ERIC EJ1040539: Personal Factors That Influence the Voluntary Withdrawal of Undergraduates with Disabilities

2014·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 195 - 207 195
Personal Factors that Infl uence the Voluntary
Withdrawal of Undergraduates with Disabilities
Valerie Thompson-Ebanks
University of Wyoming
Abstract
This qualitative study explored personal factors students with invisible disabilities (SWIDs) associate with their
voluntary withdrawal from a mid-western state land grant university (LGU) after completing 60 or more college
credits. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used to gather data from the five participants, all former students
with invisible disabilities. The data were coded and contrastive thematic analysis was conducted across all the cases.
Nine common factors were identified within participants’ descriptions of their college withdrawal experience. These
factors included: disability characteristics, medical reasons, feelings of inadequacy, little sense of belonging, small
college desire, self-advocacy, disclosure to faculty and staff, involvement in campus social life, and finances. The
complex interconnectedness of a number of the factors is central to many of the participant’s experiences, empha-
sizing the need for a multifaceted approach to retention strategies for SWIDs.
Keywords: Disabilities, college withdrawal, qualitative, retention
The United States Department of Education con- paper is: “What do students with disabilities perceive
cluded there were more than 1,400,000 students with as the personal factors that infl uenced their voluntary
documented disabilities in postsecondary education withdrawal from college after successfully completing
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 60 or more credit hours at a land grant university?”
2006), representing an exponential increase since 1978. Sixty credits typically represent half of the academic
The increase can be primarily attributed to federal requirements needed for a degree.
legislation: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of Literature Review
1990 and its 2008 Amendments: the Higher Education
Act (HEA); and the post-9/11 Veterans Educational Although deFur, Getzel, and Trossi (1996) state
Assistance Act. Scant information exists regarding that “the likelihood of earning a degree is decreased by
completion and non-completion rates for students with the presence of a disability,” (p. 232) other researchers
disabilities (SWDs) in postsecondary education (Wes- found that retention rates for students with and without
sel, Jones, Markle, & Westfall, 2009). Information that disabilities were basically the same, except for varia-
does exist, however, indicates that SWDs have higher tions during years four and fi ve (Wessel et al., 2009).
non-completion rates than their nondisabled counter- Some SWDs, namely those with learning disabilities,
parts, depending on the nature and severity of the dis- may take longer to graduate as they take the lowest
ability (Fox, Hatfi eld, & Collins, 2003; NCES, 2009; number of credits possible to maintain their status as
Webster, Clary, & Griffi th, 2005). It follows that as ac- a full-time student (Wessel et al., 2009), a fi nding sup-
cess and enrollment of SWDs increase, attention should ported by a 12-year longitudinal study at a large col-
be given to factors associated with the non-completion lege in Quebec, Canada. Jorgensen et al. (2005) found
of undergraduate SWDs. This study focuses on the in- that students with disabilities (n=653) realized similar
dividual factors that students with disabilities perceive grades and graduation outcomes as students without
as having infl uenced their voluntary withdrawal from disabilities (n=41,357), but would typically take lighter
college. The research question to be addressed in this course loads and one additional semester to graduate.
196 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
Characteristics and academically related issues that Characteristics of Undergraduate SWDs who
inform any discussion of students with disabilities en- Withdraw from College Prior to Graduation
rolled in higher education include institutional factors, Certain personal factors associated with college
off-campus characteristics, the type and severity of a withdrawal are reportedly unique to SWDs. These
disability, access, availability to services and accom- factors include illness, medication concerns and side
modations, grades, and graduation rates. effects, and students’ ability to manage their disability
while navigating the academic environment (Adler,
Retention and Persistence Issues for College 1999; Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995; Hill,
Students with Disabilities 1996; Janiga & Costenbader, 2002; Weiner & Weiner,
University and college administrators are interested 1997). Additional personal factors such as lack of
in the retention and persistence of all students, includ- social integration, dissatisfaction with course/faculty/
ing those with disabilities. Some scholars use the terms institution, academic stressors, and fi nancial problems
“persistence” and “retention” interchangeably. Others are also associated with withdrawal of undergraduate
differentiate the constructs by using retention as an in- SWDs (Barnard-Brak, Lechtenberger, & Williams,
stitutional measure and persistence as a student measure 2010; Blacklock, Benson, & Johnson, 2003; Getzel
(Hagedorn, 2005). Retention refers to the ability of an & Thoma, 2008; Lehman, Davies, & Laurin, 2000).
