Developing effective academic accommodations in higher education: A collaborative decision-making process

Resistance to the unknown

Initially, all parties involved demonstrated a lack of knowledge; the music faculty lacked disability awareness, whereas the DSS had limited knowledge of specific requirements within the field of music and the nature of classes in the School of Music. In addition, neither party understood how Nancy’s challenges were manifested in a music-learning context or what additional accommodations would effectively support her. Gina recalled, “The accommodation letter did not indicate the severity … and I have not taken any courses about disabilities … No one told me what to do, and no resources were available.” On the other hand, Samuel admitted:

My background has nothing to do with music or anything of the sort. When I first started working with Nancy, I was somewhat under the impression that as long as we provided the accommodation of extended time on exams that she would be okay. It worked for other lecture-style classes, but not music theory.

The music theory faculty were additionally concerned that the rigor and essential requirements of the course would be decreased or, as Gina put it, become “a workaround that might leave the student without the necessary information in the curriculum that you need to continue on as a musician.” Before making any efforts to remediate strategies, the faculty wanted to confirm that Nancy could fulfill the fundamental competencies without lowering the standards of the course. As Adam recalled, “I think that there was initial resistance from the music theory faculty. It was like, ‘Wait, the syllabus isn’t changing! You have to know how to do this in order to complete this class.’” Adam and Samuel reassured the department’s faculty that any agreed-upon accommodations would not compromise the essential standards of the program and explained that, in doing so, the goal was to remove some of the barriers to allow Nancy to meet all requirements and demonstrate her knowledge.

The language of negotiation

It took communication among all members involved, as well as the provision of different sources of evidence, to convince the music theory faculty that Nancy could succeed without lowering the standards of the program or courses. The use of non-technical language to explain issues of disability and the requirements for music theory, supported by written documentation and video recordings of Nancy’s testing sessions demonstrating her capability, were crucial in reaching a mutual understanding and gaining a full comprehension of Nancy’s strengths and challenges. Reviewing Nancy’s videotapes allowed multiple faculty members from the department to provide feedback about the process in a team-based approach.

Samuel started his preparation by thoroughly reviewing Nancy’s documentation, learning about the uniqueness of the music program, the courses, and the assignments, as well as meeting with Nancy. He explained that doing so helped him to gain insights and develop a new way of articulating to the music faculty Nancy’s strengths and challenges in a meaningful and contextual way. It also assisted in determining collaboratively what and how accommodations would be implemented in the music theory course. Adam greatly appreciated the information and stated:

Samuel had explained in layman’s terms to a degree that I could understand. They educated me, because I was unaware of what the issues were, and I could understand from a curricular and testing point of view what the problems and difficulties were for Nancy.

With Nancy’s consent, several sessions of her solving questions about music theory were recorded. In addition to writing her answers on paper, Nancy was asked to describe her thought process and the steps involved. Samuel explained: “In terms of the writing, she failed it. She did not get the information across. But, in talking about it, she was able to verbally start touching upon those rules and the steps and clearly demonstrated that she knew what they were and how to apply them.”

The fact that Nancy was able to articulate her process of developing answers was enough for some faculty to change their perceptions of her. As Samuel reenacted, “Wait a minute, wait a minute—if she knows that, then she’s clearly picking up information from the class and the foundational stuff from previous classes. We might be missing the mark here!” This finding confirmed that Nancy might be learning much more information than she could demonstrate using traditional examination formats.

Once the mindsets began to change, “Nancy was no longer considered someone who wasn’t putting in the effort and who was distracted all the time,” Samuel commented with a sense of achievement. Adam further reflected, “At the time, I didn’t know exactly the path that we’d end up taking, but once communications were clear, personalized, and two-way, I felt confident that we would reach a good conclusion.”

The decision-making process

Several accommodations were developed and implemented as part of the collaborative effort of all team members, especially through Nancy, who had reported her challenges with traditional assessments. These accommodations included test modifications, individualized instruction, and extended course scheduling, as well as additional specialized tutoring support. They were not predetermined, but resulted from a decision-making process of continuous give-and-take, discussion, and negotiation—that is, a work always in progress. The process included the following steps: (a) analyzing the subject-specific required tasks and expected outcome responses, (b) identifying the challenges that Nancy may have encountered, (c) brainstorming reasonable accommodations to remove the barriers, (d) implementing the accommodations, and (e) evaluating the outcomes for necessary modification.

The use of a modified testing format is representative for illustrating this decision-making process. The regular music theory course stipulates three examinations per semester; each contains three to four pages full of questions and staves. Gina noted, “I guess that just seeing all of that there would really stress her [Nancy] out and maybe cause her to spend like two hours on one page, whereas other kids would be like, ‘I have to keep going; there’s a time limit.’” Nancy tended to become overwhelmed and “shut down,” to borrow Samuel’s words, upon encountering unmanageable chunks of information. The group concluded that the single modality was problematic for Nancy to demonstrate her learning. They further determined that the extended time on the test and the reduced-distraction testing environment did not work effectively.

