Journal of Instructional PsychologyVolume 27, Number 2

Table of Contents

The International Student Population: Past and PresentDemographic TrendsDurid A. Walker. .77

A Synthesis of Research on the Causes, Effects, and Reduction ofStrategies of Teacher Stress

Cu/'Olm Wilev 80

The Experimental Assessment of a Newly Revised DemocraticMaturity Test for High School Usage

Robert C. Rei!{er .88

The One-to-One Survey: Students with Disabilities Versus Students without

Disabilities Satisfaction with Professors During One-on-One ContactsGarv T Rosenrhal. Thomas 1. Domungue. Earl 1. Folse.Nicki G. Cortez. William B. Soper and C W Von Bergen. .90

Personal and Elwironmental Factors that InfluenceEarlyChildhoodTeacherss' Practices

Regena Fails Nelson. .95

Faculty Ironies on Grade Inflation

Stephanie McSpirit, Ann Chapman Paulu Kopaczand Kirk Jones ..... .104

Student Failure Must Always be Associated with Teacher FailureRussell N. Cassell . . 110

Philosophy Perspectives in Teaching Social StudiesMarlow Edi!{er . .112

Children's Attitudes Toward Reading and Their Literacy DevelopmentYuxiung Wang. 120

How Do Presentation Modality and Strategy Use InfluenceMemory for Paired Concepts')

Richard S. Velayo and Christopher Quick.. .126

California Psychology Licensing Exam Rates of Graduates of

Accredited and Unaccredited Programs

Donald I. Templer. Marie Tomeo, Michael Harville,and Steve Poinrkowski , .134

Describing the Real WorldGarv Ray Wallace. 136

The One-to-One Survey: Students with Disabilities VersusStudents without Disabilities Satisfaction with Professors

During One-on-One Contacts

Gary T. Rosenthal, Thomas J. Domangue, Earl J. Folse, Nicki G. Cortez,William B. Soper and C.W. Von Bergen

The characteristics of positive and negative one-to-one student-faculty interactionswere examined in a sample of college students with disabilities and without.Analyses indicated that those with disabilities responded similarly to those withoutwith the exception that students with disabilities find interactions with faculty morepleasant than their non-disabled peers. Respondents also wrote themes characteriz-

ing their most positive and negative interactions. Themes that characterized positiveinteractions were similar for both groups. However, students with disabilities

reported more themes where faculty were unaccommodating or sarcastic in theirone-to-one interactions.

The number of students with disabili-

ties entering college has increased rapidly(Fichten, 1988). While the Americans WithDisabilities Act of 1990 has made collegecampuses more accessible, students withdisabilities still face numerous difficulties.One specific challenge pertains to how theyare perceived and treated by faculty.

Fichten, Goodrick, Tagalakis, Amsel,and Libman (1990) stated that a professor'sawareness of the special needs of studentswith disabilities is vital to students' success.Winzer (1987) indicated that if instructorsdisplay negative attitudes toward students

Gary T. Rosenthal and Earl J.Folse, Nicholls State University. Thomas J.Domangue, Louisiana StateUniversity.Nicki G.Cortez, Lafourche Parish SchoolBoard.WilliamB. Soper, Louisiana Tech University.C.W. VonBergen, Southeastern Oklahoma State Univer-sity.

Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Dr. Gary T. Rosenthal,Department of Psychology and Counselor Edu-cation,Nicholls StateUniversity,P.O.Box 2075,Thibodaux, LA 70310. Email: psyc-gtr@nich-nsunet.nich.edu.

The authors would like to thankMs. Janice

Landry for her assistance in editing this manu-scrivr.

with disabilities, it can impede their aca-demic performance. Hart and Williams

(1995) reported that professors generallyadopt one of four roles when teaching astudent with a disability. Three of these, thenervous "A voider", the overprotective"Guardian", or the discounting "Rejector"have extremely negative consequences. Onlythe fourth, the role of the supporting, en-couraging"Nurturer" is seen as beneficial.

