Participatory Action Research and Student Perspectives in a Rural Postsecondary Education Program

Abstract

Students with intellectual disabilities have a unique pathway into college, and for many rural areas, this is a relatively new pathway. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-315) prioritizes inclusive postsecondary education opportunities with an emphasis on students accessing academic, social, and meaningful employment experiences. However, in this legislation, inclusion is vaguely defined and left to postsecondary education institutions to structure within their program model. This article provides perspectives from students with intellectual disabilities from a postsecondary education program situated on a college campus in a rural town. Through participatory action research, students shared their experiences using a variety of communication modalities and offered a meaningful perspective on the challenges and opportunities faced in a rural setting.

Keywords

inclusive higher education rural postsecondary education action research

Introduction

Postsecondary education (PSE) programs for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) in the United States increased 40% from 2011 to 2017 (Grigal & Hart, 2010; Grigal, Hart, & Weir, 2012; Papay & Griffin, 2013; Think College, 2017; Ticoll, 1995; Westling, Kelley, Cain, & Prohn, 2013). This momentum is due in part to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315) of 2008. The HEOA contains several provisions that encourage access to postsecondary educational opportunities for students with ID (Grigal & Hart, 2010; Hart & Grigal, 2010). This is now a primary pathway to community inclusion for students who continue to access the K–12 school system until the age of 21 years. Programs are commended for providing meaningful access and socially inclusive experiences to students. However, the quality of inclusion and the scope of access to campus life remain unclear and inconsistent (Hendrickson, Therrien, Weeden, Pascarella, & Hosp, 2015; Papay & Bambara, 2012; Uditsky & Hughson, 2012).

An increase in employment-based experiences and securing competitive employment reflects the success of PSE programs (Butterworth et al., 2011). Researchers report that 68% of students with ID in Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID; model demonstration projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education) in years 2013–2016 participated in individualized paid employment opportunities either on their campus or in their communities (Grigal, Hart, Smith, Domin, & Sulewski, 2013; Grigal et al., 2014; Grigal, Hart, Smith, Domin, & Weir, 2016). According to authors of the 2016 American Community Survey, the rate of employment for individuals with ID ages 21 to 60 years in the United States was 26.4% (Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2017). In rural communities, nonprofit disability agencies tend to organize employment opportunities for people with ID with limited fiscal and human resources, thereby forcing agency personnel to limit individualized programming and offer more enclave (i.e., group) work experiences (Molina & Demchak, 2016; Wehman, Brooke, & West, 2006). Careful planning of resources, consideration to employer access, and access to public transportation create added barriers in rural communities where poverty and stagnant job growth are concerns (Kinnison, Fuson, & Cates, 2005; Thiede, Greiman, Weiler, Beda, & Conroy, 2017; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

The Rural College Experience for Students With ID

There are two relevant rural college programs cited in professional literature. Think College Vermont is a nationally recognized program (previously funded by TPSID) situated at the University of Vermont that offers students a continuing education certificate, including (a) person-centered planning to map out interests and preferences, (b) peer mentor supports, (c) college courses, and (d) employment internships through coursework or field study based on career interests (Ryan, 2014). The second, Think College Wyoming provides access on several campuses, including Laramie County Community College, Casper College, and the University of Wyoming, offering college courses, peer mentor supports, and employment supports (Tracy, 2017). Both utilize person-centered frameworks to individualize student experiences on the college campus.

Ryan (2014) noted the lack of transportation presents challenges to rural communities and respective colleges, which compounds additional concerns of funding programs like Think College Vermont. Limited options for securing employment amplify this concern with local businesses in the rural communities. The results of Ryan’s study indicate families believe that supports are necessary in order for their children to meet employment outcomes, find appropriate transportation, and learn necessary independent living skills. Kirkendall, Doueck, and Saladino (2008) indicated that skills for independence as mentioned by families can also be supported by residing and participating on college campuses. However, to successfully facilitate students going to college in rural communities and returning to rural communities, PSE programs must prioritize meaningful career activities with the goal of paid employment in the students’ communities.

