The Expert Knowledge of University Graduate Students with Learning Disabilities: A Policy and Service Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The narratives of university graduate students with learning disabilities (LDs) are for the most part absent in the development of a life course perspective and analysis of LDs, yet an in depth qualitative study of individual stories and experiences with schooling or transition from high school to post-secondary education at this age can inform what we know about employment rates, income, and other markers of adult adjustment in the context of LDs. An insider perspective of this group may help to uncover patterns of discrimination in the dispersal of resources that lead to lower educational attainment and socioeconomic status and mental health problems, as is seen in this group. Specifically, this thesis aims to examine two research questions: a) What are the experiences of graduate students with LDs in a university setting?; and b) What are the implications of such experiences for policy and services for this group? I am interested in exploring the unique narratives amongst graduate students with learning disabilities from their own perspectives and understanding the implementations of such policies as the AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) in light of these students' experiences. Two female graduate students from two different universities in the south-western Ontario area were interviewed using open ended questions. Literature of empirical studies was compared to the spirit of our government legislation for analysis of its potential effectiveness at ensuring equal opportunity for this group. The undergraduate experiences of the participants in this study are consistent with international literature on undergraduate experiences, adding to data that suggests that individuals with LDs who manage to gain admission to a postsecondary institution continue to be subjected to disparaging attitudes and interactions similar to the ones they endured as children. The attitudes of teachers and staff betrayed ignorance of facts regarding LDs, leading to judgments such as that they are intellectually inferior, lazy, and unworthy of attention or of accommodations that are their legal right. Participants discussed their more recent graduate experiences, the context of which sometimes differed in noteworthy ways from that of their undergraduate experiences. As graduate students they emphasized their belief that the most worrisome and discriminatory experiences were those related to unreasonable delays in the provision of accommodations, the delivery of financial aid, and the delivery of technological aids. This included problems such as vague, complicated, and excessively time consuming rules and processes, as well as rules that seem to be structured so as to disqualify individuals with LDs from receiving resources or help, rather than, as might reasonably be hoped, identifying those who should be granted help, and policies and procedures that work to create a substantially larger financial burden. It is suggested that the AODA has not been effective as a tool for disseminating truth and knowledge and eradicating discrimination against individuals with LDs, and that interactions with individual staff members may not only evidence the discriminatory beliefs of that individual, but of the system or department that he or she represents as well. Suggested changes include: mandatory education and awareness training for post secondary instructors; the implementation of Universal Design of Instruction and needed infrastructure; and the implementation of clear procedures and penalties for non compliance that do not place the onus on the student to report incidents or secure and provide proof.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".