institution to retain a student from admission through Belch (2004-2005) suggested that self-determination,
graduation, while persistence is defi ned as a student’s sense of purpose, and belonging are also associated
ability to remain enrolled through to degree completion. with the retention of SWDs. For example, feelings of
The term “withdrawal” in this paper refers to SWDs who non-belonging may inhibit students from disclosing and
voluntarily discontinue enrollment, which refl ects both requesting accommodations (Burgstahler & Doe, 2004;
a lack of retention and persistence. Getzel & McManus, 2005; Getzel & Thoma, 2008).
The majority of related research focuses on the Factors associated with the voluntarily withdrawal
retention and persistence of students with disabilities of SWDs from college after successfully completing two
during their fi rst- to-second year of college (Baggot, or more years have not been studied extensively. While
2005; Corcoran, 2010; Mamiseishvili & Koch, 2011). studies have focused on retention issues pertaining to
The focus stems from seminal research indicating that SWDs, the views of the students are typically unavail-
the largest number of students withdrew from college able. This gap in the research is primarily due to the dif-
during their fi rst year or before entry into the second fi culty in locating students who left an institution prior to
year (Iffert, 1956; Pantages & Creedon, 1978; Tinto, completion. To the researcher’s knowledge, no research
1993). However, examination of national data in the has been published that reports the views, perspectives,
U.S. revealed that 44% of all withdrawals occur after or lived experiences of SWDs who voluntarily withdraw
the second year (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009). from college after successfully completing 60 credits
This withdrawal pattern was supported by Stuart (2008) of coursework. The voices of the students themselves
who reported that, over a 10-year period, an average of need to be included in research to best inform programs
350 students left the University of New Mexico annually designed to facilitate their success.
after successfully completing 98 credits or more.
A distinction is rarely made in the literature be- Methods
tween voluntary and involuntary withdrawal (often
referred to as “academic dismissal”). College with- This exploratory qualitative study offers a lens
drawal is defi ned as a student’s departure from an to explore this substantive area about which little is
institution before completing all the requirements to known (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and “gives voice to
obtain a degree. Such students can be categorized into people who have been historically silenced or margin-
two groups: voluntary and involuntary withdrawals. alized” (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, &
For the purposes of this study, students who decided Richardson, 2005, p. 199). To conduct this exploration,
to leave their institution were recognized as voluntary qualitative methods of data collection, primarily semi-
withdrawals, while students who were dismissed by structured interviews, were employed allowing the
the college were classifi ed as involuntary withdrawals participants to tell their stories and thereby construct
(Brunsden, Davies, Shevlin, & Bracken, 2000). knowledge within the context under exploration. The
Thompson-Ebanks; Factors Infl uencing Voluntary Withdrawal 197
data presented are part of a larger research study that Participants
explored additional experiences (including systemic, The intent of the study was to report the voices
family, and institutional factors) of undergraduate of students with a wide range of disabilities (SWDs);
students who withdrew from college. however, only fi ve students, all with invisible disabili-
ties (SWIDs) responded. This sample represents only a
Recruitment subgroup of the disability population. During the initial
The research site was a land-grant university phase of the interview general demographics were
(LGU) in a midwestern U.S. state; the total number collected: gender, race, age, and type of disability (see
of SWDs at LGU was unknown. The data collected Table 1). The participants were given the following
and reported on SWDs represented only those students pseudonyms: Abby, Mali, Adrian, Beck, and Carter.
who self-identifi ed their disability, be it permanent or
temporary, either to the university or the Resources for Qualitative Data Analysis: Thematic Analysis
Disabled Students Offi ce (RDS). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the in-
The RDS at LGU provided a list of students regis- terview data in order to identify common thematic
tered with the offi ce; this list was used as the primary elements across research participants and the events
means to identify students who had documented dis- they reported (Riesman, 2004). To illuminate themes,
abilities and had disclosed their disability status. The both data-driven (inductive) analysis and theory-driven
target population was SWDs (having completed 60 (deductive) analysis were used, with a greater degree of
credits or more) who voluntarily left the university dependency on inductive analysis to illuminate factors
without completing their undergraduate degree. Per- from the raw information that SWIDs associate with
mission was sought from the director of RDS to contact leaving college pre-maturely (Boyatzis, 1998).
