Attitudes and Knowledge About Learning Disabilities: A Comparison Between Arabic- and Hebrew-Speaking University Students

Abstract

Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in postsecondary institutions. The current study investigated attitudes toward and knowledge about SLD among students from different cultural and educational backgrounds. The study included 113 students (63 Arabic speakers and 50 Hebrew speakers) working toward bachelor’s degrees in different faculties and departments at a university in northern Israel. Findings indicated that both Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students had some knowledge regarding SLD and agreed with positive statements about SLD. However, Arabic-speaking students reported having less contact with individuals with SLD than did Hebrew-speaking students. Additionally, Arabic-speaking students reported less knowledge regarding the competence of students with SLD and were more willing to support and provide assistance to these students. Both groups revealed insufficient understanding of the essence of SLD. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

postsecondary peer relations

It is generally agreed that “learning disabilities are a manifestation of atypical cognitive and linguistic processes that interfere with learning” (Gartland & Strosnider, 2018, p. 197). In accordance with this broad definition, individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLD) comprise a large and heterogeneous population, with varying manifestations, interventional needs, and functional outcomes (Backenson et al., 2015).

Due in large part to supportive legislation, the number of students with SLD attending institutions of higher education is mounting (Fleming & McMahon, 2012; Heiman, 2006; Nugent & Smart, 2014). Postsecondary students with SLD often face many obstacles on their way to success (Heiman & Kariv, 2004), including various academic difficulties as well as secondary difficulties in social and psychological domains (Heiman, 2006; Heiman & Precel, 2003; Roer-Strier, 2002; Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). Psychological and social concerns frequently involve low self-esteem (Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003), low self-concept, high levels of depression and anxiety (Al-Yagon, 2011, 2012), concerns about academic performance, and difficulties with social interactions, potentially resulting in vulnerability, isolation, and difficulty meeting daily demands (Roer-Strier, 2002). In addition, students who wish to receive academic accommodations are required to disclose their SLD, which can expose them to stigmatization and prejudice on the part of service providers and faculty members (Barga, 1996). Despite these obstacles, students with SLD, particularly those who receive support, have been shown to succeed in higher education settings (DuPaul, Dahlstrom-Hakki, Gormley, Fu, & Pinho, 2017).

The Status of SLD in Israel

With a population of 8.8 million, of which 74.5% are Jewish and 20.9% are Israeli-Arab (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2018), Israel can be described as a multicultural society with a Jewish majority and a large Arab minority (Arar, 2017). Its education system is divided into four main sectors: Jewish secular, Jewish religious, independent (Jewish ultra-Orthodox), and Israeli-Arab (Arar & Massry-Herzalah, 2017).

Each of these sectors has a general education department and a special education department in the country’s Ministry of Education, each with its own administration (Gumpel & Awartani, 2003). Israeli policy addressing the inclusion of individuals with disabilities began with the Israeli Special Education Law of 1988. Based on the U.S. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1975, the original law recommended the integration of students with special needs into regular classrooms. In 2002, the Special Education Law was amended to address the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classes and define the services to which they are entitled (Ministry of Education, 2007). Within the field of special education in Israel, SLD received special attention following the resolutions of the Margalit Committee (Ministry of Education, 1997), which reported that various institutions in Israel were not sufficiently equipped to effectively serve students with SLD. The committee also noted that there was no clear policy regarding implementation of the Special Education Law in Israel (Gavish, 2017).

Policy supporting inclusion in schools has enabled growing numbers of students with SLD to enter higher education programs at colleges and universities (Finkelstein, 2005). Students with SLD constitute approximately 14% of the entire student population in various postsecondary institutions in Israel (Report of the State Comptroller, 2011). Other factors influencing this percentage include improved high school achievement among students with disabilities; economic considerations of postsecondary education institutions, which are encouraged by the Council for Higher Education to accept students with SLD and receive an extended budget for their support services in return; the expansion of the higher education system in Israel and specifically the growth of private colleges (Zafrir, 2016), which are more accessible to students with a wider range of achievement levels, including those with SLD (Feldman, Davidson, Ben-Naim, Maza, & Margalit, 2016).

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward SLD

Knowledge and attitudes are important environmental factors affecting all areas of service provision and social life (World Health Organization, 2011). One of the main barriers affecting individuals with disabilities involves attitudes and perceptions. Attitudes and perceptions about disabilities are not formed in isolation; they are influenced by many factors, among them specific contexts, training, and legislation (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010; Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2006). Crede and Niehorster (2012) found that social support had a positive influence on adjustment to university life, whereas negative peer attitudes were a major barrier to full social inclusion, especially among students with disabilities (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005). Researchers have found that adolescents with SLD or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are likely to receive negative peer nominations, to be socially neglected or rejected at school, and to face negative peer attitudes (Nabuzoka, 2003; Norwich & Kelly, 2004; Vaughn, Elbaum, & Boardman, 2001). Students with SLD and/or ADHD have also reported social difficulties as one of the primary challenges of postsecondary education. For example, a recent review of 44 studies conducted between 1995 and 2014 aimed to uncover key concepts related to the ways in which students with learning disabilities and/or ADHD perceive, experience, and negotiate postsecondary education in North America. Social factors affecting academic success were among the six themes that were identified (Lightfoot, Janemi, & Rudman, 2018).

