Assessment of Military Viewpoints Regarding Post-Secondary Education

Abstract

This study examined the educational experiences and preferences of 215 current military and veteran students regarding their viewpoints of outside support toward their education, university support, classroom experiences and preferences, views of instructor and student interactions, and perceptions of being a military student in comparison with civilian students. The presence of current post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was assessed as well as the frequency of symptoms in the classroom. Results indicated that about two thirds of military and veteran students indicated current physical and emotional difficulties. However, symptoms in the classroom were generally experienced infrequently. Military student viewpoints are presented in each of the five domains, and significant differences based on gender, combat experience, and time since discharge are discussed. Implications for rehabilitation counselors working with veterans are noted.

Keywords

accommodation issues disability(ies)education military

Recent attention has been given to addressing the educational needs and preferences of veterans and active military servicepersons as colleges and universities across the country have seen increased veteran enrollment from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND; Church, 2009; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014). While OEF and OIF were military operations, Operation New Dawn was a transition phase following OIF from 2010 to 2011. Since the inception of the post-9/11 GI Bill in 2009, more than half a million veterans have applied for their educational benefits to attend college classes (Sander, 2012; Steele, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010).

For many of these veteran students, life-changing combat experiences during OIF and OEF continue to have profound effects while attending higher education (Branker, 2009). The Rand Corporation has predicted that as many as a quarter of veteran students have a hidden disability, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or other emotional disorders (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2014), service-connected disability applies to “Veterans who are disabled by an injury or illness that was incurred or aggravated during active military service” (para. 1). Overall, service-connected disability among veterans is estimated to be 14%; however, among those serving since 9/11, service-related disability stands at 26% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). However, Grossman (2009) estimates that as many as 40% of service members may be suffering from various physical and psychological traumas.

Due to the prevalence of service-related injuries and mental health impairments, researchers have suggested the need to both understand and accommodate veterans in the classroom (Church, 2009; Ingala, Softas, & Peters, 2013). Addressing the educational needs of veterans is hindered by a reluctance of servicepersons to self-identify that may create difficulties among staff and faculty, student affairs personnel, disability services, and other departments involved in responding to student issues in higher education (Shackelford, 2009). In addition to educational accommodations, the social integration necessary to adjust to the academic setting has been of concern for a number of researchers (Bichrest, 2013; Church, 2009; Glover, Miller, & Freeman, 2010; Ingala et al., 2013; Young, 2012), and, as Frain, Bishop, and Bethel (2010) remind us, “Rehabilitation counseling should take a central role in the services provided to military personnel discharged with a disability” (p. 13). The following reviews service-related disability, educational impact of service-related disability, and classroom accommodation for disability.

Service-Related Disability

The three major types of service-related disabilities incurred by veterans include TBI, mental health disorders such as PTSD, and physical injuries from explosives (Church, 2009). The Iraq and Afghanistan wars account for over 50,500 reported physical injuries; 20% involve spinal cord and brain injury, and 6% result in amputation. Physical injuries often result in chronic pain and mobility impairment, and amputations often lead to prescribed prosthetic devices. However, problems with these devices may lead to dissatisfaction, underutilization, or non-use of the prosthesis (Church, 2009; Willy, Steinmann, & Engelhardt, 2006). A study of 45 veterans with amputations revealed that 54% chose not to use their prosthesis due to poor fit, discomfort, and pain. Other studies indicate additional concerns including onset of osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and musculoskeletal and back pain (Karmarkar et al., 2009; Sherman, 1999). In addition, prosthetic devices may be viewed as negatively affecting vocation, body image, and socialization opportunities (Gailey, Allen, Castles, Kucharik, & Roeder, 2008).

Service-related physical impairment also includes hearing loss and TBI. Approximately 10% of veteran-documented disabilities are hearing impairments including tinnitus, hearing loss, and otitis media (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 2006). In addition to communication difficulties, hearing impairments may also be associated with social isolation, poor self-esteem, depression, intimate relationship problems, and vocational difficulties (Saunders & Griest, 2009). Traumatic head injury has affected over 320,000 soldiers serving in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars leading to cognitive and/or mental health impairments (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). Symptoms from TBI are varied and may include headaches, sensitivity of noise and light, and sleep disturbance. In addition, cognitive impairments may include language, memory, attention, and problem-solving difficulties. Behavioral symptoms typically include impulsivity, emotional outbursts, mood fluctuation, anxiety, and depression (Okie, 2005).

In terms of mental health, of the 1.64 million veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2008, approximately 300,000 experience PTSD or depression (Tanielian et al., 2008). By their third deployment, anxiety and depression rates among veterans increase from 12% to 27% (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). These statistics may be an under-representation because some veterans are reluctant to self-disclose due to embarrassment (Grossman, 2009; Shackelford, 2009). Symptoms associated with PTSD and other mental health issues include anxiety, anger, aggressive behavior, difficulty sleeping, irritability, hopelessness, hypervigilance, social withdrawal, difficulty concentrating, and somatic complaints, and may create functional and social integration difficulties (Church, 2009). Morin (2011) identified factors that contribute to a difficult transition to civilian life as being a post-9/11 veteran, post-traumatic stress, serious injury, and combat experience.

Disclosure and Educational Impact of War-Induced Disability

Due to underreporting of veteran disability, concerns faced in higher education include identifying those who meet the criteria for mental health disorders but have not been diagnosed and are therefore not receiving assistance. Barriers that account for the lack of veterans seeking care include concerns about confidentiality, possible implications to future job assignments or career advancement, potential side effects of medication, and the perception that mental health care is ineffective (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008).