SWDs (via email and or by any other preferred means) The inductive analysis phase involved four steps:
who had not enrolled for the last two years. In total, partializing transcripts to focus on information salient
fi ve participants were identifi ed; each participant was to the study (Riesman, 2002); open coding to determine
a Student with an Invisible Disability (SWID). constraining factors; contrastive analysis and identi-
fying themes; and revising and applying key themes
Interview Process across cases. Before the process of detailed analysis
At least one week before the scheduled interview, began, the two participants who selected to review
participants were sent a copy of the interview schedule their transcripts were sent a copy of their partial tran-
either electronically or by mail as per their preference. scripts for member checking (Doyle, 2007). Member
Providing the questions in advance of the interview checking is an important aspect of qualitative inquiry
gave participants the opportunity to become familiar used for increasing trustworthiness (Carlson, 2010).
with the questions and to refl ect on their planned re- The participants were free to enhance, elaborate, or
sponses. Interviews were conducted between August alter their transcript, which was done via telephone
2011 and December 2011. Two participants opted for conversation with the researcher. Participants made
face-to-face interviews, one chose interviewing via negligible adjustments to their transcripts.
Skype, and the remaining two preferred telephone Transcripts were read and re-read so that narratives
interviews. All participants granted permission to became clearer. Codes that closely refl ected constructs
have their interviews audio-recorded. This provided from participants’ points of view were constructed
the researcher an opportunity to revisit an interview inductively from the raw material (Boyatzis, 1998), en-
and review it in its totality, then transcribe and check hancing the reliability of the research. Summary sheets
for accuracy by replaying and comparing transcripts were created for each participant each time so as not to
with recordings. A semi-structured focused interview have multilevel analysis on the same summary sheet.
technique (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) was utilized to Following the iterative process of inductive open
systematically obtain fi rst-hand data about participants’ coding to identify constructs from the participants’
experiences as SWDs in higher education. experiences, contrastive analysis was conducted to
illuminate patterns and themes within and across par-
ticipants’ experiences. Contrastive analysis of each
participant’s summary sheet, involving the discovery
198 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
Table 1
Summary of Participant Demographics
Characteristics Total Participants (N=5)
Gender
Female (Abby & Mali) 2
Male (Adrian, Beck, & Carter) 3
Race
White 4
Asian-American 1
Disability Diagnosis
Single 2
Dual 1
Multiple 2
Disability Type
Learning disability/ies (4 congenital & 1 acquired due to brain injury) 5
Psychiatric illness/es 2
Enrollment Category
Traditional (1st enrolled under age 25) 4
Nontraditional (1st enrolled over age 25) 1
Degree Completion at Other Institution 2
and creation of preliminary themes emanating within tors or individual characteristics that contributed to
and among the samples, was conducted (Boyatzis, withdrawal. The personal factors that SWDs reported
1998). The process created subcategories and then to have infl uenced their decision to withdraw from
indexed information into the categories, revealing a college are reported.
data linking process of encoding the raw information
(Mason, 1996). As the preliminary themes were com- Findings
pared across samples, a distinct effort not to begin the
interpretation process was made to prevent an early Participants identifi ed personal factors or indi-
imposition of the researcher’s interpretation of the vidual characteristics that infl uenced their decision
data (Boyatzis, 1998). Further examination of the raw to withdraw from the institution. A total of nine indi-
information determined the presence or absence of vidual/personal factors were identifi ed by one or more
each of the preliminary themes. participant: disability characteristics, medical reasons,
In the fi nal step, themes were revised as necessary, feelings of inadequacy, limited sense of belonging,
with the remaining themes recognized as salient or key small college desire, self-advocacy, disclosure to fac-
themes. Excerpts and quotations made by participants ulty and staff, involvement in campus social life, and
were used to illustrate and substantiate the fi ndings. fi nances (see Table 2).
