Burgstahler, S., & Olswang, S. (1996). Computing and networking services for students with disabilities: How do community colleges measure up? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20(4), 363-376

Computing and Networking Services for Students with Disabilities: How Do Community Colleges Measure Up?

Sheryl E. Burgstahler
Steven G. Olswang
College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA

This study examined the level of computing and networking services provided by colleges and universities for students with disabilities and the barriers faced by institutions in providing such services. A mail survey was distributed to every American post-secondary institution with an enrollments of 1,000 or more. Responses of 2-year and 4-year schools were compared. Survey results suggested that, to comply with federal legislation, institutions must make greater efforts to ensure nondiscrimination with regard to computer and network access. Overall, 2-year institutions provide a greater range of computing services and more types of adaptive devices than do 4-year schools. More campus organizational units in 2-year than in 4-year institutions are involved in selecting, managing, and funding computing services for students with disabilities. More 2-year than 4-year institutions have employees assigned to these computing support positions and have at least one of these positions filled with a person who has a disability. Inadequate funding is considered the major barrier to providing these services at both types of institutions. These baseline data may be useful to administrators in their efforts to provide equal access to the technologies that have become indispensable to a college education, as well as to potential students with disabilities as they select institutions for postsecondary study.

Individuals with disabilities face many barriers. However, technology is helping to lower some of these barriers. As word processors have replaced typewriters, electronic spreadsheets have replaced handwritten books, and on-line services and electronic mail have supplemented telephone and written communication, students and employees with disabilities can independently handle a wider range of activities. Using suitable access methods, students with disabilities can make use of standard and course-specific computer software and can independently and conveniently access on-line library catalogs, books, journals, encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and other information resources (Coombs, 1991; Duderstadt, 1992; Taylor, 1991; Wilson, 1992b, 1992a). Some can also use computers as compensatory tools to help make education and employment more accessible. For example, a student who cannot speak can use a speech synthesizer as a "voice" during classroom discussions.

Federal laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, require colleges and universities to provide accommodations and auxiliary aids to otherwise qualified students with disabilities to ensure program accessibility. Thus, postsecondary institutions must ensure computer and network access to students with disabilities on the same basis as provided to nondisabled students whenever such access is required to pursue academic studies. They must provide special adaptive accommodations when needed for computer and network access. Many adaptive technologies are commercially available, including enlarged screen images for individuals with low vision, voice and Braille output for those who are blind, alternative keyboards for those with mobility impairments, and special software for students with specific learning disabilities (Brown, 1992; Closing the Gap, 1995; Lazzaro, 1993).

Few scholars have addressed the issue of whether computer access contributes to the academic success of students with disabilities. However, positive academic outcomes have been found when students with learning disabilities are placed in a microcomputer-enriched environment (Collins, Engel-Wedin, & Margolis, 1988; Horn, Severs, & Shell, 1988; Margolis, 1986; Murphy, 1991). Word processing, often used for completion of papers and tests, is particularly beneficial for students with disabilities. In addition, disabled students benefit from other computing resources typically used by nondisabled students (Horn et al., 1988). Computers help students with disabilities participate more fully and independently in college educational activities.

As computers have become available to nondisabled students on most campuses, postsecondary institutions are beginning to address accessibility issues (Burgstahler, 1992; Horn et al., 1988; Margolis, 1986; Murphy, 1991). However, evidence has suggested that access to adaptive technologies for postsecondary students may not be widespread. Computing services appear to be provided at a lower level than other services for students with disabilities (Collins et al., 1988; Horn & Shell, 1990; "Report of," 1990). Campus computing services staff have reported that 40% of the institutions of higher education provide undergraduates with access to electronic mail, 36% provide access to the Internet and other national networks, and more than 50% provide electronic access to library catalogs and databases (Eastman & Green, 1992). However, some believe that colleges and universities do not provide equal access to information services available over campus and national networks to students with disabilities (Wilson, 1992c). Some studies have concluded that all colleges and universities should incorporate full technological access to programs for students with disabilities as soon as possible and that longitudinal research should be undertaken to track technology as a major variable in educational achievement and employability for those with disabilities (Malcom & Matyas, 1991; Murphy, 1991).