The team brainstormed strategies to modify the written examination in terms of how the test was delivered (i.e., input) and its content, as well as how Nancy demonstrated her knowledge (i.e., output) and the outcome measures. The test items were reduced both in magnitude of scope and in quantity. The schedule of three major examinations over a semester was replaced with weekly or biweekly quizzes addressing each module. The number of questions was condensed to one or two in order to only test key concepts that could demonstrate understanding.

As Gina and Tricia observed, Nancy constantly mixed the treble and bass clefs. In fact, she would switch from one to the other halfway through an analysis or during the construction of a four-part harmony written response. Nancy also reported not having enough space to write her answers on the staves. To help her organize and process information, the test questions were provided one at a time on a large whiteboard with staves. The test instructions were presented in both written and oral formats. During the test, instead of picturing a keyboard “in her head,” an electronic keyboard was provided to prompt Nancy’s recall of information. Adam remarked that, even later in the process, when Nancy did not rely on the keyboard and whiteboard as often, “the fact that they were there gave her the comfort of knowing that there were multiple ways to show her understanding.”

The success of adopting these accommodations provided stronger evidence that Nancy could indeed learn and demonstrate the music theory course content. Not only did it convince people working with her directly, but also administrators and other faculty members in the School of Music. As the process progressed, a major modification—stretching the class structure from a one- to a two-semester format—was supported by the team members, the music theory faculty, even those who were initially apprehensive about compromising standards. In implementing these accommodations and seeing their success, further changes became possible.

From fear of stigmatization to self-advocacy

Looking back on the experience, Nancy reflected, “I probably shouldn’t be so afraid to speak up when I feel like I need assistance or if something is just not working.” This shift for Nancy involved moving from being unwilling to disclose to faculty members that she had a disability and needed accommodations, to actively articulating her needs and contributing to discussions regarding possible accommodations. Multiple stakeholders were actively involved in identifying Nancy’s strengths and understanding her needs in the initial stage, which helped to calm her fears about being stigmatized as less capable. Adam remarked,

I think that the first thing was that her self-confidence was really low, and that’s one of the challenges for working with students who may not learn as other students do—that, first off, it’s natural to internalize their stress and their concerns.

Adam remembered his initial meetings with Nancy after he learned about her struggles in some of her coursework. In those meetings, Nancy would obliquely bring up the fact that she “had difficulty sometimes retaining information” but “just wouldn’t tell professors.” Adam immediately knew that it was a situation that would require closer monitoring. Gina also noted that Nancy “was pretty tight-lipped about her challenges. She didn’t like to—I mean, I can understand—to talk about it.”

To address this obstacle, one concerted effort for all team members was to maintain confidentiality in order to allow Nancy to feel comfortable and supported. For example, Nancy usually met with her tutor in a private setting instead of the dedicated tutoring/practice rooms typically reserved for all students. As Tricia described, “She was a little concerned with going to the main practice rooms and having someone always be seeing her with a tutor, and people were going to start asking, ‘Why is she with a tutor?’” Over time, Nancy became less self-conscious and much more open and confident in discussing her challenges with learning. As Nancy gained confidence by succeeding in her program, she understood that it was her responsibility to make sure that she received appropriate accommodations. Adam remarked, “One of the most important successes—a breakthrough—is being able to talk frankly about the situation with Nancy and together try to develop some kind of plan to help her to succeed.” In retrospect, Nancy wished that she could have been “more vocal and made sure that people knew what she needed help with” from the beginning.

From resentfulness to acceptance and commitment

In the beginning of this collaborative journey, Gina was frustrated with the lack of understanding and guidance from the DSS and expressed the pressure and anxiety that she experienced:

I didn’t understand what I needed to do or how I should do it. There was nobody to go to who would say, “This is what you do.” The fact that the DSS did not understand music was a huge thing. … In terms of the emotional toll that it took to be caught in the middle of that and not even truly knowing what the extent of the situation would be, that was hard for me.

In addition, Gina thought initially that it was unfair to other students to provide accommodations to SWDs: “Why does this student get an advantage of more time than the other students? If the other students had more time, they’d do better, too.”

In progressing through the process with Nancy and with a better understanding of the difficulties that SWDs face, Gina became more empathetic: “Wow! How can one person have all of these challenges that they have to deal with? It’s amazing that students can thrive and succeed and do well despite all of the hardships.” She understood that Nancy had tried to do the best that she could, but “because of the way her brain processes or works, it was a lot different than an average student.” Samuel also noticed the change, “I don’t know how many, but Gina put in many, many extra hours, and I think that part of it was that there was a commitment after realizing that Nancy had the potential to succeed.” With the knowledge of and support from members on the team, Gina overcame her resentfulness and fear and became committed to go above and beyond to find effective strategies that would help SWDs.

