Learning Disabilities Within Postsecondary Education

Liability and Litigation Risks for Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Since the invention of the internet, self-directed learning has expanded and taken on many forms and encapsulates a wide variety of learners ranging from K-12 learners to college students, human resource departments, marketing, lifelong learning, and various other industries. This chapter will focus on using self-directed characteristics to humanize the learning environment in higher education for adult learners. The chapter will also present information about higher education administrators, staff, and faculty members who are responsible for various aspects of student success. The primary area of research is self-directed learners' ability to be successful in the online learning environment. The chapter will provide ways to provide support for adult learners as they work to become successful in online courses. As a result, this chapter will provide answers to the research question, “What are the components needed to be successful in the online learning environment while becoming independent self-directed learner?”

The increased use of online learning in postsecondary education has documented negative impacts for students that may be particularly pronounced for students with learning disabilities (LD). We collected data from 224 postsecondary students with (n = 44) and without LD during the Fall 2020 semester when nearly all post-secondary courses in Canada were being offered exclusively online. Using an Expectancy-Value Theory lens, we examined how students’ expectancy for success, value ascribed to an academic task, and potential costs were related to their satisfaction, academic achievement, and burnout. Moreover, we wanted to determine how students rated courses they completed before the switch to online learning because of the COVID-19 pandemic to their current courses in terms of expectancy, value, and cost. When considering courses completed after the shift to online learning to ones before, students with LD identified that they had lower expectancies to do well, and perceived their courses to have higher costs than their peers without LD. Moreover, for students with LD, academic achievement was associated with higher expectancy and cost, while burnout was also associated with higher cost, but lower expectancy. Ways to support students with LD during online learning are highlighted.

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are attending postsecondary programs at unprecedented rates. Transitions are especially challenging for students with ASD, yet little is known about critical transitions during the college experience. Using the College Adjustment Program Evaluation Scales (CAPES), we examined student and parent perspectives across five dimensions: Student Life, Emotional Adjustment, Independent Living Skills, Interpersonal Relationships, and Self-Advocacy. Sixteen participants--eight students and eight parents, completed the CAPES at the end of fall semester of year one and the end of spring semester year two. Student and parent CAPES ratings were uniformly positive with some differences. We found large effect sizes across dimensions and significant differences in Student Life, Independent Living, and Interpersonal Relationships with parent ratings higher than student ratings. An item analysis revealed specific challenges and skills salient to the results. Implications for supports for students with ASD, higher education practices, and transition research are discussed. Keywords: autism spectrum disorder, transition, college, postsecondary education ********** The purpose of postsecondary education (PSE) and the pathways to it are multifaceted. Postsecondary/higher education in the U.S. has evolved across time (Renn & Reason, 2013), and institutions of higher education have developed empirically-based strategies to serve an increasingly diverse student population and improve the first year experience of students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Whether or not a student has a disability, the value of PSE to the student and to society are pivotal issues in the current debate over the goal of PSE. Mayhew and colleagues (2016) synthesized over 1,800 studies related to student development during college and report positive long-term effects on cognitive development, critical thinking, academic self-concept, locus of control, independence, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being to name a few. The effects of college on students with disabilities, however, is seldom addressed in the higher education and student affairs literature (Hendrickson, Therrien, Weeden, Pascarella, & Hosp, 2015). Although research is scant, the studies that are available indicate that PSE opportunities appear to significantly improve the transition to adulthood and long-term life outcomes (e.g., academic skills, employment, quality of life) of youth with