The document discusses a graduate school workshop for students with disabilities. It begins by noting lower employment and graduation rates for students with disabilities. It then outlines the workshop's goals of increasing retention, commitment, and expectations for success based on Tinto's retention theory. The workshop would address five potential obstacles to graduate school accessibility for students with disabilities: advertising, advocacy, funding, mentoring, and faculty training. It proposes evaluating the workshop through a pre- and post-survey to measure changes in students' knowledge of graduate school types, benefits, costs, and funding sources.

1. By Ryan Adams
EPC 690 C
April 29,2015

3. 
 The bureau of labor statistics(2012) report students with a
disabilities who have a bachelor degree, only 28.4% are
employed compared to graduates with no disabilities
have an employment rate of 76.1%.
 . The researchers at year four had found that students
with non-apparent disabilities (SWND) had a lower
graduation rate (11.96%) than compare to students
without disabilities (SWOD) at (20.38%) (Wessel, et al.,
2009).
 SWND and SWAD disabilities had lower retentions rates,
38.04 % and 40.51 respectively, compared to SWOD rates
at 45.08% (Wessel, et al., 2009).
Needs Statement

4. 
 Tinto Retention Theory
 Goal Commitment
 Institution commitments
 Tinto (1988) believe that providing students with
high expectations for success would provide increase
retention.***
 ***by providing a graduate school workshop for students with
disabilities, the department is encouraging the students to achieve
long-term educational goals. ***
Student Development

5. 
Five Potential Obstacles
 1. Advertising and Marketing
 that 24% of postsecondary institution reported that institution main
page follows established accessibility guidelines
 2. Advocacy
 proactive in protecting the rights of students with disabilities
 20 % of the sites did not provide handicap parking and 25% of the sites
had no ramps and only 38% had both visual and audio alarms for
emergency
 3.Funding
 no longer eligible for federal and state funds which are designated for
undergraduate students (Belch, 1995).
 The institution should not make admission decisions based on
increase funding need to pay for interrupters or scribes
Accessibility-Graduate Admissions

6. 
Five Potential Obstacles
 4. Mentoring- Maddus (2006)
 Students with disabilities had greater success when
they had a peer mentor or mentor during their college
experience
 5. Training-
 the graduate offices should incorporating training for
their faculty so they are better equipped for students
with a disability.
Accessibility-Graduate Admissions

7. 
 Transition Process- Getzel and Thoma (2008)
 Evaluated the TWO(2) and Four (4) year process of
transition for students with disabilities
 4 Characteristics to Increase Retention
 1. Ability to problem solving- Alt. Solutions
 2. Self-Awareness
 3. Goal Setting
 4. Self-Management
 Overall Result indicate students with disabilities need to
complete their education
Educational Outcomes

8. 
 Evaluating positive outcomes in Higher Ed (Garrison-Wade, 2012).
 a qualitative study which had the intention to explore student perceptions and
develop a clear understanding on what contributes to positive outcomes in
postsecondary education.
 Results: Three Themes-Positive Academic Outcomes (Garrison-Wade, 2012)
 1. Capitalizing on student self-determination skills
 Low expectations w/ lack of understanding regarding their disability.
 Find own motivation
 2. Implementing formalized planning process
 establish clear boundaries and future steps relating to career or educational
goals
 3. Improving postsecondary support
 support had ranged from finding mentors on campus or receiving financial
assistance
Educational Outcomes Cont.

9. 
 Overall research supports the finding that to increase
positive outcomes with students with disabilities
they need to establish clear educational goals
 Graduate admission process is shown to having
accessibility issues for potential graduate students
with disabilities (Belch, 1996). Therefore, by
conducting the workshop we may provide the
marketing and information that limited access to
students with disabilities.
Conclusion

11. 
 Graduate School Connection Point
 Institution: California State University, Northridge(CSUN)
 Department: Disability Resources and Educational Services(DRES)
 Program: Thriving and Achieving Program Academic Coaching
 Intervention
 One (1) hour long workshop on attending graduate school
 How to apply, funding, types of graduate schools
 Facilitated by 3 graduate students
 Mission State-DRES
 “Futher the vision of an inclusive society that supports the
attainment of academic… goals…”
Proposal

12. 
 Probable characteristics
 DRES students
 the students in attendance will identify with a permanent or temporary
disability
 Thriving and Achieving Program (TAP) students
 First year students (e.g. freshman or transfer students).
 Model of Marketing
 Webpage, handouts, word of mouth
 Timeline
 Marketing-February 10th -March 23rd 2015.
 Intervention- March 24th, 2015 11am- 12pm
 Data Analysis- April 1st-April 15th 2015
Potential Demographics

13. 
 1. Students will be able to identify 3 financial funding
options for graduate school.
 2. Students will be able identify 2 benefits attending
graduate school.
 3. student will be able to learn 3 types of graduate school
programs.
 4. Students will able to identify 2 expense of graduate
school programs.
Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO’s)

