Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EPC 690C-Graduate School CONNECTION Point

171 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EPC 690C-Graduate School CONNECTION Point

  1. 1. By Ryan Adams EPC 690 C April 29,2015
  2. 2.   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
  3. 3.   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
  4. 4.  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
  5. 5.  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
  6. 6.   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
  7. 7.   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.
  8. 8.   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
  9. 9.   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
  10. 10.   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
  11. 11.   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)
  12. 12.  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
  13. 13.  Demographics 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Average Mode Median 28.31 26 24 AGE BREAKDOWN
  14. 14.  Demographic 7.69% 53.85% 23.08% 15.38% Freshman Junior Senior Declined to state CLASS LEVEL
  15. 15.  Demographic 38.46% 61.54% Males Females GENDER
  16. 16.  Demographics 53.85% 23.08% 7.69% 7.69% Psychology Computer Science Art-Amination Kinesology MAJORS
  17. 17.  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?
  18. 18.  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?
  19. 19.  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
  20. 20.  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?
  21. 21.  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
  22. 22.  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?
  23. 23.  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
  24. 24.   Incorrect labeling on Slides  Double sided surveys  Small sample population-14 students  Post survey- Double Barrel Question Limitations
  25. 25.   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
  26. 26.   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
  27. 27.  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
  28. 28.  Appendix A
  29. 29.  Appendix B

×