Barriers to providing computing services for students with disabilities have been reported in the literature. They include inadequate funding; difficulties in coordinating efforts between the disabled student services office, central computing organization, departments, and other organizational units; lack of commitment on the part of the administration; lack of a campus plan; lack of expertise in selecting equipment; and lack of interest on the part of students with disabilities (Ammirati & Sheridan, 1991; Murphy, 1991; Wilson, 1992c).

Several factors combine to suggest different responses by 2-year schools and 4-year institutions to the computer and network access needs of students with disabilities. The origins and missions of 2-year colleges have made them more responsive to traditionally underrepresented groups in general than 4-year schools. Two-year colleges emerged in the 20th century and experienced a period of heavy growth throughout the 1970s. Civil rights were of concern while many community colleges were forming, making it unnecessary to break long-standing traditions in order to admit nontraditional students. Providing educational opportunities that are responsive to the community is an important part of their missions. Open-door policies and lower tuition rates make it easier to gain admittance (Pellegrino & Zunker, 1982). Two-year colleges are more likely to provide comprehensive support services for students with special needs than are 4-year institutions, including tutoring and special preparatory classes for those who are underprepared for standard college offerings (Corn & Klein, 1988). Regular classes are typically smaller than those at 4-year institutions, making it possible for more individual attention. Because the emphasis at community colleges is on teaching and learning (Chand & Manning, 1983), faculty members tend to focus on instruction more than on research (Mitchell, 1982). It is not surprising, then, that a greater percentage of students with disabilities attend 2-year colleges ("Facts You Can Use," 1993).

Some factors suggest that 2-year colleges provide a supportive environment for meeting the special computing needs of students with disabilities (Balfe, Farra, & Morelli, 1988; Chand & Manning, 1983). Two-year colleges as a whole allocate a larger percentage of the school-owned computers for student use than do 4-year institutions, and more 2-year than 4-year institutions have reviewed the computing needs of their students with disabilities (Eastman & Green, 1992). However, when it comes to electronic network access, more 4-year than 2-year schools provide undergraduates with access to the Internet, electronic mail, library catalogs, and databases (Eastman & Green, 1992). Whether this statement is also true for students with disabilities has not been investigated.

No comprehensive research study has documented the current provision of computing and networking services for students with disabilities at institutions of higher education or identified the barriers faced in attempting to provide such services. Such baseline data would be useful to administrators as they strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to the technologies that have become indispensable to a college education and to potential postsecondary students with disabilities in the process of selecting an institution for postsecondary studies.

PURPOSE AND METHOD

We conducted an explanatory study to determine the current provision of computing and networking services for students with disabilities in 2-year and 4-year institutions and the barriers faced in providing such services. Surveys were mailed to disabled student service directors at all public and private schools listed in the 1991 Higher Education Directory (Rodenhouse, 1991) with enrollments of 1,000 or more. The Directory of College Facilities and Services for People with Disabilities (Thomas & Thomas, 1991) was used to identify appropriate institutional contacts.

The survey explored how institutions of higher education have responded to the computing needs of students with disabilities. Responses requested included the following areas:

1. (a) What organizational units are most involved in selecting, managing, and funding computing services for students with disabilities?
   (b) Are employees specifically assigned to providing computing support to students with disabilities, and do any of the individuals assigned to providing this support have disabilities themselves?
2. What computing services for students with disabilities are currently provided in institutions of higher education?
3. What special equipment and software are available, and what types of disabilities do they address?
4. What network on-line services are available to students who require adaptive technology?
5. What are the barriers to providing computing services for students with disabilities?