disabilities (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010; Neubert & Redd, 2008). Preliminary psychological wellbeing data indicate that students with ASD and cognitive disabilities and their typical college counterparts are similarly affected by college (Hendrickson, Vander Busard, Rodgers, & Scheidecker, 2013). Hendrickson et al. (2015) compared a national sample of first year college students with and without cognitive disabilities on student engagement and their perceptions of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, the campus environment, and educationally enriching experiences. They found that students with intellectual disabilities who attended a structured, inclusive, campus-based program did not differ significantly from typical college students in their responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE; Pascarella, Seifert, & Blaich, 2010). McGregor and colleagues (2016) report that college students with learning disabilities (LD) were less satisfied with their college experience than other students, had more obstacles caused by nonacademic responsibilities, and felt that there was a bias against individuals with disabilities. McGregor and colleagues' data showed that students with LD who sought and received accommodations were in more frequent contact with faculty and experienced less difficulty with assignments than peers with LD who did not. …

Follow-up studies examining the outcomes for children and youth with learning disabilities who attended special education have appeared in the literature for decades. As American society becomes more technologically advanced and competitive, postsecondary school opportunities and subsequent employment choices that are meaningful and provide a livable wage teeter out of the reach of young people with learning disabilities. Follow-up study investigators seek to understand how to better prepare youth to meet these challenges by studying their long-term outcomes. The authors review data from 13 frequently referenced follow-up studies regarding postschool outcomes, postsecondary education, and employment, with attention to gender differences, for youth with learning disabilities who were served by and graduated from special education programs nationwide. They take a critical look at contradictions in the findings and discuss five methodological issues that seem to influence the conduct and interpretation of follow-up studies: aggregating data across disability categories; combining data on graduates who have been out of school for unequal periods of time; ignoring the issues of missing data, participant attrition, and incomplete data sets; combining data from different informants; and using nonequivalent databases to make comparisons to a population with no disabilities. The authors provide recommendations for conducting follow-up research on the long-term quality of life of children and youth with disabilities and their families.

هدف البحث إلى دراسة العلاقة بين الأنماط القيادية وعلاقتها بالرضا الوظيفي لأعضاء هيئة التدريس بکلية التربية بجامعة حائل من وجهه نظرهم، وللتحقق من ذلک اتبع الباحث المنهج الوصفي التحليلي. وقد صممت أدوات البحث لتحقيق الأهداف، والتي تمثلت في استبانة البيانات العامة، واستبانة الأنماط القيادية، واستبانة الرضا الوظيفي، وتمثلت عينة البحث في (188) عضو هيئة تدريس من أعضاء هيئه التدريس بکلية التربية في جامعة حائل. واستخدم الباحث مجموعة من الأساليب الإحصائية وصولا للنتائج. وکان من أهم النتائج التي توصل إليها البحث ان هناک فروق ذات دلاله إحصائية في الأنماط القيادية المتبعة من قبل القيادات الأکاديمية بکلية التربية بجامعه حائل. وکما اوضحت النتائج وجود علاقة ارتباطيه موجبه بين أنماط القيادة الديموقراطية والتراسليه والرضا الوظيفي وسنوات الخبرة. کما وجد تباين دال احصائيا في الرضا الوظيفي تبعا لسنوات الخبرة. وکان من اهم توصيات البحث تفعيل نمط القيادة الديمقراطي في العمل الأکاديمي نظرا لما له أثر فعال في تحقيق الرضا الوظيفي. The research aimed to study that the leadership patterns and its relationship to job satisfaction as seen from faculty members of Education at the University of Hail. To verify this, the researcher used the descriptive analytical approach. These tools consisted of a research questionnaire preparing by the researcher. It was applying the sample of the study represented by the faculty members of Education at the University of Hail. The sample was 188. A set of statistical frequency and mean. The most important results of the study is that there are statistically significant differences leadership patterns followed by academic leaders at the College of Education at the University of Hail. There is also a positive correlation between democratic and Correspondence leadership patterns, job satisfaction, and years of experience. There was a statistically significant variation in job satisfaction depending on years of experience. One of the most important recommendations of the research was to activate the democratic leadership patterns the academic work because of its effective impact achieving job satisfaction.

