The influence of reasons for attending university on university experience: A comparison between students with and without disabilities

The influence of reasons for going to university

The purpose of this study is to investigate, relative to their non-disabled peers, the reasons why students with disabilities choose to go to university and how these reasons impact their student experience once they get there in terms of coping, academic ability beliefs, adaptation, and grades. Considerable research indicates that the reasons why students choose to go to university change over time and are related to parental education, preparedness for higher education, and persistence in university (Allen et al., 2008; Bui, 2002; Henderson-King and Smith, 2006; Wang et al., 2009). No doubt, students go to university for multiple reasons, both internal and external. Internal reasons often include going for higher educations’ intrinsic value, to discover life options, liking learning, to make better life decisions, experience courses, and for challenge. External factors often include going to university to please family, earn others’ respect, prove they can do it, others’ expectations, secure a well-paid job, play varsity sports, and delay responsibility.

The diversity of students going to university has increased in the last few decades as universities open their doors to students from wider segments of society, effectively doubling the number of students attending university in many countries (Hornsby and Osama, 2014; Prudence and Li-Tien, 2013; Rossi, 2010). In most countries, higher education is encouraged for those non-traditional students previously and frequently excluded; non-traditional students include those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, older students, first-generation students (first in their family to go to university), and students with disabilities. Access to higher education offers non-traditional students economic opportunities (Hornsby and Osama, 2014). Offering access to non-traditional students also offers opportunities for traditional students to learn about diversity in an increasingly globalized economy where understanding diversity might benefit future employment (Logue, 2007). Many barriers exist for non-traditional students in university settings, including inadequate preparation, financial issues, concurrent employment that takes them from their studies, family issues, and transportation issues (Zafft, 2008). These barriers can affect student performance.

Many indicators of student performance have been examined for both traditional and non-traditional students. Traditional student performance is influenced by employment, university entrance grades, self-efficacy, and university integration (McKenzie and Schweitzer, 2010). While these indicators impact grades in non-traditional students, understanding outcomes for non-traditional students is complex. For example, high-school entrance grades do not well predict success in older students. In addition, long hours of employment negatively affect full-time undergraduate student success but less affect part-time students, many who are non-traditional students. Furthermore, age itself negatively impacts student performance, but this impact is minimal if older students have less need for university integration and a strong career focus (McKenzie and Schweitzer, 2010). Given the barriers that exist for going to university in non-traditional students and the complexity of their life circumstances on their university success, it is not surprising that their reasons for going to university may differ from traditional students. Several researchers have shown that while both traditional and non-traditional students share many reasons for going to university (e.g. to secure a well-paying job; Moogan et al., 1999), the life experiences of non-traditional students do influence some of their reasons for going to university. For example, Phinney et al. (2006) find that students from ethnically diverse and lower socioeconomic backgrounds often choose to go to university as a way to help their family and to prove their self-worth. Bui (2002) finds first-generation students (students whose parents did not attend higher education) uniquely go to university to bring honor to their family or help their family financially. Given that life experience seems to influence reasons to go to university in the first place, it is reasonable to believe the reasons students with disabilities choose to go to university may also reflect their experience and academic goals.

Understanding the reasons students go to university is important because these reasons are linked to learned resourcefulness—a skill set that assists individuals to cope with everyday stress and setbacks. Learned resourcefulness includes the ability to independently problem solve, delay gratification, use positive self-statements when faced with challenges, and understand the effort needed to succeed (Rosenbaum, 1990). Learned resourcefulness applied to academic studies is called academic resourcefulness, which is the self-control coping skills that aid in the management of the demands of academic study, including managing failures and balancing competing demands. Students with high and low learned and academic resourcefulness experience similar levels of stress, but those with lower resourcefulness are less able to control stress, which can lead to poorer academic performance (Akgun and Ciarrochi, 2003). Students having more internal reasons for going to university are more academically resourceful, and also show higher adjustment to university once they get there, and report higher grades (Kennett et al., 2013).

Reasons for going to university are also reflected in student persistence at university, and researchers have found this too differs between traditional and non-traditional students, reflecting their life experiences. Xuereb (2014) shows that traditional students often cite failing course work for doubting their abilities to go on in university, whereas non-traditional students (older students in Xuereb’s study) often cite financial pressures, competing demands, and other competing priorities for doubting their ability to continue. In both groups, these doubting students say that they continue with their studies because of their original reasons for going to university in the first place. Christie et al. (2004) find that the reasons students do withdraw from school frequently include poor course choice, poor social support, and the feeling that they do not fit in. Gulardi and Guglielmetti (2011) find that non-traditional students who drop out of school are less likely to use student services and are less likely to socially engage in their classes and with classmates. The findings cited from these papers suggest that persistence and drop-out may reflect student experience which differs between traditional and non-traditional students.