The deductive data analysis phase involved examin- To provide a detailed contextualization of the par-
ing each participant’s case summary for personal fac- ticipants’ experiences, only the responses of the three
Thompson-Ebanks; Factors Infl uencing Voluntary Withdrawal 199
Table 2
Personal Factors Contributing to Participants’ Withdrawal
Personal Factors Participants
Abby Adrian Beck Carter Mali
Disability Characteristics (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
Medical Reasons (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
Feelings of Adequacy (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
Sense of Belonging (cid:57) (cid:57)
Small College Desire (cid:57) (cid:57)
Self-Advocacy (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
Disclosure to Faculty & Staff (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
Involvement in Campus Social Life (cid:57) (cid:57)
Finances (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)
factors identifi ed by all fi ve participants are highlighted allowed double the allotted time to complete tests, as
in the report of fi ndings: characteristics of the disability, well as I go to separate room for testing.” In college,
feelings of inadequacy, and fi nances. Abby chose only to disclose that she had a learning dis-
ability because she needed academic accommodations.
Disability Characteristics She decided not to reveal that she had other invisible
Disability characteristics address challenges en- disabilities, namely generalized anxiety disorder and
countered and adjustments made by the SWID partici- bipolar disorder, as she wanted to adopt a new persona
pants in order to navigate the university environment. and “be recognized for my strengths rather than my
Abby is a 23-year old White female who was enrolled limitations.” She said, “I always detested the stares,
at the university for almost three and a half years. She whispers, and questions from my peers as I was pulled
decided to leave prematurely to attend a smaller college away from classes to take quizzes and tests … I hated
in her home town. She thought a smaller college would to be regarded as a ‘special student’ as I was often
be more conducive to her personal goals and needs. ridiculed.” Abby felt that she did not need academic
Within three semesters of attending the smaller college, accommodations to cope with a generalized anxiety
she completed her undergraduate degree. Subsequently, and bipolar disorder. But she noted:
Abby gained full time employment and was admitted
to graduate school for the 2012 fall semester. Darn was I wrong! It probably would have helped
Abby spoke of efforts to adapt to her learning if I received some form of accommodation with
disability (Not Otherwise Specifi ed-NOS), which was my psychiatric disability … Maybe, fl exibility
diagnosed when she was 9-years old. She explained, with class attendance, I don’t know. Anything that
“I read and write more slowly than my peers and I am would prevent the stares when I showed up late for
200 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
my early morning classes sometimes. Any form of him multiple attempts to process information. Up to
accommodation to let my professors know that I a year prior to his enrollment, he noted, “simple little
did not take my classes for granted. things about memory, I would have to write down.
For example, I just couldn’t remember how to get to a
Efforts to compensate for some of the diffi culties she location I was quite familiar with over the years.” By
encountered as a result of having multiple disabilities the time Beck enrolled at LGU he had regained both
compromised her health. some long term and short memory capabilities. Yet,
Adrian is a 25-year old White male who transferred he stated, “my attention span was short and it took
to the university during his third year of university en- me multiple attempts to understand new informa-
rollment, having completed the fi rst two years of his un- tion.” He particularly struggled with navigating the
dergraduate degree at separate small colleges. Shortly online environment, which demanded responding to
after enrollment at the university his worst fears were multiple commands, for instance, when replying to his
realized; a large campus environment and its dynamics peers in threaded discussions. With assistance from a
were not conducive to his learning needs. Immediately rehabilitation support team, he subsequently devised
following that insight, Adrian began discussions with strategies to adapt to his cognitive impairment and
the small college he was fi rst enrolled in to initiate had successfully fulfi lled partial requirements for the
re-enrollment procedures. Adrian completed only one undergraduate degree up to the time of his withdrawal.
semester at LGU where he took fi ve courses. He was keen on pointing out that the limitations that
Adrian recognized that he had two learning dis- resulted from his memory loss were impediments in
abilities, visual perceptual disability and dyslexia, his educational attainment.
when he was six years old. Like Abby, he required Carter is a 28-year old White male. During his
an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) throughout tenure at LGU he withdrew from the institution on two
elementary and high school. The primary challenges different occasions. In the fi rst instance he decided to
he experienced, which were associated with his dis- pursue other career interests after the fi rst two years
abilities, included transferring information from the of enrollment. After recognizing that the other option
board to a notebook; trying to listen to an instructor could not be his lifetime career path, he re-enrolled
talk and take notes at the same time, which he says was at the university the following academic year. On his
a confusing process; and copying accurately, which return he declared his major and remained enrolled for
took him much longer than his peers. He struggles to fi ve years. Carter persisted at LGU for more than seven
recognize, organize, and interpret images that he has years and was close to completing his undergraduate
viewed. This challenge of transferring information also degree. Still, he withdrew a second time because he
impeded the time within which he could complete an reportedly lost interest in his major and failed to follow
exam and required extended testing time. Adrian had through with some course requirements.