In a study conducted by Doikou-Avlidou (2015) at a Greek postsecondary institution to explore the educational, social, and emotional experiences of individuals with dyslexia during their postsecondary studies, more than half of the students claimed to have been teased by some of their peers and to have felt rejected. Moreover, May and Stone (2010) conducted a study among college students with and without SLD and found that both groups had negative stereotypes about SLD. The majority of students, both with and without SLD, considered SLD to be associated with low intelligence or to be an insurmountable, limiting condition. Negative views like these persist despite years of inclusion and despite the presumed success of students with SLD (DuPaul et al., 2017).

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward SLD in Israel

In Israel, numerous studies have examined attitudes and knowledge regarding disabilities. A recent study by Gonen and Grinberg (2016) aimed to identify the attitudes of students regarding SLD in a higher education setting in Israel. Findings revealed positive attitudes, especially among students who had a friend with SLD, indicating that attitudes toward students with SLD might be improving following years of inclusion.

Despite this finding, there is evidence of gaps in awareness and knowledge related to SLD among Arabic speakers in Israel. Research shows that Arabs in Israel tends to show lower levels of knowledge and awareness about SLD (Jabareen-Taha & Taha, 2016; Taya, 2017). Furthermore, a report submitted by Jabbarin and Aghbaria (2010) on the educational system in the Israeli Arabic-speaking sector indicated limited knowledge regarding SLD in many areas: a lack of information regarding the number of Arabic-speaking students with SLD, a small number of Arabic-speaking psychologists with extensive knowledge about SLD, a lack of consultation services, minimal knowledge among teachers about the discrepancies between students with SLD and students with learning difficulties, decreased familiarity with methods to support students with disabilities, and a lack of systematic interventions and valid diagnostic tools.

Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (2010) reported a gap in the percentage of SLD diagnoses between Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students: Approximately 25% of Hebrew speakers were diagnosed with SLD compared with only 1 in 14 Arabic-speaking children (7.14%), with even smaller numbers in postsecondary education. In addition, Schiff, Shimoni, and Portnoy (2010) reported that the percentage of Arabic-speaking students receiving academic accommodations was much lower than that of Hebrew-speaking students (5.7% vs. 23.9% of students between the 10th and 12th grades, respectively).

Several studies in Israel have compared the attitudes and knowledge regarding disabilities of Hebrew-speaking students versus Arabic-speaking students. One of the first was conducted by Kasam (1999), who found that the attitudes of Hebrew-speaking students toward individuals with disabilities were more positive than those of Arabic-speaking students. Another study showed that Arabic-speaking teachers were less supportive of the inclusion of students with disabilities than their Hebrew-speaking counterparts (Gumpel & Awartani, 2003; Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004). When 1,145 prospective teacher trainees from six national/religious groups at 11 colleges in Israel were examined, the group most supportive of inclusion (i.e., showing the strongest rejection of segregation and the least concern about behavior problems) was the Jewish secular group, followed by the Jewish religious group. The least support for inclusion was found in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish and Arabic-speaking groups (Leyser & Romi, 2008). When the perceptions of Arabic-speaking middle school teachers regarding inclusion were examined, teacher training was the variable that differentiated between teachers with positive perceptions and those with negative perceptions (Karni-Vizer & Reiter, 2010). Evidence of a difference in implementation of inclusion practices comes from a recent study comparing views on inclusion between teachers from the Jewish and Arab education sectors (elementary and secondary). Teachers in the Jewish sector reported a greater degree of implementation of inclusion practices than did teachers in the Arab sector (Gavish, 2017).

It is known that one of the most important factors affecting attitudes is degree of contact. Meta-analysis has shown that face-to-face interactions between members of different social groups, when positive in nature, improve intergroup attitudes (MacMillan, Tarrant, Abraham, & Morris, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In a large-scale study, 1881 children (7–16 years old) from 20 schools in southwest England completed a survey assessing their contact with people with disabilities and their attitudes toward them. The results indicated that contact was associated with more positive attitudes toward disability and that this relationship was partially mediated by empathy and anxiety (Armstrong, Morris, Abraham, Ukoumunne, & Tarrant, 2016). A recent study on Israeli college students also showed more positive attitudes among students who maintained contact with students with SLD than among students who did not (Gonen & Grinberg, 2016).

Purpose of the Current Study

Attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions regarding SLD can have a significant influence on the well-being of adults with SLD (Dong, Fabian, & Xu, 2016; Shany, Weiner, & Assido, 2013). Research also indicates that the success of inclusive education is determined by the attitudes of individuals without disabilities (Bates, McCafferty, Quayle, & McKenzie, 2015). The majority of research in this field has aimed to evaluate teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities, whereas fewer studies have examined peer attitudes.

In the Arabic educational system, the notion of SLD is relatively new. A standardized assessment tool for elementary school students was introduced just 3 years ago (Asadi, Shany, Ben-Simon, & Ibrahim, 2015). At the high school and higher education levels, no diagnostic tools in Arabic are available. Hence, the number of Arabic-speaking students with SLD is difficult to determine. In addition, as noted earlier, there are few Arabic-speaking psychologists with extensive knowledge about SLD, and Israeli-Arab communities have been shown to have few available consultation services, a lack of knowledge among teachers about the discrepancies between students with SLD and students with learning difficulties, decreased familiarity with methods to support children and adults with disabilities, and a lack of systematic interventions (Jabbarin & Aghbaria, 2010).

Taking these findings into account, the current study aimed to answer the following questions: (a) Do Arabic-speaking students have the same amount of contact with people with SLD as do Hebrew speakers? (b) Are there differences in attitudes toward SLD between Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students? (c) Are there any differences in knowledge about SLD between Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students?

