University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs

Abstract

Increasingly, young adults with autism spectrum disorder are attending 4-year universities. The transition to adulthood can be challenging for these students, and university life poses its own set of demands. The present article takes a mixed-methods approach by including two studies utilizing complementary methodologies. Through in-depth interviews with students with autism spectrum disorder (n = 13) and college professors (n = 18), the purpose of the first study was to evaluate the experiences and needs of college students with autism spectrum disorder and identify the knowledge that faculty members possessed about working with these students. Through survey methodology with a larger sample of faculty members (n = 132), the purpose of the second study was to obtain more information about faculty knowledge of autism spectrum disorder, and to learn whether their pedagogical practices accommodated students with autism spectrum disorder. Findings revealed that autism is often an “invisible” disability on campuses, and there are many things that professors need to know with regard to working with these students in particular. Implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

adulthood autism spectrum disorder college mixed-methodology postsecondary university faculty

Young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are increasingly attending college (Shattuck et al., 2012). These students often face social and mental health challenges, and intervention may be required for a successful transition into university life (Jackson et al., 2017; VanBergeijk et al., 2008; Zeedyk et al., 2016). Few data-driven programs have been designed to increase understanding of the unique academic needs of this college-going population, particularly in light of the increasingly neurodiverse populations on campuses. Neurodiversity, simply put, is a movement to recognize that neurological conditions, such as ASD, are normal variations of the human genome (Kapp et al., 2013). In response to increasing levels of neurodiversity on college campuses, our study aimed to evaluate the experiences and needs of college students with ASD and identify faculty members’ ASD knowledge and corresponding pedagogical practices.

Prevalence of college students with ASD

One in 68 children born in the United States today will have an ASD (Christensen et al., 2016). Many individuals with ASD have typical intelligence, and elect to pursue postsecondary education in preparation for careers and productive employment—for lives as close as possible to those of their non-ASD peers (Attwood, 2007; Howlin and Charman, 2011). Using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2), Newman et al. (2011) described postsecondary outcomes of individuals with ASD, reporting that 17.4% had attended a 4-year college. Also from the NLTS-2, Chiang et al. (2012) identified significant predictors of participation in postsecondary education, including attendance at a regular (versus special) high school, strong high school academic performance, high family income, and parental expectations. Beyond those students who come to college with an ASD diagnosis, White et al. (2011) found that there may be an additional 0.7%–1.9% of the student body who would meet diagnostic standards for ASD and, as such, may also be in need of specialized services.

Educational experiences and needs

Young adults with ASD need support to “survive” college (Anderson and Butt, 2017; MacLeod and Green, 2009). At the postsecondary level, most supports offered during the K-12 years are no longer available, assuming essential life skills have been learned (VanBergeijk et al., 2008). Accommodations at many college campuses present problems for students with ASD. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides support to college students with documented disabilities through student disabilities centers. However, disabilities centers are generally more informed about aiding students with physical or learning disabilities than those with ASD (Geller and Greenberg, 2010), for whom social, communication, and organizational supports are needed as much as academic ones (Jackson et al., 2017). These students may benefit from support groups of neurodiverse students (Smith, 2007), campus peer mentors (MacLeod and Green, 2009), and/or faculty support (Gobbo and Shmulsky, 2014).

Recently, there has been an increase in research focused on identifying the specific needs of this population in college, including samples of parents and students with ASD. Through focus groups, Cai and Richdale (2016) reported that students with ASD themselves felt educationally supported, though they often relied heavily on their parents for support. Contradicting students’ reports, however, parents reported that their youth with ASD had little educational support. Unplanned transition and delaying disclosure of diagnosis were common problems (Cai and Richdale, 2016). In another study, students reported that they felt academically supported, but simultaneously felt a lack of social-emotional support (Gelbar et al., 2015). Problems with self-advocacy, emotion regulation, adaptive skills, time management, and dealing with unexpected changes have also been identified (Anderson and Butt, 2017; Elias and White, 2017; Van Hees et al., 2015; White et al., 2016). In the first of the present two studies (Study 1), the experiences and needs of college students with ASD are reported, derived through in-depth interviews about their college experiences (e.g. use of disability services; interactions with members of the campus community).

Moreover, few colleges have programs specifically targeting students with ASD. For example, the Center for Students with Disabilities at the University of Connecticut has developed a first-year course specifically for students with ASD, involving social skills training and assistance in adapting to the college environment (Wenzel and Rowley, 2010). Recently, White et al. (2017) outlined the theoretical and research basis for the Stepped Transition Education Program for Students with ASD intervention, which is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Combined, the results of recent studies contribute significantly to the literature base; however, few studies have examined the perceptions of college professors with regard to these students’ needs. We aimed to fill this gap by also interviewing college professors.