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the comparisons between faculty and special education teachers' views of the use of augmented reality with learners with intellectual disabilities. In recent years, the Saudi education minister has made many reforms to advance the use of assistive technology in the teaching of learners with intellectual disabilities. The design of descriptive research was methodologically used to gather data from a hundred and sixty-five faculty members from Taif University and ninety special education teachers from Taif schools through an electronic survey. The questionnaire is divided into two parts: the first part includes demographic variables, namely gender and academic experiences. The second part included statements that focused on the views of special education teachers and faculty members regarding the use of AR technology for students with ID. The findings showed that faculty have more agreeable perceptions compared to special education instructors in Saudi Arabia. Also, there was a significant impact on special education teachers' perceptions of using augmented reality for students with intellectual disabilities based on gender. However, years of teaching experiences did not impact the special education teachers and faculty perceptions of using augmented reality with students with intellectual disabilities. Thus, the implication of the study recommends that special education teachers and faculty members should be more exhibited in training courses emphasizing raising awareness on the utilization of augmented reality for students with intellectual disabilities within general and university education.

As persons with learning disabilities (LDs) are enrolling in postsecondary education in ever-increasing numbers, there is disturbing evidence that many of these students are having difficulty staying in and completing these programs (Sitlington & Frank, 1990). One contributing factor to this problem is the fact that postsecondary classrooms require an extensive repertoire of independent learning skills. As Dalke and Schmitt (1987) pointed out, the demands of college environments are quite different from those of high school. Indeed, they are characterized by a significant decrease in student-teacher contacts, by greater academic competition, and, in general, by a less protective environment. Furthermore, college courses appear to require a much higher level of reading, writing, listening, and verbal interactive skills, areas in which students with learning disabilities have been shown to have a deficit (Houck, Engelhard, & Geller, 1989; Mangrum & Strichart, 1988). Certainly, postsecondary service providers will need to teach their students with learning disabilities these most important independent learning skills.

This case study investigates the methodologies used to deliver online course content to postsecondary students with varying learning disabilities. The research provides a holistic picture of the students in their actual learning environment. Two college students diagnosed as learning disabled were studied with three non-disabled classmates in an online college learning environment. The purpose was to attempt to explain how the design of the course affects the students’ attitudes and performance. The design of the course featured instructional methods that research has shown to be beneficial to students with learning disabilities. Some of these included digitally delivered instructional audio, various textual interactions between the students, and other assistive methodologies. The college level world history course for this study was taught via the World Wide Web through the Blackboard course management system. Interviews, observations, and academic documents were used to provide a complex, holistic picture of the learning experience of the students in this study. The course for this study was a traditional online course taught during the summer 2005 semester. The content and assessments for the students were the same as in previous offerings of the course and were identical for all students. The results provide an insight into the impact that these online instructional methods have on the students’ attitudes and learning strategies. The intention of this study was not to provide definitive answers to the problems that face students with learning disabilities in postsecondary education, but rather contribute to the body of knowledge of this sometimes overlooked element of academia. The results help explain the behavior of the participants of this study and how they reacted to the online environment in which they were place.

Prior research indicated that academic success for students with learning disabilities (LD) is enhanced when faculty members are willing to make accommodations. This investigation explored faculty attitude and practices toward providing teaching and examination accommodations for students with LD in higher education. All full-time and part-time faculty teaching in a large midwestern, public, doctoral-granting university were asked to respond to a survey regarding their background knowledge about learning disabilities and the relevant legislation, their firsthand experience teaching such students, their willingness to provide accommodations, and their judgment of the fairness of providing accommodations vis-a-vis students without disabilities. Faculty (N = 420) indicated slightly greater willingness to provide teaching accommodations as compared to examination accommodations (EA). The highest level of willingness was reported for allowing students to tape-record lectures. Faculty members were least willing to provide supplementary materials such as an outline of their lecture or to provide assignments in an alternative format. Faculty members were most willing to allow extended time for exams and to allow exams to be proctored in the office of support services for students with disabilities. Faculty were least willing to alter the format of examinations. Factors that may have influenced faculty attitude include age, academic discipline, experience teaching students with LD, years of teaching experience, and professional rank.