RESULTS

Of the 2,192 delivered surveys, 1,184 (54%) were returned by respondents, 46.1% from 2-year colleges (including community college and technical schools) and 53.9% from 4-year institutions (including graduate-only institutions). The percentage differences between the respondent sample and the population are less than 5%: the difference is statistically significant differences, Χ² (1, N = 2192) = 20.67, ρ = .05, can be partially explained by the large group sizes. This result suggests some caution should be exercised in generalizing the results of this study to all postsecondary institutions.

Organizational Units and Staffing

Respondents were asked to rate the level of involvement of various organizational units in providing computing services for disabled students. For the selection and management questions, we used a scale ranging from 0 (not involved) to 5 (extremely involved); for the funding question, the scale ranged from 1 (none) to 5 (all). Tables 1-3 compare the differences in involvement of respective organizational units for 2-year and 4-year institutions. The office of disabled student services is the most involved in the selection, funding, and management of computing services for students with disabilities in 2-year and 4-year institutions of higher education. It should be noted that ratings might be biased because most respondents were (presumably) from offices of disabled student services. In most comparisons, an organizational unit was significantly more involved in 2-year colleges than its counterpart in 4-year institutions. The only cases where 4-year school responses were significantly higher than those of 2-year colleges were in the involvement of the central computing services library services unit of funding and in the central computing services and library services organizations in managing computing services for students with disabilities.

Forty-seven percent of the 2-year and 27% of the 4-year institution respondents reported that at least one employee was assigned to provide computing services to disabled students. A smaller fraction, 26% of the 2-year and 12% of the 4-year institutions, indicated that at least one employee with a disability was assigned to provide computing support to students with disabilities. Chi-square tests revealed a significantly higher number of 2-year colleges had employees assigned to provide computing support to disabled students, Χ² (1, N = 1184) = 50.60, ρ = .000, and have at least one disabled employee with these duties, Χ² (1, N = 1184) = 36.32, ρ = .000.

Computing Services Provided for Students with Disabilities

Respondents were asked to indicate which computing services they currently provided for students with disabilities. Provision of adaptive devices for computer access within a campus facility was the most commonly provided service at both types of institutions. Chi-square tests revealed, at the .05 level, significantly more 2-year than 4-year institutions provided every service listed except sales of adaptive computer equipment, special software, or both. Results are summarized in Table 4.

Provision of Adaptive Technology for Students with Disabilities

Survey respondents were presented with a list of types of adaptive software and equipment and asked to indicate what adaptations, if any, were available to students with disabilities at their institutions. We based the list of specific devices on a review of the equipment and software capable of adapting typical postsecondary computer systems for use by students with disabilities. Table 5 summarizes all responses to this survey item. The average number of adaptive devices that were provided at respondent institutions was five for 2-year colleges and three for 4-year institutions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed these means to be significantly different at the .05 level, F(1, 651) = 17.55, ρ =.000.

Provision of Network Services for Students with Disabilities

Respondents were asked whether their institutions provide access to network on-line services from computers with adaptive devices for individuals with visual or mobility-orthopedic impairments. We compared responses 2-year and 4-year institutions to questions about access to on-line services from computers with adaptive devices using the chi-square test. For this purpose, we included in the analysis only the pool of respondents who answered yes or no to these questions; those who answered "I don't know" or gave no response were not included because, for these respondents, it is impossible to determine whether access is provided at their institutions. Significantly more 4-year than 2-year institutions provided access to the library on-line system on at least one system adapted for use by individuals with visual impairments, but other differences were not significant at the .05 level. Table 6 summarizes the results.

Barriers to Providing Computing Services for Student with Disabilities

Respondents were asked to rate the significance of barriers to providing computing services to disabled students on a scale ranging from 1 (not significant) to 5 (very significant). Inadequate funding was rated highest for both types of schools. An ANOVA suggested that the barriers faced by 2-year and 4-year institutions were similar. The only significant difference at the .05 level is that lack of interest of disabled students in using computers was rated higher in 4-year schools than in 2-year schools. Table 7 summarizes the results.