Understanding Challenges of PSE Programs

When identifying challenges related to the college experience by students with ID, researchers emphasize parent or guardian perspectives (Neubert & Redd, 2008; Zafft, 2006); faculty, staff, or classroom lecturers perspectives (Gibbons, Cihak, Mynatt, & Wilhoit, 2015; Jones, Harrison, Harp, & Sheppard-Jones, 2016; Stefánsdóttir & Björnsdóttir, 2015; Wintle, 2012; Zafft, 2006); or nondisabled college student views (Gibbons et al., 2015; Griffin, Mello, Glover, Carter, & Hodapp, 2016; Griffin, Summer, McMillan, Day, & Hodapp, 2012; Hafner, 2008; Westling et al., 2013). Although these perspectives yield useful information to the field, students enrolled in PSE programs have an equally important view—if not the most important—to expand the fields’ understanding of college students with ID. Promising studies in the field include student voice and perspectives (Causton-Theoharis, 2009; Mock & Love, 2012; Ryan et al., 2015) and a few studies that gathered perspectives using multiple methods research (Paiewonsky, 2011; Paiewonsky et al., 2010; Prohn, 2014). The current study aimed to identify a research method solution to what many researchers cite as a significant challenge to exploring perspectives with a population of individuals that may require additional communication supports and modalities (Coons & Watson, 2013; McDonald et al., 2009; Mosoff, Greenholtz, Hurtado, & Jo, 2009). The purpose of this study was to strengthen the understanding of student perspectives in PSE programs through the use of participatory action research (PAR) methods. The research question addressed in this study was the following:

Research Question 1: How do students with ID who are going to college through an alternative pathway describe their college experiences and what is the significance of those experiences to their lives as they define them through words, pictures, and videos?

Method

PAR allows for a diversified mode of communication and expression of perspectives and actively engages students in the process of development of and reflection upon their own perspectives (Lorenz & Kolb, 2009). Although the methodological approach to the study was PAR, it was complemented by additional descriptive qualitative methods to increase triangulation and reliability of data collected. PAR is “inquiry that is done by or with insiders of organization or community, but never to them” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 3). Fals Borda (2006) described the movement of action research as a period when people develop empathy toward others and their experiences, called vivencia (meaning life experience). This study employed an action research framework for exploring student perspectives of PSE experiences with emphasis on capturing their voices as opposed to exploring outsider perspectives from program staff and other nondisabled college students. The study focused on a PAR process of students identifying topics relevant to them, revealing emerging issues and themes for discussion with students, and creating a path for engagement through an action-based activity to advocate to present ideas and incite change.

Caldwell, Hauss, and Stark (2009), in addition to Paiewonsky (2011), utilized PAR techniques by adopting PAR approaches in various points of their research plan. Caldwell et al. (2009) provided multiple interview techniques (i.e., telephone surveys, focus groups, electronic surveys) to ensure participant responses were collected and properly interpreted within research. Similarly, Paiewonsky (2011) offered multiple interview techniques (i.e., video responses, focus groups, and individual interviews) and provided opportunities for students’ participation in the data analysis process by asking them to identify emergent themes in their videos. This is a methodical approach common in video data analysis (Lemke, 2007). In addition, Paiewonsky assisted students with publishing their research findings as well (see Paiewonsky et al., 2010). The researchers of the current study expanded on previous techniques of earlier researchers by developing a schedule that included facilitated support with brainstorming, concept mapping, and technology usage.

Data Collection

The “College Experience Program” was located at a college characterized as a 4-year liberal arts, residential college located in a rural town in the Northeastern United States. The college served approximately 2,000 students, of which 1,200 are described as full-time, most of them resided on campus in residential housing. Approximately 75% of the campus population identified themselves as female, and the student-to-faculty ratio was 12:1. The program was affiliated with the college for approximately 10 years as an established initiative on campus and served 12 school-age students with ID between the ages of 18 and 21 years, from a local school district in the community. At the time of the study, the program enrolled five young women and seven young men with the primary classification of ID. Students applied to the program during their final year of high school at the age of 17 or 18 years. They were accepted based on their desire to attend college and the number of slots available in the program. The program was overseen by a special education teacher (from the school district), a teacher assistant, and also supported by nonprofit disability agency staff members on campus that supported adults with ID attending the college. None of the College Experience students lived on campus; they resided at home with their families; this was due to lack of dorm availability on the college campus. Students participated in the College Experience Program between 2 and 4 years, based upon interest level and funding. At the time of the study, this program was defined as a hybrid-model program in which more than 50% of a student’s day was spent participating in nondisabled, inclusive college experiences on campus (Grigal & Hart, 2010).

The lead researcher served as an external consultant on inclusive PSE programming for the program staff prior to the study. The researcher had no prior relationship with the students in the study. The College Experience Program students were invited to participate in the study to describe their college experiences. Of the 12 enrolled students, six students agreed to fully participate in all aspects of the study for 15 weeks (see Table 1). As previously stated, the study explored student perspectives on their PSE experiences—not to find categorical truths of their stories or time on a college campus but to construct a thick description of students’ lives in higher education which is a concept framed within a grounded theory approach to research (Charmaz, 2000; Silverman, 2005).