Moreover, the term disabled has been negatively associated with terms such as “not fit, weak, unable to participate or perform” (Burnett & Segoria, 2009, p. 54). Many veterans also hesitate to disclose difficulties because while actively serving in the military, “acknowledging, discussing, or reporting a personal problem or vulnerability would most likely prompt a negative reaction from superiors, as well as peers from their unit” (Shackelford, 2009, p. 38). Church (2009) asserted that the classroom manifestations of psychiatric disabilities affecting student veterans include difficulty working under pressure, difficulty managing assignments and prioritizing tasks, struggles with social interactions, problems with authority figures (including hesitation to approach instructors), hypersensitivity to negative feedback and criticism, difficulty adapting to unexpected changes in coursework, heightened anxiety resulting in academic impairment, unpredictable absences, problems with recurrent and disturbing thoughts, and a distrust of bureaucracy. In addition, psychiatric disabilities such as PTSD can impair attention, memory, concentration, and disinterest or disaffection toward others (Parrish, 2008; Ruh, Spicer, & Vaughan, 2009).

In a qualitative study conducted by Glover et al. (2010), several adjustment issues were noted among veterans enrolled in college. These veterans reported attending college with high levels of discipline, motivation, and confidence. Yet many veterans felt animosity and resentment over the lack of military issued transferable credits. With regard to social interactions, many veterans had difficulties connecting with civilians and fellow students, and reported anxiety over being asked personal questions about their service experiences. Participants also reported alcohol and drug abuse as a means of self-medication for adjustment difficulties, PTSD symptoms, and sleep problems. Hypervigilance was also a problem as many continued to feel the need to be alert and ready for an attack at all times. In public places and in the classroom, they desired to be in a position that permitted them to view others and have their backs to the wall while near the closest exit (Glover et al. 2010).

Osborne (2013) noted that veterans felt unconnected from fellow students and perceived the university as liberal and therefore anti-military. Their perceptions were heightened due to derogatory statements by both students and faculty. In addition, disclosure of military status was viewed as risky due to stereotypes related to returning veterans and mental instability. In one of the few studies that examined gender differences in post-secondary education with regard to serving veterans with disabilities, Vance and Miller (2009) reported the belief that female wounded warriors were more likely to self-identify and seek out accommodations than were males; however, males were more likely to be offered services and support.

To accommodate some veterans, a telecommunication educational model and custom curriculum have been used to allow veterans to receive online education at their homes or other environments perceived as safe (Ruh et al., 2009). However, suggestions for making improvements for veterans within higher education involved a moderate amount of accommodation and “offering faculty and staff development programs on veterans’ issues, particularly in areas related to military culture and the limiting stereotypes that focus disproportionately on violence and trauma, were emphasized as essential for creating a veteran friendly campus” (Osborne, 2013, p. 8).

In an attempt to better understand the role of social integration and adaptation to college, Ingala et al. (2013) examined military support, post-deployment support, number of deployments, combat experiences, PTSD, and injury in relation to academic adjustment. The authors found that higher levels of both types of support resulted in higher levels of adjustment; higher levels of PTSD resulted in lower levels of college adjustment. Likewise, Young (2012) examined the impact of pre-deployment risk factors, deployment length, combat exposure, post-deployment social support, and dispositional resiliency on academic adjustment and found that only social supports affected adjustment scores. These results point to the need for educators to recognize the extent of PTSD and attend to social support. Likewise, Bichrest concluded that there was a need for awareness and improvement in research to better understand veterans’ transitional experiences into higher education.

The purpose of the present exploratory study was to examine the educational experiences and preferences of current military and veteran post-secondary students. Specifically, we assessed their perceptions regarding outside support toward their education, university support, classroom experiences and preferences, views of instructor and student interactions, perceptions of themselves in comparison with civilian students, and their frequency of current PTSD symptoms. In addition, we explored participant differences in educational experiences and preferences based on gender, combat experience, and time since discharge.

Method

Participants

A total of 215 veteran students participated in this study. Although a detailed demographic description of the participants is found in Table 1, approximately 76.1% were male, and 51.6% identified as Caucasian, with the mean age of 36.9 (SD = 10.6). Most reported being either unemployed (39.5%) or employed full-time (37.2%), currently married (59.1%), and living with a family and/or friends (83.3%). In terms of education, the majority were undergraduate students (63.7%).

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Identified demographic	n	%
Gender
Male	162	75.3
Female	51	23.7
Living status
Living alone	35	16.3
Living with the boyfriend/girlfriend	11	5.1
Living with spouse	122	56.7
Living with children	72	33.5
Living with parents	24	11.2
Living with other family	12	5.6
Living with friends	6	2.8
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian (non-Hispanic)	111	51.6
African American	17	7.9
Hispanic	77	36.8
Asian	2	0.9
Native American/Alaska Native	2	0.9
Work status
Full-time employed	80	37.2
Part-time employed	32	14.9
Unemployed	85	39.5
Retired/disability retirement	14	6.5
Retired from the military	4	1.9
Educational status
Undergraduate	137	63.7
Graduate	69	32.1
Doctoral	6	2.8
Postgraduate	2	0.9
Marital status
Single, never married	50	23.3
Currently married	127	59.1
Currently married but separated	5	2.3
Divorced	32	14.9

Demographics related to service indicated that 86 (40%) participants experienced combat while the remainder did not. Current military status was reported as 7 (3.3%) active military, 18 (8.4%) reservists, 188 (87.4%) veterans, and 2 (0.9%) did not respond to this item. Forty-three (20%) students identified their branch in the military as Air force, 81 (37.7%) Army, 39 (18.1%) Marines, and 50 (23.3%) Navy. One (0.5%) participant did not respond to this item. Participants’ time since discharge indicated that 19 (8.8%) were still in service, 35 (16.3%) were discharged less than 2 years ago, 79 (36.7%) between 2 and less than 7 years ago, and 77 (35.8%) more than 7 years ago. Table 1 provides detailed information regarding demographics.