مستخلص البحث سعى البحث الحالي إلى وضع رؤية مقترحة لمواجهة معوقات نشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط، من خلال بلورة إطار فكري حول ثقافة الابتكار بالجامعات، واعتمد البحث على المنهج الوصفي في جمع المعلومات وتفسيرها، وقد تم تطبيق مقابلة كأداة بحثية على عينة قوامها (30 (عضو هيئة تدريس بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط؛ لتحديد أهم معوقات نشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط، وكذلك التوصل لأهم متطلبات نشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط، وقد توصل البحث إلى عدة نتائج من أهمها: إن معوقات نشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط تمثلت في المعوقات التنظيمية ومن أهمها صعوبة تبني الأفكار المبتكرة وتحويلها لمشروع ريادي قائم بذاته، وصعوبة إجراء تحسينات مستمرة في أنظمة الكلية الداخلية وبرامجها الأكاديمية لدعم الإبداع والابتكار، والمعوقات البشرية وتمثلت في ضعف الاهتمام من قبل أعضاء هيئة التدريس للتفاعل مع أفراد المجتمع المحلي بهدف تسويق نتائج أبحاثهم، وغياب الحرية الأكاديمية الكافية التي تحفز أعضاء هيئة التدريس والطلاب على الابتكار، والمعوقات المادية وتمثلت في ضعف توفير حوافز مادية مناسبة للمبتكرين من منسوبي الكلية تشجعهم بها، والافتقار للاستقلالية التنظيمية لاستثمار الموارد المناسبة لديها لدعم ابتكارات منسوبي الكلية، والمعوقات التكنولوجية وتمثلت في ضعف توفير الوسائل التكنولوجية لأعضاء هيئة التدريس والطلاب اللازمة لتنفيذ الابتكارات، وندرة توافر نظم اتصال فعالة مع مراكز الابتكار بمختلف الجامعات، كما توصلت نتائج المقابلة إلى أهم المتطلبات اللازمة لنشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط، ومنها: إنشاء مركز ابتكار وريادة الأعمال لدعم وتسريع الابتكار داخل الكلية، توفير برامج التنمية المهنية المستمرة للباحثين وأعضاء هيئة التدريس، توفير جوائز ومكافآت للطلاب المتميزين وأعضاء هيئة التدريس المتميزين بالكلية، تأسيس بنية تحتية قوية من شبكة الاتصالات الحديثة ومن قواعد المعلومات، وقدم البحث رؤية مقترحة لمواجهة معوقات نشر ثقافة الابتكار بكلية التربية جامعة دمياط. الكلمات المفتاحية: رؤية مقترحة، نشر، ثقافة الابتكار، كلية التربية بجامعة دمياط. Abstract The current research sought to develop a proposed vision to confront the obstacles to spreading the culture of innovation at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University, by developing an intellectual framework on the culture of innovation at universities. The research relied on the descriptive approach in collecting and interpreting information. An interview was applied as a research tool on a sample of (30) faculty members at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University; to determine the most important obstacles to spreading the culture of innovation at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University, as well as to reach the most important requirements for spreading the culture of innovation at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University. The research reached several results, the most important of which are: The obstacles to spreading the culture of innovation at the Faculty of Education, Damietta University, were represented by organizational obstacles, the most important of which is the difficulty of adopting innovative ideas and transforming them into a self-contained pioneering project, the difficulty of making continuous improvements to the college's internal systems and academic programs to support creativity and innovation, and human obstacles represented by the weak interest of faculty members to interact with members of the local community with the aim of marketing the results of their research, and the absence of sufficient academic freedom that motivates faculty members and students to innovate, and material obstacles represented by the weak provision of appropriate material incentives for innovators from The faculty members encourage them, and the lack of organizational independence to invest appropriate resources to support the innovations of the faculty members, and technological obstacles represented in the weak provision of technological means for faculty members and students necessary to implement innovations, and the scarcity of effective communication systems with innovation centers in various universities. The interview results also reached the most important requirements necessary to spread the culture of innovation in the Faculty of Education, Damietta University, including: establishing an innovation and entrepreneurship center to support and accelerate innovation within the faculty, providing continuous professional development programs for researchers and faculty members, providing awards and rewards for distinguished students and distinguished faculty members in the faculty, establishing a strong infrastructure of modern communications networks and information bases, and the research presented a proposed vision to address the obstacles to spreading the culture of innovation in the Faculty of Education, Damietta University. Keywords: Proposed vision, dissemination, culture of innovation, Faculty of Education, Damietta University.