Method

Participants

The current study included a total of 113 students working toward undergraduate degrees in different faculties and departments at a university in northern Israel: 30.4% in the faculty of social sciences, 27.7% in the faculty of humanities, 17% in the faculty of social welfare and health sciences, 11.6% in the faculty of education, 6.3% in the faculty of natural sciences, and 3.6% in the faculty of law. Students with SLD were excluded from the sample.

The sample was divided into two subgroups: 63 Arabic-speaking students and 50 Hebrew-speaking students. Background information on all participants is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Age and Gender of Participants in the Arabic- and Hebrew-Speaking Groups.

Variable	Arabic speakersn = 63	Hebrew speakersn = 50	TotalN = 113
Gender
Male	9	15	24
Female	54	34	88
No response	0	1	1
Age
18–24	54	10	64
25–35	5	30	35
36–45	4	3	7
46–55	0	6	6
No response	0	1	1

As seen in Table 1, most of the Arabic speakers (85.7%) were between the ages of 18 and 24, and most of the Hebrew speakers (60%) were between 25 and 35 years old.

Measures

Participants completed a demographic questionnaire (based on Sharoni & Vogel, 1998). Perceptions about SLD were examined using a questionnaire based on surveys constructed by Leyser and Greenberger (2008) and on a survey by Murray, Flannery, and Wren (2008). Three factors were addressed: previous contact with people with SLD, attitudes toward students with SLD, and knowledge about SLD. The questionnaire had four parts. The first part included nine demographic items pertaining to gender, age, university status, and academic department. The second part included two statements related to contact with people and students with SLD. The first question, “Have students with SLD studied in your class?” was answered by yes or no. The second question was, “To what extent do you have contact with people with SLD?” Responses to this question were based on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 6 = to a very high degree. The third part (adapted from Murray et al., 2008; staff questionnaire adjusted for use with students) contained 12 statements related to attitudes about SLD. Responses were based on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree and 6 = no basis for judgment. Examples include “Students with SLD are able to academically compete at the university level” and “I am sensitive to the needs of students with SLD at this university.” This part had a Cronbach’s α of .64. Because all items shared a common aspect, they were clustered under the single variable attitude (Cornoldi, Capodieci, Colomer Daigo, Miranda, & Shepherd, 2018). The fourth part examined knowledge about legislation and SLD. The questionnaire was adapted from Murray et al. (2008) and updated by the researchers of the current study. Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 = never to 6 = to a high degree. The four questions were “I am familiar with the Equal Rights Act for students with SLD in postsecondary institutions in Israel (2009) and its implementation in colleges,” “I am familiar with the Equal Rights Act for people with disabilities in Israel (1998),” “I know what the term specific learning disability means,” and “SLD can affect students emotionally and socially.” Because the statements examined different facets of knowledge, the reliability (internal consistency) between items was rather low (Cronbach’s α = .51). Hence, the items were not grouped to create one variable. In addition, in-depth knowledge was assessed via two open-ended questions (Khouri, 2017): (a) “Define the term specific learning disability,” and (b) “Please describe the sources of support that SLD students have in postsecondary institutions.”

The questionnaires were translated into Hebrew by two graduate students and were approved alongside the study proposal by the university ethics committee.

Procedure

The researchers contacted the lecturers of undergraduate courses and received permission to present the study and distribute the questionnaires in their classes. Prior to completing the questionnaires, participants received a detailed explanation regarding the purpose of the study and signed informed consent forms. The majority of participants received the questionnaires via e-mail, and their responses were received automatically via Google Drive. Other participants completed the questionnaires in class and gave them directly to the researcher. Both Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking participants completed the questionnaires in Hebrew. The perceptions questionnaire took approximately 10 to 15 min to complete.

Regarding method of administration, 58% of the participants completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires, and the remaining (42%) completed an electronic version of the same questionnaire. When the effect of administration method was analyzed, a few significant differences emerged. On all items but one, significantly higher means were found in the electronic version as compared to the paper-and-pencil version. Although background parameters were considered (age, gender, language, faculty of studies), none explained the variance in administration method. This result might be explained by findings from previous research suggesting that subjects preferred the use of computer-based assessments over paper-and-pencil counterparts (Lane, Heddle, Arnold, & Walker, 2006; Walker et al., 2004) and that data collection using the former method was more accurate (Henker, Whalen, Jamner, & Delfino, 2002). However, the applicability of these findings to the current results is not clear, as they relate to medical recordings and not to behavioral questionnaires.

Data Analysis

Data were collected and analyzed between 2014 and 2015. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software (MANCOVA, independent-samples t-test, chi-square test). Responses to the open-ended questions were divided into categories by two independent judges, following the May and Stone (2010) method. Disagreements between the judges were resolved by discussion, and the common categories from both judges were used.

Results

A chi-square test was used to examine a potential association between language and age. The relationship was found to be significant, χ²(3) = 53.33, p < .001. Thus, we controlled for age when examining differences between Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students with respect to the two dependent variables, attitude and knowledge, using a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). A significant MANCOVA effect was revealed, F(2, 106) = 4.51, p < .05. Between-subject tests revealed an effect of total attitude score, F(1, 107) = 6.49, p < .05, but not of knowledge, F(1, 107) = 1.91, ns.

