Effect of interactive multimedia intervention versus a traditional handbook methodology on faculty knowledge of students with disabilities

229 Pages·1995·7.9 MB·English

by  Wald, Judy L

THEEFFECTOFINTERACTIVEMULTIMEDIAINTERVENTIONVERSUSA
TRADITIONALHANDBOOKMETHODOLOGYONFACULTYKNOWLEDGEOF
STUDENTSWITHDISABILITIES
By
JUDYL.WALD
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL
OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
1995
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thisworkisdedicatedtomyfamily. Mymother,whopassedawayduringthecourse
ofmystudies,demonstratedthatdespiteadversityandpaingoalscanbeachieved. My
father'sloveandconfidenceinmehavedrivenmetoaccomplishallthatispossible. My
brother,thehappywanderer,provedthatlifehasnoboundariesandcreativityand
imaginationshouldbeencouragedandnotsquelched. Myfamilyhasbeenmy
inspirationandsupport-forthis,Iamgrateful!
IwouldliketothankmydoctoralcommitteeattheUniversityofFlorida: Dr.
Schwartzmychair,forhiswisdom,wit,andenthusiasm;Dr.Repetto,whotruly
demonstratesthemeaningofperseverance;Dr.Reichard,whosesupportandexperience
haveguidedmethroughoutthisprocess;Dr.Hensel,whoseperspectiveshaveheightened
mycuriositytodelveintonewareas,andDr.Sandeen,whosededicationandoptimism
areanexampletousall.
IamalsogratefultoKenOsfield,ADACoordinatorattheUniversityofFlorida,for
hisfriendshipandencouragement. MypracticumexperienceintheOfficeofPrograms
andServicesforStudentswithDisabilitiesearlyinmydoctoralprogramsparkedmy
interestinhighereducationandstudentswithdisabilities.
Finally,Iwouldliketoacknowledgeallofthestudentswithdisabilitiesatthe
UniversityofFloridawhomIhavemetoverthepastthreeyears. Ihavelearnedthrough
ourinteractionsandhavepersonallybenefitedfromourfiiendships. Ipromiseto
continuetostrivetomakethisworldabetterplace.
ii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
LISTOFTABLES v
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTIONTOTHEPROBLEM 1
StatementofProblem 3
StatememofPurpose 6
RationaleoftheStudy 7
DefinitionofTerms 9
DelimitationsofStudy 10
LimitationsoftheStudy 11
Summary 12
OverviewoftheRemainingChapters 13
2 REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE 14
SelectionofRelevantLiterature 15
TheBasisforServicesforStudentswithDisabilitiesin
HigherEducation 16
FacultyTraininginHigherEducationSettings 21
TheCampusClimate 50
CognitiveFlexibilityTheory 67
MuhimediaasaPedagogicalApproach 70
Summary 81
3 METHODSANDPROCEDURES 85
Introduction 85
DescriptionoftheNullHypothesis 85
DescriptionofthePilotStudy 87
DescriptionoftheSubjects 91
DescriptionoftheResearchInstrumentation 100
DescriptionoftheProcedures 109
iii
TreatmentoftheData 112
Summary 115
4 RESULTS 120
SummaryofDemographicInformation 121
ExperienceTeachingStudentswithDisabilities 125
AccesstoComputerHardware 129
ResearchQuestion#1 130
ResearchQuestion#2 132
ResearchQuestion#3 136
ResearchQuestion#4 139
Summary 140
5 DISCUSSIONANDIMPLICATIONS 143
ReviewofStudyPurposeandObjectives 143
ReviewoftheLiterature 144
ReviewoftheHypotheses 145
ReviewoftheMethods 146
SummaryofResearchFindings 148
InterpretationandDiscussionofResuhs 149
ResuhsAssociatedwithCognitiveFlexibilityTheory 160
ProblemsandLimitations 161
ImplicationsforFutureResearch 163
Summary 165
APPENDICES
A FEEDBACKFROMNATIONALDISABILITYSERVICEPROVIDERS .167
B ORIGINALKNOWLEDGESURVEY 170
C PRETESTCORRESPONDENCE;DEMOGRAPHICSURVEY;
PRETESTSURVEY;THANK-YOUNOTE;POSTTEST