College professors’ knowledge about ASD

Previous studies have investigated perceptions about students with ASD by surveying their typically developing college peers and found students with ASD to be stigmatized, misunderstood, and excluded (e.g. Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2015; Nevill and White, 2011). Yet, little is known about college professor’s perceptions about this particular growing population of college-goers. Researchers have stressed the importance of engaging with faculty members to understand their impressions of students with ASD (Wenzel and Rowley, 2010). However, no studies of college student–faculty relationships (STRs) have been published, despite scores of studies that attest to the importance of STRs in the K-12 years. Work focused on STRs in the early school years has demonstrated that STRs of students with developmental disabilities are often of a poorer quality—marked by more conflict and less closeness—than those with typically developing students (Blacher et al., 2009; Eisenhower et al., 2007). Those with ASD experienced the poorest STRs (Blacher et al., 2014; Eisenhower et al., 2015). Researchers working with non-ASD populations have also noted that high school students’ school engagement may relate to student success (Zyngier, 2008). Although definitions of engagement vary, they typically include positive STRs, as well as positive feelings about school (Aunola et al., 2000), positive classroom behaviors, and homework engagement and compliance (DeBaryshe et al., 1993). Academic engagement is positively associated with academic achievement (DeBaryshe et al., 1993) and negatively associated with interfering behavior problems characteristic of persons with ASD (Aunola et al., 2000). For college students with ASD, who face social difficulties, engagement with faculty may prove to make or break a successful college experience.

Although these students’ college success may depend a great deal on their relationships with individual faculty members, university faculty often lack knowledge and experience with their specific needs and the ADA (Dona and Edminster, 2001; Wenzel and Rowley, 2010). For example, Tipton and Blacher (2014) conducted a campus-wide survey at a 4-year university that asked students, faculty and staff questions pertaining to general knowledge about autism. Although the majority of participants correctly responded that the prevalence of autism is on the rise (>70%), most incorrectly attributed the increase to the (now debunked) theory of vaccine exposure. Most importantly, the survey revealed that campus members, including faculty respondents, had limited knowledge about autism (Tipton and Blacher, 2014). The present research expands upon these findings by targeting university faculty explicitly and asking questions about their teaching practices—first through in-depth interviews (Study 1) and then through survey methodology (Study 2)—with respect to working with students with disabilities (e.g. provision of disability services), their understanding of ASD, and their interactions with students with ASD.

Clinicians have made recommendations for faculty working with students with ASD. Examples include strategies for time management challenges and difficulty with assignment directions (e.g. following predictable routines, providing reminders, separating large assignments; Roberts, 2010) and accommodating particular learning styles (Freedman, 2010). Wolf et al. (2009) provided a guide for accommodations (e.g. asking students to repeat directions back in their own words, using students’ preoccupying interests to motivate). While many of these seem reasonable, we find no evidence that they were empirically derived, successful in educating faculty, or enhanced student outcomes. It would be helpful to identify faculty knowledge about ASD and to learn directly from faculty in a competitive 4-year research university about the help they believe students with ASD require to be successful, as well as what faculty need to be successful in interacting and teaching these students. Thus, we examined the experiences and needs of college students with ASD and university professors’ perceptions about working with them.

The present paper takes a mixed-methods approach by including two studies utilizing complementary methodologies. Through in-depth semi-structured interviews, the purpose of Study 1 was twofold: (1) to evaluate the experiences and needs of college students with ASD and (2) to identify the knowledge (or lack thereof) that faculty members possessed about working with these students. Through survey methodology, the purpose of Study 2 was to expand the second aim from Study 1 by targeting a larger sample of faculty members and learning more about their pedagogical practices.

Study 1—semi-structured interviews

Study 1 method

Participants

Participants (N = 31) included faculty members and students with ASD, all from 4-year universities in Southern California. Students (n = 13) were recruited through campus disabilities services, campus newspapers, fliers, email, and agencies/groups including adults with ASD. They were invited to share their college experiences by participating in semi-structured interviews. Students were included if they had a diagnosis of ASD and were currently attending, or had recently graduated (within a year), from a 4-year university either as an undergraduate or graduate student. Faculty (n = 18) were recruited through a campus-wide email inviting them to share their knowledge of ASD, and their experiences working with students in general and with students with ASD, specifically. Table 1 shows descriptive information about participants.

Table 1.

Participant descriptive information (Study 1).

	Faculty(n = 18)	Students with ASD(n = 13)
Mean Age (SD)	50.17 (12.11) (range: 30–70)	21.23 (2.62) (range: 17–27)
Gender
% male	66.7%	61.5%
Race:
Caucasian (non-Latino)	83.3%	61.5%
Latino	0.0%	15.4%
African American	0.0%	15.4%
Asian American	5.6%	7.7%
Bi/multiracial	0.0%	0.0%
Not disclosed	11.1%	0.0%
Major/field:
% STEM	50.0%	33.3%
% other	50.0%	66.7%
Mean # of years	18.28 (13.47)	3.35 (1.82)
Teaching/in college (SD)	(range: 1–40)	(range: 1–7)
Degree % undergradute	–	76.9%
Disclosure of diagnosis % yes	–	92.3%

ASD: autism spectrum disorder.