Table 1.

Brief Descriptions of the Participants in the Study.

Name	Age	Years in program	Interests
Mark	21	4	Sports and friends
John	21	4	Sports, nature, friends
Alex	19	1	Computer and Facebook
Christine	19	2	Cooking and best friend
Monica	19	2	Lake and friends
Hanna	18	1	Friends

The authors collected qualitative data through a student focus group session, individual follow-up interviews, and staff interviews (see Table 2). In addition, researchers collected student-created media projects (including photos and videos). Multiple sources served as data collection points for the students. Students received iPads to record and take pictures during the study. In addition, students each participated in a semistructured focus group session with 20 open-ended interview questions, a video-sharing session, and individual follow-up interviews (see Table 3). During the follow-up interview, the lead researcher asked the following questions of students:

How would you describe your access to the campus?

How would you describe your experience at college to others?

In what ways has the program and/or college changed you as a person?

Tell me about the mentors in the program.

Tell me about some of the pictures that you took.

Through the focus groups and interviews, additional open-ended questions were asked to gain more insight into student perspectives as needed. The authors ensured triangulation of data by asking four staff members similar open-ended questions. Staff longevity ranged with four staffing having a minimum of 2 years and two staff members having 4 years of experience.

Table 2.

Video Project and Sessions Timeline.

Activity	Data collection timeline	Session length
Semistructured focus group	Week 1	75 min
Introduction to video project	Week 2	120 min
How to use iPads/cameras	Week 3	120 min
Technical support	Week 4	120 min
Concept mapping	Week 5–6	120 min
Taking pictures/media	Week 7–9	120 min
Sharing raw footage	Week 10	120 min
Taking pictures/media	Week 11–12	120 min
Editing media	Week 11–12	120 min
Publishing stage	Week 13	120 min
Individual interviews	Week 13	5–20 min
Student feedback on themes	Week 13	120 min
Presenting project to community	Week 15	240 min

Table 3.

Types and Frequency of Data Collection.

Method	Collection strategy	Frequency
Participant observation	Field notes	4 sessions
Staff interviews	Audio recorder	4 interviews
Student focus group	Audio recorder	1 session
Video sharing session	Audio recorder	1 session
Student individual interviews	Audio recorder	6 interviews
Student video presentations	Field notes	6 presentations

Video Data

Participating students collected hundreds of pictures through the use of iPads and digital cameras. Students decided which pictures and videos to share with the group and which images were collected as part of the study. As part of the video-sharing session, students discussed many topics, including classes, campus activities, favorite locations on campus, and people they knew on campus. The lead researcher transcribed and analyzed the video projects aligning with basic elements of the grounded theory methodological approach as described in the “Analysis” section (Charmaz, 2006). The lead researcher asked students the following questions to interpret video data with students:

Why did you choose to take this picture?

Tell me what you see in this picture.

Why do you think this event is important to you?

How do you feel about this picture?

Aggregating the video project transcripts with the remaining student data ensured that the video projects were a collective part of understanding student perspectives and capturing the essence of their experiences.

Analysis

The lead researcher initially coded the transcripts line-by-line, resulting in over 175 individual codes for students. Researchers used the qualitative analysis software tool, NVivo10, to organize the codes and group initial codes into 19 focused codes as a way to reconvene the data, a strategy employed by Charmaz (2006). Focused coding is a process for creating categories from line-by-line codes (Charmaz, 2006). To begin analysis, the lead researcher gave emphasis to line-by-line codes related to social, developmental, and educational topics as described by students. However, once the researchers formed categories, the category of employment emerged as an additional category from the line-by-line codes. From these focused codes, emerging themes developed, forming the basis of a concept. Throughout the study, the lead researcher sought students’ agreement of all concepts and themes during focus group sessions and interviews.

The researchers added an additional coding process to examine student experience called theory coding. This coding process provides a way to integrate explanatory information to create substantive concepts to key topics (Glaser, 1978). The specific codes used during analysis were (a) contexts as it relates to student experiences, (b) contingencies of experiences based on staff involvement, (c) degree of inclusion for students on the campus, (d) interaction on campus for students, and (e) identity of students. The lead researcher analyzed areas of the transcripts where these five concepts were explained, described, or illustrated, in an effort to determine how students defined their experiences, interactions, and extent of membership. The lead researcher presented emerging ideas to students during focus groups where they discussed the topics. In addition to identifying relevant meaning, the researchers used the following conceptual questions as a framework for analyzing the data to ensure that priority was given to student perspectives and the context of their experiences as they described them:

How are students describing the program and/or college?