14.  Quantitative approach
 benchmarking students to measure the level of understanding about the topic of
graduate school.
 Demographic Information Collected:
 age, gender, major class standing.
 PRE-SURVEY Questions:
 Closed Ended-SLO;s
 POST-SURVERY Questions:
 Closed Ended SLO’S, Likert and Open Ended
 The participants will answer in four areas of knowledge pertaining to graduate
school:
 (a) types of graduate school
 (b) benefits of graduate school
 (c) financial funding
 (d) cost..
Methodology

16. 
Demographics
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Average
Mode
Median
28.31
26
24
AGE BREAKDOWN

17. 
Demographic
7.69%
53.85%
23.08%
15.38%
Freshman
Junior
Senior
Declined to state
CLASS LEVEL

18. 
Demographic
38.46%
61.54%
Males
Females
GENDER

19. 
Demographics
53.85%
23.08%
7.69%
7.69%
Psychology
Computer Science
Art-Amination
Kinesology
MAJORS

21. 
Results
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
0 Correct
Answers
1 Correct
Answers
2 Correct
Answers
3 Correct
Answers
53.85%
15.38% 7.69%
23.08%
7.69% 7.69%
15.38%
69.23%
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Question 1: What are the three funding sources for graduate school?

22. 
Results
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0 Correct
Answers
1 Correct
Answers
2 Correct
Answers
3 Correct
Answers
92.31%
0%
7.69%
0%
53.85%
7.69%
30.77%
7.69%
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Question 2: What are the three different types of graduate schools?

23. 
Results
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
0 Correct
Answers
1 Correct
Answers
2 Correct
Answers
3 Correct
Answers
69.23%
7.69%
23.08%
0%
30.77%
7.69%
61.54%
0%
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Question 3: What are the three different types of expenses related to

24. 
Results
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
0 Correct Answers 1 Correct Answers 2 Correct Answers
61.54%
38.46%
0%
7.69%
30.77%
61.54%
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Question 4: What are the two benefits of attending graduate
school?

25. 
Results-Post Survey
61.54%
38.46%
0%
0%
0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Question 5: For the following question please respond the following statement:
I would recommend this workshop

26. 
Results-Post Survey
0%
0%
7.69%
15.38%
23.08%
53.85%
Score-0
Score-1
Score-2
Score-3
Score- 4
Score- 5
Question 6: On a scale from 0-5 (5 being the highest), did you interact
and/or connect with other students and peers in the workshop?

28.  Question 1
 Students who had answered three or two correct answers was calculated at 84.61%.
 As a result, the information can assume that students had increasing their learning about funding options for
graduate schools
 Question 2
 Students who had answered three or two correct answers was calculated at 38.46%.
 53.85% of the participants had no corrects answer.
 However this is an 38.46% decrease from zero correct answer.
 Therefore through the results, students had demonstrated increasing learning about types of graduate
schools.
 Question 3
 38.46% increase in 2 corrected answers
 Overall students had minimal increasing in retaining information .
 Therefore, students had learned ineffectively of the cost of graduate school and the workshop may need
improvement in this learning outcome.
 Question 4
 61.54% of students had 2 correct answers
 30.77% of students had answered 1 correctly.
 Only 7.69% of students had no correct answers.
 As a result, students had demonstrated learning in benefits of attending graduate school.
Analysis

29. 
 Incorrect labeling on Slides
 Double sided surveys
 Small sample population-14 students
 Post survey- Double Barrel Question
Limitations

30. 
 Strengths of Intervention
 Identifying three sources of funding
 Student satisfaction
 Areas of Improvement-Student Recommendations
 Increase social interaction
 “The workshop is great the only thing I can think of to
improve the workshop would be more interactive
activities”
 “To interact with more people”
Recommendation

31. 
 Improvements
 Clearly label slides
 “Didn't see the answers for these questions on the
powerpoint.”
 Single sided assessment
 Write instructions on assessment
 Lessons Learned
 Collaboration with co-facilitators is important
 Clarity is need when teaching specific information
Reflections

33.  Belch, H. (1995). Admitting graduate students with disabilities. New Directions for Student Services,1995(72),
101-110.
 Garrison-Wade, D. (2012). Listening to their voices: Factors that inhibit or enhance postsecondary
outcomes for students' with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1.
 Getzel, E. , & Thoma, C. (2008). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the importance of
self-determination in higher education settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,31(2), 77-84.
 Madaus, J. W. (2006). Improving the transition to career for college students with learning disabilities:
Suggestions from graduates. Journal Of Postsecondary Education And Disability, 19(1), 85-93.
 National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions: First look. NCES 2011-018. National Center For Education Statistics.
 Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 130.
 Salmon, N., & Kinnealey, M. (2007). Paving rough roads: Transition to life beyond the classroom as
experienced by students with disabilities and their families. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17(1), 53-84.
 U.S. Census Bureau (2012) Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0285.pdf
 Wessel, R. D., Jones, J. A., Markle, L., & Westfall, C. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with
disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal Of Postsecondary Education And Disability, 21(3), 116-125.
 Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. The
Journal of Higher Education, 438-455.
References

35. 
Appendix A

36. 
Appendix B