In 2004, when I first started to investigate the history of the learning disability construct, I quickly found that the available literature on the topic fell into two categories, valid historical scholarship and celebrationist narratives. There were a small number of serious historical works by Carrier (1983, 1986, 1987) and Franklin (1987, 1994), who examined the growth of the learning disability diagnosis as a political and scientific development over many decades.I framed my own research in the tradition of Franklin (1987, 1994) and Carrier (1983, 1986, 1987), upholding the standards of research methodology and critical analysis set by historians (e.g., Danto, 2008; McDowell, 2002). My goal has been to determine where this notion of learning disability came from and how it grew in the work of many scientists over time. I have assumed neither that learning disability is a correct way of understanding the learning difficulties of some children nor that this construct was built as some sort of farce. I view the construct as a historical product, an idea cultivated through scientific practices and theories over generations of research.My research efforts resulted in a book entitled The Incomplete Child: An Intellectual History of Learning Disabilities that chronicled the scientific ideas and practices that brought about the learning disability construct (Danforth, 2009). It is a story of multiple lines of intellectual traditions conflicting and melding, of pre-WWII German holistic science blending with Chicago School functionalism and the environmentalism of the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station.In addition, I have written a recent series of articles, including the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities piece that I co-authored with Laura Slocum and Jennifer Dunkle. In these historical articles I addressed topics ranging from the pronounced social class bias of learning disability researchers of the 1960s and 1970s (Danforth, in press, a) to the 1970s epistemological shift toward objectivism (Danforth, in press, b).The Mather and Morris (2011) response paper belongs to the celebrationist category of historical writing that does not meet the standards of methodological rigor and critical analysis set by professional historians. This paper continues a professional line of insider accounts, self-congratulatory, poorly researched historical overviews written by special educators that celebrate the field and its pioneers (e.g., Cruickshank & Hallahan, 1981; Hallahan & Mercer, n.d.; Hallahan & Mock, 2003; Wiederholt, 1974). These works, although often informative, are overwhelmingly acritical. The authors fail to ask serious and troubling questions about the development of the field and the social impact of the ideas in the field. The purposes and the work in the field are lauded without the kind of rigorous scrutiny that historians apply to their subject matter.In their paper Mather and Morris's (2011) attempt to preserve "the legacy that Dr. Samuel A. Kirk left behind" (p. 118). Their primary goal is to perpetuate a purified narrative of a man living, thinking, and acting without contradictions and errors, without moral uncertainty and fallibility.The truth of the matter is that Sam Kirk was far from clear and definitive in his handling of the learning disability construct. In fact, he articulated 16 substantively different versions of the learning disability construct.I devote an entire chapter in my 2009 book to this issue. In this short rejoinder, I briefly illuminate Kirk's multiple contradictory articulations of the concept of learning disability between 1960 and 1984. Then I probe for possible lessons we might draw from Kirk's inconsistencies.In the course of my historical research, I examined every published work that Kirk ever authored or co-authored. Further, I conducted a thorough exploration of his archival materials—many boxes of personal papers such as letters, notes, unpublished presentations—stored at the University of Illinois, Urbana, which allowed me to gather many speeches to professional groups that were never published.Archival research is considered a foundational method of doing historical research. I note that Mather and Morris (2011) did not reference the extensive Kirk archives, suggesting that they took a highly problematic short-cut. I gathered documented records of 18 professional speeches and published writings in which Kirk offered a complete description of the learning disability concept between 1960 and 1984.In order to focus on the actual ideas used to build the learning disability construct, I have identified 15 separate conceptual components that Kirk used and reused over the years. Each component was a semantic building block, a single meaningful element that made a substantive contribution to the larger definition of the disorder.Table 1 presents the 15 conceptual components present in each of the 20 articles or speeches that Kirk made between 1960 and 1984. The components utilized in describing the learning disability concept are labeled with the letters A through O.Components A through C involved etiological theories