Instrumentation

A review of the literature was conducted to search for existing scales related to military education. An online survey to assess the experiences of using the GI Bill and academic supports was located (Steele et al., 2010). However, none were found to comprehensively measure internal and external current military and veteran support. The Military Education Survey (MES) was therefore developed by the authors for this study, based on relevant literature, to examine educational experiences and preferences for current military and veteran students. The MES includes a 12-item demographic section, 2 checklists to assess physical difficulties and PTSD symptomology (the PTSD symptomatology checklist was termed Mood difficulties and derived from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–4th Edition, Text Revision [DSM-IV-TR]), 5 Likert-type scale items to assess the level of outside supports for education, 11 Likert-type scale items to assess the level of university supports, 9 Likert-type scale items that query classroom experiences and preferences, 14 Likert-type scale items regarding instructor and student interactions, and 15 Likert-type scale items regarding being a veteran or serviceperson student.

The 54 items are rated using either a 5-point Likert-type scale to reflect the frequency of an experience (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = always), or a 6-point scale to determine the degree of agreement or disagreement with statements (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = moderately agree, 6 = strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability for the MES was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha and resulted in an internal consistency estimate of .89.

Following item construction, the refinement of content validity was strengthened by three experts in vocational rehabilitation counseling with two of the three being professors within an institution of higher education and one veteran. Recommendations included the inclusion of questions asking respondents a variety of demographics regarding military service, what concerns student veterans face in higher education, what improvements or additions should be made to the questionnaire, and what should be removed. The surveys were then pilot tested with 10 student veterans from the University of Texas–Pan American for understandability, readability, and to assist with content validity. Several recommendations were made as to the phrasing and length of questions, and time it took to complete the survey.

Procedures

This study was conducted utilizing SurveyMonkey™, a web-based survey site for researchers. The survey was anonymous, and of the 215 veterans who took part in the study, all were recruited from 40 of the 4-year Military Friendly Institutions in Texas. The military-friendly institutions designation is awarded to public and private schools on an annual basis and is intended to identify educational institutions that engage in best practices in the retention and recruitment of military students. Emails were sent to schools listed as Texas Military Friendly Institutions (Victory Media, 2013) encouraging institutions to distribute the request for subject participation to their veterans on campus. Additional participants were also contacted by staff at the Veteran Services Center located at the University of Texas–Pan American, a public institution that serves approximately 20,000 students.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics for the demographic questions including gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital and living status, state of residence, employment status, student and military status, branch of military service, and time since discharge. In addition, descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the checklist and Likert-type scale items. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test group comparisons were utilized to examine differences related to combat service versus no combat service, gender, and time since discharge.

Results

Presence of Physical and Emotional/Behavioral Difficulties

Regarding physical difficulty items, of the 215 individuals surveyed, 78 (36.3%) reported that they were not experiencing difficulties. Difficulties most often experienced included hearing problems (n = 63, 29.3%), chronic pain (n = 56, 26.0%), depression (n = 54, 25.1%), and diagnosed PTSD (n = 35, 16.3%). Other physical difficulties were reported as undiagnosed symptoms of PTSD (n = 25, 11.6%), nerve damage (n = 23, 10.7%), head injury (n = 14, 6.5%), amputations or mobility problems (n = 6, 2.8%), and burns or disfigurement (n = 2, 0.9%).

Likewise, participants were asked to indicate mood difficulties (PTSD symptoms). About a third (n = 80, 37.2%) reported no difficulties. Mood difficulties reported by at least 20% of participants included difficulty falling asleep (n = 82, 38.1%), being easily distracted (n = 62, 28.8%), difficulty concentrating (n = 60, 27.9%), being alert and ready for bad things to happen (n = 60, 27.9%), being quick to anger (n = 52, 24.2%), tending to avoid interacting with others (n = 49, 22.8%), being startled easily by loud noises (n = 48, 22.3%), and feeling sad or empty (n = 43, 20.0%). For a complete list of mood difficulties, the first author can be contacted.

Outside supports for education

Participants were surveyed using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) on the level of agreement with questions asking whether family, non-military friends, military friends, supervisors, and co-workers were supportive. The greatest amount of agreement regarding support came from questions asking whether family members (M = 5.5, SD = 1.2, n = 211), non-military friends (M = 5.5, SD = 1.1, n = 195), and military friends (M = 5.5, SD = 1.2, n = 180) were supportive, with the majority of participants strongly agreeing. Likewise, most participants strongly agreed that supervisors (M = 5.3, SD = 1.3, n = 122) and co-workers (M = 5.3, SD = 1.3, n = 120) were supportive. Table 2 indicates means and frequencies for these items.

Table 2.

Military Education Survey—Outside Supports for Education.

		Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly disagree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree
Item	M (SD)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
My family is supportive of me going to school	5.5 (1.3)	11 (5.2)	2 (0.9)	5 (2.4)	7 (3.3)	14 (6.6)	172 (81.5)
My non-military friends are supportive of me going to school	5.5 (112)	8 (4.1)	1 (0.5)	2 (1.0)	12 (6.2)	33 (16.9)	139 (71.3)
My military friends are supportive of me going to school	5.5 (1.2)	8 (4.4)	2 (1.1)	0 (0.0)	10 (5.6)	28 (15.6)	132 (73.3)
My supervisor is supportive of me going to school	5.3 (1.3)	6 (4.9)	1 (0.8)	2 (1.6)	11 (9.0)	19 (15.6)	83 (68.0)
My co-workers are supportive of me going to school	5.3 (1.3)	6 (5.0)	1 (0.8)	4 (3.3)	7 (5.8)	23 (19.2)	79 (65.8)

Note. N ranged from 180 to 211.

