1 / 61

Outline of Presentation

freya
Télécharger la présentation

Outline of Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accessibility inHigher Education: Learning from Faculty AttitudesEllen Perlow – Texas Woman’s UniversityAssistive Technology Industry Association 2008 Conference Caribe Royale Convention Center, Orlando, Florida February 2, 2008 11:45am-12:45pm -- Bonaire 1 http://www.a4access.org/atia2008.ppthttp://www.a4access.org/atia2008.txtThis document is available in alternative formats. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  2. Outline of Presentation • Introduction of Session Participants • Abstract, Learning Objectives • Background: 2006-2007 and 2007-present studies Who, What, Why, Justifications IV. The Studies: Procedure/Methodology, Instruments, Comparison of 2006-2007 Final Results with 2007-2008 Preliminary Results V. Session Participant Discussion, Collaboration, Development of Action Plans VI. Summation Activity Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  3. Abstract Faculty attitudes and value priorities regarding interaction with students with access needs are particularly influential at the higher education level in shaping policies that foster accessibility-friendly environments. Results of a study of such attitudes among postsecondary health education faculty, discussed at Accessing Higher Ground 2007, are compared with results from replication of the study with faculty in the disciplines of education and library science. Session participants collaborate to formulate an action plan of goals and objectives to promote faculty support for accessibility and universal design initiatives at their institutions. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  4. Learning Objectives Via in-session collaboration with colleagues, participants learn about : 1. Factors present in higher education environments that increase the significance of faculty attitudes toward students with access needs. 2. Comparison of results from cross-disciplinary investigation of faculty attitudes toward students with access needs in higher education. 3. New approaches to promote the success of accessibility and universal design initiatives in higher education. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  5. Background of Studies • Institutional Review Board-approved • Informed consent: adult age 18 or older and faculty member in discipline; convenience samples 3. Primarily U.S.-based Higher Education Faculty • 2006-2007: Health Education/Public Health (n=30) • 2007-present: Education/Library-Information Science (as of February 2, 2008: n=14) Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  6. Who: Why These Faculties? 1. Health Education: Accessibility key component: Health Literacy (U.S. DHHS, 2000), Health Educators’ Areas of Responsibility (National Commission for Health Ed. Credentialing, 2008) 2. Education: Accessibility, Universal Design for Learning mandated: U.S. federal legislation for pre-K-12 public education (NCLB, 2002; IDEA 2004). 3. Library and Information Science: a. School librarians are teachers. b. Equity of Access: Key Action Area (American Library Association, 2008) Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  7. Background: What and Why • What: • Faculty Attitude / Awareness Assessment: • Accessibility, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning • People/Students with Access Needs [PWAN/SWAN], veterans with access needs • Why: • To improve attitudes, awareness: find disconnect, value priorities that predict attitudes, behaviors (Rohan, 2000). • Class Empowerment • Strengthen Culture of Accessibility in Higher Education Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  8. Background: Justification Accessibility in Health Education: 1. Ethics of Profession (NCHEC, 2008) 2. Healthy People 2010 (U.S. DHHS, 2000, 2008) - within Major Goals:“increase quality & years of healthy life; eliminate health disparities” - PWAN: Major Area of Concern - Health Literacy-“capacity to obtain”=Access 3. Accessibility critical for health outcomes (Lloyd..., 2006) 4. PWAN > 20% U.S. pop. (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2003) 5. U.S. by 2010  70 million=PWAN (Wu & Green, 2000) 6. PWAN: major health disparities (McCarthy, et al., 2006) 7. U.S. PWAN=43% of Medicaid costs (Carbaugh…2006) Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  9. Background: Justification Accessibility in Education and Library/Info. Science 8.21st century: PWAN = greater proportion of higher education student population (11%): both face-to-face and online classrooms (Foss, 2002; Lewis & Farris, 1999; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006). 9. By 2030, older adults, 65 years or older will have grown from 12.4% to 20% of the U.S. population; increase in no. of older college students (Kressley, 2002; Silverstein, 2001) 10. In U.S.: IDEA, P.L. 108-446: Inclusion (1975-present) 11. More SWAN in pre-K-12 (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2007) 12. SWAN served under IDEA, P.L. 108-446 graduating with H.S. Diplomas = potential college applicants and enrollees (U.S. Dept. of Ed. OSEP Fall 2005/2006 data) 13.2006->2016:15% growth sp.ed. teachers(USDOL,2007) Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  10. Background: Justification 14. Increasing number of Students with Access Needs. Graph depicts increase in students, 1976-2006, receiving services under IDEA 2004-pre-K-12 U.S. public education ((U.S. Dept. of Education, 2007). Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  11. Background: Justification 15. Students served under IDEA, P.L. 108-446 (SWAN) are graduating with High School Diplomas  higher education/college applicants & enrollees (U.S. Dept. of Ed. OSEP Fall 2005/2006 data). Source: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007). Table 4-1. Students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, part B, who exited school, by exit reason and state: Fall 2005-06ª. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from https://www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_4-1.xls Perlow-ATIA – February 2008