The first research question, whether Arabic-speaking students have the same amount of contact with people with SLD as do Hebrew speakers, was examined via two questions. The first was: “Do you have students with SLD in your class?” Positive replies were given by 57.4% of Arabic-speaking students and 86.4% of Hebrew-speaking students. A chi-square test revealed that this between-group difference was significant, χ²(1) = 10.14, p < .01. In the second item, participants were asked to answer on a 6-point scale, “To what extent do you have contact with people with SLD?” A significant difference was found between groups, with Arabic-speaking students reporting less contact (2.44 vs. 3.52), t(76.75) = −3.53, p < .001).

The second research question was, “Are there any differences in attitudes toward SLD between Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students?” When the attitude questionnaire was analyzed per item (see Table 2), most of the items were in the medium-to-high range, indicating agreement with positive statements about SLD and willingness to provide assistance.

Table 2.

Between-Group Comparison of Attitudes Toward Learning Disabilities (LD).

	Arabic-speaking studentsn = 63		Hebrew-speaking studentsn = 50
Statement	M	SD	M	SD	t
I believe that students with LD can be successful at the university level.	4.23	0.82	4.68	0.65	–3.19**
Students with LD are reluctant to disclose their disabilities to me.	3.53	1.13	4.08	1.28	–2.41*
I would like more information about the needs of students with LD at the university.	3.89	0.91	3.1	1.28	3.72***
I am sensitive to the needs of students with LD at this university.	4.097	0.95	3.62	1.23	2.25*
Students with LD are able to compete academically at the university level.	4.06	0.7	5.06	5.85	–1.32
Students with LD attend postsecondary schools at rates proportionate to the rates of postsecondary attendance.	3.787	1.33	3.49	1.5	1.01
University admission requirements are modified for students who have indicated that they have a LD.	3.70	1.45	3.41	1.46	1.06
I am willing to spend extra time meeting with students with LD.	3.92	0.76	3.47	1.24	2.22*
Providing accommodations for students with LD is not fair to other students.	4.49	1.32	4.68	1.45	–0.71
I am willing to be a tutor for students with LD.	3.77	0.95	3.29	1.29	2.18*
I am willing to study for exams together with a student with LD.	3.33	1.01	3.45	1.32	–0.53
Students with LD usually have high intelligence.	4.54	1.34	5.6	0.95	–4.87***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As seen in Table 2, Arabic-speaking students were more likely to agree with statements related to assistance and support, showing willingness to receive more information about the needs of students with SLD and greater sensitivity to the needs of students with SLD. In addition, Arabic-speaking students were more willing to spend extra time meeting students with SLD to provide them with additional assistance as needed and to tutor students with SLD, as compared to Hebrew-speaking students. Hebrew-speaking students were more likely to agree with statements regarding the cognitive abilities of students with SLD and regarding their ability to succeed at the university level.

No significant between-group differences were found with respect to the third research question, “Are there any differences in knowledge about SLD between Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students?” Overall, both Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students showed a medium-to-high range of knowledge regarding the definition of the term specific learning disability. However, they reported having little knowledge of the legal rights of students with SLD and people with disabilities in general and of the social and emotional effects of SLD.

Two open-ended questions aimed to provide a more in-depth examination of the participants’ knowledge about SLD:

Definition of the Term Specific Learning Disability

Responses to this question were divided into eight categories. The distribution of responses as a function of participant group is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Frequency of Responses Fitting Each Category of Knowledge About the Definition of Learning Disabilities.

	Hebrew-speaking studentsn = 49		Arabic-speaking studentsn = 42		Total
Response category	n	%	n	%	n	%
Academic difficulties	17	23.94	18	29.03	35	6.32
Attention difficulties	19	26.76	15	24.19	34	25.6
Cognitive difficulties	15	21.13	10	16.13	25	18.8
Disability sources	7	9.86	4	6.45	11	8.3
Other	3	4.23	5	8.06	8	6.0
Gaps between intelligence and academic achievements	3	4.23	4	6.45	7	5.3
Socioemotional difficulties	4	5.63	3	4.84	7	5.3
Compensation	3	4.23	3	4.84	6	4.5
Total	71	100.0	62	100.0	133	100.0

The first category, academic difficulties, included difficulties in reading, writing, and math (e.g., “Inability to read, write and difficulties in math”). The second category was attention difficulties (e.g., “Difficulty in absorbing information due to surrounding distractions,” “Difficulty studying because of concentration issues”). The third most common category was cognitive difficulties (e.g., “Difficulties with thinking,” “They need a longer time to absorb information”). The fourth category, disability sources, included responses referring to the origins/causes of the disability, including developmental, physiological, or neurological deficits (e.g., “It’s a neurological disability,” “A disability that is related to the brain’s function”). The fifth category, other, was created for all responses failing to fit into any of the categories. Included were comments stating a lack of knowledge about SLD as well as other idiosyncratic comments (e.g., “I have no idea about the issue despite the fact that it is an interesting one,” “I don’t know”). The sixth category included responses noting discrepancies between intelligence and academic achievements (e.g., “Significant discrepancy between the students’ achievements and their intellectual abilities”). The seventh category was social and emotional difficulties (e.g., “Low self-esteem,” “Adjustment difficulties”). Finally, the eighth category, compensation, included responses indicating that students with SLD could function as well as any other student (e.g., “They may be just as smart or smarter but need help to reach their full potential”). It should be noted that some of the participants’ responses included content that fit into more than one category.