From reaction to pro-action

The process of accommodating Nancy contributed to an attitude shift for music theory faculty, from one of passivity and reaction to pro-action, involving a greater acceptance of SWDs and a willingness to support them. Because Nancy consistently surprised faculty members and exceeded their expectations, they started to realize, “Hey—wait a minute. She can succeed. She is smart!” From that point forward, they began to view SWDs with an open mind and a positive attitude. Samuel noticed that changes began to occur. Not only did faculty members think creatively regarding accommodations, but they also became more receptive of different learning styles and reconsidered how they conduct assessments. Furthermore, the department is now more self-reliant upon encountering SWDs and less dependent on the DSS. Samuel attested,

I’ve seen it happen with other students now. I mean, I could give you multiple examples of how faculty are just so willing to work with students. … There are students that may not have been retained who are now succeeding in the program, and I’m not really having to get involved as much anymore, which is why I’m saying that the culture has been changed, in that, they are willing to support these students on their own.

Nancy’s growth in self-advocacy

For SWDs, self-advocacy involves disclosing personal disabilities as well as describing how they affect learning and create challenges in specific classroom settings, all in order to gain appropriate accommodations. In general, the DSS promotes independence in SWDs by encouraging them to communicate directly with professors about their challenges. As Samuel explained, “We [the DSS] hope to instill a sense of personal power so students can become self-advocates.” Although Nancy had received coaching to develop related skills, she remained unable to overcome her fear of being stigmatized. She did not act as her own advocate but instead relied on the advisor to initiate the process, which is consistent with difficulties observed when SWDs transition from high school to college (Lightner et al., 2012). Ultimately, however, as she experienced greater success and received additional measures to ensure the confidentiality of her accommodation process, she was able to develop self-confidence and assume responsibility for advocating on her own behalf. As Nancy’s case shows, although the DSS provides orientation for SWDs upon their matriculation at college, to bridge the gap between high school and postsecondary school, identify resources on campus, promote bonding, and facilitate interaction with the DSS, continued support and follow-up remain necessary to ensure SWDs’ success.

Gina’s conceptual change

Similar to faculty members documented in the literature (e.g., Dallas et al., 2014; Lombardi et al., 2011), Gina initially felt unprepared to implement major accommodations and modify course requirements, as well as overwhelmed by and skeptical about the prospect of such action. To overcome those reactions, she and her colleagues needed to observe Nancy’s strengths and potential to succeed, which additional communication and hard evidence in the form of documentation and videos helped to achieve. As their case demonstrates, both professional development training about disability awareness toward understanding the functional impact of specific disabilities and effective strategies that promote the academic success of SWDs are necessary to transform faculty perceptions. Consequently, faculty members will become more sensitized to the challenges that SWDs might face in relation to complex subject material and more receptive to various accommodation strategies. As Adam put it,

It used to be like, “You need to study harder!” or “You need to get a tutor!” You, you, you! I realized that it’s not all you. Part of it’s my, or our, responsibilities as teachers to say, “Let’s explore what the issues might be,” and “Let’s discuss how you might find a path that will allow you to demonstrate the skill or knowledge or proficiency that you need to show.”

Nancy’s success eventually prompted a cultural change in the music theory program, whose faculty no longer passively rely on the DSS, but have adopted creative strategies to proactively accommodate SWDs. After realizing that students such as Nancy had the potential to succeed, the music theory program became more open to working with students who have various challenges and needs and to providing support in innovative ways. In fact, the program’s new instructional and assessment approaches (e.g., presenting information in various formats and allowing different modalities for students to demonstrate understanding) that the faculty developed for Nancy have provided an inclusive learning environment that might benefit all students, with or without disabilities, to better convey what they know, have learned, and can do.

In summary, for subject areas that require specialized skills and with which DSS personnel have less familiarity, in this study, music theory—cross-departmental collaboration between academic units and the DSS, and the involvement of faculty and SWDs are critical in the decision-making process for developing effective accommodations. The key elements of success include the promotion of (a) communication that allows for information exchange among all members involved, (b) SWDs’ self-advocacy skills and confidence levels, and (c) faculty’s receptiveness of SWDs’ potential to succeed and use of flexible methods of delivering course content and assessing outcomes. However, due to the single case-study design, caution must be used in generalizing the findings of this study to larger populations. The study might have been strengthened had multiple cases of students with various disabilities been included and cross-case analyses been conducted to examine this collaborative model. In future practice, subject-specific accommodations to address various areas in music studies in higher education should be documented and tested for effectiveness.