larger classes at LGU with less individualized atten- Carter attributed much of the problem he encoun-
tion, which further fueled his desire to leave LGU for tered in school to symptoms related to his disability,
an institution that offered smaller class sizes. “My Attention Defi cit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He
learning needs are best satisfi ed in small classes. LGU insisted that he constantly struggled with being focused
would have had to make structural changes for me to and remaining on task through completion, planning
even consider it again,” he stressed. and prioritizing, indecisive and impulsive decision
Beck is a 40-year old White male, considered a making, and managing his responsibilities. These chal-
nontraditional aged student, who developed a learn- lenges ultimately led to his departure. Carter stated:
ing disability resulting from a traumatic brain injury
after brain surgery. Of the fi ve participants, he was the I constantly compete with my disability … it affects
only individual who pursued an online undergraduate me a lot in school … if I get bored my mind begins to
degree with LGU. After acquiring cognitive impair- wander … school has always been hassle, ‘cause if
ments that involved both short term and long term it doesn’t keep me enthralled … I just lose focus.
memory loss, he found the fl exibility of the online
program conducive to his learning needs. He related Carter related that he was once taken to an assessment
that, because of his shortened attention span, it took center where his brain waves were measured. The as-
Thompson-Ebanks; Factors Infl uencing Voluntary Withdrawal 201
sessment revealed that his brain waves were charged esteem pertaining to his capabilities and limitations.
for the fi rst few minutes of an activity and then lost Although he self-disclosed his disability status to the
energy, hence the inability to stay engaged. He con- university, he felt inadequate to advocate his immedi-
cluded that he learned differently: ate learning needs to his professors. He felt he should
be capable of managing his academic responsibilities.
My brain waves use a lot of energy real fast. Primar- When asked if he would take the same approach now
ily for test purposes, for the fi rst half of a test I’d as he did then, he said, “I probably would have been
have enough energy to get by, yet I would fade for more vocal about my leaning needs if I were to do this
the last half. I compensated by eating a high protein again. I would advocate on my own behalf.” He further
bar which provided me with source of energy to be clarifi ed that his inhibition to advocate for a learning
able to complete the test. environment that best suited his learning abilities was
based on his belief that he was just passing through
Mali is a 23-year old fi rst generation, Asian-American [the university]. “I didn’t want to inconvenience people
female. She was enrolled for three years at LGU but because of my disability and seem too needy. I was
left the institution during the fourth year. Up to the time totally embarrassed. I guess it was personal pride. I
of the interview, Mali was employed in the hospitality kept telling myself I should be able to do this.”
industry, enrolled in a community college, and hoped to Some of the participants chose not to discuss their
return to LGU to complete her undergraduate degree. concerns with faculty or health care staff because of
Mali only became aware of her learning disability, feelings of inferiority and embarrassment and the desire
Irlen’s Syndrome, after completing almost two years to be noted for their capabilities rather than their limi-
at the university. Irlen’s syndrome is a type of visual tations. Abby, for example, chose not to utilize health
perceptual problem that affects how the nervous sys- care on the campus as she feared her peers and faculty
tem encodes and decodes visual information. Mali would become aware of her psychiatric disability and
explained that her impaired perception contributed to think less of her, “I guess I felt inferior just with having
her slower reading rate, other problems with reading, a learning disability that I feared if others knew about
and problems with concentration and attention. She the psychiatric disability, they may feel that I am worth-
expressed aspects of the struggles she experienced: less and incapable of earning a college degree.”