A chi-square test revealed no significant association between mother tongue and distribution of responses into the categories presented above, χ²(4) = 3.596, ns.

Sources of Support for Students With SLD in Postsecondary Institutions

Responses regarding the sources of support for students with SLD on campus were divided into nine categories. The distribution of responses as a function of participant group is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Frequency of Responses Fitting the Sources of Support for Students with Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary Institutions.

	Hebrew-speaking studentsn = 51		Arabic-speaking studentsn = 45		Total
Response category	n	%	n	%	n	%
Student service units (dean of students, the unit for academic and personal support)	24	35.3	20	35.1	44	35.2
Tutoring	9	13.2	9	15.8	18	14.4
Lack of knowledge	7	10.3	8	14.0	15	12.0
Faculty support	5	7.4	6	10.5	11	8.8
Peer support	6	8.8	4	7.0	10	8.0
Financial support	6	8.8	2	3.5	8	6.4
Family support	4	5.9	3	5.3	7	5.6
Emotional support	3	4.4	4	7.0	7	5.6
Other	4	5.9	1	1.8	5	4.0
Total	68	100.0	57	100.0	125	100.0

As seen in Table 4, the most common category, student services, included references to any unit on campus providing services for students (including students with SLD): the Unit for Academic and Emotional Assistance, the Dean of Students Office, the Support Unit for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (YAHEL), and the Student Association (e.g., “Division for Academic and Personal Assistance,” “On campus, there is the YAHEL which provides students with support by teaching learning skills and tutoring”). The second most common category, tutoring, included responses about tutoring and auxiliary lessons (e.g., “Personal tutoring,” “Auxiliary lessons”). The third most common category, lack of knowledge, was created for responses indicating a lack of knowledge about the services on campus or for responses indicating a belief that there were no support services for students with SLD (e.g., “I don’t know,” “There are no support sources on campus”). The fourth category was faculty staff support, and the fifth category, peer support, included responses noting the support received from peers and friends. The sixth category, financial support, included responses related to financial assistance, including scholarships, as a main source of support (e.g., “Scholarships”). Two additional categories were family support and emotional support (e.g., “Support and encouragement, to believe that everyone has capacities,” “Psychological counseling,” “Berman Center for Psychological Counseling”). Finally, the ninth category, other, held all responses that failed to fit into any of the above categories (“I don’t understand”).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to explore perceptions about SLD among Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students. Overall, in contrast to previous studies indicating negative attitudes toward postsecondary students with SLD (e.g., Doikou-Avlidou, 2015; May & Stone, 2010), the current findings supported the existence of positive attitudes among both groups, demonstrated by medium to high agreement with statements pertaining to SLD and to the willingness to provide assistance to students with SLD. These findings can potentially be explained by the inclusion policy of the Special Education Law, which has increased the exposure of typical students to peers with special needs at school (Gumpel & Sharoni, 2007).

With respect to the definition of SLD, findings revealed that both Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students had somewhat limited knowledge. Thus, only about 25% of the definitions they provided were related to deficits in reading, writing, or arithmetic skills, the facets of learning addressed in the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2016) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) definitions. Another 25% of the responses included attentional difficulties as part of the SLD definition. Although there is comorbidity between SLD and ADHD (e.g., Budd, Fichten, & Jorgensen, 2016; DuPaul et al., 2017), they are not the same disorder, and each has its unique characteristics.

When compared with respect to attitudes toward SLD, the Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students showed no significant differences. This is an intriguing finding, as previous research has revealed negative attitudes and limited awareness and knowledge regarding SLD among Arabic-speaking individuals in Israel (Jabbarin & Aghbaria, 2010; Taya, 2017). Similar attitudes between the two student groups might be explained by the effort invested in this issue by the Israeli Ministry of Education. Many intervention programs have been implemented, and teachers are now exposed to updated knowledge through training programs and SLD specialists working in schools (Ministry of Education, 2017). Moreover, student deans at postsecondary institutions in Israel, and at the University of Haifa in particular, have taken several actions to raise awareness among students in general, and especially among Arabic-speaking students, regarding SLD and the various diagnosis and support services available on campus (Shaviv, Binstein, Stone, & Podam, 2013). These developments are noted in many studies as important means for preventing dropouts and maintaining students’ academic success (DuPaul et al., 2017; Finkelstein, 2005; Rath & Royer, 2002; Shany, Weiner, & Assido, 2013).

When asked about the difficulties and challenges that students with SLD face in postsecondary institutions, the students in the current study referred to the academic, psychological, and cognitive challenges mentioned in previous research (e.g., Heiman, 2006; Heiman & Precel, 2003; Roer-Strier, 2002) as well as to organizational (Heiman, 2006) and socioemotional (Rosenstreich, Feldman, Davidson, Maza, & Margalit, 2015) difficulties. In addition, they mentioned difficulties in adjusting to the demands of higher education and the discrepancies between student needs, academic requirements, and faculty/staff awareness. However, there was not one category that was referred to in a substantial majority of the responses, indicating that despite awareness of the difficulties, precise and specific information is insufficient.