SURVEY 172
D PANELOFEXPERTSUSEDEMPILOTSTUDY 178
E CONTENTVALIDITYCHECKLISTFORTRAININGMODULES 181
F RELIABILITYCHECKLISTFORKNOWLEDGE
INSTRUMENT 184
G HOTNEWSFLYER 186
H TIMELINEANDPROCEDURES 188
I MATERIALS;DESCRIPTIONOFHARDWARE 189
iv
J FACULTYHANDBOOK 191
K EXAMPLEOF GRAPHICSFROMMULTIMEDIAINTERVENTION .206
REFERENCES 208
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 216
V
LISTOFTABLES
Table2-L MajorStudiesRelatedtoServicesforStudentswithDisabilitiesin
HigherEducationSettings 23
Table3-1 DemographicsofRandomlySelected300FacultyMembersforInitial
Mailing. DataRepresentsActualNumberofSubjectsbyCategoryand
PercentageofEntireSample 92
Table3-2. DemographicsofSampleofReturnedSurveysDeemedUsableforthe
SecondStepoftheResearchProcess. NumbersIndicateActual
CompletedPretestSurveysReceived 97
Table3-3. SchematicRepresentationoftheExperimentalDesign 110
Table3-4. LinearModeloftheANCOVA 114
Table4-1. DemographicsofFinalSample 122
Table4-2. MeanScoresofKnowledgeforStudyParticpantsbyGroupand
Gender 123
Table4-3. DescriptiveDataforStudyParticipants: ExperienceTeaching
StudentswithDisabilitiesbyGroup 125
Table4-4. MeanScoresofKnowledgeforStudyParticipantsbyPrevious
ExperienceTeachingStudentswithDisabilitiesandGroup 126
Table4-5. ResultsofAnalysisofVarianceforKnowledgebyPrevious
ExperienceTeachingStudentswithDisabilities 127
Table4-6. ResultsofAnalysisofVarianceforKnowledgebyPrevious
ExperienceTeachingStudentswithDisabiliteisandGroup 128
Table4-7. DescriptiveDataforStudyParticipants: AccesstoComputer
HardwarebyGroup 129
Table4-8. MeanScoresofKnowledgeforStudyParticpantsbyGroup 130
Table4-9. ResuhsofAnalysisofCovarianceforKnowledgeofIssuesRelatedto
StudentswithDisabilitiesinHigherEducationbyGroup 132
vi
Table4-10. DescriptiveDataforStudyParticipants: SatisfactionwiththeTraining
ModalitybyGroup 133
Table4-11. MeanScoresofReportedSatisfactionScoresforStudyParticipantsby
Group: 1-VeryDissatisfied; 2-Dissatisfied; 3-Satisfied; 4-Very
Satisfied 134
Table4-12. ResultsofAnalysisofVarianceforReportedSatisfactionScoresfor
StudyParticipantsbyGroup 134
Table4-13. DescriptiveDataforStudyParticipants: PerceptionsRegardingthe
FutureApplicabilityoftheModalityasaStaffDevelopmentToolby
Group 136
Table4-14. MeanScoresofReportedPerceptionsbyStudyParticipants
RegardingtheTrainingModalityasaFutureStaffDevelopment
ToolbyGroup 137
Table4-15. ResultsofAnalysisofVarianceforReportedPerceptionsforStudy
ParticipantsRegardingtheModalityasaFutureStaffDevelopment
ToolbyGroup 138
Table4-16. MeanScoresofReportedTimeNecessarytoCompletetheTraining
ModalityByStudyParticipants 139
Table4-17. ResultsofAnalysisofVarianceforReportedTimeNecessaryto
CompletetheTrainingModuleforStudyParticipantsbyGroup 140
vii
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
THEEFFECTOFINTERACTIVEMULTIMEDIAINTERVENTIONVERSUSA
TRADITIONALHANDBOOKMETHODOLOGYONFACULTYKNOWLEDGEOF
STUDENTSWITHDISABILITIES
By
JudyL. Wald
August1995
Chairman: Dr.StuartE.Schwartz
MajorDepartment: SpecialEducation
Facultyknowledgeisimportantintheretentionandsuccessofstudentswith
disabilitiesinhighereducation. Thereisascarcityofresearchrelatedtotheoptimum
meanstodisseminatedisabilityrelatedinformation. Multimediatechnologyisbased
uponcognitiveflexibilitytheory,characterizedbyaninteractionalframework,flexibility,
andauthenticlearningopportunities. Traditionalmodesoftrainingareone-dimensional
andlinearanddonotinvitelearneractivity.