  12. Background: Justification 16. Percentage of U.S. Population (50 states + D.C.) Ages 6-21 served under IDEA, Part B, P.L. 108-446: 2001 – 2005 [Excerpt of Data] Source: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]. (2007, July). Profiles of parts B and C programs in states and outlying areas. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from page 66 at https://www.ideadata.org/docs/PartBDataMeeting2007.pdf Perlow-ATIA February 2007

  13. Background: Justification Accessibility in Higher Education 17.For re-accreditation, Higher Education institutions are being called upon to document institutional effectiveness and to be accountable for students’ learning: “Students Are Central to Success.” See: U.S. Department of Education. Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Final Report (September 26, 2006): http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf For example, see: http://www.twu.edu/iep/sacs/ Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  14. Background: Justification Accessibility throughout the Lifespan 18.PWAN = class anyone can join at any time; virtually all people do (Shapiro, 1994) 19. Accessibility = boundary-free diversity issue affecting all people throughout the world across all categories of diversity of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, class, and economic status. 20. Accessibility = universal issue, gateway to health literacy…Global Climate/Aging … 9/11 … Katrina ... Tsunami ... Darfur…Famine … AIDS …gun violence ... civil wars ... Afghanistan/Iraq... Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  15. Background: Justification Photograph of U.S. Army and Air Force service members caring for wounded troops. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31234(retrieved 2/2/2008). U.S. Casualties – Afghanistan/Iraq Wars: See: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  16. Study Procedure 1. Recruitment: U.S.-based discussion lists frequented by higher ed. faculty in discipline 2. Participants respond, indicate requests, if any, for alternative formats, send consent, survey, postage-paid envelope to return documents 3. Participants insert signed consent separate envelope, return form[s], survey to researcher 4. Researcher receives; stores consent separately 5. Variable: IRB Consent-Standard: 5 p.; LP: 20 p. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  17. Survey Instruments 06-07,07-08 • Anonymous, demographic-free surveys: except for references to faculty discipline, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 surveys are identical. • 15 multiple choice/fill-in statements; respond by circling one of five answers; optional comments • Simple process accommodates busy faculty. • Question order: no pattern; -/+/“I Don’t Know.” • “I Don’t Know” can be correct response. • Common faculty concerns addressed: SWAN ‘disrupt’ classes, seek undeserved assistance; ability to pass classes, complete program, enter profession. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  18. Survey Instruments 06-07,07-08 • Each of 15 questions = quantified variable • Questions coded into five group variables: • Experience/Knowledge • Negative Experience? • Comfort Level • Confidence Level • Interest Level • Examine relationship of group variables Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  19. Instruments: Areas of Inquiry Knowledge: Access Issues Confidence in Student Success Higher Education Faculty Attitudes toward Students with Access Needs Experience: Access Issues Interest in Access/UDL Learning & Training Negative Experience Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  20. Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables 1. Experience/Knowledge: Personal PWAN/SWAN/[self] experience, in Face-to-Face online classes; A/AT/UD[L] knowledge. Questions 1, 3, 13 2. Negative Experience?: SWAN “disrupting” class, asking for undeserved special treatment. Questions 8, 9 3. Comfort: Comfort Level in teaching, interacting with PWAN/SWAN. Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  21. Areas of Inquiry: Group Variables 4. Confidence: Confidence in SWAN ability to successfully pass participant’s classes, department program, enter profession. Questions 10, 11, 12 5. Interest: Participant interest in learning [more] about accessibility, AT, UD[L], interest in training on topics at participant institution. Questions 14, 15 Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  22. 3 Experience/Knowledge Variables • 1. I have ____ personal experience with having accessibility needs and assistive technology. extensive some infrequent no I don’t know • 3. I ___have students with accessibility needs in the classes that I teach. often sometimes rarely never I don’t know • 13. I am _about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning. very knowledgeable knowledgeable slightly familiar unfamiliar I don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  23. 2 Negative Experience? Variables 8. I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes. no rare some frequent I don’t know 9. I have ___ experience with students in my classes who claim accessibility needs and ask for special treatment that they do not deserve. no rare some frequent I don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  24. 5 Comfort Level Variables • 2. I am ____ being around people with accessibility needs. • 4. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my FACE TO FACE classes. • 5. I am _____ in having students with accessibility needs in my ONLINE classes. • 6. I am _ in interacting with students with accessibility needs. • 7. I am ____ in working with students in my classes to solve class-related accessibility issues. Response options for all five questions: very comfortable comfortable neutral uncomfortable I don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  25. 3 Confidence Level Variables • 10. Students with accessibility needs can _____ the classes that I teach. successfully pass pass, but with great difficulty probably not pass not pass I don’t know • 11. Students with accessibility needs are __ to successfully complete my department’s program. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know • 12. People with accessibility needs are___ to find work as health education professionals. able able, but with great difficulty unlikely to be able unable I don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  26. 2 Interest Level Variables • 14. I am ______ in learning more about accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design for learning. 15. I am ______ in attending training sessions on the topics listed in question 14 at the institution with which I am affiliated. Response options to both questions: very interested interested possibly interested not interested I don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  27. Group Variables: Reliability Cronbach Alpha standardized scores-r: n=44 • Experience/Knowledge r = .78062 • Negative Experience? r = .679090 • Comfort Level r = .813976 • Confidence Level r = .491486 - Difference in confidence regarding success in class/department program and success in entering profession • Interest Level r = .935448 Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  28. ATIA February 2008:Comparison between2006-2007 (n=30) final results and 2007-present (n=14) preliminary results Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  29. 2006-07 Health Educators n=30 2007-2/08 Preliminary [LIS] n=14 Perlow-ATIA-February 2008