University support for education

The same 6-point Likert-type scale was used to access military student’s views of their university’s support. Overall, mean scores indicate that students only slightly agreed that their university did enough to help veterans succeed in the classroom, give them credit for military service and classes, promote military and veterans’ organizations, provide psychological help, provide academic help, and show a positive view of veterans on campus. Students showed the greatest amount of agreement that their universities were veteran friendly (M = 4.6, SD = 1.6, n = 212), were accessible to veterans and servicepersons with disabilities (M = 4.6, SD = 1.6, n = 209), and provided enough accommodations for disability (M = 4.5, SD = 1.6, n = 209).

A final question in this category asked if students sometimes thought of quitting due to their university experiences. The majority of students strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (M = 2.2, SD = 1.7, n = 215). Table 3 provides means, standard deviations, and frequencies for these items.

Table 3.

Military Education Survey—University Support for Education.

		Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree
Item	M (SD)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
My university is doing enough to help servicemen and veteran students succeed in the classroom	4.4 (1.7)	26 (12.1)	9 (4.2)	13 (6.0)	33 (15.3)	65 (30.2)	69 (32.1)
Because of my experiences at the university, I sometimes think of quitting	2.2 (1.7)	117 (54.4)	38 (17.7)	11 (5.1)	21 (9.8)	10 (4.7)	18 (8.4)
My university is veteran friendly	4.6 (1.6)	21 (9.8)	12 (5.6)	12 (5.6)	27 (12.6)	59 (27.4)	81 (37.7)
My university is doing enough to get me credit for my military service and classes	3.8 (1.9)	41 (19.1)	19 (8.8)	24 (11.2)	29 (13.5)	42 (19.5)	53 (24.7)
My university does enough to promote campus veterans and military organizations	4.0 (1.7)	33 (15.3)	16 (7.4)	24 (11.2)	36 (16.7)	55 (25.6)	46 (21.4)
My university does enough to provide psychological help to servicemen/women and veterans	4.0 (1.6)	26 (12.1)	16 (7.4)	25 (11.6)	52 (24.2)	45 (20.9)	43 (20.0)
My university does enough to provide academic help to servicemen/women and veterans	4.2 (1.7)	29 (13.5)	10 (4.7)	21 (9.8)	39 (18.1)	62 (28.8)	49 (22.8)
My university campus is accessible to servicemen/women and veterans with disabilities	4.6 (1.6)	22 (10.2)	2 (0.9)	13 (6.0)	33 (15.3)	61 (28.4)	78 (36.3)
My university provides enough accommodations for servicemen/women and veterans with disabilities	4.5 (1.6)	22 (10.2)	4 (1.9)	15 (7.0)	36 (16.7)	64 (29.8)	68 (31.6)
My university does enough to show a positive view of veterans on campus	4.3 (1.6)	26 (12.1)	6 (2.8)	22 (10.2)	35 (16.3)	60 (27.9)	60 (27.9)
My university honors those who have served	4.5 (1.6)	24 (11.2)	5 (2.3)	8 (3.7)	50 (23.3)	55 (25.6)	71 (33.0)

Note. N ranged from 207 to 215.

Classroom Experiences and Preferences

This scale also used the 6-point Likert-type scale as above. Students were asked about classroom preferences and experiences, and slight agreement was found for items that revealed that students would rather take an online course and they would rather work with other servicepersons or veterans. Greatest agreement was to the item stating that they desire more practical information from learning than non-military students (M = 3.8, SD = 1.7, n = 202).

Students slightly disagreed that the classroom environment makes them nervous, that they get nervous if they cannot see the exit or other students sit behind them, that they would like to share their military experiences in the classroom, and that they are interested in extracurricular activities on campus. Moderate disagreement was indicated regarding not wanting instructors to show videos about war. Table 4 provides means, standard deviations, and frequencies for these items.

Table 4.

Military Education Survey—Classroom Experiences and Preferences.

		Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree
Item	M (SD)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
I would rather take an online course than sit in a classroom	3.6 (2.0)	53 (24.7)	25 (11.6)	25 (11.6)	20 (9.3)	29 (13.5)	60 (27.9)
I find the classroom environment makes me nervous or anxious	2.6 (1.7)	84 (39.1)	31 (14.4)	25 (11.6)	34 (15.8)	24 (11.2)	13 (6.0)
I get nervous in the classroom if I can’t see the exit	2.4 (1.7)	107 (49.8)	18 (8.4)	24 (11.2)	25 (11.6)	19 (8.8)	17 (7.9)
I get nervous in the classroom if other students sit behind me	2.5 (1.8)	97 (45.1)	28 (13.0)	18 (8.4)	28 (13.0)	23 (10.7)	17 (7.9)
If group work is assigned, I want to work with other servicemen/women or veterans	3.5 (1.7)	40 (18.6)	27 (12.6)	27 (12.6)	53 (24.7)	30 (14.0)	32 (14.9)
I do not want my instructors to show videos about war	2.3 (1.5)	94 (43.7)	40 (18.6)	34 (15.8)	20 (9.3)	10 (4.7)	12 (5.6)
Military students want more practical information from learning than non-military students	3.8 (1.7)	30 (14.0)	17 (7.9)	35 (16.3)	48 (22.3)	39 (18.1)	41 (19.1)
I would like to share my military experiences in the classroom	3.1 (1.7)	52 (24.2)	28 (13.0)	44 (20.5)	35 (16.3)	31 (14.4)	20 (9.3)
I am interested in extracurricular activities on campus	3.2 (1.7)	54 (25.1)	26 (12.1)	29 (13.5)	50 (23.3)	33 (15.3)	19 (8.8)

Note. N ranged from 209 to 212.

Instructor and Student Interactions

This scale assessed interactions with other students and instructors. Participants slightly agreed that instructors were doing enough for military students to succeed, faculty and staff were taking extra steps to assist the student, and professors were understanding about missed classes due to military training. Slight agreement was also indicated when students were asked whether non-military students say stupid things related to wars, servicepersons, and veterans with disabilities. Greatest agreement was that non-military students cannot understand what servicepersons have gone through (M = 4.2, SD = 1.7, n = 204).