Procedures

All procedures were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Interview protocols for faculty and students were developed based on previous research and the study aims. Participants were interviewed individually for approximately 45 minutes, and provided with US$50 stipends. Interviewers were PhD students studying Special Education experienced in qualitative interviewing techniques and thoroughly trained in the study procedures; they were supervised by a senior faculty member. Interviews consisted of open- and closed-ended questions. To address our first aim, student interviews included topics such as the students’ experiences preparing for college, accessing disability services, managing courses, and interacting with professors and peers. To address our second aim, faculty interviews included questions that probed their knowledge about ASD, experiences working with students in general, and those with disabilities in particular, and their thoughts about what information would most benefit them when working with students with ASD. The inclusion of general questions helped build the necessary context and rapport to ask professors specifically about their experiences and/or knowledge of students with ASD (see Supplementary Materials Table A for sample questions).

Analysis

Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Two coders participated in a theme-based approach to content analysis. The coders began by independently identifying themes based on data patterns from a subsample of participant narratives. The coders then established themes and definitions for each code through extensive discussion. Inter-coder reliability was calculated for half (n = 15) of the interviews as the percent of agreement on participant statements relevant to the research aims, and the percent agreement on specific identified themes (Lombard et al., 2002). The two coders agreed 90% on the participant statements selected as relevant and 77% on the specific themes. On areas of disagreement, they discussed the relevance and thematic content of the participants’ statement until 100% agreement was established. Researchers drew from 660 participant statements to address the research aims.

Participant statements from the interviews are cited in the results below using the following conventions: (1) some non-relevant words were omitted for brevity, (2) explanatory information was added by author: [text], (3) fillers used in colloquial speech (e.g. “um,” “like”) were removed for readability, and (4) identifying information was removed for confidentiality.

Study 1 results

Overlapping themes

Overlapping themes were those in common across student and faculty participants. Some themes emanating from the data were unexpected (i.e. not a direct result of the questions), and some were in direct response to specific questions. We identified the following four overlapping themes.

Invisible disability

Participants in both groups addressed the issue of autism as an invisible disability, suggesting that it was “undetectable.” This was unrelated to any specific question asked as part of the interview protocol. For example, when describing a colleague, one faculty member shared,

We had a faculty meeting in the fall, and I was talking to this faculty member … he flatly said to me, “I’m not sure what to do about students with disabilities. I had some student come up to me with a form wanting to have me sign it so they could use the disability services,” and he looked at that student and thought to himself, “that person doesn’t look disabled, why should I sign this form?” … and, to me, that is just an incredibly naïve and offensive and disturbing mentality to have. That somebody actually thinks they’re an expert to visually assess a person, whether they have a disability or not.

One student participant explained, “It’s difficult to explain these issues to other people when they don’t see an actual problem, because when you’re diagnosed with mild autism on the spectrum, people don’t understand that you actually need help with some things.” Another disclosed, “I’m so high-functioning socially that people would never guess I had autism … I feel like when I ask for services people are going to think I’m lying or I’m not really autistic.”

Disability services

In direct discussions about disability services offered on campus, several subthemes emerged. The first subtheme, we must work with the services that are available, spoke to the appropriateness of services for students with ASD. For example, a faculty member stated, “The time and a half is a very perfunctory approach to dealing with a disability. It’s like the magic bullet. Oh, we’ll give you 1.5 times to complete your exam.”

A student said, “Most of the disability services seemed to be around physical disability rather than mental health.” Another student explained,

Officially, I’m allowed to record lectures. I am also allowed time-and-a-half on my examinations. Just the nature of how I do work; I do it very slowly compared to other people. So, when I am expected to do in-class essays, that becomes a large problem.

The second subtheme under disability services, extra/unofficial accommodations, included things that faculty did for students that went beyond the scope of what is required by the ADA. One professor explained, “I went on the Internet, and I’m finding all this stuff about elementary school students … I finally found 32 tips for teaching an Asperger student and it’s—32 is a bit much—it’s a little overwhelming.”

The final subtheme, interactions with student services/regarding student services, included statements about interactions students or faculty had with disability service staff. For example, one student stated, “[Student services] have been pretty helpful, definitely. To tell you the truth, I would’ve flunked out if it wasn’t for them.” Professors shared similar sentiments. One described student services as, “totally transparent.” Another, describing the process of working with the office, said, “I have great confidence. It has always worked very smoothly.”

Knowledge

In response to specific questions about what professors knew, participants spoke to the understanding that people on campus had regarding students with ASD; this topic included two subthemes. The first subtheme, things professors know/need to know, comprised statements about faculty knowledge (or lack thereof). For example, one professor explained,

I never really had access to information in a way that would help me become a better teacher. So, I think that outreach efforts to be able to increase awareness about [the] autism spectrum, and not only raise awareness of autism, but also what kinds of resources are available within the campus, the community, and also information on any kind of evidence-based best teaching strategies or what people have used in the past to accommodate [would be helpful].

The second subtheme, things people (in the broader campus community) know/need to know, comprised statements that related to the knowledge of other people on campus. One student shared,

I did have someone at housing ask me if I was taking any medication or to ask what my disability was … I’m like, I don’t have to tell you. It’s the law. Why are you asking me … I don’t wanna talk about it with you.