DISCUSSION

More campus organizational units in 2-year schools than in 4-year institutions were involved in selecting, managing, and funding computing services for students with disabilities. However, there was a greater involvement of the central computing services organization in the 4-year institutions, perhaps as a result of the larger computing organization used to support the more extensive networking infrastructure on the typical 4-year campuses. More 2-year than 4-year schools have employees assigned to providing computing support to students with disabilities and have at least one of these positions filled with a person who has a disability. Overall, 2-year institutions provided a greater range of computing services and significantly more types of adaptive devices than did 4-year institutions. These results may be due to a greater commitment on the part of 2-year colleges to provide computing access and support to students with disabilities. They suggest that individuals with a wider range of disabilities will find computer access at 2-year than at 4-year institutions. The results are consistent with the literature that suggests that 2-yearcolleges are generally more responsive to students with special needs than are other institutions.

The percentages of respondents that provide access to library on-line systems, electronic bulletin boards, databases, mail, and other network services for students with mobility-orthopedic or visual impairments who need special adaptive devices are higher for 4-year institutions than for 2-year institutions, as expected. However, only one of the differences is significant, that for providing library access using adaptive devices for individuals with visual impairments. Therefore, this study does not show conclusively that students with disabilities will find greater network access at 4-year institutions.

Respondents reported that, overall, the greatest barrier to providing computing services to students with disabilities was inadequate funding. Responses of schools of different types were similar. However, 4-year institutions more frequently indicated that students with disabilities lack interest in computing than did 2-year colleges. This difference in perception could be a reflection of greater outreach and personalized student support services in 2-year schools as well as of a tendency of 4-year schools to wait for students to show interest on their own.

One threat to the validity of the findings of this study is the potential for biased or inaccurate information to be given by the respondents. Some disabled student services directors may not have had the requested information because computing services to students with disabilities are provided by the central computing organization or some other unit; some may have given incorrect information because they are unfamiliar with the computing terms used; and some may have exaggerated their reporting of the level of services offered or involvement in the effort because of their concern about complying with federal legislation or their desire to provide the most "acceptable" answers. In addition, the large numbers of nonresponses to certain questions on the survey instrument are subject to various interpretations. Furthermore, there may be differences in characteristics between institutions that responded to the questionnaire and those that did not, threatening the external validity of the study; for example, schools with no services may be unlikely to respond. The analysis of the demographics of the responding institutions to those of the population surveyed suggests that some caution be exercised in generalizing this study's results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study suggests that to meet the federally mandated nondiscrimination requirements for students with disabilities greater efforts must be made to ensure access to computer and network technologies and services on an equal basis as provided to nondisabled students. This is particularly true of 4-year institutions, who lag behind 2-year colleges in the number of types of computing services and adaptive technologies provided.

Inadequate funding is perceived to be the major barrier to providing computing services to students with disabilities at both 2-year and 4-year institutions. Lack of staff expertise and difficulties in coordinating efforts between central computing services units and the disabled student services office were also reported as barriers. These reasons are not, however, adequate to stave off legal challenges. Therefore, a more proactive approach may be necessary. Administrators should allocate funds and assign and train staff to ensure that institutions respond quickly and appropriately to the needs of students with disabilities. Efforts should be made to share the expertise and coordinate the efforts of the disabled student services, central computing services, and other campus units.

Computers with adaptive technology should be included in computing plans and connected to campus networks as these links are established for other students. In prior instances where institutions failed early on to comply with federal nondiscrimination requirements, such as those of the Architectural Barriers Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, they later incurred greater retrofitting costs, such as those related to installing elevators in existing buildings. By acting proactively, institutions can guard against making similar costly mistakes with respect to computer and network access. Preplanning saves costs in the long run, while making campuses attractive to students with disabilities.