Theeffectivenessofaninteractivemultimediainterventionversusatraditional
handbookinterventioninfacilitatingfacultyknowledgeofstudentswithdisabilitieswas
evaluatedusingapretest-posttestdesign. Thetreatmententailedaninterviewandthe
completionofthemuhimediainterventionorthefacultyhandbook.
Apretestknowledgesurveyanddemographicformweremailedto300randomly
selectedfacultyattheUniversityofFlorida. Thefinalsampleof42subjectswas
viii
obtainedfromtherespondentswhoreturnedthepretestandvolunteeredtoparticipatein
thestudy. Questionsfocusedonlegislation,instructionalmodifications,andresource
information. Thisinstrumentwasevaluatedduringthepilotphaseanddeemedreliable.
Theposttestinstrumentincludedquestionsregardingsatisfactionwiththeinstrument,
perceptionsregardingthemodalityasafuturetrainingtool,andefficiencyofthe
intervention. ' ; ',..-<
Analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA)wasusedtoassessthemodality'simpactupon
knowledgelevels,withthepretestasthecovariate. Therewasnostatisticalsignificance
foundbasedupongroup. Inbothgroups,theoverallmeanoftheknowledgescoresfrom
pretesttoposttestincreased. Asignificantdifferenceinposttestmeanknowledgescores
wasfoundbaseduponthecovariate.
Asignificantdifferenceinsatisfactionratingswasevidentusinganalysisof
variance(ANOVA). Themultimediagroupexpressedhighersatisfactionratingsthanthe
traditionalgroup. Nosignificantdifferencebetweenthemeansofthetwogroupsin
perceptionsofthemodalityasafuturestaffdevelopmenttoolorefficiencywas
identified.
Trainingiseffectiveinenhancingfacultyknowledge Satisfactionwiththe
modalityanditsimpactuponmotivationisaconsiderationforprofessionaldevelopment
planners. Theimportanceofevaluatingtheeffectivenessoftrainingmodalitiesand
refiningtheseinterventionsbasedupontheinterestsoflearnersandtechnological
capabilitiesissuggested.
ix
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTIONTOTHEPROBLEM
Studentswithdisabilitiesareenrollinginpostsecondaryinstitutionsatanever
increasingrate. Thepercentageoffulltimefreshmenreportingdisabilitiesrosefrom
2.6%in1978to8.8%in1991("PercentofCollege,"1992). Thisrepresents140,000
studentswithdisabilitieswhoareamongthe1.6millionfreshmenattendinghigher
educationalinstitutions(Jarrow,1993). Approximately10.5%ofthe12.5million
postsecondarystudentsreportedhavingsomedisability(Rothstein,1991b).
Thereasonsforthissharpincreasearemany. LegislationsuchastheRehabilitation
Actof1973,theIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActof1990,andtheAmericans
withDisabilitiesActof1990haveimpacteduponthenumberofstudentsconsidering
postsecondaryeducationasanoptionsubsequenttotheirgraduationfromhighschool.
Thesefederalmandatesdirectlyaffecttheservicesthatareavailabletostudentswith
disabilitiesoncetheyenterthecollegecampus(Frank&Wade,1993). Anotherfactor
thathasinfluencedthenumberofstudentsenrollinginhighereducationinstitutionsis
basedupontheeconomiccontributionsthatpeoplewithdisabilitiescanmakeinthelabor
force(Nelson,Dodd&Smith,1990). Withoutprogramsandservicesforstudentswith
disabilitiesinhighereducationsettings,thereisalargepoolofqualifiedindividualswho
arenotabletocontributetoaproductivelaborforce(Fairweather&Shaver,1990).
Theseindividualswillnotbeaffordedtheopportunitytoutilizetheirknowledge,skills,
andabilitiesinproductiveandmeaningfulways. Perhapsstudentswithdisabilities
1