Interactions

The last theme included descriptions about direct interactions—positive or negative—between students and their professors. This theme arose in response to both direct and indirect lines of questioning. One professor, sharing an example of a positive interaction, described a student with disclosed Asperger’s syndrome. The student was reluctant when it came to group work and attempted to do everything individually, despite the professor’s instructions to work with peers. The professor explained how he was able to encourage the student to work with others,

He was making a lot more progress [individually] than [his classmates] were … I came by once, and I said, “Wow, you’re doing a lot better than they are.” …The next time I said, “You did really well last time all by yourself; they could really use your help.” I don’t know, I think I saw the corner of his mouth turn up just a little bit.

Some described negative interactions, however, including examples such as one in which a professor was unwilling to speak with a student regarding an issue with an exam accommodation that affected his grade. The student explained,

Because of some scheduling issues, my accommodation ran over into my next final, and because I was rushing and trying to get everything done, I basically didn’t notice one of the questions on the exam. The pages stuck together, and I wasn’t able to take enough time to notice … the professor was absolutely unwilling to do anything about it. She refused to even check to see if it would make a difference between an A and A- … she was profoundly lacking in any understanding whatsoever, and this is very much reflective of her attitude during the entire course.

Themes unique to faculty

There were two themes that were unique to faculty participants, both emanating from specific questions about why they volunteered for participation in our study, if they knew someone with autism, and whether they would participate in a training if one were made available.

Interest in autism

The first theme was professors’ interest in autism. For some, the interest was personal in nature. For example, one professor disclosed,

My wife is a clinical psychologist, and my son was learning disabled and ADHD. He had a really hard time in high school. And, in fact, you see things in him that are spectrum phenomenon, without any question … We were told that he shouldn’t go to regular college, and he said, “screw that,” and went and graduated in four years.

For other professors, the interest was more professional in nature. For example, one professor described,

I wanted to participate [in the study] because I know very little about autism…It made me think there might be a time when I have a student, or I have had a student who maybe falls within the spectrum of autism disorders, and I may not have been prepared … It’s an opportunity to begin to actually think about this.

Education/training in autism

The final theme included statements about a desire for further training around autism. One professor explained,

[Professional development] would definitely be helpful because I have very little understanding of—beyond knowing what their symptoms are—I do not have an interaction situation with them in a classroom setting. So, just hearing other peoples’ experiences and how they adjusted might really be helpful.

Table 2 summarizes the frequency with which faculty and student participants endorsed the themes described above. Both groups most frequently made statements that fell under the subtheme “things professors know/need to know.” For the faculty participants, the next two most frequently discussed areas included “interactions with/regarding student services” and “autism is an invisible disability.” For the student participants, “things people (in the broader campus community) need to know” and “disability services” were also frequently discussed.

Table 2.

Semi-structured interviews (Study 1): percentage of themes endorsed.

	Faculty (n = 18)	Students with ASD (n = 13)
1 Invisible disability	11.8%	13.0%
2.1 Disability services	6.5%	14.9%
2.2 Extra accommodations	5.3%	5.7%
2.3 Interactions with/regarding student services	12.1%	8.4%
3.1 Things professors know/need to know	29.9%	23.2%
3.2 Things people know/need to know	6.5%	18.7%
4.1 Positive interactions	8.3%	10.3%
4.2 Negative interactions	6.0%	5.7%
5 Interest in autism	8.0%	–
6 Education/training in autism	5.5%	–

ASD: autism spectrum disorder.

Study 2—faculty survey

Study 2 method

Participants

Survey participants (N = 132) included faculty at a research university in Southern California. Participants were 50% male with a mean age of 50.12 (standard deviation (SD) = 12.33). Seventy-seven percent identified as White (non-Latino), 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% Latino, 2% African American, 5% Multiracial, and 3% other. Eighty-five percent held a doctorate-level degree and 14% a master’s-level degree. The majority of respondents (38%) were full professors, 3% were emeritus-level, 19% were associate-level, 23% were assistant-level, 9% were adjunct faculty, and 8% were teaching assistants. The average years of experience teaching at the college level was 18.17 (SD = 12.55).

We recruited professors/teaching faculty from all colleges within the university through campus-wide faculty emails, including engineering (5%), humanities and social sciences (52%), sciences (24%), business (4%), education (11%), and medicine (4%). The email invited faculty to participate in an anonymous survey aimed at understanding how faculty might work with students with ASD. The survey was administered through Qualtrics software. Our response rate was 15%.

Procedures

All procedures were approved through the University’s Institutional Review Board. We developed the survey to target a broader range of faculty participants based on the interview questions and qualitative responses we obtained from faculty participants in Study 1. In addition to 10 demographic questions (e.g. sex, race, university-level), the survey posed 39 questions (i.e. Likert-type, yes/no, and open-ended) about a variety of topics, such as the professor’s teaching style, knowledge of ASD, knowledge about/provision of disability services and understanding of college students with ASD.