What are the contingencies for students on the campus?

How is growth described?

What are the similarities and differences in perceived experiences?

What is the role of staff and mentors with student experiences?

How do students view themselves on the campus and within the larger community?

The extensive coding and questioning allowed for student perspectives to be prioritized and conceptualized into larger themes within the study.

Results

Students believed having physical access to the campus and an opportunity to develop relationships with other people led to their overall growth as adults. However, students remained concerned about their ability to seek paid employment once they exited the program. This section addresses key findings from the student video presentations and interviews that related to their employment experiences and perceptions of access and growth.

Career Development Activities Versus Paid Employment Opportunities

In addition to becoming more independent, students recognized that pursuing paid employment was a primary factor for attending college. The authors found that five of the six students expressed significant concern over the limited opportunities for paid employment as part of their college experience. Although students shared positive experiences with developing relationships, being independent, and learning new skills, their lack of employment opportunities overshadowed many of the positive experiences, particularly for those exiting the program during that year.

Students participated in a vocational class as part of the PSE program that taught specific employability skills and provided students with an opportunity to practice those skills on the campus and in the community through volunteer experiences. The required course was offered every semester only to students with ID. John shared one of the skills he learned in the class was “how to interview for a job.” Monica shared that she “learned how to get a job.” Aside from these comments, students expressed concern and frustration about the lack of vocational preparation they received. When asked about the employment skills John had specifically learned, he commented, “Not as much as you would think.” In agreement with John, Monica expressed, “I didn’t learn anything, but I did jobs, yes, I did. Just because I did jobs doesn’t mean I learned stuff.” Christine said she was “still waiting” for paid employment.

Students believed they demonstrated effort in finding paid work and establishing themselves as employees in their communities. Monica shared, “I try to get a job, but it’s not working out.” When asked whether she knew why she had difficulty, she explained, “Because I am in a program, so I don’t get paid for working. I am working for free.” Monica described the volunteer component of the program where students were placed in the community for a few hours a day to practice employability skills. Staff explained that most students exit with volunteer experiences as part of their employment training. During the time of the study, the program received a cut in school-based stipends for employment internships. These stipends did not originate from employers, but from the school. This fiscal change made visible the glaring problem of employers not paying students to work in their businesses. John, who was about to exit the program, felt frustration about his employment opportunities. John said, “I don’t like the volunteer part because I have been volunteering at the [store], but I would like to work there and get paid.” Students expressed uneasiness about their futures, but they believed they would eventually obtain paid employment. Mark expressed this sentiment by saying, “I don’t know where I will be working, but it shouldn’t be far away from home, so I can walk there.” When the lead researcher asked whether everyone agreed about transportation barriers, all students resounded “yes.” Students did not capture any pictures or videos of their vocational experiences even though they had full access to cameras during the study. This omission could infer several key concerns. Students may not value those work experiences, or they may not realize those experiences are an aspect of their college experience.

Important Skills for Life

Students definitively believed they had learned critical daily life skills as a result of their college experiences. Students talked extensively about the importance of being independent and having self-sufficiency. When asked about skills learned, Hanna and Monica commented, “college helps me go to classes, be on time,” and “it basically helps you [to get] oriented in life.” The students felt that a large part of participating in college was learning time management and organizational strategies. Alex reflected on his strategy for getting to class on time: “You have to work hard and be on time. That’s why I am always checking the clock. To make sure I am going to be on time for class.” Skills are relative to their own level of independence and are contextualized as part of their past and current experiences on the campus. For two students, being independent meant having the physical freedom to explore the campus on their own and with that the ability to go from place to place, as noted in this conversation with two students:

Interviewer:

What comes to your mind when you think about college?

Mark:

More freedom.

Interviewer:

How is this different from high school?

Alex:

There’s more time between classes. Time to unwind before we go back to classes.

Interviewer:

Give me another example.

Mark:

I can go to the gym by myself.

Alex:

I can go around campus by myself.

Later in the focus group session, Alex remarked that working on these skills took time and practice and he compared his understanding of working on skills with his nondisabled college peers, as noted in this conversation:

Interviewer:

How does college prepare you?

Alex:

Well, people work really hard here, because if you don’t, you won’t get a good grade in your classes and you won’t be able to come back. You also have to know how to talk to people in your class and not make rude comments. I’m working on that.