  30. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  31. Selected Results (see handout) EXPERIENCE/KNOWLEDGE: HE 1-Experience-Personal with PWAN: 16/30 infrequent; 9/30 no experience; LIS 1-Experience-Personal with PWAN: 4/14 infrequent; 0/14 no experience; HE 3-Experience having SWAN in classes: 19/30 infrequent; 8/30 sometimes LIS 3-Experience having SWAN in classes: 0/14 infrequent; 3/14 sometimes HE 13-Exp/Knowl. accessibility, UD/UDL: 14/30 slightly familiar; 8/30 unfamiliar LIS 13-Exp/Knowl. accessibility, UD/UDL: 4/14 slightly familiar; 0/14 unfamiliar NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE?: HE 8-Experience SWAN “disrupting” classes: 19/30 never; 11/30 rarely LIS 8-Experience SWAN “disrupting” classes: 7/14 never; 3/14 rarely; 1/14 some 1/14 I don’t know HE 9-Experience SWAN ask for special treatment: 23/30 never; 5/30 rarely; 2/30 some LIS 9-Experience SWAN-sp. treatment: 11/14 never; 1/14 rarely; 2/14 Don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  32. Selected Results (see handout) COMFORT LEVEL: HE 2-wPWAN: 20/30 comfortable; 7/30 very comf.; 2/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomfortable LIS 2-PWAN: 9/14 comfortable; 2/14 very comf.; 3/14 neutral; 0/14 uncomfortable HE 4-w SWAN F2F: 19/30 comfortable; 8/30 very comfortable; 3/30 neutral LIS 4-SWAN F2F: 9/14 comfortable; 4/14 very comfortable; 1/14 DON’T KNOW HE 5-w SWAN ONLINE: 14/30 DON’T KNOW; 8/30 very comf.; 8/30 comfortable LIS 5-w SWAN ONLINE: 4/14 DON’T KNOW; 2/14 very comfortable; 7/14 comfortable 1/14 uncomfortable HE 6-w SWAN Interax:16/30 comf.; 9/30 v. comfortable; 4/30 neutral; 1/30 uncomft. LIS 6-w SWAN Interax:11/14 comfortable 2/14 v. comfort.; 1/14 neutral; 0/14 uncomfortable HE 7-w SWAN Solve:16/30 comf.;10/30 v. comfortable;3/30 neutral;1/30 Don’t know LIS 7-SWAN Solve: 9/14 comf.; 5/14 v. comfortable; 0/14 neutral; 0/14 Don’t know Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  33. Selected Results (see handout) CONFIDENCE LEVEL: HE 10-SWAN able to pass classes that I teach: 28/30 pass; 2/30 DON’T KNOW LIS 10-SWAN able to pass classes that I teach: 12/14 pass; 2/14 DON’T KNOW HE 11-SWAN able to pass departmental program: 19/30 able; 6/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30: able, but with great difficulty LIS 11-SWAN able to pass dept. program: 10/14 able; 4/14 DON’T KNOW; 0/14: able HE 12-SWAN able to enter profession: 14/30 able; 12/30 DON’T KNOW; 4/30 able, but with great difficulty LIS 12-SWAN able to enter profession: 4/14 able; 4/14 DON’T KNOW; 6/14 able, but with great difficulty Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  34. Selected Results (see handout) INTEREST LEVEL: HE 14-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL: 18/30 interested; 6/30 possibly interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 not interested LIS 14-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL: 4/14 interested; 4/14 possibly interested; 5/14 very interested; 1/13 not interested HE 15-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL at institution: 16/30 interested; 4/30 very interested; 2/30 possibly interested; 1/30 not interested LIS 15-Interest in learning more about accessibility/UD/UDL at institution: 6/14 interested; 5/14 very interested; 2/14 possibly interested; 1/14 not interested Perlow-ATIA-February 2008