University experience of students with disabilities

One group of students at risk of dropping out of university is those with disabilities (Okeeffe, 2013). Okeeffe (2013) argues that dropping out of university is largely because students with disabilities do not feel they fit in. Certainly, DaDeppo (2009) shows that social integration into the university is a strong predictor of student intent to persist. Yet, students with disabilities often have barriers to face when it comes to going to university (e.g. lack of appropriate accommodation), are less prepared, feel less integrated, are unable to advocate for themselves, encounter barriers to academic performance (e.g. timely access to materials), and are more at risk of poor academic performance than their non-disabled counterparts (Eckes and Ochoa, 2005; Fichten, 1995; Reed et al., 2006). In addition, many show low academic self-efficacy beliefs, that is, students have lower beliefs that they have the ability to succeed in university, with half to two-thirds showing low academic and learned resourcefulness skills (Reed et al., 2009). Nonetheless, intervention programs have been shown to increase students’ academic resourcefulness, learned resourcefulness, academic self-efficacy; reduce bad luck failure attributions; and produce higher grades. Interventions equally assist students with and without disabilities to feel more in control of their academic outcomes and more capable of succeeding, thus changing their university experience. Perry et al. (2005) have shown that when students without disabilities feel more in control of their academic outcomes, they are more successful. Certainly, others have shown that students without disabilities who believe they are in control of their own academic outcomes are advantaged in their studies (Kirkpatrick et al., 2008; Park and Kim, 1998). Whether or not students believe they are in control of their academic outcomes is likely related to their reasons for going to, and staying in, university. As noted earlier, internal reasons for going to university impact resourcefulness, adjustment, and grades. Given the educational experiences are different between those with and without disabilities, their reasons for going to university and the impact of those reasons may also differ.

Students with disabilities experience barriers upon arrival at university, are less prepared, feel less able to succeed, and are more at risk of poor academic performance than their non-disabled peers. Thus, it is plausible that the reasons for going to university differ between those with and without disabilities. Little is known about the reasons students with disabilities go to university and how these reasons relate to university adaptation, coping, academic ability beliefs, and grades. This gap in the literature is the focus of the study described in this article.

Methodology

After receiving ethical approval, students from a large university in Ontario, Canada, were recruited in the first and the second term of the 2012–2013 academic year. Students with and without disabilities were contacted through the undergraduate research pool and were invited online to participate. These students were offered a 1% course credit in an introductory psychology course for participation. Students with disabilities (Access Center) were also contacted through the university center for students with disabilities via email and were invited to participate either in person or online and were offered CAD15 for participation. Those students choosing to participate then contacted the researcher.

Results

Do students with and without disabilities go to university for different reasons?

Students’ reasons for going to university were examined based on whether or not they had a disability and whether or not they were in their first year of study. These outcomes are illustrated in Figure 1. Overall, students with and without disabilities equally endorse internal

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Endorsement of reasons for attending university scores (RAUS) for first-year and upper-year students with and without disabilities.

(somewhat central) and delaying responsibilities (not central) reasons for going to university, regardless of whether they are a first-year or an upper-year student. As well, first-year students, with and without disabilities, go to university because of others and to get a better job. Interestingly, most differences for going to university are between students with and without disabilities in their upper year rather than in their first year. Upper-year students with disabilities, for instance, are less likely to go to university to please others and less likely to go in order to get a better job than upper-year students without disabilities (C95, p < 0.05). Upper-year students with disabilities, however, are significantly less likely to go for the university features in comparison with both first-year students with and without disabilities (C95, p < 0.05), although this group scores similarly to the upper-year students without disability.

Discussion

Students with and without disabilities share many reasons for attending university. The relationship between some of these reasons and university experience, however, differed between students with and without disability. Unlike first-year students without disabilities, first-year students with disabilities who endorse internal reasons are more academically resourceful (had higher coping skills) and have higher academic self-efficacy (greater belief they can succeed). This difference between first-year students with and without disabilities might be due to differences in experiences with education in general. Prior to university, first-year students with disabilities have faced considerable challenges, including barriers in preparing for higher education, lack of communication from universities about disability service provision, low expectations of high-school teachers, low encouragement toward higher education, dependency on others for learning, and lack of self-confidence (Garrison-Wade, 2012; Reed et al., 2003, 2006). Because of barriers they faced during high school, those who are more internally reflective may be best prepared for higher education. This suggests that all first-year students with disabilities might benefit if they reflect on the internal benefits of education (e.g. enjoying the challenge, the value of learning).

First-year students with disabilities who more strongly endorse attendance to get a better job show higher academic self-efficacy. This suggests that, for them, external motivation is important in the decision to attend university. Perry et al. (2005) show that students who believe that they have control over their academics fair better academically and are less likely to withdraw than those who do not share these beliefs. Above, we note that, for first-year students with disabilities, internal reasons to attend influences academic self-efficacy, but the external motivation of having a better job also influences self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, their motivation to attend and persist in higher education may be due to both the value they place on learning (internal reasons) and the prospects of a brighter future (going to get a better job), and this combination increases their belief that they will be successful in their studies. Capitalizing on this external motivator to get a better job would assist first-year students. Applying course concepts to the working world may increase student interest and their beliefs that they can manage complex information. Real-world application of concepts taught in university classes has been shown to be assistive to students with disabilities in terms of retention of material (Orr and Bachman-Hammig, 2009).