Moderate disagreement was found with statements about believing that it was rude or insensitive for other students to ask about military experiences, and that students could not connect with non-military students. Likewise there was moderate disagreement that instructors or other students had made participants angry by asking about military experiences. Slight disagreement was found for items that stated that instructors do not understand servicepersons, participants could not relate to other students because they were overly concerned with trivial matters, non-military students were not as serious about education as servicepersons, and that participants would like to be identified in class as a serviceperson by the professor. Table 5 provides means, standard deviations, and frequencies for these items.

Table 5.

Military Education Survey—Instructor and Student Interactions.

		Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree
Item	M (SD)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Overall, my instructors are doing enough to help veterans succeed in the classroom	4.1 (1.5)	20 (9.3)	13 (6.0)	18 (8.4)	64 (29.8)	46 (21.4)	44 (20.5)
Faculty and staff take extra steps to assist me	3.7 (1.5)	21 (9.8)	20 (9.3)	44 (20.5)	53 (24.7)	31 (14.4)	32 (14.9)
Overall, my instructors do not understand servicemen/women and veteran students	3.0 (1.4)	33 (15.3)	44 (21.0)	48 (22.3)	46 (21.4)	23 (10.7)	9 (4.2)
My professors are understanding when I need to	4.0 (1.6)	19 (8.8)	14 (6.5)	24 (11.2)	53 (24.7)	33 (15.3)	41 (19.1)
Instructors have asked things about my military experiences that made me angry because it was none of their business	2.0 (1.3)	108 (50.2)	43 (20.0)	26 (12.1)	11 (5.1)	6 (2.8)	7 (3.3)
I have trouble relating to non-military students because they are overly concerned with trivial things in life	3.1 (1.8)	64 (29.8)	26 (12.1)	17 (7.9)	41 (19.1)	33 (15.3)	23 (10.7)
Non-military students are not as serious about their education as servicemen/women	3.3 (1.8)	55 (25.6)	24 (11.2)	27 (12.6)	39 (18.1)	28 (13.0)	31 (14.4)
Overall, I do not feel I can connect well with non-military students	2.3 (1.5)	89 (41.4)	34 (15.8)	33 (15.3)	22 (10.2)	17 (7.9)	8 (3.7)
I believe non-military students are insensitive when they ask me things about my military experience	2.4 (1.5)	86 (40.0)	36 (16.7)	28 (13.0)	31 (14.4)	12 (5.6)	8 (3.7)
I believe non-military students are rude when they ask me things about my military experience	2.1 (1.3)	96 (44.7)	34 (15.8)	42 (19.5)	15 (7.0)	10 (4.7)	5 (2.3)
I believe non-military students say stupid things related to wars, servicemen/women and veterans with disabilities.	3.7 (1.8)	43 (20.0)	21 (9.8)	19 (8.8)	40 (18.6)	36 (16.7)	47 (21.9)
Non-military students can’t possibly understand what servicemen/women have gone through	4.2 (1.7)	27 (12.6)	15 (7.0)	23 (10.7)	37 (17.2)	36 (16.7)	66 (30.7)
I would like to be identified in the classroom as a serviceman/woman by my professor	2.6 (1.6)	73 (34.0)	33 (15.3)	41 (19.1)	33 (15.3)	12 (5.6)	14 (6.5)
Non-military students have asked things about my military experiences that made me angry because it was none of their business	2.3 (1.6)	92 (42.8)	33 (15.3)	27 (12.6)	27 (12.6)	11 (5.1)	11 (5.1)

Note. N ranged from 184 to 206.

Being a Military Student

Eight items assessed participants’ beliefs about themselves as compared with other students. Slight agreement was indicated in feeling different than other students, being more disciplined in studies, and believing that the school would help with the transition to civilian life. The greatest amount of agreement was with the statement “As a veteran, I have a lot to offer instructors and classmates” (M = 4.5, SD = 1.5, n = 197).

Participants indicated slight disagreement with statements about being more distracted in the classroom than other students, having more difficulty concentrating on homework, classroom information being irrelevant to their lives, and college being more difficult than they thought. Table 6 provides means, standard deviations, and frequencies for these items.

Table 6.

Military Education Survey—Being a Military Student.

		Strongly disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree
Item	M (SD)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
I feel different from non-military students	3.7 (1.8)	40 (18.6)	16 (7.4)	22 (10.2)	51 (23.7)	29 (13.5)	44 (20.5)
I am more disciplined in my studies than non-military students	4.3 (1.6)	16 (7.4)	15 (7.0)	24 (11.2)	43 (20.0)	47 (21.9)	56 (26.0)
I am more distracted in the classroom than non-military students	2.7 (1.6)	66 (30.7)	39 (18.1)	38 (17.7)	24 (11.2)	19 (8.8)	14 (6.5)
I have more difficulty concentrating on my homework assignments than non-military students	2.7 (1.7)	74 (34.4)	29 (13.5)	39 (18.1)	24 (11.2)	18 (8.4)	17 (7.9)
Much of the information in the classroom is irrelevant to my life	2.7 (1.6)	68 (31.6)	31 (14.4)	46 (21.4)	26 (12.1)	17 (7.9)	13 (6.0)
Going to college is more difficult than I thought it would be	2.8 (1.7)	71 (33.0)	33 (15.3)	24 (11.2)	36 (16.7)	22 (10.2)	15 (7.0)
I believe that going to school will assist me in transitioning back into civilian life	4.2 (1.7)	27 (12.6)	8 (3.7)	17 (7.9)	40 (18.6)	49 (22.8)	56 (26.0)
As a veteran, I have a lot to offer instructors and classmates	4.5 (1.5)	19 (8.8)	3 (1.4)	15 (7.0)	38 (17.7)	66 (30.7)	56 (26.0)

Note. N ranged from 197 to 202.