Patton (1981) reported that though pro-fessors typically feel positively toward stu-dents with disabilities, most don't knowhow to help them. This may account for theiradopting one of the stereotypical roles men-tioned above. Not only do professors lacksuch knowledge, but they are also hesitantabout seeking it; ironically, professors whoinitiated conversations about students' dis-

abilities were considered "outstanding" bythose students (see Amsel & Fichten, 1990).

Many students are concerned about stu-dent-faculty interactions. However, by vir-tue of their special needs, interactions be-tween students with disabilities and facultytake on special importance. Fitchen, Amsel,Bourdon, & Creti (1988) examined whatdisabled students and professors viewed as"appropriate" or "inappropriate" interactionsbetween them. Of 196 behaviors studied.

II

r

J

l

~)

Maturity Test. . /89

Table IPrincipal Components Factor Analysis of DEMO Part Scores (N = 121)

Scores I IIFactors

III IV VIII %TVV VI VII

Score Reliability Without Correction

The part score reliability for all 8 partscores without correction, based on correla-

tion with total score are all very acceptable,with none of them less than 0.571 as shownin Table 3 below.

Table 3Reliability of Part Scores Uncorrected (N=121)

Corr.EST0.696

ASS0.571

LaC0.712

CFM0.621

CAR0.716

coP0.719

General FindingsThe general [mdings from the DEMO test

at the high school level are as follows:1. At-statistic between means showed no

significant gender difference in the meanscores for the male and female students.

2. An analysis of variance between the fourdifferent grades (9th through 12th) for themean of the 8 part scores showed nosignificant difference between the gradesfor gains or loss in democratic maturity.

3. A multiple regression analysis using aconstant showed no significant gain forany of the part or even the total scores on

SYM0.653

EFF0.600

the DEMO test, however when the 8 partscores were listed in concert against grade,there was a significant gain in overalldemocratic maturity.

4. All part and total scores on the DEMO testcorrelated negatively with age except forCFM score. This suggests that demo-cratic maturity is positively correlatedwith age, and the older the student thehigher the democratic maturity.

ReferenceCassel, R.N., Kolstad, R., and Chow, P.

(2000). The Democratic Maturity Test. ChuJaVista, California: Project Innovation.

Confonnity CFM 948* -122 062 110 104 170 136 114 12.52Assertiveness ASS -116 964* 058 -020 126 093 172 013 12.67

Sympathy SYM 058 057 967* 061 122 -001 148 129 12.69

Efficacy EFF 103 -019 061 970* 077 105 061 152 12.69

Caring CAR 107 138 134 084 937* 079 154 191 12.47Locus of Control LaC 168 098 -001 111 077 950* 119 163 12.58Coping Skills COP 146 195 169 070 160 129 924* 107 12.21Self-esteem EST 122 014 149 177 201 179 107 921* 12.19

* =Identifying Loadings. %TV =Percentage of Total Variance.

Table 2

Means for 8 Part Scores (N = 121)

EST COP ASS LaC CFM SYM EFF CARMean 80.96 43.40 57.12 70.07 57.26 63.40 57.32 60.89SD 14.07 11.54 11.46 12.72 12.02 13.80 11.81 14.32

appropriate ones were judged more com-mon than inappropriate. Fitchen et aI. (1988)also state that professors are often exhortedto treat students with disabilities "...like other

students, within their limitations", while dis-abled students are told: "behave like other

students wherever possible" (p. 14). Thecurrent study examines these maxims bypresenting data that compare disabled andnon-disabled students' positive and nega-tive interactions with professors.

The One-to-one survey (Folse,Rosenthal, Boudreaux & Soper, 1994) wasdesigned to investigate students' personalinteractions with faculty outside the class-room. The survey included questionnaireand narrative items. The current study com-pares the responses of students with disabili-ties to those without.