Upper-year students with disabilities are less likely to go to university for others or to get a better job than are their non-disabled counterparts. The reasons for going to university for upper-year students with disabilities are unrelated to academic resourcefulness and self-efficacy, unlike those without disabilities who show that higher endorsement of internal reasons is related to both academic resourcefulness and self-efficacy. Many upper-year students with disabilities are registered for accommodation services at university. Although these services do improve student academic and general resourcefulness skills, accommodation services are less effective than having students acquire these resourcefulness skills in the context of an intervention course that focuses on coping and resourcefulness (Reed et al., 2009). Hence, when students receive services, they may have an expectation that these external services are enough to create an environment of success, and, as a result, these students may reflect less on how their own reasons for attending university relate to their overall success and academic coping. As evidence, these same students, when endorsing attendance for university features (e.g. disability services), were more likely to attribute failures to lack of effort. Lightner et al. (2009) show that many upper level students’ reason for seeking disability services is the experience of an academic crisis (e.g. low GPA or test failure). This reason implies a belief that the service will “fix” their difficulties. A better understanding of upper-year students’ experiences and expectations of disability services is needed. It is not clear whether students have unrealistic expectations of student services that lead to beliefs that accommodations alone are enough for academic success.

Upper-year students with disabilities less often attend university to meet others’ expectations than do upper-year students without disabilities. First-year students with disabilities are influenced by parents and others to attend university (Sandefur et al., 2006). Conversely, upper-year students learn that there are many systemic barriers, including attitudes to disability. This may make the expectations of others less important while dealing with the challenges of a system that is difficult to navigate.

The fact that upper-year students with disabilities less often attend to get a better job may reflect their reality. Considerable research shows that while higher education narrows the employment gap between those with and without disabilities, students with disabilities still lag behind (McCloy and DeClou, 2013). As well, upper level students with disabilities who are the least adapted to university were those who were more likely to attend in order to delay responsibility. Thus, educators should be cognizant that students with disabilities are at a disadvantage in the job market and that those who have come to delay employment adapt poorly. One way to assist these students might be to show them that what they learn will assist them in their future employment.

One difference between first-year and upper-year students with disabilities surrounded the endorsement of the attendance at university for its features. First-year students with disabilities more highly endorse this reason than did upper-year students with disabilities. Students with disabilities, when transitioning from high school to higher education, must be aware of accommodation services available. By second year, though, accommodations are often well established. For this reason, students may no longer see the accommodation process as something that keeps them attending and no longer cite this as one of their central reasons for attending.

Strong relationships between the reasons for going and student GPA were not observed. Only upper-year students with disabilities who go to get a better job report lower GPA, suggesting that they are having trouble relating their course content to employment skills. Yet, GPA was self-reported in this study, and independent tracking (not self-reported) of grades for students would increase confidence in outcomes and should be considered in future studies.

One limitation of this study is that the population of students with disabilities was treated as a single group and compared to those without disabilities. This was done because we found when comparing subgroups of disabilities that there were no significant differences in their reasons for going to university. It is possible that the small sample size of some of these subgroups contributed to the lack of significance (e.g. only 15 deaf/blind students participated in the study). A study tapping larger sub-samples that include both qualitative and quantitative questions might reveal differences between disability subtypes. Furthermore, qualitative responses would help elaborate on all of the study’s findings. Moreover, all of the students included were from a Canadian university, limiting the interpretation of the outcomes.

Our correlations between reasons and university experience and grades were small but significant. This is not surprising. Reasons for going to university are only one of a number of contributors to academic resourcefulness, adjustment, self-efficacy, and grades. Examining the effect of reasons for going relative to other predictors may lead to a better understanding of student experience. There are many factors such as gender, the subject area studied, or cultural differences that contribute to student experience and may affect the reasons for going to university.

There are some recommendations for educators. One, first-year students with disabilities who are most internally reflective cope better with the challenges of academia and have stronger beliefs in their own ability to succeed. This suggests that these students benefit if they reflect on the internal value of education (e.g. enjoying the challenge, the value of learning). In first-year classes and at university orientations, students should be encouraged toward an internal perspective on their education. Two, many first-year students go to university because they believe it will assist them in getting a better job. Those first-year students with disabilities who believe this also show higher self-efficacy. Upper-year students who go to university to get a better job after they graduate have lower GPA. Instructors can capitalize on student interest in future employment by applying course concepts to the working world, thus increasing self-efficacy in first-year students and assisting upper-year students in contextualizing course material. Three, upper-year students with disabilities who endorse going for university features describe their failures as due to lack of effort on their own part. In addition, for upper-year students with disabilities, higher internal reasons for going is unrelated to academic resourcefulness and self-efficacy, unlike their upper-year non-disabled counterparts where positive relationships exist. One university feature that is important to these students is disability services. However, expectations that these services are enough to succeed could interfere with student success. More research around these expectations is warranted.