An important skill reported by students during the focus group was learning budgeting and money management. In several examples, this translated to students feeling a sense of financial responsibility and independence at college. Students consistently used the word “budgeting” to describe any mathematical skills they had learned at college. Christine shared, “I learned counting change and budgeting, so math.” Mark focused on other aspects of financial literacy and expressed that he “paid for [his] own lunch” and “[had his] own money at college.” All six students had at least one picture of a meal and the cafeteria in their media clip. This indicated meals or the cafeteria space was an important aspect of socializing at college, which allowed for a sense of autonomy on the campus.

Students making choices and being independent emerged throughout the media projects. Two students, John and Monica, began their video projects with a dialogue from a staff member about why college was important. In the videos, the staff member said,

My favorite part of [college] is that you guys get to decide where you go and what you do all day long and that you are in charge of driving your own bus and working on all of your goals and dreams for the future. And all we get to do is help you, so you get to be in charge and decide that the things that are important to you, you can do.

What was significant about this clip was that students chose to interview this staff member and independently selected this clip to add to their media project. During the follow-up interview when both students were asked about why they chose to include this media clip, the students agreed that it represented their program well. Monica shared that she included it because “this explains my program and why I like it” and John said “because here [meaning college] we get to make choices.” Being encouraged to be independent and make choices was a new concept to all of the students (as compared with high school) and one that students valued enough to prioritize in their description of college.

Sense of Self

Student identity and expressing oneself was an essential aspect of several students’ college experiences. A particular example of this was Alex who shared his experiences of going to a musical as part of a college class. He shared how going to college transformed his outlook on life:

It was so beautiful that when I was a kid I never got to see this musical . . . [Now at college] when I saw the musical, it changed my heart and my decisions and personality. Like I used to be foolish all the time for all these teenage years, but I gave up the foolish nonsense and started to focus on really nice things. Things like from my childhood and things of having fun with my family.

Alex shared outside of the interview that he was shy prior to coming to college, and in this passage, it is evident that he found a sense of self in his experience with music in this college course.

Another student focused her video project on an experience she had with a college student in one of her classes. By capturing images of tattoos, Christine shared personal aspirations of others in her classes. This intent was captured in the following conversation with the lead researcher:

Interviewer:

Tell me about your project.

Christine:

I took picture[s] of people’s tattoos on campus. I like tattoos and I like their meaning.

Interviewer:

Tell me about one of the tattoos you have a picture of [in your project].

Christine:

Well, this one here (points to the tattoo of “Never Lose Hope”) . . . she had difficult times in her life and got this tattoo to remind her to never lose hope when things are difficult. I like that idea.

Interviewer:

What about this one (points to the tattoo of symbols at the end of the video)?

Christine:

She is a girl in my class who has a neat tattoo. I asked her about it and she said she wanted to be different from others, so she got this tattoo. She is different and I like that.

Interviewer:

You mentioned you were getting a tattoo. What will your tattoo be like?

Christine:

Not sure yet, but I want to show I am different and that I won’t lose hope either.

This experience for Christine demonstrated that she critically reflected on aspects of introspection of others and made comparisons to herself. She translated each person’s tattoo and attributed it to a positive quality about that individual. Her entire video project was overlaid with tattoos and one or two words to describe each tattoo. All of the students had similar connections but with different topics, such as boyfriends or friends they met.

Discussion

All of the students expressed their deepest interest in being a part of their communities and being able to contribute as working members of that community. Unfortunately, a majority of the students felt unprepared for paid employment. There was general consensus that their college experiences allowed them to become more independent and establish important relationships at college in their classes and on campus. However, students believed that their volunteer-based work experiences presented considerable challenges as they tried to secure employment postprogram. Within this study, there was an exception to this: the program staff clarified that one student was participating in paid employment, but the other five students were participating in unpaid volunteer experiences in their communities. In addition, two of the participants were in their first year of the program and the staff would not expect all six students to feel as equally prepared given their length of time in the program. These key points still raise concerns about paid employment for students in the program and continue to highlight a major barrier denoted by students. Furthering this concern is that at least one student was unaware they were receiving wages from an employer. In an already limited resource community, every employment opportunity matters, and for these students, their experiences deviate from their desired outcomes postprogram.