This study makes it clear that students who require adaptive technology unfortunately cannot assume that computing and networking access will be equally available at their colleges of choice. In general, they are more likely to find computing services at 2-year institutions than at other institutions. Because of the potential that these technologies offer for opportunities in learning and employment, prospective students and their service providers should carefully consider access to computing and networking services when selecting an institution for postsecondary studies. Once enrolled, students with disabilities must be prepared to be assertive in obtaining their entitlement to equal access when such services are not already in place.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 132132 et. seq.

Ammirati, T., & Sheridan, M. K. (1991). A private college's response to the emerging minority of students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 9, 291-299.

Architechural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et. seq.

Balfe, M. A., Farra, H. E., & Morelli, E. (1988). A model program using microcomputer word processing instruction coordinated curriculum for the community college. The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 1987 Conference, 10, 165-170.

Brown, C. (1992). Assistive technology, computers and persons with disabilities. Communications of the ACM, 35(5), 36-45.

Burgstahler, S. E. (1992). Disabled students gain independence through adaptive technology services. EDUCOM Review, 27(2), 45-46.

Chand, S., & Manning, B. (1983). Innovative uses of technology for academic purposes: The community college perspective. The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 6th Annual Conference, 6, 73-76.

Closing the Gap 1995 resource directory. (1995). Closing the Gap, 13(6), 131-224.

Collins, T., Engel-Wedin, N., & Margolis, W. (1988). Microcomputer word processing and LD college writers: An analysis of outcomes. The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 10th Annual Conference, 10, 171-177.

Coombs, N. (1991). Window of equal opportunity - online services and the disabled computer user. Research and Education Networking, 2(9), 2.

Corn, J., & Klein, A. (1988). Learning disabled community college students. The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 11th Annual Conference, 11, 91-96.

Duderstadt, J. J. (1992). An information highway to the future. EDUCOM Review, 27(5), 36-41.

Eastman, S., & Green, K. C. (1992). Campus computing 1991 - the EDUCOM-USC survey of desktop computing in higher education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center for Scholarly Technology

Facts you can use. (1993, June/July). Information From HEATH, 12(2), 4-7.

Horn, C. A., Severs, M. K., & Shell, D. F. (1988). Effects of a computer-based educational center on disabled students' academic performance. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 432-440.

Horn, C. A., & Shell, D. F. (1990). Availability of computer services in postsecondary institutions: Results of a survey of AHSSPPE members. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 8, 115-124.

Lazzaro, J. J. (1993). Adaptive technologies for learning and work environment. Chicago: The American Library Assocition.

Malcom, S. M., & Matyas, M. L. (Eds.). (1991). Investing in human potential: Science and engineering at the crossroads. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Margolis, W. (1986). The role of college disabled student service programs in providing access to the microcomputer. Bulletin of the Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education, 4(2), 66-75.

Mitchell, M. (1982). The community college advantage for disabled students. The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 5th Annual Conference, 5, 155-156.

Murphy, H. J. (1991). The impact of exemplary technology-support programs on students with disabilities. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

Pellegrino, M. L., & Zunker, J. G. (1982). The Association on Handicapped Student Services Programs in Postsecondary Education 5th Annual Conference, 5, 161-163.

Rehabiliatation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et. seq.

Report of the National Science Foundation Task Force on Persons with Disabilities. (1990). Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation.

Rodenhouse M. P. (Ed.) (1991). Higher education directory. Falls Church, VA: Higher Education Publications.

Taylor, M. (1991). Telecommunications: A life skill for persons with disabilities. Closing the Gap, 10(2), 1, 28-29.

Thomas, C. H., & Thomas, T. L. (1991). Directory of college facilities and services for people with disabilities. Phoenix, AZ: Orynx Press.

Wilson, D. L. (1992a, August 12). Electronic versions of public-domain texts draw praise and fire. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15-A16.

Wilson, D. L. (1992b, September 30). Huge computer network quickens pace of academic exchange and collaboration. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A17-18.

Wilson, D. L. (1992c, January 29). New federal regulations on rights of the handicapped may force colleges to provide better access to technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A1, A22-A23.