Although data revealed that both Arabic-speaking and Hebrew-speaking students had positive attitudes toward students with SLD, Arabic-speaking students expressed more negative perceptions regarding the ability of students with SLD to succeed at the university level and regarding the intellectual abilities of students with SLD. As noted earlier, some studies (e.g., Gething, 1991; Gonen & Grinberg, 2016; Voeltz, 1984; Yuker, 1988; Zaromatidis, Papadaki, & Gilde, 1999) have indicated that attitudes toward people with disabilities are related to the amount of direct contact with them. This may help explain why Hebrew-speaking students had more positive attitudes and perceptions regarding the capabilities of students with SLD than did Arabic-speaking students. On the other hand, Arabic-speaking students did express positive attitudes when it came to socioemotional areas, including willingness to receive more information about the needs of students with SLD and to provide them with assistance as needed or tutor them. They also expressed more sensitivity to the needs of SLD students.

Limitations of the Study and Implications for Further Research

The current study indicated that despite awareness of the difficulties faced by students with SLD, precise and specific information about SLD and its characteristics is lacking. In addition, in accordance with the current findings, the rights of these students are not known to their peers. Thus, it would be of benefit to develop and administer training workshops and to publicize the characteristics of SLD and the rights of individuals with SLD through various media outlets, e-mails, and brochures (Hong, 2015).

This study also revealed general misconceptions regarding the cognitive abilities of students with SLD. Such perceptions can presumably be changed through direct contact with students with SLD, which is likely to reduce stigma and negative attitudes and might also contribute to an increase in willingness to provide support and assistance (Armstrong et al., 2016). A study conducted by McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller, and Killip (2004) examined the attitudes of ninth-grade students toward their peers with disabilities. The findings revealed that positive student relationships at the school level and a school goal task structure that promoted learning and understanding for all students were two aspects of school culture that were directly connected to positive attitudes. Hence, to support maximal fulfillment of potential among students with disabilities, it is important to encourage them and their peers to view SLD as an enabling condition in all aspects of life (cognitive, social, and emotional; Vickerman & Blundell, 2010).

The Hebrew-speaking participants in the current study were less willing to assist SLD students than were the Arabic-speaking students. This is notable, as social support appears to be important for academic adjustment and well-being (Collings, Swanson, & Watkins, 2014; Zumbrunn McKim, Buhs, & Hawley, 2014) as well as for self-esteem (Nalavany, Carawan, & Rennick, 2011) among students with SLD. Support from friends and significant others has been shown to have a positive impact on the life satisfaction of university students with difficulties (Stack-Cutler, Parrila, & Torppa, 2015). Thus, it is important to foster a more communal and supportive atmosphere on campus.

Several limitations should be considered in the interpretation of the current findings. Methodologically, the reliability of the knowledge portion of the questionnaire was low. This might be due to the small number of items, each of which examined a different domain of knowledge (familiarity with laws, definition of SLD, and social-emotional implications). It should also be considered that participants might not have disclosed their genuine attitudes, as positive attitudes toward students with disabilities are generally seen as socially desirable. Future studies might address this issue by assessing attitude implicitly (Wilson & Scior, 2014). Another limitation affecting the generalizability of the findings is the fact that only one institution was sampled, which might not be representative of other higher education settings. It should also be noted that the majority of the participants were female, and previous research has indicated that females tend to provide more support and assistance to people with disabilities than do males (Bigaj, Shaw, & McGuire, 1999; Leyser et al., 2003; Sharoni & Vogel, 1998).

Conclusion

The current research sheds light on differences in perceptions regarding SLD between Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking students. The findings revealed that despite the increase in awareness in recent years regarding SLD, there are still gaps in attitudes toward students with SLD between students, with Arabic-speakers indicating stereotypes regarding the cognitive abilities of students with SLD. This might reflect the shortage, described by Jabbarin and Aghbaria (2010), of SLD-related knowledge, professionals, and assessment tools in the Israeli-Arab educational system. Hence, there is a need to expand knowledge about SLD among teachers, parents, counselors, and psychologists, particularly in the Arab sector. It would also be beneficial to encourage more personal contact with individuals with disabilities, and with their families and friends, in order to change negative attitudes (Leyser & Romi, 2008). Intervention programs, including workshops and lectures, specifically addressing the characteristics and needs of individuals with SLD are also needed in postsecondary institutions for students with SLD and their peers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Al-Yagon

(2011). Fathers’ coping resources and children’s socioemotional adjustment among children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 491–507.

Al-Yagon

(2012). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Socioemotional and behavioral functioning and attachment relationships with fathers, mothers, and teachers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(10), 1294–1311.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: Author.

Arar

(2017). Academic spheres, students’ identity formation, and social activism among Palestinian Arab students in Israeli campuses. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 366–380.

Arar

Massry-Herzalah

(2017). Progressive education and the case of a bilingual Palestinian-Arab and Jewish co-existence school in Israel. School Leadership & Management, 37(1–2), 38–60.

Armstrong

Morris

Abraham

Ukoumunne

O. C.

Tarrant

(2016). Children’s contact with people with disabilities and their attitudes towards disability: A cross-sectional study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(9), 879–888.

Asadi

I. A.

Shany

Ben-Simon

Ibrahim

(2015). “Logat Elkeraa,” the language of reading: A test for the diagnosis of language, reading and writing disabilities in the Arabic language, based on national Israeli norms. Holon, Israel: Yesod.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

Backenson

E. M.

Holland

S. C.

Kubas

H. A.

Fitzer

K. R.

Wilcox

Carmichael

J. A.

. . . Hale

J. B.

(2015). Psychosocial and adaptive deficits associated with learning disability subtypes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 511–522.

10.

Barga

(1996). Students with learning disabilities in education: Managing a disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 413–421.

11.