This is not an uncommon story in rural communities. Morgan and Openshaw (2011) explained that employment rates in rural communities for individual with disabilities are significantly lower as compared with urban communities. Further diminishing this rate is that students with ID are significantly less likely to obtain paid employment once they transition into their rural communities (Kinnison et al., 2005). The students in this study shared a similar concern of Morgan and Morgan (2006) about rural communities having additional challenges with individualized work opportunities, such as transportation. What makes this study unique is that the students had those individualized opportunities, but they were volunteer-based. However, it was unclear whether the employment site was connected to individualized goals. Customized employment experiences are an essential step for best practice (Wehmeyer et al., 2009), but for rural communities, limited options may require that programs begin with paid employment opportunities rather than internships or volunteer experiences.

Students in this college experience were engaged in a variety activities, all in pursuit of learning new skills and fostering more independence. Students reported a tremendous benefit to learning budgeting and banking and having opportunities to manage them own money on campus. This was a particularly common theme within the findings of Mosoff et al. (2009), who explored experiences of a PSE program for students with ID. Mosoff et al. (2009) found that students believed attending college classes, participating in social activities, and learning new skills were all critical to their success after college. The authors cited numerous instances where students felt a sense of independence on the campus and were able to make connections with nondisabled peers. Reflecting and making connections with nondisabled peers can be recognized in the current study when Alex compared himself with nondisabled peers when comparing his study habits with their study routines. Another example occurred when Christine reflected on personal meaning through tattoos. As one might expect, each student emphasized different skills they learned such as budgeting, learning to positively communicate in a college class, being on time, or paying for food independently at the college cafeteria.

Attending college represented a higher level of independence not previously afforded to students with ID in high school. Students navigated the campus independently, which helped them move toward the process of becoming an adult. Arnett (2004) described what adulthood means for any college student by indicating that “becoming an adult today means becoming self-sufficient, [and] learning to stand alone as an independent person” (p. 209). The student perspectives on adulthood shared in this study correspond with most college student views; they increased their self-sufficiency, responsibility, and financial independence. However, careful evaluation through a community-based instructional lens must be utilized to determine whether instructional activities have relevancy and authenticity within the community. Collins (2003) offered community-based instruction guidelines for rural settings on how students can learn functional skills while using local resources and instructional approaches within the community. College settings allow for a smooth transition into the community, particularly so, for rural communities with technical schools or postsecondary institutions. For some students, like Hannah and John, independence denoted walking to the gym by themselves. Alternatively, for Alex, independence was defined by making social connections and maintaining relationships without staff support. Given individual student perspectives on independence, growth signifies personal development. A successful program framework provides both a clear path to independence (student-defined) and an individualized program with skill building, access to resources, and community-based instruction.

A large number of students in the PSE program worked in unpaid positions through volunteer-based community assignments. Although students expressed concern about the unpaid nature, these work-oriented experiences were encouraging given the previously cited lack of experiences and outcomes for students with ID in other school-based settings (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012). It is evident that placing students in the community was a step forward for this program. However, these opportunities may be more beneficial if there is a focus on obtaining competitive employment earlier in the program. For rural communities, this is especially critical to consider, as there are fewer resources and employment opportunities. Although PSE experiences demonstrate a clear linkage to increased gainful employment, the student perspectives in this study suggest that programs need to expand customized, paid employment experiences to improve outcomes for students in rural communities.

The Action in PAR

Immediately upon completion of the study, several of the students and program staff planned to present their video projects to others in the program and additional program staff. Initial planning efforts included the idea of a small gathering. However, as interest grew, a larger community forum emerged from discussions with students and staff. The community forum was well attended with more than 75 people participating in the event, including college faculty and staff. Students presented their videos and led a discussion about their perspective on their college experiences. This served as an important outlet to share their work and engage in effective action planning.

Based on the information collected from the student focus group, video presentation, student-led video projects, and discussions generated at the community forum, program staff began taking action on the following items: (a) increasing vocational preparation and paid employment experiences, (b) diversifying the recruitment of paid peer mentors, and (c) increasing access to campus facilities throughout the college day. Most notable for this study was the first recommendation to increase vocational preparation and paid employment experiences that sparked the most momentum and success for students.

Program staff responded to these recommendations in several ways. First, a strategic plan was implemented to assess and improve vocational preparation for students in the program. As a result, the program focused efforts on customizing employment options for students on the campus and in the community. The program included paid employment goals on transition plans for most students. Second, the program increased the diversity of peer mentors to make them representative of the students in the PSE program. Finally, staff implemented a project-based curriculum to increase independence on the campus and opportunities to engage with more college students. Each student receives an individualized schedule, project plan, and work-based training plan to support their growth in the program. Although all three recommendations were addressed, the planning and implementation of those changes is too early to report tangible outcomes.