Research hypotheses consist of the fol-lowing: (a) students with disabilities (SWD)and students without (SW) would differ intheir tendencies to initiate one-to-one inter-actions. (b) SWD and SW would differ intheir overall satisfaction with such interac-

tions. (c) SWD and SW would differ in theextent to which positive and negative inter-actions affect their reports of course perfor-mance. (d) SWD and SW would differ to the

extent which positive and negative interac-tions affect their student evaluations of the

professor. (e) SWD and SW would differ in

the percentage of twelve basic themes (typi-cal of positive and negative interactions)present in their narratives.

MethodSubjects

A total of 92 undergraduate studentsenrolled or recently graduated from a smallsouthern university completed the survey.Classificationofrespondentswas: 17%fresh-men, 39% sophomores, 22% juniors, 16%seniors, and 6% who had recently graduated.Respondents ranged in age from 18 - 60 (M= 26.4, SD = 9.3). The students were re-cruited from :J v:Jri",tv of llnrl",nrr",rlllM,.

One-fo-One Surveys. . /91

courses (e.g. Developmental Psychology andChild Psychology) and campus organiza-tions (e.g. the Students With DisabilitiesService and an organization for nontradi-tional students). All participants were vol-unteers; some received extra credit for theirparticipation.

Students with disabilities sample. A to-tal of 46 students (31 males and 15 females)

had disabilities. These students comprised50% ofthe total sample. They ranged in agefrom 18 to 60 (M =30.7, SD = 10.1), meanG.P.A. was 2.61, SD =.88.

Students without disabilities sample.The remainder of the students (46; 31 malesand 15 females) were without disabilities.This sample ranged in age from 18 to 52 (M=22.2, SD = 6.0), mean G.P.A. was 2.89,SD=.51.

The difference in age between studentswith disabilities and students without wassignificant F(l,90) = 24.30, p < .01; how-ever, the groups' mean G.P.A.s did not dif-fer significantly. Students with disabilitieswere significantly older than students with-out disabilities. However,anexamination ofother studies (e.g. Fichtenet aI., 1990) indi-cated that their sampled students with dis-abilities were typically older than averageundergraduate students.Oneexplanation forthe disparity is that a number of studentswith disabilities enter college later in life aspart of their vocational rehabilitation, thusincreasing the mean age of this population.

Materials

The survey consisted of an informedconsent form, instructions, demographicquestions, survey items, and four blank(lined) sheets of paper on which studentswrote narratives describingtheir most posi-tive and negative interactionswith a facultymember. Survey instructionsdefined a one-to-one interaction as any such contact that astudent has had with an instructor outsidethe regular classroom setting. Previous re-",.",rrh mith thp ""P-t,,-,,"P ~",."p" ;nrl;~atprl

92/ Journalof InstructionalPsychology, Vol.27, No.2

that interobserveragreement (Cooper, Heron& Heward, 1987) concerning the presence/absence of a given theme within a narrativeranged from 60% to 90%, with a meanagreementof 81.7% for positive, and 73.3%for negative themes (Rosenthal, Folse,Alleman, Soper, Yon Bergen, andBoudreaux, 1996).

Narrative Theme RatingsOne of the authors examined each nar-

rative to determine whether certain theme orunits of meaningwerepresent or absent. Therater was not aware if the writer had a dis-ability or not. Themes were rated on themost frequent topics mentioned in narra-tives from prior One-to-one research (i.e.Folse et al. 1994;Tabony, Folse, Rosenthal,

Boudreaux, & Soper, 1995). Six themeswere identified for positive interactions, sixfor negative.

Each positive interaction was examinedto determine if the student described the fac-

ulty as: (a) helping or accommodating, (b)understanding, (c) encouraging, or d) caring;or whether the student described the situation

as: (e) unhurried,or(f) involving explaining oranswering the student's questions. Each nega-tive interaction was examined to determine if

the student described the faculty as: (g) rude/egotistical, (h) impersonal, (i) sarcastic, or (j)unaccommodating; or whether the studentdescribed the situation as: (k) belittling, or 0)hurried, delayed, or involving a missed ap-pointment by faculty. In addition, the numberof students who specifically mentioned their

I

J

j

Table 1

Percentage of Students With Disabilities and Students Without ReportingEach Theme and z Test Statistics