that posited a causality for the learning difficulty.Components D through I were exclusionary factors, reasons for the learning difficulty that, if present, indicated that the problem was not a learning disability.Components J through N described the comorbidity of learning disability with other childhood disorders. J represents a high level of correlation between learning disability and emotional or behavioral disturbance, such that the two disorders were understood to be constitutionally linked. Components K through M indicate a co-occurrence of distinct disorders. Learning disability and each disorder could co-occur to create what Kirk called a "double handicap" (Kirk, 1967a), but the two impairments were framed as essentially unrelated.Component N involved Kirk's attempt to distinguish between levels of mental retardation in relationship to the learning disability diagnosis. Due to the general and total nature of the intellectual deficit, severe mental retardation was understood to be a disorder quite unlike a learning disability; but mild mental retardation, he sometimes claimed, proved to be only a learning disability concealed behind a diagnostic disguise. Proper educational treatment would bring to light the concealed mental assets, the hidden potentials, in order to demonstrate when mild mental retardation was actually a learning disability.O proposed that students with learning disabilities required a special education program consisting primarily of diagnostic–remedial instruction.Of the 18 complete articulations of the disorder, only two pairs (2, 3 and 15, 17) were completely consistent with one another. The record of complete conceptualizations consists of 16 distinct delineations of the disorder over 24 years. Simply put, Kirk devised 16 variations of the learning disability construct.As Kirk worked in the 1960s to promote acceptance of the new learning disability construct, he repeatedly tried to explain how it related to the older, more established, and greatly trusted classification of children with mental retardation. Kirk's seemingly endless struggle to make this relationship clear is a frustrating tale of theoretical ambiguities and rhetorical miss-steps.In early 1963, separated only by 3 months, Kirk delivered two remarkably different speeches. In January, he spoke to a small conference of brain injury researchers at the University of Illinois, a group that included Newell Kephart, Helmer Mykelbust, and Joseph Wepman. At the Chicago meeting of neurological scientists, he said that learning disability refers toIt was a disorder of the psychological processes with possible etiologies of neurological damage or emotional disturbance. Mental retardation was listed among the excluded conditions.Later in the same presentation, however, Kirk appeared to backtrack on this, stating that learning disability "does not refer to most mentally retarded children since the discrepancy between their ability and their achievement is not great" (Kirk, 1963a, pp. 49–50). His frequent use of the modifiers generalized and most muddied up his assertion that mental retardation was an exclusion.Latour and Woolgar (1979) called words such as these "grammatical modalities" that operate as "an expression of the weight of a statement" (p. 84), a register of factual status. A modality can be used to either increase or decrease the degree of rhetorical facticity. Similarly, linguists use the term hedge to describe a word or phrase that effectively dilutes the certainty, authority, or truth value of a statement. Lakoff (1972) defined a hedge as language "whose job it is to make things fuzzier" (p. 195).Kirk demoted the truth value of his statements, creating some room for doubt or alternative interpretation. Perhaps children whose mental retardation was not "generalized" could also have a learning disability.Three years later, in 1966, he would more fully assert that very claim. If a child with mental retardation "has discrepancies among abilities, or if he has special abilities and marked disabilities, he could be classified as a child with a learning disability as well as overall mental retardation" (Kirk, 1966, p. 2). One could have a generally depressed profile of intellectual ability that still included significant gaps between high and low areas of functioning. He would articulate this same notion of possible co-morbidity of mental retardation nine times between 1963 and 1984 (see Table 1).In the second of Kirk's 1963 speeches, speaking to a very different audience of parents and advocates, he presented a definition of learning disabilities that differed dramatically from his statement to the gathering of scientists:He dropped all possible etiologies of the disorder, including cerebral injury and emotional disturbance.In this revision, the phrasing concerning mental retardation constituted an unequivocal exclusion. Contrary to what Kirk had suggested with the modifiers "most" and "generalized" a few months earlier, a child with mental retardation could not also have a learning disability.It seems that Kirk's presentation to the conference of parent advocates was, at least to some extent, a case