Abby further emphasized her desire to be per-
I felt like I just couldn’t study … I couldn’t read as ceived as adequate by her peers and professors. This
long as I should have been able to. I thought I was also inhibited her from fully articulating her learning
… not trying hard enough and questioned myself; needs to her professors. She required fl exibility with
you know, am I being lazy? How come I can’t read class attendance, which was a discretion her professors
and study as long as other kids did? could consider only if they were made aware of her
learning needs. Abby’s feelings of inadequacy were
During her tenure at the university, Mali also discov- connected to feelings of not belonging to the university,
ered she suffered from mood disorders, namely gen- which she noted were associated with discrimination
eralized anxiety disorder and clinical depression. Mali and marginalization by a faculty member. Most partici-
added that she had an appointment to also be tested pants blamed themselves for their inability to manage
for ADHD as she thought all her learning needs were the learning environment without seeking support from
not yet unearthed. The inability to cope academically faculty and staff. Some felt embarrassed about their
also contributed to Mali’s feelings of inadequacy and differences in learning, which also prevented them
low self-esteem issues. from seeking help.
Several participants felt inadequate in their ability
Feelings of Inadequacy to meet expectations of their family members, peers,
The desire to feel adequate was a common theme instructors, and LGU. Carter stated that his parents
among the participants. “Feeling adequate” took on promised to pay for his college education if he could
different meanings for individuals and was triggered consistently maintain a grade point average above
by a number of factors unique to students’ backgrounds 3.0. He explained, “My grades were always below 3.0
and experiences. Like Abby, Adrian reported low self- averages. Don’t get me wrong, I still managed to earn
202 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
an occasional A and few Bs, but I was always trailing grades during her third year and was unsuccessful in
a 3.0 average by close margin.” When he was unable meeting fi nancial aid requirements. Denied fi nancial
to satisfy this expectation, a cycle of self-blame and aid, she decreased the number of courses she took and
feelings of failure and inadequacy were perpetuated. increased her number of employment hours. This was
Mali highlighted that being a minority student a diffi cult decision to make as she was determined not
meant a lot to her, which also contributed to her desire to be “defeated.” Taking a lower course load further
to be successful. She emphasized that her ethnicity had decreased her chances of meeting eligibility require-
signifi cant meaning regarding how she deemed herself. ments to obtain fi nancial aid. She also recognized
Her family placed great emphasis on academic excel- that, in addition to her learning diffi culties, increased
lence and she felt compelled to meet this expectation. employment obligations would possibly detract from
“That all contributed to how I wanted to see myself. the increased academic performance she desired. This
I wanted to go to college and support myself and to, ultimately affected her ability to remain in school as she
you know, be something more than just part of the became indebted to LGU, which made her ineligible
workforce.” Mali explained that after the fi rst few for future enrollments until her outstanding fees were
months at college she was constantly bombarded with paid. Mali expanded on how she felt and coined the
feelings of inadequacy. She attributed a number of the term “fi nancial disability” in reference to the fi nancial
challenges she encountered at college to her feelings diffi culty she experienced. She explained:
of inferiority and worthlessness. First, she mentioned
that she had struggled to live up to her own academic I wasn’t able to register for the following semester
expectations since enrolling in college. Second, she because I still had to pay off my balance. My par-
spoke about her inability to attain the “understood” ents are unable to help. My dad just recently lost his
academic standards set by her parents. Third, she temp job and my mom, who was unemployed for
noted that the university had academic standards that a few years, just recently found a job. So now it’s
she had struggled to fulfi ll, which also made her feel the fi nancial disability and the learning disabilities
like an underachiever. Interestingly, she noted that her that I’ve been worried about. I still can’t re-enroll
feelings of ineptitude were integrally interrelated with as I still have those outstanding fees. And, you
her lack of knowledge about her disabilities, primarily know, I just know that it’s stressing me out. … I
her learning disability. can’t concentrate other than, you know, worrying
Mali expounded that not recognizing earlier that about this stuff. I can’t, I can’t get anything done
she had learning disabilities may have impacted her and I just feel like, like I’m so odd.
academic performance. She commented on how her
inability to excel academically contributed to feelings Adrian also shared that, prior to enrolling at LGU, he
of low self-esteem. transferred to different colleges in an attempt to obtain
the best fi nancial package possible. After spending a
It’s just diffi cult on your self-esteem. Having been year at a small college in the state where he grew up,
able to achieve so much prior to college and then he relocated to Colorado to attend a small college that
getting to college and not being able to achieve offered what he thought was a better fi nancial pack-
very much. It has really got me down. It’s affected age. After enrolling at the small college, however, he
my grades, it’s affected how I study, how I’ve been realized that the fi nancial package was untenable and
thinking and without doubt how I’ve been present- would expire at the end of the year. He then transferred
ing myself, you know. to LGU. Although Adrian noted fi nances as a contrib-
uting factor to his withdrawal from LGU, he did not
Finances emphasize them as one of the primary factors.