Bates

McCafferty

Quayle

McKenzie

(2015). Typically-developing students’ views and experiences of inclusive education. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(21), 1929–1939.

12.

Bigaj

S. J.

Shaw

S. F.

McGuire

J. M.

(1999). Community- technical college faculty willingness to use and self-reported use of accommodation strategies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Vocational Special Needs Education, 21(2), 3–14.

13.

Budd

Fichten

C. S.

Jorgensen

(2016). Post-secondary students with specific learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder should not be considered as a unified group for research or practice. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 206–216.

14.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Students receiving accommodations for the matriculation exams [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/pages/search/SearchResultsMain.aspx?k=%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%93%D7%94%202010

15.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2018). The statistical abstract of Israel (population estimate) [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/Pages/search/yearly.aspx

16.

Collings

Swanson

Watkins

(2014). The impact of peer mentoring on levels of student wellbeing, integration and retention: A controlled comparative evaluation of residential students in UK higher education. Higher Education, 68(6), 927–942.

17.

Cornoldi

Capodieci

Colomer Daigo

Miranda

Shepherd

K. G.

(2018). Attitudes of primary school teachers in three western countries toward learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 43–54.

18.

Crede

Niehorster

(2012). Adjustment to college as measured by the Student Adaption to College Questionnaire: A quantitative review of its structure and relationships with correlates and consequences. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 133–165.

19.

Doikou-Avlidou

(2015). The educational, social and emotional experiences of students with dyslexia: The perspective of postsecondary education students. International Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 132–145.

20.

Dong

Fabian

(2016). Requesting workplace accommodations: Impact of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and positive affect. Rehabilitation Psychology, 61(4), 371–379.

21.

Dowrick

P. W.

Anderson

Heyer

Acosta

(2005). Postsecondary education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 41–47.

22.

DuPaul

G. J.

Dahlstrom-Hakki

Gormley

M. J.

Pinho

T. D.

(2017). College students with ADHD and SLD: Effects of support services on academic performance. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 246–256.

23.

Elik

Wiener

Corkum

(2010). Preservice teachers’ open-minded thinking dispositions, readiness to learn, and attitudes toward learning and behavioral difficulties in students. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 127–146.

24.

Feldman

D. B.

Davidson

O. B.

Ben-Naim

Maza

Margalit

(2016). Hope as a mediator of loneliness and academic self-efficacy among students with and without learning disabilities during the transition to college. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(2), 63–74.

25.

Finkelstein

(2005). The rights of students with learning disabilities in institutions of higher education: A proposal for a new law presented to the Knesset by MP Zevulun Orlev, 2002 [in Hebrew]. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 20(1), 37–43.

26.

Fleming

A. P.

McMahon

R. J.

(2012). Developmental context and treatment principles for ADHD among college students. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(4), 303–329.

27.

Gartland

Strosnider

(2018). Learning disabilities: Implications for policy regarding research and practice. A report by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 195–199.

28.

Gavish

(2017). The implementation of school inclusion practices for students with special needs in Israel: Teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64(5), 544–560.

29.

Gething

(1991). Generality versus specificity of attitudes towards people with disabilities. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 55–65.

30.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

Edelman

S. W.

(2006). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 75–86.

31.

Gonen

Grinberg

(2016). Academic students’ attitudes toward students with learning disabilities. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9), 240–246.

32.

Gumpel

T. P.

Awartani

(2003). A comparison of special education in Israel and Palestine: Surface and deep structures. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 33–48.

33.

Gumpel

T. P.

Sharoni

(2007). Current best practices in learning disabilities in Israel. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(3), 202–209.

34.

Heiman

(2006). Assessing learning style among students with SLD at a distance-learning university. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 55–63.

35.

Heiman

Kariv

(2004). Manifestations of learning disabilities in university students: Implications for coping and adjustment. Education, 125(2), 313–324.

36.

Heiman

Precel

(2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 248–260.

37.

Henker

Whalen

C. K.

Jamner

L. D.

Delfino

R. J.

(2002). Anxiety, affect, and activity in teenagers: Monitoring daily life with electronic diaries. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(6), 660–670.

38.

Hong

B. S.

(2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209–226.

39.

Jabareen-Taha

Taha

(2016). Learning disabilities: Current policy and directions for community involvement among the Arab community in Israel. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(14), 1279–1287.

40.

Jabbarin

Aghbariya

(2010). Education on hold: Government policy and civil initiatives for Arab education in Israel [in Hebrew]. Nazareth, Israel: Dirasat, the Arab Center for Law and Policy/Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa.

41.

Karni-Vizer

Reiter

(2010). Israeli Arab teachers’ attitudes on inclusion of students with disabilities [in Hebrew]. ISEI: Issues in Special Education & Inclusion, 25(2), 35–45.

42.

Kasam

(1999). The impact of level of religiosity on attitudes toward people with disabilities among Arab and Jewish youth. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

43.

Khouri

(2017). Attitudes toward learning disabilities in higher education: A comparative study between Arabic and Hebrew speaking lecturers and students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel.

44.

Lane

S. J.

Heddle

N. M.

Arnold

Walker

(2006). A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6(1), 23.

45.

Leyser

Greenberger

(2008). College students with disabilities in teacher education: Faculty attitudes and practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(3), 237–251.

46.

Leyser

Romi

(2008). Religion and attitudes of college preservice teachers toward students with disabilities: Implications for higher education. Higher Education, 55(6), 703–717.

47.