Frequency of Symptoms in the Classroom

The last scale of the instrument used a 5-point scale to assess the frequency of PTSD symptoms in the classroom (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = always). Overall, mean scores indicated that students seldom felt angry (M = 1.8, SD = 0.9), nervous (M = 2.1, SD = 1.2), distracted (M = 2.2, SD = 1.2), tired (M = 2.4, SD = 1.1), frustrated (M = 2.2, SD = 1.1), emotional interference (M = 1.8, SD = 1.0), and hypervigilance (M = 1.8, SD = 1.1).

Group Comparisons

Group comparisons were analyzed using t tests to examine differences between gender and military students with and without combat experience; a Welch ANOVA was used to look for differences based on time since discharge. In terms of combat versus no combat experience, 85 (39.5%) participants indicated combat experience and 130 (60.5%) participants indicated no combat action. t-test comparisons were conducted for each of the six scales using Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.

Following t tests, it was determined that no significant differences between military students with and without combat experience were indicated on items related to outside supports for education, university support for education, instructor and student interactions, and being a military student. However, a statistically significant difference (p < .05) was found in Classroom Experiences and Preferences scale on the item, “I find the classroom environment makes me nervous or anxious” between combat (M = 3.02, SD = 1.75, n = 85) and noncombat (M = 2.37, SD = 1.57, n = 126) military students with combat military indicating less disagreement. A final group difference was apparent in the Symptoms in the Classroom scale with a significant difference (p < .01) on the item “My thoughts that something might happen at any moment get in the way of my education” between combat (M = 2.11, SD = 1.31, n = 83) military who moderately disagreed and noncombat (M = 1.56, SD = 0.94, n = 118) military students who strongly disagreed.

Two gender differences were also noted on the scale of Classroom Experiences and Preferences. On the question, “I get nervous in the classroom if I can’t see the exit,” males disagreed less (M = 2.59, SD = 1.8, n = 159, p < .05) than females (M = 1.8, SD = 1.31, n = 49). A second significant difference (p < .05) on this scale was found on the question, “I get nervous in the classroom if other students sit behind me.” Male students indicated less disagreement (M = 2.75, SD = 1.8, n = 159) than females (M = 1.76, SD = 1.28, n = 50). Significant gender differences (p < .05) were also apparent on the Instructor and Student Interactions scale for questions related to non-military students being insensitive when asking questions (males, M = 2.51, SD = 1.49, n = 151; females, M = 1.78, SD = 1.29, n = 48) and rude when asking questions about military experiences (males, M = 2.27, SD = 1.38, n = 152; females, M = 1.60, SD = 1.07, n = 48). Females were in greater disagreement with each of these items. On another item that asked about non-military students saying stupid things related to wars, males moderately agreed (M = 3.91, SD = 1.74, n = 156) while females slightly agreed (M = 2.94, SD = 1.94, n = 48). A one-way Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine whether time since discharge was a factor among the frequency of symptoms in the classroom and classroom experiences. Participants were classified into four groups: still serving (n = 19), less than 2 years (n = 35), between 2 and 7 years (n = 77), and more than 7 years (n = 75). There were no outliers as assessed by a boxplot; a visual check of histograms and a normal Q–Q plot implemented for the variable scores indicated a normal distribution, but there was heterogeneity of variances as assessed by Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (p < .05).

Four variables were found to have significant differences among groups. For the variable, “I find the classroom environment makes me nervous or anxious,” scores were as follows: still serving (M = 1.7, SD = 0.94), less than 2 years (M = 2.4, SD = 1.5), between 2 and 7 years (M = 3.1, SD = 1.8), and more than 7 years (M = 2.5, SD = 1.6) with differences between the time since discharge groups statistically significantly different, Welch’s F(3, 76.162) = 7.201, p < .005. Games–Howell post hoc analysis revealed that an increase from “still serving” to “between 2 and 7 years” (1.39, 95% CI [0.60, 2.18]) was statistically significant (p < .05), as well as “still serving” to “more than 7 years” (0.81, CI 95% [0.044, 1.57], p = .034). For variable, “I have more difficulty concentrating on my homework assignments than non-military students,” scores were as follows: still serving (M = 1.9, SD = 1.2), less than 2 years (M = 2.5, SD = 1.4), between 2 and 7 years (M = 3.1, SD = 1.9), more than 7 years (M = 2.6, SD = 1.6) with differences between time since discharge groups statistically significant, Welch’s F(3, 68.1) = 3.73, p = .015. Games–Howell post hoc analysis revealed that an increase from “still serving” to “between 2 and 7 years” (1.2, 95% CI [0.23, 2.13]) was statistically significant (p = .009). The variable “My emotions get in the way of my education” revealed the following scores: still serving (M = 1.47, SD = 0.72), less than 2 years (M = 1.64, SD = 0.95), between 2 and 7 years (M = 2.12, SD = 1.2), and more than 7 years (M = 1.65, SD = 0.93), with differences between time since discharge groups statistically significant, Welch’s F(3, 64.7) = 3.7, p = .016. Games–Howell post hoc analysis revealed that an increase from “still serving” to “between 2 and 7 years” (0.65, 95% CI [0.06, 1.25]) was statistically significant (p = .026), as well as the increase from “more than 7 years” to “between 2 and 7 years” (0.475, 95% CI [0.022, 0.93], p = .036). The final variable, “I feel nervous in the classroom,” that contributed toward statistically significant results revealed the following scores: still serving (M = 1.82, SD = 0.73), less than 2 years (M = 1.77, SD = 0.92), between 2 and 7 years (M = 2.5, SD = 1.4), and more than 7 years (M = 1.91, SD = 1.12) with differences between time since discharge groups significant, Welch’s F(3, 69) = 4.3, p = .008. Games–Howell post hoc analysis revealed that an increase from “still serving” to “between 2 and 7 years” (0.68, 95% CI [0.04, 1.32], p = .035), an increase from “less than 2 years” to “between 2 and 7 years” (0.74, 95% CI [0.141, 1.33], p = .009), and an increase from “more than 7 years” to “between 2 and 7 years” (0.60, 95% CI [0.051, 1.14], p = .026) were statistically significant.