Financial constraint was a challenge for all the Beck also had fi nancial limitations. During his
participants, but was more pronounced for Mali who enrollment at LGU he was unable to be gainfully
attributed her withdrawal to her inability to pay tuition employed as he was also recuperating from his brain
fees. All participants required and accessed fi nancial injury. At that time he was dependent on both the
aid upon enrollment at college. However, Mali was fi nancial and emotional support from a rehabilitation
later denied financial aid when she received low center. Beck had a disagreement with the rehabilitation
Thompson-Ebanks; Factors Infl uencing Voluntary Withdrawal 203
center and it “became obvious that the issues with the In this study, SWIDs’ withdrawal was associated with
rehab center weren’t going to allow me to continue feelings of embarrassment to seek help from faculty and
taking classes” as the fi nancial support was cut off. staff; reticence to request classroom accommodations;
Yet, he was adamant that he would complete his stud- and feelings of inferiority in their inability, whether
ies at the university in the near future. He described perceived or real, to meet academic expectations.
the withdrawal process as “just a little bump in the Research directly supports the notion that the
road, that is all.” environment infl uences self-esteem and feelings of
Carter noted that despite his efforts he was unable adequacy. For example, like all students, SWIDs for-
to maintain the grades his parents expected of him, mulate perceptions of themselves and their environs
which resulted in lack of fi nancial support from his based on their interactions with environmental systems
parents. To offset his fi nancial responsibilities, Carter (Dipeolu et al., 2002). Long-term exposure to prejudi-
remained employed throughout his tenure in college, cial attitudes can contribute to negative self-appraisal
at least part time. This income was supplemented by (Dipeolu et al., 2002). Some of the participants spoke
student loans he received. of being labeled as a “student with special needs” in
educational settings prior to college and the negative
Discussion and Recommendations association they made and the negative schema they
formulated with those experiences.
A number of the personal withdrawal factors Feelings of inadequacy are connected to students’
unearthed in this study have previously been cited in perceptions of the systemic stigma that exists towards
retention studies on SWDs. However, this current re- persons with disabilities and permeates higher educa-
search on SWIDs provides a more personal and in-depth tion and other social structures. Another important
examination of some of the personal factors by contex- finding is the internalized stigma experienced by
tualizing factors, personalizing students’ experiences, participants; a number of the participants were embar-
and providing new insights into the unique and often rassed and or reluctant to disclose their disability and/
interconnected nature of personal factors already known or seek accommodation due to the perceived negative
to be associated with SWDs’ college withdrawal. attitude of faculty and peers associated with persons
Participants offered nine reasons for their vol- with disabilities in general. Three of the participants
untary withdrawal from undergraduate studies that internalized such beliefs, which inhibited them from
they considered to be individual and personal char- advocating for their learning needs. Such internaliza-
acteristics. All fi ve participants at least partially at- tion can also contribute to decreased self-effi cacy.
tributed their withdrawal to three personal factors: Mali in particular was adamant that society perpetuates
their disability, feelings of inadequacy, and insecure attitudes of non-acceptance and limited tolerance, par-
or limited fi nances. After analyzing the data and care- ticularly for students with learning disabilities. Abby
fully listening to the “stories” of participants, it is not believed that society was highly intolerant of persons
clear that the traits mentioned were truly individual in with mental health disabilities.
nature. That is, all the personal traits mentioned by the
participants were directly and indirectly impacted by The Disability
environmental infl uences. Environmental infl uences The nature of the student’s disability was cited as a
such as faculty attitudes, institutional policies, stigma, contributing factor to college withdrawal. Participants
parental expectations, and peer behavior meaningfully referred to the negative academic consequences of
contribute to the individual factors that participants functional limitations such as the inability to pay atten-
named as contributing to college withdrawal. Envi- tion, diffi culty with memory, and unpredictable moods.