Students With StudentsTheme Disabilities Without z

Pleasant ThemesaHelping/Accommodating 60.52 54.29 .76Understanding 23.68 17.14 .98Encouraging 10.53 17.14 -1.16Caring 21.05 31.43 -1.46Unhurried 13.16 28.57 -2.33Explaining/Answering 15.79 28.57 -1.88

Unpleasant ThemesbRude/Egotistical 23.53 44.44 -1.89Impersonal 23.53 33.33 -0.91Sarcastic 17.64 0.00 2.74*Unaccommodating 58.82 22.22 3.36*Belittling 5.88 22.22 -2.02Hurried/Missed Meeting 17.65 27.77 -1.01

an= 73.bn= 35.*p < .01.

disabilities in either their positive or negativenarratives was recorded.

Each pleasant theme (a-f) served as acategory for classifying positive narratives.If a theme was present, it was assigned" 1"for that category, if it was absent it wasassigned "0". Each unpleasant theme (g-l)served as a category for classifying the nega-tive narratives in the same way. These as-signments became data for the theme relatedanalyses.

ProcedureThe materials were distributed to stu-

dents in classes and organizational meet-ings. It was stressed that responses wouldremain anonymous. Participants wereaskedto read the instruction sheet and ask anyquestions at that time. The most commonquestion was: "What if I haven't had anygood/bad interaction(s)?" Studentsweretoldthat, "In that case you should leavethe spacefor the positive/negative interaction(s)blank." The students were allowed as muchtime as necessary to complete the survey.

Results and DiscussionAnalyses consisted of a series of one-

way ANOVAs and tests for significant dif-ferencesbetween twoproportions.Theprob-ability of a Type I error was maintained at.01 for all analyses.

Analysis of Closed-ended ItemsStudents with disabilities and students

without did not differ significantly in theirtendenciesto initiateone-to-oneinteractions.The overall mean for both groups was 6.9(SD = 2.1) on a scale where 1 = facultyinitiated all contacts, 10 = student initiatedall contacts. These data are interesting inlight of Amsel & Fichten's (1990) reportthat both students with disabilities and fac-ulty prefer that students initiate such con-tacts. Our data indicate that after such inter-actions are initiated, however, students with'" , ",'.'

One-to-One Surveys. " /93

with faculty significantly more pleasant thantheir non-disabled peers (M = 8.17, SD =1.61 versus M = 6.93, SD = 2.37) F( 1, 89) =8.57, P < .01. On a scale where 1 is "veryunpleasant" and 10 is "very pleasant."

Students with disabilities and without

did not differ about how they felt a positiveor negative interaction affected their courseperformance. Both groups reported that posi-tive interactions affected performance "verymuch" while negative interactions affectedperformance "somewhat." Both groups re-ported that positive and negative interac-tions affected their evaluations "very much."

Analysis of Narrative DataNarrative data were analyzed by modi-

fying version of Jones' and Pollio's scoringsystem for themes (Jones, 1984). The pro-portions of students with disabilities andwithout reportinga theme were compared in12 tests, corresponding to each of the 12themes, for the significance of differencebetween twoproportions.These proportions(converted to percentages for clarity) andtest statistics (z) are presented as Table 1.

Students with and without disabilitiesreported comparable percentages of the sixpositive themes. However, students withdisabilities weresignificantly more likely toreport a negative theme involving profes-sors perceivedas sarcastic (z= 2.74,p< .01)or unaccommodating(z = 3.36,p < .01).

In thepresent study, unaccommodatingthemes (alsocommonamong students with-out disabilities) may have been particularlyfrustrating for students with disabilities whohad a special need for help (Bento, 1996).Interestingly however, students with dis-abilities did not cite a professor's makingaccommodations significantly more oftenthan students without disabilities in theirpositive themes.This tendency for studentsto respond to negative rather than positiveone-to-one characteristics has been noted intwo previous studies - Tabony et al. (1995)

94/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 27, NO.2

"automatic vigilance" (Baron & Byrne, 1994)may explain the discrepancy. When auto-

matic vigilance operates, a person notices

negative information but disregards positive

information. Thus, a student may notice

when accommodations are not performed,rather than when they are.