Conclusion

When considering college-age students without disabilities, Arnett (2004) noted that 43% of full-time college students pursue some form of employment during their first year of college. Reasons for pursuing employment varied for students, but generally, students are finding jobs because they want access to short-term cash or to refine their career interests (Arnett, 2006). Students within this study echoed similar reasons for wanting to obtain a paid position and indicated a lack of opportunity to have paid employment as defined by the program model to support employability skill development. This finding expands, in a qualitative sense, what we already know about the limitations with paid employment for students with ID. Programs should think critically about the use of volunteer experiences, as a temporary solution for skill development. If programs focused on customizing experiences with paid employment in mind, this could maximize the use of resources in a rural community and further support the notion for all that individuals with ID are employable and valuable to the workplace. Next steps for programs are to consider natural employment pools at college, through the use of work-study programs or customized employment goals that focus on applying and securing employment immediately in the first years of the program. Other considerations are to emphasize entrepreneurial efforts or support students in finding employment that allows them to work remotely at home.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the students and staff who participated in the research project and provided invaluable insight and feedback during the research process. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Maria Paiewonsky, Transition Specialist, Think College, for her guidance on creating meaningful action research opportunities to students labeled with intellectual disabilities.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project benefited in part through funding from Think College and the Association on University Centers on Disability (AUCD) Emerging Scholars Program, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), and the Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities, U.S. Department of Education (CFDA No. 84.407A), obtained by the Institute for Innovative Transition, in partnership with Golisano Foundation, and the University of Rochester.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Arnett

J. J.

(2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In Arnett

J. J

Tanner

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Butterworth

Hall

Smith

Migliore

Winsor

Timmons

Domin

(2011). State data: The national report on employment services and outcomes of experiences of college students labeled with intellectual disabilities. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

Caldwell

Hauss

Stark

(2009). Participation of individuals with developmental disabilities and families on advisory boards. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 101–109.

Causton-Theoharis

(2009). The golden rule of supporting in inclusive classrooms: Support others as you would wish to be supported. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 36–43.

Charmaz

(2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Lincoln

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practice guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.

Collins

B. C.

(2003). Meeting the challenge of conducting community-based instruction in rural settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 31–35.

Coons

Watson

(2013). Conducting research with individuals who have intellectual disabilities: Ethical and practice implications for qualitative research. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 19(2), 14–24.

10.

Erickson

Lee

von Schrader

(2017). Disability Statistics from the American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Yang-Tan Institute. Available from www.disabilitystatistics.org

11.

Fals Borda

(2006). Participatory action research in social theory. In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 27–37). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

12.

Gibbons

Cihak

Mynatt

Wilhoit

(2015). Faculty and student attitudes toward postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28, 149–162.

13.

Glaser

B. G.

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

14.

Griffin

Mello

Glover

Carter

Hodapp

(2016). Supporting students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in postsecondary education: The motivations and experiences of peer mentors. Inclusion, 4(2), 75–88.

15.

Griffin

Summer

McMillan

Day

Hodapp

(2012). Attitudes toward including students with intellectual disabilities at college. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 234–239.

16.

Grigal

Hart

(2010). Think College: Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

17.

Grigal

Hart

Smith

F. A.

Domin

Sulewski

(2013). Think College National Coordinating Center: Annual report on the transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (2010–2012). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

18.

Grigal

Hart

Smith

F. A.

Domin

Sulewski

Weir

(2014). Think College National Coordinating Center: Annual report on the transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (2012–2013). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

19.

Grigal

Hart

Smith

F. A.

Domin

Weir

(2016). Think College National Coordinating Center: Annual report on the transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities (2014–2015). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

20.

Grigal

Hart

Weir

(2012). A survey of postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 223–233.

21.

Hafner

(2008). Inclusion in postsecondary education: Phenomenological study on identifying and addressing barriers to inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities at a four-year liberal arts college (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

22.

Hart

Grigal

(2010). Spectrum of options. In Grigal

Hart

(Eds.), Think College: Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities (pp. 49–87). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

23.

Hendrickson

Therrien

Weeden

Pascarella

Hosp

(2015). Engagement among students with intellectual disabilities and first year students: A comparison. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52, 204–219.

24.

Herr

Anderson

(2005). The action research dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.

26.

Jones

Harrison

Harp

Sheppard-Jones

(2016). Teaching college students with intellectual disability: What faculty members say about the experience. Inclusion, 4(2), 89–108.

27.