Leyser

Vogel

Wyland

Brulle

Sharoni

Vogel

(2003). American and Israeli faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with learning disabilities: A cross-cultural study. In Vogel

S. A.

Vogel

Sharoni

Dhanan

(Eds.), Learning disabilities in higher education and beyond: An international perspective (pp. 201–225). Baltimore, MD: York Press.

48.

Lifshitz

Glaubman

Issawi

(2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 171–190.

49.

Lightfoot

Janemi

Rudman

D. L.

(2018). Perspectives of North American postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A scoping review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(1), 57–74.

50.

MacMillan

Tarrant

Abraham

Morris

(2014). The association between children's contact with people with disabilities and their attitudes towards disability: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56(6), 529–546.

51.

May

A. L.

Stone

C. A.

(2010). Stereotypes of individuals with learning disabilities: Views of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 483–499.

52.

McDougall

Dewit

D. J.

King

Miller

L. T.

Killip

(2004). High school-aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: The role of school and students’ interpersonal factors. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 287–313.

53.

Ministry of Education. (1997). The report of the professional committee for examining the potential achievement of students with learning disabilities in Israel [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/shefi/liikoheylemida/margalit1.pdf

54.

Ministry of Education. (2007). Inclusion program in general education for pupils with special needs [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/educationcms/applications/mankal/etsmedorim/1/1-2/horaotkeva/k-2008-3d-1-2-37.htm

55.

Ministry of Education. (2017). “From disability to learning”: The systemic treatment program for students with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Pedagogical Administration, Psychological Consultation Services, Department of Learning Disabilities and Attention Disorders.

56.

Murray

Flannery

B. K.

Wren

(2008). University staff members’ attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities and disability support services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 73–90.

57.

Nabuzoka

(2003). Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 307–321.

58.

Nalavany

B. A.

Carawan

L. W.

Rennick

R. A.

(2011). Psychosocial experiences associated with confirmed and self-identified dyslexia: A participant-driven concept map of adult perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 63–79.

59.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2016). National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/pdfs/njcld/NJCLDDefinitionofLD_2016.pdf

60.

Norwich

Kelly

(2004). Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research, 30(1), 43–65.

61.

Nugent

Smart

(2014). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in postsecondary students. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 10, 1781–1791.

62.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

63.

Rath

K. A.

Royer

J. M.

(2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 353–381.

64.

Roer-Strier

(2002). University students with learning disabilities advocating for change. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(17), 914–924.

65.

Rosenstreich

Feldman

D. B.

Davidson

O. B.

Maza

Margalit

(2015). Hope, optimism and loneliness among first-year college students with learning disabilities: A brief longitudinal study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(3), 338–350.

66.

Schiff

Shimoni

Portnoy

(2010). Students receiving accommodations for the matriculation examinations: Characteristics and achievements [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics, Department of Education and Teaching Forces.

67.

Shany

Weiner

Assido

(2013). Friendship predictors of global self-worth and domain-specific self-concepts in university students with and without learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(5), 444–452.

68.

Sharoni

Vogel

(1998). Attitudes of college faculty toward students with disabilities and in particular students with learning disabilities [in Hebrew]. Dapim, 27, 59–77.

69.

Shaviv

Binstein

Stone

Podam

(2013). Pluralism and equal opportunity in Higher education: Expanding the accessibility of academia to Arabs, Druze and Circassians in Israel. A report of the professional team of planning and budgeting committee [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: Council for Higher Education, Ministry of Education.

70.

Skinner

M. E.

Lindstrom

B. D.

(2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college: Strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(3), 132–137.

71.

Stack-Cutler

H. L.

Parrila

R. K.

Torppa

(2015). University students with reading difficulties: Do perceived supports and comorbid difficulties predict well-being and GPA? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 45–55.

72.

State Comptroller of Israel. (2011). The treatment of learning disabilities in higher education institutions in Israel (a report) [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/Reports/Report_114/d76cee23-ba25-4d27-82de-7adf3d8aa18a/8000.pdf

73.

Taya

(2017). Learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactive disorder in elementary schools in the Arab sector: Teachers’ knowledge, awareness, perception and behavior [in Hebrew]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

74.

Vaugh

Elbaum

Boardman

A. G.

(2001). The social functioning of children with learning disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9(1/2), 47–65.

75.

Vickerman

Blundell

(2010). Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education. Disability & Society, 25(1), 21–32.

76.

Voeltz

(1984). Effects of structured interaction with severely handicapped peers on children attitudes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 380–390.

77.

Walker

Sigouin

Sek

Almonte

Carruthers

Chan

Heddle

(2004). Comparing hand-held computers and paper diaries for haemophilia home therapy: A randomized trial. Haemophilia, 10(6), 698–704.

78.

Wilson

M. C.

Scior

(2014). Attitudes towards individuals with disabilities as measured by the Implicit Association Test: A literature review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 294–321.

79.

World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/

80.

Yuker

H. E.

(1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled person: Some empirical generalizations. In Yuker

H. E.

(Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 262–276). New York, NY: Springer.

81.

Zafrir

(2016). Attitudes towards student with disabilities in higher education: Is there any change? Education, Reflection and Development, 4, 640–647.

82.

Zaromatidis

Papadaki

Glide

(1999). A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Greeks and Greek-Americans. Psychological Report, 84, 1189–1196.

83.

Zumbrunn

McKim

Buhs

Hawley

L. R.

(2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science, 42(5), 661–684.