As a final note, only two (4%) of thenarratives from the students with disabilities

mentioned their disabilities. This is notable

given that students responded favorably to-ward faculty who mentioned the students'

disabilities. It is probable that, aside from

certain special needs, the basic principlesthat govern non-disabled students' interac-

tions with professors are the same as stu-dents with disabilities. Positive one-to-one

interactions are fostered by helpfulness, con-cern, and respect (Tabony et al. 1994). Thus,

this study reinforces the notion that instruc-

tors might benefit from improving their ba-sic caring and listening skills and using themwith all students, disabled and non-disabledalike, no matter who initiates the interaction.

ReferencesAmericans With Disabilities Act of 1990,

Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).Amsel R. & Fichten, C.S. (1990). Interac-

tion between disabled and nondisabled collegestudents and their professors. Journal ofPostsecondary Education and Disability, 8(1),125-140.

Bento, R. F. (1996). Faculty decision-mak-ing about "reasonable accommodations" for dis-abled college students: Informational, ethicaland attitudinal issues. College Student Journal,30(4),494-501.

Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1994). Thinkingabout others and the social world. Social Psy-chology (pp. 82-120). Needham Heights, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E. & Heward, W.L.(1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus:Merril.

Fichten, C.S. (1988). Students with physi-caldisabilities in higher education: Attitudes andbeliefs that affect integration. In H.E. Yuker(Ed.), Attitudes Toward Persons With Disabili-

ties (pp. 171-196). New York: Springer.Fitchen, C.S., Amsel, R., Bourdon, C.V. &

Creti, L. (1988). Interaction between collegestudents with physical disabilities and their pro-fessors. Journal of AppliedRehabilitationCoun-seling, 19(1), 13-20.

Fichten, C.S., Goodrick, G., Tagalakis, V.Amsel, R. & Libman, E. (1990).Gettingalong incollege: Recommendations for college studentswith disabilities and theirprofessors,Rel1abilita-tion Counseling Bulletin, 34(2), 103-125.

Folse, EJ, Rosenthal, G.T., Boudreaux, D.& Soper, B. (1994). The One-to-one survey:Student satisfaction with professors during one-on-one contacts. Presented at the Sixteenth An-nual National Institute on the Teaching of Psy-chology, St. Petersburg Beach Florida, January2nd-5th.

Hart, R.D. & Williams, D.E. (1995).Able-bodied instructors and students with physicaldis-abilities:A relationship handicappedbycommuni-cation. CommunicationEducation,44, 140-154.

Jones, C.S. (1984). Training manual forthematizing protocols phenomenologically(Tech. Rep. No.1). Unpublished manuscript,University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Phenom-enological Research Group.

Patton, J.R. (1981). A study of faculty atti-tudes toward special need students at three com-munity colleges in the Virginia community col-lege system.DissertationAbstracts 1nternational,42(3), 1l01-A.

Rosenthal, G.T., Folse, EJ.,Alleman, N.W.,Soper, W.B. Von Bergen, C.W. & Boudreaux,D.(1996). The One-to-one survey: Traditional ver-sus non-traditional student satisfactionwithpro-fessors during one-to-one contacts. Presentedthe Eighteenth Annual National Institute on theTeaching of Psychology, St. Petersburg BeachFlorida, January 3nd-6th.

Tabony, R., Folse, E., Rosenthal, G.,Boudreaux, D. & Soper, B. (1995). The One-to-one survey revisited: Further explorations ofstudent satisfaction with professors during one-on-one contacts. Presented at the SeventeenAn-nual National Institute on the Teaching of Psy-chology, St. Petersburg Beach Florida, January3nd-8th.

Winzer, I. (1987). Mainstreaming excep-tional children: Teacher attitudes and the educa-tional climate. The Alberta Journal of Educa-tional Research, 33,33-42.

]

~