of telling the audience what they wanted to hear. His presentation distanced learning disability from the highly stigmatized category of mental retardation. He avoided any discussion of the causes of the learning problem. If he had used any of the standard etiologies (e.g., brain injury, flawed genetic inheritance, or deficient environmental stimulation), the many parents in the audience might have squirmed at the suggestion of blame.Quite likely, Kirk felt pressured by parents to make certain statements in his speech. He later admitted to having mixed feelings about providing a definition of learning disability at the conference. He was wary about adding yet one more diagnostic label of questionable pedagogical value to the professional compendium (Kirk, 1976). During the speech, right before providing a definition for learning disability, he professed to the audience his strong reluctance to do so.Kirk invested far more time and words attempting to convince the listeners to disregard disability definitions than actually offering a definition of learning disability. Later, he recalled that "several [parents] approached me with the admonition that they needed help in the selection of a name for their proposed national organization" (Kirk, 1976, p. 255). Accompanied by words of caution and even mild protest, Kirk gave the parents what they wanted.What we find in this historical analysis is that Samuel Kirk is not a purified icon or an idealized figure gilded in a glorious legacy. We view him as a real person, someone attempting to deal quite awkwardly with too many concepts, constraints, and pressures. As the most famous special educator in the United States during the period of rapid growth in the years immediately prior to and following the passage of P.L. 94–142, Kirk was a political actor tugged in every possible direction. His scattered and often contradictory words left a zigzag trail that attests not only to the "religious revival" (Frierson, 1976, p. 139) emotional tone of the early learning disabilities movement. It also indicates just how difficult it is to use language to pin down an authoritative concept once and for all.I do not believe that Samuel Kirk needs defending. The importance of his contributions to the field of special education is undeniable. In the narrative of the growth of American special education in the latter half of the 20th century, Kirk is the clear hero.Our more practical challenge is to draw useful lessons for today from Kirk's contradictions. Although he was a staunch proponent of the idea that all children can learn, on one spring day in 1967, in a speech at the University of Minnesota, he contradicted his usual message. He used mental retardation as a contrasting foil, a less educable population, in his effort to explain the intellectual capacities of children with learning disabilities (Kirk, 1967b).What does it mean to us when a special education hero stumbles?One possible lesson concerns the cultural pervasiveness of an ugly politics of disability that punishes those deemed furthest from notions of "normal." Even Kirk—even the great Kirk—slipped into this quagmire of disability politics, pushing down on mental retardation in order to elevate learning disability as a disorder likely to respond positively to intervention.In 1967, just as today, a cruel political discourse that devalues persons with mental retardation labels was readily available and too-often employed, even by well-known educators and psychologists. When Kirk praised the educational potential of learning disability in contrast to that of the lesser mental retardation, he stepped into a political pothole that was not of his invention (Kirk, 1967b). He found it nonetheless. He found it quite easily because it was conventional thinking about persons with mental retardation.Kirk's stumble may tell us that the cruel politics of disability that diminishes persons with the mental retardation label (or intellectual disability in current terms) to the bottom of the social hierarchy is not completely divorced from the intellectual and practical traditions of the field of special education. Certainly, the modern American field of special education was founded on Kirk's idea that students conventionally thought to have little or no educational potential deserve public school instruction. But the field, like Kirk, is filled with contradictions.The contribution of the field of special education to the political devaluation of students with disabilities in the schools has been the subject of concern among many scholars (e.g., Brantlinger, 2006; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Ware, 2004). Illuminating the politics of disability in the schools and combating social injustice requires that we honestly and fully acknowledge how standard special education beliefs and practices can operate to stigmatize and isolate children. Toward this end, we should devote less energy to the perpetuation of idealized historical legacies that avoid the unsavory and problematic. We should expend far more energy confronting the cultural devaluation of children with disabilities in our schools and communities.

