I heard back from BGSU and they referred me to http://www.ahead.org/. I was told that any assessment tools that were used could be found there. Unfortunately, to look at these assessment I had to pay to become a member, and assessment tools cost upwards of $300 to gain access... something I could not afford (but I would hope/assume an institution could). I tried to find assessment measures gear specifically to students with disabilities through the Bowling Green Library and other Scholarly search engines and I was unable to come across any assessments that were specific to students with disabilities and campus environments. I found this extremely frustrating. Upcraft and Schuh (1996) explain that it isn't always best to use previously developed instruments because it is hard to find an instrument that meets local needs (as seen in my troubles), can be expensive (again, as seen in my experience), and can become out of date (something, I didn't run into... because I didn't find anything) (p. 45)
The assessment that I happened across numerous times in my search was the NSSE. Upcraft and Schuh (1996) emphasize the importance of collecting data from a representative sample. From the research I did, much of the research focuses on entire populations of the institution and more recently focuses on cultural differences (Musseus, 2008). Though Musseus's (2008) data can be applied to other minority groups, investigative assessment with a focus on students with disabilities would be most beneficial. From out discussion and evaluation of the NSSE in class, this isn't a very inclusive survey. Students with disabilities have different needs from the general student population that need to be assessed more thoroughly
Much of the research conducted on students with disabilities is conducted by those without (Jones, 1996) and in spite of the prevalence of disabilities, there is still little known about the experience of those with disabilities. That being said, there aren't many easily accessable instruments used to assess the experiences of students with disablilties. Of the reaserach articles I've found, most used qualitative dataa experience and interviewed students individualally. Although qualitative data can yeild richer results with a more purposeful sample, quantitative data is easier to measure (Upcraft and Schuh, 1996). As institutions continue to a more business-like perspective, the numbers gathered from quantitative data are what institutions are looking for, which undermines the detailed information we can gather from qualitative data. Institutions want numbers and results... and the time it takes to gather qualitative data isn't always respected.
Studies on students with disabilities are increasing but still aren't as high as I'd like. With the numbers of students with disabilities increasing, I believe it's time to start increasing our assessments so we can adequately meet the needs of our emerging students populations. Assessments now are either the same assessments that are used for the entire campus community, or are small sample sizes using qualitative measures. Again, qualitative yields rich results, but isn't always the most practical. Students with disabilities may often been harder to get to participate depending on the disability so qualitative measures are the best way to collect data.
Jones, S. R. (1996). “Toward inclusive theory: Disability as social construction.” NASPA Journal, 33, 347–354.
Museus, S. D. (2008). Focusing on institutional fabric: Assessing campus climates to enhance cross-cultural engagement. In S. R. Harper (Ed.), Creating inclusive campus climates for cross-cultural learning and student engagement (pp. 205-234). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrator
Upcraft, M. L. & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Chapter 2 – Key questions to ask in assessment, pp. 32-51, & Chapter 8 – Assessing campus environments, pp. 166-188).
No comments:
Post a Comment