  35. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPEKNOW AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPEKNOW AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPEKNOW AREA = LIS The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPEKNOW AREA = LIS Experience/Knowledge Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  36. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPENNEG AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for EXPENNEG AREA = LIS Negative Experience? Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  37. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for COMFORT AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for COMFORT AREA = LIS Comfort Level Perlow-ATIA 2008

  38. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for CONFIDNC AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for CONFIDNC AREA = LIS Confidence Level Perlow-ATIA 2008

  39. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS Interest Level Perlow-ATIA 2008

  40. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS H. Ed. Participant Comments Participant 3: “I am especially interested in universal design." Participant 6: “I chair campus-wide commission on disabilities which sponsors training sessions for faculty & staff. I studied special education during UG & MS programs." Participant 8: "I didn’t have enough students with accessibility needs to know enough or be very interested in training." Participant 9: [Question] #11 [“Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program”] - I teach in 2 departments - one is Nursing - accessibility needs can make it very difficult to perform the necessary skills - the other department’s program does not have these skill requirements - my answer is an "average” between the two. [Question 11 response = 3.5] Participant 15: "I do no teach online, so the online question did not apply to me." Perlow-ATIA 2008

  41. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS H. Ed. Participant Comments Participant 17: "For question #6: Depends on the access need (score assigned: average of comfortable, uncomfortable") Comment: Depends on the accessibility issue. Participant 19: Question 8 is not the clearest to understand. [“I have had ___ experience in having students with accessibility needs disrupt my classes.”” Participant 23: “Article in NEA flyer just released this month on this topic – just read it!” Participant 24: "I’m not really sure what “universal design for learning” is. This the timid endorsement." Participant 29: “I am always happy to participate in research, so put me on a list if you want to. From my perspective, the big question is how do we get students who don’t necessarily need assistive tech, but who could potentially benefit to some degree, to ask for help. Thanks!" Perlow-ATIA 2008