Three optional questions allowed faculty respondents to type open-ended responses. These included the following: (1) Is there anything more you would be willing to share regarding your experiences working with students with autism? (n = 42 responses), (2) Is there anything more you would be willing to share regarding your experiences working with student disability services? (n = 34 responses), and (3) Is there anything else you would like to share? (n = 20 responses). To code the open-ended responses, we discussed the initial three responses for each question and determined that similar themes were emerging as in the interviews described in Study 1. Coders independently coded the remaining open-ended responses, and met for consensus and to assess reliability. Inter-coder reliability was calculated for half of the open-ended responses as the percent of agreement on identified themes (77%). On areas of disagreement, we discussed the theme until 100% agreement was established.

Study 2 results

Personal/professional connection to ASD

A series of yes/no questions asked faculty about any connections they had to ASD. Two respondents answered “yes” when asked if they had ever been diagnosed as having ASD, and 25% indicated that someone in their family had been diagnosed with ASD (of those, 35% had a diagnosed child, 6% a sibling, 59% an extended family member, and 6% did not want to disclose). When asked about having students with ASD in their classes, 44% indicated that they had had a self-disclosed student, and 79% had suspected that they had had a student with ASD.

Teaching practices

The next set of questions asked faculty about their teaching practices. Under half (45%) indicated that they included a statement about disability services on their syllabus, and 86% indicated that they had been approached by a student with documentation from student disabilities services. When asked if they made an announcement in class at the beginning of the quarter about disability services, the majority (60%) responded “no.” When asked if they had ever questioned/doubted the validity of a student’s diagnosis or request for accommodations, 8% answered “yes,” and 7% indicated that they had asked students specifically what their disability was. While the majority (88%) agreed that they would be willing to participate in a training designed to help university faculty understand and accommodate students with ASD, 12% answered “no,” they would not be willing to do so. Faculty were also asked about specific teaching methods used (see Supplementary Materials Table B).

Student disability services

Furthermore, Likert-type scale questions specific to disability services asked faculty to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a number of statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). When asked if students with autism should disclose their disability to student disability services, 47% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 46% agreed or strongly agreed. The majority agreed (28%) or strongly agreed (67%) that students with autism should have access to accommodations, and almost all (98%) indicated that they felt obligated to provide accommodations to students who provide appropriate documentation. While the majority indicated that they understood the role of disability services (75% agreed or strongly agreed), 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Students with ASD in the classroom

Other Likert-type scale questions asked specifically about having with students with ASD in the classroom. Most of the respondents either agreed (56%) or strongly agreed (29%) when asked if they felt comfortable with students with ASD in their classroom. When asked if college students with ASD should be expected to interact with other students in the classroom setting, about half either agreed or strongly agreed (47%), but several disagreed or strongly disagreed (18%). Most respondents indicated that they would consider allowing a student with ASD to work in their lab/research team (78% agreed or strongly agreed).

Responses to the three open-ended questions revealed the same themes as in Study 1 with the addition of one new subtheme under “Disability Services,”—“Difficulties/Issues Providing Services.” Table 3 provides example quotes for each theme endorsed, and Table 4 summarizes the percentage of themes endorsed for each of the open-ended questions.

Table 3.

Example quotes across themes endorsed by faculty (Study 2).

1 Invisible disability	“I have no idea which students in my classes have had autism, I am simply assuming based on the frequency in the population and the # of students I teach that I must have had some. I don’t care whether they do or don’t, just if they can learn my subject.”
2.1 Disability services	“They [disabilities services] are ok—sometimes they don’t fit into our needs for getting exams back, etc., as well as they could; have a 1-size-fits-all mentality.”
2.2 Extra accommodations	“I’ve discovered that some teaching practices that might help students with autism can be helpful for students without autism. For example, I’m trying to get in the habit of writing the hour’s plan on the board every day we meet. I’ve already managed to slow down the pace so that I’m not talking so fast.”
2.3 Interactions with/regarding: Student services	“I’ve used them once, and they were excellent. Knowledgeable and supportive to both the student and me. They coached me through some difficulties I was having with the student, and affirmed that I was on the right track in the way I was dealing with him.”
2.4 Difficulties/Issues providing services	“Seem very quick to allow people to claim stress/anxiety disorders. Note that these services require extra time and effort by teachers, but no extra resources for teachers. With more people being given special accommodation, something has to change.“
2.4 Difficulties/Issues providing services	“There have been times when they were totally unwilling to provide rooms to students, even when there were rooms available, because the student didn’t ask 7 days in advance. I think this is horrendous and unforgivable. Many of these students are reluctant to ask for help, and when the student services unit is punitive it only reinforces the student’s idea that they are different in a negative way.”
3.1 Knowledge	“I have learned ways to manage the field work environment with one A-spectrum [student] … I would welcome guidance on handling a field class with two or more A-spectrum students. The statistics suggest that we must expect this soon. My current coping strategies would not readily stretch to more than one challenged student, unless they were willing teammates.”
4.1 Positive interactions	“I remember one very bright student who I interpreted as being overly rigid. She exploded at Walt Whitman, for example, because his poems didn’t have regular meter and rhyme. She insisted that poems must have both of those things–though of course historically they don’t. On another occasion she took a discussion down a side route…When she told me she had been diagnosed as having Asperger’s, things clicked for me. I felt remiss in not understanding the situation before. Things got much better from that point forward. I think she and I both adjusted our ways of reacting to accommodate the other. She was an excellent student.”
4.2 Negative interactions	“For students who need accommodation, or simply those whose behavior will seem significantly different in the classroom, notifying the teacher early in the quarter would be very helpful. I had a student several years ago who self-identified as Asperger’s, but only in the 9th week. His periodic disruptions and attention difficulties would have been easier to understand and respond to if I had known why, and I would have been more patient and supportive (instead of annoyed).”
5 Interest in autism	“My spouse works with special needs children at the elementary level, which has increased my awareness and sensitivity to issues faced by people with autism spectrum disorder and other special needs beyond that of most other faculty I interact with.”
6 Education/Training in autism	“Some of the best writers I’ve had the chance to work with in class have self-identified. I feel lucky to work with such bright young people, and I hate the stigma they often have to deal with from faculty who don’t understand the spectrum. I welcome a training program so that I can learn more about how to make my students comfortable with and productive in their learning environment.”