Discussion

The current study was designed to explore the post-secondary experiences of primarily returning OIF/OEF and OND veterans in relation to their perceptions regarding outside support, university education support, classroom experiences and preferences, instructor and student interactions, being a servicemen/women or veteran student, and frequency of war-related mental and emotional symptoms class.

Overall, although about a third of servicepersons in the present study indicate having few if any residual physical, mental, emotional and/or behavioral difficulties post-deployment, approximately two thirds report one or more symptoms. As such, it becomes important for university educators, staff, administrators, and rehabilitation counselors to become cognizant of veteran difficulties and the potential solutions in assisting them to reintegrate back into their community.

One of the most glaring catch 22s for servicepersons and post-secondary personnel, however, is the number of veterans who are reluctant to self-disclose a disability due to stigma as well as their perceived discrimination regarding future deployments or job opportunities (Church, 2009; Shackelford, 2009). As such, university administration and faculty are unable to provide necessary accommodations if veterans are unwilling to register for services (Burnett & Segoria, 2009). Veterans must be reassured about confidentiality and storage procedures regarding their medical records, and that their professors only see the accommodations that are needed and not the veteran’s diagnosis or medical history. Over 75% of veterans in the present study perceived a high level of outside support from family, military friends, supervisors, and co-workers to obtain their education. They perceived that the university was veteran friendly, and that they had no desire to quit based on any negative occurrences while attending school. Conversely, about 30% of veterans did not believe that their psychological needs were being met, and this would be evident for those who chose not to seek out counseling. Approximately, the same percentage expressed feeling nervous in class if they could not see the exit and when others sat behind them. Ruh et al. (2009) note that such behavior is not uncommon for persons who have experienced such abnormal events. Unfortunately, as Newsham (2008) opines, most university faculty have little experience on how to accommodate veteran students in the classroom.

Additional findings indicate that university personnel and faculty would benefit from in-service training relating to the minority of veteran students who expressed that their instructors or fellow students did not understand them, and that some non-military students were rude. Almost half the veteran students also noted that civilian students were overly concerned about trivial life matters. Almost one third of veteran students indicated that they become angry with instructors or civilian students who ask intrusive or insensitive military questions. Knowing that some veteran students have such perceptions is beneficial for faculty to know, not unlike the sensitivity needed with multicultural issues.

Similar to Church’s (2009) and Glover et al.’s (2010) studies, we found a substantial minority of participants expressing difficulties with social interactions, dealing with instructors, and adapting to coursework or having PTSD-related problems. Shackelford (2009) noted the importance of addressing veteran issues with insight, patience, and creativity, and suggests developing policies and procedures related to accessibility, developing rapport, training university personnel about veteran benefits and disability determination, and providing faculty and staff training regarding the veterans’ educational challenges.

In the present study, there were several statistically significant differences depending on whether respondents were still serving, were out for less than 2 years, were discharged between 2 and 7 years, or were out for over 7 years. Conversely, the present study indicated that current service members, those discharged less than 2 years ago, and those with more than 7 years of experience, reported less classroom anxiety, concentration problems, and interference with emotions affecting their education than veterans who had been discharged for 2 to 7 years, suggesting that transitional issues and post-trauma due to military experience among veterans are more likely to occur during this time frame.

Implications for Rehabilitation Counselors

The current study suggests that better communication should exist between the rehabilitation counselor (both veteran and/or state–federal) and university personnel including administrators, on-campus counselors, and faculty. Universities and colleges that specifically have veteran services may hire rehabilitation counselors with the appropriate degree, and off-campus veteran services will likely have trained rehabilitation counselors providing vocational rehabilitation services. Regardless, rehabilitation counselors can play a pivotal role in helping returning veterans acclimate not only to civilian life but post-secondary education as well (Shackelford, 2009).

Specifically, rehabilitation counselors, especially those who are veterans themselves, can provide the bridging services by working with veterans in counseling. Veterans may initially trust their rehabilitation counselor over university personnel; therefore, developing rapport and trust is crucial beyond simply explaining veteran benefits. Veteran counselors can also assess concerns returning veterans may have in going to school and role-play specific classroom situations. For those veterans who do report a history of psychological difficulties (e.g., PTSD, alcoholism, anger, depression), a number of counseling strategies have shown some promise in minimizing these problems (Schnurr et al., 2007). Cognitive behavior therapy, psychoeducation, exposure therapy, neurofeedback, and biofeedback are just few of several such approaches being used as treatment modalities.

Finally, our post hoc comparisons between combat and noncombat veterans revealed that veterans exposed to combat scored significantly higher on two symptoms in the classroom: specifically, that the classroom environment made them anxious, and ruminations that something might happen at any moment. These vague yet generalized anxiety symptoms for combat veterans are indicative of PTSD symptoms, and again are beneficial to convey to university counselors, faculty, and relevant personnel possible veteran classroom concerns.

Overall, veteran counselors and rehabilitation counselors are arguably among the best trained to provide in-service training to university faculty and staff regarding the best practices in working with returning veterans; such training would include the most common symptoms and issues returning veterans may have in a post-secondary environment. As Shackelford (2009) has indicated, in-service training is essential in providing university personnel with insight into the types of conditions some returning veterans come home with, and the best ways to interact and develop a rapport as well as sense of trust with them. In addition, assuring confidentiality of veteran concerns and social etiquette (e.g., thanking veterans for their service) may go a long way in assisting our most deserving American citizens.