  42. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 33 [did not mark whether ED or LIS]:   Comment to Question 5 (about comfort level with students with access needs in online courses]: Circled ”I don’t know” answer and commented: “When they’re online I don’t know any needs they don’t tell me about.” Comments section: “The generic definition of “accessibility needs” made these hard questions to answer. I have one experience with [w/] students who have some needs but none at all with students with other needs.” Perlow-ATIA 2008

  43. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 34 [did not mark whether ED or LIS]: Comment to Question 9: “I have ____ experience with students in my classes who claim accessibility needs and ask for special treatment that they do not deserve.” Participant circled the answer “I don’t know” and the word “deserve” in the question, writing next to the word “deserve:” “? meet ADA standards for as per univ. gdlines = “deserve.”  Comment to Question 11: “Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program” “depends on the need and the student’s goals.”   Participant 34 – continued next page -- Perlow-ATIA 2008

  44. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 34 – continued: Comment to Question 12: “People with accessibility needs are ___ to find work as education/LIS professionals” Circled the answer “I don’t know” with comment: “depends on the needs & the work.” Comment to Question 15: “I am ___ in attending training sessions on the topics listed in question 14 at the institution with which I am affiliated” circled “possibly interested.” Comment: “prefer to learn in terms of a student’s real needs rather than repeat the general training I’ve already done”  Additional comments: “see earlier notes” Perlow-ATIA 2008

  45. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 36 [LIS]: Additional comments: “I have not taught an online class, so #5 is Not applicable.” Participant 38 [LIS]: Additional comments: “Have attended university workshops on course design to meet disability issues” Perlow-ATIA 2008

  46. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 39 [LIS]: Comment to Question 10: “Students with accessibility needs can ___ the classes that I teach.” Circled: “I don’t know” as answer with comment: “and depends on the accessibility need.” Comment to Question 11: “Students with accessibility needs are ___ to successfully complete my department’s program.” Circled: “I don’t know” as answer with comment: “Same as above” [“and depends on the accessibility need”] Comment to Question 12: “People with accessibility needs are ___ to find work as education/LIS professionals” Circled the answer “I don’t know” with comment: “Same as above” [“and depends on the accessibility need”]. Perlow-ATIA 2008

  47. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS LIS Participant Comments Participant 39 [LIS]: continued: Additional Comments: “see attached” [attachment of separate page [stapled] and typewritten comments: “Some of the survey questions were difficult to answer because the topic (“accessibility needs”) is very broad and covers a large spectrum. When I started answering the survey, I was thinking in terms of physical ability, and didn’t consider people with differing emotional/ mental abilities to be considered as well In my teaching experience, I have had very few students with physical disabilities, and those that I have had were generally sufficiently motivated to complete the program, and find jobs. I have also had a number of students with emotional difficulties, whom I have thought were going to have a very hard time finding jobs because they were (to my mind) far less adaptable than students with physical disabilities.” Perlow-ATIA 2008

  48. Comparison/Issues of Interest 1. When asked positively, participants … 2. LIS somewhat more experience, also more negative experiences than Health Educators. 3. Both Health and LIS Educators: demonstrate interest in positive PWAN/SWAN interaction. 4. Both disciplines: interest in learning more about access issues: need to be very interested. 5. Both Health/LIS Educators should be receptive. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  49. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS Comparison/Issues of Interest 6. Both Health Ed./LIS Educators: lack of confidence in college students with access needs to succeed, particularly in entering profession. 7. Impact of different accessibility support systems in U.S. pre-K-12 [21] (IDEA/Sec. 504/ NCLB, transition services) vs. higher education (Sec. 504/The A.D.A.): future convergence? 8. Impact of institutional effectiveness initiatives. 9. Need to positively change perceptions. How? Perlow-ATIA February 2008

  50. The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = Health Ed The UNIVARIATE Procedure Fitted Distribution for INTEREST AREA = LIS Research Agenda • Participant Recruitment: Need for more participants: LIS, especially Education Faculty. • Expand analysis: multivariate/factor analysis. • Examination of confounding factors, such as effect of [length of] IRB consent forms. • Demographic data? • Replication of studies in more disciplines. • Advocacy/research to promote successful PWAN outcomes in higher education, careers. Perlow-ATIA February 2008

More Related