Accessible Summary We wanted to know what care staff felt about difficult behaviour displayed by people with autism, learning disabilities or Down syndrome. We asked many care staff who worked with people with disabilities to watch a video. The video was about a made up lady called Sophie. Sometimes Sophie was described as having autism, other times as having learning disabilities and sometimes as having Down syndrome. After staff members watched the video, we asked them how they felt about Sophie's difficult behaviour. Staff viewed Sophie's behaviour better when she was described as having autism and worst when she was described as having learning disabilities. We believe that staff should view all people equally regardless of the way they are described. We have used the information about this study to make recommendations about staff training. AbstractBackground: This study investigated whether care staff's causal attributions and emotional reactions to the challenging behaviour displayed by service users were influenced by the service user's diagnostic label.Materials and Method: One hundred and twenty care staff were randomly allocated to one of three conditions. Participants viewed a video of a senior staff member describing a service user, varying only in diagnostic label (autism, learning disability or Down syndrome). Participants then rated their endorsement of possible causes and emotional reactions to challenging behaviour.Results: Participants in the Autism and Down syndrome groups made more use of biomedical causes and less use of learned behaviour as an explanation for challenging behaviour than those in the Learning Disabilities group. Those in the former groups reported more positive and fewer negative emotions than those in the Learning Disabilities group.Conclusions: The way staff viewed people with learning disabilities was affected by their diagnostic label. Implications for further research and training have been discussed.

This study was conducted to determine if a relationship exists between the self-efficacy of faculty members to teach online and the training they received to teach online. In addition, specifics across demographic groups were examined. Data were collected online utilizing a modified version of Robinia’s (Online teaching self-efficacy of nurse faculty teaching in public, accredited nursing programs in the state of Michigan. Dissertations. Paper 811. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/811, 2008) instrument. The sample included College of Education faculty members in a mid-sized university located in the southeast. Findings indicated that few differences in instructional strategy efficacy and computer use efficacy were identified among these groups. The only difference identified was a difference in computer use efficacy between those age 20–49 and those age 50–69. Overall, findings demonstrated a moderate-to-strong correlation between a faculty member’s self-efficacy to teach online and the training he or she received to teach online. In addition, the data did not generally support differences between any of the groups measured. The growth of online education is undeniable and, as it continues to play a major role in post-secondary education, higher education administrators must search for ways to ensure the success of their online programs. Considering that higher levels of self-efficacy can provide higher levels of course quality and student achievement, it is important to contemplate factors that may or may not contribute to higher levels of efficacious teacher behavior.

This article is a systematic analysis and synthesis of published research from 1985–2000 recommending or reporting on postsecondary education services for students with learning disabilities. Twenty-six articles met the criteria of recommending services or describing services presently available. The 11 program factors examined were: definition of learning disability, characteristics of adult learners, type of institution, special admission procedures, assessment services, program accommodations, support services, instructional adjustments, instructional staff training, direct service staff training, and program evaluation. Implications and recommendations for postsecondary program development are presented.