Table 4.

Survey (Study 2): percentage of themes endorsed across optional open-ended questions.

	Is there anything more you would be willing to share regarding your experiences working with students with autism? (n = 42)	Is there anything more you would be willing to share regarding your experiences working with student services (disability services)? (n = 34)	Is there anything else you would like to share? (n = 20)
1 Invisible disability	29.5%	6.5%	13.3%
2.1 Disability services	3.2%	19.6%	13.3%
2.2 Extra accommodations	11.5%	2.2%	13.3%
2.3 Interactions with/regarding: student services	1.6%	43.5%	0%
2.4 Difficulties/Issues providing services	9.8%	15.2%	6.7%
3.1 Things Professors know/need to know	21.3%	8.7%	20.0%
4.1 Positive interactions	3.3%	0%	13.3%
4.2 Negative interactions	4.9%	2.2%	0%
5 Interest in autism	9.8%	0%	6.7%
6 Education/Training in autism	4.9%	2.2%	13.3%

Discussion

We garnered several major findings across the two studies. Through in-depth interviews in Study 1, students shared detailed accounts of their college experiences, and faculty revealed their level of knowledge about working with these students. Both students with ASD and faculty frequently described ASD as an “invisible” disability. Several faculty noted that they were unaware if they had ever taught students with ASD. This was attributed to the fact that even students who requested disabilities services most often did not reveal the nature of their disability. Some students admitted that they were afraid to utilize services for fear that the validity of their requests would be questioned. This finding highlights the importance of raising campus awareness about students with ASD. Although their symptoms may not be obvious, they certainly influence their daily functioning (Milton, 2012) and can even place them at higher risk of not participating in college than those with more obvious problems (Shattuck et al., 2012).

Furthermore, participants in the first study revealed several things about the use of disability services on campuses. Faculty and students both noted that the services offered were often generic, catering to those with more common disabilities, such as learning/physical disabilities. With increasing numbers of students with ASD attending college (Shattuck et al., 2012; White et al., 2011), educational and organizational supports may need to be enhanced for this growing population and the faculty who teach them (Anderson and Butt, 2017; Gobbo and Shmulsky, 2014; Van Hees et al., 2015). While disability services centers are responsible for informing students of the available accommodations, faculty serve as the conduit for providing such supports in college classrooms and labs. Despite the lack of services specific to ASD-related symptoms (e.g. anxiety, rigidity), many faculty and student participants commented on the helpfulness of campus disabilities services staff, and students with ASD often disclosed how important services were to them.

Our results also revealed that some faculty were willing to go above and beyond what is required through ADA to assist students. For example, a few participants described how, when encountering a student with ASD, they searched for strategies for working with them. Others specified strategies employed to help all of their students that may have been particularly helpful to those with ASD (e.g. providing a daily schedule, allowing students the choice of working independently rather than in groups). The willingness of faculty to be flexible and to provide accommodations beyond those required is important. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of information about ASD was overwhelming for some of our participants, even though faculty by training are experts in finding and deducing relevant information. Certainly, even with the surplus of training required among faculty in universities (e.g. sexual harassment, data security), our finding that the majority of faculty interviewed were interested in and willing to participate in specific training around these issues indicates the need for professional development in this area, at least on an optional basis.

Although ASD may be often considered “invisible” in the campus environment, the faculty participants in this study frequently identified connections to individuals with ASD, either personal or professional. Some faculty participants specified that they had family members with ASD, or that they had had students with ASD in their classes; some even suspected that they had colleagues on the spectrum. It was encouraging that faculty anticipated that they would encounter individuals on the spectrum at some point, and that they should be aware of how to best work with this population of students.

Despite positive findings, one salient theme revealed a lack of knowledge among some faculty members. For example, a number of faculty participants disclosed that they had limited understanding about problems faced by this population of students and needed to learn about “best practices” for accommodating them. Even with existing anecdotal and clinical recommendations available (Roberts, 2010; Wolf et al., 2009), limited data-driven studies exist that identify evidence-based strategies for faculty working with college students with ASD. Future research into the efficacy of interventions provided specifically to those with ASD by faculty and/or disability services is warranted. Indeed, some of our faculty participants even criticized the current services offered to those with ASD, deeming them, “perfunctory” or “one-size-fits-all” approaches.