Kinnison

Fuson

Cates

(2005). Rural transition: What are the limitations? Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(3), 30–33.

28.

Kirkendall

Doueck

Saladino

(2008). Transitional services for youth with developmental disabilities: Living in college dorms. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 434–445.

29.

Lemke

(2007). Video epistemology in-and-outside the box: Traversing attentional spaces. In Goldman

Pea

Barron

Derry

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 39–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Lorenz

Kolb

(2009). Involving the public through participatory visual research methods. Health Expectations, 12, 262–274.

31.

McDonald

Kidney

Nelms

Parker

Kimmel

Keys

(2009). Including adults with intellectual disabilities in research: Scientists perceptions of risks and protections. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6, 244–252.

32.

Mock

Love

(2012). One state’s initiative to increase access to higher education for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 289–297.

33.

Molina

Demchak

(2016). The right to a better life: Using a work camp to create customized employment opportunities for rural high school students with severe disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(2), 24–32.

34.

Morgan

R. L.

Morgan

R. B.

(2006). Self-determined employment preference for youth in transition from school to work in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(4), 31–34.

35.

Morgan

R. L.

Openshaw

K. P.

(2011). Targeted transition assessment leading to job placement for young adults with disabilities in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(2), 28–31.

36.

Mosoff

J. M.

Greenholtz

Hurtado

(2009). Models of inclusive post-secondary education for young adults with developmental disabilities (1st year of 3 year research project). Vancouver, BC: Canadian Council on Learning.

37.

Neubert

D. A.

Redd

(2008). Transition services for students with intellectual disabilities: A case study of a public school program on a community college campus. Exceptionality, 16, 220–234.

38.

Paiewonsky

(2011). Hitting the reset button on education: Student reports on going to college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 31–44.

39.

Paiewonsky

Sroka

Ahearn

Santucci

Quiah

Baurer

Lee

(2010). Think, hear, see, believe college: Students using participatory action research to document the college experience (Think College Insight Brief, Issue No. 5). Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

40.

Papay

Bambara

(2012). College programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Results of a national survey (Think College Fast Facts, Issue No. 3). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

41.

Papay

Griffin

(2013). Developing inclusive college opportunities for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 110–116.

42.

Prohn

(2014). A grounded theory of social inclusion for postsecondary education students with intellectual disability (Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

43.

Ryan

(2014). An inclusive rural post secondary education program for students with intellectual disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(2), 18–28.

44.

Ryan

Yuan

Karambelas

Lampugnale

Parrott

Sagar

Terry

(2015). “We are researchers”: Students with and without intellectual disabilities research the university experience in a participatory action research course. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 16(2), 70–82.

45.

Silverman

(2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

46.

Stefánsdóttir

Björnsdóttir

(2015). “I am a college student” Postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 18, 328–342.

47.

Thiede

Greiman

Weiler

Beda

Conroy

(2017). Six charts that illustrate the divide between rural and urban America. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/six-charts-that-illustrate-the-divide-between-rural-and-urban-america-72934

48.

Think College. (2017). Postsecondary education initiatives for students with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.thinkcollege.net/databases/programs-database?view=programsdatabase

49.

Ticoll

(1995). Inclusion of individuals with disabilities in post-secondary education: A review of the literature. North York, NY: Roeher Institute.

50.

Tracy

(2017). Think College Wyoming: A rural state perspective (Think College Insight Brief, Issue No. 32). Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

51.

Uditsky

Hughson

(2012). Inclusive postsecondary education—An evidence-based moral imperative. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 298–302.

52.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Labor force statistics derived from the current population survey: A data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.

53.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Students with disabilities: Experiences of college students labeled with intellectual disabilities 215 Better federal coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school (GAO 12-504). Washington, DC: Author.

54.

Wehman

Brooke

West

M. D.

(2006). Vocational placement and careers: Toward inclusive employment. In Wehman

(Ed.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (4th ed., pp. 309–353). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

55.

Wehmeyer

Parent

Lattimore

Obremski

Poston

Rousso

(2009). Promoting self-determination and self-directed employment planning for young women with disabilities. Journal of Social Work and Rehabilitation, 8(3–4), 117–131.

56.

Westling

Kelley

Cain

Prohn

(2013). College students’ attitudes about an inclusive postsecondary education program for individuals with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 306–319.

57.

Wintle

(2012). A multiple perspective case study of a young adult with intellectual disabilities participating in a pre-service teacher education class. Exceptionality Education International, 22(1), 37–54.

58.

Zafft

(2006). A case study of accommodations for transition-age students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 167–175.