ronmental infl uences on the individual traits identifi ed At least two environmental infl uences impact the de-
by SWID are suggested below. gree to which the “disability” may impact academic
success and subsequent retention: the services and
Feelings of Inadequacy accommodations available to SWDs and their access
Participants reported similar feelings of inadequacy (including the stigma surrounding service utilization).
as those identifi ed by previous authors (Dipeolu, Rear- Legal mandates require that SWDs receive appropriate
don, Sampson, & Burkhead, 2002; Stage & Milne, 1996). accommodations at institutions of higher education,
204 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2)
yet some institutions go beyond legal requirements because he was unable to attain the academic standards
and offer additional disability support services. Addi- they demanded. Rather than facilitating Carter’s suc-
tional work needs to be accomplished in this area (i.e., cess, this parental restriction also contributed to his
websites and on-line materials accessible to all students academic demise.
including visually and hearing impaired students), Environmental infl uences such as stigma, institu-
this discussion should also focus on access to and the tional policies, and parental expectations impact even
friendliness of services and accommodations. the most basic individual factors including personal
Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, and Acosta (2005) attitudes, disability symptoms, and fi nancial insecu-
and Wegner (2008) suggest that SWDs’ proclivity to rity. Future research needs to identify the ways that
persist is related to the SWD’s ability to utilize sup- environmental factors support college completion
port from faculty, staff, and other support networks. and explore the ways that the institutional, social,
Some of the participants chose to optimally utilize and family environment barriers can be eliminated or
disability services and support, while others opted to transformed to supports. For example, two study par-
be selective in how they sought campus services and ticipants expressed the desire to attend a small college.
support. Abby, for example, chose not to disclose her Are there differential retention and completion rates
psychiatric disability to either faculty or staff for fear between small colleges and large universities with
of being stigmatized, deemed inferior, or treated dif- regard to SWDs? Are small colleges more supportive
ferently. This perception infl uenced her decision not of SWDs than large universities? If so, what specifi c
to use the campus health services, opting instead to characteristics are most effective in improving reten-
retain her hometown mental health team that was in tion and completion rates of SWDs?
another state. Although services were available at the Another line of future research may include in-
LGU, she chose not to access them because of stigma vestigations of faculty attitudes towards SWDs with
and fear of being negatively judged. particular attention to attitudes toward students with
visible disabilities, learning disabilities, and psychiatric
Finances disabilities. What are faculty attitudes towards reason-
A number of SWDs carry lower course loads to able accommodations? Do faculty members believe
increase their ability to be successful. Lower course that they could benefi t from additional information on
loads increase the number of semesters needed to SWDs and their needs?
complete a degree, which may directly impact and In addition, access to services may be increased if
restrict SWDs access to many federal funds given that SWDs advocate for their personal needs (Barnard-Brak
federal monies are limited to an undergraduate degree et al., 2010; Getzel, 2008; Wegner, 2008). Like other
completion within a specifi c time frame, typically four researchers (Dorwick et al., 2005; Wegner, 2008), this
years (National Council on Disability, 2003). Students researcher is advocating that SWIDs gain mastery in
exceeding the maximum time limit for their program self-determination and self-advocacy skills. Students
are denied further student fi nancial aid at that level. with disabilities should be educated about their legal
Infl exibility in the distribution in federal funds adds right to equal access in higher education. SWIDs
an additional deterrent to SWDs’ ability to access and should be empowered to request academic accommo-
retain funding for higher education. Policy makers are dations and support as needed as this is one of the ways
encouraged to revise fi nancial aid regulations in light to ensure that they acquire the same opportunities as
of SWDs’ needs and provisions, which may increase nondisabled students. These skills may be introduced
their chances to be successful in higher education. to SWDs during high school, for example, or during
The participants also seemed to have a general lack college orientations.
of knowledge of other fi nancial options available to It is important to note that college withdrawal is
SWDs in higher education. Parents are also encour- not always a negative action for students. As the par-
aged to become knowledgeable about their students’ ticipants’ experiences highlighted, withdrawal depends
academic and nonacademic strengths and weaknesses on the needs and goals of the students. In Adrian’s
and support them to achieve realistic goals without instance, he enrolled at the LGU as a practical mat-
restrictive measures. In this study, Carter discussed ter: to maintain continuous enrollment, which would
how his parents failed to offer him fi nancial assistance make him eligible to re-enroll at the small college