Beyond a lack of faculty knowledge, participants also discussed ASD knowledge of the broader campus community. For example, student participants discussed knowledge of others in the context of interacting with roommates, people in housing services, and peers in their classes. Furthermore, some faculty participants talked about peer interactions in the classroom. Just as faculty could benefit from increased knowledge and understanding, interviews revealed that people in the broader campus community could also be educated to reduce biases. This is in line with the research with typically developing peers on campuses that has shown misinformation about, and exclusion of, individuals with ASD in campus environments (Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2015; Nevill and White, 2011).

Finally, in the first study, participants described professor–student interactions, both positive and negative. For example, professors described situations where they were able to connect with students with ASD and how these students did impressive coursework. Students with ASD described similar instances, such as their enjoyment in a particular professor’s course, or how they benefited from a particular connection (e.g. working in a research lab). Unfortunately, negative interactions were also discussed, such as professors’ reluctance to alleviate students’ difficulties in less predictable classroom settings (e.g. science lab courses). Promoting positive interactions, and minimizing negative ones, may be critical to students’ success and academic engagement.

The purpose of the second study was to expand upon the first by capturing a broader range of faculty respondents to better understand their knowledge of, and pedagogical practices related to working with, students with ASD. Consistent with findings in the first study, survey results revealed that many participants had connections to individuals with ASD. As in the first study, participants had a general understanding of the utility of student disabilities services. Despite this, the majority of faculty surveyed in Study 2 did not include a statement about the use of services in their syllabi, nor did they make an announcement about them at the start of their classes. This finding is discouraging, given that students with disabilities who use support services are more likely to have retention and graduation rates similar to their non-disabled peers (Wessel et al., 2009).

In addition, in Study 2, the majority of respondents indicated comfort with having students with ASD in their classrooms and/or their lab/research teams. Involvement in hands-on experiences, such lab involvement, has been shown to be positively associated with student engagement and success (Kuh, 2008; Lopatto, 2010). For students with ASD in particular, involvement in a research lab may build interpersonal skills beyond what would be expected in a classroom. Finally, faculty participants indicated that more education and resources should be available to increase professors’ understanding of how to best work with students with ASD.

Limitations and future directions

Through these two studies, we were able to learn new perspectives on faculty awareness of college students with ASD. However, these methods are not without limitations. First, the majority of faculty respondents in both studies were recruited through campus-wide emails. This self-selection, while present in many studies, limits the generalizability of the results. Those who volunteered their time may have had more motivation to understand and help students with ASD than those who did not. Second, given the social deficits core to ASD, we cannot assume that all possible students with ASD participated. Third, while our faculty survey and student interview samples were ethnically diverse and representative of the population, the faculty interviewed in Study 1 were not as diverse as we had hoped. Additional studies including a broader sampling of faculty and students with ASD are warranted. Researchers should target multiple universities and explore different avenues for reaching students (e.g. reaching out to video game clubs or peer mentor programs). In the future, we will not only aim to recruit more diverse samples, we will also expand this work by developing training modules explicitly focused on helping faculty better understand and educate neurodiverse populations. Furthermore, we will test the efficacy of faculty practices on outcomes among students with ASD.

Conclusion

The take away from these two studies is the necessity for university faculty to be better equipped to work with the growing population of college students with ASD. While ASD is often described as an “invisible” disability, faculty members appear to be aware that these students may be in their classes. Despite this awareness, some highlighted a lack of knowledge with regard to how to accommodate their needs. Other professors were willing to provide accommodations, but they were not necessarily proactive about doing so. Student comments suggested agreement with this situation. A major benefit of increasing awareness of the potential issues faced by those with ASD is that students with related disabilities may also benefit. For example, improved classroom structure and clearer communication would benefit students with other neurodevelopmental disorders or mental health problems (e.g. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety). While we cannot expect all faculty to be experts in ASD, our findings indicate the need to bring the concept of neurodiversity to the forefront in college classrooms.

Supplemental Material

AUT774148_Lay_Abstract – Supplemental material for University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs

Supplemental material, AUT774148_Lay_Abstract for University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs by Sasha M Zeedyk, Yasamine Bolourian and Jan Blacher in Autism

Supplemental Material

AUT774148_Supplementary_material – Supplemental material for University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs

Supplemental material, AUT774148_Supplementary_material for University life with ASD: Faculty knowledge and student needs by Sasha M Zeedyk, Yasamine Bolourian and Jan Blacher in Autism

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding from the American College Health Foundation, the SEARCH Family Autism Resource Center and Academic Senate intramural funding from the University of California, Riverside. We appreciate the time and effort contributed by all study participants.

References

Anderson

Butt

(2017) Young adults on the autism spectrum at college: successes and stumbling blocks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(10): 3029–2039.

Attwood

(2007) The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Aunola

Stattin

Nurmi

(2000) Adolescents’ achievement strategies, school adjustment, and externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29(3): 289–306.

Blacher

Baker

Eisenhower

(2009) Student–teacher relationship stability across early school years for children with intellectual disability or typical development. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 114(5): 322–339.

