974). People with Dyslexia, The Council,London.

    Wren, C., Williams, N., and Kovitz, V. (1987). Organizational problems at the college level.Acad. Ther. 23(2): 157165.

    Yang, P. (1999). Technology changes the lives of students with learning disabilities. HowardCommunity College Homepage. www.howardcc.edu/resources/cmanches.htm

    Yost, D. S., Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., and Bigaj, S. J. (1994). Practices and attitudes of postsec-ondary LD service providers in North America. J. Learn. Disabil. 27(10): 631640.