Based on the findings in the current study, such training would include identifying the most common symptoms and issues returning veterans may have in a post-secondary environment. Veterans should be afforded preferential seating in classrooms, and faculty should be made aware of sensitive topics and view veteran culture with the same respect we have learned with any multicultural issues. Faculty should personally reach out to veteran students and encourage these students to come and see them if they are experiencing any problems in or out of class. Separately, open lines of communication should exist between veteran counselors, university counselors, and other relevant personnel who work with veteran students. Having insights and the ability to recognize struggling veterans in the classroom and working to remediate their concerns may have a much greater benefit overall than simply accomplishing their academic goals.

There are several limitations to the present study. As with any self-report measure, participants may have responded in a socially desirable manner. In addition, the high internal consistency suggests that there may be a need to further refine the instrument using factor analysis to determine the independence of the subscales. Another limitation of this study was that while Bonferroni corrections decreased Type I errors, they may have reduced some otherwise significant findings (Perneger, 1998; Rothman, 1990). Also, over 75% of our sample consisted of males, and other than Caucasian and Hispanic veteran respondents, other ethnic/racial groups were not well represented. Future research could focus more on female veterans as well as other groups’ experiences. As such, generalizability is limited. Finally, a qualitative portion of the survey could be added to explore other confounding reasons for veterans’ difficulties. We focused on their educational experience; however, little research has explored how marital difficulties, financial problems, and other practical considerations affect transitioning back into academic life.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Bichrest

M. M.

(2013). A formal literature review of veteran acculturation in higher education. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 9(2). Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SZlQA02MLloJ:www.rivier.edu/journal/ROAJ-Fall-2013/J825-Bichrest_DCLL.pdf+&;cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Branker

(2009). Deserving design: The new generation of student veterans. Journal of Postsecondary Education, 22(1), 59–66.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Employment situation of veterans—2012. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20120323.htm

Burnett

S. E.

Segoria

(2009). Collaboration for military transition students from combat to college: It takes a community. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 53–58.

Church

T. E.

(2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related injuries and the long road back home. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 43–52.

Frain

M. P.

Bishop

Bethel

(2010). A roadmap for rehabilitation counseling to serve military veterans with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76, 13–21.

Gailey

Allen

Castles

Kucharik

Roeder

(2008). Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 45, 15–29.

Glover

N. M.

Miller

Freeman

(2010). Accommodating veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in the academic setting. Rehabilitation Education, 24, 43–56.

Grossman

P. D.

(2009). Foreword with a challenge: Leading our campuses away from the perfect storm. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 4–9.

10.

Ingala

Softas

Peters

(2013). The role of social support in veterans’ college adjustment. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(11), 14–21.

11.

Karmarkar

Collins

Wichman

Franklin

Fitzgerald

Dicianno

. . . Cooper

R. A.

(2009). Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower-limb amputation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 46, 567–576.

12.

Morin

(2011). The difficult transition from military to civilian life. Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/08/the-difficult-transition-from-military-to-civilian-life/

13.

Newsham

(2008). Disability law and health care education. Journal of Allied Health, 37, 110–115.

14.

Okie

(2005). Traumatic brain injury in the war zone. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 2043–2047.

15.

Osborne

N. J.

(2013). Veteran ally: Practical strategies for closing the military-civilian gap on campus. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 247–260. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9274-z

16.

Parrish

I. S.

(2008). Military veterans PTSD reference manual (3rd ed.). Bryn Mawr, PA: Infinity.

17.

Perneger

T. V.

(1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 316, 1236–1238.

18.

Rothman

K. J.

(1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1, 43–46.

19.

Ruh

Spicer

Vaughan

(2009). Helping veterans with disabilities transition to employment. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 67–74.

20.

Sander

(2012, March). At half a million and counting, veterans cash in on post 9/11 GI Bill. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(28), A1–A11.

21.

Saunders

G. H.

Griest

S. E.

(2009). Hearing loss in veterans and the need for hearing loss prevention programs. Noise Health, 11, 14–21.

22.

Schnurr

P. P.

Friedman

M. J.

Engel

C. C.

Foa

E. B.

Shea

T. M.

Chow

B. K.

. . . Bernardy

(2007). Cognitive behavioral therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in women. Journal of American Medical Association, 297, 820–830.

23.

Shackelford

A. L.

(2009). Documenting the needs of student veterans with disabilities: Intersection roadblocks, solutions, and legal realities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 36–42.

24.

Sherman

(1999). Utilization of prostheses among US veterans with traumatic amputation: A pilot survey. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 36, 100–108.

25.

Steele

J. L.

Salcedo

Coley

(2010). Military veterans’ experiences using the post 9/11 GI Bill and pursuing postsecondary education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

26.

Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

(Eds.). (2008). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

27.

Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

Schell

T. L.

Marshall

G. N.

Burnam

A. M.

Eibner

. . . Karney

B. R.

(2008). Invisible wounds of war: Summary and recommendations for addressing psychological and cognitive injuries. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

28.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2014). Returning service members OEF/OIF/OND. Retrieved from http://www.oefoif.va.gov/

29.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration. (2006). Annual Benefits Report. Retrieved from http://www.vba.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/2006_abr.pdf

30.

Vance

M. B. R.

Miller

(2009). Serving wounded warriors: Current practices in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education, 22, 18–35.

31.

Victory Media. (2013). 5th annual Military Friendly Schools® list released. Retrieved from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014MILITARYFRIENDLY/09SCHOOLSLIST/prweb11102913.htm

32.

Willy

Steinmann

Engelhardt

(2006). Most military medicine challenges: Patterns of injury in war surgery—Update 2006. Medical Corps International, 1, 10–18.

33.

Young

S. L.

(2012). Transitioning from combat to college: The impact of risk and resilience factors on student veterans (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Accession No. AAI3544993).