Blacher

Howell

Lauderdale-Littin

et al . (2014) Autism spectrum disorder and the student teacher relationship: a comparison study with peers with intellectual disability and typical development. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8(3): 324–333.

Cai

Richdale

(2016) Educational experiences and needs of higher education students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46(1): 31–41.

Chiang

Cheung

Hickson

et al . (2012) Predictive factors of participation in postsecondary education for high school leavers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42(5): 685–696.

Christensen

Bilder

Zahorodny

et al . (2016) Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among 4-year-old children in the autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 37(1): 1–8.

DeBaryshe

Patterson

Capaldi

(1993) A performance model for academic achievement in early adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology 29(5): 795–804.

10.

Dona

Edminster

(2001) An examination of community college faculty members’ knowledge of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at the fifteen community colleges in Mississippi. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 14(2): 91–103.

11.

Eisenhower

Bush

Blacher

(2015) Student-teacher relationships and early school adaptation of children with ASD: a conceptual framework. Journal of Applied School Psychology 31(3): 256–296.

12.

Eisenhower

Baker

Blacher

(2007) Early student–teacher relationships of children with and without intellectual disability: contributions of behavioral, social, and self-regulatory competence. Journal of School Psychology 45(4): 363–383.

13.

Elias

White

(2017) Autism goes to college: understanding the needs of a student population on the rise. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 48: 732–746.

14.

Freedman

(2010) Developing College Skills in Students with Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

15.

Gelbar

Shefcyk

Reichow

(2015) A comprehensive survey of current and former college students with autism spectrum disorders. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 88(1): 45–68.

16.

Geller

Greenberg

(2010) Managing the transition process from high school to college and beyond: challenges for individuals, families, and society. Social Work in Mental Health 8(1): 92–116.

17.

Gillespie-Lynch

Brooks

Someki

et al . (2015) Changing college students’ conceptions of autism: an online training to increase knowledge and decrease stigma. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45(8): 2553–2566.

18.

Gobbo

Shmulsky

(2014) Faculty experience with college students with autism spectrum disorders: a qualitative study of challenges and solutions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 29(1): 13–22.

19.

Howlin

Charman

(2011) Autism spectrum disorders: interventions and outcome. In: Howlin

Charman

Ghaziuddin

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Developmental Disorders. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp.307–328.

20.

Jackson

Hart

Brown

et al . (2017) Brief report: self-reported academic, social, and mental health experiences of post-secondary students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 48: 643–650.

21.

Kapp

Gillespie-Lynch

Sherman

et al . (2013) Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology 49(1): 59–71.

22.

Kuh

(2008) Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Report, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC.

23.

Lombard

Snyder-Duch

Bracken

(2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28(4): 587–604.

24.

Lopatto

(2010) Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review 12(2): 27.

25.

MacLeod

Green

(2009) Beyond the books: case study of a collaborative and holistic support model for university students with Asperger’s syndrome. Studies in Higher Education 34(6): 631–646.

26.

Milton

(2012) On the ontological status of autism: the “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society 27(6): 883–887.

27.

Nevill

White

(2011) College students’ openness toward autism spectrum disorders: improving peer acceptance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 41(12): 1619–1628.

28.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

et al . (2011) The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: a report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER 2011-3005. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

29.

Roberts

(2010) Topic areas to consider when planning transition from high school into postsecondary education for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 25(3): 158–162.

30.

Shattuck

Narendorf

Cooper

et al . (2012) Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics 129(6): 1042–1049.

31.

Smith

(2007) Support services for students with Asperger syndrome in higher education. College Student Journal 41(3): 515–521.

32.

Tipton

Blacher

(2014) Brief report, autism awareness: views from a campus community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 44(2): 477–483.

33.

Van Hees

Moyson

Roeyers

(2015) Higher education experiences of students with autism spectrum disorder: challenges, benefits and support needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45(6): 1673–1688.

34.

VanBergeijk

Klin

Volkmar

(2008) Supporting more able students on the autism spectrum: college and beyond. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38(7): 1359.

35.

Wenzel

Rowley

(2010) Teaching social skills and academic strategies to college students with Asperger’s syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children 42(5): 44–50.

36.

Wessel

Jones

Markle

et al . (2009) Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 21(3): 116–125.

37.

White

Elias

Capriola-Hall

et al . (2017) Development of a college transition and support program for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(10): 3072–3078.

38.

White

Elias

Salinas

et al . (2016) Students with autism spectrum disorder in college: results from a preliminary mixed methods needs analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities 56: 29–40.

39.

White

Ollendick

Bray

(2011) College students on the autism spectrum: prevalence and associated problems. Autism 15(6): 683–701.

40.

Wolf

Brown

Bork

GRK

(2009) Students with Asperger Syndrome: A Guide for College Personnel. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing.

41.

Zeedyk

Tipton

Blacher

(2016) Educational supports for high functioning youth with ASD: the postsecondary pathway to college. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 31(1): 37–48.

42.

Zyngier

(2008) (Re)conceptualising student engagement: doing education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(7): 1765–1776.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB

0.32 MB